They were purchased by Hudson's Bay Company, which was founded in 1670. It almost seems anachronistic to see a historical institution from the 17th century buy up a hyped tech company.<p>TechCrunch's front page headline for this is "Gilt Gets Acquired For $250M by Saks Fifth," which wouldn't be as interesting and isn't even accurate since Saks is just another HBC subsidiary. This is like if the East India Company bought Groupon.
$271MM in investment and a $250MM purchase price. <a href="https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/gilt-groupe#/entity" rel="nofollow">https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/gilt-groupe#/entity</a><p>Does that mean that the investors got all the money and anyone holding common stock was basically screwed?
Rumors seem like One King's Lane is going to follow suit:<p><a href="http://recode.net/2016/01/06/one-kings-lane-once-valued-at-900-million-is-likely-to-sell-for-fraction-of-that/" rel="nofollow">http://recode.net/2016/01/06/one-kings-lane-once-valued-at-9...</a><p>Lots of unicorn blood to be spilled.
It already makes me feel a bit old to remember the days when Gilt, Fab, LivingSocial, and Groupon were all riding hot as variants of discount deals and but one by one have fallen from grace.
This is OT but how come submissions which have less than 12 points appear on the first page? Has anyone figured out the HN algo? There are many other posts with far greater points yet this appears. Maybe techcrunch has higher ratings?
"unicorns" are only interesting for Goldman Sachs and the like for the possibility of a inflated IPO.<p>btw, did Facebook deliver any dividends?