IBJNews

General Growth rejects call for sale of company to Simon

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

General Growth Properties Inc., the second-largest U.S. shopping-mall owner, rejected investor Bill Ackman’s request to put itself up for sale and said it will remain independent.

“The board has unanimously determined that the best value for all shareholders will be achieved by GGP continuing to execute on its well-conceived business plan,” Sandeep Mathrani, General Growth’s CEO, said in a letter to Ackman, founder of Pershing Square Capital Management LP. The letter was filed Monday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Pershing Square, General Growth’s No. 2 shareholder, first urged the retail landlord on Aug. 23 to form a special committee to consider selling the company. Ackman said at the time that Simon Property Group Inc. was interested in buying its smaller competitor. General Growth should “initiate negotiations with Simon promptly,” he said in a letter filed Aug. 27 with the SEC.

General Growth exited bankruptcy protection in November 2010 following a takeover battle between Indianapolis-based Simon and an investor group that included Pershing Square and Brookfield Asset Management Inc. General Growth filed for bankruptcy in 2009 after weighing itself down with $27 billion in debt that it was unable to refinance because of the financial crisis and collapse of the commercial mortgage-backed securities market.

Brookfield, General Growth’s largest shareholder, “has been very clear that they have no interest of any kind in buying the rest of General Growth or letting someone else buy General Growth,” Rich Moore, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets in Solon, Ohio, said. “General Growth feels the same way. They don’t want to be sold to anybody. The only guy who wants all this to happen really is Bill Ackman over at Pershing because he wants the stock price to go up.”

Moore has a sector-perform rating on General Growth shares, the equivalent of a hold.

An e-mail to Ackman and a telephone message left at his New York office weren’t immediately returned. A message left for Les Morris, a spokesman for Simon, also wasn’t immediately returned.

General Growth’s chairman is J. Bruce Flatt, CEO of Toronto-based Brookfield, which has a stake of about 42 percent in General Growth. Ackman said last month that Brookfield had also expressed interest in taking over the mall owner. Following Ackman’s disclosure, Brookfield said it wasn’t trying to buy General Growth nor did it want to sell its stake in the company.

“We agree with the position unanimously taken by GGP’s board to have GGP continue to execute on its business plan,” Flatt said Monday in a letter to General Growth’s board and shareholders. “GGP is currently performing extremely well and we believe GGP is positioned for superior growth over the next five years versus any comparable retail mall investment.”

Simon had discussed paying 0.1765 of a Simon share for each General Growth share, according to Ackman. That would value General Growth at $27.57 a share, based on Simon’s closing price Monday.

That would have given General Growth a higher per-share value than Simon’s proposed takeover from more than two years ago. Simon said in May 2010 that it offered $20 a share for its competitor, which was under bankruptcy protection at the time.

General Growth owns or has stakes in 149 regional shopping malls with about 141 million square feet of leasable space in the U.S. and Brazil.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Good for GGP
    Glad to see GGP stood up to SPG. It is best that there is competitive markets competiting for retailers in the market. What SPG does internally is an abomination.

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. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

  2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

  3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

  4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

  5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.

ADVERTISEMENT