Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026

Rubicon Ltd

Rubicon Ltd looks fair 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

Rubicon Ltd operates in Other, based in Auckland.

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

Rubicon Ltd has raised $30M in disclosed capital across 2 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series B (a $15M–$40M round).

Largest single filing: $16M on 2012-07-06.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2012-07-06.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Rubicon Ltd at approximately $261M (range $39M–$1.0B). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Fair. Modeled value is 0.72× the median modeled value of Series B Other companies in 2010–2012 (251 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Within the normal band (72% of peer median) for its niche.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 27 months.

Last raise 14.0 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Silent for over 3× the sector's normal cadence.

The last round stepped up 1.1× from the prior — scaling.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 90% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 90% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: ATS Consolidated, Inc., Amber Holding Inc., Varsity AP Holdings LLC, Nordic Cold Storage Holdings, LLC, Nevsun Resources Ltd.

Peoplefiled

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

Risks & flagsmixed

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

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

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