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. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

    2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

    3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

    4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

    5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.

    ADVERTISEMENT