IBJNews

General Growth investors add $3.93B to Brookfield plan

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

General Growth Properties Inc. said its biggest debt and equity holders have offered to jointly invest $3.93 billion in the company, bolstering a plan with Brookfield Asset Management Inc. to bring the mall owner out of bankruptcy.

The investments from Bruce Berkowitz’s Fairholme Capital Management LLC and William Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management LP would allow unsecured creditors to be paid in full with cash, General Growth said in a statement. Their funds are in addition to $2.63 billion pledged by Brookfield.

The cash payment matches a provision of a competing bid by Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group Inc., which has offered to buy its biggest competitor for more than $10 billion and pay all unsecured creditors. Chicago-based General Growth rejected that bid and lined up the Brookfield investment last month with plans to split into two companies, part of a proposal that creditors called risky because of a reliance on debt and equity sales.

“If BAM moves ahead with this structure, it removes most if not all uncertainly from their previous bid, and removes any doubt to whether it’s credible or not,” said Jim Sullivan, an analyst at Green Street Advisors in Newport Beach, Calif.

New York-based Pershing Square is General Growth’s biggest equity investor, with a 25-percent economic interest, including 7.5 percent of its shares. Fairholme is the largest creditor with about $1.9 billion of General Growth debt, while Brookfield has about $500 million and Pershing Square owns about $434 million, according to a person familiar with the investments.

Brookfield’s new plan calls for Fairholme and Pershing to buy about 380 million new General Growth shares at $10 each. The investments would combine with 250 million shares Brookfield would buy, $1.5 billion in new debt Brookfield is raising, and a $250 million rights offering for a new company, General Growth Opportunities. Brookfield will backstop $125 million of that sale, and Fairholme and Pershing Square will backstop the rest. Combined, more than $8 billion would be raised.

“The proposal from Fairholme and Pershing Square builds on the significant momentum we have created to return GGP to a strong financial foundation for the future,” General Growth CEO Adam Metz said in the statement. “Our goal is to raise capital in the most cost-efficient way to maximize value for all of our stakeholders. We are pleased with the support shown by one of our largest unsecured debt holders and one of our largest equity holders.”

The proposal must be approved by General Growth’s board and the bankruptcy court, and better offers may still emerge, the company said. Also, General Growth would have the right to reduce the $3.8 billion investment by $1.9 billion should it be able to raise equity capital on better terms.

Ackman stepped down from General Growth’s board as part of the plan, the company said.

“Bill Ackman has made significant contributions to GGP during his time on the Board,” Metz said. “We understand his decision to resign to facilitate Pershing Square’s participation in this proposal.”

Simon Property spokesman Les Morris declined to comment.

Brookfield’s plan gives General Growth equity holders $15 a share, compared with about $9 a share under Simon’s offer. The previous version of Brookfield’s plan called for General Growth to raise as much as $5.8 billion by issuing shares and new debt and through the sale of properties.

The new plan “would, if accepted, deliver substantially all of the cash required to fulfill the company’s capital needs in connection with its emergence from bankruptcy and provide unsecured creditors with par plus accrued interest in cash,” General Growth said.

Unsecured creditors said in a March 2 bankruptcy-court filing that the previous plan was too risky. Simon, in a separate filing, supported the creditors.

“While Simon has offered to pay unsecured creditors in full in cash, the consideration to be offered to unsecured creditors under the ‘recapitalization’ is entirely subject to market risk,” David C. Bryan, Eric M. Rosof and Emil A. Kleinhaus, Simon’s attorneys, wrote in the filing. “If General Growth does not raise enough money to pay unsecured creditors, they will be stuck with the equity securities of a highly leveraged company.”

David Fick, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus & Co. in Baltimore, said the new plan is likely an effort to compel Simon to boost its offer.

“These guys don’t have the ability to run these assets without the existing GGP management,” he said. “The Pershing Square and Brookfield interests are best aligned with getting a sale done.”

General Growth, owner of New York’s South Street Seaport and Boston’s Faneuil Hall, filed the largest real-estate bankruptcy in U.S. history in April after amassing $27 billion in debt making acquisitions. Under its plan with Brookfield, General Growth would split into a company owning shopping malls and another that would own buildings and land with redevelopment possibilities.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • A Future Bargin
    Perhaps, after a year or so, if the Canadian company Brookfield is unable to manage US based mall properties, Simon might consider making a purchase at $6 billion instead of $10 billion. Perhaps it will be a bargin for Simon, but, sadly, a loss for GGP shareholders.

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. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

ADVERTISEMENT