Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 3, 2026

Layne Christensen Co

Layne Christensen Co looks over-valued against its niche peers and is dormant on financing cadence.

DeprioritizeFinancing has gone silent well past the sector's normal cadence — treat as inactive until outside confirmation of a live operation.

Businessfiled

Layne Christensen Co operates in Other, based in THE WOODLANDS.

Sector still resolves to a broad 'Other' bucket, so operating comparables below are weaker than for a tightly-classified peer.

No verified homepage on file yet — operating evidence is limited to the public record.

Capital & rounds (filed)filed

Layne Christensen Co has raised $100M in disclosed capital across 1 recorded round, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series C (a $40M–$100M round).

Largest single filing: $100M on 2015-02-04.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2015-02-04.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Layne Christensen Co at approximately $1.7B (range $386M–$4.5B). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Over-valued. Modeled value is 2.00× the median modeled value of Series C Other companies in 2013–2015 (148 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Last raise 11.4 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Only one round on record and long silent — often defunct, acquired, or gone quiet.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 96% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 98% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Island Timberlands Finance Corp, Autotask Superior Holding, Inc., Creative Artists Agency Holdings LLC, Concord Resources Ltd, UFS Group Holdings, Inc..

Peoplefiled

14 named people on file across officers, directors and signatories.

Risks & flagsmixed

Financing has been silent well beyond sector cadence — possibly defunct, acquired, or paused.

Modeled above niche peers — valuation risk on entry.

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

No clearly named CEO/founder/principal in the surfaced records — key-person evidence is thin.