Biglari shareholder loses bid to stop $75M stock offering

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A shareholder of Steak n Shake parent Biglari Holdings Inc. has lost his bid to stop a stock offering that he argues will give CEO Sardar Biglari too much control in the publicly traded company.

Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana rejected shareholder Chad R. Taylor’s request for a preliminary injunction, allowing Biglari Holdings to follow through with its offering to raise $75 million for the company.

Taylor complained in his motion that the offering enables Biglari to unfairly increase his ownership in the company by pricing shares too high. The offering, which began Aug. 27 and closed Sept. 16, entitled shareholders to purchase shares at $265 each for every five “rights” they have, according to the filing.

Further, shares assigned to stockholders who choose not to participate in the offering could only be bought by Biglari, a move meant to further increase his stake in the company, Taylor said in his August motion.

Biglari owns about 19 percent of the company, according to publicly available data.

“The more control S. Biglari assumes over the company the more brazen he is in placing his own personal gain ahead of that of shareholders,” Taylor wrote in his motion for a preliminary injunction.

Evans rejected his motion in a Sept. 12 order, saying Taylor’s argument suffers from two “serious defects.”

His claim that Biglari wants to crowd out smaller shareholders to increase his stock ownership is nothing more than a prediction, she said. And Taylor’s argument contradicts the larger thrust of his complaint—that Biglari already dominates the company.

“If Biglari is already so firmly entrenched that the board moves at his whim, it is difficult to understand—as defendants point out—how the rights offering creates any new or distinct irreparable harm,” Barker wrote.

All five board members have professional ties to Biglari that extend outside their service on the board, including one who was a former professor of his, according to Taylor’s complaint.

Taylor’s motion for a preliminary injunction is part of a federal lawsuit he filed against Biglari and board directors in June in which he accuses them of gross mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as other charges.

The suit says they breached their fiduciary duty by allowing Biglari to engage in “self-serving transactions” by approving “inflated” compensation packages.

One of the transactions involves a licensing agreement that grants Biglari Holdings an exclusive license to use the name and mark “Biglari.” The license is royalty-free unless Biglari is terminated without cause or resigns involuntary. Then, Biglari is entitled to receive royalties from Biglari Holdings equal to 2.5 percent of the company’s annual revenue for a period no less than five years, according to the suit.

Also, Biglari’s total compensation package rose from $4.9 million in 2011 to $10.9 million last year, the complaint said.

Biglari became CEO of Indianapolis-based Steak n Shake in 2008, barely a year after he began buying shares of the burger chain.

Steak n Shake is operated by San Antonio-based Biglari Holdings. Its shares were down $2.13 Friday morning, to $425.12 each.


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.