IBJNews

Simon bids $4.6B for U.K.'s Capital Shopping

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group Inc., the largest U.S. mall owner, made an offer for Capital Shopping Centres Group Plc that values the U.K. company at 2.9 billion pounds ($4.6 billion).

Simon would pay 425 pence a share in cash for London-based Capital Shopping, the U.K.’s biggest retail landlord, according to a Wednesday statement. That’s 26 percent more than Capital Shopping’s closing share price on Nov. 24, the day before Simon’s interest was disclosed. Capital Shopping has so far refused to cooperate with Simon.

Capital Shopping owns four of the U.K.’s 10 biggest malls, including the Manchester Arndale. Simon said its bid is conditional on Capital Shopping not completing the acquisition of Trafford Centre. The British company agreed last month to pay 1.6 billion pounds in shares and assumed debt for the Manchester mall in what would be the U.K.’s biggest property transaction.

“This is still a ‘phony war’ and inadequate,” Mike Prew, a London-based analyst at Nomura International, said in a note to investors. “It is not a knockout blow.”

Simon’s proposed offer is 13 percent higher than Capital Shopping’s net asset value of 377 pence a share as of Nov. 1. Land Securities Group Plc, the U.K.’s largest real estate investment trust, closed Wednesday at 9.4 percent below its net asset value as of Sept. 30 and British Land Co., the second- largest REIT was 2.6 percent lower.

Capital Shopping gained as much as 3.9 percent to 411.9 pence in London trading. The shares were priced at 406.9 pence at 10:23 a.m., bringing this year’s gain to 2.3 percent. Simon owns 5.1 percent of the stock, it said on Dec 8.

Capital Shopping disclosed Simon’s interest last month while announcing the agreement to buy the Trafford Centre from closely held Peel Group. To help with financing, Capital Shopping raised 221.2 million pounds from selling the equivalent of 9.9 percent of its outstanding equity to investors. The deal would give Peel as much as 25 percent of Capital Shopping. Shareholders are scheduled to vote on the proposal on Dec. 20.

In the same statement, Capital Shopping said it rejected Simon’s request to delay the purchase and share sale to give the U.S. landlord time to prepare an offer. Capital Shopping refused last week to provide Simon with information it said it needed to evaluate a possible takeover bid.

“Our proposed offer is highly favorable and attractive to CSC shareholders,” Simon said. “We are enthusiastic about this opportunity and committed to dedicating substantial time and financial resources with a view to concluding a transaction as soon as possible.”

Simon cut its European holdings this year with the sale of its interest in a joint venture that owned seven shopping centers in France and Poland. It recorded a gain on the sale of $281 million, according to a regulatory filing.

Simon gets 3.5 percent of its net operating income from international operations, according to a third-quarter supplemental report. The company also owns outlet shopping centers in Japan, Mexico and South Korea.

Earlier this year, Simon bid unsuccessfully for U.S. rival General Growth Properties Inc., which emerged on Nov. 9 from the largest-ever U.S. real estate bankruptcy.

Simon’s announcement Wednesday doesn’t constitute a firm offer for Capital Shopping and there can be no certainty that any bid will ultimately be made, the company said. Any offer is also conditional on due diligence and Simon arranging debt finance.

Simon appointed Citigroup Inc., Lazard Ltd. and Evercore Partners Inc. as financial advisers and Freshfields and Wachtell Lipton as its legal advisers.

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. Steak and Shake USED to be a good place to eat, but the now empty parking spaces tell the story of Poor Service, Declining quality of food and just more gimmicks and rear cooking....I used to be a customer, but no more...won't be back...to many other Good Places to eat in INDY...

  2. This man has continued to destroy the Steak and Shake brand. Did he not learn from the sins of owners past. The SNS logo and Brand are strong, I cant understand why he wants to destroy the brand other than to satisfy his big ego.This will turn out to be a big mistake. Sleek new look for a traditional product..makes no logical sense

  3. I mean REALLY!!! What's next taking away the Burger King's crown, turn the golden arches into silver columns? No I know let's get Wendy a pink mohawk.

  4. A couple of thoughts on some of the information presented here from someone with a bit of experience in this area: First, Does anyone remember a time in the past 35 years when insurance premiums DIDN'T increase? They increase every year. The more rigorous rate review requirements of the Affordable Care Act (effective in 2011) have likely caused those increases to moderate as they have averaged below 10% for the past few years, down from much higer averages in prior years. Second, Oregon will operate a state-based Exchange. Recently, they were one of the first states to release their proposed (not yet reviewed by regulators)premium rates -- our first view of Exchange rates. After 2 insurers saw their competitors' rates, they pulled theirs back and re-submitted LOWER rates. In my nearly 10 years as a state insurance regulator, and two years as a federal regulator, I don't ever recall an insurer voluntarily lowering its rates. THAT'S the kind of transparency and competition the online marketplaces (Exchanges) will bring about. 3) ...and this is just a random thought: A big concern among health policy experts is the capacity of the primary care provider community to handle the happy fact that a large number of individuals will be newly-insured under the Affordable Care Act. With the system being stretched so thin for INSURED individuals, It seems highly doubtful that more than a very few "cash-and-carry" physicians will be able to survive in the new, improved healthcare system. Sally McCarty Center on Health Insurance Reform Georgetown University Health Policy Institute

  5. liek the rest of America

ADVERTISEMENT