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. Why not take some time to do some research before traveling to that Indiana town or city, and find the ones that are no smoking either inside, or have a patio? People like yourself are just being selfish, and unnecessarily trying to take away all indoor venues that smokers can enjoy themselves at. Last time I checked, it is still a free country, and businesses do respond to market pressure and will ban smoking, if there's enough demand by customers for it(i.e. Linebacker Lounge in South Bend, and Rack and Helen's in New Haven, IN, outside of Fort Wayne). Indiana law already unnecessarily forced restaurants with a bar area to be no smoking, so why not support those restaurants that were forced to ban smoking against their will? Also, I'm always surprised at the number of bars that chose to ban smoking on their own, in non-ban parts of Indiana I'll sometimes travel into. Whiting, IN(just southeast of Chicago) has at least a few bars that went no smoking on their own accord, and despite no selfish government ban forcing those bars to make that move against their will! I'd much rather have a balance of both smoking and non-smoking bars, rather than a complete bar smoking ban that'll only force more bars to close their doors. And besides IMO, there are much worser things to worry about, than cigarette smoke inside a bar. If you feel a bar is too smoky, then simply walk out and take your business to a different bar!

  2. As other states are realizing the harm in jailing offenders of marijuana...Indiana steps backwards into the script of Reefer Madness. Well...you guys voted for your Gov...up to you to vote him out. Signed, Citizen of Florida...the next state to have medical marijuana.

  3. It's empowering for this niche community to know that they have an advocate on their side in case things go awry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrst9VXVKfE

  4. Apparently the settlement over Angie's List "bundling" charges hasn't stopped the practice! My membership is up for renewal, and I'm on my third email trying to get a "basic" membership rather than the "bundled" version they're trying to charge me for. Frustrating!!

  5. Well....as a vendor to both of these builders I guess I have the right to comment. Davis closed his doors with integrity.He paid me every penny he owed me. Estridge,STILL owes me thousands and thousands of dollars. The last few years of my life have been spent working 2 jobs, paying off the suppliers I used to work on Estridge jobs and just struggling to survive. Shame on you Paul...and shame on you IBJ! Maybe you should have contacted the hundreds of vendors that Paul stiffed. I'm sure your "rises from the ashes" spin on reporting would have contained true stories of real people who have struggled to find work and pay of their debts (something that Paul didn't even attempt to do).

ADVERTISEMENT