L Brands' Sale of Victoria's Secret at Risk
Sycamore is attempting unwind the deal for the narrow-moat firm.
Narrow-moat L Brands’ (LB) majority stake sale of Victoria’s Secret is at risk, with Sycamore using the material adverse effect clause to unwind the deal. According to CNBC, Sycamore is asking to be excused from the transaction, given that L Brands shuttered stores after the agreement and failed to pay rent in April, supposedly violating transaction terms. Overall, given the pressure COVID-19 has put on already troubled retailer performance, we weren’t shocked to hear Sycamore’s attempt to escape its offer. We’ve recently seen similar changes to prior deals/structures recently; specifically, 1-800-flowers.com postponed its purchase of personalizationmall.com from no-moat Bed Bath & Beyond, and no-moat Gap rolled back its Old Navy spin-off. We expect the ultimate decision for completion or termination will stem from court decisions that determine what constitutes a material adverse effect, but it has been noted that pandemic was specifically delineated in the original agreement.
When the deal was originally announced in February 2020, we perceived the $525 million for 55% stake as a fire-sale price for the brand, implying the full VS enterprise would be worth $1.1 billion. The VS brand delivered more than $6.8 billion in sales and $223 million in operating profits in 2019 (down from $7.4 billion in sales and $932 million in operating profits in 2017). Now higher risk stems from lower cash due to the elimination of the transaction, the lower pace of debt paydown and a higher level of lease liabilities that are likely to stay with L Brands, weighing on cash flow. We plan to reassess the likelihood of Victoria’s Secret turnaround success under a consolidated business model and will adjust our thesis accordingly. For now, we maintain our $35 fair value estimate and view shares as radically undervalued. There’s been no update to whether Les Wexner will still step down as CEO without the business bifurcation, but we surmise such executive decisions are likely to be unchanged.
|Morningstar Premium Members gain exclusive access to our full analyst reports, including fair value estimates, bull and bear breakdowns, and risk analyses. Not a Premium Member? Get this and other reports immediately when you try Morningstar Premium free for 14 days.|
Jaime M. Katz does not own (actual or beneficial) shares in any of the securities mentioned above. Find out about Morningstar’s editorial policies.
Transparency is how we protect the integrity of our work and keep empowering investors to achieve their goals and dreams. And we have unwavering standards for how we keep that integrity intact, from our research and data to our policies on content and your personal data.
We’d like to share more about how we work and what drives our day-to-day business.
We sell different types of products and services to both investment professionals and individual investors. These products and services are usually sold through license agreements or subscriptions. Our investment management business generates asset-based fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management. We also sell both admissions and sponsorship packages for our investment conferences and advertising on our websites and newsletters.
How we use your information depends on the product and service that you use and your relationship with us. We may use it to:
To learn more about how we handle and protect your data, visit our privacy center.
Maintaining independence and editorial freedom is essential to our mission of empowering investor success. We provide a platform for our authors to report on investments fairly, accurately, and from the investor’s point of view. We also respect individual opinions––they represent the unvarnished thinking of our people and exacting analysis of our research processes. Our authors can publish views that we may or may not agree with, but they show their work, distinguish facts from opinions, and make sure their analysis is clear and in no way misleading or deceptive.
To further protect the integrity of our editorial content, we keep a strict separation between our sales teams and authors to remove any pressure or influence on our analyses and research.
Read our editorial policy to learn more about our process.