IBJNews

Steak n Shake nearer to merger with steak chain

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based Steak n Shake Co. is a step closer to making its planned merger with Roanoke, Va.-based Western Sizzlin a reality.

Under terms of the deal, Steak n Shake will pay Western Sizzlin shareholders $22.9 million and Western will pay its shareholders a $15.9 million stock dividend, making the total deal worth about $38.8 million. The value is likely to change based on stock-price fluctuations before the deal closes. 

Approval of the agreement by the two publicly traded companies was announced late Thursday and negotiated between special committees of the boards of directors from both companies, a news release said.

The $15.9 million dividend will be distributed to Western stockholders on Nov. 6 whether or not the merger is completed, the companies said.

Details of the deal come about two months after Steak n Shake announced that it planned to purchase Western Sizzlin, in a move that puts the burger chain back in the steakhouse business for the first time since exiting it nearly a decade ago.

In 2000, the company—then known as Consolidated Products Inc.—sold off its 11 Colorado Steakhouses in order to focus on its core burger business.

But the company’s strategy has shifted dramatically since Texas hedge fund manager Sardar Biglari took the helm last year. Biglari serves as president and CEO of both Steak n Shake and Western Sizzlin, and his Lion Fund is Western Sizzlin’s largest shareholder and a leading stockholder in Steak n Shake.

Steak n Shake is the far larger company, with a stock market value of about $320 million and 486 restaurants. Most Steak n Shake restaurants are company-owned and none are farther west than Texas. Western Sizzlin has about 100 restaurants, nearly all franchised. They’re in the Midwest, East, South and in California.

Neither company’s stock has moved dramatically since the merger announcement in August. Steak n Shake shares closed Thursday at $12. Western Sizzlin ended the day at $14.40.
 
 

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