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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing