April 25, 2024

DealBook Column: Relationship Science Plans Database of Names and Connections

It sounds like a Rolodex for the 1 percent: two million deal makers, power brokers and business executives — not only their names, but in many cases the names of their spouses and children and associates, their political donations, their charity work and more — all at a banker’s fingertips.

Such is the promise of a new company called Relationship Science.

Never heard of it? Until recently, neither had I. But a few months ago, whispers began that this young company was assembling a vast trove of information about big names in corporate America. What really piqued my interest was that bankrolling this start-up were some Wall Street heavyweights, including Henry R. Kravis, Ronald O. Perelman, Kenneth G. Langone, Joseph R. Perella, Stanley F. Druckenmiller and Andrew Tisch.

DealBook Column
View all posts

It turns out that over the last two years, with a staff of more than 800 people, mostly in India, Relationship Science has been quietly building what it hopes will be the ultimate business Who’s Who. If it succeeds, it could radically change the way Wall Street does business.

That’s a big if, of course. There are plenty of other databases out there. And there’s always Google. Normally I wouldn’t write about a technology company, but I kept hearing chatter about it from people on Wall Street.

Then I got a glimpse of this new system. Forget six degrees of Kevin Bacon. This is six degrees of Henry Kravis.

Here’s how it works: Let’s say a banker wants to get in touch with Mr. Kravis, the private equity deal maker, but doesn’t know him personally. The banker can type Mr. Kravis’s name into a Relationship Science search bar, and the system will scan personal contacts for people the banker knows who also know Mr. Kravis, or perhaps secondary or tertiary connections.

The system shows how the searcher is connected — perhaps a friend, or a friend of a friend, is on a charitable board — and also grades the quality of those connections by identifying them as “strong,” “average” or “weak.” You will be surprised at the many ways the database finds connections.

The major innovation is that, unlike Facebook or LinkedIn, it doesn’t matter if people have signed up for the service. Many business leaders aren’t on Facebook or LinkedIn, but Relationship Science doesn’t rely on user-generated content. It just scrapes the Web.

Relationship Science is the brainchild of Neal Goldman, a co-founder of CapitalIQ, a financial database service that is used by many Wall Street firms. Mr. Goldman sold CapitalIQ, which has 4,200 clients worldwide, to McGraw-Hill in 2004 for more than $200 million. That may explain why he was able to easily round up about $60 million in funds for Relationship Science from many boldface names in finance. He raised the first $6 million in three days.

“I knew there had to be a better way,” Mr. Goldman said about the way people search out others. Most people use Google to learn about people and ask friends and colleagues if they or someone they know can provide an introduction.

Relationship Science essentially does this automatically. It will even show you every connection you have to a specific company or organization.

“We live in a service economy,” Mr. Goldman said. “Building relationships is the most important part for selling and growing.”

Kenneth Langone, a financier and co-founder in Home Depot, said that when he saw a demonstration of the system he nearly fell off his chair. He used an unprintable four-letter word.

“My life is all about networking,” said Mr. Langone, who was so enthusiastic he became an investor and recently joined the board of Relationship Science. “How many times do I say, ‘How do I get to this guy?’ It is scary how much it helps.”

Mr. Goldman’s version of networking isn’t for everyone. His company charges $3,000 a year for a person to have access to the site. (That might sound expensive, but by Wall Street standards, it’s not.)

Price aside, the possibility that this system could lead to a deal or to a new wealth management client means it just might pay for itself.

“If you get one extra deal, the price is irrelevant,” Mr. Goldman said.

Apparently, his sales pitch is working. Already, some big financial firms have signed up for the service, which is still in a test phase. Investment bankers, wealth managers, private equity and venture capital investors have been trying to arrange meetings to see it, egged on, no doubt, by many of Mr. Goldman’s well-heeled investors. Even some development offices of charities have taken an interest.

The system I had a peek at was still a bit buggy. In some cases, it was missing information; in other cases the information was outdated. In still other instances, the program missed connections. For example, it didn’t seem to notice that Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, should obviously know a certain senior partner at Goldman.

But the promise is there, if the initial kinks are worked out. I discovered I had paths I never knew existed to certain people or companies. (Mr. Goldman should market his product to reporters, too.)

One of the most vexing and perhaps unusual choices Mr. Goldman seems to have made with Relationship Science is to omit what would be truly valuable information: phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

Mr. Goldman explained the decision. “This isn’t about spamming people.” He said supplying phone numbers wouldn’t offer any value because people don’t like being cold-called, which he said was the antithesis of the purpose of his database.

Ultimately, he said, as valuable as the technology can be in discovering the path to a relationship, an artful introduction is what really counts.

“We bring the science,” he said. “You bring the art.”

A version of this article appeared in print on 02/12/2013, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: A Database Of Names, And How They Connect.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/a-database-of-names-and-how-they-connect/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Another Bitter Divorce for Ronald Perelman

Ronald O. Perelman, the chairman of MacAndrews  Forbes, was once one of the country’s most successful corporate raiders.Yana Paskova for The New York TimesRonald O. Perelman, the chairman of MacAndrews Forbes, was once one of the country’s most successful corporate raiders.Donald Drapkin was a deal maker for Ronald Perelman.Gabrielle Piedmonte/PatrickMcMullanDonald Drapkin was a deal maker for Ronald Perelman.

Ronald O. Perelman’s marital breakups — divorces from the actress Ellen Barkin and Patricia Duff among them — have been rich fodder for the gossip pages. Now a split with a longtime business associate promises to be almost as acrimonious.

The former associate, Donald G. Drapkin, and Mr. Perelman are headed to a federal courtroom in Manhattan next week in a dispute over roughly $20 million. The court battle provides a rare window on the pay, perks and behind-the-scenes politics in the world of deal-making.

For years, Mr. Perelman, who is 69, and Mr. Drapkin, 63, worked together at MacAndrews Forbes, Mr. Perelman’s holding company. Mr. Drapkin was one of Mr. Perelman’s top deal makers, helping structure some of his biggest acquisitions like Marvel comics, Revlon and AlliedBarton Security Services. Over time they became close friends.

They even had private nicknames for each other. Mr. Drapkin said in a deposition that he felt he was one of Mr. Perelman’s only “real” friends and that he “loved” his former boss.

Along the way Mr. Drapkin was paid well over $200 million during his 20 years at the firm, according to information in court documents and people with knowledge of his compensation. And when he left MacAndrews Forbes he received an additional $27.5 million as well as a package of perks that included the continued use of a driver and a Bloomberg terminal.

Mr. Drapkin contends that he is still owed about $20 million from that separation.

While $20 million is certainly worth fighting over, it is a relatively small sum for the likes of Mr. Perelman, whose net worth is estimated to be more than $12 billion. Mr. Drapkin’s net worth is not known, but based on his compensation during his years working for Mr. Perelman he too is well off. He left MacAndrews Forbes to join Lazard and now runs the hedge fund Casablanca Capital.

Still, as is often the case in these situations, the fight is not just about the money.

Mr. Perelman says his former friend breached his separation agreement by disparaging him. He also claims that Mr. Drapkin abused the health care coverage he was offered in the separation agreement, encouraged a top staff member to leave MacAndrews Forbes and left the company with documents he had promised to turn over.

Patricia Duff was the third wife of Ronald Perelman. They are shown here in 1996. They were married for a year and a half.Kathy Kantor/Berliner Studio, via Associated PressPatricia Duff was the third wife of Ronald Perelman. They are shown here in 1996. They were married for a year and a half.

Mr. Drapkin, who filed the initial suit in early 2009, denies all these claims, saying in court papers that his case is “a blatant case of breach of contract” made more egregious by the close friendship the two men once shared.

People with knowledge of Mr. Drapkin’s thinking say the executive feels that he has done nothing wrong and is upset Mr. Perelman will not honor the deal.

As for Mr. Perelman, people who know his thinking say he feels Mr. Drapkin has taken advantage of him and violated the separation agreement, leaving him no choice but to fight Mr. Drapkin.

The lawsuit has caused a flurry of legal activity and at least one prominent effort to broker a peace. In early 2009, the Wall Street deal maker Bruce Wasserstein sent Vernon E. Jordan Jr., a confidant of former President Bill Clinton, to talk to Mr. Perelman about a settlement. Mr. Perelman told Mr. Jordan that Mr. Drapkin had been “a naughty boy,” according to testimony by Mr. Drapkin. “At that point I decided that this wasn’t going anywhere,” Mr. Drapkin said, and he filed his lawsuit.

Last September, Judge Paul G. Gardephe weighed in, saying that while some of Mr. Perelman’s claims were without merit, a jury should decide whether Mr. Drapkin had failed to return certain documents related to his work with Mr. Perelman and whether he had tried to persuade a crucial employee to leave. Jury selection for the case is scheduled for Monday in United States District Court in Manhattan.

Formerly a partner with the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom, Mr. Drapkin joined MacAndrews Forbes in 1987 as a vice chairman. He quickly became a central deal maker for Mr. Perelman and worked on many of his biggest transactions during the days when Mr. Perelman gained a reputation for being one of the country’s most successful corporate raiders.

In recent years, however, Mr. Perelman became ”dissatisfied” with Mr. Drapkin’s performance, according to a deposition.

In April 2007, Mr. Drapkin left MacAndrews Forbes and soon landed at Lazard, the investment bank.

The actress Ellen Barkin married Mr. Perelman in 2000 and was his fourth wife. They were divorced in 2006.Paul Hawthorne/Getty ImagesThe actress Ellen Barkin married Mr. Perelman in 2000 and was his fourth wife. They were divorced in 2006.

Mr. Perelman gave him a glowing send-off. ”Don was a dynamic force in the development and leadership of our firm,” the billionaire said in a news release. “He is not only a close friend, but a wise counsel to me and our team, and he is joining an exceptional leadership team at Lazard. He has done a terrific job for us and we will miss him.”

MacAndrews Forbes, according to the separation agreement filed with the court, agreed to pay Mr. Drapkin $27.5 million for five years and his medical bills “not otherwise reimbursed” through other medical plans until his 65th birthday.

Mr. Drapkin also had a number of obligations under the agreement. He agreed to turn over various company-related documents, not to disparage his former employer or its management, and not to poach any of its current employees.

Once at Lazard Mr. Drapkin chose not to join the firm’s health care plan, something that ruffled feathers at MacAndrews Forbes. He found his benefits at MacAndrews Forbes had been cut off when an attempt was made to fill a prescription for his wife. In 2008, Mr. Drapkin billed more than $100,000 in medical expenses because of a serious illness in his family, according to court documents.

And just a few weeks after he left MacAndrews Forbes, he met a friend who still worked for the firm for dinner, a meal that is now under a legal microscope. A senior MacAndrews Forbes executive, Eric Rose, testified that Mr. Drapkin had made “denigrating” remarks about Mr. Perelman at the dinner at Quality Meats in Midtown Manhattan and encouraged him to leave McAndrews Forbes.

“I recall comments on Don’s part denigrating Ronald as a person,” he said in a deposition. “Denigrating MacAndrews as a workplace and his advising me that he thought that my staying long term at MacAndrews was not a good idea.”

Still, MacAndrews Forbes initially honored the agreement, making two $2.25 million payments in 2008.

It did not, however, make the first payment in 2009, prompting Mr. Drapkin to file suit.

Once this legal salvo had been fired, Mr. Perelman claimed that Mr. Drapkin had not turned over crucial company documents as required. Judge Gardephe, in his ruling last September, said the two sides had agreed that after the litigation commenced, 849 e-mails and 79 other company documents were found on the laptop computer of Mr. Drapkin’s assistant. Mr. Drapkin testified that his assistant had deleted a lot of documents and he was unaware any work product left.

In testimony, Mr. Perelman has tried to distance himself from Mr. Drapkin, even saying that the quote from him in the 2007 news release was “a very generous interpretation” of the truth.

He contends that Mr. Drapkin asked McAndrews Forbes to include a “puff quote” and “that’s what it is.”

Toby Lyles contributed reporting.

Donald G. Drapkin v. Mafco Consolidated

MacAndrews Forbes v. Donald G. Drapkin

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=45b395dd0b176f733af40468649cd44e