IBJNews

Emmis chief looks to take company private

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Emmis Communications Corp. CEO Jeff Smulyan has entered into an agreement to take the Indianapolis-based media company private.

JS Acquisition Inc., the company Smulyan has established to complete the acquisition, would purchase all shares of publicly traded Emmis for $2.40 each, or about $90 million, according to a Monday morning announcement.

Emmis spokeswoman Kate Snedeker said Monday that Securities and Exchange Commission rules prohibit company executives, including Smulyan, from discussing the plan.

This is not the first time Smulyan—the company's controlling shareholder—has tried to take Emmis private. But his failure to do so before means he’s in line to get a much better deal this time around.

Smulyan made an offer in May 2006 to acquire all of the shares of Emmis for $15.25 per share in a deal that valued the company’s stock at $567 million. He called off the deal a few months later after he couldn’t reach terms with the board. The company later declared a special $4-per-share dividend.

Smulyan's offer is about 84-percent discount to the previous offer, which corresponds directly to the drop in Emmis’ share price as the radio industry faltered.

Emmis shareholder Frank Martin, president of Martin Capital Management in Elkhart, has lobbied for Emmis to go private in the past but is skeptical of the timing of the latest deal.

“It’s too bad they’re buying everybody out at two bucks a share when, at one time, Smulyan was riding high at 70 bucks a share," Martin said.

Emmis shares rebounded from a 52-week low of 25 cents a piece in July to close Friday at $2.30 each.

The company last fall faced delisting from the NASDAQ composite index but managed to close above $1 per share for 10 consecutive days in October, saving the firm's listing on the exchange.

Earlier this month, Emmis disclosed that it had failed to pay a preferred stock dividend for six consecutive quarters, putting its preferred stockholders in line to elect two new directors to the company’s board.

Emmis General Counsel and Secretary J. Scott Enright said the company owes its preferred stockholders about $14 million in missed dividends. A missed payment April 15 triggered the board expansion.

Emmis' board currently has eight seats. As a result of its missed dividends, holders of the company's 3 million or so preferred shares had until the end of the day Monday to nominate candidates to fill two new board positions. Preferred shareholders would vote exclusively on the two seats at Emmis' annual meeting July 14, with one vote per share owned.

But according to Monday’s announcement, the deal would eliminate the right of shareholders to nominate directors to Emmis’ board.

Founded in 1981, Emmis owns 23 radio stations in the United States and publishes regional magazines in seven cities. It also operates radio stations in Belgium, Slovakia and Bulgaria, and owns interest in a Hungarian station.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Finance isn't necessarily finesse

    I don't see the money from to the IPO until today, 16 years later.

    It's control. Keep things low (share and dividends) and leave yourself open to a takeover, hostile or otherwise.

    Would you rather be in control or have the money? Most would think money, but when you have a certain amount of money, control is everything.
  • Now, That's "Finance"
    Not a bad scam. You IPO it in 1994 at $6.50, and you buy it back in 2010 dollars for $2.40. You walk away with over $15.4M in investor cash for the effort.

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. 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...

  2. It's good to hear that the festival is continuing to move forward beyond some of the narrow views that seemed to characterize the festival and that I and others had to deal with during our time there.

  3. Corner Bakery announced in March that it had signed agreements to open its first restaurants in Indianapolis by the end of the year. I have not heard anything since but will do some checking.

  4. "The project still is awaiting approval of a waiver filed with the Federal Aviation Administration that would authorize the use of the land for revenue-producing and non-aeronautical purposes." I wonder if the airport will still try to keep from paying taxes on these land tracts, even though they are designated as "non aeronatical?"

  5. How is this frivolous? All they are asking for is medical screenings to test the effects of their exposure. Sounds like the most reasonable lawsuit I've read about in a while. "may not have commited it" which is probably why they're suing to find out the truth. Otherwise they could just ask Walmart, were you negligent? No? OK, thanks for being honest.

ADVERTISEMENT