Simon Property steps up fight for General Growth

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Simon Property Group Inc., the largest U.S. mall owner, stepped up its fight for General Growth Properties Inc. with a new takeover offer as its bankrupt rival endorsed a financing plan by Brookfield Asset Management Inc.

Simon offered about $5.8 billion in stock and cash to buy General Growth and said it would pay down about $7 billion of unsecured debt, a person with knowledge of the new bid said. The proposal is the Indianapolis-based company’s third attempt to buy or gain a piece of the No. 2 mall owner. A $10 billion buyout bid was spurned in February, and General Growth Monday said it will support a revised plan by Brookfield in bankruptcy court over a similar one proposed by Simon last month.

The competing offers come ahead of a court hearing scheduled for Wednesday to determine General Growth’s auction process. Simon won’t make any more proposals should its latest one be turned down or if the court approves Brookfield’s plan, which includes issuing warrants that make a takeover more costly, the person familiar with Simon’s bid said.

“It’s been pretty clear that Brookfield wants to win this thing, and for Simon it’s not an everyday occurrence to get a portfolio the size and scale of General Growth,” Alexander Goldfarb, an analyst with Sandler O’Neill & Partners LP in New York, said in an interview. “It comes down to the judge’s decision.”

General Growth is scheduled to go before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper in Manhattan Wednesday to seek approval of the Brookfield-led plan. The revised proposal by Brookfield and its partners, Fairholme Capital Management LLC and Pershing Square Capital Management LP, has “significantly enhanced terms” over the group’s original investment agreement, General Growth said in court documents filed in Manhattan Monday.

Goldfarb and Benjamin Yang of Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Inc. in San Francisco said it’s likely that Gropper will approve the Brookfield-led plan.

“So far, the judge has given GGP leeway in plotting its exit strategy,” Yang wrote late in a note to investors. “Given how much progress GGP’s management and board have made since filing for bankruptcy a year ago, including stirring up interest in the company from multiple bidders, we believe the judge will be more likely to follow the board’s recommendation.”

The latest Brookfield proposal has as much as $7 billion in equity commitments, $500 million more than the prior one, and includes an optional backstop for $1.5 billion in debt financing if the company asks for it, according to court documents.

Under the new plan, Toronto-based Brookfield and its partners would get 40 percent of 120 million stock warrants they’re seeking once their proposal is approved by the court. They would receive 20 percent more on July 12, and the remainder over the course of their commitment to General Growth.

Staggering the warrants would lower the extra price another bidder, such as Simon, would have to pay should it make an offer for the company. Simon’s competing investment plan, submitted last month, eliminates the warrants.

General Growth’s board favors the Brookfield deal because it will foster more competitive bidding, including the potential sale of the company before or after its exit from bankruptcy, the Chicago-based company’s lawyers wrote.

“General Growth has concluded that accepting a minority investment from Simon Property Group, even one without the warrants, would likely deter other parties from putting together a competing proposal and overall create a one-horse race,” lawyers for General Growth wrote in the filing. The company is reviewing the newest Simon takeover, received Sunday, according to the filing.

In an interview last week, Simon CEO David Simon said warrants would make General Growth “too expensive” to purchase.

Under Simon’s new offer, the company would pay $13.25 a share for the new General Growth Properties, $10 in Simon stock and $3.25 in cash, and would back-stop the $5-a-share offering for a company to be spun off, General Growth Opportunities, said the person familiar with the plan.

Simon also would pay down about $7 billion in unsecured General Growth debt and assume more than $20 billion of mortgages, the person said.

Les Morris, a spokesman for Simon, said he had no comment.

General Growth won’t be able to go to court “without having some response to Simon’s topping offer,” said David Fick, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus & Co. in Baltimore. General Growth probably will seek a delay of the court hearing to negotiate with Simon, he said.

Fick expects Simon to ultimately succeed in purchasing its rival.

“It doesn’t make sense as a standalone,” he said of General Growth.

General Growth filed the largest real estate bankruptcy in U.S. history in April 2009 after amassing $27 billion in debt making acquisitions. Its properties include New York’s South Street Seaport, Boston’s Faneuil Hall and the Grand Canal Shoppes and Fashion Show in Las Vegas.


Post a comment to this story

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

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.