IBJNews

Judge gives Emmis OK to hold shareholder vote

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge on Friday gave Emmis Communications Corp. the green light to proceed with a shareholder vote that could wipe out $34 million in unpaid preferred shareholder dividends.

The Friday decision from U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker in Indianapolis rejected a plea from Corre Opportunities Fund LP and other preferred stockholders asking her to block the vote. They argued that Emmis board members and Chairman Jeff Smulyan failed to comply with state and federal disclosure laws.

But Barker disagreed, denying Corre’s request for an injunction to prevent Emmis from conducting the vote originally set for Aug. 14. A future date has not been set.

“[Emmis has] shown a likelihood that, if an injunction were to issue and the vote be enjoined, both Emmis’s stock price as well as its efforts to refinance before the November 2012 deadline could be seriously and adversely affected,” Barker wrote.

Emmis is attempting to move ahead with a plan to reduce debt and stabilize its financial condition.

With a market capitalization of about $85 million, Emmis has more than 41 million shares of stock outstanding, 2.8 million of which are preferred shares whose holders are currently entitled to automatic dividends.

Those dividends, worth 6.25 percent of the preferred shares’ $50 liquidation value, or $3.125, haven’t been paid since October 2008, the investors said in a court filing. Including those unpaid dividends, each preferred share is worth $62.12, according to a June 29 proxy statement and meeting notice.

Other proposals on the ballot included elimination of future preferred dividends unless declared and, with that, the abolition of preferred stockholders’ ability to elect two members to the Indianapolis-based company’s board as long as there are arrears.

All of this, Corre alleged in court papers, is a prelude to Smulyan’s attempt to take the ninth-biggest U.S. radio station operator private.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • The 12th Commandment
    I guess the 12th Commandment is I will not repay those debts I opt not to and that I can find some distorted legal justification for supporting that decision. Even more jaded when a company has the ability to pay its debts and chooses not to
  • Why Bother
    What's to force a company to uphold their contracts of any type? Why bother to invest in anything? When a company can just wipe out it's shareholders. What's the point? What's this saying about Indiana with future investors?

    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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT