IBJNews

Emmis restructuring plan to be heard by federal judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Emmis Communications Corp.’s proposal to strip preferred shareholders of their right to collect millions of dollars in dividends is set to be heard Friday in federal court in Indianapolis.

The shareholders are attempting to block the plan and have asked a judge to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent Emmis from holding a special meeting where investors would vote on the plan to weaken preferred shareholders’ rights.

Emmis hopes to rekindle interest in its common shares, in part by freeing itself of the obligation to pay four years of dividends to the holders of preferred stock.

The media company says it amassed voting control over about two-thirds of the preferred stock as a result of a buyback program it launched last fall with $35 million in funding from Chicago financier Sam Zell. The company purchased those shares at a huge discount from holders worried over the company’s perilous finances.

Emmis had planned to hold the special meeting to vote on the plan. But a group of the shareholders filed suit in April to try to prevent the move. A federal judge is set to hear arguments from both sides on Friday and ultimately will decide whether Emmis can proceed with its proposal. The hearing is expected to last one day.

Preferred shareholders Kevan Fight, Corre Opportunities Fund, Zazove Associates, DJD Group and First Derivative Traders allege that Emmis CEO Jeff Smulyan and the company’s board of directors ignored Securities and Exchange Commission rules, failed to file proper documentation, engaged in back-room deals and are illegally attempting to squelch their rights.

In an e-mailed statement to IBJ, Emmis said it “remains confident that all its actions were consistent with applicable state and federal laws.”

Emmis on Wednesday submitted to the federal court a list of witnesses that are expected to testify at the trial. They include Smulyan, Emmis Chief Operating Officer Patrick Walsh, and company board members Susan Bayh, Lawrence Sorrell and David Gale.

Shares of Emmis are fetching $1.43 each and rose above $1 in late April after the company announced two deals that will give it a $92 million cash infusion. The stock climbed as high as $1.63 on May 2 and has slid as low as $1.27 within the past month.

Emmis owns 17 FM and two AM radio stations nationwide, and seven city and specialty magazines. Locally, it operates WFNI-AM 1070, WIBC-FM 93.1, WLHK-FM 97.1 and WYXB-FM 105.7, as well as Indianapolis Monthly magazine.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • rule change
    Unless there's something in it for them, shareholders of the preferred stock have reason to fighht this. This sounds like Emmis is changing the rules in the middle of the game.

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