IBJNews

Emmis to delay shareholder vote until judge rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Emmis Communications Corp. told a U.S. judge it will delay a scheduled Aug. 14 shareholder vote that could wipe out $34 million in unpaid preferred stockholder dividends until after she rules on a bid to block the balloting.

Corre Opportunities Fund LP and other preferred stockholders asked U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker in Indianapolis for an order blocking the vote, arguing that Emmis board members and Chairman Jeffrey Smulyan failed to comply with state and federal disclosure laws.

Barker on Wednesday ended a two-day hearing with a suggestion that both parties think of a way to compensate the stockholders for their losses while allowing the radio station owner and operator to move ahead with a plan to reduce debt and stabilize its financial condition. She said she’d rule by Aug. 31.

“The board will convene Aug. 14 and adjourn,” corporation Secretary J. Scott Enright told Barker, taking action only to set a meeting for after the U.S. Labor Day holiday on Sept. 3.

With a market capitalization of about $85 million, Emmis has more than 41 million shares of stock outstanding, 2.8 million of which are preferred shares whose holders are currently entitled to automatic dividends.

Those dividends, worth 6.25 percent of the preferred shares’ $50 liquidation value, or $3.125, 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 a June 29 proxy statement and meeting notice.

Other proposals on the Aug. 14 ballot included elimination of future preferred dividends unless declared and with that, the abolition of preferred stockholders’ ability to elect two members to the Indianapolis-based company’s board as long as there are arrears.

All of this, Corre alleged in court papers, is a prelude to Smulyan’s plan to take the ninth-biggest U.S. radio station operator private.

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

Barrett testified Tuesday as did Smulyan, who denied any intent to privatize the company following failed attempts to do so in 2006 and 2010.

“I’m worn out from two years ago,” the chairman and CEO said. “I just don’t want to do it. I can’t foresee a situation in which that would change.”

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.

“Let’s say all requirements were satisfied,” Barker said of the dispute over whether the company properly disclosed its intent. She said there is no doubt “that Mr. Barrett and his group were victimized” when they failed to sell their shares to Emmis and Smulyan.

“They were left holding an empty bag,” she said.

While Emmis attorney Richard Kempf today told the judge the company would be harmed by being unable to improve its financial condition, investor lawyer Wayne Turner asked her to prevent the company from taking any action until after a trial on his clients’ claims.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Public vs private
    Sounds like getting involved with Wall Street is like joining the mafia. Neither will let you out once you join.

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. Aaron is my fav!

  2. Let's see... $25M construction cost, they get $7.5M back from federal taxpayers, they're exempt from business property tax and use tax so that's about $2.5M PER YEAR they don't have to pay, permitting fees are cut in half for such projects, IPL will give them $4K under an incentive program, and under IPL's VFIT they'll be selling the power to IPL at 20 cents / kwh, nearly triple what a gas plant gets, about $6M / year for the 150-acre combined farms, and all of which is passed on to IPL customers. No jobs will be created either other than an handful of installers for a few weeks. Now here's the fun part...the panels (from CHINA) only cost about $5M on Alibaba, so where's the rest of the $25M going? Are they marking up the price to drive up the federal rebate? Indy Airport Solar Partners II LLC is owned by local firms Johnson-Melloh Solutions and Telemon Corp. They'll gross $6M / year in triple-rate power revenue, get another $12M next year from taxpayers for this new farm, on top of the $12M they got from taxpayers this year for the first farm, and have only laid out about $10-12M in materials plus installation labor for both farms combined, and $500K / year in annual land lease for both farms (est.). Over 15 years, that's over $70M net profit on a $12M investment, all from our wallets. What a boondoggle. It's time to wise up and give Thorium Energy your serious consideration. See http://energyfromthorium.com to learn more.

  3. Markus, I don't think a $2 Billion dollar surplus qualifies as saying we are out of money. Privatization does work. The government should only do what private industry can't or won't. What is proven is that any time the government tries to do something it costs more, comes in late and usually is lower quality.

  4. Some of the licenses that were added during Daniels' administration, such as requiring waiter/waitresses to be licensed to serve alcohol, are simply a way to generate revenue. At $35/server every 3 years, the state is generating millions of dollars on the backs of people who really need/want to work.

  5. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

ADVERTISEMENT