IBJNews

General Growth board sued for rejecting $10B Simon bid

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Directors at Chicago-based General Growth Properties Inc. are being sued by a shareholder claiming they shouldn’t have rejected a $10 billion buyout offer from competitor Simon Property Group Inc.

Chairman John Bucksbaum and six other board members are accused of breaching their fiduciary duty to the bankrupt mall operator’s investors when they turned down Simon’s bid, according to a complaint filed Friday in state court in Chicago.

“This conduct is substantially unfair to GGP and the company’s public shareholders,” investor James Young said in his complaint brought on behalf of stockholders and for the benefit of the company.

Indianapolis-based Simon, the nation’s largest mall operator, offered to buy its largest rival out of bankruptcy for more than $10 billion in a bid made public Tuesday. Under that offer, shareholders would get about $9 a share, including $6 in cash.

General Growth said the price was too low and that it would invite other potential buyers to make bids.

David C. Keating, a company spokesman, said he hadn’t seen the lawsuit and couldn’t immediately comment on it.

Young seeks a court order barring the directors from entering into any contract that harms the company or makes it more difficult or costly for a would-be purchaser to acquire it.

Not surprisingly, Simon also has been critical of General Growth’s strategy. CEO David Simon called the company’s plan for discussing the proposed takeover “unreasonable” and asked the company to reconsider its negotiating agreement in a letter sent to General Growth Chief Executive Officer Adam Metz and distributed Friday in a news release.

Simon said General Growth’s draft of a non-disclosure agreement would prohibit the company from talking with potential partners and wouldn’t ensure Simon receives the same information made available to other bidders.

“By continuing to request the unreasonable restrictions set forth in your proposed non-disclosure agreement, you render your ‘process’ a charade from the start by seeking to exclude the most logical and capable acquirer,” David Simon said in the letter.

General Growth’s non-disclosure agreement “is designed to promote a level playing field and a competitive process to maximize value for all GGP stakeholders,” said Keating, the spokesman.

“Its terms are customary and reasonable,” Keating said. “We do not believe it is productive to attempt to negotiate the terms of an NDA with Simon through press releases.”

Michael Stamer, attorney for the General Growth’s official committee of unsecured creditors, said in Friday in a statement that the mall owner should begin talks with Simon immediately.

“The terms of the non-disclosure agreement provided to Simon by General Growth are excessively restrictive and not in the best interest of the unsecured creditors and other stakeholders,” Stamer said in the statement.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Sic Deborah Simon on them!
    She needs a job, so let her track down those General Growth people and leave poor Bren alone!

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. This is a big help. Thanks for share it here.

  2. Doug Henning!

  3. These guy were thugs — they grew up in freaking Haughville! Smh, sigh. If the mayor needs/wants "quality" Black Hoosiers who are NOT corrupt, give me a call — I know plenty. Land bank info here - http://www.kubepharm.com/indylandbank/IndyLandBank.html

  4. Magician and illusionist!

  5. The basic idea of nice apartments with parking and retail is a good one, but this design seems overwhelmingly big/tall for Broad Ripple. The size could be disguised a bit with lots of big trees/landscaping, but the complex is too massive to blend in easily. That section of canal between College and Westfield will also need to be upgraded on both sides. Nice apartments facing onto a nice promenade with shade trees/plantings could bring together the canal towpath/Monon recreation, the outdoor seating at existing restaurants, and this project into something that upgrades the whole area. A plan for the whole stretch makes more sense than facing nice new housing onto what looks like a ditch. Is there a plan? Does the public have input? Who pays? The apartment idea seems to be reasonable, but Whole Foods is not a good idea for appropriate retail. Besides the store being physically too big, there are already Fresh Market at 54xCollege and Whole Foods in Nora for fancy groceries. Good Earth and Kroger are within walking distance of the Shell site. There are at least 7 grocery stores within a safe bike ride. Whole Foods would add nothing but traffic congestion. This design is on the right track, but there needs to be more work done to ensure that it blends in with and enhances the existing community. A project that large will set a tone for that whole part of town. It could be a real asset, but only if done right.

ADVERTISEMENT