IBJNews

Emmis shareholders fight bylaw changes on dividends

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. to mention the rest of Molly's experience- she served as Communications Director for the Indianapolis Department of Public Works and also did communications for the state. She's incredibly qualified for this role and has a real love for Indianapolis and Indiana. Best of luck to her!

  2. Shall we not demand the same scrutiny for law schools, med schools, heaven forbid, business schools, etc.? How many law school grads are servers? How many business start ups fail and how many business grads get low paying jobs because there are so few high paying positions available? Why does our legislature continue to demean public schools and give taxpayer dollars to charters and private schools, ($171 million last year), rather than investing in our community schools? We are on a course of disaster regarding our public school attitudes unless we change our thinking in a short time.

  3. I agree with the other reader's comment about the chunky tomato soup. I found myself wanting a breadstick to dip into it. It tasted more like a marinara sauce; I couldn't eat it as a soup. In general, I liked the place... but doubt that I'll frequent it once the novelty wears off.

  4. The Indiana toll road used to have some of the cleanest bathrooms you could find on the road. After the lease they went downhill quickly. While not the grossest you'll see, they hover a bit below average. Am not sure if this is indicative of the entire deal or merely a portion of it. But the goals of anyone taking over the lease will always be at odds. The fewer repairs they make, the more money they earn since they have a virtual monopoly on travel from Cleveland to Chicago. So they only comply to satisfy the rules. It's hard to hand public works over to private enterprise. The incentives are misaligned. In true competition, you'd have multiple roads, each build by different companies motivated to make theirs more attractive. Working to attract customers is very different than working to maximize profit on people who have no choice but to choose your road. Of course, we all know two roads would be even more ridiculous.

  5. The State is in a perfect position. The consortium overpaid for leasing the toll road. Good for the State. The money they paid is being used across the State to upgrade roads and bridges and employ people at at time most of the country is scrambling to fund basic repairs. Good for the State. Indiana taxpayers are no longer subsidizing the toll roads to the tune of millions a year as we had for the last 20 years because the legislature did not have the guts to raise tolls. Good for the State. If the consortium fails, they either find another operator, acceptable to the State, to buy them out or the road gets turned back over to the State and we keep the Billions. Good for the State. Pat Bauer is no longer the Majority or Minority Leader of the House. Good for the State. Anyway you look at this, the State received billions of dollars for an assett the taxpayers were subsidizing, the State does not have to pay to maintain the road for 70 years. I am having trouble seeing the downside.

ADVERTISEMENT