Financier in botched deal sues Emmis over loan to Smulyan

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The financier that once backed Emmis Communications Corp. CEO Jeff Smulyan’s attempt to take Emmis private is making good on its promise to sue the company and its board of directors for using company money to fund Smulyan’s lawsuit against the financier.

In uncommonly sharp language, attorneys for New York-based Alden Global Capital accused the Emmis board of “a blatantly self-dealing transaction” that allows Smulyan to “pursue a personal litigation vendetta” against Alden. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of all shareholders, accuses the Emmis board of breaching its duties to shareholders and also of violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Alden’s lawsuit, filed Wednesday in a state court in New York, concerns a loan of up to $200,000 that Emmis’ board approved in December to help Smulyan pay legal expenses in a separate lawsuit pending against Alden in federal court in Indianapolis.

That lawsuit, filed in September by a Smulyan-controlled entity called JS Acquisition LLC, accuses Alden of breach of contract for backing out of its agreement to finance JS Acquisition’s $90 million buyout of all Emmis’ publicly traded shares. Alden cited a “precipitous” drop in the value of radio assets.

Kate Snedeker, a spokeswoman for Indianapolis-based Emmis, wrote Friday in an e-mail that the company believes Alden’s lawsuit is without merit. In response to Alden’s Feb. 3 letter, she wrote, “We’re confident with the board’s position on the issue, and we have equal confidence in the outcome.”

Alden threatened to sue Emmis over the $200,000 loan in a Feb. 3 letter unless the Emmis board rescinded the loan and immediately took steps to recover any funds already paid out and spent. Alden demanded a response by Feb. 11 or else said it would sue.

Alden, in its lawsuit, says it reiterated its demands in another letter on Feb. 9. In response to both letters, Emmis General Counsel Scott Enright replied by saying the matters would be considered by the Emmis board at its next scheduled meeting.

Now Alden is asking a judge to satisfy its demands, including issuing injunctions to prevent the Emmis board from transferring any funds to Smulyan and to prevent Smulyan’s JS Acquisition from spending any of the money.

“It is almost certainly because Smulyan could not obtain traditional funding for this extraordinarily risky venture that he elected to raid the coffers of Emmis—a company that is currently so cash-strapped that it has publicly disclosed that it may not be able to meet its upcoming financial covenants and debt obligations,” wrote Alden attorneys Judith Archer and Michael Swartzendruber in the lawsuit.

They added, “The directors’ decision to illegally funnel money to Emmis’s CEO in the midst of a liquidity crisis represents the sine qua non of irresponsibility and disloyalty.”

Emmis' liquidity crisis stems from looming debt obligations. On Jan. 11, the company disclosed in a securities filing that it has enough cash to get through the end of February, but made no promises for after that. It also disclosed that on Sept. 1, Emmis' debt obligations will be more restrictive, further pinching company finances.

If Emmis fails to meet those more restrictive terms, it would default on its $345 million in senior bank debt, causing it to come due more rapidly.

Emmis has said it is pursuing sales of radio stations in New York and Chicago to raise cash to meet the stricter debt terms.

Founded by Smulyan in 1981, Emmis owns more than 20 radio stations in the United States and publishes regional magazines in several cities, including Indianapolis Monthly.


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.