British mall owner rejects Simon financing plan

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Capital Shopping Centres Group Plc, Britain’s biggest shopping-mall owner, rejected a financing plan that would have given potential suitor Simon Property Group Inc. a larger stake in the company.

Capital Shopping can’t unilaterally change a binding agreement to buy the Trafford Centre mall in Manchester, England, from Peel Group, the London-based company said in an e-mailed statement Sunday. Indianapolis-based Simon’s offer is not a “genuine alternative,” it said, and shareholders should vote for the existing plan.

The rejection is yet another blow to Simon’s plans to increase its influence in Capital Shopping. The British company refused to postpone its planned 1.6 billion-pound ($2.5 billion) purchase of Trafford Centre to consider a possible takeover bid by Simon and it later declined to provide the U.S. company with financial information necessary to evaluate a bid.

“The Simon Group takeover moves from unlikely to seemingly impossible,” John Cahill, an analyst at Evolution Securities in London, said in a note to investors. It’s “curious” that Simon first said the price for Trafford Centre was too high and then proposed to finance the deal itself, said Cahill, who has a “sell” rating on Capital Shopping.

Simon said Sunday it would be prepared to subscribe to a sale of 205.5 million Capital Shopping shares at 400 pence each. The proposal, which it said was “more attractive” to Capital Shopping shareholders than the current financing plan, would include a sale of 209 million pounds of convertible bonds by Capital Shopping.

The financing proposal by Simon, which has owned at least 3 percent of Capital Shopping since August 2008, would give the Indianapolis company a holding of between about 18.4 percent and 26.9 percent in Capital Shopping and a seat on its board, Capital Shopping said.

Peel Group would end up with as much as 25 percent of Capital Shopping under the agreement for the sale of Trafford Centre for about 750 million pounds in stock and the assumption of 850 million pounds of debt.

The total purchase price would be the highest ever paid for a British property. Investors are scheduled to vote on whether to approve the transaction on Dec. 20.

Peel has no intention of selling the mall for cash, even if it resulted in a higher price, the company said in a separate statement Monday. Peel wants a stake in Capital Shopping to spread its exposure to the U.K. shopping mall market. The combination of Peel owner John Whittaker’s experience and Capital Shopping “will create an unrivaled portfolio of U.K. regional shopping centre assets,” it said.

Simon, the biggest mall owner in the U.S., has said the U.K. company is “substantially overpaying” for the mall. Its own plan “solves a significant concern that has been expressed about the Trafford Centre acquisition in its current form,” Simon said in a letter to Capital Shopping Sunday.

“Peel has reiterated to the CSC board its consistent view that it wishes to remain invested in U.K. regional shopping centers and does not wish to sell the Trafford Centre for cash as SPG is suggesting,” Capital Shopping said. “The CSC board continues to believe it is in CSC shareholders’ best interests to proceed with the acquisition on the terms agreed with Peel.”

Simon said last month it was considering an unspecified cash bid worth more than Capital Shopping’s net assets and asked for a delay on the Trafford Centre purchase.

Simon may sell its stake in Capital Shopping if the Trafford acquisition is approved, it said Dec. 8 in a statement.

“We are deeply disappointed that CSC has failed to give our proposal due consideration, and in so doing, has ignored the concerns of both Simon and other long-term CSC shareholders,” a Simon representative said in statement late Sunday.

CSC should adjourn its planned shareholder meeting to give it more time to consider Simon’s proposal, the U.S. company said. If an alternative financing plan isn’t possible, they should vote against the mall purchase.


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. The east side does have potential...and I have always thought Washington Scare should become an outlet mall. Anyone remember how popular Eastgate was? Well, Indy has no outlet malls, we have to go to Edinburgh for the deep discounts and I don't understand why. Jim is right. We need a few good eastsiders interested in actually making some noise and trying to change the commerce, culture and stereotypes of the East side. Irvington is very progressive and making great strides, why can't the far east side ride on their coat tails to make some changes?

  2. Boston.com has an article from 2010 where they talk about how Interactions moved to Massachusetts in the year prior. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2010/07/interactions_banks_63_million.html The article includes a link back to that Inside Indiana Business press release I linked to earlier, snarkily noting, "Guess this 2006 plan to create 200-plus new jobs in Indiana didn't exactly work out."

  3. I live on the east side and I have read all your comments. a local paper just did an article on Washington square mall with just as many comments and concerns. I am not sure if they are still around, but there was an east side coalition with good intentions to do good things on the east side. And there is a facebook post that called my eastside indy with many old members of the eastside who voice concerns about the east side of the city. We need to come together and not just complain and moan, but come up with actual concrete solutions, because what Dal said is very very true- the eastside could be a goldmine in the right hands. But if anyone is going damn, and change things, it is us eastside residents

  4. Please go back re-read your economics text book and the fine print on the February 2014 CBO report. A minimum wage increase has never resulted in a net job loss...

  5. The GOP at the Statehouse is more interested in PR to keep their majority, than using it to get anything good actually done. The State continues its downward spiral.