Below is Carl Icahn’s statement from this morning expressing his support for a proposed Lionsgate/MGM merger. Late Monday, Lionsgate sent a proposal to MGM expressing support of a ”business combination” after what it called “detailed” discussions with Icahn. All of this after rebuffing Icahn’s attempts for so long. This latest development comes just days after MGM said it was planning a merger with Spyglass wherein Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum would be the new bosses.
“We are holders of significant positions in both Lions Gate stock and MGM debt. Today, Lions Gate has made a proposal to combine these two companies. We believe that this combination of Lions Gate and MGM would enhance value for all constituencies and we believe this proposal as submitted is far better for MGM holders than the current proposal to combine MGM with Spyglass. In addition, we also believe such a combination transaction would enhance the value of Lions Gate shares. However, we intend to continue to pursue our lawsuits regarding Lions Gate’s recent dilutive transaction with Mark Rachesky. Whether or not we prevail in those lawsuits, we intend to continue to support a combination of Lions Gate and MGM. Our support for this combination is conditioned on the combined company having satisfactory corporate governance provisions.”






EXCLUSIVE: Now that Spyglass has emerged as the favorite to steer MGM’s future fortunes — although Summit insists it’s not out of the running yet and Lionsgate is in merger talks — more details are emerging about MGM’s possible future. Insiders tell me that the Spyglass plan would transform MGM into a pure production company and close down its marketing and distribution divisions. That would certainly cut costs in the short run. Coupled with the equity that Spyglass would bring to the table, a streamlined MGM would lower its debt and have a shot at raising new funding to finance its own pictures. That would let Spyglass partners Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum do what they do well, which is to lower risk by making domestic and offshore distribution deals.
But I see the downside of this plan. MGM would have to pay others to distribute and market its films — and those fees could be comparable or higher than the monies saved on overhead. I’m told that rival Summit and Lionsgate proposals would maintain MGM as a studio because both companies have distribution divisions. The Spyglass move would mean yet another morphing of MGM over the recent past. Under Harry Sloan, the revived studio started off as a distribution rental system for films by financiers like Sidney Kimmel and The Weinstein Co, a strategy that didn’t work. 
