IBJNews

Emmis employees to get bonuses after court case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Emmis Communications Corp. said it will make good on a previously announced employee-retention plan that will shower 598 employees with $3.24 million in company stock.

The benefit is capped at those making $50,000 a year, so those in the executive suite don’t qualify. About 75 percent of the company’s full-time employees do qualify, however.

Emplyees will receive shares based on their income. For example, an Emmis employee earning $40,000 a year would get 1,480 shares, which are worth about $5,002 based on Tuesday morning's share price of $3.38.

The incentive plan was in some doubt after preferred shareholders sued the Indianapolis-based radio and city magazine publisher in 2012, alleging they were owed $34 million in unpaid dividends.

Last month U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker denied a motion for partial summary judgment in a lawsuit brought two years ago by Corre Opportunities Fund and other preferred shareholders.

They’ve been fighting a move by Emmis  that eliminated obligations to pay preferred stock dividends that had accumulated since 2008 as part of a plan to stabilize the company’s financial condition and pare debt.

“It is no secret that the plan helped Emmis to address issues with the preferred stock,” states a note to employees from Emmis CEO Jeff Smulyan and Chief Financial Officer Patrick Walsh. “However, our board also created the plan to recognize your contributions and sacrifices since the recession, and to reward those of you who continued to stay with the company as the economy got better.”

Emmis shares are up more than 90 percent over the last year.

Among Emmis’ holdings are Indianapolis stations WIBC-FM 93.1, WLHK-FM 93.1 “Hank FM’’ and WYXB-FM 105.7.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT