IBJNews

Judge hears arguments challenging Emmis sale

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

A courtroom rather than a corporate boardroom provided the latest setting for the proposed sale of Emmis Communications Corp., which has agreed to be acquired for more than $500 million including debt.

The Indianapolis-based public company that owns 23 radio stations in the United States consented in May to a purchase by JS Acquisition LLC, a private company formed by Emmis Chairman and CEO Jeffrey H. Smulyan.

Emmis shareholders who are challenging the acquisition got their day in court Monday during a hearing on a motion for a temporary restraining order to block the buyout.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued in Marion Superior Court that the Aug. 3 deadline for shareholders to accept a buyout offer should be delayed until they have more information to make a decision.

JS Acquisition is offering $2.40 a share in cash, a 12-percent premium to the closing price of $2.14 on May 26, the day Emmis’ board unanimously approved the transaction. The offer was announced on April 26.

“We’re not arguing the price,” said Carl Stein, a lawyer at New York-based Wolf Popper LLP. “What we’re saying is that people should have the right to make a fully informed decision on whether they like the price.”

Stein said Emmis board members breached their fiduciary duty by not revealing key details to shareholders. Among them: Company debt covenants due in August 2011 are unlikely to be satisfied by a sale of assets or by a bank extension because of the tight credit markets.

Citing direct testimony from board members, Stein argued that the sale of the company is the only option to avoid bankruptcy.

“Did shareholders know there are leverage problems?” he asked. “Do the shareholders know the options and that the insiders think they are unlikely?”

The broadcasting and publishing company is loaded down with more than $340 million in debt, and has been awash in red ink. Including noncash charges, operating losses over the last two fiscal years have totaled more than $500 million.

For its first fiscal quarter ended May 31, Emmis lost $3.9 million, or 10 cents a share, compared with a profit of $11.9 million, or 32 cents a share, in the same period last year. Revenue increased 1 percent, to $60.3 million.

Emmis lawyers argued on Monday that common shareholders are prohibited under Indiana law from blocking corporate transactions. They instead can show their displeasure with a deal by selling shares on the open market, said Richard Kempf, a lawyer at the Indianapolis office of Cincinnati-based Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Kempf further argued directors couldn’t have breached their fiduciary duty because the first lawsuit challenging the deal, filed on April 27 and the day after the offer was announced, was brought a month before the board approved the transaction.

Kempf told the judge the shareholder suit is nothing more than an attempt to leverage a better sale price.

“Jeff Smulyan, that sneaky fellow, is trying to steal the company for $2.40 a share,” Kempf said. “That’s what [the lawsuit] boils down to.”

Smulyan tried to take the company private four years ago, but that deal bogged down at the board level over price. As talks dragged on, credit markets soured, and Smulyan ended discussions.

The 2006 offer of $15.25 per share—a bid that valued the entire company at $567 million—looks rich by today’s standards. The stock plunged as low as 24 cents last July and rallied to around $2.30 before Smulyan unveiled his new, $2.40-per-share buyout offer.

Company shares opened Tuesday morning at $2.09 each.

Emmis has 37.8 million common shares outstanding, valuing the offer at about $90 million without the debt.

The transaction doesn’t need board approval. The letter of intent signed by Smulyan’s financial backer, Alden Global Capital Ltd., conditions the deal on the board’s exercising its right under Indiana’s “special circumstances statute” to send the proposal directly to shareholders without a board recommendation.

Indiana law normally requires board approval for buyouts. But the language cited by Alden provides an exception for conflicts of interest or special circumstances. What qualifies isn’t spelled out in the law, and Emmis has not elaborated on why the company believed its board’s circumstances fit.
 
Marion Superior Court Judge Robyn Moberly took the arguments under advisement and said she expects to make a ruling by the end of the week.

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. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT