IBJNews

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

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT