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

SWEET LEAF TEA Co

SWEET LEAF TEA Co looks under-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

SWEET LEAF TEA Co operates in Other, based in AUSTIN.

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

SWEET LEAF TEA Co has raised $55M in disclosed capital across 5 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series B (a $15M–$40M round).

Largest single filing: $19M on 2010-04-02.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2010-12-30.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models SWEET LEAF TEA Co at approximately $57M (range $8.6M–$219M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Under-valued. Modeled value is 0.16× the median modeled value of Series B Other companies in 2010–2012 (251 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 5 months.

Last raise 15.5 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

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

The last round was 1.0× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 94% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 74% 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

15 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.