Showing posts with label Should. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Should. Show all posts

Friday, March 23, 2012

Parlux Fragrances Buyout Should Be Blocked, Lawyer Contends - BusinessWeek

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Parlux Fragrances Inc. (PARL)’s $170 million sale to Perfumania Holdings Inc. (PERF) should be blocked because directors of the maker of Paris Hilton perfume didn’t seek a higher bid, a lawyer for Parlux shareholders said.

Parlux’s board also failed to disclose that Perfumania officials threatened to begin a proxy fight unless the offer was accepted, attorney Donald J. Enright told Delaware Chancery Court Judge Sam Glasscock.

The directors “caved into the pressure” after being threatened by Perfumania, Enright said at a hearing today in Georgetown, Delaware. A special committee that was appointed following the threat only evaluated the proposal and didn’t solicit offers from other buyers and failed to lock in an all- cash option that had been part of an earlier offer.

Glasscock said that he would “address this promptly” and told lawyers that he would either issue a written opinion next week or make a ruling from the bench.

Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based Parlux announced Dec. 23 it would sell the company to Perfumania, which operates a chain of about 360 perfume shops, in a deal then valued at $170 million, according to a company statement.

“The value of this transaction has dropped very, very substantially since it was announced,” Enright told Glasscock. Enright estimates that the price has “dropped by about $50 million” for a total value of $120 million, based on Perfumania’s recent share price.

Under the terms of the sale, Parlux investors can choose to receive $4 in cash plus 0.20 share of Bellport, New York- based Perfumania or 0.53333 of the buyer, for each share they own. Perfumania rose 12 cent to $10.32 at 3:45 p.m. in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. Parlux lost one cent to $5.64 at 3:45 p.m. in Nasdaq Stock Market trading.

The deal would give Perfumania control over its largest trading partner and the maker of celebrity-branded fragrances from pop singers including Rihanna, Kanye West and Jessica Simpson.

Lawyers for Parlux’s board told Glasscock today that they had an “active committee” evaluate the offer.

“It would be a futile exercise to make” the company “go out and shop it again; the buyer is here,” Alvin B. Davis told Glasscock.

He said no other bidders emerged for the company because the market recognized the “giant of Perfumania hanging over its head” and the dangers that could arise from a spurned buyer as your biggest customer.

Parlux and Perfumania official had asked Glasscock to put the Delaware suit, filed by Parlux shareholder Jose Dias, on hold while similar suits proceed in state court in Florida. Glasscock denied that request earlier this month.

“I find nothing that indicates that this matter should be stayed in deference to the Florida action,” Glasscock said. “To the contrary, the interest in this state in the behavior of fiduciaries for its corporate citizens convinces me” to allow the suit to proceed, the judge added.

Dias’ lawyers argued in a March 14 court filing that Parlux directors knuckled under to demands from Glenn Nussdorf, Perfumania’s chairman, that it sell the company or face a fight over board seats.

“It appears that Mr. Nussdorf’s threat had the desired effect,” Enright said in court today.

Nussdorf, who owns 11 percent of Parlux’s common stock, placed two members on the company’s board after expressing interest in buying the perfume maker in 2006, Dias’ lawyers said in the filing.

“At no point in time did the board or the special committee even discuss whether to contact other potentially interested suitors for a pre-agreement market check,” the investor’s attorneys noted in the March 14 court papers.

“The notion that they were beholden to Nussdorf is mischievous and unfair,” Davis said. “He was appointed because he was competent, not biased,” he added, referring to Anthony D’Agostino, one of the board members selected by Nussdorf.

The case is Dias v. Purches, CA 7199, Delaware Chancery Court (Wilmington).

To contact the reporter on this story: Michael Bathon in New York at mbathon@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net.


View the original article here

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Ask the Lawyer: Should I buy property if I'm still renting? - Washington Post (blog)

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota


Kevin Ogorzalek looks southward at the Washington Monument from the rooftop deck of his recently purchased Mount Pleasant condo in Washington, DC on October 8, 2011. He decided to purchase rather than rent a 2 bedroom, 2 bath, 800 sq ft. Mount Pleasant condo along Georgia Avenue. He's among many potential homebuyers who are on the fence about whether to rent or buy in this market. (Photo by Linda Davidson / The Washington Post) (Linda Davidson - THE WASHINGTON POST)

My fiance and I rent a one-bedroom in a co-op in southwest DC. We’ve noticed that the studio and one-bedroom units in our building are selling for pretty low prices — some for $150,000 or less. Our lease doesn’t end until summer 2013, but we’d hate to miss out on a good investment. Is it a good idea to buy property while still renting?

— Marrio

A: Buying an investment property while still renting is a perfectly sound idea so long as the investment makes economic sense. In fact, my very first real estate investment was buying insider rights to a building that was converting to a co-op. Since you live there already as renters, you must know the fair market value of the rent you could obtain for the investment unit and how hard or easy it is to find vacant apartments to rent. If that rent will be sufficient to cover your mortgage principal, interest, co-op fee and utilities, then it sounds like a “go.”

A few points, however:

? You mention studios and one-bedrooms. While studios are less expensive to buy and maintain, the rental market for one-bedrooms or, if possible, two-bedrooms, is even better. Large one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments are ideal for roommate situations, which provide two incomes to rely upon for the rent payments each month.

? Your mortgage interest rate and down payment percentage as an investor will likely be higher than if you intend to make it your primary residence. Also, because this development is a co-op, your universe of mortgage lenders will be severely limited. So I highly recommend finding out which lenders have loaned into your specific development and then contact all of them to compare rates and terms and get pre-qualified before even considering making an offer.

? Also, though you may know the development’s exterior condition, you should still do a thorough review of the co-op documents and budgets to make sure the development is legally and financially on solid footing.

? Finally, no prospective DC investor or landlord should purchase without becoming familiar with DC’s business licensing, landlord tenant rules and DC’s Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA). Here are some links to House Lawyer previous columns I have written that you may want to peruse before becoming a landlord in DC:

Know your rights as a tenant before signing a lease

Want to become a landlord? Study up on your jurisdiction’s requirements

Buy v. Rent calculator

Got a real estate question about a situation you’re in? Send it to realestate@washpost.com.

Harvey S. Jacobs is a columnist for The Washington Post Real Estate section and a real estate lawyer in the Rockville office of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake. He is an active real estate investor, developer, landlord and lender. This column is not legal advice and should not be acted upon without obtaining your own legal counsel.


View the original article here