General Growth preparing to file finance plan

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

General Growth Properties Inc., the second-largest U.S. mall owner, will submit a proposal this week that may finance the reorganization of its holding company, after a one-week delay, according to Gary Holtzer, a lawyer for the company.

“We’re negotiating with three parties,” Holtzer said Friday at a U.S. Bankruptcy Court hearing in New York. “The paperwork is not finished to file a motion today as we were expecting.”

General Growth is weighing options to exit Chapter 11 protection, with competing bids from Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group Inc. and Brookfield Asset Management Inc. The company has said it will decide the best path to exit bankruptcy through an auction open to other bidders.

Separately, the company on Friday won court permission to reorganize $1.5 billion more in property debt as it exits bankruptcy in stages. Anup Sathy, a company lawyer, said it brings the total amount of restructured debt to about $14 billion out of a total of $15 billion.

The $1.5 billion loan is the largest reorganized to date and is for a multiproperty loan that includes 24 properties, Sathy said.

Lawyers told Judge Allan Gropper on March 18 that the company would submit a proposal by late March. The plan would give it more than $6 billion in cash and another $250 million to back a rights offering, the court was told.

Marcia Goldstein, a lawyer for General Growth, told Gropper at that hearing that $3.8 billion from Fairholme Capital Management LLC, its largest bondholder, and Pershing Square Capital Management LP would be added to a $2.5 billion offer from Brookfield.

Chicago-based General Growth faces a deadline of July 15 to file a disclosure statement outlining the terms of a reorganization plan for its holding company, referred to as TopCo. It won an extension to control its case until Aug. 26 amid the competing bids.

Creditors said in early March that Simon Property’s $10 billion offer, which would repay them in cash, was better than Brookfield’s, which would repay them partly with equity. The company told Simon Properties its bid is inadequate.

Since then, the company announced the revised offer including Fairholme and Pershing. Simon also has been preparing a new offer, according to a person with knowledge of the plan, cited in a Bloomberg story March 17. Elliott Associates LP and Paulson & Co. are also discussing a plan to team with Brookfied, two people familiar with the talks said, cited in a March 23 Bloomberg story. The two would try to join or replace Fairholme and Pershing, said the people.


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. Really, taking someone managing the regulation of Alcohol and making himthe President of an IVY Tech regional campus. Does he have an education background?

  2. Jan, great rant. Now how about you review the report and offer rebuttal of the memo. This might be more conducive to civil discourse than a wild rant with no supporting facts. Perhaps some links to support your assertions would be helpful

  3. I've lived in Indianapolis my whole and been to the track 3 times. Once for a Brickyard, once last year on a practice day for Indy 500, and once when I was a high school student to pick up trash for community service. In the past 11 years, I would say while the IMS is a great venue, there are some upgrades that would show that it's changing with the times, just like the city is. First, take out the bleachers and put in individual seats. Kentucky Motor Speedway has individual seats and they look cool. Fix up the restrooms. Add wi-fi. Like others have suggested, look at bringing in concerts leading up to events. Don't just stick with the country music genre. Pop music would work well too I believe. This will attract more young celebrities to the Indy 500 like the kind that go to the Kentucky Derby. Work with Indy Go to increase the frequency of the bus route to the track during high end events. That way people have other options than worrying about where to park and paying for parking. Then after all of this, look at getting night lights. I think the aforementioned strategies are more necessary than night racing at this point in time.

  4. Talking about congestion ANYWHERE in Indianapolis is absolutely laughable. Sure you may have to wait in 5 minutes of traffic to travel down BR avenue during *peak* times. But that is absolutely nothing compared to actual big cities. Indy is way too suburban to have actual congestion problems. So please, never bring up "congestion" as an excuse to avoid development in Indianapolis. If anything, we could use a little more.

  5. Oh wait. Never mind.