Connect with us


Z-Work is a new SPAC with an unusual target: The gig economy




A group of all-star disruptors who pioneered digital stock trading, on-line retail, community-building for far-flung workers, and software M&A in Silicon Valley are now embarking on another kind of disruption, launching a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) with plans to take a startup public. And they’re aiming at a burgeoning sector that demands more new services than any other: the gig economy.

Amazingly, the gig economy space is a universe that’s so far seen only one other SPAC-driven company debut––TalkSpace, a provider of online therapy for remote and contract workers, promoted in television ads by former Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps. The new team’s vehicle is Z-Work, a SPAC it took public on January 28, raising $230 million. They’re now talking to entrepreneurs of venture capital-backed newcomers that, in their view, present the best opportunities in the entire world of software and services for what’s known as “Future of Work” or FOW.

“This is a structural change in how people work, and COVID accelerated it,” says Z-Work co-chairman Chris Terrill. “Companies are now being forced to deal with a remote workforce, and that change means they need so many new things. It’s truly an inflection point that gives us the chance to back a new wave of world-class entrepreneurs.”

The Z-Work team is auditioning trailblazers in two distinct areas. Both were waxing before the pandemic, then boomed during the crisis. The first: services catering to the exploding ranks of “gig” workers, folks who don’t have a single, full-time employer, but labor as contract employees or freelancers. Around 40% of America’s workforce now fits that category, almost four times the share in 2005, and a double-digit gain over 2019. These are the Uber and Lyft drivers, the CPAs who book jobs through tax and audit outsourcing sites, moms who do SAT coaching after delivering their kids to school, sales people in Aspen or Ft. Lauderdale hired for peak season, and folks looking for the best online market to sell their homemade earrings and t-shirts.

“Many of these gig workers have three or four jobs,” says Doug Atkin, Z-Work’s co-chairman. “My best analyst for deals is a Wharton MBA who’s pursuing his passion in photography. In between shoots in places like Tanzania, he works for me on projects that can last a month. He probably makes over $200,000 doing financial gig-work.”

“Doctors used to think that Telehealth was beneath them,” Atkin continues. “Now, my wife has appointments with top physicians over Zoom.” Atkin believes that the gig economy is democratizing the workplace. “It provides opportunities for people who ‘don’t have the right connections’ but do great work to get jobs they otherwise wouldn’t get,” he says. “And it enables full-time moms to use skills they couldn’t otherwise use to earn money.”

Z-Work’s second market encompasses what what big and small employers need to navigate this new landscape. They’re typically dealing with two new types of workers: the gigsters and full-timers working remotely. The work-from-home demographic has exploded in the pandemic. The “remote” workforce now totals about 70% of all full-timers. Millions who last year commuted to office towers in New York or L.A. now spend their days in home offices, emailing and Zooming from their laptops in Dallas or Indianapolis. The workforce is increasingly a blend of the gig and full-timers for many stalwarts including Amazon, PepsiCo, and Intuit, all of which “flex” their payrolls by hiring freelancers in peak periods. Spotify just announced that its employees will henceforth have a choice of working from home, going to an office, or doing both.

The Z-Work team sees helping employers grapple with remote work as a sweet spot. “The hiring pool is much bigger now because people don’t need to go to an office,” says Atkin. “Employment is no longer tied to location.” Gig companies are competing with other gig companies for talent nationwide, and full-time employers are often courting the same candidates. It’s now common for a company in Chicago to hire a full-time programmer or marketing director in Iowa, whereas they’d only shopped before in cities where it had offices. A firm in Atlanta hiring accountants part-time to advise small businesses on their taxes now vies for talent with other gig outfits from all over the country. At the same time, big players in the field not previously in Atlanta may be wooing the same candidates for on-staff positions offering benefits.

The gig and work-at-home revolutions have both spawned and generated huge growth for a panoply of service providers in a dozen areas that mostly didn’t exist a few years ago. The roster includes collaboration software providers Slack, Zoom, and Fuze, tech-enabled delivery platforms Roadie and Doordash, and talent-matching sites such Thumbtack and Upwork.

But Atkin and the team see big openings for new players. Work times for gig jobs are constantly changing, so software that sets schedules and keeps workers up-to-date via their smartphones is a promising area. Another is technology that makes home offices as user-friendly and efficient as the most tech-enabled worksite office. Recruiting sites that give companies the tools to search nationwide for the best candidates are a potential winner. Such sites could also provide the job-seekers with the broadest possible audience, including software for staging “face-to-face” interviews on the web.

Although the gig economy offers workers freedom and flexibility, they also face special problems, notably a lack of benefits and a feeling of isolation. “They’ve gained liberation in how they work, where they work and when they work, but they’ve lost a lot of the other advantages of full-time employment, such as training, sociability and benefits such as parental leave and health coverage,” says Douglas Atkin, an adviser to Z-Work who served as global head of community at Airbnb during its hyper-growth years. (Yes, Z-Work employs the services of two Douglas Atkins, a duo referred to internally as “Doug Squared.” We’ll refer to Atkin the adviser as “Douglas.”)

Douglas also notes that at-home workers don’t share the same sense of community as folks who sit side by side in offices and chat in the cafeteria. “Sure, workers are highly productive on Zoom calls, but they’re feeling, ‘We miss each other.’ So companies can improve morale by organizing pub crawls or hikes, and hosting offsite events,” says Douglas. “We had loads of events at Airbnb, held in places as diverse as a palace in and breweries in Brooklyn. We’d serve lunches, answer questions, and most of all the hosts got to meet and help each other.” Douglas spoke at Airbnb Open extravaganzas for thousands of hosts, held in such venues as Paris and San Francisco.

Another opportunity that Douglas rates among the most promising: Companies often employ thousands of part timers who buy health insurance on their own. A purchasing platform could leverage their huge buying power to secure more choices and better deals.

A team of operators

Of course, because of the way SPACs are structured, the Z-Work founders are seeking just one high-flyer from a broad roster of contenders, mostly backed by venture capital firms. The team boasts an unusually strong and diverse collection of resumes. It also has a much more pointed mission than most SPACs, which tend to search more broadly and are often run by dealmakers, not operators. Atkin is the former CEO of Instinet, the groundbreaking Electronic Communications Network (ECN) that pioneered off-exchange stock trading over the web. Atkin is also the co-founder, along with Tom Glocer, former CEO of Reuters, and Duncan Niederauer, who headed the NYSE, of Communitas Capital, a venture fund that invests in FOW companies. Its investments in include Graphite, Premise Data, and Comply Advantage.

Co-chair Terrill is a veteran who served as CEO of HomeAdvisor for seven years, forging ANGI Homeservices via the 2017 acquisition of Angie’s List. In that period, Terrill lifted the company’s sales from $175 million to $1.28 billion. Z-Work’s president is Adam Roston, who orchestrated IAC’s entry into the FOW frontier through acquisitions of NurseFly and Bluecrew, and served as a director of corporate development doing tens of billions in M&A deals at Microsoft.

Isn’t Z-Work entering a market that’s already overloaded with SPACs battling for the best candidates? The team reckons that it holds an edge because its offering is so distinctive. “The headline says that the field is ‘crowded with SPACs’ and that entrepreneurs are just saying, ‘Bring me a SPAC,’” says Terrill. He notes, however, that most SPACs are less appealing because their mission is so expansive. “Some will say, ‘We’ll go after fintech, or EVs, or real estate,’” he says. “They missions are vague, they have a lack of focus. The other day, a SPAC going after real estate bought an EV company.”

In contrast, Z-Work casts itself as a specialist in the new world of work. “By focusing on companies in that space, you appeal more to entrepreneurs than the SPACs that just offer money,” says Terrill. The expertise provided by Z-Work’s founders is highly appealing to entrepreneurs. The team is the antithesis of the financial engineers so common among SPAC sponsors. “They view the process as a transaction, a way to make money taking a company public,” he Terrill. Teams with deep operating experience are still far from plentiful, but their numbers have grown in the last couple of years, he adds. “High quality companies really like it when you bring operating talent,” he says. “It’s not typical that you put together a group with our breadth of experience.”

The Z-Work team harbors plenty of experience with conventional IPOs. And those encounters convinced them that SPACs are a much better way to take companies public. Atkin shepherded Instinet through its IPO in the spring of 2001, and Terrill guided ANGI Homeservices through the gauntlet in late 2017. For Fortune, they gave a detailed account of how their SPAC works, and why it’s so far superior to putting Wall Street in charge.

A different kind of funding flow

Before its shares started trading on January 28, Z-Work collaborated with Jefferies & Co. to raise the $230 million, principally from asset managers and hedge funds. Retail investors purchased a small part of the offering. A group of seven founders, board members, and advisors contributed $6 million, with most of the cash coming from Atkin, Terrill, and Roston. Those insiders received an outsized, 20% piece of the equity to split among themselves. Explains Atkin: “The reason is that we’re paying the SPAC’s expenses until we find a merger partner, and we’re taking the risk, because if we don’t find one in 24 months, we sacrifice the $6 million.” The founders are also restricted from selling any shares until at least a year after Z-Work makes an acquisition, or until its stock rises 20% above the offering price.

The $230 million is earmarked to help grow the young comer that Z-Work “purchases” and folds into the SPAC. Z-Work negotiates with the entrepreneurs and VC investors to establish a fair price. Say they agree on $1 billion. Z-Work’s $230 million contribution would give its shareholders an interest of around 23%. The SPAC is then dissolved, and the player it just acquired will go public on the NASDAQ. SPACs can also raise a lot more money just before the merger if it’s needed to fund expansion, say, of an acquisition a lot bigger than $1 billion.

Atkin and Terrill much prefer SPACs over IPOs for two reasons. First, SPACs generally do not result in a giant price “pop” on the first day of trading that diminishes the cash going into the issuing company’s treasury. Second, retail investors get the same crack at buying shares, at the around the same prices as the big banks, funds and everybody else.

That preference reflects their own sobering encounters. Atkin relates that when Instinet went public, the investment banks wanted to price the shares in the underwriting, reserved mostly for their asset management clients, at $12. “I saw there was demand for a lot more shares than we were selling, so I asked the bankers to lift the price to put more money in our coffers. They reluctantly agreed to $14.50.” His tough stance helped, but still didn’t prevent the bankers from underpricing Instinet’s shares. On the first day of trading, Instinet closed at $19.50, handing a 35% gain to the money managers who got the shares for a bargain. Their gain was Instinet’s loss. If the company had received the full $19.50, Instinet would have raised $624 million. Instead, it collected $464 million in cash, leaving $169 million on the table.

“Conventional IPOs really benefit two constituencies,” says Atkin. “That’s the investment banks, and their big trading clients. The banks convince the company that the IPO is great if the stock bounces 100% the first day, leaving tons of money on the table.” He adds that retail investors are locked out until the stock starts trading, in this case, generally at much higher prices than hedge and mutual fund clients paid. “Then the price often goes down,” he says. The losers are the company and the everyday investor. “In the Instinet deal, the bankers told me, ‘It was a great IPO.’ But they didn’t finish the sentence. Sure, it was great for the banks and the clients that win the lottery by getting handed free money. But it wasn’t a good deal for Instinet and it was unfair to retail investors.”

SPACs avoid those pitfalls, says Atkin. The SPAC lifecycle actually involves going public not once, but twice. The whole SPAC process is designed to avoid “pops” and ensure that a maximum portion of the cash raised goes towards building the young enterprise it acquires. All SPACs price their shares at $10 at their debut. Z-Work raised $230 million by selling 23 million shares at $10. Its only asset is that $230 million war chest. A money manager that owns 10% of Z-Work effectively owns 10% not of an operating company, but shell holding cash.

It’s logical, then, that the shares didn’t move much when Z-Work went public and started trading. It did get a slight bump, rising 4% to $10.40 by the close of trading on its opening day. But that’s a trifle compare to most IPOs, and tiny first-day moves are a hallmark of SPACs. Retail investors were able to buy Z-Work shares on the first day at prices extremely close to what the hedge funds and asset managers paid.

In the second leg, the SPAC team will arrive at a price for its merger partner in talks with the VCs and entrepreneurs. Though the SPAC founders could push for a lower price, the other side pushes back. So the arms-length negotiation results in something close to a fair value. Once the shares of the combined entity start trading, all investors have an equal crack at the shares. “To me, it’s the SPACs are investor friendly way to go public.” Atkin is harnessing the vehicle that’s revolutionizing how tech goes public to hasten the transformation in how America works.



Wall Street’s $100 Billion SPAC Boom Upends the League Tables




  • Niche players like Cantor Fitzgerald soar in league tables
  • Citi jumps to No. 1 in IPO rankings as UBS drops out of top 10

The blank-check listings craze is shifting fortunes on Wall Street, knocking some of the world’s biggest banks off their perches and bringing unexpected bragging rights for others unaccustomed to competing for league table glory.

Cantor Fitzgerald LP, long one of the top SPAC underwriters, has been the biggest beneficiary of the boom and ended the first quarter as the No. 10 adviser on initial public offerings globally. The boutique, which hasn’t ranked that high for any full year in the past decade, got 99% of this year’s deal credit from blank-check work, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Without those deals, it would be 155 places lower.

Special purpose acquisition companies raised $100 billion in the opening three months, equivalent to more than two-thirds of the haul from all U.S. listings. That meant league table spots were heavily affected by a bank’s expertise in a once-niche part of the market that’s suddenly ballooned in popularity.

Citigroup Inc. jumped six spots in the rankings to become the busiest IPO arranger globally in the first quarter, thanks in part to its status as the No. 1 SPAC underwriter. Rival Bank of America Corp. rose nine places from this time last year to No. 6.

On the flip side, Switzerland’s UBS Group AG and four Asian investment banks — China International Capital Corp.Citic Securities Co.China Securities Co. and Sinolink Securities Co. — all dropped out of the top 10.

Global IPO Rankings

League tables shaken up by wave of blank-check listings

Source: Bloomberg
“Ranking Boost” compares current positions on IPO league table to ranking if blank-check companies weren’t counted. Last column measures percentage of deal credit coming from SPACs.

There was a chance to boast for firms further down the tables too. Though they still ended a way off the top, both Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. and BTIG LLC — niche players in the world of equity capital markets — saw their IPO rankings boosted by more than 100 spots thanks to roles on SPAC listings this year, the Bloomberg data show.

To be sure, investment banks that are too dependent on SPAC listings could be caught flat-footed when volumes dry up, and signs are already emerging that these deals won’t maintain their breakneck pace.

Turning Tide

Volume of new SPAC filings declines from record highs

Source: Bloomberg
Data for most recent week is through mid-day April 1.

Last week, blank-check companies filed plans to raise a combined $8.4 billion through U.S. IPOs, down 36% from the previous week. Their combined fundraising target, as well as the number of deals, both represented the lowest weekly tally since the end of January.

On Wednesday, for the first time in a long while, there weren’t any new SPACs that lodged registration documents. The brief drought marked a big change from recent months, when particularly prolific dealmakers were filing for three IPOs in a single day.

For now at least, some banks have something new to shout about with rivals and clients.

Source: Bloomberg – Wall Street’s $100 Billion SPAC Boom Upends the League Tables

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa

Continue Reading


Equinox Group Draws SPAC Interest After $350 Million 2020 Loss




  • Company fielding SPAC interest at at least $7 billion value
  • Earnings turned negative after gyms shut down during pandemic

Equinox Group is fielding interest from blank-check firms that would take the company public after it lost around $350 million last year amid the pandemic, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

Despite the loss, the gym chain has started to solicit interest from suitors including special purpose acquisition companies that value Equinox, including its SoulCycle entity and other brands, at $7 billion or more, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing private results.

Equinox Group’s consolidated revenue was around $650 million last year, the people said. Cash at gym unit Equinox Holdings was $50 million after the company paid down part of a revolving credit line, one of the people added.

Members were able to freeze or cancel their accounts when the spread of Covid-19 first shut gyms last year, pressuring the company’s financial results and forcing it to furlough thousands of workers.

A representative from Equinox didn’t respond to requests for comment. Sportico previously reported that the chain had received interest from SPACs and private equity firms.

The entire fitness industry is reeling from forced closures tied to the pandemic. Chains including Gold’s Gym International Inc., 24 Hour Fitness Worldwide Inc. and the owner of New York Sports Clubs sought bankruptcy protection last year.

Gyms have been allowed to reopen in many cities, though social distancing, cleaning guidelines and capacity limitations remain in place. Indoor fitness classes like SoulCycle recently started up again in New York, and the spin chain has also been offering outdoor classes in select locations. Equinox bought a majority stake in SoulCycle in 2011.

The company last year secured funding from private equity firm Silver Lake to build a digital platform, now known as Equinox+, and add as many as 50 locations annually.

Closely held Equinox received a minority investment in 2017 from L Catterton, a consumer-focused private equity firm, and is backed by principals of billionaire Stephen Ross’s Related Cos. Price quotes on the fitness company’s $1.02 billion loan due 2024 have hovered around 93 cents on the dollar.

Source: BloombergEquinox Group Draws SPAC Interest After $350 Million 2020 Loss

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa

Continue Reading


Interest in SPACs—Special Purpose Acquisition Companies—is booming…and so is the risk of litigation.




Following these ten steps will prepare SPAC boards, sponsors, and advisors for the likely shareholder suits and potential regulatory investigations that are increasingly becoming part of the SPAC landscape.

If 2020 was the “year of the SPAC,” 2021 may be the year of SPAC litigation. SPACs—Special Purpose Acquisition Companies—are publicly traded companies launched as vehicles to raise capital to acquire a target company. Often called blank-check companies, SPACs are companies in which shareholders buy shares without knowing which company the SPAC will target and acquire. Investors place their faith in the sponsor: the entity or management team that forms the SPAC. The SPAC generally has around twenty-four months to seek out and acquire a target, or else must liquidate and return the capital.

Hundreds of new SPACs were launched in 2020 alone. Booming M&A or other transactional activity in any sector can invite litigation driven by plaintiffs’ attorneys, and SPACs are no exception. In just the first three months of 2021, more than 40 suits targeting SPACs have been filed. The nature of these claims evidence growing sophistication, as lawyers used to challenging traditional M&A transactions begin to tailor their claims to the unique characteristics of the SPAC lifecycle. And with SPACs going mainstream—and attracting attention from outside the usual financial circles—regulators are closely examining transaction disclosures and other aspects of SPAC deals.

Preparing in advance—throughout the SPAC transaction cycle—for the prospect of litigation or regulatory scrutiny could make the difference between a quick resolution and an existential threat. Following these ten steps will provide SPACs, their boards, their sponsors, and their advisors the edge in future litigation or regulatory inquiries.

1. Document all board meetings in formal minutes—and make sure they are approved.

The typical public company has a corporate secretary who takes minutes at each board and committee meeting. The typical SPAC has no such employee and corporate housekeeping is sometimes delayed in the urgency to secure a binding acquisition transaction. Nevertheless, formal minutes, formally approved, are important and this detail should not be ignored or delayed unreasonably. Accurate, complete, contemporaneous, and board-approved minutes are important in demonstrating the board’s compliance with its fiduciary duty of due care. The absence of board minutes unfortunately can demonstrate the reverse.

2. Carve out time at each board meeting for private, executive sessions of independent directors—without the sponsor—and document in the minutes that these sessions occurred.

There have been persistent concerns about conflicts between SPAC sponsors and public investors. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are targeting these potential conflicts—arguing that sponsors have wielded their influence to push through deals on terms that favor their own interest in consummating a transaction within the required timeframe at the expense of other shareholders. To guard against the appearance that a SPAC board was captive to the sponsor, boards should reserve time for private deliberation by independent directors, free of the sponsor’s watchful eye, and board members should carefully evaluate the performance by sponsors.

3. Provide SPAC boards detailed due diligence reports before deal approval.

Rare is the SPAC litigation that does not claim the SPAC hastily agreed to a deal without adequate diligence. There are multiple ways to mitigate these claims—adopting exculpatory charter provisions can help—but there is no substitute for a well-informed board. Even if fulsome diligence, financial analyses or other assessments were performed, that information must be communicated to the board with adequate time for board review to put directors in the best position to argue that the transaction is the product of informed deliberation and that the board was afforded adequate time to review and sign off on the accuracy of the deal disclosures.

4. Make a record of looking for initial business combination opportunities.

The objectives of a SPAC are to identify a partner for an initial business combination and to complete that transaction. The sponsor should aggressively seek out these opportunities. The sponsor should also periodically inform the board of its efforts in this regard, and that should be reflected in the minutes. If an initial business combination is completed and the board is sued, it will be helpful if the minutes reflect efforts to identify a partner. The absence of that record could make it appear that what was being sought was any business combination, but not necessarily the best one.

5. The audit committee should scrutinize the target’s financials.

For the target company, the requisite disclosures that must be made to complete the de-SPAC transaction are more akin to an IPO than a typical acquisition by an existing, public operating company. Extensive, detailed audited financials are required, and the review of these disclosures by the SPAC board should be performed in consultation with competent advisors and/or delegated to the experts on the audit committee.

6. Consider obtaining a fairness opinion—and/or a formal presentation from the financial advisor.

Fairness opinions tend to be the province of target companies, not buyers. But the SPAC’s very existence centers around this acquisition, and a fairness opinion, like proper deal diligence, can bolster the board’s decision-making process—particularly if the target company has connections to the SPAC or the sponsor. Obtaining the opinion is not a mere box to check on the closing checklist.  Regardless of whether a fairness opinion is obtained, the board should consider whether a financial advisor presentation is desirable.

7. The merger proxy statement should be carefully prepared.

The merger proxy statement for the initial business combination should be as scrupulously prepared as an IPO prospectus. So, for example, if the target company relies heavily on one customer or supplier, or if major competition is expected to be faced, or if its products are relatively untested, it is not enough to mention that in boilerplate “risk factors.” And if potential business issues have been identified by consultants or in due diligence, those should be fully disclosed. Finally, it is often the case that forecasts will be included in the proxy statement for the business combination. Are those the only forecasts the SPAC has seen? If not, you should consider what you should do about the other set of forecasts.

8. All public statements should be closely scrutinized for accuracy—including social media posts.

Rule 10b-5 does not contain a social media exception. High-profile leaders of public companies are finding themselves on the receiving end of securities fraud claims and enforcement actions for statements made on Twitter and other platforms. SPAC boards should have policies in place to guard against these missteps, which should include a process to review, identify and correct potentially misleading claims or risky puffery.

9. Beware the late-stage deal.

The appearance of potential conflicts between SPAC sponsors and ordinary shareholders approaches its zenith as the deadline for liquidation looms. SPAC leadership should be aware that multiple suits have been filed against SPACs that embraced a deal target at the eleventh hour, claiming that the SPAC sponsors and boards put their interest in closing a deal ahead of the SPAC and its investors.

10. Disclose, disclose, disclose.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers use the SEC’s guidance on disclosure considerations for SPACs like a playbook. SPAC boards should carefully review disclosures that touch on the topics flagged by the SEC, particularly disclosures relating to conflicts (such as interlocks between the sponsor, the SPAC, and the target; the liquidation timeline; and underwriting fee structures) and details about how the SPAC board settled on the acquisition target.

Source: JDSupra/Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft – Interest in SPACs—Special Purpose Acquisition Companies—is booming…and so is the risk of litigation.

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa

Continue Reading


The ‘March SPACness’ Final Four Is Set: Are These The Best Former SPACs




On “SPACs Attack,” the latest SPAC mergers, rumors and headline news is broken down Monday through Friday.

To coincide with the 2021 March Madness Tournament, “SPACs Attack” held a March SPACness Tournament featuring a bracket of 64 companies that have completed the SPAC process and are now publicly traded companies.

The winner of each round was decided by the live audience on YouTube based on which company would have the highest percentage increase from March 16, 2021, through the end of the year.

A Final Four has been set and features the following former SPACs.

Romeo Power: Battery maker Romeo Power Inc RMO 0.6% emerged into the Final Four with a narrow victory over online sports betting and iGaming operator Rush Street Interactive RSI 0.3%.

Romeo Power shares traded for over $40 back in December and have fallen since completing the merger.

The company reported earnings on Tuesday with fiscal 2020 revenue of $9 million, which was lower than the $11 million listed in the company’s investor presentation.

Guidance from the company of $18 million to $40 million for fiscal 2021 was significantly lower than the $140 million projected by the company at the time of the SPAC deal announcement. Supply chain issues were listed as an explanation for the lowered guidance.

Desktop Metal: 3D printing stock Desktop Metal Inc DM 3.16% grabbed a spot in the Final Four with a win over online home buying and selling company Opendoor Technologies Inc OPEN 2.64%.

Desktop Metal is a large player in additive manufacturing seeking to power the next industrial revolution printing items for large customers. The company also recently expanded through acquisitions and the launch of a healthcare division.

DraftKings: Online sports betting and iGaming company DraftKings Inc DKNG 2.53% landed a spot in the Final Four with a victory over rare earth mining company MP Materials Corp MP 2.15%.

DraftKings has a presence in more states than any other competitor in the online sports betting space. The company continues to be viewed as a leader in the space and analysts have raised projections for revenue, market share and the iGaming opportunity for the company.

Butterfly Network: Rounding out the Final Four is Butterfly Network Inc BFLY 3.21%, a portable ultrasound company backed by Bill Gates. The company beat out Skillz SKLZ 1.26% in a close Elite Eight battle.

Butterfly Networks has been a favorite of Cathie Woods with the Ark Genomic Revolution ETF (BATS: ARKG) taking a position shortly after the deal was announced.

The company is seen as a long-term winner in the emerging health market with a device that could help hospitals with costs and expand ultrasound availability in emerging markets.

What’s Next: Romeo Power will battle Desktop Metal for a spot in the championship, while DraftKings battles Butterfly Network.

To see who wins and makes it to the championship, tune into “SPACs Attack” next week and vote for your favorite in the chat.

Source: Benzinga – The ‘March SPACness’ Final Four Is Set: Are These The Best Former SPACs?

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa

Continue Reading
Esports4 days ago

Dota 2 Patch 7.29 Will Reveal a New Hero

Esports5 days ago

Valorant Redeem Codes: How to redeem?

Esports5 days ago

How to watch the TFT Fates Championship

Esports4 days ago

Best Warzone guns: the weapons you need to use in Black Ops Cold War Season 2

Esports5 days ago

W33 Removed From Team Nigma’s Active Roster

Blockchain5 days ago

Playa del Carmen: Krypto-Hotspot mit HODLversity

Blockchain4 days ago

Unternehmen gründen Crypto Council: Fidelity und Coinbase mit dabei

Esports4 days ago

Overwatch Archives event 2021: new challenges, skins, and more

Blockchain4 days ago

Evil Geniuses Partner With Cryptocurrency Exchange Platform Coinbase

Fintech2 days ago

Novatti’s Ripple partnership live to The Philippines

Fintech4 days ago

Standard Chartered turbocharges digital payments proposition with investment and the merger of CurrencyFair with Assembly Payments

Esports4 days ago

indiefoxx was just banned from Twitch again, but why?

Esports5 days ago

Fortnite: How To Reboot A Friend And Earn In-Game Rewards

Cyber Security4 days ago

Fintechs are ransomware targets. Here are 9 ways to prevent it.

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin Preis Update: BTC fällt unter 59.500 USD

Blockchain3 days ago

Krypto-News Roundup 8. April

Esports4 days ago

100 Thieves reveal NFTs in Enter Infinity Collection

Esports5 days ago

Call of Duty League Stage 2 Major Preview and Predictions

Esports4 days ago

Astralis vs Gambit Esports: ESL Pro League betting analysis

Blockchain4 days ago

Ripple Klage: CEO zeigt sich nach Anhörung positiv