3 ms·
Rumors on twitter are that they got rugpulled by a creditor calling in the debt, under T&Cs, rather than running out of money with predictable timing. Eg see:
by ajb 2y ago
Rumors on twitter are that they got rugpulled by a creditor calling in the debt, under T&Cs, rather than running out of money with predictable timing.
Eg see: https://x.com/pitdesi/status/1873872070331032051 https://x.com/pitdesi/status/1873872070331032051
- jmvoodoo 2y agoA creditor calling debt because you violated your covenants is not a rugpull. That's how creditors insure they can be paid back before you predictably run out of money.
- ajb 2y agoWell, I can see how it might be a rugpull or it might not. It depends on what the terms were and what the motivation was for invoking them. I don't have a dog in this particular fight. Did they actually formally file for insolvency before the new buyout? If they did then there eventually should be an impartial report on this, otherwise we might never know exactly what happened.
- dustingetz 2y agotldr: that $60M series C was actually 37M + 23M venture debt from SVB who called the loan! (That is not a rugpull, that is exactly what the venture debt contract prescribes for this exact situation) Top tweet reply is Matt Levine’s take (edit: wrong matt levine) Additionally, fmr SVB employee replies: "SVB Canada’s loans were sold to National Bank who has some tech lending chops but no where close to SVB nor the flexibility."
- ZephyrBlu 2y agoThat's the wrong Matt Levine mate :facepalm:
- hluska 2y agoAt this end of the rumour mill, the covenants themselves were not the rugpull. Rather from what I’m hearing two provinces away, it was that SVB issued the debt but National Bank (who acquired SVB’s Canadian debts) called it.