CNET Best Corruption Story Ever!

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project

The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989. It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.

xxxx2

xxxx9

PREM14C 1 d440727dprem14c.htm PREM14C

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14C

(Rule 14c-101)

SCHEDULE 14C INFORMATION

Information Statement Pursuant to Section 14(c) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Check the appropriate box:

x	Preliminary Information Statement

¨	Confidential, for use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14c-5(d)(2))

¨	Definitive Information Statement

TEAVANA HOLDINGS, INC.

(Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

¨	No fee required.

x	Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14c-5(g) and 0-11.

Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

Common Stock, par value $0.00003 per share, of Teavana Holdings, Inc.

Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

38,777,893 shares of Common Stock issued and outstanding and 1,439,246 shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to outstanding stock options.

Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

Solely for purposes of calculating the filing fee, the value of the transaction was calculated based upon the sum of (a) 38,777,893 shares of Common Stock multiplied by $15.50 per share; and (b) 949,246 shares of Common Stock issuable upon the exercise of underlying “in the money” stock options multiplied by $13.14 (which is the difference between $15.50 and the weighted average exercise price with respect to such options of $2.36 per share). The filing fee was determined by multiplying 0.00013640 by the sum of the preceding sentence.

Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

$613,530,434

Total fee paid:

$83,686

¨	Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

¨	Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

Amount Previously Paid:

Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

Filing Party:

Date Filed:

PRELIMINARY COPY—SUBJECT TO COMPLETION

TEAVANA HOLDINGS, INC.

3630 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 1480

Atlanta, Georgia 30326

(404) 995-8200

NOTICE OF ACTION BY WRITTEN CONSENT AND APPRAISAL RIGHTS

AND

INFORMATION STATEMENT

WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU FOR A PROXY AND YOU ARE REQUESTED

NOT TO SEND US A PROXY.

NOVEMBER [ ], 2012

Dear Stockholder:

This notice of action by written consent and appraisal rights and the accompanying information statement are being furnished to the holders of common stock of Teavana Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation that we refer to as “Teavana” or the “Company,” in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 14, 2012, by and among Starbucks Corporation, a Washington corporation that we refer to as “Parent,” Taj Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent that we refer to as “Merger Sub,” and Teavana. We refer to the Agreement and Plan of Merger as the “Merger Agreement” and to the merger of Merger Sub with and into Teavana that is contemplated by the Merger Agreement as the “Merger.” Upon completion of the Merger, each share of common stock, par value $0.00003, of Teavana (“Common Stock”) issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger, except for shares (i) held by stockholders who are entitled to demand and who properly demand appraisal under Section 262 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”) for such shares or (ii) owned by the Company as treasury stock or by Parent or Merger Sub will be cancelled and converted automatically into the “Merger Consideration,” which represents the right to receive $15.50 in cash, without interest and subject to any required withholding taxes. The Principal Stockholders (defined below) and certain executives of Teavana have agreed to escrow $10 million from the Merger Consideration payable with respect to their shares to cover certain potential costs of Teavana arising in connection with the closing of the Merger. A copy of the Merger Agreement is attached as Annex A to the accompanying information statement.

If the Merger is completed, you will be entitled to receive $15.50 in cash, without interest and subject to required tax withholdings, for each share of Common Stock owned by you (unless you have properly exercised your appraisal rights under Section 262 of the DGCL with respect to such shares).

The Company’s board of directors (the “Board of Directors”) unanimously approved and declared advisable the Merger Agreement, the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, declared that it was in the best interests of the Company’s stockholders that the Company enter into the Merger Agreement and consummate the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, declared that the Merger Consideration is fair to the Company’s stockholders and recommended that the Company’s stockholders adopt the Merger Agreement.

Under Section 251 of the DGCL and the applicable provisions of Teavana’s Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated Bylaws, the adoption of the Merger Agreement by Teavana stockholders required the affirmative vote or written consent of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of Common Stock. On November 14, 2012, Andrew T. Mack, SKM Equity Fund III, L.P.,

SKM Investment Fund and Jurgen W. Link (together, the “Principal Stockholders”) delivered or caused to be delivered to Teavana a written consent adopting the Merger Agreement in respect of 28,749,196 shares of Common Stock, representing approximately 74% of the outstanding shares of Common Stock entitled to act by written consent with respect to the adoption of the Merger Agreement. Accordingly, the adoption of the Merger Agreement was effected November 14, 2012. No further approval of the stockholders of Teavana is required to adopt the Merger Agreement. As a result, Teavana has not solicited and will not be soliciting your authorization and adoption of the Merger Agreement and does not intend to call a meeting of stockholders for purposes of voting on the adoption of the Merger Agreement.

This notice of action by written consent and appraisal rights and the accompanying information statement shall constitute notice to you from the Company of the action by written consent to adopt the Merger Agreement taken by the Principal Stockholders.

Under Section 262 of the DGCL, if the Merger is completed, subject to compliance with the requirements of Section 262 of the DGCL, holders of shares of Common Stock, other than the Principal Stockholders, will have the right to seek an appraisal for, and be paid the “fair value” of, their shares of Common Stock (as determined by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware) instead of receiving the Merger Consideration. In order to exercise your appraisal rights, you must submit a written demand for an appraisal no later than 20 days after the date of mailing of this notice and the accompanying information statement, or December [ ], 2012, and precisely comply with other procedures set forth in Section 262 of the DGCL, which are summarized in the accompanying information statement. A copy of Section 262 of the DGCL is attached to the accompanying information statement as Annex D. This notice and the accompanying information statement shall constitute notice to you from the Company of the availability of appraisal rights under Section 262 of the DGCL.

We urge you to read the entire accompanying information statement carefully. Please do not send in your Common Stock at this time. If the Merger is completed, you will receive instructions regarding the surrender of your Common Stock and payment for your shares of Common Stock.

By order of the Board of Directors,

/s/ David V. Christopherson

David V. Christopherson

Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary

Neither the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities or other regulatory agency has approved or disapproved the Merger, passed upon the merits or fairness of the Merger, or passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of the disclosures in this notice or the accompanying information statement. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

The information statement is dated November [ ], 2012 and is first being mailed to stockholders on November [ ], 2012.

TABLE OF CONTENTS


NOTICE OF WRITTEN CONSENT AND APPRAISAL RIGHTS			i
TABLE OF CONTENTS			iii
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE MERGER			Q-1
SUMMARY			1
The Proposed Transaction			1
The Parties to the Merger			1
Teavana			1
Parent			2
Merger Sub			2
What You Will Be Entitled to Receive Upon Completion of the Merger			2
Record Date			2
Recommendation of our Board of Directors			3
Teavana’s Financial Advisors			3
Financing			3
The Written Consent of Stockholders			3
Interests of Directors and Executive Officers in the Merger			4
Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Merger to our Stockholders			4
The Merger Agreement			5
Treatment of Stock Options			5
Conditions to the Merger			5
No Solicitation of Other Offers			5
Termination of the Merger Agreement			6
Termination Fees			7
Appraisal Rights			7
Regulatory Approvals			8
Market Price of Teavana Common Stock			8
THE PARTIES TO THE MERGER			9
Teavana			9
Parent			10
Merger Sub			10
THE MERGER			11
Background			11
Required Approval of the Merger; Written Consent			15
Record Date			16
Recommendation of our Board of Directors			16
Reasons for the Merger			16
Opinion of Teavana’s Financial Advisor			20
Summary of Teavana’s Projections			28
Additional Financial Advisor			31
Financing of the Merger			31
Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Merger to our Stockholders			31
Interests of Directors and Executive Officers in the Merger			32
Appraisal Rights			35
Form of the Merger			38
Conversion of Shares; Procedures for Exchange of Common Stock			38
Delisting and Deregistration of Teavana Common Stock			39
Regulatory Approvals Required for the Merger			39

iii


THE MERGER AGREEMENT			39
The Merger			40
Merger Consideration			40
Directors and Officers; Certificate of Incorporation; Bylaws			40
Treatment of Stock Options			41
Stockholders Seeking Appraisal			41
Payment for the Shares			41
Representations and Warranties			42
Conduct of Business Pending the Merger			43
Stockholder Action by Written Consent			45
Efforts to Complete the Merger			46
Conditions to the Merger			46
No Solicitation of Other Offers			48
Termination of the Merger Agreement			49
Termination Fees and Expenses			50
Employee Matters			51
Amendment, Extension and Waiver			51
MARKET PRICE OF OUR COMMON STOCK			52
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT			53
SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS			55
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION			56
WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION			56

ANNEX A—AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER			A-1
ANNEX B—STOCKHOLDER WRITTEN CONSENT			B-1
ANNEX C—OPINION OF THE COMPANY’S FINANCIAL ADVISOR			C-1
ANNEX D—SECTION 262 OF THE GENERAL CORPORATION LAW OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE			D-1
ANNEX E—ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF THE COMPANY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 29, 2012			E-1
ANNEX F—QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED APRIL 29, 2012			F-1
ANNEX G—QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JULY 29, 2012			G-1

TEAVANA HOLDINGS, INC.

3630 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 1480

Atlanta, Georgia 30326

INFORMATION STATEMENT

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE MERGER

The following questions and answers are intended to address briefly some commonly asked questions regarding the Merger Agreement and the Merger. These questions and answers may not address all questions that may be important to you as a Teavana stockholder. Please refer to the additional information contained elsewhere in this information statement, the annexes to this information statement and the documents referred to in this information statement.

Unless otherwise indicated or the context requires otherwise, all references to “Teavana” or the “Company” refer to Teavana Holdings, Inc.; all references to “Parent” refer to Starbucks Corporation, a Washington corporation; all references to “Merger Sub” refer to Taj Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation, a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent; all references to “Merger Agreement” refer to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 14, 2012, by and among Teavana, Parent and Merger Sub, a copy of which is attached as Annex A to this information statement, as it may be amended from time to time; all references to the “Merger” refer to the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement; and all references to the “Principal Stockholders” refer to Andrew T. Mack, SKM Equity Fund III, L.P., SKM Investment Fund and Jurgen W. Link, which together owned approximately 74% of the outstanding shares of Teavana common stock as of the date of the Merger Agreement.

Q.	WHY DID I RECEIVE THIS INFORMATION STATEMENT?

Teavana and Parent have agreed to the acquisition of Teavana by Parent upon the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement described in this information statement, and the Principal Stockholders have adopted the Merger Agreement and approved the Merger. Applicable provisions of Delaware law and certain securities regulations require us to provide you with information regarding the Merger, even though your vote or consent is neither required nor requested to adopt the Merger Agreement or complete the Merger.

Q.	WHAT IS THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION?

The proposed transaction is the acquisition of Teavana by Parent. The proposed transaction will be accomplished through a merger of Merger Sub, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, with and into Teavana, with Teavana as the surviving corporation. As a result of the Merger, Teavana will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent and our Common Stock will cease to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange and will no longer be publicly traded.

Q.	WHY DID THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVE THE MERGER AND THE MERGER AGREEMENT?

After careful consideration and evaluation of the Merger, and in consideration of, among other things, the opinion of Piper Jaffray & Co. that, based upon and subject to the factors and assumptions set forth in such opinion, the Merger Consideration to be paid to holders of Common Stock pursuant to the Merger Agreement is fair, from a financial point of view to the holders of shares of Common Stock, our Board of Directors approved and declared advisable the Merger Agreement and the Merger. To review our Board of Directors’ reasons for recommending and approving the Merger and the Merger Agreement, see “The Merger – Reasons for the Merger” on page 16 of this information statement.

Q-1

Q.	IS THE APPROVAL OF STOCKHOLDERS NECESSARY TO ADOPT THE MERGER AGREEMENT? WHY AM I NOT BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MERGER AGREEMENT?

The Merger requires the adoption of the Merger Agreement by the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of our Common Stock. The requisite stockholder approval was obtained on November 14, 2012, the date on which the Principal Stockholders delivered or caused to be delivered to the Company a written consent adopting and approving the Merger Agreement and the Merger, in respect of approximately 74% of our outstanding Common Stock. Therefore, your vote is not required and is not being sought. We are not asking you for a proxy and you are requested not to send us a proxy.

Q.	IF THE MERGER IS COMPLETED, WHAT WILL I RECEIVE FOR MY SHARES OF COMMON STOCK?

In the Merger, each share of our Common Stock that is issued and outstanding will be converted into the right to receive $15.50 in cash, without interest and subject to any required withholding taxes, which we refer to as the “Merger Consideration.” As a result of the Merger, upon the surrender of your shares of Common Stock, you will receive a total amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying the Merger Consideration by the number of shares of our Common Stock that you own. In the event of a transfer of ownership of Common Stock that is not registered in the records of our transfer agent, the Merger Consideration for shares of our Common Stock may, subject to certain requirements, be paid to a person other than the person in whose name the Common Stock so surrendered is registered. See “The Merger–Conversion of Shares; Procedures for Exchange of Common Stock” on page 38 of this information statement.

Q.	WILL THE MERGER CONSIDERATION I RECEIVE IN THE MERGER INCREASE IF TEAVANA’S RESULTS OF OPERATIONS IMPROVE OR IF THE PRICE OF TEAVANA’S COMMON STOCK INCREASES ABOVE THE CURRENT MERGER CONSIDERATION?

No. The Merger Consideration is fixed at $15.50 in cash per share, without interest and subject to any required withholding taxes. The Merger Agreement does not contain any provision that would adjust the Merger Consideration (in either direction) based on fluctuations in the price of Teavana’s Common Stock or based on the results of operations of Teavana prior to the consummation of the Merger.

Q.	IS THE MERGER SUBJECT TO THE FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS?

A.	Yes. Before completion of the Merger, Teavana, Parent and Merger Sub must fulfill or waive several closing conditions. If these conditions are not satisfied or waived, the Merger will not be completed. See “The Merger Agreement – Conditions to the Merger” on page 46 of this information statement.

Q.	AM I ENTITLED TO APPRAISAL RIGHTS?

Yes. Under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, which we refer to as the “DGCL,” stockholders who did not provide a consent to the adoption of the Merger Agreement (i.e., stockholders other than the Principal Stockholders) are entitled to appraisal rights in connection with the Merger with respect to their shares, so long as they precisely follow specific procedures to exercise their rights under Delaware law. See “The Merger – Appraisal Rights” on page 35 of this information statement.

Q.	WHAT HAPPENS IF A THIRD PARTY MAKES AN OFFER TO ACQUIRE TEAVANA BEFORE THE MERGER IS COMPLETED?

Prior to the requisite stockholder approval, our Board of Directors could have, subject to certain requirements and rights of Parent, terminated the Merger Agreement in order to enter into a superior acquisition agreement with a third party upon complying with certain other conditions. This termination right ceased upon delivery of a written consent by the Principal Stockholders constituting the requisite stockholder approval on November 14, 2012.

Q-2

Q.	WHEN IS THE MERGER EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED?

A.	We expect the Merger to be completed on or prior to December 31, 2012, subject to government regulatory review and clearance; however, there can be no assurance that the Merger will be completed at that time, or at all.

Q.	SHOULD I SURRENDER MY SHARES OF COMMON STOCK NOW?

A.	No. After the Merger is completed, you will be sent detailed instructions for exchanging your shares of Common Stock for the Merger Consideration.

Q.	WILL I OWE TAXES AS A RESULT OF THE MERGER?

The Merger will be a taxable transaction for U.S. holders of our Common Stock. As a result, assuming you are a U.S. holder, any gain you recognize as a result of the Merger will be subject to United States federal income tax and also may be taxed under applicable state, local or other tax laws. In general, you will recognize gain or loss equal to the difference between (1) the Merger Consideration and (2) the adjusted tax basis of the shares of Common Stock you surrender in the Merger. See “The Merger – Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Merger to Our Stockholders” on page 31 of this information statement for a more detailed explanation of the tax consequences of the Merger. You should consult your tax advisor on how specific tax consequences of the Merger apply to you.

Q.	WHERE CAN I FIND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT TEAVANA?

We file periodic reports and other information with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which we refer to as the “SEC.” Some of these reports are attached as annexes to this information statement. You may read and copy this information at the SEC’s public reference facilities. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for information about these facilities. This information is also available on the internet site maintained by the SEC at www.sec.gov. For a more detailed description of the information available, please refer to the section entitled “Where You Can Find More Information” on page 56 of this information statement.

Q.	WILL I BE IMPACTED BY THE ESCROW AGREEMENT?

No. The Principal Stockholders, as well as certain executives of Teavana, have agreed with Starbucks to place $10 million of proceeds from the sale of their shares pursuant to the Merger into escrow to cover certain potential costs of Teavana arising in connection with the closing of the Merger. Public stockholders are not subject to the escrow arrangement and accordingly will not have their proceeds reduced thereby.

Q.	WHO CAN HELP ANSWER MY QUESTIONS?

A.	If you have questions about the Merger after reading this information statement, please call the Office of the General Counsel, Teavana Holdings, Inc., at (404) 995-8200.

Q-3

SUMMARY

The following summary highlights selected information from this information statement. Because this summary may not contain all of the information that is important to you, you should carefully read this entire information statement and the other documents to which this information statement refers you for a more complete understanding of the Merger, including, in particular, the copy of the Merger Agreement, the Written Consent of Stockholders and the Fairness Opinion of Piper Jaffray & Co. that are attached to this information statement as Annexes A, B and C, respectively. WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU FOR A PROXY, AND YOU ARE REQUESTED NOT TO SEND US A PROXY.

Unless we otherwise indicate or unless the context requires otherwise: all references in this information statement to “Company,” “Teavana,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to Teavana Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation and, where appropriate, its subsidiaries; all references to “Parent” refer to Starbucks Corporation, a Washington corporation; all references to “Merger Sub” refer to Taj Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation; all references to the “Merger Agreement” refer to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 14, 2012, by and among Parent, Merger Sub and the Company, as it may be amended from time to time, a copy of which is attached as Annex A to this information statement; all references to the “Merger” refer to the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement; all references to the “Merger Consideration” refer to the right to receive $15.50 in cash per share, without interest and subject to any required withholding taxes, contemplated to be received by the holders of our Common Stock pursuant to the Merger Agreement; all references to the “Board of Directors” refer to the Company’s Board of Directors; and all references to “Common Stock” refer to the Company’s Common Stock, par value $0.00003 per share.

THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION

•

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Teavana, with Teavana continuing as the surviving corporation.

•

Upon completion of the Merger, each issued and outstanding share of our Common Stock (other than shares of Common Stock (i) where the holder has properly exercised appraisal rights under Section 262 of the DGCL (and has not withdrawn such exercise or lost such rights) or (ii) owned by Teavana, Parent or Merger Sub will automatically be cancelled and will cease to exist and will be converted into the right to receive $15.50 in cash, without interest and subject to any required withholding taxes. The Principal Stockholders and certain executives of Teavana have agreed to escrow $10 million from the Merger Consideration payable with respect to their shares to cover certain potential costs of Teavana arising in connection with the closing of the Merger. Public stockholders are not subject to the escrow arrangement and accordingly will not have their proceeds reduced thereby.

•

As a result of the Merger, Teavana will cease to be an independent, publicly-traded company and will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.

THE PARTIES TO THE MERGER (SEE PAGE 9)

TEAVANA (SEE PAGE 9)

Teavana, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, is a specialty retailer offering more than 100 varieties of premium loose-leaf teas, authentic artisanal teawares and other tea-related merchandise through more than 300 company-owned stores and on its website. Founded in 1997, the Company offers new tea enthusiasts and tea connoisseurs alike its “Heaven of Tea”® retail experience where passionate and knowledgeable “teaologists” engage and educate them about the ritual and enjoyment of tea. The Company’s mission is to establish Teavana as the most recognized and respected brand in the tea industry by expanding the

culture of tea across the world. To support the tea culture globally, Teavana donates approximately 1% of annual net profits to the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc., or “CARE,” through its Teavana Equatrade® program.

Our principal executive office is located at 3630 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 1480, Atlanta, Georgia 30326, and our telephone number is (404) 995-8200.

PARENT (SEE PAGE 10)

Starbucks Corporation, a Washington corporation headquartered in Seattle, Washington, is the premier roaster, marketer and retailer of specialty coffee in the world, operating in more than 50 countries. Formed in 1985, Parent purchases and roasts high-quality whole bean coffees that it sells, along with handcrafted coffee and tea beverages and a variety of fresh food items, through company-operated stores. Parent also sells a variety of coffee and tea products and licenses its trademarks through other channels such as licensed stores, and grocery and national foodservice accounts. In addition to Parent’s flagship Starbucks brand, its portfolio also includes Tazo® Tea, Seattle’s Best Coffee®, and Starbucks VIA® Ready Brew.

The mailing address of Parent’s principal executive offices is 2401 Utah Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98134, and its telephone number is (206) 447-1575.

MERGER SUB (SEE PAGE 10)

Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation formed by Parent solely for the purpose of completing the Merger with the Company. Merger Sub is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent and has not engaged in any business to date, except for activities incidental to its incorporation and activities undertaken in connection with the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

The mailing address of Merger Sub’s principal executive offices is 2401 Utah Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98134, and its telephone number is (206) 447-1575.

WHAT YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE UPON COMPLETION OF THE MERGER (SEE PAGE 40)

Upon completion of the Merger, each issued and outstanding share of our Common Stock will be converted into the right to receive $15.50 in cash per share, without interest and subject to any required withholding taxes, which we refer to as the Merger Consideration. As a result of the Merger, upon surrender of your Common Stock you will receive a total amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying the per share Merger Consideration by the number of shares of our Common Stock that you own, less any amounts withheld. We expect the Merger to be completed on or before December 31, 2012, subject to certain government regulatory reviews and approvals; however, there can be no assurance that the Merger will be completed at that time, or at all.

RECORD DATE (SEE PAGE 16)

As of November 14, 2012, the Company received a written consent adopting and approving the Merger Agreement and the Merger executed by the holders of the requisite number of shares of Common Stock of the Company in accordance with Section 251 of the DGCL. November 14, 2012 is the date used for determining the stockholders entitled to receive notice of the action by written consent.

RECOMMENDATION OF OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS (SEE PAGE 16)

After careful consideration, our Board of Directors:

•

approved and declared advisable the Merger Agreement, the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement;

•

declared that it was in the best interests of the Company’s stockholders that the Company enter into the Merger Agreement and consummate the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement;

•

declared that the Merger Consideration is fair to the Company’s stockholders; and

•

recommended that the Company’s stockholders adopt the Merger Agreement.

For a discussion of the material factors considered by our Board of Directors in reaching their conclusion, see “The Merger – Reasons for the Merger” on page 16 of this information statement.

TEAVANA’S FINANCIAL ADVISORS (SEE PAGE 20)

On November 14, 2012, Piper Jaffray & Co., which we refer to as “Piper Jaffray,” delivered its oral opinion, which was subsequently confirmed in writing as of November 14, 2012, to the effect that, and based upon and subject to the factors and assumptions and limitations set forth therein, as of November 14, 2012, the per share Merger Consideration to be received by the holders of our Common Stock pursuant to the Merger Agreement is fair, from a financial point of view, to such holders.

The full text of the written opinion of Piper Jaffray, dated November 14, 2012, which sets forth the assumptions made, procedures followed, matters considered and limitations on the review undertaken in connection with the opinion, is attached as Annex C to this information statement. Piper Jaffray provided its opinion for the information and assistance of our Board of Directors in connection with its consideration of the Merger. The opinion did not constitute a recommendation to the members of the Board as to whether they should approve the Merger or the Merger Agreement, nor did it constitute a recommendation as to whether stockholders of Teavana should adopt the Merger Agreement and it does not constitute a recommendation as to whether stockholders of Teavana should take any other action in respect of the Merger, including, but not limited to, the exercise of appraisal rights. You are urged to read the opinion in its entirety.

The Board of Directors also engaged North Point Advisors LLC (“North Point”) to act as a financial advisor to the Board of Directors with respect to the contemplated transaction. North Point assisted Teavana in its negotiations with Parent and also helped Teavana assess potential alternative bidders and engaged in discussions with potential buyers. Piper Jaffray also assisted in contacting potential alternative bidders.

FINANCING (SEE PAGE 31)

The Merger is not contingent on the receipt of any proceeds from any financing.

THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF STOCKHOLDERS (SEE PAGE 45)

Under Delaware law and Teavana’s Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated Bylaws, the adoption of the Merger Agreement by Teavana’s stockholders may be provided without a meeting by written consent of the stockholders holding a majority of the voting power of the outstanding shares of Common Stock. On November 14, 2012, the Principal Stockholders, which together

owned, as of that date, approximately 74% of the shares of Common Stock entitled to vote on the adoption of the Merger Agreement, delivered to the Company written consent to the adoption of the Merger Agreement. A copy of the Written Consent of Stockholders is attached to this information statement as Annex B. As of November 14, 2012, the Company received a written consent adopting and approving the Merger Agreement and the Merger from the holders of the requisite number of shares of Common Stock of the Company in accordance with § 251 of the DGCL, and the adoption of the Merger Agreement was effected as of that date. As a result, no other vote of any other Teavana stockholder is necessary to adopt the Merger Agreement, and your approval is not required and is not being requested. If the Merger Agreement is terminated in accordance with its terms, the Written Consent of Stockholders will be of no further force and effect.

Federal securities laws state that the Merger may not be completed until 20 days after the date of mailing of this information statement to Teavana stockholders. Therefore, notwithstanding the execution and delivery of the written consent (which was obtained shortly after the signing of the Merger Agreement), the Merger will not occur until that time has elapsed. We expect the Merger to be completed on or prior to December 31, 2012, subject to certain government regulatory reviews and approvals. However, there can be no assurance that the Merger will be completed at that time, or at all.

When actions are taken by written consent of less than all of the stockholders entitled to vote on a matter, Section 228(e) of the DGCL requires that notice of the action be provided to those stockholders who did not consent. This information statement and the notice attached hereto shall constitute notice to you of action by written consent as required by Section 228(e) of the DGCL.

INTERESTS OF DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS IN THE MERGER (SEE PAGE 32)

Some of our executive officers and the members of our Board of Directors have interests in the Merger that are different from, or in addition to, the interests of Teavana and our stockholders generally.

These interests include:

•

the accelerated vesting of options to acquire our Common Stock held by directors and executive officers upon the occurrence of the Merger and the right to receive an amount in cash equal to the excess, if any, of the Merger Consideration over the per share exercise price of such options;

•

solely with respect to our executive officers, the right to receive certain severance payments in the event of a qualifying termination of employment following the Merger;

•

the right to continued indemnification and directors’ and officers’ liability insurance for our directors and officers by the surviving corporation for events occurring prior to the time of the Merger; and

•

in order to promote retention of key employees including the executive officers during the period prior to and following consummation of the Merger, Parent expects to grant certain key Company employees, including the executive officers, restricted stock units payable in shares of Parent’s common stock and stock options exercisable for shares of Parent’s common stock following the consummation of the Merger.

For the discussion of their restricted stock units and stock options described above, see “Interests of Directors and Executive Officers in the Merger — Executive Retention Arrangements with Parent” on page 34 of this information statement. See page 34.

MATERIAL U.S. FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE MERGER TO OUR STOCKHOLDERS (SEE PAGE 31)

The Merger will be a taxable transaction to U.S. holders of our Common Stock. For U.S. federal income tax purposes, each of our stockholders who are U.S. holders generally will recognize taxable gain or loss as a result

of the Merger measured, on a block by block basis, by the difference, if any, between the aggregate Merger Consideration received and the aggregate adjusted tax basis in that block of shares. That gain or loss will be a capital gain or loss if the shares are held as a capital asset in the hands of the stockholder, and will be long-term capital gain or loss if the shares have been held for more than one year at the time of the completion of the Merger. Stockholders are urged to consult their own tax advisors as to the particular tax consequences to them of the Merger.

THE MERGER AGREEMENT

TREATMENT OF STOCK OPTIONS (SEE PAGE 41)

At the effective time of the Merger, each option to acquire our Common Stock outstanding immediately prior to the Merger under any Company stock option or equity incentive plan whether or not then vested and exercisable, will be cancelled and the holder of any such stock option will be entitled to receive, for each share of Common Stock subject to such stock option, an amount in cash, without interest and subject to any required withholding taxes, equal to the excess, if any, of the Merger Consideration over the per share exercise price of such option. Certain executive officers of Teavana have agreed to place a portion of their proceeds from their options into escrow to cover certain potential costs of Teavana arising in connection with the closing of the Merger. All stock options with a per share exercise price equal to or greater than the per share Merger Consideration will be cancelled upon consummation of the Merger and the holders of such stock options will not have any right to receive any consideration in respect thereof.

CONDITIONS TO THE MERGER (SEE PAGE 46)

As more fully described in this information statement and the Merger Agreement, the completion of the Merger depends on the satisfaction or waiver of a number of conditions. If these conditions are not satisfied or waived, the Merger will not be completed.

NO SOLICITATION OF OTHER OFFERS (SEE PAGE 48)

The Merger Agreement provides that Teavana (i) shall not, and shall cause its subsidiaries and any director, officer or employee of Teavana or any of its subsidiaries or any investment banker, attorney, accountant or other advisor or representative of Teavana or any of its subsidiaries not to, directly or indirectly, (A) solicit, initiate or encourage, or take any other action to knowingly facilitate, any takeover proposal or any inquiries or the making of any proposal that could reasonably be expected to lead to a takeover proposal or (B) enter into, continue or otherwise participate in any discussions or negotiations regarding, or furnish to any person (or any representative thereof) any information with respect to, or otherwise knowingly cooperate in any way with any person (or any representative thereof) with respect to, any takeover proposal, (ii) shall and shall cause its subsidiaries and its and their respective directors, officers, employees, investment bankers, attorneys, accountants and other advisors and representatives to immediately cease and cause to be terminated all existing activities, discussions and negotiations with any person conducted heretofore with respect to any takeover proposal and (iii) shall promptly, and in any event within two days following the date of the Merger Agreement, request, and shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to cause, the prompt return or written acknowledgment of destruction of all confidential information previously furnished to such parties or their representatives in connection with any takeover proposal to the extent that Teavana is entitled to have such documents returned or destroyed; provided, however, that at any time prior to obtaining the requisite stockholder approval (which has now been obtained), in response to a bona fide written unsolicited takeover proposal received after the execution of the Merger Agreement that the Board of Directors of Teavana determines in good faith, after consultation with its outside legal counsel and a financial advisor of nationally recognized reputation, constitutes a superior proposal, and which takeover proposal did not result from a breach of the non-solicitation covenant or any other provision of the Merger Agreement, and if the Board of Directors of Teavana determines in good faith, after consultation with its outside legal counsel, that the failure to take such action would be inconsistent with its fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Teavana under applicable law, Teavana may, and may permit and authorize its subsidiaries and

its representatives and its subsidiaries’ representatives to, in each case subject to compliance with the notice provision and the other provisions of the Merger Agreement, (A) furnish information with respect to Teavana or any of its subsidiaries to the person making such takeover proposal (and its representatives) pursuant to a confidentiality agreement which contains terms that are in all material respects no less restrictive of such person than those contained in the confidentiality agreement between Teavana and Parent; provided that all such information had been provided, or is concurrently provided, to Parent, and (B) participate in discussions or negotiations with, and only with, the person making such takeover proposal (and its representatives) regarding such takeover proposal. As a result of the fact that the requisite stockholder approval was obtained upon delivery of the written consent of the Principal Stockholders, the exception to the restrictions set forth in this paragraph with respect to certain unsolicited takeover proposals is no longer in effect.

The term “takeover proposal” means any inquiry, proposal or offer from any person or “group” (as defined in Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act) (other than Parent or Merger Sub or any of their affiliates) relating to, or that could reasonably be expected to lead to, in one transaction or a series of transactions, any merger, consolidation, business combination, recapitalization, liquidation or dissolution involving Teavana or any direct or indirect acquisition, including by way of any merger, consolidation, tender offer, exchange offer, stock acquisition, asset acquisition, binding share exchange, business combination, recapitalization, liquidation, dissolution, joint venture, license agreement or similar transaction, of (i) assets or businesses that constitute or represent 20% or more of the total revenue, net income, EBITDA (earnings before interest expense, taxes, depreciation and amortization) or assets of Teavana and its subsidiaries, taken as a whole, or (ii) 20% or more of the outstanding shares of our Common Stock or of any class of capital stock of, or other equity or voting interests in, one or more of the subsidiaries of Teavana which, in the aggregate, directly or indirectly hold the assets or businesses referred to in clause (i) above.

The term “superior proposal” means any binding bona fide unsolicited written offer which did not result from a breach of the non-solicitation covenant made by any person (other than Parent or Merger Sub or any of their affiliates) that, if consummated, would result in such person (or, in the case of a direct merger between such person and Teavana, the stockholders of such person) acquiring, directly or indirectly, more than 50% of the voting power of our Common Stock or all or substantially all the assets of Teavana and its subsidiaries, taken as a whole, and which offer, in the reasonable good faith judgment of the Board of Directors of Teavana (after consultation with a financial advisor of nationally recognized reputation and outside legal counsel), (i) provides a higher value to the stockholders of Teavana than the consideration payable in the Merger (taking into account all of the terms and conditions of such proposal and the Merger Agreement (including any changes to the terms of the Merger Agreement proposed by Parent in response to such superior proposal or otherwise)) and (ii) is reasonably capable of being completed, taking into account all financial, legal, regulatory and other aspects of such proposal.

TERMINATION OF THE MERGER AGREEMENT (SEE PAGE 49)

The Merger Agreement may be terminated at any time prior to the completion of the Merger:

•

by mutual written consent of Teavana, Parent and Merger Sub;

•

by either Teavana or Parent:

•

if the Merger shall not have been consummated by March 14, 2013, except that this right is not available to any party whose action or failure to act has been a principal cause of, or resulted in, the failure of the Merger to occur on or before such date and such action or failure to act constitutes a breach of the Merger Agreement; or

•

if any court of competent jurisdiction or other governmental entity issues or enters a temporary restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or other judgment or other legal restraint that has the effect of preventing the consummation of the Merger and such legal restraint has become final and non-appealable; or

•

by Parent:

•

if prior to the receipt of stockholder approval (which has been obtained), Teavana delivers written notice to Parent that the Board withdraws or modifies in a manner adverse to Parent or Merger Sub, or proposes publicly to withdraw or modify in a manner adverse to Parent or Merger Sub, the recommendation or declaration of advisability by the Board or any committee of the Merger Agreement or the Merger;

•

if (i) we breach or fail to perform any of our representations, warranties, covenants or other agreements contained in the Merger Agreement, which breach or failure to perform (A) would give rise to the failure of a condition set forth under “The Merger Agreement—Conditions to the Merger—Conditions to Parent’s and Merger Sub’s Obligations” and (B) is incapable of being cured or is not cured by Teavana by the date that is 30 business days after such breach or failure or, if capable of being cured by Teavana by such date, Teavana does not commence to cure such breach or failure within 10 business days after its receipt of written notice thereof from Parent and diligently pursue such cure thereafter;

•

if a written consent duly executed by the Principal Stockholders had not been delivered to Parent and Teavana prior to 6:00 a.m., New York City time, on the date immediately following the date of the Merger Agreement; or

•

by Teavana:

•

if (i) Parent breaches or fails to perform any of its representations, warranties, covenants or other agreements contained in the Merger Agreement, which breach or failure to perform (A) would give rise to the failure of a condition set forth under “The Merger Agreement—Conditions to the Merger—Conditions to Teavana’s Obligations” and (B) is incapable of being cured or is not cured by Parent or Merger Sub by the date that is 30 business days after such breach or failure or, if capable of being cured by Parent or Merger Sub by such date, Parent or Merger Sub, as the case may be, does not commence to cure such breach or failure within 10 business days after its receipt of written notice thereof from Teavana and diligently pursue such cure thereafter; or

•

if prior to the receipt of stockholder approval (which has been obtained), Teavana (i) executed a definitive agreement with respect to a superior proposal in accordance with the terms of the Merger Agreement, and (ii) paid to Parent the termination fee.

TERMINATION FEES (SEE PAGE 50)

In certain circumstances, the Board of Directors had the right to terminate the Merger Agreement in order to enter into a definitive agreement relating to a superior proposal, as further described in “The Merger Agreement—Termination of the Merger Agreement.” In that event and in certain other specified circumstances, the Merger Agreement provides that we must pay Parent a termination fee of $18,400,000. See “The Merger Agreement—Termination Fees and Expenses.”

As a result of the receipt by Teavana of the written consent by the Principal Stockholders, this right is no longer operative.

APPRAISAL RIGHTS (SEE PAGE 35)

Stockholders who have properly exercised appraisal rights under Section 262 of the DGCL (and have not withdrawn such exercise or lost such rights) will not have the right to receive the Merger Consideration, but will receive payment in cash for the fair value of their shares of our Common Stock as determined in accordance with Delaware law. The fair value of shares of our Common Stock as determined in accordance with Delaware law

may be more or less than (or the same as) the per share Merger Consideration to be paid to stockholders who choose not to exercise their appraisal rights. Stockholders who wish to exercise appraisal rights must precisely follow specific procedures. These procedures are described in this information statement, and the provisions of Delaware law that grant appraisal rights and govern such procedures are attached as Annex D to this information statement. We encourage you to read these provisions carefully and in their entirety.

REGULATORY APPROVALS (SEE PAGE 39)

The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act provides that transactions such as the Merger may not be completed until certain information has been submitted to the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and certain waiting period requirements have been satisfied. On November 16, 2012, Teavana and Parent each filed a Notification and Report Form with the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission and requested an early termination of the waiting period. If the early termination is not granted and a request for additional information by the relevant antitrust authorities is not made, the waiting period will expire at 11:59 p.m. on December 17, 2012.

Under the Merger Agreement, both Teavana and Parent have agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain all required governmental approvals and avoid any action or proceeding by a governmental entity to the extent necessary, proper or advisable to consummate the Merger. Except as noted above with respect to the required filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, the expiration of 20 days from the dissemination of this information statement to Teavana’s stockholders and the filing of a certificate of merger in Delaware at or before the effective date of the Merger, we are unaware of any material federal, state or foreign regulatory requirements or approvals required for the execution of the Merger Agreement or completion of the Merger or the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

MARKET PRICE OF TEAVANA COMMON STOCK (SEE PAGE 52)

Our Common Stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the trading symbol “TEA.” The closing sale price of our Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange on November 13, 2012, the last full trading day prior to the announcement of the Merger, was $10.13 per share. The $15.50 cash consideration to be paid for each share of our Common Stock in the Merger represents an approximately 53.0% premium to the closing sale price of our Common Stock on November 13, 2012. On November [ ], 2012, the last trading day before the date of this information statement, the closing sale price of our Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange was $[ ] per share.

THE PARTIES TO THE MERGER

TEAVANA

Teavana Holdings, Inc. is a specialty retailer offering more than 100 varieties of premium loose-leaf teas, authentic artisanal teawares and other tea-related merchandise through more than 300 company-owned stores and on its website. Founded in 1997, the Company offers new tea enthusiasts and tea connoisseurs alike its “Heaven of Tea”® retail experience where passionate and knowledgeable “teaologists” engage and educate them about the ritual and enjoyment of tea. The Company’s mission is to establish Teavana as the most recognized and respected brand in the tea industry by expanding the culture of tea across the world. To support the tea culture globally, Teavana donates approximately 1% of annual net profits to the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc., or “CARE,” through its Teavana Equatrade® program.

Retail Stores

We operate more than 300 company-owned stores in 40 states and Canada. We focus on high traffic locations in malls and lifestyle centers with top-tier co-tenants, and our store base is balanced geographically across the United States.

Online Platform

Our online platform is primarily comprised of our website, www.teavana.com, through which we provide educational resources for tea consumers and the ability to purchase the full range of our teas and tea-related merchandise. Through our online platform, we can target a broader audience of customers and tea enthusiasts who may not live near one of our retail locations. We believe our online platform and our stores are complementary, as our online platform provides our store customers an additional channel through which to purchase our teas and tea-related merchandise, while also helping drive awareness of and traffic to our stores.

Teas and Tea-Related Merchandise

We offer in our stores and through our website more than 100 varieties of premium loose-leaf teas, tea wares such as handcrafted cast-iron, clay and ceramic tea pots, and other tea-related merchandise. We also offer a selection of fresh-brewed teas in our stores.

Teas

We provide our customers a diverse selection of over 100 loose-leaf teas from around the world. Our overall tea selection is comprised of approximately 20% single-estate teas and 80% specially blended teas. Our offering is comprised of teas from the following three main groups:

•

Single-estate teas. Our single-estate teas, which are the teas that originate wholly from an individual tea plantation, estate or garden, are produced from the Camellia Sinensis bush. We offer four types of single-estate teas—white, green, oolong and black—each with its own distinctive characteristics arising from the climate, soil, altitude, growing conditions, when and how the tea is harvested, and the processing method used.

•

Single-estate blended teas. We offer blends that combine our single-estate teas with spices, herbs, flower petals, essential oils of fruits and other flavorings. We work in close collaboration with third-party blenders to develop our specially blended teas, and spend significant amounts of time perfecting the balance of flavors, aromas and colors to create unique teas that we believe will appeal to our customers.

•

Herbal blended teas. Herbal teas are not technically “teas,” as they are not produced from the Camellia Sinensis bush, but are herbal infusions generally made from other sources, such as the Rooibos bush and Honeybush from South Africa, the Maté shrub from Argentina, and other ingredients including

dried fruits, herbs and even flowers. Herbal teas, aside from Maté, are generally caffeine-free and can be brewed individually or blended with other types of tea to create an aromatic and flavorful beverage.

Tea-Related Merchandise

We offer in our stores and through our website a carefully selected assortment of artisanal tea wares and other tea-related merchandise that provides our customers the ability to brew and consume our premium loose-leaf teas and to more broadly experience tea cultures from around the globe. The majority of our tea-related merchandise is Teavana-branded. We also offer a selection of our teas and tea-related merchandise in the form of prepackaged gift sets.

Our tea wares and other tea-related merchandise are grouped into five main categories: (1) teapots, (2) tea cups and mugs, (3) tea accessories, (4) tea décor and media and (5) tea foods.

Beverages

We offer made-to-order fresh-brewed teas in each of our stores. Our customers may select any of the varieties of loose-leaf single-estate and blended teas that we offer. Customers can choose to have their beverages served hot or cold.

For a more detailed description of our business, please see Item 1 in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2012.

The Company was founded in 1997. Our principal executive office is located at 3630 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 1480, Atlanta, Georgia 30326, and our telephone number is (404) 995-8200.

PARENT

The mailing address of Parent’s principal executive offices is 2401 Utah Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98134, and its telephone number is (206) 447-1575.

MERGER SUB

Taj Acquisition Corp. is a Delaware corporation formed for the sole purpose of completing the Merger with the Company. Merger Sub is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. Merger Sub has not engaged in any business to date except for activities incidental to its incorporation and activities undertaken in connection with the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. Upon consummation of the proposed Merger, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, Merger Sub will cease to exist and the Company will continue as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, under the name “Teavana Holdings, Inc.”

The mailing address of Merger Sub’s principal executive offices is 2401 Utah Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98134, and its telephone number is (206) 447-1575.

THE MERGER

BACKGROUND

The Board of Directors and senior management of the Company periodically review the Company’s long-term strategic plan with a goal of maximizing stockholder value. The Board of Directors explored various alternatives on a preliminary basis, including a possible sale of the Company, before its initial public offering in July 2011, and has continued to review its strategic plans thereafter.

On June 24, 2012, Mr. Howard Schultz, the chairman, president and chief executive officer of Parent, contacted Mr. David Jacquin of North Point, who had advised the Company in the past, to ask whether he believed Mr. Andrew Mack, the CEO of the Company, would be interested in meeting with him.

On August 7, 2012, Mr. Mack met with Mr. Schultz, and they discussed Parent’s interest in expanding its presence in the tea category and the possibility that the Company could provide an interesting platform for such a move. Mr. Jacquin of North Point also attended the meeting. No specific proposals were made, but the parties agreed that further discussion was appropriate.

On August 20, 2012, a meeting of the Board of Directors was held with representatives of DLA Piper LLP (US) (“DLA Piper”), the Company’s outside legal counsel, and North Point in attendance. Mr. Mack advised the Board of Directors of his meeting with Mr. Schultz. Mr. Mack indicated that as a result of that meeting Parent had asked North Point to meet with members of the senior management team of Parent to discuss the possible strategic fit between the two companies. Mr. Mack indicated that the matter was at a very preliminary stage and might or might not develop into something of mutual interest. Mr. Mack also requested the approval of the Board of Directors for North Point to act as the Company’s financial advisor in the discussions with Parent. Following the presentations and further questions and discussion, the Board of Directors agreed that management should engage in further discussions with Parent using North Point as the Company’s financial advisor.

On August 28, 2012, Mr. Jacquin met with Mr. Schultz and Mr. Troy Alstead, the chief financial officer of Parent, in Seattle, Washington. No formal proposals were made, no confidential information was exchanged and the parties discussed on a very preliminary basis the possible benefits of a transaction.

On September 24 and 25, 2012, Messrs. Mack and Jacquin met in Seattle with Messrs. Schultz and Alstead. Also in attendance from Parent were Mr. Bill McNichols, vice president of Corporate Development, and other members of senior management of Parent. At those meetings, Mr. Mack and Mr. Jacquin provided a high level overview of the Company’s business. No confidential information was exchanged. Mr. Schultz indicated that the board of directors of Parent likely would discuss the potential for a transaction at an upcoming board meeting.

On September 26, 2012, a meeting of the Board of Directors was held with representatives of North Point and DLA Piper in attendance. Mr. Mack and North Point provided an update on the contacts and meetings with representatives of Parent. Representatives from DLA Piper reviewed with the Board of Directors their duties under Delaware law if the Board of Directors decided to consider a transaction with Parent and the importance of confidentiality. Following the presentations and further questions and discussion, the Board of Directors expressed support for continuing the exploration of a possible transaction with Parent.

Between October 4 and October 6, 2012, Messrs. Mack and Jacquin met with Mr. Schultz and other members of Parent management. On October 8, 2012, Mr. Schultz advised Messrs. Mack and Jacquin that the Parent board of directors supported the interest of Parent in exploring a possible acquisition of the Company.

On October 8, 2012, North Point provided Parent with a draft of a confidentiality agreement to facilitate the exchange of confidential information between the Company and Parent in consideration of a potential transaction. The parties negotiated the terms of the agreement between October 8, 2012 and October 10, 2012.

On October 9, 2012, a meeting of the Board of Directors was held with representatives of North Point and DLA Piper in attendance. Mr. Mack and North Point provided an update on the contacts with representatives of Parent. Representatives of North Point discussed preliminary valuation methodologies with respect to the Company, procedural considerations for a possible transaction and the Company’s competitive landscape. Representatives from DLA Piper reviewed with the Board of Directors their duties under Delaware law with respect to a potential transaction and possible next steps in reaction to a proposal from Parent. Following the presentations and further questions and discussion, the Board of Directors authorized the execution of a confidentiality agreement with Parent.

On October 10, 2012, the Company and Parent entered into a confidentiality agreement.

On October 11, 2012, Mr. McNichols spoke to Mr. Jacquin by telephone and expressed Parent’s preliminary interest in an acquisition of the Company, providing an indicative value of $16.75 in cash per share, subject to due diligence and further financial review as well as negotiation of definitive transaction documents and board approval, among other items. Additionally, he noted Parent’s expectation that the significant stockholders of the Company holding approximately 74% of the outstanding shares would act by written consent to adopt the Merger Agreement.

On October 12, 2012, a meeting of the Board of Directors was held with representatives of North Point and DLA Piper in attendance. At the meeting, North Point informed the Board of Directors of the preliminary indication of value that Parent had provided. North Point informed the Board that Parent had noted the feasibility of completing the transaction by year end and the potential benefit to stockholders of the Company given the taxable nature of the transaction. Following further questions and discussion, the Board of Directors decided to review internal valuation assumptions and models in order to determine an appropriate response.

On October 12, 2012, Parent provided an initial request list of due diligence information to the Company.

On October 15, 2012, the Company’s electronic data room was opened, and Parent was provided access. Thereafter, Parent conducted its due diligence review of the Company.

On October 16, 2012, a meeting of the Board of Directors was held with representatives of North Point and DLA Piper in attendance. North Point discussed the valuation work that had been done to date, which was supplemented with analysis by Mr. Barron Fletcher, a member of the Company’s Board of Directors and a representative of SKM, one of the Company’s large stockholders. North Point also summarized their conversations with representatives of Parent. The Board of Directors discussed the Company’s prospects as an independent company, including market conditions, the competitive landscape and its financial performance, as well as other strategic alternatives that the Company could explore. After discussion and deliberation, the Board of Directors authorized North Point to indicate to Parent that the Company would consider a transaction in the range of $21.00 per share, subject to board approval, negotiation of definitive agreements and further validation of the appropriate price. The Board of Directors also approved the formal engagement of North Point as the Company’s financial advisor and discussed the potential benefits of engaging a second investment bank to render a fairness opinion in connection with any such transaction.

Following the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company, Mr. Jacquin conveyed to Mr. McNichols the Board of Directors’ perspective on valuation. Mr. McNichols responded with an indicative value of $17.00 per share in cash, noting that there was no room to go beyond that price and that the proposed value was still subject to due diligence and further financial review, as well as negotiation of definitive transaction documents and board approval. Mr. McNichols further noted Parent’s ability to move on an accelerated timeline which would make a closing by calendar year end feasible.

On October 17, 2012, a meeting of the Board of Directors was held with representatives of North Point and DLA Piper in attendance. North Point updated the Board of Directors with respect to recent conversations with Parent. The Board of Directors again discussed the benefits and risks of remaining an independent company in

light of the certainty of value provided by a potential all-cash transaction with Parent, as well as other strategic alternatives the Company could explore. The Board of Directors discussed the fact that the price offered by Parent could be compelling to stockholders, particularly given current market conditions and competitive challenges faced by the Company. After further discussion and deliberation, the Board of Directors authorized North Point to notify Parent that the Company was willing to remain engaged in conversations with Parent with respect to a potential transaction at $17.00 per share. The Board of Directors also agreed to continue to consider all options, including remaining as an independent company, and instructed North Point and senior management to explore other third party alternatives and determine an appropriate strategy for determining whether there were alternative financial or strategic buyers who would be interested in acquiring the Company at a price competitive with the proposal from Parent. North Point noted, and the Board of Directors discussed, that financial buyers likely would not be interested at pricing multiples within the range contemplated by Parent’s offer, and that Parent was the most logical strategic buyer. Potential targets were discussed, and the Board of Directors asked North Point to work with Messrs. Mack and Fletcher to determine the most appropriate financial and strategic buyers to be approached.

After the meeting on October 17, 2012, North Point and Messrs. Mack and Fletcher reviewed and assessed possible third party alternatives to Parent, and based on that assessment, the Board of Directors asked North Point to reach out to five potential financial buyers, as well as five potential strategic buyers viewed as the ones most likely to have an interest in a transaction with the Company at a price range that would be competitive with Parent. Between October 18, 2012 and October 25, 2012, North Point reached out to the five financial buyers, discussed the opportunity with each of them and solicited their interest in entering into a confidentiality agreement and receiving detailed information concerning the Company. One financial buyer requested a confidentiality agreement and the Company negotiated and entered into a confidentiality agreement with that potential buyer. The other financial buyers all advised that based on publicly available information and the discussions with North Point they did not have an interest in pursuing a transaction. In addition, the financial buyer who executed the confidentiality agreement also concluded on further analysis not to pursue a transaction and did not engage in any significant due diligence.

North Point also sought out five strategic buyers to determine their interest in a possible transaction as during the period from October 18, 2012 through the signing of the Merger Agreement. One strategic buyer immediately indicated that it was not interested in a transaction. On November 1, 2012, Piper Jaffray was engaged to assist North Point in the outreach to the additional four strategic buyers and through Piper Jaffray contact was made with each of those potential strategic buyers. Three of the strategic buyers indicated that they had no interest in pursuing a transaction. One potential strategic buyer indicated it was unlikely that it would have an interest and did not respond to additional inquiries by Piper Jaffray through the date the Merger Agreement was signed.

On October 20, 2012, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (“Cravath”), counsel for Parent, provided a draft Merger Agreement to DLA Piper and the Company for review.

On October 22, 2012, Cravath and DLA Piper engaged in a high level discussion of structural elements of the Merger Agreement and whether to structure the transaction as a merger with a stockholder consent or a tender offer and merger.

Between October 22 and October 24, 2012, Parent conducted on-site due diligence at the Company’s headquarters in Atlanta and at its distribution center in Stratford, Connecticut. During the course of these meetings, management presentations were made to representatives of Parent. Also during this period DLA Piper and Cravath engaged in discussions regarding the draft Merger Agreement.

On October 24, 2012, DLA Piper provided revisions to the draft Merger Agreement, which included significant comments on the representations and warranties, pre-closing covenants, deal protection terms, termination fees and expenses, post-closing employee covenants and closing conditions.

On October 25, 2012, a meeting of the Board of Directors was held with representatives of North Point and DLA Piper in attendance. North Point updated the Board of Directors on recent developments with respect to the potential transaction with Parent and reviewed the diligence meetings that had taken place with Parent. The

Board of Directors also discussed the recent weakness in the Company’s stock price. North Point also reported on the efforts to date with respect to other potential interested buyers. A representative of DLA Piper updated the Board of Directors on the status of negotiations related to the Merger Agreement, reviewed the material terms of the Merger Agreement and the structure of the transaction, including the stockholder consent process, and responded to questions from the Board of Directors. At the meeting, the Board of Directors also authorized the engagement of Piper Jaffray to provide a fairness opinion in connection with a possible transaction.

On October 26, 2012, Cravath provided a revised draft of the Merger Agreement that modified certain representations and warranties, certain provisions of the pre-closing covenants regarding the Company’s operations, conditions to closing and the amount of any termination fee or expense reimbursement. In this draft of the Merger Agreement, Parent also proposed that Mr. Mack and his spouse enter into three-year non-competition and non-solicitation agreements at the time of the execution of the Merger Agreement, a proposal which was ultimately accepted.

On October 30, 2012, a meeting of the Board of Directors was held with representatives of North Point and DLA Piper in attendance. North Point updated the Board of Directors on the progress of negotiations with Parent, including updates based on Parent’s due diligence of its views regarding potential integration costs. North Point also indicated Parent’s desire to take more time to complete its due diligence efforts. North Point also provided an update on the exploration of other third party alternatives.

On November 2, Mr. McNichols informed Mr. Jacquin that, based on its ongoing due diligence and financial analysis of the transaction, Parent had concluded that integration costs would be higher than had been expected, and accordingly it was no longer prepared to pursue a transaction at $17.00 per share.

On November 3, 2012, Mr. McNichols told Mr. Jacquin that Parent would be prepared to proceed with a transaction with Teavana at a price of $15.00 per share, including a request for an escrow of funds from certain stockholders to cover certain potential costs of Teavana in connection with the proposed transaction.

On November 5 and November 7, 2012, informal calls were held with members of the Board of Directors who were updated regarding the status of the negotiations and discussions between the Company and Parent. During these calls board members agreed that Mr. Mack should continue to discuss pricing terms with Parent. Also on November 5, the Company stopped further due diligence activities with Parent pending further discussion regarding pricing terms.

On November 6, 2012, Messrs. Mack and Jacquin met with Mr. Schultz and other members of Parent management to discuss the status of the transaction. At that meeting, Mr. Mack stated that the Company could not accept Parent’s proposal of $15.00 per share with an escrow for certain stockholders. Mr. Schultz then reiterated that Parent was not prepared to move forward with a transaction at $17.00 per share, and that Parent’s “best and final” offer was $15.50 per share to all stockholders with a $10 million escrow deposit from Mr. Mack and other significant stockholders. Discussion occurred regarding these matters. Messrs. Mack and Jacquin left without any agreement on a course of action.

On November 7 and November 8, 2012, further conversations occurred between Mr. Jacquin and Mr. McNichols as to whether there was any potential for movement on price, and Mr. McNichols reiterated that Parent was unwilling to pay more than $15.50 per share. Mr. McNichols noted that Parent did have some flexibility on the terms of the Merger Agreement, making concessions relating to the closing condition on accuracy of representations and warranties and agreeing to a “material adverse effect” standard to provide additional closing certainty.

On November 9, 2012, a meeting of the Board of Directors was held with representatives of North Point and DLA Piper in attendance. Mr. Mack and North Point updated the Board of Directors on recent developments since the update calls that occurred on November 5, 2012 and November 7, 2012. North Point reviewed discussions regarding Parent’s proposed revised price of $15.50 per share, which would also include a $10 million escrow applicable to certain significant stockholders, but not the public stockholders. The Board of Directors also received an update on the exploration of other third party alternatives. After questions and further discussion, the Board of Directors supported continuing negotiations with Parent to determine if a definitive agreement could be reached.

On November 9, 2012, DLA Piper sent a revised draft of the Merger Agreement that included revisions to, among other things, the representations and warranties, conditions to closing and the amount of any termination fee and expense reimbursement.

Between November 9 and November 14, 2012, multiple drafts of the Merger Agreement were exchanged between DLA Piper and Cravath to finalize the terms of the transaction, including a separate agreement establishing an escrow fund from the Principal Stockholders and certain executives of the Company. Independent counsel was retained by the Principal Stockholders to negotiate the escrow agreement and the non-competition agreements with Mr. Mack and his spouse.

On November 11, 2012, the Board of Directors of Parent approved entry into the Merger Agreement.

During the day on November 13, 2012, the Board of Directors convened to consider the terms of Parent’s revised Merger Agreement. At the meeting were representatives from Piper Jaffray, North Point and DLA Piper. North Point and Piper Jaffray summarized the current status of the exploration of other third party alternatives. Piper Jaffray then reviewed its preliminary assessment with respect to the fairness of the consideration proposed to be received by stockholders in the transaction. Representatives of DLA Piper then reviewed the status of the negotiations and the revised terms of the Merger Agreement and reviewed with the Board of Directors their fiduciary duties in the context of the transaction being considered. Following discussions and questions from the Board of Directors, DLA Piper reviewed the proposed board resolutions to be considered in connection with the transaction. The Board further reviewed the exploration of other third party alternatives conducted and concluded that there were no other viable acquirors for the Company, particularly at the price level indicated by Parent and the degree of deal certainty offered by Parent. North Point and Piper Jaffray concurred in this judgment based on their analysis of market conditions, their interaction with the potential financial and strategic buyers and their assessment of the price being offered by Parent. The Board of Directors discussed the significant risk of losing the opportunity with Parent in the event of delay. The Board of Directors took no action at this time pending completion of all negotiations of the transaction documents.

On the afternoon of November 14, 2012, the Board of Directors, together with the Company’s legal and financial advisors, convened a meeting. All of the members of the Board of Directors were in attendance. DLA Piper updated the Board of Directors on the course of final negotiations relating to the Merger Agreement and all related agreements, and Piper Jaffray updated the Board of Directors on its financial analyses. Piper Jaffray then rendered its opinion to the Board of Directors to the effect that, as of November 14, 2012 and based upon and subject to the various assumptions made, procedures followed, matters considered and limitations on the review undertaken as set forth in the opinion, the consideration of $15.50 per share in cash proposed to be received by the holders of shares of Company Common Stock pursuant to the Merger was fair, from a financial point of view, to such holders. Following questions by the members of the Board of Directors to representatives of Piper Jaffray and DLA Piper, and further discussion among the members of the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors then unanimously determined that it was advisable, fair to and in the best of interests of the Company and its stockholders to enter into the Merger Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated thereby and approved, and authorized the execution and delivery of, the Merger Agreement in the form presented to the Board of Directors. After the approval, the meeting adjourned.

DLA Piper informed Cravath that the Company’s Board of Directors had approved the Merger Agreement and related transactions. The parties completed the Merger Agreement and related documents and signature pages thereafter were exchanged and released. The written consent of the Principal Stockholders was delivered thereafter. The parties announced the transaction in a joint press release at approximately 3:00 p.m. on November 14, 2012.

REQUIRED APPROVAL OF THE MERGER; WRITTEN CONSENT

Under Section 251 of the DGCL, the approval of Teavana’s Board of Directors and the affirmative vote of a majority of Teavana’s Common Stock outstanding and entitled to vote are required to approve and adopt the Merger Agreement and the Merger. Teavana’s Board of Directors has previously approved the Merger Agreement and the Merger.

Under Delaware law and Teavana’s Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated Bylaws, the approval of Teavana’s stockholders may be provided by written consent of the stockholders holding a majority of the voting power of the outstanding shares of Common Stock. On November 14, 2012, the Principal Stockholders, which collectively owned on such date, shares of Common Stock representing approximately 74% of the total number of shares of Common Stock outstanding and entitled to vote on the adoption of the Merger Agreement, delivered a written consent to the adoption of the Merger Agreement. Such written consent constituted adoption of the Merger Agreement by the holders of the requisite number of shares of Common Stock of the Company in accordance with Section 251 of the DGCL. This means that the Merger can occur without the vote of any other Teavana stockholders and there will not be a meeting of Teavana stockholders at which you will be asked to vote on the adoption of the Merger Agreement.

Federal securities laws state that the Merger may not be completed until 20 days after the date of mailing of this information statement to Teavana stockholders. Therefore, notwithstanding the execution and delivery of the written consent, the Merger will not occur until that time has elapsed. We expect the Merger to close on or before December 31, 2012, subject to certain government regulatory reviews and approvals; however, there is no assurance that the Merger will close at that time, or at all.

RECORD DATE

On November 14, 2012, the record date for determining stockholders entitled to act by written consent with respect to the adoption of the Merger Agreement, there were 38,777,893 shares of Common Stock outstanding and entitled to vote. Each share of our Common Stock issued and outstanding is entitled to one vote. This is the date used for determining the number of shares of Teavana stock outstanding and therefore necessary to adopt the Merger Agreement.

As of November 14, 2012, the Company received the written consent adopting and approving the Merger Agreement and the Merger executed by the holders of the requisite number of shares of Common Stock in accordance with Section 251 of the DGCL. You may be receiving this information statement because you owned shares of our Common Stock on November 14, 2012. This is the date used for determining the stockholders entitled to receive notice of the action by written consent.

RECOMMENDATION OF OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS

On November 14, 2012, at a special meeting of our Board of Directors, after careful consideration, our Board of Directors unanimously:

•

approved and declared advisable the Merger Agreement, the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement;

•

declared that the Merger Consideration is fair to the Company’s stockholders; and

•

recommended that the Company’s stockholders adopt the Merger Agreement.

REASONS FOR THE MERGER

The Board of Directors, at a meeting held on November 14, 2012, unanimously approved and declared advisable the Merger Agreement, the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and declared that it was in the best interests of the Company’s stockholders that the Company enter into the Merger Agreement and consummate the Merger. The Board of Directors made its determination after consultation with its independent legal and financial advisors and consideration of a number of factors.

In reaching its determination, the Board of Directors consulted with Company management and its independent financial and legal advisors and considered a number of potentially positive factors, including the following:

•

Historical Trading Price. The Board of Directors considered the fact that the $15.50 per share Merger Consideration represented a premium of approximately 53.0% to the stock price of $10.13 on November 13, 2012, the last full trading day before announcement of the Merger. The Merger Consideration represents a premium of approximately 37.9% to the 30-day average closing price of $11.24 for the 30 days ended November 13, 2012, a 26.9% premium to the 60-day average closing price of $12.21 for the 60 days ended November 13, 2012 and a 53.0% premium to the 52-week low of $10.13 per share on November 13, 2012.

•

Teavana’s Business Condition and Prospects. The Board of Directors considered information with respect to Teavana’s financial condition, results of operations, business and earnings prospects in light of various factors, including Teavana’s current and anticipated near-term operating results and the competitive dynamics of Teavana’s product offerings. The Board of Directors considered other strategic alternatives reasonably available to the Company, including the prospect of continuing to operate as an independent company and the possibility of growing its business through acquisitions and internal growth. In that connection, the Board of Directors reviewed financial materials prepared by management and management’s concerns that current and projected challenging economic and market conditions create uncertain conditions for the Company’s future business. The Board of Directors considered this information in the context of Teavana’s risk profile if it were to remain an independent company, taking into account the potential benefits, risks and uncertainties associated with that course of action.

•

Merger Consideration. The Board of Directors considered the fact that the Merger Consideration is payable in cash, which provides liquidity and certainty of value to holders of shares of Common Stock immediately upon the closing of the Merger in comparison to the risks and uncertainty that would be inherent in continuing to operate as an independent company and executing the Company’s business plan. The Board also considered the fact that all holders of shares of Common Stock (other than (i) those shares with respect to which appraisal rights are properly exercised and (ii) shares held by Parent, Merger Sub or the Company, if any) will receive the same form and amount of consideration per share of Common Stock in connection with the Merger and that the Principal Stockholders will not be paid a control premium and (together with certain executives of Teavana) will escrow a portion of their proceeds to cover certain potential costs of Teavana arising in connection with the closing of the Merger.

•

Process. The Board of Directors took into account the process that Teavana and its advisors had conducted prior to the signing of the Merger Agreement, which involved active assessment by the Board of Directors of potential alternative bidders and initiating contact with a selection of 10 strategic buyers and financial sponsors that the Board of Directors and its advisors believed would potentially have an interest in acquiring Teavana. The sale process did not result in any significant interest on the part of any strategic buyer or financial sponsor to acquire the Company at a price competitive with the price obtained from or proposed by Parent. The Board of Directors also considered the negotiating process with Parent and its belief that the Company obtained the highest price per share of Common Stock that Parent was willing to pay as a result of the extensive negotiations between the Company and its legal and financial advisors, on the one hand, and Parent and its legal advisors, on the other hand.

•

Opinion of and Input of Teavana’s Financial Advisors. The Board of Directors considered the financial analysis presented by Piper Jaffray and its oral opinion (which was subsequently confirmed in writing) that, as of November 14, 2012, and based on and subject to the factors and assumptions to be set forth in its written opinion, the $15.50 per share in cash to be received by the holders of shares of Common Stock pursuant to the Merger Agreement is fair, from a financial point of view, to such holders, as more fully described in the subsection entitled “– Opinion of Teavana’s Financial Advisor.” The Board of Directors also considered the input from North Point that in its view the price obtained represented the best price available to the Company at this time.

•

Support of the Principal Stockholders. The Board of Directors considered the support of the Principal Stockholders, which controlled approximately 74% of the aggregate voting power of shares of Common Stock, as evidenced by their willingness to execute and deliver a written consent adopting and approving the Merger Agreement and the Merger.

•

Nature of Principal Stockholders. The Board of Directors considered the fact that the Principal Stockholders could eventually decide to divest their holdings in the Company, and the possibility that

such sale could relate only to their own stake, in lieu of a sale transaction in which all stockholders would be entitled to participate, and the Board of Directors’ belief that such a sale alone by the Principal Stockholders could potentially impact the economic interests of our minority stockholders.

•

Escrowed Funds. The Board of Directors considered the willingness of the Principal Stockholders, as well as certain executives of Teavana, to place $10 million of proceeds from the sale of their shares and cancellation of their options pursuant to the Merger into escrow to cover certain potential costs of Teavana arising in connection with the closing of the Merger. The public stockholders are not subject to the escrow arrangement and accordingly will not have their proceeds reduced thereby.

•

Prompt Closing. The Board of Directors considered the potential for a prompt completion of the Merger, which presented the possibility of favorable tax treatment to stockholders if the transaction is completed before the end of the year. The Board of Directors also considered the risk of losing the opportunity with Parent in the event of any delay.

•

Appraisal Rights. The Board of Directors considered the availability of appraisal rights to the stockholders of the Company who are entitled to such rights and who comply with all of the requirements set forth in Section 262 of the DGCL for exercising such rights, which allow such holders to seek appraisal of the “fair value” of their shares of our Common Stock as determined by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in lieu of receiving the Merger Consideration.

•

Terms of the Merger Agreement. The Board of Directors considered the terms of the Merger Agreement, as reviewed with its legal advisors, including:

•

The fact that Parent’s obligation to complete the Merger is not subject to any financing condition.

•

The fact that the provisions of the Merger Agreement provide the Company with sufficient operating flexibility to conduct its business in the ordinary course of business consistent with past practice between signing the Merger Agreement and the closing of the Merger.

The Board of Directors also determined that the following factors increased the likelihood that the Merger would be completed:

•

the fact that the consent of the Principal Stockholders, who had been involved with the negotiation process, was sufficient to adopt the Merger Agreement without the need for a meeting of stockholders;

•

the Company’s ability, under certain circumstances, to seek specific performance to prevent breaches of the Merger Agreement by Parent and Merger Sub and to enforce specifically the terms of the Merger Agreement, including enforcing Parent’s obligation to consummate the Merger;

•

the fact that while the closing of the Merger is subject to antitrust clearance, the Board of Directors did not expect there to be significant antitrust or other regulatory impediments the closing of the Merger;

•

the experience, reputation and financial capability of Parent; and

•

the limited conditions to the Closing and the fact that the satisfaction of those conditions was, in the view of the Board of Directors, likely attainable by December 31, 2012.

The Board of Directors also considered certain uncertainties, risks and potentially negative factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

•

Potential Inability to Complete the Merger. The Board of Directors considered the fact that, while the Company expected the Merger to be consummated if stockholder approval was obtained and that it would likely be obtained through the consent process, (i) there could be no assurance at that time that such stockholder consent would be delivered and (ii) there can be no assurance that all conditions to the parties’ obligations to complete the Merger will be satisfied or waived, and as a result, it is possible that the Merger may not be completed. In that connection, the Board of Directors considered the fact that the Company’s business, sales, operations and financial results could suffer in the event the Merger is not consummated, and that the Company’s stock price would likely be adversely affected.

•

Limitation on Alternative Proposals. The Board of Directors considered the fact that under the Merger Agreement, the Board would be unable to solicit, initiate, encourage or take any other action to knowingly facilitate a takeover proposal from a third party, subject to certain exceptions that expired upon delivery by the Principal Stockholders to Teavana of a written consent.

•

No Participation in Future Growth. The Board of Directors considered the fact that the $15.50 price per share will represent the maximum price per share receivable by Teavana stockholders pursuant to the Merger Agreement (subject to appraisal rights under Delaware law), and that Teavana will cease to be a public company and its stockholders will no longer participate in any future earnings or growth of Teavana and therefore will not benefit from any appreciation in the Company’s value, including any appreciation in value that could be realized as a result of improvements to operations.

•

Written Consent of Stockholders. The Board evaluated the fact that, as a condition to entering into the Merger Agreement, Parent required that the Merger Agreement include a provision permitting Parent to terminate the Merger Agreement and be reimbursed for Parent’s expenses if the Principal Stockholders failed to execute and deliver the Written Consent of Stockholders by 6 a.m. on the day following the execution of the Merger Agreement.

•

Interim Operating Covenants. The Board of Directors considered the fact that, although the Company will continue to exercise control and supervision over its operations prior to closing, the Merger Agreement prohibits the Company from taking a number of actions relating to the conduct of its business prior to the Closing without Parent’s consent, which may delay or prevent the Company from undertaking business opportunities that may arise during the pendency of the Merger, whether or not the Merger is completed.

•

Pendency of Consummation. The Board of Directors considered the fact that the announcement and pendency of the Merger, or failure to complete the Merger, may cause harm to the Company’s relationships with its employees (including making it more difficult to attract and retain key personnel), vendors and customers and may divert employees’ attention away from the Company’s day-to-day business operations.

•

Stock Price. The Board of Directors considered the fact that while the Merger Consideration of $15.50 per share represented a premium of approximately 53.0% to the closing price of the Company’s Common Stock on November 13, 2012, the last full trading day prior to the execution of the Merger Agreement, the Common Stock had traded at higher prices during the course of the prior year and had received a price of $17.00 per share in its initial public offering on July 28, 2011. The Merger Consideration represents a discount of approximately 40.5% to the 52-week high of $26.03 per share on February 28, 2012.

•

Termination Fee. The Board of Directors took into account the $18.4 million termination fee payable to Parent if the Merger Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances.

•

Expense Reimbursement. The Board of Directors considered the requirement that the Company reimburse Parent for up to $3.5 million of its and its affiliates’ out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the Merger if the Merger Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances, including the failure of the Principal Stockholders to deliver their written consent adopting and approving the Merger Agreement and the Merger.

•

Potential for Litigation. The Board of Directors considered the possible effects of the pendency or consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, including any suit, action or proceeding in respect of the Merger Agreement or the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

•

Taxability. The Board of Directors considered that any gain from an all-cash transaction such as the Merger will be a taxable transaction to Teavana’s stockholders for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

•

Expenses. The Board recognized the fact that the Company has incurred and will incur substantial expenses related to the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, regardless of whether the Merger is consummated.

•

Interests of Teavana’s Directors and Executive Officers. The Board of Directors was aware of and considered the interests that the Company’s directors and executive officers may have with respect to the Merger that differ from, or are in addition to, their interests as stockholders of the Company generally, as described in the section entitled “—Interests of Directors and Executive Officers in the Merger”.

The foregoing discussion of the information and factors considered by the Board of Directors is not intended to be exhaustive but includes the material factors considered by the Board of Directors. In view of the complexity and wide variety of factors considered, the Board of Directors did not find it useful to and did not attempt to quantify, rank or otherwise assign weights to these factors. In addition, the Board of Directors did not undertake to make any specific determination as to whether any particular factor, or any aspect of any particular factor, was favorable or unfavorable to its ultimate determination, but rather the Board of Directors conducted an overall analysis of the factors described above, including discussions with Teavana’s management and its financial and legal advisors. In considering the factors described above, individual members of the Board of Directors may have given different weights to different factors.

After considering these factors, the Board of Directors concluded that the positive factors relating to the Merger Agreement and the Merger outweighed the potential negative factors and declared the advisability of the Merger Agreement and the Merger based upon the totality of the information presented to and considered by it.

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVED AND DECLARED ADVISABLE THE MERGER AGREEMENT AND THE MERGER AND RECOMMENDED THAT OUR STOCKHOLDERS ADOPT THE MERGER AGREEMENT.

OPINION OF TEAVANA’S FINANCIAL ADVISOR

The Company retained Piper Jaffray to render a fairness opinion to the Company’s Board of Directors in connection with the Merger. On November 14, 2012, Piper Jaffray delivered its oral opinion, subsequently confirmed in writing, to the Board of Directors that, based on and subject to the limitations and assumptions stated in the opinion, as of the date of the opinion the Merger Consideration to be received by the holders of the Company Common Stock pursuant to the Merger Agreement is fair, from a financial point of view, to such holders. Piper Jaffray understands that the Principal Stockholders agreed to have a portion of their Merger Consideration placed in escrow for release upon satisfaction of certain conditions and for purposes of rendering its opinion, Piper Jaffray assumed that the Principal Stockholders would receive their Merger Consideration on the same terms as the other holders of Company Common Stock and that no portion of their Merger Consideration would be subject to escrow.

The full text of Piper Jaffray’s written opinion dated November 14, 2012, which contains the assumptions made, procedures followed, matters considered and limitations on the review undertaken in connection with the opinion, is attached as Annex C to this information statement and is incorporated herein by reference. The summary of Piper Jaffray’s opinion in this information statement is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the opinion. You are urged to read the opinion in its entirety and this summary is qualified by reference to the written opinion. Piper Jaffray’s opinion addressed solely the fairness, from a financial point of view, to the holders of the Company Common Stock of the Merger Consideration. Piper Jaffray’s opinion was directed solely to the Company’s Board of Directors in connection with its consideration of the Merger and was

not intended to be, and does not constitute, a recommendation to any Company stockholder as to how such stockholder should vote or how any such stockholder should act with respect to the Merger or any other matter, including, but not limited to, exercise of appraisal rights. Piper Jaffray’s opinion was approved for issuance by the Piper Jaffray Opinion Committee.

In arriving at its opinion, Piper Jaffray, among other things, has:

•

reviewed and analyzed the financial terms of a draft of the Merger Agreement dated November 12, 2012;

•

reviewed and analyzed certain financial and other data with respect to the Company which was publicly available;

•

reviewed and analyzed certain information, including financial forecasts, relating to the business, earnings, cash flow, assets, liabilities and prospects of the Company that were publicly available, as well as those that were furnished to Piper Jaffray and prepared by the Company;

•

conducted discussions with members of senior management and representatives of the Company concerning the two immediately preceding matters described above, as well as the business and prospects of the Company before and after giving effect to the Merger;

•

reviewed the current and historical reported prices and trading activity of the Company’s Common Stock and similar information for certain other companies deemed by Piper Jaffray to be comparable to the Company;

•

compared the financial performance of the Company with that of certain other public companies that Piper Jaffray deemed relevant; and

•

reviewed the financial terms, to the extent publicly available, of certain business combination transactions that Piper Jaffray deemed relevant.

In addition, Piper Jaffray conducted such other inquiries, examinations and analyses, and considered such other financial, economic and market criteria as Piper Jaffray deemed necessary in arriving at its opinion.

The following is a summary of the material financial analyses performed by Piper Jaffray in connection with the preparation of its fairness opinion, which was reviewed with, and formally delivered to, the Company’s Board of Directors at a meeting held on November 13, 2012, and confirmed at a subsequent meeting held on November 14, 2012. The preparation of analyses and a fairness opinion is a complex analytic process involving various determinations as to the most appropriate and relevant methods of financial analysis and the application of those methods to the particular circumstances. Therefore, this summary does not purport to be a complete description of the analyses performed by Piper Jaffray or of its presentation to the Board of Directors on November 13, 2012, subsequently confirmed on November 14, 2012.

This summary includes information presented in tabular format, which tables must be read together with the text of each analysis summary and considered as a whole in order to fully understand the financial analyses presented by Piper Jaffray. The tables alone do not constitute a complete summary of the financial analyses. The order in which these analyses are presented below, and the results of those analyses, should not be taken as an indication of the relative importance or weight given to these analyses by Piper Jaffray or the Company’s Board of Directors. Except as otherwise noted, the following quantitative information, to the extent that it is based on market data, is based on market data as it existed on or before November 9, 2012, and is not necessarily indicative of current market conditions.

For purposes of its analyses, Piper Jaffray calculated (i) the Company’s equity value implied by the Merger to be approximately $613.4 million, based on approximately 39,576,211 fully-diluted shares of Common Stock outstanding as of October 24, 2012, calculated using the treasury stock method and the Merger

Consideration and (ii) the Company’s enterprise value (“EV”) (for the purposes of this analysis, implied EV equates to implied equity value, plus debt, less cash) to be approximately $622.2 million.

Financial Analyses

Piper Jaffray performed the following financial analyses in connection with rendering its opinion to the Company’s Board of Directors:

•

selected public companies analysis;

•

selected mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”) transaction analysis;

•

premiums paid analysis; and

•

discounted cash flows analysis.

Each of these analyses is summarized below.

Selected Public Companies Analysis

Piper Jaffray reviewed selected historical financial data of the Company and estimated financial data of the Company based on projections provided by Company management and compared them to corresponding financial data, where applicable, for U.S. listed public companies in the consumer sector, including specialty retail, limited service restaurants (primarily non-franchised), and beverage companies that Piper Jaffray deemed comparable to the Company. Piper Jaffray selected companies in these industries based on information obtained by searching SEC filings, public company disclosures, press releases, equity research reports, industry and popular press reports, databases and other sources. Piper Jaffray selected these companies based on the following criteria:

•

EV greater than $250 million;

•

long-term EPS growth greater than 15%; and

•

non-financially distressed.

Based on these criteria, Piper Jaffray identified and analyzed the following selected companies:


Specialty Retail		Non-Franchised, Limited Service Restaurants	Beverage Companies
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.	rue21, Inc.	Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.	Green Mountain Beverage Corporation
Chico’s FAS Inc.	Stage Stores Inc.	Panera Bread Co.	Monster Beverage Corporation
Coach, Inc.	Tilly’s, Inc.	Starbucks Corporation
Express Inc.	Tumi Holdings, Inc.
Fossil, Inc. Francesca’s Holding Corp.	Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.
Hot Topic Inc.	Urban Outfitters Inc.
Jos. A Bank Clothiers Inc.	Vera Bradley, Inc.
Lululemon Athletica Inc.	Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.
Michael Kors Holdings Ltd.	Zumiez, Inc.

Piper Jaffray performed its valuation analysis using the Company’s Base Case Forecast and Upside Case Forecast described below under “The Merger – Summary of Teavana’s Projections.” For the selected public companies analysis, Piper Jaffray compared valuation multiples for the Company derived from the Merger Consideration and the Company’s last 12 months (“LTM”) revenue and LTM EBITDA (calculated throughout as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization), as well as the Company’s management projections for 2012-2017 revenue, EBITDA and Net Income, to valuation multiples for the selected public companies derived from their closing prices per share on November 9, 2012, and LTM revenue and LTM EBITDA, as well as consensus projections for calendar year 2012 and 2013 revenue, EBITDA and Net Income.

The selected public companies analysis showed that, based on the estimates and assumptions used in the analysis, the implied valuation multiples of the Company based on the Merger Consideration were within the range of valuation multiples of the selected public companies when comparing the ratio of EV to (i) LTM revenue, (ii) projected revenue for calendar year 2012, (iii) projected revenue for calendar year 2013, (iv) LTM EBITDA, (v) projected EBITDA for calendar year 2012, (vi) projected EBITDA for calendar year 2013, (vii) projected Price/Earnings for calendar year 2012 and (viii) projected Price/Earnings for calendar year 2013.

Selected Public Companies

Company
Base Case(1)

Company
Upside Case(1)

Minimum

Mean

Median

Maximum

EV to LTM Revenue (2)

3.3x

0.4x

2.4x

1.9x

8.0x

EV to Projected 2012 Revenue (3)

2.7x

0.4x

2.2x

1.8x

6.9x

EV to Projected 2013 Revenue (3)

2.2x

2.1x

0.4x

1.8x

1.6x

5.6x

EV to LTM EBITDA (2)

17.4x

3.0x

11.8x

9.8x

29.9

EV to Projected 2012 EBITDA (3)

13.4x

3.4x

10.5x

9.1x

24.2

EV to Projected 2013 EBITDA (3)

10.1x

9.5x

3.3x

8.8x

7.8x

18.1x

Projected 2012 Price/Earnings (3)

28.2x

7.6x

21.9x

19.7x

44.2x

Projected 2013 Price/Earnings (3)

20.3x

19.0x

7.0x

18.1x

16.7x

30.1x

(1)	Based on the Merger Consideration.

(2)	LTM for selected public company analysis is based on latest publicly reported financial results. For the Company, LTM is as of July 29, 2012.

(3)

Projected calendar year 2012 and calendar 2013 revenue, EBITDA, and Net Income for the Company were based on Company management projections. Projected calendar year 2012 and calendar year 2013 revenue, EBITDA, and Net Income for the selected public companies were based on equity research analyst consensus estimates.

Selected M&A Transaction Analysis

Piper Jaffray reviewed merger and acquisition transactions involving target companies in the retail, restaurant and beverage industries that it deemed comparable to the Company. Piper Jaffray selected these transactions based on information obtained by searching SEC filings, public company disclosures, press releases, equity research reports, industry and popular press reports, databases and other sources. Piper Jaffray selected these transactions based on the following criteria:

•

transaction value between $250 million and $4 billion;

•

pending or completed transactions announced since 2009; and

•

transactions in which the acquiring company purchased a controlling interest of the target.

The following transactions had target companies in the retail industry that were deemed comparable to the Company:


Target		Acquiror
99 Cents Only		Ares Management, CPP Investment Board
BJ’s Wholesale Club		Leonard Green & Partners LP, CVC Capital Partners
Charming Shoppes		Ascena Retail Group
Charlotte Russe Holding Inc.		Advent International
Cost Plus World Market		Bed, Bath and Beyond
Gymboree		Bain Capital
J. Crew Group		TPG, Leonard Green & Partners
Jo-Ann Fabrics		Leonard Green & Partners
Party City		Thomas H. Lee Partners
Peet’s Coffee & Tea		BDT Capital Partners

The following transactions had target companies in the restaurant industry that were deemed comparable to the Company:


Target		Acquiror
Benihana Inc.		Angelo, Gordon and Co.
California Pizza Kitchen		Golden Gate Capital
CKE Restaurants		Apollo Management
Dave & Buster’s		Oak Hill Capital
Landry’s Restaurants		Fertitta Group, Inc.
P.F. Chang’s China Bistro		Centerbridge Capital Partners

The following transactions had target companies in the beverage industry that were deemed comparable to the Company:


Target		Acquiror
Cliffstar		Cott Corporation
Van Houtte		Green Mountain Coffee Roasters
Wm. Bolthouse Farms		Campbell Soup Company

Piper Jaffray calculated the ratio of implied EV to: (i) LTM revenue, (ii) LTM EBITDA and (iii) LTM EBIT. Piper Jaffray also calculated the ratio of the implied equity value to the LTM Net Income. Piper Jaffray then compared the results of these calculations with similar calculations for the Company based on the Merger Consideration.

The selected transactions analysis showed that, based on the estimates and assumptions used in the analysis, the implied valuation multiples of the Company based on the Merger Consideration were within or above the range of valuation multiples of the selected transactions when comparing the ratio of (i) the implied EV to LTM revenue, (ii) the implied EV to LTM EBITDA, (iii) the implied EV to LTM EBIT, and (iv) the implied equity value to the LTM Net Income.

The analysis indicated the following multiples:

Selected M&A Transactions

Company(1)

Minimum

Mean

Median

Maximum

Implied EV to LTM Revenue (2)

3.3x

0.2x

1.1x

0.9x

2.5x

Implied EV to LTM EBITDA (2)

17.4x

6.1x

9.2x

8.5x

22.2x

Implied EV to LTM EBIT (2)(3)

21.7x

7.9x

16.6x

14.5x

34.5x

Implied Equity Value to LTM Net Income (2)(4)

36.6x

16.6x

26.9x

20.3x

59.5x

(1)	Based on the Merger Consideration.

(2)	LTM for the selected transactions is based on latest publicly reported financial results. For the Company, LTM was as of July 29, 2012.

(3)	Piper Jaffray omitted EBIT results of two selected transactions in which the target company was undergoing restructuring and impairment charges or experiencing operational distress, resulting in multiples that were negative or not meaningful, and deemed misleading.

(4)	Piper Jaffray omitted Equity Value to LTM Net Income results of five selected transactions in which the target company was undergoing restructuring and impairment charges or experiencing operational distress, resulting in multiples that were negative or not meaningful, and deemed misleading.

Premiums Paid Analysis

Piper Jaffray reviewed publicly available information for selected announced and completed or pending merger transactions to determine the premiums paid in the transactions over recent trading prices of the target

companies prior to announcement of the transaction. Piper Jaffray selected these transactions based on the following criteria:

•

transactions announced after January 1, 2006;

•

targets in broad-based consumer industries, including retail, food and beverage, restaurants, apparel, consumer products and consumer services; and

•

EV between $250 million and $4 billion.

Piper Jaffray performed its analysis on approximately 55 transactions that satisfied these criteria, and the table below shows a comparison of premiums paid in these transactions to the premium that would be paid to the Company’s stockholders based on the Merger Consideration.


	Selected Premiums Paid based on Enterprise Value
	Company(1)			Minimum			Mean			Median			Maximum
Premium 1 day prior		50.5	%		0.7	%		33.5	%		24.9	%		147.3	%
Premium 1 week prior		50.0	%		(7.2	%)		33.8	%		27.1	%		137.0	%
Premium 4 weeks prior		20.3	%		(7.0	%)		35.1	%		28.4	%		157.9	%
Premium 3 months prior		29.2	%		(12.9	%)		38.8	%		30.1	%		171.3	%

(1)	Based on the Merger Consideration.

Discounted Cash Flows Analysis

Using a discounted cash flows analysis, Piper Jaffray calculated an estimated range of theoretical values for the Company using the Company’s Base Case Forecast and Upside Case Forecast described below under “The Merger – Summary of Teavana’s Projections,” based on the net present value of (i) implied free cash flows from July 29, 2012 through fiscal year 2017; and (ii) a terminal value at fiscal year 2017 based upon a multiple of EBITDA consistent with transaction analysis multiples. The free cash flows for each year were calculated from the Company’s projections as operating income less taxes plus depreciation and amortization, less capital expenditures, plus/less change in net working capital. Using the Company’s Base Case Forecast, Piper Jaffray calculated the range of net present values based on terminal value multiples ranging from 7.0x to 9.0x and discount rates ranging from 11.0% to 16.0%, based on a weighted average cost of capital analysis, which was adjusted upward to account for small Company premiums as provided by Ibbotson and inherent business risk relative to the Company, and an assumed tax rate of 40.5% through 2017. This analysis resulted in implied per share values of the Company’s Common Stock ranging from a low of $10.84 per share to a high of $16.18 per share. Using the Company’s Upside Case Forecast, Piper Jaffray calculated the range of net present values based on terminal value multiples ranging from 8.0x to 10.0x and discount rates ranging from 11.0% to 16.0%, based on a weighted average cost of capital analysis, which was adjusted upward to account for small Company premiums as provided by Ibbotson and inherent business risk relative to the Company, and an assumed tax rate of 40.5% through 2017. This analysis resulted in implied per share values of the Company’s Common Stock ranging from a low of $14.98 per share to a high of $22.53 per share. Piper Jaffray observed that the Merger Consideration was within the range of values derived from this analysis.

Miscellaneous

The summary set forth above does not contain a complete description of the analyses performed by Piper Jaffray, but does summarize the material analyses performed by Piper Jaffray in rendering its opinion. The preparation of a fairness opinion is a complex process and is not necessarily susceptible to partial analysis or summary description. Piper Jaffray believes that its analyses and the summary set forth above must be considered as a whole and that selecting portions of its analyses or of the summary, without considering the analyses as a whole or all of the factors included in its analyses, would create an incomplete view of the processes underlying the analyses set forth in the Piper Jaffray opinion. In arriving at its opinion, Piper Jaffray considered the results of all of its analyses and did not attribute any particular weight to any factor or analysis. Instead, Piper Jaffray made

its determination as to fairness on the basis of its experience and financial judgment after considering the results of all of its analyses. The fact that any specific analysis has been referred to in the summary above is not meant to indicate that this analysis was given greater weight than any other analysis. In addition, the ranges of valuations resulting from any particular analysis described above should not be taken to be Piper Jaffray’s view of the actual value of the Company.

No company or transaction used in the above analyses as a comparison is directly comparable to the Company or the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. Accordingly, an analysis of the results of the comparisons is not mathematical; rather, it involves complex considerations and judgments about differences in the companies and transactions to which the Company and the Merger were compared and other factors that could affect the public trading value or transaction value of the companies involved.

Piper Jaffray performed its analyses solely for purposes of providing its opinion to the Company’s Board of Directors. In performing its analyses, Piper Jaffray made numerous assumptions with respect to industry performance, general business and economic conditions and other matters. Certain of the analyses performed by Piper Jaffray are based upon forecasts of future results furnished to Piper Jaffray by the Company’s management, which are not necessarily indicative of actual future results and may be significantly more or less favorable than actual future results. These forecasts are inherently subject to uncertainty because, among other things, they are based upon numerous factors or events beyond the control of the parties or their respective advisors. Piper Jaffray does not assume responsibility if future results are materially different from forecasted results.

Piper Jaffray relied upon and assumed, without assuming liability or responsibility for independent verification, the accuracy and completeness of all information that was publicly available or was furnished, or otherwise made available, to Piper Jaffray or discussed with or reviewed by Piper Jaffray. Piper Jaffray further relied upon the assurances of the Company’s management that the financial information provided to Piper Jaffray was prepared on a reasonable basis in accordance with industry practice, and that the Company’s management was not aware of any information or facts that would make any information provided to Piper Jaffray incomplete or misleading. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, for the purpose of Piper Jaffray’s opinion, Piper Jaffray assumed that with respect to financial forecasts, estimates and other forward-looking information reviewed by Piper Jaffray, that such information was reasonably prepared based on assumptions reflecting the best currently available estimates and judgments of the Company’s management as to the expected future results of operations and financial condition of the Company. Piper Jaffray expressed no opinion as to any such financial forecasts, estimates or forward-looking information or the assumptions on which they were based. Piper Jaffray relied, with the Company’s consent, on advice of the outside counsel and the independent registered public accounting firm to the Company, and on the assumptions of the Company’s management, as to all accounting, legal, regulatory, tax and financial reporting matters with respect to the Company and the Merger Agreement. Piper Jaffray’s opinion does not address any accounting, legal, regulatory, tax and financial reporting matters.

In arriving at its opinion, Piper Jaffray assumed that the executed Merger Agreement was in all material respects identical to the last draft reviewed by Piper Jaffray. Piper Jaffray relied upon and assumed, without independent verification, that (i) the representations and warranties of all parties to the Merger Agreement and all other related documents and instruments that are referred to therein were true and correct, (ii) each party to such agreements would fully and timely perform all of the covenants and agreements required to be performed by such party, (iii) the Merger would be consummated pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement without amendments thereto and (iv) all conditions to the consummation of the Merger would be satisfied without waiver by any party of any conditions or obligations thereunder. Additionally, Piper Jaffray assumed that all the necessary regulatory approvals and consents required for the Merger would be obtained in a manner that would not adversely affect the Company or the contemplated benefits of the Merger. Piper Jaffray understands that the Principal Stockholders agreed to have a portion of their Merger Consideration placed in escrow for release upon satisfaction of certain conditions and for purposes of rendering its opinion, Piper Jaffray assumed that the

Principal Stockholders would receive their Merger Consideration on the same terms as the other holders of Company Common Stock and that no portion of their Merger Consideration would be subject to escrow.

In arriving at its opinion, Piper Jaffray did not perform any appraisals or valuations of any specific assets or liabilities (fixed, contingent or other) of the Company, and was not furnished or provided with any such appraisals or valuations, nor did Piper Jaffray evaluate the solvency of the Company under any state or federal law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency or similar matters. The analyses performed by Piper Jaffray in connection with its opinion were going concern analyses. Piper Jaffray expressed no opinion regarding the liquidation value of the Company or any other entity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Piper Jaffray undertook no independent analysis of any pending or threatened litigation, regulatory action, possible unasserted claims or other contingent liabilities, to which the Company or any of its affiliates was a party or may be subject, and at the direction of the Company and with its consent, Piper Jaffray’s opinion made no assumption concerning, and therefore did not consider, the possible assertion of claims, outcomes or damages arising out of any such matters. Piper Jaffray also assumed that neither the Company nor Parent is party to any material pending transaction, including without limitation any financing, recapitalization, acquisition or merger, divestiture or spin-off, other than the Merger.

Piper Jaffray’s opinion was necessarily based upon the information available to it and facts and circumstances as they existed and were subject to evaluation on the date of its opinion. Events occurring after the date of its opinion could materially affect the assumptions used in preparing its opinion. Piper Jaffray did not express any opinion as to the price at which shares of Company Common Stock may trade following announcement of the Merger or at any future time. Piper Jaffray did not undertake to reaffirm or revise its opinion or otherwise comment upon any events occurring after the date of its opinion and does not have any obligation to update, revise or reaffirm its opinion.

Piper Jaffray’s opinion addressed solely the fairness, from a financial point of view, to the holders of the Company Common Stock of the Merger Consideration, as set forth in the Merger Agreement, and did not address any other terms or agreement relating to the Merger or any other terms of the Merger Agreement. Piper Jaffray was not requested to opine as to, and its opinion does not address, the basic business decision to proceed with or effect and the Merger, the merits of the Merger relative to any alternative transaction or business strategy that may be available to the Company, Parent’s ability to fund the Merger Consideration payable in the Merger pursuant to the Merger Agreement or any other terms contemplated by the Merger Agreement. Furthermore, Piper Jaffray expressed no opinion with respect to the amount or nature of the compensation to any officer, director or employee, or any class of such persons, relative to the compensation to be received by holders of Company Common Stock in the Merger or with respect to the fairness of any such compensation.

Piper Jaffray is a nationally recognized investment banking firm and is regularly engaged as financial advisor in connection with mergers and acquisitions, underwritings, secondary distributions of listed and unlisted securities, private placements, and valuations for corporate and other purposes. The Company’s Board of Directors selected Piper Jaffray to render its fairness opinion in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement on the basis of its experience and reputation in acting as financial advisor in connection with mergers and acquisitions.

Piper Jaffray rendered to the Company’s Board of Directors a fairness opinion in connection with the Merger and will receive a fee of approximately $375,000 plus expenses from the Company, none of which is contingent upon the consummation of the Merger. The opinion fee was not contingent upon the consummation of the Merger or the conclusions reached in Piper Jaffray’s opinion. Piper Jaffray will also receive a fee of approximately $100,000 from the Company for making a limited number of initial contacts with potential acquirers, none of which is contingent upon the consummation of the Merger. The Company has agreed to indemnify Piper Jaffray against certain liabilities and reimburse Piper Jaffray for certain expenses in connection with its services. In the ordinary course of its business, Piper Jaffray and its affiliates may actively trade securities of the Company for its own account or the account of its customers and, accordingly, may at any time

Alamo Shopping Plaza

The death of a woman Saturday on Highway 4 near Port Chicago Highway in a solo-vehicle crash is being investigated as suspicious, CHP says.

Posted Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 10:48 am PT|Updated Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 3:47 pm PT

Find out what's happening in Concord with free, real-time updates from Patch.

Find out what's happening in Concord with free, real-time updates from Patch.

This man was Arrested for Trespassing at Starbucks Walnut Creek

Your Ethics Are Fraudulent

Ethics and Compliance

Managing Conflicts

Standards of Business Conduct

Human Rights Policy

Ethics Helpline

Connecting Destinee Shaharisha-Jenae, Hillary, Antioch, another dead employee connected to Starbucks

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project

Anchor links for post titles

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Labels

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Labels

Recent Posts

Pages

Labels

Blog Archive

Recent Posts