Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026
Samsonite International S.A.
Samsonite International S.A. looks under-valued against its niche peers and is dormant on financing cadence.
Businessfiled
Samsonite International S.A. operates in Retailing, based in LUXEMBOURG CITY.
No verified homepage on file yet — operating evidence is limited to the public record.
Capital & rounds (filed)filed
Samsonite International S.A. has raised $32M in disclosed capital across 6 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series B (a $15M–$40M round).
Largest single filing: $17M on 2016-07-01.
Most recent recorded round closed around 2018-09-04.
Filings read as a recurring offering program rather than a clean venture-stage ladder — interpret stage labels and step-ups with that in mind.
Valuation (modeled)modeled
Provath models Samsonite International S.A. at approximately $52M (range $21M–$199M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.
Read: Under-valued. Modeled value is 0.51× the median modeled value of Series B Retailing companies in 2016–2018 (25 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Issuer reports $100M+ revenue while modeled below niche peers.
Financing rhythm & timingmixed
Historic cadence: a new round about every 1 months.
Last raise 7.8 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 13 months.
Silent for over 3× the sector's normal cadence.
The last round stepped up 15.0× from the prior — scaling.
Comparablesmixed
Capital scale ranks ahead of 92% of Retailing peers (2347 compared).
Modeled value ranks above 88% of those peers.
Closest niche peers: Fit Factory FII BD, LLC, WithMe, Inc., Happy Valley Ventures, LLC, Mark's Watches, Inc., Wgaca, Llc.
Peoplefiled
24 named people on file across officers, directors and signatories.
Risks & flagsmixed
Financing has been silent well beyond sector cadence — possibly defunct, acquired, or paused.
No clearly named CEO/founder/principal in the surfaced records — key-person evidence is thin.
Recurring-offering pattern: stage-based valuation has lower applicability.