IBJNews

Preferred-shareholder group sues Emmis over restructuring

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

A group of Emmis Communications Corp. preferred shareholders, unhappy with a company proposal that would strip them of their right to collect millions of dollars in dividends, filed a lawsuit against the Indianapolis media firm Monday to try to prevent the move.

Preferred shareholders Kevan Fight, Corre Opportunities Fund, Zazove Associates, DJD Group and First Derivative Traders filed a civil action in U.S. District Court alleging Emmis CEO Jeff Smulyan and the company’s board of directors ignored Securities and Exchange Commission rules, failed to file proper documentation, engaged in back-room deals and are illegally attempting to squelch their rights.

The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction preventing Emmis from holding a special meeting where investors would vote on the plan to weaken preferred shareholders' rights. Emmis said in an SEC filing Monday that it expects to hold that vote in May.

“We believe the allegations in the [lawsuit] are scurrilous and completely without merit," Emmis said in a written statement. "We intend to vigorously defend our actions, and protect the interests of the hundreds of Emmis shareholders from the unreasonable and irrational demands of the few.”

The struggling media company hopes to rekindle interest in its slumping common shares, in part by freeing itself of the obligation to pay four years of dividends to the holders of preferred stock.

Emmis says it amassed voting control over 61 percent of the preferred stock as a result of a buyback program it launched last fall with $35 million in funding from Chicago financier Sam Zell. The company purchased those shares at a huge discount from holders worried over the company's perilous finances.

The changes to be voted on at the special meeting require approval of two-thirds of the preferred shares, a threshold the company has reached by donating shares to an employee benefit trust.

Preferred shareholders say Emmis' plan is illegal, in part because it relies on voting shares that the company retired through buybacks.

“Emmis devised a plan to repurchase the shares yet keep the vote alive," the lawsuit says.

The company late last month filed its own lawsuit asking a court to declare its restructuring plan legal.

Emmis common shares are fetching around 83 cents a piece. NASDAQ has been threatening to delist the shares because they have closed below the $1 threshold since July.

At the special shareholders meeting, Emmis also is asking shareholders to authorize a reverse-stock split that would lift the price of common shares above $1 and prevent delising.

Emmis owns 17 FM and two AM radio stations nationwide, and seven city and specialty magazines. Locally, it operates WFNI-AM 1070, WIBC-FM 93.1, WLHK-FM 97.1 and WYXB-FM 105.7, as well as Indianapolis Monthly magazine.











 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • You've got to be kidding!!!
    OK. Where are the individual "Preferred" shareholders on this issue? No dividend for 4 years...now an arbitrary value assigned to the stock and you're forced to sell at some made-up value!
    The only "shareholders" that Emmis wants to defend are the owners of "Common" stock; guess who is the largest owner of "Common" stock? Emmis is a publicly held company...aren't there laws in place to protect shareholders? Where is the governance and oversight to prevent this from happening? Where is the Board...I thought they were there to protect the owners of the company, not the management.
    Yep...I'm getting mad!!

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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT