IBJNews

Insurance company rejects Steak n Shake takeover bid

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A small Michigan insurer has rejected an acquisition bid from The Steak n Shake Co., describing the offer as a "hostile takeover attempt."

Fremont Michigan InsuraCorp said in a statement Wednesday that the company's board, after receiving advice from its attorneys and financial advisers, voted unanimously that the bid "should be rejected and that execution of the Company's current strategic plans represents a better long-term value for our shareholders."

"Our board, management team, associates and agents are focused on continuing to grow our business and maximize the value of the company, and we believe this hostile takeover attempt is not in the best interest of Fremont, our shareholders, our policyholders or the Fremont community," Richard E. Dunning, Fremont's CEO said in a statement.

Steak n Shake, an Indianapolis-based burger chain that's now operated as a holding company by activist-investor-turned-CEO Sardar Biglari, offered late Monday to acquire the outstanding shares of Fremont for $24.50 per share in cash and stock, an 11.3 percent premium to Monday's closing price. The company provides property and casualty insurance to individuals, farms and small businesses in Michigan.

Steak n Shake disclosed that it had purchased a roughly 10-percent stake in Fremont in October, shortly after Biglari said he intended to transform Steak n Shake into a holding company to pursue purchases “either related or unrelated to its ongoing business activities.”

The company has not revealed its plans for Fremont, but observers say Biglari wants to use the firm's $60 million investment portfolio to fund more acquisitions, following in the footsteps of his investing hero, Warren Buffett. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway acquired its first insurer in the 1960s and now funds billions of dollars in investments through the portfolios of its insurance companies.

Steak n Shake shares were down about 1 percent in trading Wednesday morning, to $323.55. Fremont shares were down almost 3 percent, to $24.80

ADVERTISEMENT

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT