Mall Giants Simon, Taubman Face Off at Trial Over Busted Buyout, , on November 13, 2020 at 4:00 pm

Financial News
By
On November 13, 2020
In Financial News
Tags:

(Bloomberg) — Simon Property Group Inc.’s rescinded $3.6 billion offer to buy rival mall owner Taubman Centers Inc. is going to trial Monday after a months-long dispute sparked by the pandemic.The companies announced a buyout agreement in February, just before Covid-19 hit the U.S., wreaking havoc on retailers and landlords. Simon in June said it was walking away from the deal and sought in court to have it “validly terminated.” Taubman countersued in an effort to force Simon to complete the purchase. Michigan Circuit Court Judge James Alexander will hear the case without a jury and is expected to rule by the end of the year.The timing of the offer couldn’t have been worse. Simon, one of the biggest U.S. mall owners, agreed to pay $52.20 a share for Taubman, a 51% premium. Taubman’s shares have dropped about 30% since March as the virus spread across the country, spurring lockdowns that shuttered bricks-and-mortar stores and pushed shoppers increasingly to the internet.“This situation is black swan times two — or three,” Simon Property Chief Executive Officer David Simon said about the pandemic on the company’s earnings call this month.There’s a lot at stake for both landlords. Mall owners have been crushed by social-distancing measures, and their cash flow is suffering as rent collections drop and vacancies increase. Even after stores reopened, sales have been slow to recover, and retailer bankruptcies are mounting across the industry.‘Difficult Road’For shareholders of the smaller Taubman, it’s critical for the deal to go through, even at a reduced price that the companies may settle on, according to Lindsay Dutch, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst.“There would be a difficult road ahead if it fails since Taubman has to manage the excess vacancies, all the empty stores coming to malls, and doing so with a much tighter balance sheet than Simon,” she said.Simon, meanwhile, has coveted Taubman’s high-quality centers for years, but “they’re also super-focused on cash flow and want to make sure they’ll get a return on their acquisition,” Dutch said.Read more: Mall shakeout just beginning as complex debt drowns owners Representatives for Simon and Taubman declined to comment.In court filings, Indianapolis-based Simon argued that it had legitimate grounds to scrap the buyout because Taubman’s revenue suffered a “material adverse effect” and the company didn’t take proper steps to mitigate damage from the pandemic. Simon also cited Taubman’s move to amend $1.63 billion in credit agreements as a violation of the deal.For its part, Taubman noted that it took some of the same steps as Simon to address the fallout from Covid-19, and argued its rival was legally obligated to complete the transaction on June 30 as scheduled.Legal BillsThe Bloomfield Hills, Michigan-based company, led by CEO Robert Taubman, wants the judge to enforce the buyout or award the company damages, including the loss of the premium offered to shareholders. Those damages could exceed $1 billion, according to Elliott Stein, a senior litigation analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.Alexander Goldfarb, an analyst at Piper Sandler & Co., said investors generally believe Taubman has the stronger legal case, but that Simon will fight paying the premium it agreed to and is better equipped financially to drag out the dispute. That could motivate Taubman to settle sooner rather than later because it’s more strapped for cash, he said.Both companies already have run up big tabs: In the third quarter, Taubman recorded $17 million in lawsuit-related expenses, while Simon had roughly $20 million in total legal costs, some of which went toward fighting the deal.“You’re not spending that kind of legal money if you’re just trying to give it the college try,” Goldfarb said.‘Taking a Risk’In a large number of buyouts that imploded over Covid-19 concerns, the parties have found ways to come up with a settlement by cutting the price by about 10%, said Larry Hamermesh, a University of Pennsylvania law professor who specializes in corporate M&A cases.“It’s a sensible resolution that happens frequently,” he said. “It may be difficult to make the case that Covid alone is enough to justify a material adverse change since we haven’t had any rulings to that effect so far. Both sides are taking a risk going to trial.”It’s not the first time Simon and Taubman have tangled over a buyout. In 2003, Simon launched an unsuccessful takeover of its rival. The bid prompted changes to Michigan’s corporate statutes governing takeovers after heavy lobbying by the Taubman family of their home-state lawmakers.A resolution may not come easily. Both firms have already gone through a months-long mediation process to no avail.“For a settlement, the two parties need to come to an agreement on a lower price, and that may be difficult to do,” Dutch said. “You have two strong-minded CEOs of two companies, and getting them to come to an agreement to work together could take time.”The case is Simon Property Group Inc. v. Taubman Centers Inc., No. 2020-181675-CB, Michigan Circuit Court, Oakland County (Pontiac).For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.,

Mall Giants Simon, Taubman Face Off at Trial Over Busted Buyout(Bloomberg) — Simon Property Group Inc.’s rescinded $3.6 billion offer to buy rival mall owner Taubman Centers Inc. is going to trial Monday after a months-long dispute sparked by the pandemic.The companies announced a buyout agreement in February, just before Covid-19 hit the U.S., wreaking havoc on retailers and landlords. Simon in June said it was walking away from the deal and sought in court to have it “validly terminated.” Taubman countersued in an effort to force Simon to complete the purchase. Michigan Circuit Court Judge James Alexander will hear the case without a jury and is expected to rule by the end of the year.The timing of the offer couldn’t have been worse. Simon, one of the biggest U.S. mall owners, agreed to pay $52.20 a share for Taubman, a 51% premium. Taubman’s shares have dropped about 30% since March as the virus spread across the country, spurring lockdowns that shuttered bricks-and-mortar stores and pushed shoppers increasingly to the internet.“This situation is black swan times two — or three,” Simon Property Chief Executive Officer David Simon said about the pandemic on the company’s earnings call this month.There’s a lot at stake for both landlords. Mall owners have been crushed by social-distancing measures, and their cash flow is suffering as rent collections drop and vacancies increase. Even after stores reopened, sales have been slow to recover, and retailer bankruptcies are mounting across the industry.‘Difficult Road’For shareholders of the smaller Taubman, it’s critical for the deal to go through, even at a reduced price that the companies may settle on, according to Lindsay Dutch, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst.“There would be a difficult road ahead if it fails since Taubman has to manage the excess vacancies, all the empty stores coming to malls, and doing so with a much tighter balance sheet than Simon,” she said.Simon, meanwhile, has coveted Taubman’s high-quality centers for years, but “they’re also super-focused on cash flow and want to make sure they’ll get a return on their acquisition,” Dutch said.Read more: Mall shakeout just beginning as complex debt drowns owners Representatives for Simon and Taubman declined to comment.In court filings, Indianapolis-based Simon argued that it had legitimate grounds to scrap the buyout because Taubman’s revenue suffered a “material adverse effect” and the company didn’t take proper steps to mitigate damage from the pandemic. Simon also cited Taubman’s move to amend $1.63 billion in credit agreements as a violation of the deal.For its part, Taubman noted that it took some of the same steps as Simon to address the fallout from Covid-19, and argued its rival was legally obligated to complete the transaction on June 30 as scheduled.Legal BillsThe Bloomfield Hills, Michigan-based company, led by CEO Robert Taubman, wants the judge to enforce the buyout or award the company damages, including the loss of the premium offered to shareholders. Those damages could exceed $1 billion, according to Elliott Stein, a senior litigation analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.Alexander Goldfarb, an analyst at Piper Sandler & Co., said investors generally believe Taubman has the stronger legal case, but that Simon will fight paying the premium it agreed to and is better equipped financially to drag out the dispute. That could motivate Taubman to settle sooner rather than later because it’s more strapped for cash, he said.Both companies already have run up big tabs: In the third quarter, Taubman recorded $17 million in lawsuit-related expenses, while Simon had roughly $20 million in total legal costs, some of which went toward fighting the deal.“You’re not spending that kind of legal money if you’re just trying to give it the college try,” Goldfarb said.‘Taking a Risk’In a large number of buyouts that imploded over Covid-19 concerns, the parties have found ways to come up with a settlement by cutting the price by about 10%, said Larry Hamermesh, a University of Pennsylvania law professor who specializes in corporate M&A cases.“It’s a sensible resolution that happens frequently,” he said. “It may be difficult to make the case that Covid alone is enough to justify a material adverse change since we haven’t had any rulings to that effect so far. Both sides are taking a risk going to trial.”It’s not the first time Simon and Taubman have tangled over a buyout. In 2003, Simon launched an unsuccessful takeover of its rival. The bid prompted changes to Michigan’s corporate statutes governing takeovers after heavy lobbying by the Taubman family of their home-state lawmakers.A resolution may not come easily. Both firms have already gone through a months-long mediation process to no avail.“For a settlement, the two parties need to come to an agreement on a lower price, and that may be difficult to do,” Dutch said. “You have two strong-minded CEOs of two companies, and getting them to come to an agreement to work together could take time.”The case is Simon Property Group Inc. v. Taubman Centers Inc., No. 2020-181675-CB, Michigan Circuit Court, Oakland County (Pontiac).For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

,

Instant Quote

Enter the Stock Symbol.

Select the Exchange.

Select the Type of Security.

Please enter your First Name.

Please enter your Last Name.

Please enter your phone number.

Please enter your Email Address.

Please enter or select the Total Number of Shares you own.

Please enter or select the Desired Loan Amount you are seeking.

Please select the Loan Purpose.

Please select if you are an Officer/Director.

High West Capital Partners, LLC may only offer certain information to persons who are “Accredited Investors” and/or “Qualified Clients” as those terms are defined under applicable Federal Securities Laws. In order to be an “Accredited Investor” and/or a “Qualified Client”, you must meet the criteria identified in ONE OR MORE of the following categories/paragraphs numbered 1-20 below.

High West Capital Partners, LLC cannot provide you with any information regarding its Loan Programs or Investment Products unless you meet one or more of the following criteria. Furthermore, Foreign nationals who may be exempt from qualifying as a U.S. Accredited Investor are still required to meet the established criteria, in accordance with High West Capital Partners, LLC’s internal lending policies. High West Capital Partners, LLC will not provide information or lend to any individual and/or entity that does not meet one or more of the following criteria:

1) Individual with Net Worth in excess of $1.0 million. A natural person (not an entity) whose net worth, or joint net worth with his or her spouse, at the time of purchase exceeds $1,000,000 USD. (In calculating net worth, you may include your equity in personal property and real estate, including your principal residence, cash, short-term investments, stock and securities. Your inclusion of equity in personal property and real estate should be based on the fair market value of such property less debt secured by such property.)

2) Individual with $200,000 individual Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had individual income of more than $200,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

3) Individual with $300,000 Joint Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had joint income with his or her spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

4) Corporations or Partnerships. A corporation, partnership, or similar entity that has in excess of $5 million of assets and was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest in the Corporation or Partnership.

5) Revocable Trust. A trust that is revocable by its grantors and each of whose grantors is an Accredited Investor as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

6) Irrevocable Trust. A trust (other than an ERISA plan) that (a)is not revocable by its grantors, (b) has in excess of $5 million of assets, (c) was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest, and (d) is directed by a person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such person is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of an investment in the Trust.

7) IRA or Similar Benefit Plan. An IRA, Keogh or similar benefit plan that covers only a single natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

8) Participant-Directed Employee Benefit Plan Account. A participant-directed employee benefit plan investing at the direction of, and for the account of, a participant who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

9) Other ERISA Plan. An employee benefit plan within the meaning of Title I of the ERISA Act other than a participant-directed plan with total assets in excess of $5 million or for which investment decisions (including the decision to purchase an interest) are made by a bank, registered investment adviser, savings and loan association, or insurance company.

10) Government Benefit Plan. A plan established and maintained by a state, municipality, or any agency of a state or municipality, for the benefit of its employees, with total assets in excess of $5 million.

11) Non-Profit Entity. An organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, with total assets in excess of $5 million (including endowment, annuity and life income funds), as shown by the organization’s most recent audited financial statements.

12) A bank, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

13) A savings and loan association or similar institution, as defined in Section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

14) A broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act.

15) An insurance company, as defined in Section 2(13) of the Securities Act.

16) A “business development company,” as defined in Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act.

17) A small business investment company licensed under Section 301 (c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

18) A “private business development company” as defined in Section 202(a)(22) of the Advisers Act.

19) Executive Officer or Director. A natural person who is an executive officer, director or general partner of the Partnership or the General Partner, and is an Accredited Investor as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

20) Entity Owned Entirely By Accredited Investors. A corporation, partnership, private investment company or similar entity each of whose equity owners is a natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

Please read the notice above and check the box below to continue.

Singapore

168 Robinson Road,
Capital Tower, Singapore 068912
+65 3105 1295

Taiwan

5th Floor, No. 1-8, Section 5, Zhongxiao East Road, Taipei

Hong Kong

R91, 3rd Floor,
Eton Tower, 8 Hysan Ave.
Causeway Bay, Hong Kong
+852 3002 4462

Australia

44 Martin Place, Sydney 2000 Australia
+02 8319 3232

Indonesia

Millennium Centennial Center, 38th Floor, Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav. 25
Jakarta 12920, Indonesia

Market Coverage