Feds: AMC must sell some Indy theaters to make acquisition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. Justice Department said AMC Entertainment Group Inc., the second-largest U.S. movie theater owner, must sell some cinemas, including two in central Indiana, to proceed with plans to buy most of those operated by Kerasotes Showplace Theatres.

AMC must divest a total of eight properties in the Indianapolis area, Chicago and Denver to proceed with the $275 million acquisition, the department said Friday in an e-mailed statement. This would resolve concerns about competition in those cities, according to the statement.

Kerasotes has four theaters in the Indianapolis area; AMC has two.

Under terms of an sale agreement, AMC must divest AMC Castleton Square 14 or Kerasotes Showplace 12 Glendale Town on the north side of Indianapolis and AMC Greenwood 14.

Buying all except three of Kerasotes’s 96 theaters will increase AMC’s presence in the Midwest, the companies said when announcing the agreement in January. Both Kansas City, Missouri- based AMC and Chicago-based Kerasotes are closely held.

Kerasotes, the No. 6 movie chain, plans to keep theaters in Minneapolis, Chicago and Secaucus, N.J., the companies said.

AMC has more than 305 theaters and 4,574 screens in five countries.



  • Glendale should stay
    This is terrible. I don't see how seeling properties would help competition. These properties won't sell, they'll just sit empty. A terrible blow for either Glendale or Castleton.
  • Kepp the free popcorn refills
    If AMC kills the free (any size) popcorn and drink refills, I might as well go to any other screen in town. That is the big draw for me when it comes to picking a screen to see a movie.
  • Interesting
    Ok, if they divest - who is buying? Moreover, this could be a big blow to Glendale / Kite. We will see...
  • I hope for a better sound system
    If AMC buys the local Kerasotes, I hope they go in and work on their sound systems. I hardly ever go to a Kerasotes theater because the sound is so very loud and uncomfortable to the ears.

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.