IBJNews

Emmis shareholders fight bylaw changes on dividends

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Locally based media company Emmis Communication Corp. began a court fight Tuesday morning, facing opposition from preferred shareholders who say proposed bylaw changes would eliminate their dividends.

Corre Opportunities Fund LP and other investors asked U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker to block a scheduled Aug. 14 special meeting at which Emmis shareholders will be asked to approve bylaw changes that would wipe out more than $34 million in accrued and unpaid preferred stock dividends. The proposal also would eliminate such dividends in the future, as well as the preferred stockholders’ ability to elect directors.

All of this, Corre alleges, is a prelude to Emmis Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Smulyan’s plan to take the ninth-biggest U.S. radio station operator private through means that violate state and federal disclosure laws.

“Our contention all along has just been leave us alone,” said John Barrett, managing partner of New York-based Corre Partners Management LLC, which controls the plaintiff fund.

Defense lawyers said Smulyan isn’t trying to take the company private and contend the CEO intends only to increase its share value.

"The board of directors [of Emmis] had decisions to make that were difficult decisions to make," Emmis attorney Richard Kempf said at the Tuesday hearing in Indianapolis. "This is not a situation in which everybody wins."

The company faced delisting in February while its share price was below $1, according to the proxy statement circulated to its investors ahead of the Aug. 14 meeting.

With a market capitalization of about $87 million, Emmis has more than 41 million shares of stock outstanding, 2.8 million of which are preferred shares with holders who are currently entitled to automatic dividends.

Those dividends, worth 6.25 percent of the preferred shares’ $50 liquidation value, or $3.125 per share, haven’t been paid since October 2008, the investors said in a court filing. Including those unpaid dividends, each preferred share is worth $62.12, according to the proxy.

That lack of dividend payment, the company said in court papers, was the result of a bargain struck with senior debt holders in August 2009 when the company needed to amend loan terms.

“Emmis properly disclosed what was appropriate to disclose in a timely way,” the company said in a May 29 court filing opposing the investors’ request for injunctive relief.

The CEO’s prior attempts to take the business private in 2006 and 2010 “cost him too much personally and financially to leave him with any interest in another attempt,” company lawyers said.

Smulyan owns almost 60 percent of Emmis’s common stock and controls votes for almost 67 percent of the preferred shares, meaning the votes will probably go in his favor, according to the proxy statement.

Some of that preferred shareholder control was accomplished by way of total return swaps, under which the company created “zombie shares” by effectively repurchasing the voting power over those shares via irrevocable proxy for about $15 a piece without officially retiring the shares, in violation of Indiana law, the suing investors claim.

In asking Barker for an order blocking the Aug. 14 vote, Corre and the other investors said Emmis, Smulyan and other board members have acquired “just enough” preferred shares, or control of votes represented by those shares, to vote them against the interests of the class.

"We believe the balance of harms will heavily favor an injunction here," Wayne Turner, an attorney representing the shareholders, said at the Tuesday hearing.

Smulyan told the court he isn’t trying to take the Indianapolis-based company private. Emmis attorneys in court papers contend the CEO intends only to increase its share value. Emmis rose 8 cents Tuesday, to close at $2.23 per share. The CEO testified for about 15 minutes Tuesday.

“Do you intend to go private?” Emmis attorney Steven Shockley asked him.

“No I don’t,” Smulyan replied. “I’m worn out from two years ago. I just don’t want to do it. I can’t foresee a situation in which that would change.”

Testifying for the preferred stockholders, Barrett told the court that Emmis Chief Operating Officer Patrick Walsh warned him last year that Corre risked its investment being rendered worthless if it didn’t participate in the swaps program.

Barrett said he came away from that conversation believing Walsh had effectively said, “I’m going to annihilate you.”

Later, Kempf questioned Walsh about Barrett’s account.

“Did you intend to threaten him?” the attorney asked.

Walsh replied that he did not.

“There’s no coercion. I’m not allowed to coerce,” he said.

Walsh told the court he believed he had had a pleasant conversation with Barrett, and that Barrett had inquired about the possibility of trading preferred stock for common stock and that he had told the Corre executive no.

He said he asked Barrett if he was trying to sell his stock, and that Barrett replied he liked the company and wasn’t selling his shares.

The proceedings ended without a ruling by Barker. She will hear argument from lawyers for both sides Wednesday.



 

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. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT