IBJNews

Report: Simon foe General Growth hiring investment bank

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The board of General Growth Properties—a longtime acquisition target for Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group Inc.—may reconsider a sale of the company two years after it spurned a Simon offer as the debt-laden Chicago-based mall owner restructured in bankruptcy court.

General Growth is interviewing investment banks this week, but it was not clear whether the intent of hiring a bank was to sell the company or as a defensive move, Reuters reported late Wednesday.

Activist investor Bill Ackman, who owns about 10 percent of General Growth's shares and is looking to cash in massive returns on his bet the company would survive its bankruptcy filing, has urged the mall owner to enter negotiations for a takeover by rival Simon.

Still, a deal is no sure bet, as General Growth's largest shareholder, Brookfield Asset Management Inc., may stand in the way.

General Growth, the No. 2 U.S. shopping-mall owner, exited bankruptcy protection in November 2010 following a takeover battle between Simon, its larger competitor, and an investor group that included Pershing Square and Brookfield.

A takeover by Simon may be difficult because Brookfield, which has a 42-percent stake, has said it doesn’t want to sell its shares, said John Sheehan, an analyst at Edward Jones in St. Louis.

Simon, in late 2011, discussed paying 0.1765 of a Simon share for each General Growth share, according to Ackman. That would would value General Growth at $27.87 a share, based on Simon’s Sept. 5 closing price.

That gives General Growth a higher per-share value than Simon’s proposed takeover from more than two years ago. Simon said in May 2010 that it offered $20 a share for its competitor, which was under bankruptcy protection at the time.

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. 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