IBJNews

Emmis vote could deal blow to preferred shareholders

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Emmis Communications Corp. is calling a special meeting where investors will vote on whether to strip preferred shareholders of their right to collect millions of dollars in dividends.

The get-tough tactic, if successful, might cause Emmis’ long-slumping common stock to spring higher. Common shares fetch a mere 73 cents each, weighed down by massive liabilities stemming from the company’s issuance of $140 million in preferred stock 13 years ago.

In addition to being asked to weaken the rights of preferred shareholders, investors at the meeting will consider authorizing a reverse stock split that would push the price of the company’s shares above $1. NASDAQ has been threatening to delist the shares because they have closed below that threshold since July 2011.

The Indianapolis company, which owns radio stations and magazines, filed a preliminary prospectus for the meeting late Tuesday. It has not determined when the meeting will occur.

The move is the latest step in Emmis’ quest to free itself from the burdensome requirements of the preferred stock. The shares are supposed to pay 6.25 percent, but the financially strapped company has been exercising its right to suspend payments since October 2008. From then through early December 2011, $26.7 million in unpaid dividends piled up as liabilities on Emmis’ balance sheet.

Emmis has made tremendous inroads in recent months eliminating the albatross. Last fall, it borrowed $35 million from Chicago financier Sam Zell to begin buying up the shares at a huge discount, and it now has voting control over 61 percent of the preferred stock.

The changes to be voted on at the special meeting require two-thirds approval of the preferred shareholders. The company said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing in late January that it may be able to get over that two-thirds hump by selling preferred shares to a friendly investor.

In the preliminary proxy, Emmis’ board—except for Dave Gale, the sole director appointed by holders of the preferred stock—recommend support of the changes, saying they “will have a positive effect on the overall capital structure of Emmis, which will have a beneficial impact on the holders of common stock.”

The proxy said Gale argued “there is no economic reason [for the changes], other than to transfer wealth from the holders of preferred stock to the holders of common stock.” He said “the proposed amendments use corporate resources to subvert the rights of holders of preferred stock and are not in the best interests of Emmis.”

In an interview with IBJ in January, Emmis Chief Operating Officer Patrick Walsh called the preferred stock “a significant part of the structure that would need to be addressed for the common shareholders to ever see significant appreciation in value.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Pump and Dump
    If the stock is delisted it will be even harder to create interest in the stock, thus the Common Holders are damaged. The decision, made thirteen years ago, to sellout the Common Shareholders for a mere $140 Million of Preferred Stock, will not save the company, it will only save the investors, except for the Preferred Holders. If this devaluation of the Preferred Status is approved, watch for the "pump-and-dump" that allows the common shareholders a way out, at the expense of more unsuspecting buyers.
  • Too much
    Is this an example of yet another company over-reaching and running up way too much debt?

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. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

ADVERTISEMENT