IBJNews

Creditors: General Growth biased toward Brookfield proposal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Chicago-based General Growth Properties Inc. may be prejudiced in favor of a risky bid from Brookfield Asset Management Inc. because of that company’s agreement with William Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management LP, creditors said in court documents.

The bankrupt owner of more than 200 U.S. malls from Boston to Los Angeles, which also had an unsolicited $10 billion offer from Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group Inc., shouldn’t be allowed to control its bankruptcy for six more months, unsecured creditors said in papers filed Tuesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan.

Creditors added reasons to their prior objection, citing a Feb. 24 agreement between Pershing and Brookfield and a “risky” buyout plan. Simon also filed a new objection Tuesday, citing that deal. Under General Growth’s plan, Brookfield would be the so-called stalking horse bidder to compete with other potential buyers.

The agreement puts General Growth, whose board members include Ackman, “into an obvious conflict of interest situation where the debtors must choose between the best interests of the estate and the economic interests of one of their most active and vocal directors,” lawyers for unsecured creditors wrote.

“Ackman, therefore, now has a unique and personal interest in making sure that Brookfield is approved as General Growth’s stalking horse,” lawyers for Simon wrote.

General Growth, in support of its bid to keep control over its bankruptcy, has said it’s pursuing a “dual track” process that will consider both mergers and financial bids. It said in court filings Monday that it will seek competing bids to Brookfield’s and that it aims to confirm a reorganization plan by Oct. 5.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper, at a hearing Wednesday, is scheduled to consider General Growth’s request for an extension of its exclusive right to file a reorganization plan.

Ackman is a founder and principal of Pershing, which owns 25 percent of General Growth’s stock, according to creditors. Under the “interim bid protections” agreement, Pershing will pay 25 percent of its profits above $12.75 a share to Brookfield if other protections for Brookfield aren’t approved by the bankruptcy court and if the company reorganizes with an investor other than Brookfield, creditors said.

The accord also gives Toronto-based Brookfield warrants to buy 60 million General Growth shares at a strike price of $15 each over seven years, after the earlier agreement expires, creditors said.

General Growth said it plans to seek approval April 13 of a formal bid-protection agreement to aid Brookfield as a stalking-horse bidder. Such agreements, designed to compensate a company for time and money spent evaluating a potential acquisition, are standard in bankruptcy auctions.

General Growth said in a Feb. 24 statement that it would offer the warrants and interim protection as compensation for Brookfield’s financial commitment to its offer.

Creditors said the Brookfield proposal is risky for them because it depends on more than $5.8 billion in debt and equity raises and asset sales in addition to Brookfield’s investment. The proposal might convert their debt to stock in a new company that is at “an artificially high valuation” creditors said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Aaron is my fav!

  2. Let's see... $25M construction cost, they get $7.5M back from federal taxpayers, they're exempt from business property tax and use tax so that's about $2.5M PER YEAR they don't have to pay, permitting fees are cut in half for such projects, IPL will give them $4K under an incentive program, and under IPL's VFIT they'll be selling the power to IPL at 20 cents / kwh, nearly triple what a gas plant gets, about $6M / year for the 150-acre combined farms, and all of which is passed on to IPL customers. No jobs will be created either other than an handful of installers for a few weeks. Now here's the fun part...the panels (from CHINA) only cost about $5M on Alibaba, so where's the rest of the $25M going? Are they marking up the price to drive up the federal rebate? Indy Airport Solar Partners II LLC is owned by local firms Johnson-Melloh Solutions and Telemon Corp. They'll gross $6M / year in triple-rate power revenue, get another $12M next year from taxpayers for this new farm, on top of the $12M they got from taxpayers this year for the first farm, and have only laid out about $10-12M in materials plus installation labor for both farms combined, and $500K / year in annual land lease for both farms (est.). Over 15 years, that's over $70M net profit on a $12M investment, all from our wallets. What a boondoggle. It's time to wise up and give Thorium Energy your serious consideration. See http://energyfromthorium.com to learn more.

  3. Markus, I don't think a $2 Billion dollar surplus qualifies as saying we are out of money. Privatization does work. The government should only do what private industry can't or won't. What is proven is that any time the government tries to do something it costs more, comes in late and usually is lower quality.

  4. Some of the licenses that were added during Daniels' administration, such as requiring waiter/waitresses to be licensed to serve alcohol, are simply a way to generate revenue. At $35/server every 3 years, the state is generating millions of dollars on the backs of people who really need/want to work.

  5. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

ADVERTISEMENT