Richard Kahn
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Richard Kahn
HBRK Associat=s Inc.
575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor
Begin forwarded message: Richard Kahn < III
Wednesday, August 30, 2017 2:56 AM
Fwd: Next
• ,. From: Neale Attenborough c: MDate:</=> August 29, 2017 at 10:50:47 PM EDT
To: Richard Kahn Cc= Chris Lawler
<mailto >, Tyler Shean
<mailto >
Subject: Re: Next</=>
wrote: She did.
On Aug 29, 2017, at 10:48 PM, Richard Kahn <; <mailto > >
Did heather send dial in number. Please advise. Thank you.
Richard Kahn
HBRK Associates Inc.
575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10022
On Au 29, 2017, at 10:40 PM, Neale Attenborough
<mailto > wrote:
EFTA_R1_01333710
EFTA02353336
Richard,<=p>
Not funny at all, just fact=al.
I think if we are to ultima=ely agree on value it will be important we agree on a set of facts:
1. = TTM EBITDA is $=.7Million. If you disagree, please let us know precisely what items y=u
disagree with in the number and we can discuss.
2. = The current cas= balance for the company is $13.1 Million.
3. = The past three c=mparable transactions for companies in this market average an
enterprise va=ue at -10x multiple of EBITDA
a. =nbsp; Wilhelmina: 7x (=verage meaningful trading multiple since 2010)
b. =nbsp; Creative Artist= Agency: 10x (TPG acquisition, 2014)
c. =nbsp; IMG: 13x (WME a=quisition, 2013)
4. = We invested $18=million for a 42% stake in the business, implying an enterprise value of
$4=.9 million.
5. = We received a b=na fide offer from OpenGate Capital which would have resulted in $18
millio= in proceeds for us (and in fact a $17 million distribution to Faith and Joel), and while they were, as you point out,
contemplat=ng leverage in the <3x EBITDA range, it is in fact a relevant data point=and an independent look at value.
6. = One other note t=at is relevant to us, is that when Elite Models in Europe contacted us
with=an interest in buying the company, Faith told me to relay to them that they would not contemplate selling to Elite
for less t=an $100 million (which at the time was a +10x synergy-adjusted EBITDA value=. Ultimately they walked based
on that value requirement.aspan>
I would hope you agree that=the following is a commonly agreed upon formula for value:
a. =nbsp; Enterprise valu= = EBITDA x Market Multiple
b. =nbsp; Equity Value ==Enterprise Value + net cash (or — net debt).
2
EFTA_R1_01333711
EFTA02353337
One matter of judgment is w=at of the cash balance is "excess cash". Joel has sai= he believes
all the cash is due to the models. The facts show that i= the ordinary course of business the collection of receivables
offsets the payab=es and in the past three years, the cash balance has only fluctuated at mos= by $3 million, meaning
anywhere from $8-10 million on the balance sheet sh=uld be considered to be "excess cash", not needed for day-to-day
operations. I have attached b=th a three year cash balance tracker and a current balance sheet for your r=view.
Using the above, a very mod=st calculation of value would be $6.7 million of EBITDA x 5 multiple
(a 50%=discount to the market) or an enterprise value of $33.5 million and if we took a conservative view of what excess
cash is at the mo=ent of $8 million, would result in a total equity value of $41.5 million.&n=sp; Our 42% would equate to
$17.4 million of proceeds to us. That is a= a multiple that has been deeply discounted to the market comps that were
actually paid for companies in the same busin=ss.
We are, however, willing to=take much less than this very discounted value calculation, as I have
menti=ned to you before. However, your proposal of $5 million of proceeds to us represents an equity value of $11.9
million ($5/.42), an e=terprise value of $3.9 million ($11.9 million - $8 million of excess cash) o= an EBITDA multiple of
O.58x ($6.7 x 0.58 = $3.9 enterprise value), a lev=l that is far too low for us to accept.
I look forward to our discu=sion tomorrow morning.
Neale
From: Richard Kah= [mailto
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 11:51 AM
To: Neale Attenborough
Cc: Chris Lawler
Subject: Re: Next <make
Pretty funny Neale...
Even the silly open gate proposal was in essence step=ing into your shoes for only 6 million cash.
BACK THEN !!
Then proposing to dist=ibute what they estimated to be almost the full total (14 of the 15
million= of cash on the balance sheet. Chris i must point out that is more th=n it totals today. Then having Joel, Faith,
3
EFTA_R1_01333712
EFTA02353338
etc leverage themselves up by borrowing at 7 percent against t=e entire co in order to make a further distribution of an
additional 15 mil=ion which on paper creates a highly inflated enterprise value. =e only proposed 6 million cash
infusion which is around the same amount that you are currently being offered. They=valued faith and joels ongoing
equity (that they proposed they "keep in =9D) silly, at 8mm which is roughly the same as we suggested. &nb=p;
Financial engineering done well is like lipstick.. however not done well is also like lipstick.:) Thi= is a personal service
business, no more no less and suggesting that they l=verage themselves up so you that they can pay themselves a higher
salary fa=ls the HBS first year class that i am aware you have taken. Regarding the 18 million, we have distributio=s
from Next directly to the former shareholders of the claxon offshore enti=y of approx 3. Regarding the receivables you
can ask millie... s=rry
PS Faith and joel will=have to borrow the money to buy you out at 5.. can be done, but not
so eas=. they have never taken out real money from the company in any f=rm: salary etc.... hence they have little net
worth and current= lenders are not that comfortable with the potential liabilities.... &n=sp;
On Aug 24, 2017, at 4:50 PM, Neale Attenborough «=
href="mailto > wr=te:
I look forward to our conve=sation.
For the record, we did actu=lly pay $18MM for 42% of this business in 2008. At the time
that repr=sented an -8x multiple of EBITDA. That is not a fictitious number. In addition we did receive a bid for about
the same amount fr=m Open Gate Capital, a reputable private equity firm. I do not unders=and why you say that ii is
"hardly legitimate". While=l did say we didn't expect to receive what we paid, I did not say it was immaterial.
I don't follow most=of what you say below and look forward to hearing your
clarification. =However, can you please clarify one statement specifically? What do you mean when you say the current
receivables have not be reviewed in ye=rs?
Thanks,</=>
Neale
4
EFTA_R1_01333713
EFTA02353339
From: Richard Kahn [mailto
cmailto >
Sent: Thursday, Aug=st 24, 2017 3:45 PM
To: Neale Attenboro=gh
Cc: Chris Lawler
Subject: Next
confirmed thank you
We have reviewed your statements that you sent to us a=ong with the K-1's and some
financials. Frankly, some o= the numbers are inaccurate as a result of millie. Your annual financ=al statements were
reviewed but not audited - shame on all of you... Your calculation of Ebitda includes thi=gs like adding back foreign
exchange costs? board fees etc. Tha= is not the way we look at what is unfortunately for all merely a pe=sonal service
business.
Faith and Joel make up the business, nothing more.&nb=p; We calculate the Ebidta,
which we think is an odd way of measuring=value of a personal service biz with lots of competition and small growth
o=portuinties if any. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, and ignoring how much you paid or if some of that
money=was repaid directly to the former owners of Claxon and not truly understand=ng what you described as a fixed
tax payment per quarter (ie based on what l=think looking back over the past three years) ebitda looks like 4-5 million.
We have bought man= small biz and usually pay mom and pops for 1- 3 times ebita or more usuall= 4 times net income.
We are finding it difficult to get t= more than a 15 million total value for Next ( not including liabilities). The 18 million
dollar bid that you mentioned Faith said was h=rdly legitimate. I think further review of the accounting tax etc. i=
probably a waste of all our time. As you rightly said, what you init=ally paid is somewhat if not totatly immaterial to
todays value. You have not factored in the liabilities,&nbs=; both reputationally and fiscal yet. I think the 5 million
cash off=r or 6m over time is fair. I look forward to our conversation on tue=day. As another note, the current
receivables have not been reviewed for years...
Rich
href="mailto On Aug 24, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Neale Attenborough «=
wrote:
5
EFTA_R1_01333714
EFTA02353340
Disclaimer: This message contains informa=ion that may be confidential and/or
privileged and is intended only for the=person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure to any other person
is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmissi=n in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy
the m=ssage. Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do=not relate to the official business of
Golden Gate Capital shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed=by the company. Where applicable, any
information contained in this e-mail i= subject to the terms and conditions in the relevant governing agreement.
<Mail Attachment.ics>
<170829 - Next - Jun'17 Balance Sheets.pdf>
<170816 Next - Min Cash Analysis.pdf>
6
EFTA_R1_01333715
EFTA02353341
📷 Images in this document (6 detected)
AI-generated factual descriptions of embedded images (llava:13b). These are searchable across the corpus.
[Image 1] The image shows a scanned document, which appears to be a letter or an email. The text is written in English and includes a salutation, a body with several paragraphs, and a closing. The document contains names, dates, and possibly a reference to a specific event or situation. The text discusses a matter of business or personal affairs, but the exact content is not clear due to the resolution and
[Image 2] The image appears to be a photograph of a document, specifically a letter or a report. The document contains text and tables, which seem to be related to financial or economic data. There are visible names, such as "Brian" and "Dr. Lawton," and a date "11/17/08." The text discusses financial matters, including a reference to "the $2.5 million" and "the $2.5 million." The document is addressed to "
[Image 3] The image shows a scanned document, which appears to be a letter or an email. The document contains text, and there is a visible sender's name at the top, which is redacted. The text discusses financial matters, specifically regarding a credit card transaction, and there is a reference to a specific date and a specific amount. The document is addressed to a recipient, whose name is also redacted.
[Image 4] The image is a photograph of a document with text. The document appears to be a letter or a report, as indicated by the heading "REPORT" at the top. The text is written in English and includes numbered points, which are likely to be findings or recommendations. The visible text includes phrases such as "IMPORTANT," "REPORT," "RESPONSIBILITY," "RESPONSIBILITY," "RESPONSIBILITY," "RESPONSIBILITY," "
[Image 5] The image appears to be a photograph of a printed document, specifically a letter or email. The document contains text and a table with columns and rows, which is typical for a formal communication or report. The visible text includes the sender's name, recipient's name, date, and a subject line. The body of the text is redacted, with the sender's name and the recipient's name visible at the top.
[Image 6] The image appears to be a document scan, specifically a letter or a report. It contains text that is too small to read clearly, and there are no visible names, dates, places, or logos. The document is structured with headings and paragraphs, which is typical for formal written correspondence. The content of the document is not discernible due to the resolution and size of the image.