Connect with us

News

Vista and co-investors lose $4bn in Pluralsight restructuring

Published

on

Vista and co-investors lose bn in Pluralsight restructuring

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A group of private credit lenders led by Blue Owl Capital and Ares Management have agreed to take over troubled software company Pluralsight, wiping out $4bn that Vista Equity Partners and other investors had put into the business since they bought it less than four years ago.

The closely watched restructuring is one of the biggest in which the creditors that ultimately took control were also so-called direct lenders — asset managers and funds that provide loans directly to companies.

The deal values Pluralsight at about $900mn, far below the more than $5bn that Vista, its partners and private lenders had invested or lent the business. Vista and its co-investors had sunk roughly $4bn into Pluralsight, while lenders provided it with about $1.7bn of debt financing.

Advertisement

As part of the restructuring the lenders agreed to knock roughly $1.2bn off the $1.7bn of debt and inject fresh cash into the company, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The deal will lead to Vista and the lenders incurring losses after Pluralsight’s business rapidly deteriorated. The negotiations between the two sides broke out into the open earlier this year, sending shockwaves through the broader private credit market.

Vista bought the software education company in 2021 at a time when tech valuations had been buoyed by rock-bottom interest rates. Shortly after the deal closed, Vista bought another business to bolster Pluralsight’s offerings for engineers and programmers focused on cloud computing.

The private equity firm funded both purchases with roughly $1.7bn debt in total provided by private lenders, which also included BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Oaktree, Franklin Templeton’s Benefit Street Partners and Golub Capital.

Vista shuffled some of Pluralsight’s assets around earlier this year in a bid to buy time in the negotiations. But in doing so it riled up the creditors, who believed control of the company should have been handed over earlier.

Advertisement

The $800bn direct lending industry had long been marketed as having stronger lender protections than traditional high-yield bond and leveraged loan markets. Pluralsight tested that thesis, although lenders ultimately were able to take control without some of the fighting usually seen in public markets.

The troubles at the company have also raised questions about the quality of the loans being extended by private credit investors, as well as whether they had been reckless in some of their novel financings — such as a loan based on Pluralsight’s revenue growth instead of profits. Regulated banks are restricted from providing these kinds of loans, which are seen to be excessively risky.

When the US Federal Reserve began raising interest rates a year after the buyout, software valuations began to tumble and debt that had been taken out during the period of near-zero rates became onerous to pay back.

Many of Pluralsight’s biggest clients were also hit, with scores of technology companies laying off staff, or slowing hiring. Customer churn rose and Pluralsight’s revenues began to slide last year.

Oaktree, Ares, Benefit Street, BlackRock, Blue Owl, Goldman, Golub, Pluralsight and Vista declined to comment.

Advertisement

Bloomberg earlier on Thursday reported a deal had been reached.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Who Are Kamala Harris’s 1.5 Million New Donors?

Published

on

Who Are Kamala Harris’s 1.5 Million New Donors?

An unprecedented wave of small-dollar donations for Harris

After Biden dropped out of the race, donations poured into the Harris campaign faster than they had for any presidential candidate this cycle.

Source: Federal Election Commission

The New York Times

When President Biden ended his presidential campaign on July 21, making Vice President Kamala Harris the presumptive Democratic nominee, he unleashed the biggest wave of small-dollar enthusiasm the race has seen.

Advertisement

More than 1.5 million new donors gave to the Harris campaign in the last 11 days of July, according to estimates from a New York Times analysis of donor data filed with the Federal Election Commission. That figure comprises 40 percent of all donors to the Biden and now Harris campaign, which has been raising money since April 2023.

Donors both old and new gave to the newly renamed Harris campaign

Both donors who had given to the Biden re-election campaign and new people who had not previously contributed rushed to donate to the Harris campaign.

Source: Federal Election Commission

Advertisement

The New York Times

Mr. Biden’s existing donor base was enthusiastic, as well: About 680,000 people who had previously donated to Mr. Biden — just over one-third of his previous donors — came back to give more to Ms. Harris in those 11 days.

More than half a million people total on July 21, and more than 600,000 on July 22, gave to the Democratic presidential campaign through ActBlue, its official fund-raising platform. Their contributions totaled more than $80 million in the first two days. From July 21 through the end of the month, the newly renamed Harris campaign raised $183 million through ActBlue.

The Times’s analysis also combined the donor records with voter registration records to show that new Harris donors were much younger than Biden donors had been. Just 10 percent of Mr. Biden’s donors in July were under 45 years old, compared with 28 percent of Ms. Harris’s donors.

Advertisement

Age of donors to Biden compared with Harris

Sources: Federal Election Commission; L2

Among donors who gave to the Democratic presidential campaigns in July via ActBlue.

The New York Times

Advertisement

The share of Ms. Harris’s newly acquired donors who were women under 45 was 17 percent — more than double the share of Mr. Biden’s donors who were younger women. Younger men also made up a greater share of Ms. Harris’s donors.

Across all ages, slightly more than 60 percent of both Mr. Biden’s and Ms. Harris’s donors were women.

In a geographic comparison of Mr. Biden’s donors and Ms. Harris’s, the makeup of both pools was very similar. Harris donors were slightly more likely to come from more educated areas: ZIP codes where more than half of those 25 and over had a bachelor’s degree. Ms. Harris also claimed a slightly higher share of first-time small-dollar donors from ZIP codes where more than 5 percent of the population was Black, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau. And differences between the candidates were minor when it came to their ZIP codes’ median household income.

Breakdown of Biden and Harris donors by ZIP code area:

Percent of adults with bachelor’s degree

Advertisement

Percent of Black residents

Sources: Federal Election Commission; Social Explorer 2022 5-year ACS data

Advertisement

Charts compare donors who gave to the Democratic presidential campaigns between April 25, 2023 and July 31, 2024 based on their ZIP code tabulation area. Percent of adults with bachelor’s degree is among those 25 and older.

The New York Times

The Times’s analysis did not look at contributions by large donors who give directly to the campaign, fund-raising committees or super PACs without going through ActBlue.

Large donors had been threatening to flee the party after Mr. Biden’s disappointing debate performance, and while some small donors had rushed to the president’s support, they were far outnumbered by the wave of money that flooded in for former President Donald J. Trump after his felony conviction and the attempt on his life.

Advertisement

Full details on donations by large donors will not become clear until October, when the campaign’s associated fund-raising committees are required to file reports with the Federal Election Commission. But on just the strength of small donors alone, the end of July was the most significant fund-raising moment for the Biden or Harris campaign of the entire cycle thus far, and the biggest week for Democratic fund-raising on ActBlue since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The Harris campaign in July announced that it had raised over $310 million, more than double what Mr. Trump’s had, on the strength of fund-raising in the last 10 days of the month.

Methodology

The Times’s analysis is based on Federal Election Commission filings from the Democratic fund-raising platform ActBlue, with the names, addresses and ZIP codes of people who gave to the Harris for President campaign, the Harris Action Fund and the Harris Victory Fund (known as Biden for President, the Biden Action Fund and the Biden Victory Fund before July 21) online.

A donor was determined to be a prior Biden donor if a donation from their unique combination of first name, last name and ZIP code had been made from April 25, 2023, when the Biden campaign was announced, to July 20, 2024.

Advertisement

In the analyses of age and gender, this data was combined with voter registration records obtained from each state and provided by L2, a nonpartisan voter data vendor. These databases combine data on all registered voters. Records were matched by each donor’s first name, last name and ZIP code, plus address in many cases. Around 70 percent of donors from the F.E.C. filing could be matched to the voter file.

In the analyses of income, education level and race, records were matched with demographics for ZIP code tabulation areas from the census bureau’s 2022 five-year American Community Survey, using data files from Social Explorer.

The numbers cited here are estimates that could be affected by out-of-date voter registration records, duplicate names in the same ZIP code or other factors.

Continue Reading

News

Atlanta hospital is accused of losing part of patient's skull following brain surgery

Published

on

Atlanta hospital is accused of losing part of patient's skull following brain surgery

A Georgia couple filed a lawsuit against Emory University Hospital Midtown after they claimed hospital staff misplaced part of the husband’s skull following his emergency brain surgery. The outside of the hospital is shown in this Google Maps image.

Google Maps/Screenshot by NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Google Maps/Screenshot by NPR

A Georgia couple has filed a lawsuit against an Atlanta hospital after they say hospital staff allegedly misplaced part of the husband’s skull following his brain surgery.

In a lawsuit filed in a DeKalb County, Ga., court, Fernando and Maria Cluster say that staff at Emory University Hospital Midtown caused them “ongoing physical and emotional pain and suffering” and left them with thousands of dollars in medical bills.

Emory Healthcare declined to comment on the lawsuit filed by the Clusters but told NPR in a statement that the hospital system is “committed to providing high-quality, compassionate care for patients and those we serve in our communities.”

Advertisement

The attorney representing the Clusters did not respond to NPR’s immediate request for comment on the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, Fernando Cluster was admitted to Emory University Hospital Midtown in September 2022 after he suffered from an intracerebral hemorrhage — a type of stroke in which there’s bleeding inside the brain.

Cluster underwent emergency surgery to treat the bleeding, which also required removing a portion of his skull, according to the lawsuit. During surgery, doctors removed a 12-by-15-centimeter bone flap with the intent of reinstalling it in a follow-up procedure after Cluster healed from his initial operation, the lawsuit says.

But two months later, when Cluster was scheduled to have his follow-up surgery, the hospital supposedly could not locate the bone flap that was removed.

“When Emory’s personnel went to retrieve the bone flap, ‘there were several bone flaps with incomplete or missing patient identification’ and therefore, Emory ‘could not be certain which if any of these belonged to Mr. Cluster,’” the suit reads.

Advertisement

Emory Healthcare staff told Cluster that his bone flap could not be found and that his second surgery would be canceled until a synthetic bone flap was made, resulting in an extended hospital stay, the lawsuit says. Additionally, the Clusters argue that the installed synthetic flap caused an infection that required yet another surgery.

The hospital billed the Clusters for the synthetic flap, the extended hospital stay and the additional procedure, totaling around $146,800, according to the lawsuit. The bill for the installed synthetic flap alone was more than $19,000, The Atlanta Constitution-Journal reported. It is unclear how much of the bill was covered by their insurance, if at all.

The couple alleges in the lawsuit that Fernando Cluster has been unable to work, has experienced “physical and emotional pain and suffering,” and has suffered permanent injuries due to the hospital’s negligence.

The Clusters’ lawsuit does not detail the specific amount they seek but states they seek both “general and special damages.” The couple demanded that the hospital compensate them for damages following a jury trial.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Kamala Harris’s Political Pragmatism

Published

on

Video: Kamala Harris’s Political Pragmatism

Whether it’s reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, Times Video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world.

Whether it’s reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, Times Video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world.

Continue Reading

Trending