Bolt, the fintech company known for its one-click e-commerce checkout tools, is currently embroiled in a fundraising controversy that involves Silverbear Capital, an investment bank. In a recent email seen by Forbes, Bolt’s CEO, Justin Grooms, hinted at possible legal action against Silverbear Capital due to alleged internal miscommunication that has caused confusion surrounding their involvement in the deal. Grooms stated that Silverbear Capital had signed a binding term sheet committing $200 million to the investment. Furthermore, he mentioned that Bolt’s legal team, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, is prepared to vigorously enforce the company’s rights if necessary.
Silverbear partner Veronica Welch countered Grooms’ claims, stating that there were no miscommunications and that the deal was never discussed or approved within Silverbear Capital. This discrepancy in the narrative between the two parties raises questions about the accuracy of the information presented.
Earlier this month, a leaked term sheet revealed Bolt’s intention to raise $200 million in equity funding and $250 million in “marketing credits” at a $14 billion valuation. The deal’s structure included a pay-to-play arrangement, which meant that existing backers would have to invest or risk losing their stakes in the company. Silverbear Capital was initially reported to be leading the equity round. However, Brad Pamnani, a partner at Silverbear Capital, clarified that he was assembling the deal through a special purpose vehicle (SPV) managed by a private equity fund based in the United Arab Emirates. Pamnani also admitted that using his Silverbear email at the beginning of the deal had caused confusion but emphasized that Silverbear was not actually involved in the agreement.
In the midst of the controversy, The London Fund’s CEO confirmed in an interview with TechCrunch that the firm was contributing “marketing credits” to the deal. However, The London Fund later released a statement expressing uncertainty about the leaked document’s validity. They clarified that while discussions had taken place between their management and Bolt’s team, no transaction had been finalized.
The conflicting statements from the involved parties make it difficult to discern the exact nature of Silverbear Capital’s role in Bolt’s fundraising efforts. It is crucial to await further developments and official statements to gain a clearer understanding of the situation.
