IBJNews

General Growth seeks to block lawsuit over Simon bid

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

General Growth Properties Inc., a mall owner reorganizing in bankruptcy, asked a judge to block a shareholder lawsuit accusing its board of improperly rejecting a bid from Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group Inc.

General Growth’s bankruptcy gives it a legal shield against lawsuits such as the one brought in Cook County, Illinois, Feb. 19 by investor James Young, the company said in documents filed in Manhattan bankruptcy court yesterday. Young seeks a jury trial, alleging that seven members of General Growth’s board breached their duty to stockholders by rejecting Simon’s unsolicited $10 billion bid.

General Growth disputes the allegations and says Young and his attorneys are in contempt of the so-called automatic stay that shields bankrupt companies from lawsuits.

“The crux of the lawsuit is the completely false allegation that the defendant board members breached their fiduciary duties when they ‘rejected’ Simon’s overture ‘out of hand,’” lawyers for General Growth wrote.

General Growth, based in Chicago, also said that it hasn’t rejected any transaction. Instead, it said it seeks to keep control over its bankruptcy and allow other potential investors to take a stake in the company.

General Growth has said it has an offer to reorganize with a $2.63 billion infusion from Toronto-based Brookfield Asset Management Inc. That plan, which values shares at as much as $15 each under a transaction that involves issuing new stock and splitting the company in two, has the support of the largest shareholder, William Ackman’s Pershing Square Management LP.

Simon’s bid, which initially offered $9 a share in cash to shareholders, “would permit GGP a speedy exit from its bankruptcy process and would pay a substantial premium to the market price of GGP stock, which was trading as low as $0.36 in the year leading up the offer,” lawyers for Young wrote in the complaint.

Young said the board’s directors are “sitting behind a veritable fortress of entrenchment devices,” including a so-called poison pill, that prevent shareholders from selling their stock to Simon or other potential buyers.

“In short, defendants are holding the company and its public shareholders hostage for the improper purpose of entrenching themselves in power,” violating the law which says they owe a duty of loyalty, good faith and fair dealing to stockholders, lawyers for Young wrote.

Simon has also filed an objection in bankruptcy court to the company’s rejection of its bid. Simon said it was ignored by General Growth management and received no response to its $10 billion offer Feb. 8, leading it to make the offer public Feb. 16. General Growth’s creditors committee has said it supports that proposed deal.

General Growth wants Young and his lawyers held in contempt by the court. In addition, General Growth wants Young and the lawyers to reimburse the company’s attorneys’ fees spent in stopping the suit.

Young is represented in the Illinois suit by Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Johnson Bottini LLP.

His lawyers, Leigh Lasky and Randall Baron, didn’t immediately return calls for comment.

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT