ILNews

Behind the News: '80s anti-takeover law helped sow Emmis win in court

Greg Andrews
September 26, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Emmis Communications Corp.’s tactics as it plotted to strip preferred shareholders of their rights were “admittedly unusual,” Judge Sarah Evans Barker acknowledged in her Aug. 31 ruling that let the company go forward with a shareholder vote a few days later that did just that.

But if a company was going to press the limits of normal business conduct, Indiana was the right place to do it. That’s because the Indiana Business Corporation Law — enacted in the mid-1980s to help Hoosier companies fight off a wave of attacks by corporate raiders — gives boards of directors unusually broad authority to exercise judgment as they see fit.

As Emmis wrote in a court filing defending its conduct, “Plaintiffs’ argument that they are entitled to a different substantive outcome because they dislike the result dictated by unambiguous statutory and contractual language is a plea properly directed to Indiana’s General Assembly, not this court.”

Corre Opportunities Fund and other preferred shareholders had argued Emmis used a succession of illegal, sham transactions to amass two-thirds voting control of preferred shares late last year and early this year.

Reaching that threshold set the stage for the vote, which wiped out $34 million in unpaid dividends. Emmis CEO Jeff Smulyan had pushed for the changes as a way to boost the company’s long-slumping common stock, which surged following the Sept. 4 vote.

Emmis isn’t out of the woods yet, because the plaintiffs still can press for damages in a full trial. However, Barker’s 48-page ruling was replete with language suggesting she doubts plaintiffs can prevail.

To understand why, it’s helpful to take a trip back to December 1985, when Canada’s Belzberg family was threatening an assault on Arvin Industries Inc., then a powerful Columbus-based auto-parts maker.

In response, Arvin CEO James K. Baker called on his old friend Robert Garton, president pro tem of the Indiana Senate, for help. As The Wall Street Journal later recounted, within weeks Garton had steered a tough anti-takeover measure, drafted by Arvin’s own lawyers, through the General Assembly.

One of Arvin’s attorneys who helped craft the legislation was none other than Jim Strain, who, as a partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, now represents Emmis. So the company clearly grasped the legal landscape it was navigating when it decided to get tough with preferred shareholders.

Ted Boehm, who served as an expert witness for Emmis in the lawsuit, knows the terrain as well. Boehm, a corporate lawyer before serving as an Indiana Supreme Court justice from 1996 to 2010, also had a hand in drafting the Indiana Business Corporation Law.

At the time, he said in his deposition for the Emmis suit, “there was considerable concern that the phenomenon of hostile business takeovers that was prevalent was resulting in a severe depletion of locally based businesses in our state.”

The concern was so great, he said, that lawmakers wanted “to make Indiana as hospitable as it could to boards of directors’ governance of the company, and to make it as easy as possible for the board to accomplish what it determined to be in the best interests of the corporation.”

So, asked David Campbell, an attorney with Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP representing preferred shareholders, “If the board of directors made a decision that it’s in the best interests of the corporation to entrench management and allow management to take over economic control of the company at the expense of preferred shareholders, that’s fine?”

Boehm’s response: “Well, you put it in terms that are slightly pejorative, but ultimately I’d say the answer is essentially yes.”

Trustee, counsel keep jobs

Federal bankruptcy Judge Basil Lorch has refused to remove the high-profile legal team that’s untangling the massive Eastern Livestock Co. fraud.

Indianapolis Business Journal reported Aug. 27 that some parties in the case were seeking the ouster of bankruptcy Trustee Jim Knauer and his legal counsel — Faegre Baker Daniels LLP — over their failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest at the outset of the 21-month-old case.

At issue was whether they should have disclosed their representation of San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, which was a so-called participant in Fifth Third Bank’s loan to Eastern Livestock.

Faegre Baker Daniels and Knauer, a partner with Kroger Gardis & Regas LLP, argued disclosure was not necessary because loan participants don’t count as creditors and have no legal rights in bankruptcy cases.

Lorch, in an Aug. 31 ruling, concluded removal was unwarranted and would delay efforts to recover money for creditors by many months. But in his order rejecting Faegre Baker Daniels’ dismissal, he wrote that the brouhaha served as a lesson “on the wisdom of a forthcoming and openhanded approach to disclosures that goes beyond the minimum required by the law.”•
 __________

Originally published in the Sept. 10, 2012, Indianapolis Business Journal.

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT