IBJNews

General Growth still backing Brookfield despite new Simon bid

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

General Growth Properties Inc. backed the latest financing proposal from a group led by Brookfield Asset Management Inc. in court Friday, rejecting Simon Property Group Inc.’s “best and final” offer.

The Brookfield-led plan is better than Simon’s, General Growth President Thomas Nolan said in testimony read in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan Friday. Lawyers for Simon, the largest U.S. mall owner, said the company will withdraw from bidding if U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper approves the Brookfield plan, partly because the stock warrants that accompany it would make Simon’s buyout more expensive.

General Growth stock fell as much as 13 percent Friday in New York trading.

Under the revision introduced Friday, Brookfield’s investment partner Pershing Square Capital Management LP would forgo any warrants until General Growth’s reorganization is complete, and Toronto-based Brookfield would increase the strike price on its warrants to $10.75 from $10.50, General Growth lawyer Marcia Goldstein told Gropper. Another partner, Fairholme Capital Management LLC, also would get warrants.

The hearing comes a day after Indianapolis-based Simon stepped up its three-month quest to acquire General Growth by making a $6.5 billion bid for the Chicago-based company. Brookfield’s rival proposal would leave General Growth an independent company.

Simon’s offer is valued at $20 a share, the company said Thursday in a statement. It consists of $5 in cash, $10 in shares of Simon stock and the distribution of shares in a new company, General Growth Opportunities, valued at $5.

“These offers are best and final,” Simon CEO David Simon said in a letter to General Growth’s board. Simon “will not participate in the bidding process in the GGP bankruptcy proceeding in any way once GGP commits to issue the warrants associated with the latest Brookfield-sponsored plan.”

Pershing Square’s CEO William Ackman responded Friday with a letter to the General Growth board offering to forgo 17 million interim warrants. Ackman made the offer in an effort to push through Brookfield’s plan, saying Simon’s bid posed antitrust risks because it would link the nation’s two largest mall owners.

Simon estimates the warrants could cost General Growth shareholders $895 million. Ronen Bojmel, a managing director at General Growth’s financial adviser Miller Buckfire & Co., testified Friday that they would be worth about $688 million.

Simon’s original bid on Feb. 16 would have given General Growth stockholders $9 a share, including $6 in cash. That was turned down as too low. Both that plan and the new one pay all General Growth unsecured creditors, who hold about $7 billion in debt, in full.

General Growth filed the largest real estate bankruptcy in U.S. history in April 2009 after amassing $27 billion in debt making acquisitions. Its properties include New York’s South Street Seaport, Boston’s Faneuil Hall and the Grand Canal Shoppes and Fashion Show in Las Vegas.

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. As I understand it, the idea is to offer police to live in high risk areas in exchange for a housing benefit/subsidy of some kind. This fact means there is a choice for the officer(s) to take the offer and receive the benefit. In terms of mandating living in a community, it is entirely reasonable for employers to mandate public safety officials live in their community. Again, the public safety official has a choice, to live in the area or to take another job.

  2. The free market will seek its own level. If Employers cannot hire a retain good employees in Marion Co they will leave and set up shop in adjacent county. Marion Co already suffers from businesses leaving I would think this would encourage more of the same.

  3. We gotta stop this Senior crime. Perhaps long jail terms for these old boozers is in order. There are times these days (more rather than less) when this state makes me sick.

  4. One option is to redistribute the payroll tax already collected by the State. A greater share could be allocated to the county of the workplace location as opposed to the county of residency. Not a new tax, just re-allocate what is currently collected.

  5. Have to agree with Mal Burgess. The biggest problem is massive family breakdown in these neighborhoods. While there are a lot of similiarities, there is a MASSIVE difference between 46218 and 46219. 46219 is diluted by some stable areas, and that's probably where the officers live. Incentivizing is fine, but don't criticize officers for choosing not to live in these neighbor hoods. They have to have a break from what is arguably one of the highest stress job in the land. And you'll have to give me hard evidence that putting officers there is going to make a significant difference. Solid family units, responsible fathers, siblings with the same fathers, engaged parents, commitment to education, respect for the rule of law and the importance of work/a job. If the families and the schools (and society) will support these, THEN we can make a difference.

ADVERTISEMENT