Empower Brands Bids $1.6B for Hydro Flask and Osprey Owner Helen of Troy

Empower Brands offered $37 per share for Helen of Troy, valuing the Hydro Flask and Osprey owner at $1.6B, after private talks stalled over confidentiality terms.

Wire notes

  • Empower Brands proposed acquiring Helen of Troy for $37 per share, an implied enterprise value of about $1.6 billion.
  • An Empower Brands affiliate already owns about 4.5% of Helen of Troy's outstanding shares.
  • Private talks began in July; the offer was raised in October before going public on Wednesday.
  • Helen of Troy's Q2 net sales rose 2.1% year over year to $440.9 million, with net income of $4.6 million.
Hydro Flask, Osprey owner receives acquisition proposal valued at $1.6B
PhotoHydro Flask, Osprey owner receives acquisition proposal valued at $1.6B — Pexels / pixabay

Empower Brands has offered $37 per share in cash for Helen of Troy, valuing the owner of Hydro Flask, Osprey and OXO at an implied enterprise value of roughly $1.6 billion. The proposal is non-binding, and it went public only after private negotiations failed — a detail that shapes everything about how this deal may, or may not, get done.

An affiliate of Empower Brands already holds about 4.5% of Helen of Troy's outstanding shares, the company said in a Wednesday press release. Empower Brands is a joint venture between Spectrum Brands and Oaktree Capital Management; its portfolio includes Black+Decker and Remington.

What does the offer actually promise?

David Maura, chairman and CEO of Spectrum Brands and chairman of Empower Brands, struck a combative tone in his statement. "We believe our all-cash proposal offers Helen of Troy's shareholders compelling and certain value at an attractive premium," Maura said.

He then named the obstacle: "Rather than substantively engaging with us about a transaction, Helen of Troy has attempted to halt any process by requiring us to enter into an overly restrictive agreement that would limit our ability to communicate our offer to the Helen of Troy shareholders. We remain willing to enter into a constructive dialogue that could potentially support an improved Proposal and lead to consummating a friendly transaction."

Note what is missing: no firm financing details, no committed premium figure against the current trading price, and the word "potentially" before any promise of a higher bid. A "willingness to discuss" is not a raised offer.

How did the talks break down?

Empower Brands first approached Helen of Troy privately in July, raised its initial offer in October and requested a discussion between the two sides' financial advisors, per the company's account. Late last month, UBS — advising Empower Brands — heard from Bank of America, working for Helen of Troy, that any information sharing would be "subject to a confidentiality agreement restricting Empower Brands' ability to, among other things, publicly disclose its interest in the company and its proposal," according to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing made Wednesday.

Empower Brands argues a combination would be complementary and improve operational efficiency. It also argues Helen of Troy's board has overseen "the destruction of substantial shareholder value through a series of operational, financial and strategic failures," citing the company's share price decline over the past five years and its acquisition record.

Helen of Troy did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the proposal.

Is the target actually struggling?

The financials complicate the acquirer's narrative. Helen of Troy's second-quarter net sales rose 2.1% year over year to $440.9 million, the company reported last month. Growth in home and outdoors brands partly offset declines in beauty and wellness. The company swung from a net loss of $308.6 million a year earlier to net income of $4.6 million.

So the bidder is attacking a board while that board posts modest growth and a return to profit — a tension investors will have to weigh. What happens next depends on whether Helen of Troy's board responds to this public pressure or holds to its confidentiality terms; either way, the $37 figure now anchors the negotiation.

via Retail Dive (Source)

Filed under

Share this article:

More from Amara Osei

Amara Osei

Show full bio

News editor covering people, launches and day-to-day practice in marketing, advertising, marketing technology, media, SEO and search at Marketing Herald.

211 articles

More on the wire

« Previous articleNext article »