IBJNews

Preferred-shareholder group sues Emmis over restructuring

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. 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