SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
______________
FORM
10-Q
______________
|
x QUARTERLY REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934
|
FOR
THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2010
Or
|
o TRANSITION REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
|
FOR
THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM ____________ TO _______________
COMMISSION
FILE NO. 1-12494
______________
CBL
& ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES, INC.
(Exact
Name of registrant as specified in its charter)
______________
DELAWARE 62-1545718
(State
or other jurisdiction of incorporation or
organization) (I.R.S.
Employer Identification Number)
2030
Hamilton Place Blvd., Suite 500, Chattanooga,
TN 37421-6000
(Address
of principal executive office, including zip code)
423.855.0001
(Registrant’s
telephone number, including area code)
N/A
(Former
name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last
report)
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be
filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required
to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for
the past 90 days.
Yes x No
o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on
its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be
submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this
chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See
the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller
reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large
accelerated filer x Accelerated filer o
Non-accelerated filer o(Do not check if smaller
reporting company) Smaller Reporting
Company o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule
12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes o No
x
As of
August 4, 2010, there were 138,076,295 shares of common stock, par value $0.01
per share, outstanding.
CBL
& Associates Properties, Inc.
Table
of Contents
CBL
& Associates Properties, Inc.
(In
thousands, except share data)
(Unaudited)
ASSETS
|
|
June 30,
2010
|
|
|
December
31,
2009
|
|
Real
estate assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$ |
943,492 |
|
|
$ |
946,750 |
|
Buildings
and improvements
|
|
|
7,557,570 |
|
|
|
7,569,015 |
|
|
|
|
8,501,062 |
|
|
|
8,515,765 |
|
Less
accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(1,612,950 |
) |
|
|
(1,505,840 |
) |
|
|
|
6,888,112 |
|
|
|
7,009,925 |
|
Developments
in progress
|
|
|
99,748 |
|
|
|
85,110 |
|
Net
investment in real estate assets
|
|
|
6,987,860 |
|
|
|
7,095,035 |
|
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
|
|
60,649 |
|
|
|
48,062 |
|
Receivables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tenant,
net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $3,241 in 2010
and
$3,101 in 2009
|
|
|
69,268 |
|
|
|
73,170 |
|
Other
|
|
|
13,240 |
|
|
|
8,162 |
|
Mortgage
and other notes receivable
|
|
|
38,025 |
|
|
|
38,208 |
|
Investments
in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
214,682 |
|
|
|
186,523 |
|
Intangible
lease assets and other assets
|
|
|
273,253 |
|
|
|
279,950 |
|
|
|
$ |
7,656,977 |
|
|
$ |
7,729,110 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES,
REDEEMABLE NONCONTROLLING INTERESTS AND EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage
and other indebtedness
|
|
$ |
5,455,867 |
|
|
$ |
5,616,139 |
|
Accounts
payable and accrued liabilities
|
|
|
290,347 |
|
|
|
248,333 |
|
Total
liabilities
|
|
|
5,746,214 |
|
|
|
5,864,472 |
|
Commitments
and contingencies (Notes 4 and 9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redeemable
noncontrolling interests:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redeemable
noncontrolling partnership interests
|
|
|
25,933 |
|
|
|
22,689 |
|
Redeemable
noncontrolling preferred joint venture interest
|
|
|
421,562 |
|
|
|
421,570 |
|
Total
redeemable noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
447,495 |
|
|
|
444,259 |
|
Shareholders’
equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred
stock, $.01 par value, 15,000,000 shares authorized:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.75%
Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock,
460,000
shares outstanding
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
7.375%
Series D Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, 1,330,000
and
700,000 shares outstanding in 2010 and 2009, respectively
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Common
stock, $.01 par value, 350,000,000 shares authorized,
138,075,609
and
137,888,408 issued and outstanding in 2010 and 2009,
respectively
|
|
|
1,381 |
|
|
|
1,379 |
|
Additional
paid-in capital
|
|
|
1,508,116 |
|
|
|
1,399,654 |
|
Accumulated
other comprehensive income
|
|
|
4,310 |
|
|
|
491 |
|
Accumulated
deficit
|
|
|
(335,173 |
) |
|
|
(283,640 |
) |
Total
shareholders’ equity
|
|
|
1,178,652 |
|
|
|
1,117,896 |
|
Noncontrolling
interests
|
|
|
284,616 |
|
|
|
302,483 |
|
Total
equity
|
|
|
1,463,268 |
|
|
|
1,420,379 |
|
|
|
$ |
7,656,977 |
|
|
$ |
7,729,110 |
|
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these balance
sheets.
CBL & Associates Properties,
Inc.
(In
thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)
|
|
Three
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
|
Six
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
REVENUES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum
rents
|
|
$ |
170,239 |
|
|
$ |
170,491 |
|
|
$ |
339,060 |
|
|
$ |
342,428 |
|
Percentage
rents
|
|
|
2,127 |
|
|
|
1,604 |
|
|
|
6,140 |
|
|
|
6,408 |
|
Other
rents
|
|
|
4,598 |
|
|
|
4,142 |
|
|
|
9,174 |
|
|
|
8,422 |
|
Tenant
reimbursements
|
|
|
76,347 |
|
|
|
81,695 |
|
|
|
156,170 |
|
|
|
163,179 |
|
Management,
development and leasing fees
|
|
|
1,601 |
|
|
|
1,615 |
|
|
|
3,307 |
|
|
|
4,080 |
|
Other
|
|
|
7,234 |
|
|
|
6,977 |
|
|
|
14,471 |
|
|
|
13,067 |
|
Total
revenues
|
|
|
262,146 |
|
|
|
266,524 |
|
|
|
528,322 |
|
|
|
537,584 |
|
EXPENSES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property
operating
|
|
|
37,514 |
|
|
|
39,355 |
|
|
|
76,411 |
|
|
|
83,372 |
|
Depreciation
and amortization
|
|
|
70,652 |
|
|
|
75,793 |
|
|
|
142,664 |
|
|
|
154,104 |
|
Real
estate taxes
|
|
|
24,866 |
|
|
|
24,449 |
|
|
|
49,858 |
|
|
|
48,603 |
|
Maintenance
and repairs
|
|
|
13,561 |
|
|
|
13,416 |
|
|
|
29,745 |
|
|
|
29,410 |
|
General
and administrative
|
|
|
10,321 |
|
|
|
10,893 |
|
|
|
21,395 |
|
|
|
22,372 |
|
Loss
on impairment of real estate
|
|
|
25,435 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
25,435 |
|
|
|
- |
|
Other
|
|
|
6,415 |
|
|
|
5,914 |
|
|
|
13,116 |
|
|
|
11,071 |
|
Total
expenses
|
|
|
188,764 |
|
|
|
169,820 |
|
|
|
358,624 |
|
|
|
348,932 |
|
Income
from operations
|
|
|
73,382 |
|
|
|
96,704 |
|
|
|
169,698 |
|
|
|
188,652 |
|
Interest
and other income
|
|
|
948 |
|
|
|
1,362 |
|
|
|
1,999 |
|
|
|
2,943 |
|
Interest
expense
|
|
|
(73,341 |
) |
|
|
(72,842 |
) |
|
|
(146,801 |
) |
|
|
(144,727 |
) |
Loss
on impairment of investment
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(7,706 |
) |
Gain
(loss) on sales of real estate assets
|
|
|
1,149 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
2,015 |
|
|
|
(67 |
) |
Equity
in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
409 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
948 |
|
|
|
1,596 |
|
Income
tax benefit (provision)
|
|
|
1,911 |
|
|
|
(152 |
) |
|
|
3,788 |
|
|
|
(755 |
) |
Income
from continuing operations
|
|
|
4,458 |
|
|
|
25,206 |
|
|
|
31,647 |
|
|
|
39,936 |
|
Operating
income of discontinued operations
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
Loss
on discontinued operations
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(72 |
) |
Net
income
|
|
|
4,517 |
|
|
|
25,280 |
|
|
|
31,720 |
|
|
|
39,884 |
|
Net
(income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interests in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
partnership
|
|
|
2,723 |
|
|
|
(5,109 |
) |
|
|
(1,387 |
) |
|
|
(6,415 |
) |
Other
consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(6,124 |
) |
|
|
(6,580 |
) |
|
|
(12,261 |
) |
|
|
(12,711 |
) |
Net
income attributable to the Company
|
|
|
1,116 |
|
|
|
13,591 |
|
|
|
18,072 |
|
|
|
20,758 |
|
Preferred
dividends
|
|
|
(8,358 |
) |
|
|
(5,454 |
) |
|
|
(14,386 |
) |
|
|
(10,909 |
) |
Net
income (loss) attributable to common shareholders
|
|
$ |
(7,242 |
) |
|
$ |
8,137 |
|
|
$ |
3,686 |
|
|
$ |
9,849 |
|
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
CBL
& Associates Properties, Inc.
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations
(In
thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)
(Continued)
|
|
Three
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
|
Six
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Basic
per share data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income
(loss) from continuing operations, net of preferred
dividends
|
|
$ |
(0.05 |
) |
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
$ |
0.13 |
|
Discontinued
operations
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
Net
income (loss) attributable to common shareholders
|
|
$ |
(0.05 |
) |
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
$ |
0.13 |
|
Weighted
average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
138,068 |
|
|
|
82,187 |
|
|
|
138,018 |
|
|
|
74,341 |
|
Diluted
per share data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income
(loss) from continuing operations, net of preferred
dividends
|
|
$ |
(0.05 |
) |
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
$ |
0.13 |
|
Discontinued
operations
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
Net
income (loss) attributable to common shareholders
|
|
$ |
(0.05 |
) |
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
$ |
0.13 |
|
Weighted
average common and potential dilutive
common shares outstanding
|
|
|
138,112 |
|
|
|
82,226 |
|
|
|
138,059 |
|
|
|
74,378 |
|
Amounts
attributable to common shareholders:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income
(loss) from continuing operations, net of preferred
dividends
|
|
$ |
(7,285 |
) |
|
$ |
8,092 |
|
|
$ |
3,633 |
|
|
$ |
9,880 |
|
Discontinued
operations
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
Net
income (loss) attributable to common shareholders
|
|
$ |
(7,242 |
) |
|
$ |
8,137 |
|
|
$ |
3,686 |
|
|
$ |
9,849 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends
declared per common share
|
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
$ |
0.40 |
|
|
$ |
0.48 |
|
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
CBL
& Associates Properties, Inc.
(In
thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders'
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redeemable
Noncontrolling Partnership Interests
|
|
|
Preferred
Stock
|
|
|
Common
Stock
|
|
|
Additional
Paid-in Capital
|
|
|
Accumulated
Other Comprehensive Loss
|
|
|
Accumulated
Deficit
|
|
|
Total
Shareholders' Equity
|
|
|
Noncontrolling
Interests
|
|
|
Total
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance,
January 1, 2009
|
|
$ |
18,393 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
664 |
|
|
$ |
993,941 |
|
|
$ |
(12,786 |
) |
|
$ |
(193,307 |
) |
|
$ |
788,524 |
|
|
$ |
380,472 |
|
|
$ |
1,168,996 |
|
Net
income
|
|
|
2,688 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
20,758 |
|
|
|
20,758 |
|
|
|
6,095 |
|
|
|
26,853 |
|
Other
comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
unrealized gain (loss) on available-for-sale securities
|
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
(249 |
) |
|
|
(57 |
) |
Net
unrealized gain on hedging instruments
|
|
|
342 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
3,053 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
3,053 |
|
|
|
1,728 |
|
|
|
4,781 |
|
Realized
loss on foreign currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
Net
unrealized gain on foreign currency translation
adjustment
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
2,529 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
2,529 |
|
|
|
1,300 |
|
|
|
3,829 |
|
Total
other comprehensive income
|
|
|
888 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,818 |
|
|
|
2,807 |
|
|
|
8,625 |
|
Dividends
declared - common stock
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(39,744 |
) |
|
|
(39,744 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(39,744 |
) |
Dividends
declared - preferred stock
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(10,909 |
) |
|
|
(10,909 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(10,909 |
) |
Issuance
of common stock and restricted common stock
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
414 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
414 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
414 |
|
Issuance
of common stock for dividend
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
14,691 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
14,739 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
14,739 |
|
Issuance
of common stock in equity offering
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
666 |
|
|
|
380,936 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
381,602 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
381,602 |
|
Cancellation
of restricted common stock
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(117 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(117 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(117 |
) |
Accrual
under deferred compensation arrangements
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
39 |
|
Amortization
of deferred compensation
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1,515 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1,515 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1,515 |
|
Additions
to deferred financing costs
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
Transfer
from noncontrolling interests to redeemable
noncontrolling
interests
|
|
|
82,970 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(82,970 |
) |
|
|
(82,970 |
) |
Issuance
of noncontrolling interests for distribution
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
4,140 |
|
|
|
4,140 |
|
Distributions
to noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
(6,262 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(29,062 |
) |
|
|
(29,062 |
) |
Purchase
of noncontrolling interest in other consolidated
subsidiaries
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
(717 |
) |
|
|
(500 |
) |
Adjustment
for noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
(6,238 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
27,931 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
27,931 |
|
|
|
(21,693 |
) |
|
|
6,238 |
|
Adjustment
to record redeemable noncontrolling interests
at
redemption value
|
|
|
(647 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
647 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
647 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
647 |
|
Balance,
June 30, 2009
|
|
$ |
91,792 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
1,378 |
|
|
$ |
1,420,214 |
|
|
$ |
(6,968 |
) |
|
$ |
(223,202 |
) |
|
$ |
1,191,434 |
|
|
$ |
259,095 |
|
|
$ |
1,450,529 |
|
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
CBL
& Associates Properties, Inc.
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Equity
(In
thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders'
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redeemable
Noncontrolling Partnership Interests
|
|
|
Preferred
Stock
|
|
|
Common
Stock
|
|
|
Additional
Paid-in Capital
|
|
|
Accumulated
Other Comprehensive Income
|
|
|
Accumulated
Deficit
|
|
|
Total
Shareholders' Equity
|
|
|
Noncontrolling
Interests
|
|
|
Total
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance,
January 1, 2010
|
|
$ |
22,689 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
1,379 |
|
|
$ |
1,399,654 |
|
|
$ |
491 |
|
|
$ |
(283,640 |
) |
|
$ |
1,117,896 |
|
|
$ |
302,483 |
|
|
$ |
1,420,379 |
|
Net
income
|
|
|
1,874 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
18,072 |
|
|
|
18,072 |
|
|
|
1,550 |
|
|
|
19,622 |
|
Other
comprehensive income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
3,557 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
3,557 |
|
|
|
1,299 |
|
|
|
4,856 |
|
Net
unrealized gain on hedging instruments
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1,101 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1,101 |
|
|
|
402 |
|
|
|
1,503 |
|
Realized
loss on foreign currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
Net
unrealized gain (loss) on foreign currency translation
adjustment
|
|
|
(397 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(962 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(962 |
) |
|
|
1,203 |
|
|
|
241 |
|
Total
other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
(344 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,819 |
|
|
|
2,949 |
|
|
|
6,768 |
|
Dividends
declared - common stock
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(55,219 |
) |
|
|
(55,219 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(55,219 |
) |
Dividends
declared - preferred stock
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(14,386 |
) |
|
|
(14,386 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(14,386 |
) |
Issuance
of preferred stock for equity offering
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
121,262 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
121,268 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
121,268 |
|
Issuance
of common stock and restricted common stock
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
122 |
|
Cancellation
of restricted common stock
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(175 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(175 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(175 |
) |
Exercise
of stock options
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
941 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
942 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
942 |
|
Accrual
under deferred compensation arrangements
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Amortization
of deferred compensation
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1,485 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1,485 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1,485 |
|
Income
tax effect of share-based compensation
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(1,468 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(1,468 |
) |
|
|
(337 |
) |
|
|
(1,805 |
) |
Distributions
to noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
(4,536 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(29,489 |
) |
|
|
(29,489 |
) |
Adjustment
for noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
837 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(8,297 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(8,297 |
) |
|
|
7,460 |
|
|
|
(837 |
) |
Adjustment
to record redeemable noncontrolling interests
at
redemption value
|
|
|
5,423 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(5,423 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(5,423 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(5,423 |
) |
Balance,
June 30, 2010
|
|
$ |
25,933 |
|
|
$ |
18 |
|
|
$ |
1,381 |
|
|
$ |
1,508,116 |
|
|
$ |
4,310 |
|
|
$ |
(335,173 |
) |
|
$ |
1,178,652 |
|
|
$ |
284,616 |
|
|
$ |
1,463,268 |
|
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
CBL
& Associates Properties, Inc.
(In
thousands)
(Unaudited)
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH
FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
income
|
|
$ |
31,720 |
|
|
$ |
39,884 |
|
Adjustments
to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
97,420 |
|
|
|
96,393 |
|
Amortization
|
|
|
47,058 |
|
|
|
62,142 |
|
Amortization
of deferred finance costs and debt premiums (discounts)
|
|
|
3,440 |
|
|
|
(938 |
) |
Net
amortization of above- and below-market leases
|
|
|
(1,735 |
) |
|
|
(3,112 |
) |
(Gain)
loss on sales of real estate assets
|
|
|
(2,015 |
) |
|
|
67 |
|
Realized
foreign currency loss
|
|
|
169 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
Loss
on discontinued operations
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
72 |
|
Write-off
of development projects
|
|
|
359 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
Share-based
compensation expense
|
|
|
1,561 |
|
|
|
1,875 |
|
Income
tax effect of share-based compensation
|
|
|
(1,815 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
Loss
on impairment of investment
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
7,706 |
|
Loss
on impairment of real estate
|
|
|
25,435 |
|
|
|
- |
|
Equity
in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
(948 |
) |
|
|
(1,596 |
) |
Distributions
of earnings from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
2,730 |
|
|
|
6,020 |
|
Provision
for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
1,745 |
|
|
|
3,797 |
|
Change
in deferred tax accounts
|
|
|
349 |
|
|
|
712 |
|
Changes
in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tenant
and other receivables
|
|
|
(2,995 |
) |
|
|
639 |
|
Other
assets
|
|
|
739 |
|
|
|
(2,787 |
) |
Accounts
payable and accrued liabilities
|
|
|
(21,297 |
) |
|
|
(11,947 |
) |
Net
cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
181,920 |
|
|
|
199,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH
FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions
to real estate assets
|
|
|
(45,417 |
) |
|
|
(115,718 |
) |
Distributions
from restricted cash
|
|
|
688 |
|
|
|
2,699 |
|
Proceeds
from sales of real estate assets
|
|
|
2,607 |
|
|
|
4,722 |
|
Additions
to mortgage notes receivable
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(4,437 |
) |
Payments
received on mortgage notes receivable
|
|
|
1,278 |
|
|
|
7,437 |
|
Additional
investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
(24,750 |
) |
|
|
(42,012 |
) |
Distributions
in excess of equity in earnings of unconsolidated
affiliates
|
|
|
24,861 |
|
|
|
45,464 |
|
Changes
in other assets
|
|
|
(2,366 |
) |
|
|
15,439 |
|
Net
cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(43,099 |
) |
|
|
(86,406 |
) |
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
CBL
& Associates Properties, Inc.
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(In
thousands)
(Unaudited)
(Continued)
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH
FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds
from mortgage and other indebtedness
|
|
$ |
371,323 |
|
|
$ |
347,017 |
|
Principal
payments on mortgage and other indebtedness
|
|
|
(528,867 |
) |
|
|
(750,349 |
) |
Additions
to deferred financing costs
|
|
|
(2,343 |
) |
|
|
(4,075 |
) |
Proceeds
from issuances of common stock
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
381,686 |
|
Proceeds
from issuances of preferred stock
|
|
|
121,268 |
|
|
|
- |
|
Proceeds
from exercises of stock options
|
|
|
942 |
|
|
|
- |
|
Income
tax effect of share-based compensation
|
|
|
1,815 |
|
|
|
- |
|
Purchase
of noncontrolling interests in other consolidated
subsidiary
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(500 |
) |
Distributions
to noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
(41,550 |
) |
|
|
(41,349 |
) |
Dividends
paid to holders of preferred stock
|
|
|
(14,386 |
) |
|
|
(10,909 |
) |
Dividends
paid to common shareholders
|
|
|
(34,498 |
) |
|
|
(34,405 |
) |
Net
cash used in financing activities
|
|
|
(126,234 |
) |
|
|
(112,884 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EFFECT
OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE CHANGES ON CASH
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(293 |
) |
NET
CHANGE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
|
|
12,587 |
|
|
|
(438 |
) |
CASH
AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, beginning of period
|
|
|
48,062 |
|
|
|
51,227 |
|
CASH
AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, end of period
|
|
$ |
60,649 |
|
|
$ |
50,789 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash
paid for interest, net of amounts capitalized
|
|
$ |
142,088 |
|
|
$ |
148,309 |
|
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
CBL
& Associates Properties, Inc.
(In
thousands, except per share data)
Note
1 – Organization and Basis of Presentation
CBL &
Associates Properties, Inc. (“CBL”), a Delaware corporation, is a self-managed,
self-administered, fully integrated real estate investment trust (“REIT”) that
is engaged in the ownership, development, acquisition, leasing, management and
operation of regional shopping malls, open-air centers, community centers and
office properties. Its shopping center properties are located in 27
states, but are primarily in the southeastern and midwestern United
States.
CBL
conducts substantially all of its business through CBL & Associates Limited
Partnership (the “Operating Partnership”).At June 30, 2010, the Operating
Partnership owned controlling interests in 76 regional malls/open-air centers
(including one mixed-use center), 30 associated centers (each located adjacent
to a regional mall), ten community centers, and 13 office buildings, including
CBL’s corporate office building. The Operating Partnership consolidates the
financial statements of all entities in which it has a controlling financial
interest or where it is the primary beneficiary of a variable interest
entity. At June 30, 2010, the Operating Partnership owned
non-controlling interests in eight regional malls, four associated centers, four
community centers and six office buildings. Because one or more of the other
partners have substantive participating rights, the Operating Partnership does
not control these partnerships and joint ventures and, accordingly, accounts for
these investments using the equity method. The Operating Partnership
had a controlling interest in one community center, owned in a 75/25 joint
venture that was under construction at June 30, 2010. The Operating
Partnership also holds options to acquire certain development properties owned
by third parties.
CBL is
the 100% owner of two qualified REIT subsidiaries, CBL Holdings I, Inc. and CBL
Holdings II, Inc. At June 30, 2010, CBL Holdings I, Inc., the sole general
partner of the Operating Partnership, owned a 1.1% general partner interest in
the Operating Partnership and CBL Holdings II, Inc. owned a 71.6% limited
partner interest for a combined interest held by CBL of 72.7%.
The
noncontrolling interest in the Operating Partnership is held primarily by CBL
& Associates, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively “CBL’s Predecessor”) and
by affiliates of The Richard E. Jacobs Group, Inc. (“Jacobs”). CBL’s Predecessor
contributed their interests in certain real estate properties and joint ventures
to the Operating Partnership in exchange for a limited partner interest when the
Operating Partnership was formed in November 1993. Jacobs contributed their
interests in certain real estate properties and joint ventures to the Operating
Partnership in exchange for limited partner interests when the Operating
Partnership acquired the majority of Jacobs’ interests in 23 properties in
January 2001 and the balance of such interests in February 2002. At June 30,
2010, CBL’s Predecessor owned a 9.8% limited partner interest, Jacobs owned a
12.1% limited partner interest and third parties owned a 5.4% limited partner
interest in the Operating Partnership. CBL’s Predecessor also owned
7.3 million shares of CBL’s common stock at June 30, 2010, for a total combined
effective interest of 13.6% in the Operating Partnership.
The
Operating Partnership conducts CBL’s property management and development
activities through CBL & Associates Management, Inc. (the “Management
Company”) to comply with certain requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the “Code”). The Operating Partnership owns 100% of both of
the Management Company’s preferred stock and common stock.
CBL, the
Operating Partnership and the Management Company are collectively referred to
herein as “the Company”.
The
accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements are unaudited; however,
they have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for interim financial
information and in conjunction with the rules and regulations of the Securities
and Exchange Commission. Accordingly, they do not include all of the disclosures
required by GAAP for complete financial statements. In the opinion of
management, all adjustments (consisting solely of normal recurring matters)
necessary for a fair presentation of the financial statements for these interim
periods have been included. Material
intercompany
transactions have been eliminated. The results for the interim period ended June
30, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be obtained for the
full fiscal year.
In April
2009, the Company paid its first quarter dividend on its common stock of $0.37
per share in cash and shares of common stock. The Company issued
4,754,355 shares of its common stock in connection with the dividend, which
resulted in an increase of approximately 7.2% in the number of shares
outstanding. The Company elected to treat the issuance of its common
stock as a stock dividend for earnings per share (“EPS”) purposes pursuant to
accounting guidance that was in effect at that time. Therefore, all
share and per share information related to EPS was adjusted proportionately to
reflect the additional common stock issued on a retrospective
basis. However, in January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards
Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2010-01, Accounting for Stock Dividends,
Including Distributions to Shareholders with Components of Stock and Cash
(“ASU 2010-01”) requiring that stock dividends such as the one the Company made
in April 2009 be treated as a stock issuance that is reflected in share and per
share information related to EPS on a prospective basis. Pursuant to
the provisions of ASU 2010-01, the Company adopted this guidance on a
retrospective basis. Thus, the share and per share information
related to EPS for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 as previously
presented in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2009, has been revised herein to reflect this adoption.
The
Company has evaluated subsequent events through the date of issuance of these
financial statements.
These
condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with
CBL’s audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in
its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed on
February 22, 2010, as amended.
Note 2 – New Accounting Guidance
Effective
January 1, 2010, the Company adopted ASU No. 2010-06, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures: Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements (“ASU
2010-06”). ASU 2010-06 provides that significant transfers in or out
of measurements classified as Levels 1 or 2 should be disclosed separately along
with reasons for the transfers. Information regarding purchases,
sales, issuances and settlements related to measurements classified as Level 3
are also to be presented separately. Existing disclosures have been
updated to include fair value measurement disclosures for each class of assets
and liabilities and information regarding the valuation techniques and inputs
used to measure fair value in measurements classified as either Levels 2 or
3. The guidance was effective for fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2009 excluding the provision relating to the rollforward of Level 3
activity which has been deferred until January 1, 2011. The adoption
did not have an impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial
statements.
Effective
January 1, 2010, the Company adopted ASU No. 2009-16, Transfers and Servicing: Accounting
for Transfers of Financial Assets (“ASU 2009-16”). The
guidance eliminates the concept of a “qualifying special-purpose entity,”
changes the requirements for derecognizing financial assets and requires
additional related disclosures. The adoption did not have an impact
on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.
Effective
January 1, 2010, the Company adopted ASU No. 2009-17, Consolidations: Improvements to
Financial Reporting by Enterprises Involved with Variable Interest Entities
(“ASU 2009-17”). ASU 2009-17 modifies how a company determines
when an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or is not controlled through
voting, or similar, rights should be consolidated. The guidance
clarifies that the determination of whether a company is required to consolidate
an entity is based on, among other things, an entity’s purpose and design and a
company’s ability to direct the activities of the entity that most significantly
impact the entity’s economic performance. This guidance requires an
ongoing reassessment of whether a company is the primary beneficiary of a
variable interest entity. It also requires additional disclosure
about a company’s involvement in variable interest entities and any significant
changes in risk exposure due to that involvement. The adoption did
not have an impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial
statements.
On
February 24, 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-09, Subsequent Events: Amendments to
Certain Recognition and Disclosure Requirements (“ASU
2010-09”). ASU 2010-09 amends the disclosure provision related to
subsequent events by removing the requirement for an SEC filer to disclose a
date through which
subsequent
events have been evaluated. The new accounting guidance was effective
immediately and was adopted by the Company upon the date of
issuance.
Note 3 – Fair Value Measurements
The
Company has categorized its financial assets and financial liabilities that are
recorded at fair value into a hierarchy based on whether the inputs to valuation
techniques are observable or unobservable. The fair value hierarchy
contains three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value as
follows:
Level 1 –
Inputs represent quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and
liabilities as of the measurement date.
Level 2 –
Inputs, other than those included in Level 1, represent observable measurements
for similar instruments in active markets, or identical or similar instruments
in markets that are not active, and observable measurements or market data for
instruments with substantially the full term of the asset or
liability.
Level 3 –
Inputs represent unobservable measurements, supported by little, if any, market
activity, and require considerable assumptions that are significant to the fair
value of the asset or liability. Market valuations must often be
determined using discounted cash flow methodologies, pricing models or similar
techniques based on the Company’s assumptions and best judgment.
The
following tables set forth information regarding the Company’s financial
instruments that are measured at fair value in the condensed consolidated
balance sheets as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
Fair
Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
|
|
|
|
Fair
Value at
June
30, 2010
|
|
|
Quoted
Prices
in
Active
Markets
for
Identical
Assets
(Level
1)
|
|
|
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level
2)
|
|
|
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level
3)
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
$ |
8,935 |
|
|
$ |
8,935 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
Privately
held debt and equity securities
|
|
|
2,475 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
2,475 |
|
Interest
rate caps
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
rate swaps
|
|
$ |
1,197 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
1,197 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair
Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
|
|
|
|
Fair
Value at
December
31, 2009
|
|
|
Quoted
Prices
in
Active
Markets
for
Identical
Assets
(Level
1)
|
|
|
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level
2)
|
|
|
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level
3)
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
$ |
4,039 |
|
|
$ |
4,039 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
Privately
held debt and equity securities
|
|
|
2,475 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
2,475 |
|
Interest
rate cap
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
rate swaps
|
|
$ |
2,907 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
2,907 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
Intangible
lease assets and other assets in the condensed consolidated balance sheets
include marketable securities consisting of corporate equity securities that are
classified as available for sale. Net unrealized gains and losses on
available-for-sale securities that are deemed to be temporary in nature are
recorded as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income in redeemable
noncontrolling interests, shareholders’ equity and
noncontrolling
interests. If a decline in the value of an investment is deemed to be
other than temporary, the investment is written down to fair value and an
impairment loss is recognized in the current period to the extent of the decline
in value. During the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010
and 2009, the Company did not recognize any realized gains and losses or
write-downs related to sales or disposals of marketable securities or
other-than-temporary impairments. The fair value of the Company’s
available-for-sale securities is based on quoted market prices and, thus, is
classified under Level 1. The following is a summary of the equity
securities held by the Company as of June 30, 2010 and December 31,
2009:
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted
Cost
|
|
|
Gains
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Fair
Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June
30, 2010
|
|
$ |
4,207 |
|
|
$ |
4,732 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
8,935 |
|
December
31, 2009
|
|
$ |
4,207 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
168 |
|
|
$ |
4,039 |
|
The
Company holds a secured convertible promissory note from, and a warrant to
acquire shares of, Jinsheng Group (“Jinsheng”), in which the Company also holds
a cost-method investment. The secured convertible note is
non-interest bearing and is secured by shares of Jinsheng. Since the
secured convertible note is non-interest bearing and there is no active market
for Jinsheng’s debt, the Company performed an analysis on the note considering
credit risk and discounting factors to determine the fair value. The
warrant was initially valued using estimated share price and volatility
variables in a Black Scholes model. Due to the significant estimates
and assumptions used in the valuation of the note and warrant, the Company has
classified these under Level 3. As part of its investment review as
of March 31, 2009, the Company determined that its investment in Jinsheng was
impaired on an other than temporary basis due to a decline in expected future
cash flows as a result of declining occupancy and sales related to the then
downturn of the real estate market in China. An impairment charge of
$2,400 was recorded in the Company’s condensed consolidated statement of
operations for the six month period ended June 30, 2009, to reduce the carrying
values of the secured convertible note and warrant to their estimated fair
values. The Company performed qualitative and quantitative analyses
of its investment as of June 30, 2010 and determined that the current balance of
the secured convertible note and warrant of $2,475 is not
impaired. See Note 4 for further
discussion.
The
Company uses interest rate swaps to mitigate the effect of interest rate
movements on its variable-rate debt. The Company currently has two
interest rate swaps included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities and two
interest rate caps included in intangible lease assets and other assets in the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets that qualify as hedging
instruments and are designated as cash flow hedges. The swaps and
caps have predominantly met the effectiveness test criteria since inception and
changes in their fair values are, thus, primarily reported in other
comprehensive income and are reclassified into earnings in the same period or
periods during which the hedged items affect earnings. The fair
values of the Company’s interest rate hedge instruments, classified under Level
2, are determined using a proprietary model which is based on prevailing market
data for contracts with matching durations, current and anticipated London
Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) information, consideration of the Company’s
credit standing, credit risk of the counterparties and reasonable estimates
about relevant future market conditions. See Note 5 for further
information regarding the Company’s interest rate hedging activity.
The
carrying values of cash and cash equivalents, receivables, accounts payable and
accrued liabilities are reasonable estimates of their fair values because of the
short-term nature of these financial instruments. Based on the
interest rates for similar financial instruments, the carrying value of mortgage
notes receivable is a reasonable estimate of fair value. The
estimated fair value of mortgage and other indebtedness was $5,823,793 and
$5,830,722 at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. The
estimated fair value was calculated by discounting future cash flows for the
notes payable using estimated market rates at which similar loans would be made
currently.
The
following table sets forth information regarding the Company’s assets that are
measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis:
|
|
|
|
|
Fair
Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair
Value at
June
30, 2010
|
|
Quoted
Prices
in
Active
Markets
for
Identical
Assets
(Level
1)
|
|
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level
2)
|
|
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level
3)
|
|
Total
Loss
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-lived
assets
|
|
$ |
11,969 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
|
$ |
11,969 |
|
|
$ |
25,435 |
|
The
Company evaluates the carrying value of long-lived assets to be held and used
when events or changes in circumstances warrant such a review. The carrying
value of a long-lived asset is considered impaired when its estimated future
undiscounted cash flows are less than its carrying value. If it is determined
that impairment has occurred, the amount of the impairment charge is equal to
the excess of the asset’s carrying value over its estimated fair value. The
Company’s estimates of undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by each
property are based on a number of assumptions such as leasing expectations,
operating budgets, estimated useful lives, future maintenance expenditures,
intent to hold for use and capitalization rates. These assumptions
are subject to economic and market uncertainties including, but not limited to,
demand for space, competition for tenants, changes in market rental rates and
costs to operate each property. As these factors are difficult to predict and
are subject to future events that may alter the assumptions used, the future
cash flows estimated in the Company’s impairment analyses may not be
achieved.
During
the course of the Company’s normal quarterly impairment review process for the
second quarter of 2010, it was determined that a write-down of the depreciated
book value of Oak Hollow Mall in High Point, NC, to its estimated fair value was
necessary, resulting in a non-cash loss on impairment of real estate assets of
$25,435 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010. Subsequent
to June 30, 2010, the Company entered into a contract to sell this property,
subject to due diligence and customary closing conditions, for a sales price
that is significantly less than the property’s carrying value. The
impending sale was considered in the quarterly impairment review process, which
resulted in a fair value of $11,578. If the sale of this property
closes in accordance with the terms of the current contract, the lender of the
non-recourse loan secured by this property with a principal balance of $39,559
as of June 30, 2010 has agreed to modify the outstanding principal balance of
the loan to equal the net sales price of the property. See Note 9 for additional information.
The
revenues of Oak Hollow Mall accounted for approximately 0.4% of total
consolidated revenues for the trailing twelve months ended June 30,
2010. A reconciliation of the property’s carrying values for the six
months ended June 30, 2010 is as follows:
|
|
Oak
Hollow
Mall
|
|
Beginning
carrying value, January 1, 2010
|
|
$ |
37,287 |
|
Capital
expenditures
|
|
|
512 |
|
Depreciation
expense
|
|
|
(786 |
) |
Loss
on impairment of real estate
|
|
|
(25,435 |
) |
Ending
carrying value, June 30, 2010
|
|
$ |
11,578 |
|
Note 4 – Unconsolidated Affiliates, Noncontrolling Interests and
Cost Method Investments
Unconsolidated
Affiliates
At June
30, 2010, the Company had investments in the following 20 entities, which are
accounted for using the equity method of accounting:
Joint
Venture
|
|
Property
Name
|
|
Company's
Interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CBL-TRS
Joint Venture, LLC
|
|
Friendly
Center, The Shops at Friendly Center and a portfolio of six office
buildings
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
CBL-TRS
Joint Venture II, LLC
|
|
Renaissance
Center
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
Governor’s
Square IB
|
|
Governor’s
Plaza
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
Governor’s
Square Company
|
|
Governor’s
Square
|
|
|
47.5
|
% |
|
High
Pointe Commons, LP
|
|
High
Pointe Commons
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
High
Pointe Commons II-HAP, LP
|
|
High
Pointe Commons - Christmas Tree Shop
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
Imperial
Valley Mall L.P.
|
|
Imperial
Valley Mall
|
|
|
60.0
|
% |
|
Imperial
Valley Peripheral L.P.
|
|
Imperial
Valley Mall (vacant land)
|
|
|
60.0
|
% |
|
JG
Gulf Coast Town Center LLC
|
|
Gulf
Coast Town Center
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
Kentucky
Oaks Mall Company
|
|
Kentucky
Oaks Mall
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
Mall
of South Carolina L.P.
|
|
Coastal
Grand—Myrtle Beach
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
Mall
of South Carolina Outparcel L.P.
|
|
Coastal
Grand—Myrtle Beach (vacant land)
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
Mall
Shopping Center Company
|
|
Plaza
del Sol (1)
|
|
|
50.6
|
% |
|
Parkway
Place L.P.
|
|
Parkway
Place
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
Port
Orange I, LLC
|
|
The
Pavilion at Port Orange Phase I
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
Port
Orange II, LLC
|
|
The
Pavilion at Port Orange Phase II
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
Triangle
Town Member LLC
|
|
Triangle
Town Center, Triangle Town Commons and Triangle Town Place
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
West
Melbourne I, LLC
|
|
Hammock
Landing Phase I
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
West
Melbourne II, LLC
|
|
Hammock
Landing Phase II
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
York
Town Center, LP
|
|
York
Town Center
|
|
|
50.0
|
% |
|
(1) |
Plaza del Sol was
sold in June 2010. |
Although
the Company has majority ownership of certain of these joint ventures, it has
evaluated these investments and concluded that the other partners or owners in
these joint ventures have substantive participating rights, such as approvals
of:
·
|
the
pro forma for the development and construction of the project and any
material deviations or modifications
thereto;
|
·
|
the
site plan and any material deviations or modifications
thereto;
|
·
|
the
conceptual design of the project and the initial plans and specifications
for the project and any material deviations or modifications
thereto;
|
·
|
any
acquisition/construction loans or any permanent
financings/refinancings;
|
·
|
the
annual operating budgets and any material deviations or modifications
thereto;
|
·
|
the
initial leasing plan and leasing parameters and any material deviations or
modifications thereto; and
|
·
|
any
material acquisitions or dispositions with respect to the
project.
|
As a
result of the joint control over these joint ventures, the Company accounts for
these investments using the equity method of accounting.
Condensed
combined financial statement information for the unconsolidated affiliates is as
follows:
|
|
Total
for the Three
Months
Ended June 30,
|
|
|
Company's
Share for the Three
Months
Ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
38,331 |
|
|
$ |
39,940 |
|
|
$ |
21,686 |
|
|
$ |
22,817 |
|
Depreciation
and amortization expense
|
|
|
(14,286 |
) |
|
|
(13,071 |
) |
|
|
(8,403 |
) |
|
|
(7,471 |
) |
Interest
expense
|
|
|
(13,858 |
) |
|
|
(12,691 |
) |
|
|
(8,449 |
) |
|
|
(7,426 |
) |
Other
operating expenses
|
|
|
(11,295 |
) |
|
|
(13,490 |
) |
|
|
(4,647 |
) |
|
|
(7,942 |
) |
Gain
on sales of real estate assets
|
|
|
1,412 |
|
|
|
701 |
|
|
|
170 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
Operating
income of discontinued operations
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Net
income
|
|
$ |
407 |
|
|
$ |
1,393 |
|
|
$ |
409 |
|
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
|
Total
for the Six
Months
Ended June 30,
|
|
|
Company's
Share for the Six
Months
Ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
77,373 |
|
|
$ |
81,096 |
|
|
$ |
42,311 |
|
|
$ |
47,343 |
|
Depreciation
and amortization expense
|
|
|
(27,244 |
) |
|
|
(25,539 |
) |
|
|
(15,205 |
) |
|
|
(14,895 |
) |
Interest
expense
|
|
|
(27,701 |
) |
|
|
(25,234 |
) |
|
|
(15,612 |
) |
|
|
(15,218 |
) |
Other
operating expenses
|
|
|
(23,627 |
) |
|
|
(27,045 |
) |
|
|
(10,753 |
) |
|
|
(16,303 |
) |
Gain
on sales of real estate assets
|
|
|
1,290 |
|
|
|
1,689 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
646 |
|
Operating
income of discontinued operations
|
|
|
170 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
Net
income
|
|
$ |
261 |
|
|
$ |
5,013 |
|
|
$ |
948 |
|
|
$ |
1,596 |
|
Mall
Shopping Center Company
In June
2010, the Company’s 50.6% owned unconsolidated joint venture, Mall Shopping
Center Company, sold Plaza del Sol in Del Rio, TX. The joint venture
recognized a gain of $1,244 from the sale, of which the Company’s share was $75,
net of the excess of its basis over its underlying equity in the amount of
$554. The results of operations of Mall Shopping Center Company have
been reclassified to discontinued operations in the tables above for all periods
presented.
CBL
Macapa
In
September 2008, the Company entered into a condominium partnership agreement
with several individual investors to acquire a 60% interest in a new retail
development in Macapa, Brazil. The Company provided total funding of
$1,189 related to the development. In December 2009, the Company
entered into an agreement to sell its 60% interest in this partnership with one
of the condominium partnership’s investors for a gross sales price of $1,263,
less closing costs for a net sales price of $1,201. The sale closed
in March 2010. Upon closing, the buyer paid $200 and gave the Company
two notes receivable totaling $1,001, both with an interest rate of 10%, for the
remaining balance of the purchase price. There was no gain or loss on
this sale. On April 22, 2010, the buyer paid the first note of $300,
due on April 23, 2010, plus applicable interest. Upon maturity of the
second note of $701, due on June 8, 2010, the buyer requested additional time
for payment. The Company and buyer have agreed to revised terms
regarding the second note of which the buyer will pay monthly installments of
$45 from July 2010 to June 2011, with a final balloon installment of $161 due in
July 2011. Interest on the revised note is payable at
maturity.Noncontrolling
Interests
Noncontrolling
interests includes the aggregate noncontrolling partnership interest in the
Operating Partnership that is not owned by the Company and for which each of the
noncontrolling limited partners has the right to exchange all or a portion of
its partnership interests for shares of the Company’s common stock, or at the
Company’s election, their cash equivalent. Noncontrolling interests
also includes the aggregate noncontrolling ownership interest in the Company’s
other consolidated subsidiaries that is held by third parties and for which the
related partnership agreements either do not include redemption
provisions
or are subject to redemption provisions that do not require classification
outside of permanent equity. As of June 30, 2010, the total
noncontrolling interests of $284,616 consisted of third-party interests in the
Operating Partnership and in other consolidated subsidiaries of $283,737 and
$879, respectively. The total noncontrolling interests at December
31, 2009 of $302,483 consisted of third-party interests in the Operating
Partnership and in other consolidated subsidiaries of $301,808 and $675,
respectively.
Redeemable
noncontrolling interests includes a noncontrolling partnership interest in the
Operating Partnership that is not owned by the Company and for which the
partnership agreement includes redemption provisions that may require the
Company to redeem the partnership interest for real
property. Redeemable noncontrolling interests also includes the
aggregate noncontrolling ownership interest in other consolidated subsidiaries
that is held by third parties and for which the related partnership agreements
contain redemption provisions at the holder’s election that allow for redemption
through cash and/or properties. The total redeemable noncontrolling
partnership interests of $25,933 as of June 30, 2010 consisted of third-party
interests in the Operating Partnership and in the Company’s consolidated
subsidiary that provides security and maintenance services to third parties of
$19,461 and $6,472, respectively. At December 31, 2009, the total
redeemable noncontrolling partnership interests of $22,689 consisted of
third-party interests in the Operating Partnership and in the Company’s
consolidated security and maintenance services subsidiary of $16,194 and $6,495,
respectively.
The
redeemable noncontrolling preferred joint venture interest includes the
preferred joint venture units (“PJV units”) issued to the Westfield Group
(“Westfield”) for the acquisition of certain properties during
2007. See Note 9 for additional information
related to the PJV units. Activity related to the redeemable
noncontrolling preferred joint venture interest represented by the PJV units is
as follows:
|
|
Six
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Beginning
Balance
|
|
$ |
421,570 |
|
|
$ |
421,279 |
|
Net
income attributable to redeemable noncontrolling
preferred
joint venture interest
|
|
|
10,217 |
|
|
|
10,343 |
|
Distributions
to redeemable noncontrolling preferred
joint
venture interest
|
|
|
(10,225 |
) |
|
|
(10,165 |
) |
Ending
Balance
|
|
$ |
421,562 |
|
|
$ |
421,457 |
|
Cost Method
Investments
In
February 2007, the Company acquired a 6.2% noncontrolling interest in
subsidiaries of Jinsheng, an established mall operating and real estate
development company located in Nanjing, China, for $10,125. As of
June 30, 2010, Jinsheng owns controlling interests in four home decoration
shopping centers, two general retail shopping centers and four development
sites.
Jinsheng
also issued to the Company a secured convertible promissory note in exchange for
cash of $4,875. The note is secured by 16,565,534 Series 2 Ordinary Shares of
Jinsheng. The secured note is non-interest bearing and matures upon
the earlier to occur of (i) January 22, 2012, (ii) the closing of the sale,
transfer or other disposition of substantially all of Jinsheng’s assets, (iii)
the closing of a merger or consolidation of Jinsheng or (iv) an event of
default, as defined in the secured note. In lieu of the Company’s right to
demand payment on the maturity date, the Company may, at its sole option,
convert the outstanding amount of the secured note into 16,565,534 Series A-2
Preferred Shares of Jinsheng (which equates to a 2.275% ownership
interest).
Jinsheng
also granted the Company a warrant to acquire 5,461,165 Series A-3 Preferred
Shares for $1,875. The warrant expired on January 22,
2010.
The
Company accounts for its noncontrolling interest in Jinsheng using the cost
method because the Company does not exercise significant influence over Jinsheng
and there is no readily determinable market value of Jinsheng’s shares since
they are not publicly traded. The Company initially recorded the
secured note at its estimated fair value of $4,513, which included a discount of
$362 due to the fact that it is non-interest bearing. The discount is
amortized to interest income over the term of the secured note using the
effective interest method. The noncontrolling interest and the
secured note are reflected as investment in unconsolidated affiliates in the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets.
As part of its investment
review as of March 31, 2009, the Company determined that its noncontrolling
interest in Jinsheng was impaired on an other-than-temporary basis due to a
decline in expected future cash flows. The decrease resulted from
declining occupancy rates and sales due to the then downturn of the real estate
market in China. An impairment charge of $5,306 was recorded
in the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of operations for the six
months ended June 30, 2009 to reduce the carrying value of the Company’s
cost-method investment to its estimated fair value. The Company
performed qualitative and quantitative analyses of its noncontrolling investment
as of June 30, 2010 and determined that the current balance of its investment is
not impaired.
Note 5 – Mortgage and Other Indebtedness
Mortgage
and other indebtedness consisted of the following at June 30, 2010 and December
31, 2009, respectively:
|
|
June
30, 2010
|
|
|
December
31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Weighted
Average
Interest
Rate (1)
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Weighted
Average
Interest
Rate (1)
|
|
Fixed-rate
debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-recourse
loans on operating properties
|
|
$ |
3,849,952 |
|
|
|
5.94 |
% |
|
|
$ |
3,888,822 |
|
|
|
6.02 |
% |
|
Recourse
loans on operating properties (2)
|
|
|
159,443 |
|
|
|
5.27 |
% |
|
|
|
160,896 |
|
|
|
5.28 |
% |
|
Total
fixed-rate debt
|
|
|
4,009,395 |
|
|
|
5.92 |
% |
|
|
|
4,049,718 |
|
|
|
5.99 |
% |
|
Variable-rate
debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recourse
term loans on operating properties
|
|
|
377,027 |
|
|
|
2.09 |
% |
|
|
|
242,763 |
|
|
|
1.68 |
% |
|
Secured
lines of credit
|
|
|
631,951 |
|
|
|
3.51 |
% |
|
|
|
759,206 |
|
|
|
4.19 |
% |
|
Unsecured
term facilities
|
|
|
437,494 |
|
|
|
1.71 |
% |
|
|
|
437,494 |
|
|
|
1.73 |
% |
|
Construction
loans
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
126,958 |
|
|
|
2.48 |
% |
|
Total
variable-rate debt
|
|
|
1,446,472 |
|
|
|
2.59 |
% |
|
|
|
1,566,421 |
|
|
|
2.97 |
% |
|
Total
|
|
$ |
5,455,867 |
|
|
|
5.04 |
% |
|
|
$ |
5,616,139 |
|
|
|
5.15 |
% |
|
(1)
|
Weighted-average
interest rate includes the effect of debt premiums (discounts), but
excludes amortization of deferred financing
costs.
|
(2)
|
The
Company has entered into interest rate swaps on notional amounts totaling
$127,500 as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 related to two of its
variable-rate loans on operating properties to effectively fix the
interest rates on those loans. Therefore, these amounts are
currently reflected in fixed-rate
debt.
|
Secured Lines of
Credit
The
Company has three secured lines of credit that are used for mortgage retirement,
working capital, construction and acquisition purposes, as well as issuances of
letters of credit. Each of these lines is secured by mortgages on certain of the
Company’s operating properties. Borrowings under the secured lines of credit
bear interest at LIBOR, subject to a floor of 1.50%, plus a margin ranging from
0.75% to 4.25% and had a weighted average interest rate of 3.51% at June 30,
2010. The Company also pays fees based on the amount of unused availability
under its two largest secured lines of credit at an annual rate of 0.35% of
unused availability. The following summarizes certain information about the
secured lines of credit as of June 30, 2010:
|
Total
Capacity
|
|
|
Total
Outstanding
|
|
Maturity
Date
|
|
Extended
Maturity
Date
|
$ |
560,000
|
|
$ |
385,633
|
|
|
August
2011
|
|
April
2014
|
|
525,000
|
|
|
243,318
|
(1)
|
|
February
2012
|
|
February
2013
|
|
105,000
|
|
|
3,000
|
(2)
|
|
June
2011
|
|
N/A
|
$ |
1,190,000
|
|
$ |
631,951
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
There
was an additional $7,291 outstanding on this secured line of credit as of
June 30, 2010 for letters of credit. Up to $50,000 of the
capacity on this line can be used for letters of
credit.
|
(2)
|
Subsequent
to June 30, 2010, the Company extended the maturity date of this secured
line of credit to June 2012.
|
Subsequent
to June 30, 2010, the Company closed on the extension and modification of its
secured credit facility with total capacity of $105,000. The
facility’s maturity date was extended to June 2012 at its existing interest rate
of LIBOR, subject to a floor of 1.50%, plus a margin of 300 basis
points. At June 1, 2011, the total capacity on this line of credit
could decrease to $82,500 due to an exiting participant lender that has provided
$22,500 of this line’s total capacity. The Company is currently
negotiating the terms with a potential replacement lender and believes that an
agreement with a replacement lender or lenders will be executed prior to that
date.
Unsecured Term
Facilities
The
Company has an unsecured term facility with total capacity of $228,000 that
bears interest at LIBOR plus a margin of 1.50% to 1.80% based on the Company’s
leverage ratio, as defined in the agreement to the facility. At June
30, 2010, the outstanding borrowings of $228,000 under the unsecured term
facility had a weighted average interest rate of 1.95%. The facility
matures in April 2011 and has two one-year extension options, which are at the
Company’s election, for an outside maturity date of April 2013.
The
Company has an unsecured term facility that was obtained for the exclusive
purpose of acquiring certain properties from the Starmount Company or its
affiliates. At June 30, 2010, the outstanding borrowings of $209,494
under this facility had a weighted average interest rate of
1.45%. The Company completed its acquisition of the properties in
February 2008 and, as a result, no further draws can be made against the
facility. The unsecured term facility bears interest at LIBOR plus a
margin of 0.95% to 1.40% based on the Company’s leverage ratio, as defined in
the agreement to the facility. Net proceeds from a sale, or the
Company’s share of excess proceeds from any refinancings, of any of the
properties originally purchased with borrowings from this unsecured term
facility must be used to pay down any remaining outstanding
balance. The facility matures in November 2010 and has two one-year
extension options, which are at the Company’s election, for an outside maturity
date of November 2012.
Letters of
Credit
At June
30, 2010, the Company had additional secured and unsecured lines of credit with
a total commitment of $20,971 that can only be used for issuing letters of
credit. The letters of credit outstanding under these lines of credit totaled
$17,655 at June 30, 2010.
Covenants and
Restrictions
The
$560,000 and $525,000 secured line of credit agreements contain, among other
restrictions, certain financial covenants including the maintenance of certain
financial coverage ratios, minimum net worth requirements, and limitations on
cash flow distributions. The Company was in compliance with all
covenants and restrictions at June 30, 2010.
The
agreements to the $560,000 and $525,000 secured credit facilities and the two
unsecured term facilities described above, each with the same lender, contain
default and cross-default provisions customary for transactions of this nature
(with applicable customary grace periods) in the event (i) there is a default in
the payment of any indebtedness owed by the Company to any institution which is
a part of the lender groups for thecredit facilities, or (ii) there is any other
type of default with respect to any indebtedness owed by the Company to any
institution which is a part of the lender groups for the credit facilities and
such lender accelerates the payment of the indebtedness owed to it as a result
of such default. The credit facility agreements provide that, upon
the occurrence and continuation of an event of default, payment of all amounts
outstanding under these credit facilities and those facilities with which these
agreements reference cross-default provisions may be accelerated and the
lenders’ commitments may be terminated. Additionally, any default in
the payment of any recourse indebtedness greater than $50,000 or any
non-recourse indebtedness greater than $100,000, regardless of whether the
lending institution is a part of the lender groups for the credit facilities,
will constitute an event of default under the agreements to the credit
facilities.
Forty-seven
malls/open-air centers, nine associated centers, three community centers and the
corporate office building are owned by special purpose entities that are
included in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The sole business
purpose of the special purpose entities is to own and operate these properties.
The real estate and other assets owned by these special purpose entities are
restricted under the loan agreements in that
they are
not available to settle other debts of the Company. However, so long as the
loans are not under an event of default, as defined in the loan agreements, the
cash flows from these properties, after payments of debt service, operating
expenses and reserves, are available for distribution to the
Company.
Mortgages on Operating
Properties
During
the second quarter of 2010, the Company entered into an $83,000 ten-year,
non-recourse commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) loan with a fixed
interest rate of 6.00% secured by Burnsville Center in Minneapolis,
MN. The loan replaced an existing $60,683 loan that was scheduled to
mature in August 2010. The Company also entered into an eight-year
$115,000 loan with a fixed interest rate of 6.98% secured by CoolSprings
Galleria in Nashville, TN. Proceeds from the new loan, plus cash on
hand, were used to retire an existing loan of $120,463 that was scheduled to
mature in September 2010. Additionally, the Company closed on a new
ten-year $14,800 loan with a fixed interest rate of 7.25% secured by The
Terrace, a community center in Chattanooga, TN. Excess proceeds from
these financing activities were used to pay down the Company’s secured credit
facilities.
Also
during the second quarter, the Company repaid a CMBS loan with a principal
balance of $8,988 secured by WestGate Crossing in Spartanburg, SC with
borrowings from the $560,000 credit facility and the property was added to the
collateral pool securing that facility.
During
the first quarter of 2010, the Company closed on a variable-rate $72,000
non-recourse loan that bears interest at LIBOR plus a margin of 400 basis points
secured by St. Clair Square in Fairview Heights, IL. The new loan
replaced an existing loan with a principal balance of $57,237. The
Company has an interest rate cap in place on this loan to limit the LIBOR rate
to a maximum of 3.00%. The cap matures in January
2012. The excess proceeds received from the refinancing were used to
pay down the secured credit facilities. Also during the first
quarter, the Company repaid a CMBS loan secured by Park Plaza Mall in
Little Rock, AK with a principal balance of $38,856 with borrowings from the
$560,000 credit facility and the property was added to the collateral pool
securing that facility.
Subsequent
to June 30, 2010, the Company closed on a $65,000 ten-year, non-recourse CMBS
loan with a fixed interest rate of 6.50% secured by Valley View Mall in Roanoke,
VA. The new loan replaced an existing loan with a principal balance
of $40,639 that was scheduled to mature in September 2010. The
Company also repaid CMBS loans secured by Parkdale Mall and Parkdale Crossing in
Beaumont, TX with an aggregate principal balance of $55,360 with borrowings from
the $560,000 credit facility and the properties were added to the collateral
pool securing that facility.
Scheduled Principal
Payments
As of
June 30, 2010, the scheduled principal payments of the Company’s consolidated
debt, excluding extensions available at the Company’s option, on all mortgage
and other indebtedness, including construction loans and lines of credit, are as
follows:
2010
|
|
$ |
715,799 |
|
2011
|
|
|
1,148,641 |
|
2012
|
|
|
855,475 |
|
2013
|
|
|
451,649 |
|
2014
|
|
|
189,033 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
2,090,162 |
|
|
|
|
5,450,759 |
|
Net
unamortized premiums
|
|
|
5,108 |
|
|
|
$ |
5,455,867 |
|
Of the
$715,799 of scheduled principal payments in 2010, $680,102 relates to the
maturing principal balances of ten operating property loans and an unsecured
term facility. Maturing debt with principal balances of $481,371
outstanding as of June 30, 2010 have extensions available at the Company’s
option, leaving approximately $198,731 of loan maturities in 2010 that must be
retired or refinanced. Three loans secured by
operating
properties with a combined principal balance of $95,999 as of June 30, 2010 were
either refinanced or repaid subsequent to the end of the quarter. The
remaining $102,732 of loan maturities in 2010 represents loans on four operating
properties. The Company has term sheets or availability on its lines
of credit to address all of the remaining 2010 debt maturities.
The
Company’s mortgage and other indebtedness had a weighted average maturity of
3.59 years as of June 30, 2010 and 3.66 years as of December 31,
2009.
Interest Rate Hedge
Instruments
The
Company records its derivative instruments in its condensed consolidated balance
sheets at fair value. The accounting for changes in the fair value of
derivatives depends on the intended use of the derivative, whether the
derivative has been designated as a hedge and, if so, whether the hedge has met
the criteria necessary to apply hedge accounting.
The
Company’s objectives in using interest rate derivatives are to add stability to
interest expense and to manage its exposure to interest rate
movements. To accomplish these objectives, the Company primarily uses
interest rate swaps and caps as part of its interest rate risk management
strategy. Interest rate swaps designated as cash flow hedges involve
the receipt of variable-rate amounts from a counterparty in exchange for the
Company making fixed-rate payments over the life of the agreements without
exchange of the underlying notional amount. Interest rate caps
designated as cash flow hedges involve the receipt of variable-rate amounts from
a counterparty if interest rates rise above the strike rate on the contract in
exchange for an up-front premium.
The
effective portion of changes in the fair value of derivatives designated as, and
that qualify as, cash flow hedges is recorded in accumulated other comprehensive
income (loss) (“AOCI/L”) and is subsequently reclassified into earnings in the
period that the hedged forecasted transaction affects earnings. Such
derivatives are used to hedge the variable cash flows associated with
variable-rate debt.
As of
June 30, 2010, the Company had the following outstanding interest rate
derivatives that were designated as cash flow hedges of interest rate
risk:
Interest
Rate
Derivative
|
|
Number
of
Instruments
|
|
|
Notional
Amount
|
|
Interest
Rate Swaps
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
$ |
127,500 |
|
Interest
Rate Caps
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
$ |
152,000 |
|
Instrument
Type
|
Location
in
Consolidated
Balance
Sheet
|
|
Notional
Amount
|
Designated
Benchmark
Interest
Rate
|
|
Strike
Rate
|
|
|
Fair
Value
at
6/30/10
|
|
|
Fair
Value
at
12/31/09
|
|
Maturity
Date
|
Cap
|
Intangible
lease
assets
and other
assets
|
|
$ |
72,000
(amortizing
to
$69,375)
|
|
3-month
LIBOR
|
|
|
3.000 |
% |
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
Jan-12 |
Cap
|
Intangible
lease
assets
and other
assets
|
|
|
80,000 |
|
USD-SIFMA
Municipal
Swap
Index
|
|
|
4.000 |
% |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Dec-10
|
Pay
fixed/ Receive
variable
Swap
|
Accounts
payable
and
accrued
liabilities
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
1-month
LIBOR
|
|
|
2.175 |
% |
|
|
(310 |
) |
|
|
(636 |
) |
Nov-10
|
Pay
fixed/ Receive
variable
Swap
|
Accounts
payable
and
accrued
liabilities
|
|
|
87,500 |
|
1-month
LIBOR
|
|
|
3.600 |
% |
|
|
(887 |
) |
|
|
(2,271 |
) |
Sep-10
|
|
|
Gain
Recognized
in
OCI/L
(Effective
Portion)
|
|
Location
of
Losses
Reclassified
from
(Effective
|
|
Loss
Recognized
in
Earnings
(Effective
Portion)
|
|
Location
of
Gain
(Ineffective
|
|
Gain
Recognized
in
Earnings
(Ineffective
Portion)
|
|
Hedging
|
|
Three
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
AOCI/L
into
Earnings
|
|
Three
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
Recognized
in
Earnings
|
|
Three
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
Instrument |
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Portion) |
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Portion) |
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Interest
rate hedges
|
|
$ |
906 |
|
|
$ |
3,193 |
|
Interest
Expense
|
|
$ |
(941) |
|
|
$ |
(4,150) |
|
Interest
Expense
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
|
Gain
Recognized
in
OCI/L
(Effective
Portion)
|
|
Location
of
Losses
Reclassified
from
(Effective
|
|
Loss
Recognized
in
Earnings
(Effective
Portion)
|
|
Location
of
Gain
(Ineffective
|
|
Gain
Recognized
in
Earnings
(Ineffective
Portion)
|
|
Hedging
|
|
Six
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
AOCI/L
into
Earnings
|
|
Six Months
Ended
June
30,
|
|
Recognized
in
Earnings
|
|
Six Months
Ended
June
30,
|
|
Instrument |
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Portion) |
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Portion) |
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Interest
rate hedges
|
|
$ |
1,515 |
|
|
$ |
5,123 |
|
Interest
Expense
|
|
$ |
(1,884) |
|
|
$ |
(8,254) |
|
Interest
Expense
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
21 |
|
In
addition, the Company has a $129,000 notional amount interest rate cap agreement
to hedge the risk of changes in cash flows on a loan of one of its properties up
to the cap notional amount. The interest rate cap protects the
Company from increases in the hedged cash flows attributable to overall changes
in 1-month LIBOR above the strike rate of the cap on the debt. The
strike rate associated with the interest rate cap is 3.25%. The
Company did not designate this cap as a hedge under GAAP and, thus, records any
changes in fair value on the cap as interest expense in the condensed
consolidated statements of operations. The Company recognized a
gain of $6 and a loss of $65 during the three and six months ended June 30,
2009, respectively. No gain or loss was recognized during the
three and six months ended June 30, 2010. The interest rate cap had
no value as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 and matures in July
2010.
Note
6 – Comprehensive Income
Comprehensive
income includes all changes in redeemable noncontrolling interests and total
equity during the period, except those resulting from investments by
shareholders and partners, distributions to shareholders and partners and
redemption valuation adjustments. Other comprehensive income (“OCI”) includes
changes in unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities, interest
rate hedge agreements and foreign currency translation
adjustments. The computation of comprehensive income for the three
and six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 is as follows:
|
|
Three
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
|
Six
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Net
income
|
|
$ |
4,517 |
|
|
$ |
25,280 |
|
|
$ |
31,720 |
|
|
$ |
39,884 |
|
Other
comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
unrealized gain on hedging agreements
|
|
|
906 |
|
|
|
3,193 |
|
|
|
1,515 |
|
|
|
5,123 |
|
Net
unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities
|
|
|
1,357 |
|
|
|
2,239 |
|
|
|
4,896 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
Realized
loss on foreign currency translation
adjustment
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
169 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
Net
unrealized gain (loss) on foreign currency
translation
adjustment
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
3,431 |
|
|
|
(156 |
) |
|
|
4,179 |
|
Total
other comprehensive income
|
|
|
2,263 |
|
|
|
8,890 |
|
|
|
6,424 |
|
|
|
9,513 |
|
Comprehensive
income
|
|
$ |
6,780 |
|
|
$ |
34,170 |
|
|
$ |
38,144 |
|
|
$ |
49,397 |
|
The
components of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) as of June 30, 2010
and December 31, 2009 are as follows:
|
|
June
30, 2010
|
|
|
|
As
reported in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redeemable
Noncontrolling Interests
|
|
|
Shareholders'
Equity
|
|
|
Noncontrolling
Interests
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Net
unrealized gain (loss) on hedging
agreements
|
|
$ |
412 |
|
|
$ |
782 |
|
|
$ |
(2,639 |
) |
|
|
$ |
(1,445 |
) |
|
Net
unrealized gain on available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
301 |
|
|
|
3,528 |
|
|
|
899 |
|
|
|
|
4,728 |
|
|
Accumulated
other comprehensive
income
(loss)
|
|
$ |
713 |
|
|
$ |
4,310 |
|
|
$ |
(1,740 |
) |
|
|
$ |
3,283 |
|
|
|
|
December
31, 2009
|
|
|
|
As
reported in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redeemable
Noncontrolling Interests
|
|
|
Shareholders'
Equity
|
|
|
Noncontrolling
Interests
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Net
unrealized gain (loss) on hedging
agreements
|
|
$ |
400 |
|
|
$ |
(319 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,041 |
) |
|
|
$ |
(2,960 |
) |
|
Net
unrealized gain (loss) on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
261 |
|
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
(400 |
) |
|
|
|
(168 |
) |
|
Net
unrealized gain (loss) on foreign
currency
translation adjustment
|
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
839 |
|
|
|
(1,248 |
) |
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
Accumulated
other comprehensive
income
(loss)
|
|
$ |
1,057 |
|
|
$ |
491 |
|
|
$ |
(4,689 |
) |
|
|
$ |
(3,141 |
) |
|
Note
7 – Segment Information
The
Company measures performance and allocates resources according to property type,
which is determined based on certain criteria such as type of tenants, capital
requirements, economic risks, leasing terms, and short and long-term returns on
capital. Rental income and tenant reimbursements from tenant leases provide the
majority of revenues from all segments. Information on the Company’s reportable
segments is presented as follows:
Three
Months Ended June 30, 2010
|
|
Malls
|
|
|
Associated
Centers
|
|
|
Community
Centers
|
|
|
All
Other (2)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
232,973 |
|
|
$ |
10,483 |
|
|
$ |
7,635 |
|
|
$ |
11,055 |
|
|
$ |
262,146 |
|
Property
operating expenses (1)
|
|
|
(76,371 |
) |
|
|
(2,717 |
) |
|
|
(2,382 |
) |
|
|
5,529 |
|
|
|
(75,941 |
) |
Interest
expense
|
|
|
(58,135 |
) |
|
|
(1,934 |
) |
|
|
(1,875 |
) |
|
|
(11,397 |
) |
|
|
(73,341 |
) |
Other
expense
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(6,415 |
) |
|
|
(6,415 |
) |
Gain
on sales of real estate assets
|
|
|
1,149 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
1,149 |
|
Segment
profit (loss)
|
|
$ |
99,616 |
|
|
$ |
5,832 |
|
|
$ |
3,378 |
|
|
$ |
(1,228 |
) |
|
|
107,598 |
|
Depreciation
and amortization expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(70,652 |
) |
General
and administrative expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,321 |
) |
Interest
and other income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
948 |
|
Loss
on impairment of real estate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25,435 |
) |
Equity
in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
409 |
|
Income
tax benefit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,911 |
|
Income
from continuing operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,458 |
|
Capital
expenditures (3)
|
|
$ |
31,668 |
|
|
$ |
3,096 |
|
|
$ |
1,696 |
|
|
$ |
12,500 |
|
|
$ |
48,960 |
|
Three
Months Ended June 30, 2009
|
|
Malls
|
|
|
Associated
Centers
|
|
|
Community
Centers
|
|
|
All
Other (2)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
241,001 |
|
|
$ |
10,304 |
|
|
$ |
3,687 |
|
|
$ |
11,532 |
|
|
$ |
266,524 |
|
Property
operating expenses (1)
|
|
|
(80,258 |
) |
|
|
(2,459 |
) |
|
|
(1,005 |
) |
|
|
6,502 |
|
|
|
(77,220 |
) |
Interest
expense
|
|
|
(61,721 |
) |
|
|
(2,173 |
) |
|
|
(996 |
) |
|
|
(7,952 |
) |
|
|
(72,842 |
) |
Other
expense
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(5,912 |
) |
|
|
(5,914 |
) |
Gain
on sales of real estate assets
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
Segment
profit
|
|
$ |
99,024 |
|
|
$ |
5,672 |
|
|
$ |
1,695 |
|
|
$ |
4,229 |
|
|
|
110,620 |
|
Depreciation
and amortization expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(75,793 |
) |
General
and administrative expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,893 |
) |
Interest
and other income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,362 |
|
Equity
in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62 |
|
Income
tax provision
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(152 |
) |
Income
from continuing operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
25,206 |
|
Capital
expenditures (3)
|
|
$ |
47,996 |
|
|
$ |
2,641 |
|
|
$ |
429 |
|
|
$ |
23,352 |
|
|
$ |
74,418 |
|
Six
Months Ended June 30, 2010
|
|
Malls
|
|
|
Associated
Centers
|
|
|
Community
Centers
|
|
|
All
Other (2)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
470,729 |
|
|
$ |
20,854 |
|
|
$ |
14,254 |
|
|
$ |
22,485 |
|
|
$ |
528,322 |
|
Property
operating expenses (1)
|
|
|
(156,809 |
) |
|
|
(5,579 |
) |
|
|
(5,219 |
) |
|
|
11,593 |
|
|
|
(156,014 |
) |
Interest
expense
|
|
|
(116,472 |
) |
|
|
(3,978 |
) |
|
|
(3,680 |
) |
|
|
(22,671 |
) |
|
|
(146,801 |
) |
Other
expense
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(13,116 |
) |
|
|
(13,116 |
) |
Gain
(loss) on sales of real estate assets
|
|
|
1,113 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
984 |
|
|
|
(82 |
) |
|
|
2,015 |
|
Segment
profit (loss)
|
|
$ |
198,561 |
|
|
$ |
11,297 |
|
|
$ |
6,339 |
|
|
$ |
(1,791 |
) |
|
|
214,406 |
|
Depreciation
and amortization expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142,664 |
) |
General
and administrative expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21,395 |
) |
Interest
and other income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,999 |
|
Loss
on impairment of real estate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25,435 |
) |
Equity
in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
948 |
|
Income
tax benefit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,788 |
|
Income
from continuing operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
31,647 |
|
Total
assets
|
|
$ |
6,574,654 |
|
|
$ |
327,793 |
|
|
$ |
67,633 |
|
|
$ |
686,897 |
|
|
$ |
7,656,977 |
|
Capital
expenditures (3)
|
|
$ |
55,862 |
|
|
$ |
5,165 |
|
|
$ |
2,732 |
|
|
$ |
19,017 |
|
|
$ |
82,776 |
|
Six
Months Ended June 30, 2009
|
|
Malls
|
|
|
Associated
Centers
|
|
|
Community
Centers
|
|
|
All
Other (2)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
485,032 |
|
|
$ |
20,758 |
|
|
$ |
9,057 |
|
|
$ |
22,737 |
|
|
$ |
537,584 |
|
Property
operating expenses (1)
|
|
|
(164,350 |
) |
|
|
(5,513 |
) |
|
|
(3,072 |
) |
|
|
11,550 |
|
|
|
(161,385 |
) |
Interest
expense
|
|
|
(122,560 |
) |
|
|
(4,340 |
) |
|
|
(2,020 |
) |
|
|
(15,807 |
) |
|
|
(144,727 |
) |
Other
expense
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
(11,069 |
) |
|
|
(11,071 |
) |
Gain
(loss) on sales of real estate assets
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
(164 |
) |
|
|
(67 |
) |
Segment
profit
|
|
$ |
198,119 |
|
|
$ |
10,905 |
|
|
$ |
4,063 |
|
|
$ |
7,247 |
|
|
|
220,334 |
|
Depreciation
and amortization expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(154,104 |
) |
General
and administrative expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22,372 |
) |
Interest
and other income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,943 |
|
Loss
on impairment of investment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,706 |
) |
Equity
in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,596 |
|
Income
tax provision
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(755 |
) |
Income
from continuing operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
39,936 |
|
Total
assets
|
|
$ |
6,884,164 |
|
|
$ |
334,788 |
|
|
$ |
70,489 |
|
|
$ |
654,091 |
|
|
$ |
7,943,532 |
|
Capital
expenditures (3)
|
|
$ |
71,076 |
|
|
$ |
8,847 |
|
|
$ |
1,384 |
|
|
$ |
64,362 |
|
|
$ |
145,669 |
|
(1) |
Property operating expenses include property
operating, real estate taxes and maintenance and
repairs. |
(2) |
The All Other category includes mortgage notes
receivable, Office Buildings, the Management Company and the Company’s
subsidiary that provides security and maintenance
services. |
(3) |
Amounts include acquisitions of real estate assets
and investments in unconsolidated affiliates. Developments in progress are
included in the All Other
category. |
Note
8 – Earnings Per Share
During
the first quarter of 2010, the Company completed an underwritten public offering
of 6,300,000 depositary shares, each representing 1/10th of a
share of the Company’s 7.375% Series D Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock,
having a liquidation preference of $25.00 per depositary share. The
depositary shares were sold at $20.30 per share including accrued dividends of
$0.37 per share. The net proceeds, after underwriting costs and
related expenses, of approximately $123,599 were used to reduce outstanding
borrowings under the Company’s credit facilities and for general corporate
purposes. The net proceeds included aggregate accrued dividends of
$2,331 that were received as part of the offering price.
Including
the shares issued in this offering, the Company now has 13,300,000 depositary
shares outstanding, each representing 1/10th of a share of its 7.375% Series D
Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock. The securities are redeemable at
liquidation preference, plus accrued and unpaid dividends, at any time at the
option of the Company. These securities have no stated maturity, sinking fund or
mandatory redemption provisions and are not convertible into any other
securities of the Company.
In June
2009, the Company completed a public offering of 66,630,000 shares of its $0.01
par value common stock for $6.00 per share. The net proceeds, after underwriting
costs and related expenses, of approximately $381,823 were used to repay
outstanding borrowings under the Company’s credit facilities.
In
February 2009, the Company’s Board of Directors declared a quarterly dividend
for the Company's common stock of $0.37 per share for the quarter ended March
31, 2009, to be paid in a combination of cash and shares of the Company’s common
stock. The dividend was paid on 66,407,096 shares of common stock
outstanding on the record date. The Company issued 4,754,355 shares
of its common stock in connection with the dividend, which resulted in an
increase of 7.2% in the number of shares outstanding. The Company
initially elected to treat the issuance of its common stock as a stock dividend
for per share purposes and adjusted all share and per share information related
to earnings per share on a retrospective basis to reflect the additional common
stock issued. However, in January 2010, the FASB issued ASU No.
2010-01, requiring that stock dividends such as the one the Company made in
April 2009 be treated as a stock issuance that is reflected in share and per
share information related to EPS on a prospective basis. Pursuant to
its provisions, the Company adopted this guidance effective January 1, 2009 on a
retrospective basis. Thus, the information presented for the three
and six months ended June 30, 2009, has been revised to reflect this
guidance.
Basic EPS
is computed by dividing net income (loss) attributable to common shareholders by
the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted
EPS assumes the issuance of common stock for all potential dilutive common
shares outstanding. The limited partners’ rights to convert their noncontrolling
interests in the Operating Partnership into shares of common stock are not
dilutive.
The
following summarizes the impact of potential dilutive common shares on the
denominator used to compute earnings per share:
|
|
Three
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
|
Six
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Denominator
– basic earnings per share
|
|
|
138,068 |
|
|
|
82,187 |
|
|
|
138,018 |
|
|
|
74,341 |
|
Dilutive
effect of deemed shares related to deferred
compensation
arrangements
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
Denominator
– diluted earnings per share
|
|
|
138,112 |
|
|
|
82,226 |
|
|
|
138,059 |
|
|
|
74,378 |
|
The
Company is currently involved in certain litigation that arises in the ordinary
course of business. It is management’s opinion that the pending litigation will
not materially affect the financial position or results of operations of the
Company.
The
Company consolidates its investment in a joint venture, CW Joint Venture, LLC
(“CWJV”), with Westfield. The terms of the joint venture agreement
require that CWJV pay an annual preferred distribution at a rate of 5.0%, which
increases to 6.0% on July 1, 2013, on the preferred liquidation value of the PJV
units of CWJV that are held by Westfield. Westfield has the right to
have all or a portion of the PJV units redeemed by CWJV with property owned by
CWJV, and subsequent to October 16, 2012, with either cash or property owned by
CWJV, in each case for a net equity amount equal to the preferred liquidation
value of the PJV units. At any time after January 1, 2013, Westfield may propose
that CWJV acquire certain qualifying property that would be used to redeem the
PJV units at their preferred liquidation value. If CWJV does not redeem the PJV
units with such qualifying property (a “Preventing Event”), then the annual
preferred distribution rate on the PJV units increases to 9.0% beginning July 1,
2013. The Company will have the right, but not the obligation, to
offer to redeem the PJV units after January 31, 2013 at their preferred
liquidation value, plus accrued and unpaid distributions. If the Company fails
to make such an offer, the annual preferred distribution rate on the PJV units
increases to 9.0% for the period from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016, at
which time it decreases to 6.0% if a Preventing Event has not
occurred. If, upon redemption of the PJV units, the fair value of the
Company’s common stock is greater than $32.00 per share, then such excess (but
in no case greater than $26,000 in the aggregate) shall be added to the
aggregate preferred liquidation value payable on account of the PJV
units. The Company accounts for this contingency using the method
prescribed for earnings or other performance measure
contingencies. As such, should this contingency result in additional
consideration to Westfield, the Company will record the current fair value of
the consideration issued as a purchase price adjustment at the time the
consideration is paid or payable.
Guarantees
The
Company may guarantee the debt of a joint venture primarily because it allows
the joint venture to obtain funding at a lower cost than could be obtained
otherwise. This results in a higher return for the joint venture on its
investment, and a higher return on the Company’s investment in the joint
venture. The Company may receive a fee from the joint venture for providing the
guaranty. Additionally, when the Company issues a guaranty, the terms of the
joint venture agreement typically provide that the Company may receive
indemnification from the joint venture.
The
Company owns a parcel of land that it is ground leasing to a third party
developer for the purpose of developing a shopping center. The
Company has guaranteed 27% of the third party’s construction loan and bond line
of credit (the “loans”) of which the maximum guaranteed amount is
$31,554. The total amount outstanding at June 30, 2010 on the loans
was $77,201 of which the Company has guaranteed $20,844. The third
party’s loans matured in June 2010. The third party is currently
renegotiating the terms of the loans and the Company anticipates that the loans
will be extended on renegotiated terms in the third quarter. The
Company recorded an obligation of $315 in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 to reflect
the estimated fair value of its guaranty.
The
Company has guaranteed 100% of the construction and land loans of West Melbourne
I, LLC (“West Melbourne”), an unconsolidated affiliate in which the Company owns
a 50% interest, of which the maximum guaranteed amount is
$50,678. West Melbourne developed Hammock Landing, a community center
in West Melbourne, FL that opened in April 2009. The total amount outstanding at
June 30, 2010 on the loans was $45,610. The guaranty will expire upon repayment
of the debt. The land loan, representing $3,276 of the amount
outstanding at June 30, 2010, matures in August 2010 and has a one-year
extension option available. The construction loan, representing
$42,334 of the amount outstanding at June 30, 2010, matures in August 2011 and
has two one-year extension options available. The Company recorded an
obligation of $670 in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets as
of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 to reflect the estimated fair value of
this guaranty.
The
Company has guaranteed 100% of the construction loan of Port Orange I, LLC
(“Port Orange”), an unconsolidated affiliate in which the Company owns a 50%
interest, of which the maximum guaranteed amount is $97,183. Port
Orange developed and, in March 2010, opened The Pavilion at Port Orange, a
community center in Port Orange, FL. The total amount outstanding at June 30,
2010 on the loan was $69,363. The guaranty will expire upon repayment of the
debt. The loan matures in December 2011 and has extension options
available. The Company has recorded an obligation of $1,120 in the accompanying
condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009
to reflect the estimated fair value of this guaranty.
The
Company has guaranteed the lease performance of York Town Center, LP (“YTC”), an
unconsolidated affiliate in which we own a 50% interest, under the terms of an
agreement with a third party that owns property as part of York Town Center.
Under the terms of that agreement, YTC is obligated to cause performance of the
third party’s obligations as landlord under its lease with its sole tenant,
including, but not limited to, provisions such as co-tenancy and exclusivity
requirements. Should YTC fail to cause performance, then the tenant under the
third party landlord’s lease may pursue certain remedies ranging from rights to
terminate its lease to receiving reductions in rent. The Company has guaranteed
YTC’s performance under this agreement up to a maximum of $22,000, which
decreases by $800 annually until the guaranteed amount is reduced to $10,000.
The guaranty expires on December 31, 2020. The maximum guaranteed
obligation was $18,800 as of June 30, 2010. The Company entered into
an agreement with its joint venture partner under which the joint venture
partner has agreed to reimburse the Company 50% of any amounts it is obligated
to fund under the guaranty. The Company did not record an obligation
for this guaranty because it determined that the fair value of the guaranty is
not material.
The
Company has guaranteed 100% of a construction loan of JG Gulf Coast Town Center,
LLC, an unconsolidated affiliate in which the Company owns a 50% interest, of
which the maximum guaranteed amount is $11,561. Proceeds from the
construction loan are designated for the development of Phase III of Gulf Coast
Town Center, an open-air center in Fort Myers, FL. The total amount outstanding
at June 30, 2010 on the loans was $11,561. The guaranty will expire upon
repayment of the debt. The loan matures in April 2011 and has a one
year extension option available. The Company did not record an
obligation for this guaranty because it determined that the fair value of the
guaranty is not material.
Performance
Bonds
The
Company has issued various bonds that it would have to satisfy in the event of
non-performance. At June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the total amount
outstanding on these bonds was $31,892 and $34,429, respectively.
Sale of Real
Estate
As
discussed in Note 3, subsequent to June 30, 2010, the
Company entered into a contract to sell Oak Hollow Mall in High Point, NC,
subject to due diligence and customary closing conditions, for a sales price
that is significantly less than the property’s carrying value. The
impending sale was considered in the Company’s quarterly impairment review
process, which resulted in a loss on impairment of real estate of $25,435 for
the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010. If the sale of
this property closes in accordance with the terms of the current contract, the
lender of the non-recourse loan secured by this property with a principal
balance of $39,559 as of June 30, 2010 has agreed to modify the outstanding
principal balance of the loan to equal the net sales price of the
property. Should this occur, the Company anticipates recording a gain
on extinguishment of debt of approximately $27,977 upon completion of the
disposition.
Note
10 – Share-Based Compensation
Share-based
compensation expense was $632 and $913 for the three months ended June 30, 2010
and 2009, respectively, and $1,561 and $1,875 for the six months ended June 30,
2010 and 2009, respectively. Share-based compensation cost capitalized as part
of real estate assets was $48 and $61 for the three months ended June 30, 2010
and 2009, respectively, and $94 and $132 for the six months ended June 30, 2010
and 2009, respectively.
The
Company’s stock option activity for the six months ended June 30, 2010 is
summarized as follows:
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
|
|
Outstanding
at January 1, 2010
|
|
|
566,334 |
|
|
$ |
16.06 |
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(77,509 |
) |
|
|
12.14 |
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
(1,200 |
) |
|
|
18.27 |
|
Outstanding
at June 30, 2010
|
|
|
487,625 |
|
|
|
16.68 |
|
Vested
and exercisable at June 30, 2010
|
|
|
487,625 |
|
|
|
16.68 |
|
A summary
of the status of the Company’s stock awards as of June 30, 2010, and changes
during the six months ended June 30, 2010, is presented
below:
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Weighted
Average
Grant-Date
Fair
Value
|
|
Nonvested
at January 1, 2010
|
|
|
156,120 |
|
|
$ |
33.16 |
|
Granted
|
|
|
119,100 |
|
|
|
10.34 |
|
Vested
|
|
|
(83,350 |
) |
|
|
34.54 |
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
(820 |
) |
|
|
18.02 |
|
Nonvested
at June 30, 2010
|
|
|
191,050 |
|
|
|
18.40 |
|
As of
June 30, 2010, there was $2,574 of total unrecognized compensation cost related
to nonvested stock awards granted under the plan, which is expected to be
recognized over a weighted average period of 3.0 years. In February
2010, the Company granted restricted stock awards for 113,600 shares of common
stock to employees that will vest in equal installments over the next five
years. In January 2010, the Company granted restricted stock awards
for a total of 4,500 shares of common stock to its non-employee directors and
granted an additional award of 1,000 shares in conjunction with the election of
a new non-employee director in May 2010.
Note
11 – Noncash Investing and Financing Activities
The
Company’s noncash investing and financing activities were as follows for the six
months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
Six
Months Ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Accrued
dividends and distributions payable
|
|
$ |
43,116 |
|
|
$ |
29,202 |
|
Additions
to real estate assets accrued but not yet paid
|
|
|
13,624 |
|
|
|
13,475 |
|
Issuance
of common stock for dividend
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
14,739 |
|
Issuance
of noncontrolling interests in Operating Partnership for
distribution
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
4,148 |
|
Notes
receivable from sale of interest in unconsolidated
affiliate
|
|
|
1,001 |
|
|
|
1,750 |
|
Additions
to real estate assets from forgiveness of mortgage note
receivable
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
6,502 |
|
Note
12 – Income Taxes
The
Company is qualified as a REIT under the provisions of the Code. To maintain
qualification as a REIT, the Company is required to distribute at least 90% of
its taxable income to shareholders and meet certain other
requirements.
As a
REIT, the Company is generally not liable for federal corporate income taxes. If
the Company fails to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, the Company will be
subject to federal and state income taxes on its taxable income at regular
corporate tax rates. Even if the Company maintains its qualification as a REIT,
the Company may be subject to certain state and local taxes on its income and
property, and to federal income and excise taxes on its undistributed income.
State tax expense was $1,324 and $1,969 during the three months ended June 30,
2010 and 2009, respectively, and $2,264 and $3,625 during the six months ended
June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
The
Company has also elected taxable REIT subsidiary status for some of its
subsidiaries. This enables the Company to receive income and provide
services that would otherwise be impermissible for REITs. For these entities,
deferred tax assets and liabilities are established for temporary differences
between the financial reporting basis and the tax basis of assets and
liabilities at the enacted tax rates expected to be in effect when the temporary
differences reverse. A valuation allowance for deferred tax assets is provided
if the Company believes all or some portion of the deferred tax asset may not be
realized. An increase or decrease in the valuation allowance resulting from
changes in circumstances that may affect the realizability of the related
deferred tax asset is included in income or expense, as applicable.
The
Company recorded an income tax benefit of $1,911 and an income tax provision of
$152 for the three months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009,
respectively. The income tax benefit in 2010 consisted of a current
tax benefit of $4,980 and a deferred tax provision of $3,069. The
income tax provision in 2009 consisted of a current tax benefit of $251 and a
deferred tax provision of $403.
The
Company recorded an income tax benefit of $3,788 and an income tax provision of
$755 for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009,
respectively. The income tax benefit in 2010 consisted of a current
tax benefit of $6,370 and a deferred tax provision of $2,582. The
income tax provision in 2009 consisted of a current income tax provision of
$1,075 and a deferred tax benefit of $320.
The
Company had deferred tax assets of $6,226 and $3,634 at June 30, 2010 and
December 31, 2009, respectively. The Company had a deferred tax liability of
$2,941 at June 30, 2010. There was no deferred tax liability as of
December 31, 2009. The deferred taxes at June 30, 2010 and December
31, 2009 consisted primarily of operating expense accruals and differences
between book and tax depreciation.
The
Company reports any income tax penalties attributable to its properties as
property operating expenses and any corporate-related income tax penalties as
general and administrative expenses in its statement of
operations. In addition, any interest incurred on tax assessments is
reported as interest expense. The Company reported nominal interest
and penalty amounts for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009,
respectively.
The
following discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of
operations should be read in conjunction with the condensed consolidated
financial statements and accompanying notes that are included in this Form
10-Q. Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this Management’s
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations have
the same meanings as defined in the notes to the condensed consolidated
financial statements. In this discussion, the terms “we”, “us”, “our” and the
“Company” refer to CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. and its
subsidiaries.
Certain
statements made in this section or elsewhere in this report may be deemed
“forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws.
In many cases, these forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of
words such as “will,” “may,” “should,” “could,” “believes,” “expects,”
“anticipates,” “estimates,” “intends,” “projects,” “goals,” “objectives,”
“targets,” “predicts,” “plans,” “seeks,” or similar expressions. Any
forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to the factors discussed throughout this
report.
Although
we believe the expectations reflected in any forward-looking statements are
based on reasonable assumptions, forward-looking statements are not guarantees
of future performance or results and we can give no assurance that these
expectations will be attained. It is possible that actual results may
differ materially from those indicated by these forward-looking statements due
to a variety of known and unknown risks and uncertainties. In addition to the
risk factors described in Part II, Item 1A. of this report, such known risks and
uncertainties include, without limitation:
·
|
general
industry, economic and business
conditions;
|
·
|
interest
rate fluctuations, costs and availability of capital and capital
requirements;
|
·
|
costs
and availability of real estate;
|
·
|
inability
to consummate acquisition
opportunities;
|
·
|
competition
from other companies and retail
formats;
|
·
|
changes
in retail rental rates in our
markets;
|
·
|
shifts
in customer demands;
|
·
|
tenant
bankruptcies or store closings;
|
·
|
changes
in vacancy rates at our properties;
|
·
|
changes
in operating expenses;
|
·
|
changes
in applicable laws, rules and regulations;
and
|
·
|
the
ability to obtain suitable equity and/or debt financing and the continued
availability of financing in the amounts and on the terms necessary to
support our future business.
|
This list
of risks and uncertainties is only a summary and is not intended to be
exhaustive. We disclaim any obligation to update or revise any
forward-looking statements to reflect actual results or changes in the factors
affecting the forward-looking information.
EXECUTIVE
OVERVIEW
We are a
self-managed, self-administered, fully integrated real estate investment trust
(“REIT”) that is engaged in the ownership, development, acquisition, leasing,
management and operation of regional shopping malls, open-air centers, community
centers and office properties. Our shopping centers are located in 27 states,
but are primarily in the southeastern and midwestern United
States. We have elected to be taxed as a REIT for federal income tax
purposes.
As of
June 30, 2010, we owned controlling interests in 76 regional malls/open-air
centers (including one mixed-use center), 30 associated centers (each located
adjacent to a regional mall), ten community centers and 13 office buildings,
including our corporate office building. We consolidate the financial statements
of all entities in which we have a controlling financial interest or where we
are the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity. As of June 30, 2010,
we owned noncontrolling interests in eight regional malls, four associated
centers, four community centers and six office buildings. Because one or more of
the other partners have substantive participating rights, we do not control
these partnerships and joint ventures and, accordingly, account for these
investments using the equity method. We had one community center,
owned in a 75/25 joint venture, under construction at June 30, 2010. We also
hold options to acquire certain development properties owned by third
parties.
During
the second quarter of 2010, signs of positive results from our focus on creating
revenue growth in our portfolio became evident. Our overall portfolio
occupancy level increased 160 basis points over the second quarter of the prior
year. We completed lease signings for nearly 1.3 million square feet
of space in our operating properties and new developments. In
addition, same-store sales per square foot for the six months ended June 30,
2010 for stabilized mall tenants increased 2.1% over the prior-year
period.
During
the quarter, we also entered into financing transactions related to our pro rata
share of consolidated and unconsolidated debt totaling $233.8 million secured by
four operating properties, one of which is unconsolidated, generating excess
proceeds of $27.1 million after repayment of existing loans. We also
repaid a mortgage with a principal balance of $9.0 million with proceeds from
our $560.0 million secured line of credit. Subsequent to June 30,
2010, we completed a refinancing of $65.0 million secured by one of our
operating properties, generating excess proceeds of $24.4 million after
repayment of an existing loan, and repaid two CMBS loans with an aggregate
principal balance of $55.4 million secured by two operating properties with
proceeds from our $560.0 million secured line of credit. In addition,
we extended the maturity date of our secured line of credit with total capacity
of $105.0 million from June 2011 to June 2012. We have term sheets or
availability on our lines of credit to address all of our remaining 2010 debt
maturities. Including the use of the net proceeds received from our
preferred stock offering in the first quarter of 2009, we have reduced our
overall debt level by almost $233.0 million as compared to June 30, 2009.
These
accomplishments continue to emphasize the strength of our company and validate
our strategic focus. While the current retail real estate environment
remains challenging, we believe CBL is emerging in a slow recovery with more
efficient operations, an aggressive leasing strategy and continued success in
securing capital on favorable terms. We will look to maintain
improvements in the performance of our portfolio over the remainder of the year
and consistently build on our achievements.
RESULTS
OF OPERATIONS
Comparison
of the Three Months Ended June 30, 2010 to the Three Months Ended June 30,
2009
We have
acquired or opened five community centers since January 1, 2009 (collectively
referred to as the “New Properties”). These transactions impact the
comparison of the results of operations for the three and six months ended June
30, 2010 to the results of operations for the comparable periods ended June 30,
2009. Properties that were in operation as of January 1, 2009 and
June 30, 2010 are referred to as the “Comparable Properties.” We do
not consider a property to be one of the Comparable Properties until it has been
owned or open for one complete calendar year. The New Properties are
as follows:
Property
|
|
Location
|
|
Date
Opened
|
New
Developments:
|
|
|
|
|
Hammock
Landing (1)
|
|
West
Melbourne, FL
|
|
April
2009
|
Summit
Fair (2)
|
|
Lee's
Summit, MO
|
|
August
2009
|
Settlers
Ridge
|
|
Robinson
Township, PA
|
|
October
2009
|
The
Promenade
|
|
D'Iberville,
MS
|
|
October
2009
|
The
Pavilion at Port Orange (1)
|
|
Port
Orange, FL
|
|
March
2010
|
(1)
|
This
property represents a 50/50 joint venture that is accounted for using the
equity method of accounting and is included in equity in earnings of
unconsolidated affiliates in the accompanying consolidated statements of
operations.
|
(2)
|
CBL’s
interest represents cost of the land underlying the project for which it
will receive ground rent and a percentage of the net operating cash
flows.
|
Any
reference to the New Properties in the discussion below excludes those
properties that are accounted for using the equity method of
accounting.
Revenues
Total
revenues declined by $4.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010
compared to the prior- year period. Rental revenues and tenant
reimbursements declined by $4.6 million due to a decrease of $7.3 million from
the Comparable Properties, partially offset by an increase of $2.7 million from
the New Properties. The decrease in revenues of the Comparable
Properties was driven by declines of $5.4 million in tenant reimbursements, $1.3
million in base rents and $0.7 million in net below market lease
amortization. Tenant reimbursements have decreased primarily due to
certain tenants converting their lease payment terms to percent in lieu or base
rent. Base rents and tenant reimbursements have both been impacted by
negative leasing spreads over the past year.
The
decline in our cost recovery ratio to 100.5% for the quarter ended June 30, 2010
from 105.8% for the prior-year period is primarily attributable to the
significant decline in tenant reimbursements, as discussed above.
Management,
development and leasing fees remained stable for the quarter ended June 30, 2010
compared to the prior year quarter. While development fee income
declined $0.3 million during the quarter due to the completion in the prior year
of certain joint venture developments that were under construction during the
first half of 2009, we experienced an offsetting increase in management and
leasing fee income.
Other
revenues increased $0.3 million primarily due to higher revenues related to our
subsidiary that provides security and maintenance services to third
parties.
Operating
Expenses
Total
expenses increased $19.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010
compared to the prior-year period, primarily as a result of a $25.4 million loss
on impairment of real estate, as discussed further below. Property
operating expenses, including real estate taxes and maintenance and repairs,
decreased $1.3 million due to lower expenses of $2.3 million related to the
Comparable Properties, partially offset by an increase of $1.0 million of
expenses attributable to the New Properties. The decrease in property
operating expenses of the Comparable Properties is primarily attributable to
reductions of $1.4 million in bad debt expense, $0.5 million in
promotion-related costs, $0.3 million in land rent expense and $0.2 million in
state tax expense.
The
decrease in depreciation and amortization expense of $5.1 million resulted from
a decrease of $6.6 million from the Comparable Properties, partially offset by
an increase of $1.5 million related to the New Properties. The decrease
attributable to the Comparable Properties is due to a decline in amortization of
tenant allowances compared to the prior-year period, which included write-offs
of certain unamortized tenant allowances related to several store
closings.
During
the course of our normal quarterly impairment review process for the second
quarter of 2010, it was determined that a write-down of the depreciated book
value of Oak Hollow Mall in High Point, NC, to its estimated fair value was
necessary, resulting in a non-cash loss on impairment of real estate assets of
$25.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010. Subsequent to
June 30, 2010, the Company entered into a contract to sell this property,
subject to due diligence and customary closing conditions, for a sales price
that is significantly less than the property’s carrying value. The
impending sale was considered in the quarterly impairment review process, which
resulted in a fair value of approximately $11.6 million. If the sale
of this property closes in accordance with the terms of the current contract,
the lender of the non-recourse loan secured by this property with a principal
balance of approximately $39.6 million as of June 30, 2010 has agreed to modify
the outstanding principal balance of the loan to equal the net sales price of
the property. Should this occur, we anticipate recording a gain on
extinguishment of debt of approximately $28.0 million upon completion of the
disposition.
General
and administrative expenses decreased $0.6 million primarily as a result of
declines of $0.3 million in payroll and related expenses and $0.5 million in
state tax expense, partially offset by a reduction in capitalized overhead of
$0.3 million. As a percentage of revenues, general and administrative expenses
were 3.9% and 4.1% for the second quarters of 2010 and 2009,
respectively.
Other
expenses increased $0.5 million primarily due to higher expenses related to our
subsidiary that provides security and maintenance services to third
parties.
Other
Income and Expenses
Interest
expense increased $0.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010 compared
to the prior-year period. Although we have reduced our overall
outstanding debt balance since the prior-year period, we have experienced an
increase in our variable-rate debt primarily due to the expiration of two
interest rate swaps on December 30, 2009 that had effectively fixed the interest
rate on $400.0 million of borrowings under our $525.0 million secured line of
credit. The resulting interest savings from our overall decrease in
debt have been partially offset by an increase in the variable rates on our
credit facilities. Additionally, capitalized interest has declined
due to the opening of the New Properties in 2009. Furthermore,
interest expense during the second quarter of 2010 includes amortization of fees
incurred in connection with the extension of our credit facilities in the latter
half of 2009.
During
the second quarter of 2010, we recognized a gain on sales of real estate assets
of $1.1 million related to the sale of two parcels of land. Results
for the second quarter of 2009 included the sale of an easement.
Equity in
earnings of unconsolidated affiliates increased by $0.4 million during the
second quarter of 2010, primarily due to the opening of a new
development.
The
income tax benefit of $1.9 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010
relates to our taxable REIT subsidiary and consists of a current tax benefit of
$5.0 million and a deferred income tax provision of $3.1
million. During the three months ended June 30, 2009, we recorded an
income tax provision $0.2 million, consisting of a current tax benefit of $0.2
million, partially offset by a deferred income tax provision of $0.4
million.
Discontinued
operations for the three months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 include the true up
of estimated expenses to actual amounts for properties sold during previous
years.
Comparison
of the Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 to the Six Months Ended June 30,
2009
Revenues
Total
revenues declined by $9.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010
compared to the prior-year period. Rental revenues and tenant
reimbursements declined by $9.9 million due to a decrease of $14.5 million from
the Comparable Properties, partially offset by an increase of $4.6 million from
the New Properties. The decrease in revenues of the Comparable
Properties was driven by declines of $7.6 million in tenant reimbursements, $2.9
million in base rents, $1.8 million in lease termination fees and $1.4 million
in net below market lease amortization. Tenant reimbursements have
decreased primarily due to certain tenants converting their lease payment terms
to percent in lieu or base rent. Base rents and tenant reimbursements
have both been impacted by negative leasing spreads over the past
year.
Our cost
recovery ratio declined to 100.1% for the six months ended June 30, 2010 from
101.1% for the prior-year period primarily due to the significant decline in
tenant reimbursements.
The
decrease in management, development and leasing fees of $0.8 million was mainly
attributable to lower development fee income due to the completion in the prior
year of certain joint venture developments that were under construction during
the prior-year period.
Other
revenues increased $1.4 million primarily due to higher revenues related to our
subsidiary that provides security and maintenance services to third
parties.
Operating
Expenses
Total
expenses increased $9.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010 compared
to the prior-year period, primarily as a result of a $25.4 million loss on
impairment of real estate, as discussed further below. However,
property operating expenses, including real estate taxes and maintenance and
repairs, decreased $5.4 million due to lower expenses of $7.4 million related to
the Comparable Properties, partially offset by an increase of $2.0 million of
expenses attributable to the New Properties. The decrease in property operating
expenses of the Comparable Properties is primarily attributable to reductions of
$2.7 million in promotion-related costs, $1.3 million in utilities expense, $1.2
million in security and maintenance expenses and $1.8 million in bad debt
expense. Property operating expenses continued to benefit from the
cost containment program that we implemented in late 2008 and 2009.
The
decrease in depreciation and amortization expense of $11.4 million resulted from
a decrease of $14.1 million from the Comparable Properties, partially offset by
an increase of $2.7 million related to the New Properties. The decrease
attributable to the Comparable Properties is primarily due to a decline in
amortization of tenant allowances compared to the prior-year period, which
included write-offs of certain unamortized tenant allowances related to several
store closings.
During
the course of our normal quarterly impairment review process for the second
quarter of 2010, it was determined that a write-down of the depreciated book
value of Oak Hollow Mall in High Point, NC, to its estimated fair value was
necessary, resulting in a non-cash loss on impairment of real estate assets of
$25.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010. Subsequent to
June 30, 2010, the Company entered into a contract to sell this property,
subject to due diligence and customary closing conditions, for a sales price
that is significantly less than the property’s carrying value. The
impending sale was considered in the quarterly impairment review process, which
resulted in a fair value of approximately $11.6 million. If the sale
of this
property
closes in accordance with the terms of the current contract, the lender of the
non-recourse loan secured by this property with a principal balance of
approximately $39.6 million as of June 30, 2010 has agreed to modify the
outstanding principal balance of the loan to equal the net sales price of the
property. Should this occur, we anticipate recording a gain on
extinguishment of debt of approximately $28.0 million upon completion of the
disposition.
General
and administrative expenses decreased $1.0 million primarily as a result of
declines of $1.0 million in payroll and related expenses and $1.1 million in
state tax expense, partially offset by a reduction in capitalized overhead of
$1.0 million. As a percentage of revenues, general and administrative expenses
were 4.0% and 4.2% for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009,
respectively.
Other
expenses increased $2.0 million primarily due to higher expenses related to our
subsidiary that provides security and maintenance services to third
parties.
Other
Income and Expenses
Interest
expense increased $2.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010 compared
to the prior-year period. Although we have reduced our overall
outstanding debt balance since the prior-year period, we have experienced an
increase in our variable-rate debt primarily due to the expiration of two
interest rate swaps on December 30, 2009 that had effectively fixed the interest
rate on $400.0 million of borrowings under our $525.0 million secured line of
credit. The resulting interest savings from our overall decrease in
debt have been partially offset by an increase in the variable rates on our
credit facilities. Our weighted average interest rate on total
variable-rate debt increased 111 basis points compared to the prior-year
period. Additionally, capitalized interest has declined due to the
opening of the New Properties in 2009. Furthermore, interest expense
during the first half of 2010 includes amortization of fees incurred in
connection with the extension of our credit facilities in the latter half of
2009.
During
the six months ended June 30, 2009, we incurred an impairment loss of $7.7
million on our investment in Jinsheng Group (“Jinsheng”), an established mall
operating and real estate development company located in Nanjing, China, due to
a decline in expected future cash flows. The decrease was a result of
declining occupancy and sales due to the then downturn of the real estate market
in China.
During
the six months ended June 30, 2010, we recognized a gain on sales of real estate
assets of $2.0 million related to the sale of three parcels of
land. We recognized a loss on sales of real estate assets of $0.1
million during the six months ended June 30, 2009 due to the disposition of one
of our investments in Brazil.
Equity in
earnings of unconsolidated affiliates decreased by $0.6 million during the six
months ended June 30, 2010 primarily due to a decline in outparcel sales
compared to the prior-year period, partially offset by an increase related to
the opening of a new development.
The
income tax benefit of $3.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010
relates to our taxable REIT subsidiary and consists of a current tax benefit of
$6.4 million, partially offset by a deferred income tax provision of $2.6
million. During the six months ended June 30, 2009, we recorded an
income tax provision $0.8 million, consisting of a provision for current income
taxes of $1.1 million, partially offset by a deferred tax benefit of $0.3
million.
Discontinued
operations for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 include the true up
of estimated expenses to actual amounts for properties sold during previous
years.
Operational
Review
The
shopping center business is, to some extent, seasonal in nature with tenants
typically achieving the highest levels of sales during the fourth quarter due to
the holiday season, which generally results in higher percentage rents in the
fourth quarter. Additionally, the malls earn most of their “temporary” rents
(rents from short-term tenants) during the holiday period. Thus, occupancy
levels and revenue production are generally the highest in the fourth quarter of
each year. Results of operations realized in any one quarter may not be
indicative of the results likely to be experienced over the course of the fiscal
year.
We
classify our regional malls into two categories – malls that have completed
their initial lease-up are referred to as stabilized malls and malls that are in
their initial lease-up phase and have not been open for three calendar years are
referred to as non-stabilized malls. Alamance Crossing in Burlington, NC, which
opened in August 2007, and our mixed-use center, Pearland Town Center (the
financial results of which are classified in Malls), which opened in July 2008,
are our only non-stabilized malls as of June 30, 2010.
We derive
a significant amount of our revenues from the mall properties. The sources of
our revenues by property type were as follows:
|
|
Six
Months Ended June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Malls
|
|
|
89.1 |
% |
|
|
90.2 |
% |
Associated
centers
|
|
|
3.9 |
% |
|
|
3.9 |
% |
Community
centers
|
|
|
2.7 |
% |
|
|
1.7 |
% |
Mortgages,
office building and other
|
|
|
4.3 |
% |
|
|
4.2 |
% |
Mall
store sales per square foot for the six months ended June 30, 2010 for our
portfolio increased 2.1% from the prior-year period. Mall store sales
for the trailing twelve months ended June 30, 2010 on a comparable per square
foot basis were $316 per square foot compared with $321 per square foot in the
prior-year period, a decline of 1.5%.
Occupancy
Our
portfolio occupancy is summarized in the following table:
|
|
At
June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
Total
portfolio occupancy
|
|
|
89.6
|
% |
|
|
88.0
|
% |
Total
mall portfolio
|
|
|
89.8
|
% |
|
|
88.7
|
% |
Stabilized
malls
|
|
|
90.1
|
% |
|
|
89.1
|
% |
Non-stabilized
malls
|
|
|
76.9
|
% |
|
|
72.2
|
% |
Associated
centers
|
|
|
91.9
|
% |
|
|
88.7
|
% |
Community
centers
|
|
|
86.4
|
% |
|
|
78.5
|
% |
Occupancy
levels at June 30, 2010 are a reflection of the strong relationships that we
enjoy with our retail partners. Our occupancy improvements during
2010 are an indication of the demand that we are receiving from retailers and
their desire to locate in dominant properties. Total portfolio
occupancy increased 160 basis points from the prior-year period to 89.6%.
Stabilized mall occupancy increased 100 basis points to 90.1% compared with the
prior-year period. Certain re-leased box locations opening in the
associated center and community center portfolios, as well as specialty stores
continuing to fulfill their expansion plans, have contributed to this
growth.
During
the second quarter of 2010, we experienced limited tenant bankruptcy
activity. We are optimistic that tenant bankruptcy and store closure
rates will continue to decline over the year and remain below the average rates
experienced since 2008.
Leasing
During
the second quarter of 2010, we signed more than 1.3 million square feet of
leases including 1.2 million square feet of leases in our operating portfolio
and approximately 0.1 million square feet of development leases. The
leases signed in our operating portfolio included 0.7 million square feet of new
leases and 0.5 million square feet of renewals.
Average
annual base rents per square foot were as follows for each property
type:
|
|
At
June 30,
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Stabilized
malls
|
|
$ |
28.95 |
|
|
$ |
29.27 |
|
Non-stabilized
malls
|
|
|
25.41 |
|
|
|
26.71 |
|
Associated
centers
|
|
|
11.89 |
|
|
|
11.90 |
|
Community
centers
|
|
|
14.68 |
|
|
|
14.80 |
|
Office
Buildings
|
|
|
19.21 |
|
|
|
19.09 |
|
Results
from new and renewal leasing of comparable small shop space during the three and
six months ended June 30, 2010 for spaces that were previously occupied are as
follows:
|
|
Square
Feet
|
|
|
Prior
Gross
Rent
PSF
|
|
|
New
Initial
Gross
Rent
PSF
|
|
|
%
Change
Initial
|
|
|
New
Average
Gross
Rent
PSF
(2)
|
|
|
%
Change
Average
|
|
Quarter:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All
Property Types (1)
|
|
|
580,855 |
|
|
$ |
39.25 |
|
|
$ |
33.83 |
|
|
|
-13.8 |
% |
|
$ |
34.96 |
|
|
|
-10.9 |
% |
Stabilized
malls
|
|
|
505,012 |
|
|
|
42.12 |
|
|
|
36.27 |
|
|
|
-13.9 |
% |
|
|
37.48 |
|
|
|
-11.0 |
% |
New
leases
|
|
|
203,391 |
|
|
|
41.87 |
|
|
|
36.04 |
|
|
|
-13.9 |
% |
|
|
37.70 |
|
|
|
-10.0 |
% |
Renewal
leases
|
|
|
301,621 |
|
|
|
42.28 |
|
|
|
36.42 |
|
|
|
-13.9 |
% |
|
|
37.33 |
|
|
|
-11.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
to Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All
Property Types (1)
|
|
|
1,262,916 |
|
|
|
38.83 |
|
|
|
33.74 |
|
|
|
-13.1 |
% |
|
|
34.70 |
|
|
|
-10.6 |
% |
Stabilized
malls
|
|
|
1,153,542 |
|
|
|
40.57 |
|
|
|
35.24 |
|
|
|
-13.1 |
% |
|
|
36.24 |
|
|
|
-10.7 |
% |
New
leases
|
|
|
338,321 |
|
|
|
43.38 |
|
|
|
37.19 |
|
|
|
-14.3 |
% |
|
|
39.06 |
|
|
|
-10.0 |
% |
Renewal
leases
|
|
|
815,221 |
|
|
|
39.41 |
|
|
|
34.42 |
|
|
|
-12.7 |
% |
|
|
35.07 |
|
|
|
-11.0 |
% |
(1) |
Includes
stabilized malls, associated centers, community centers and
other. |
(2) |
Average
Gross Rent does not incorporate allowable future increases for recoverable
common area expenses. |
During
the second quarter of 2010, rental rates were signed at an average decrease of
10.9% from the prior gross rent per square foot on a same space
basis. However, there were several leasing deals that have
disproportionately affected the results this quarter, especially nine leases
totaling approximately 70,000 square feet with two national apparel
retailers. These nine deals negatively impacted our mall average
leasing spread by almost 450 basis points. The lease terms on these
spaces are two years or less as we intend to replace the current leases at these
locations with leases at more favorable market rates.
We are
continuing to sign shorter term leases in locations where unoccupied space is
not currently renting at favorable rates. However, we are seeing the
frequency of these situations slow and, excluding the nine leasing transactions
described above, we are pleased by this trend and feel that the lease signings
this quarter overall were stronger than in prior quarters. We believe
this trend will continue throughout the year as the economy
recovers. We will also be looking to improve the rental rates on
shorter term deals that we have signed over the last twelve months as they
expire.
LIQUIDITY
AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
During
the first quarter of 2010, we completed an equity offering of 6,300,000
depositary shares, each representing 1/10th of a share of our 7.375% Series D
Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, having a liquidation preference of $25.00
per share. The depositary shares were sold at $20.30 per share
including accrued dividends of $0.37 per share. The net proceeds,
after underwriting costs and related expenses, of approximately
$123.6
million were used to reduce outstanding borrowings under our credit facilities
and for general corporate purposes. The net proceeds included accrued
dividends of $2.3 million that were received as part of the offering
price.
In June
2010, our 50.6% owned unconsolidated joint venture, Mall Shopping Center
Company, sold Plaza del Sol in Del Rio, TX. The joint venture
recognized a gain of $1.2 million from the sale, of which our share was $0.1
million, net of the excess of our basis over our underlying equity in the amount
of $0.6 million.
During
the six months ended June 30, 2010, we entered into financing transactions
related to our pro rata share of consolidated and unconsolidated debt totaling
$305.8 million secured by five operating properties, one of which is
unconsolidated. After payment of the existing loans with principal
balances totaling $263.9 million, plus accrued interest and closing costs,
excess proceeds were used to pay down our secured credit
facilities.
Also
during the six months ended June 30, 2010, we repaid two CMBS loans, each
secured by an operating property, with principal balances totaling $47.8 million
with borrowings from the $560.0 million credit facility. The two
operating properties were added to the collateral pool securing that
facility.
Subsequent
to June 30, 2010, we closed on a $65.0 million loan related to one of our
operating properties. After payment of the existing loan with a
principal balance of $40.6 million, plus accrued interest and closing costs,
excess proceeds were used to pay down our secured credit
facilities. We also repaid two CMBS loans secured by two of our
operating properties with an aggregate principal balance of $55.4 million with
borrowings from the $560.0 million credit facility and the properties were added
to the collateral pool securing that facility. In addition, we closed
on the extension and modification of our secured credit facility with total
capacity of $105.0 million, extending the facility’s maturity date to June 2012
at its existing interest rate of LIBOR, subject to a floor of 1.50%, plus a
margin of 300 basis points. We have term sheets or availability on
our lines of credit to address all of our remaining 2010 debt
maturities.
We are
encouraged by the positive changes in the capital markets. The
strength of the credit markets over the past few months has improved
considerably, including increased availability of the emerging CMBS
market. In addition, it has been encouraging to receive more
reasonable appraisal valuations on our more recent financing transactions than
what we experienced a year ago. As of June 30, 2010, we had more than
$558.0 million available on our lines of credit. Our performance
relative to the financial covenants in our credit lines remained sound with a
debt to gross asset value ratio of 54% and an interest coverage ratio of 2.3
times for the trailing twelve months.
We derive
a majority of our revenues from leases with retail tenants, which has
historically been the primary source for funding short-term liquidity and
capital needs such as operating expenses, debt service, tenant construction
allowances, recurring capital expenditures, dividends and distributions. We
believe that the combination of our cash flows generated from our operations,
combined with our debt and equity sources and the availability under our lines
of credit will, for the foreseeable future, provide adequate liquidity to meet
our cash needs. In addition to these factors, we have options
available to us to generate additional liquidity, including but not limited to,
equity offerings, joint venture investments, issuances of noncontrolling
interests in our Operating Partnership, decreasing the amount of expenditures we
make related to tenant construction allowances and other capital expenditures
and implementing further cost containment initiatives. We also
generate revenues from sales of peripheral land at the properties and from sales
of real estate assets when it is determined that we can realize an optimal value
for the assets.
Cash
Flows From Operations
There was
$60.6 million of unrestricted cash and cash equivalents as of June 30, 2010, an
increase of $12.5 million from December 31, 2009. Cash provided by
operating activities during the six months ended June 30, 2010, decreased $17.2
million to $181.9 million from $199.1 million during the six months ended June
30, 2009. The decrease was primarily attributable to the decline in rental
revenues, partially offset by lower operating expenses and the operations of the
New Properties.
Debt
The
following tables summarize debt based on our pro rata ownership share, including
our pro rata share of unconsolidated affiliates and excluding noncontrolling
investors’ share of consolidated properties, because we believe this provides
investors and lenders a clearer understanding of our total debt obligations and
liquidity (in thousands):
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
Noncontrolling
Interests
|
|
|
Unconsolidated
Affiliates
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Weighted
Average
Interest
Rate
(1)
|
|
June
30, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate
debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-recourse
loans on operating properties
|
|
$ |
3,849,952 |
|
|
$ |
(24,850 |
) |
|
$ |
422,013 |
|
|
$ |
4,247,115 |
|
|
|
5.92
|
% |
Recourse
term loans on operating properties (2)
|
|
|
159,443 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
159,443 |
|
|
|
5.27
|
% |
Total
fixed-rate debt
|
|
|
4,009,395 |
|
|
|
(24,850 |
) |
|
|
422,013 |
|
|
|
4,406,558 |
|
|
|
5.90
|
% |
Variable-rate
debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-recourse
term loans on operating
properties
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
20,198 |
|
|
|
20,198 |
|
|
|
1.60
|
% |
Recourse
term loans on operating properties
|
|
|
377,027 |
|
|
|
(928 |
) |
|
|
147,378 |
|
|
|
523,477 |
|
|
|
2.76
|
% |
Secured
lines of credit
|
|
|
631,951 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
631,951 |
|
|
|
3.51
|
% |
Unsecured
term facilities
|
|
|
437,494 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
437,494 |
|
|
|
1.71
|
% |
Total
variable-rate debt
|
|
|
1,446,472 |
|
|
|
(928 |
) |
|
|
167,576 |
|
|
|
1,613,120 |
|
|
|
2.75
|
% |
Total
|
|
$ |
5,455,867 |
|
|
$ |
(25,778 |
) |
|
$ |
589,589 |
|
|
$ |
6,019,678 |
|
|
|
5.06
|
% |
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
Noncontrolling
Interests
|
|
|
Unconsolidated
Affiliates
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Weighted
Average
Interest
Rate
(1)
|
|
December
31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate
debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-recourse
loans on operating properties
|
|
$ |
3,888,822 |
|
|
$ |
(23,737 |
) |
|
$ |
404,104 |
|
|
$ |
4,269,189 |
|
|
|
5.99
|
% |
Recourse
loans on operating properties (2)
|
|
|
160,896 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
160,896 |
|
|
|
5.28
|
% |
Total
fixed-rate debt
|
|
|
4,049,718 |
|
|
|
(23,737 |
) |
|
|
404,104 |
|
|
|
4,430,085 |
|
|
|
5.96
|
% |
Variable-rate
debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recourse
term loans on operating properties
|
|
|
242,763 |
|
|
|
(928 |
) |
|
|
98,708 |
|
|
|
340,543 |
|
|
|
1.97
|
% |
Construction
loans
|
|
|
126,958 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
88,179 |
|
|
|
215,137 |
|
|
|
3.37
|
% |
Land
loans
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
3,276 |
|
|
|
3,276 |
|
|
|
2.23
|
% |
Secured
lines of credit
|
|
|
759,206 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
759,206 |
|
|
|
4.19
|
% |
Unsecured
term facilities
|
|
|
437,494 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
437,494 |
|
|
|
1.73
|
% |
Total
variable-rate debt
|
|
|
1,566,421 |
|
|
|
(928 |
) |
|
|
190,163 |
|
|
|
1,755,656 |
|
|
|
3.04
|
% |
Total
|
|
$ |
5,616,139 |
|
|
$ |
(24,665 |
) |
|
$ |
594,267 |
|
|
$ |
6,185,741 |
|
|
|
5.13
|
% |
(1)
|
Weighted
average interest rate includes the effect of debt premiums (discounts),
but excludes amortization of deferred financing
costs.
|
(2)
|
We
have entered into interest rate swaps on notional amounts totaling
$127,500 as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 related to two of our
variable-rate loans on operating properties to effectively fix the
interest rates on these loans. Therefore, these amounts are
currently reflected in fixed-rate
debt.
|
During
the remainder of 2010, a total of $704.2 million of our pro rata share of
consolidated and unconsolidated debt is scheduled to mature. However,
we have extensions of $484.6 million available at our option that we intend to
exercise, leaving approximately $219.6 million of maturities in 2010 that must
be retired or refinanced.
Subsequent
to the end of the second quarter, we closed on a $65.0 million non-recourse CMBS
loan secured by Valley View Mall in Roanoke, VA. The new loan
replaced an existing loan with a principal balance of $40.6 million that was
scheduled to mature in September 2010. We also repaid two CMBS loans
secured by Parkdale Mall and Parkdale Crossing in Beaumont, TX with an aggregate
principal balance of $55.4 million with borrowings from the $560.0 million
credit facility and the properties were added to the collateral pool securing
that facility.
The
remaining loans due in 2010, totaling $123.6 million, relate to five
property-specific loans, one of which is unconsolidated, that have maturity
dates ranging from June 2010 to December 2010. We have term sheets or
availability on our lines of credit to address all of our remaining 2010 debt
maturities.
The
weighted average remaining term of our total share of consolidated and
unconsolidated debt was 3.6 years at June 30, 2010 and 3.7 years at December 31,
2009. The weighted average remaining term of our pro rata share of fixed-rate
debt was 4.6 years and 4.5 years at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009,
respectively.
As of
June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, our pro rata share of consolidated and
unconsolidated variable-rate debt represented 26.8% and 28.4%, respectively, of
our total pro rata share of debt. As of June 30, 2010, our share of consolidated
and unconsolidated variable-rate debt represented 18.3% of our total market
capitalization (see Equity below) as compared to
21.1% as of December 31, 2009.
Secured Lines of
Credit
We have
three secured lines of credit that are used for mortgage retirement, working
capital, construction and acquisition purposes, as well as issuances of letters
of credit. Each of these lines is secured by mortgages on certain of our
operating properties. Borrowings under the secured lines of credit bear interest
at LIBOR, subject to a floor of 1.50%, plus a margin ranging from 0.75% to 4.25%
and had a weighted average interest rate of 3.51% at June 30, 2010. The Company
also pays fees based on the amount of unused availability under its two largest
secured lines of credit at an annual rate of 0.35% of unused availability. The
following summarizes certain information about the secured lines of credit as of
June 30, 2010 (in thousands):
|
Total
Capacity
|
|
|
Total
Outstanding
|
|
Maturity
Date
|
|
Extended
Maturity
Date
|
$ |
560,000
|
|
$
|
385,633
|
|
|
August
2011
|
|
April
2014
|
|
525,000
|
|
|
243,318
|
(1)
|
|
February
2012
|
|
February
2013
|
|
105,000
|
|
|
3,000
|
(2)
|
|
June
2011
|
|
N/A
|
$ |
1,190,000
|
|
$
|
631,951
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
There
was an additional $7,291 outstanding on this secured line of credit as of
June 30, 2010 for letters of credit. Up to $50,000 of the
capacity on this line can be used for letters of
credit.
|
(2)
|
Subsequent
to June 30, 2010, the maturity date on this secured line of credit was
extended to June 2012.
|
Subsequent
to June 30, 2010, we closed on the extension and modification of our secured
credit facility with total capacity of $105.0 million. The facility’s
maturity date was extended to June 2012 at its existing interest rate of LIBOR,
subject to a floor of 1.50%, plus a margin of 300 basis points. At
June 1, 2011, the total capacity on this line of credit could decrease to $82.5
million due to an exiting participant lender that has provided $22.5 million of
this line’s total capacity. We are currently negotiating the terms
with a potential replacement lender and believe that an agreement with a
replacement lender or lenders will be executed prior to that date.
We also
have secured and unsecured lines of credit with a total commitment of $21.0
million that are used only to issue letters of credit. There was $17.7 million
outstanding under these lines at June 30, 2010.
Unsecured Term
Facilities
We have
an unsecured term facility with total availability of $228.0 million that bears
interest at LIBOR plus a margin of 1.50% to 1.80% based on our leverage ratio,
as defined in the agreement to the facility. At June 30, 2010, the
outstanding borrowings of $228.0 million under the unsecured term facility had a
weighted average interest rate of 1.95%. The facility matures in
April 2011 and has two one-year extension options, which are at our election,
for an outside maturity date of April 2013.
We have
an unsecured term facility that was obtained for the exclusive purpose of
acquiring certain properties from the Starmount Company or its
affiliates. At June 30, 2010, the outstanding borrowings of $209.5
million under this facility had a weighted average interest rate of
1.45%. We completed our acquisition of the properties in February
2008 and, as a result, no further draws can be made against the
facility. The unsecured term facility bears interest at LIBOR plus a
margin of 0.95% to 1.40% based on our leverage ratio, as defined in the
agreement to the facility. Net proceeds from a sale or our share of
excess proceeds from any refinancings of any of the properties originally
purchased with borrowings from this unsecured term facility must be used to
pay
down any
remaining outstanding balance. The facility matures in November 2010
and has two one-year extension options, which are at our election, for an
outside maturity date of November 2012.
The
agreements to the $560.0 million and $525.0 million secured credit facilities
and the two unsecured term facilities described above, each with the same
lender, contain default and cross-default provisions customary for transactions
of this nature (with applicable customary grace periods) in the event (i) there
is a default in the payment of any indebtedness owed by us to any institution
which is a part of the lender groups for the credit facilities, or (ii) there is
any other type of default with respect to any indebtedness owed by us to any
institution which is a part of the lender groups for the credit facilities and
such lender accelerates the payment of the indebtedness owed to it as a result
of such default. The credit facility agreements provide that, upon
the occurrence and continuation of an event of default, payment of all amounts
outstanding under these credit facilities and those facilities with which these
agreements reference cross-default provisions may be accelerated and the
lenders’ commitments may be terminated. Additionally, any default in
the payment of any recourse indebtedness greater than $50.0 million or any
non-recourse indebtedness greater than $100.0 million, regardless of whether the
lending institution is a part of the lender groups for the credit facilities,
will constitute an event of default under the agreements to the credit
facilities. The Company was not in default with regard to any of
these provisions as of June 30, 2010.
Mortgages on Operating
Properties
During
the second quarter of 2010, we entered into an $83.0 million ten-year,
non-recourse CMBS loan with a fixed interest rate of 6.00% secured by Burnsville
Center in Minneapolis, MN. The loan replaced an existing $60.7
million loan that was scheduled to mature in August 2010. We also
entered into an eight-year $115.0 million loan with a fixed interest rate of
6.98% secured by CoolSprings Galleria in Nashville, TN. Proceeds from
the new loan, plus cash on hand, were used to retire an existing loan of $120.5
million that was scheduled to mature in September 2010. Additionally,
we closed on a new ten-year $14.8 million loan with a fixed interest rate of
7.25% secured by The Terrace in Chattanooga, TN. Excess proceeds from
these financing activities were used to pay down our secured credit
facilities.
Also
during the second quarter, we repaid a CMBS loan with a principal balance of
$9.0 million secured by WestGate Crossing in Spartanburg, SC with borrowings
from the $560.0 million credit facility and the property was added to the
collateral pool securing that facility.
In
addition, we entered into a $21.0 million ten-year, non-recourse CMBS loan with
a fixed interest rate of 6.50% secured by Parkway Place, an unconsolidated
operating property in Huntsville, AL. The $21.0 million loan
represents our 50% share of the total $42.0 million loan obtained on the
property. The loan replaced an existing $51.0 million loan that was
scheduled to mature in June 2010, of which our 50% share was $25.5
million.
During
the first quarter of 2010, we closed on a variable-rate $72.0 million
non-recourse loan that bears interest at LIBOR plus a margin of 400 basis points
secured by St. Clair Square in Fairview Heights, IL. The new loan
replaced an existing loan with a principal balance of $57.2
million. We have an interest rate cap in place on this loan to limit
the LIBOR rate to a maximum of 3.00%. The cap matures in January
2012. The excess proceeds received from the refinancing were used to
pay down our secured credit facilities. Also during the first
quarter, we repaid a CMBS loan secured by Park Plaza Mall in Little Rock, AK
with a principal balance of $38.9 million with borrowings from the $560.0
million credit facility and the property was added to the collateral pool
securing that facility.
Subsequent
to June 30, 2010, we closed on a $65.0 million ten-year, non-recourse CMBS loan
with a fixed interest rate of 6.50% secured by Valley View Mall in Roanoke,
VA. The new loan replaced an existing loan with a principal balance
of $40.6 million that was scheduled to mature in September 2010. We
also repaid two CMBS loans secured by Parkdale Mall and Parkdale Crossing in
Beaumont, TX, with an aggregate principal balance of $55.4 million with
borrowings from the $560.0 million credit facility and the properties were added
to the collateral pool securing that facility.
We own a
parcel of land that we are ground leasing to a third party developer for the
purpose of developing a shopping center. We have guaranteed 27% of
the third party’s construction loan and bond line of credit (the “loans”) of
which the maximum guaranteed amount is $31.6 million. The total
amount outstanding at June 30, 2010 on the loans was $77.2 million of which we
have guaranteed $20.8 million. The third party’s loans matured in
June 2010. The third party is currently renegotiating the terms of
the loans and we anticipate that the loans will be extended on renegotiated
terms in the third quarter. The $20.8 million guaranteed amount is
included in our pro rata share of consolidated and unconsolidated debt at June
30, 2010.
Interest Rate Hedging
Instruments
($ in 000's) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instrument
Type
|
Location
in
Consolidated
Balance
Sheet
|
|
Notional
Amount
|
Designated
Benchmark
Interest
Rate
|
|
Strike
Rate
|
|
|
Fair
Value
at
6/30/10
|
|
|
Fair
Value
at
12/31/09
|
|
Maturity
Date
|
Cap
|
Intangible
lease
assets
and other
assets
|
|
$ |
72,000
(amortizing
to
$69,375)
|
|
3-month
LIBOR
|
|
|
3.000 |
% |
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
$ |
- |
|
Jan-12 |
Cap
|
Intangible
lease
assets
and other
assets
|
|
|
80,000 |
|
USD-SIFMA
Municipal
Swap
Index
|
|
|
4.000 |
% |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Dec-10
|
Pay
fixed/ Receive
variable
Swap
|
Accounts
payable
and
accrued
liabilities
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
1-month
LIBOR
|
|
|
2.175 |
% |
|
|
(310 |
) |
|
|
(636 |
) |
Nov-10
|
Pay
fixed/ Receive
variable
Swap
|
Accounts
payable
and
accrued
liabilities
|
|
|
87,500 |
|
1-month
LIBOR
|
|
|
3.600 |
% |
|
|
(887 |
) |
|
|
(2,271 |
) |
Sep-10
|
Subsequent
to June 30, 2010, we closed on the extension and modification of our secured
credit facility with total capacity of $105.0 million. The facility’s
maturity date was extended to June 2012 at its existing interest rate of LIBOR,
subject to a floor of 1.50%, plus a margin of 300 basis points. At
June 1, 2011, the total capacity on this line of credit could decrease to $82.5
million due to an exiting participant lender that has provided $22.5 million of
this line’s total capacity. We are currently negotiating the terms
with a potential replacement lender and believe that an agreement with a
replacement lender or lenders will be executed prior to that date.
Equity
In March
2010, we completed an underwritten public offering of 6,300,000 depositary
shares, each representing 1/10th of a
share of our 7.375% Series D Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, having a
liquidation preference of $25.00 per depositary share. The depositary
shares were sold at $20.30 per share including accrued dividends of $0.37 per
share. The net proceeds, after underwriting costs and related
expenses, of approximately $123.6 million, including accrued dividends of $2.3
million, were used to reduce outstanding borrowings under our credit facilities
and for general corporate purposes.
Including
the shares issued in this offering, we now have 13,300,000 depositary shares
outstanding, each representing 1/10th of a share of our 7.375% Series D
Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock. The securities are redeemable at
liquidation preference, plus accrued and unpaid dividends, at any time at our
option. These securities have no stated maturity, sinking fund or mandatory
redemption provisions and are not convertible into any of our other
securities.
During
the six months ended June 30, 2010, we paid cash dividends of $48.9 million to
holders of our common stock and our preferred stock, as well as $41.6 million in
distributions to the noncontrolling interest investors in our Operating
Partnership and other consolidated subsidiaries.
On June
2, 2010, we announced a second quarter 2010 common stock dividend of $0.20 per
share payable in cash. The dividend was paid on July 15,
2010. On February 22, 2010, we announced a first
quarter
2010
common stock dividend of $0.20 per share payable in cash, that was paid on April
16, 2010. Future dividends payable will be determined by our Board of
Directors based upon circumstances at the time of
declaration.
As a
publicly traded company, we have access to capital through both the public
equity and debt markets. We currently have a shelf registration statement on
file with the Securities and Exchange Commission authorizing us to publicly
issue senior and/or subordinated debt securities, shares of preferred stock (or
depositary shares representing fractional interests therein), shares of common
stock, warrants or rights to purchase any of the foregoing securities, and units
consisting of two or more of these classes or series of
securities. There is no limit to the offering price or number of
securities that we may issue under this shelf registration
statement.
Our
strategy is to maintain a conservative debt-to-total-market capitalization ratio
in order to enhance our access to the broadest range of capital markets, both
public and private. Based on our share of total consolidated and unconsolidated
debt and the market value of equity, our debt-to-total-market capitalization
(debt plus market value of equity) ratio was as follows at June 30, 2010 (in
thousands, except stock prices):
|
|
Shares
Outstanding
|
|
|
Stock
Price (1)
|
|
|
Value
|
|
Common
stock and operating partnership units
|
|
|
190,024 |
|
|
$ |
12.44 |
|
|
$ |
2,363,899 |
|
7.75%
Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
|
|
|
460 |
|
|
|
250.00 |
|
|
|
115,000 |
|
7.375%
Series D Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
|
|
|
1,330 |
|
|
|
250.00 |
|
|
|
332,500 |
|
Total
market equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,811,399 |
|
Company’s
share of total debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,019,678 |
|
Total
market capitalization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
8,831,077 |
|
Debt-to-total-market
capitalization ratio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68.2 |
% |
(1)
|
Stock
price for common stock and Operating Partnership units equals the closing
price of the common stock on June 30, 2010. The stock price for the
preferred stock represents the liquidation preference of each respective
series of preferred stock.
|
Capital
Expenditures
Including
our share of unconsolidated affiliates’ capital expenditures, we spent $13.5
million and $17.7 million during the three and six month periods ended June 30,
2010, respectively, for tenant allowances, which generally generate increased
rents from tenants over the terms of their leases. Deferred maintenance
expenditures were $3.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010 and
included $1.3 million for roof replacements and $2.3 million for various other
capital expenditures. Deferred maintenance expenditures were $6.8
million for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and included $1.8 million for
roof replacements and $5.0 million for various other capital
expenditures.
Deferred
maintenance expenditures are generally billed to tenants as common area
maintenance expense, and most are recovered over a 5 to 15-year period.
Renovation expenditures are primarily for remodeling and upgrades of malls, of
which approximately 30% is recovered from tenants over a 5 to 15-year
period. We are recovering these costs through fixed amounts with
annual increases or pro rata cost reimbursements based on the tenant’s occupied
space.
As part
of our strategy to strengthen our liquidity position, we have focused on
reducing capital expenditures related to renovations and tenant
allowances. Since the vast majority of our properties have been
renovated within the last ten years, we decided to delay any renovation plans
during 2009 and do not have any renovations currently scheduled for
2010.
We
completed one development project, The Pavilion at Port Orange, during the first
quarter of 2010 and have one project under development, The Forum at Grandview,
as of June 30, 2010.
Annual
capital expenditures budgets are prepared for each of our properties that are
intended to provide for all necessary recurring and non-recurring capital
expenditures. We believe that property operating cash flows, which include
reimbursements from tenants for certain expenses, will provide the necessary
funding for these expenditures.
Developments
and Expansions
The
following table summarizes our development projects as of June 30, 2010 (dollars
in thousands):
Properties
Opened During the Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
(Dollars
in thousands)
|
|
|
|
Total
Project
|
|
|
CBL's Share of |
|
|
|
|
|
Property
|
|
Location
|
|
Square
Feet
|
|
|
Total
Cost
(b)
|
|
Cost
to
Date
(c)
|
|
Date
Opened
|
|
Initial
Yield
|
|
Community/Open-Air
Centers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
Pavilion at Port Orange (Phase I and Phase 1A) (a)
|
|
Port
Orange, FL
|
|
|
492,394 |
|
|
$ |
67,439 |
|
|
$ |
70,747 |
|
Fall-09/Spring-10
|
|
|
7.3 |
%* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Properties
Under Development at June 30, 2010
|
|
|
|
Total
Project
|
|
|
CBL's Share of |
|
|
|
|
|
Property
|
|
Location
|
|
Square
Feet
|
|
|
Total
Cost
(b)
|
|
Cost
to
Date
(c)
|
|
Date
Opened
|
|
Initial
Yield
|
|
Community/Open-Air
Centers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
Forum at Grandview Phase I (a)
|
|
|
|
|
110,690 |
|
|
$ |
19,653 |
|
|
$ |
13,013 |
|
Fall-10
|
|
|
6.0 |
%* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
The
Pavilion at Port Orange is a 50/50 joint venture and The Forum at
Grandview is a 75/25 joint venture.
|
(b) |
Total
Cost is presented net of reimbursements to be received.
|
(c) |
Cost
to Date does not reflect reimbursements until they are
received.
|
|
|
|
* |
Pro
forma initial yields for phased projects reflect full land cost in Phase
I. Combined pro forma yields are higher than Phase I project
yields.
|
We
celebrated the grand opening of the first phase of The Pavilion at Port Orange,
a 492,000-square-foot-open-air development in Port Orange, FL, on March 10,
2010. The project opened approximately 92% leased or committed with
anchors including Hollywood Theaters, Belk, HomeGoods, Marshalls, Michaels,
PETCO and ULTA.
In March
2010, we started construction on the first phase of a 75/25 joint venture
community center project in Madison, MS. We converted our ground
lease position into a 75% ownership interest in the development. This
project will serve to meet the strong retail demand in the Madison area of
greater Jackson, MS. The first phase of this project is 110,000
square feet comprised of anchors including Dick’s Sporting Goods, Best Buy and
Stein Mart. The project is 100% leased and is expected to open in the
fourth quarter of 2010.
Subsequent
to June 30, 2010, we began construction on second phases of our centers in
Burlington, NC and Pittsburgh, PA. In 2007, we opened Alamance
Crossing and have now started construction on Alamance West, a
210,000-square-foot second phase. The project will include a
wholesale club, a sporting goods store and an 80,000-square-foot fashion
anchor. Alamance West is scheduled to open in fall 2011.
We are
also starting construction on a 78,000-square-foot expansion of Settlers Ridge,
which we opened last year. The project will include Michaels, Ross
Dress for Less and an additional junior anchor. The project is
scheduled to open in spring 2011.
We have
entered into one option agreement for the development of a future shopping
center. Except for the projects presented above, we do not have any
other material capital commitments as of June 30, 2010.
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
Unconsolidated
Affiliates
We have
ownership interests in 20 unconsolidated affiliates that are described in Note 4 to the
consolidated financial statements. The unconsolidated affiliates are accounted
for using the equity method of accounting and are reflected in the consolidated
balance sheets as “Investments in Unconsolidated Affiliates.” The
following are circumstances when we may consider entering into a joint venture
with a third party:
§
|
Third
parties may approach us with opportunities in which they have obtained
land and performed some pre-development activities, but they may not have
sufficient access to the capital resources or the development and leasing
expertise to bring the project to fruition. We enter into such
arrangements when we determine such a project is viable and we can achieve
a satisfactory return on our investment. We typically earn development
fees from the joint venture and provide management and leasing services to
the property for a fee once the property is placed in
operation.
|
§
|
We
determine that we may have the opportunity to capitalize on the value we
have created in a property by selling an interest in the property to a
third party. This provides us with an additional source of capital that
can be used to develop or acquire additional real estate assets that we
believe will provide greater potential for growth. When we retain an
interest in an asset rather than selling a 100% interest, it is typically
because this allows us to continue to manage the property, which provides
us the ability to earn fees for management, leasing, development and
financing services provided to the joint
venture.
|
Guarantees
We may
guarantee the debt of a joint venture primarily because it allows the joint
venture to obtain funding at a lower cost than could be obtained otherwise. This
results in a higher return for the joint venture on its investment, and a higher
return on our investment in the joint venture. We may receive a fee from the
joint venture for providing the guaranty. Additionally, when we issue a
guaranty, the terms of the joint venture agreement typically provide that we may
receive indemnification from the joint venture partner.
We own a
parcel of land that we are ground leasing to a third party developer for the
purpose of developing a shopping center. We have guaranteed 27% of
the third party’s construction loan and bond line of credit (the “loans”) of
which the maximum guaranteed amount is $31.6 million. The total
amount outstanding at June 30, 2010 on the loans was $77.2 million of which we
have guaranteed $20.8 million. The third party’s loans matured in
June 2010. The third party is currently renegotiating the terms of
the loans and we anticipate that the loans will be extended on renegotiated
terms in the third quarter. We have recorded an obligation of $0.3
million in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2010 and
December 31, 2009 to reflect the estimated fair value of the
guaranty.
We have
guaranteed 100% of the construction and land loans of West Melbourne I, LLC
(“West Melbourne”), an unconsolidated affiliate in which we own a 50% interest,
of which the maximum guaranteed amount is $50.7 million. West
Melbourne developed and, in April 2009, opened Hammock Landing, a community
center in West Melbourne, FL. The total amount outstanding at June 30, 2010 on
the loans was $45.6 million. The guaranty will expire upon repayment
of the debt. The land loan, representing $3.3 million of the amount
outstanding at June 30, 2010, matures in August 2010 and has a one-year
extension option available. The construction loan, representing $42.3
million of the amount outstanding at June 30, 2010, matures in August 2011 and
has two one-year extension options available. We have recorded an
obligation of $0.7 million in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheets as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 to reflect the estimated fair
value of this guaranty.
We have
guaranteed 100% of the construction loan of Port Orange I, LLC (“Port Orange”),
an unconsolidated affiliate in which we own a 50% interest, of which the maximum
guaranteed amount is $97.2 million. Port Orange developed and, in
March 2010, opened The Pavilion at Port Orange, a community center in Port
Orange, FL. The total amount outstanding at June 30, 2010 on the loan was $69.4
million. The guaranty will expire upon repayment of debt. The loan
matures in December 2011 and has extension options available. We have
recorded an obligation of $1.1 million in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 to reflect
the estimated fair value of this guaranty.
We have
guaranteed the lease performance of York Town Center, LP (“YTC”), an
unconsolidated affiliate in which we own a 50% interest, under the terms of an
agreement with a third party that owns property as part of York Town Center.
Under the terms of that agreement, YTC is obligated to cause performance of the
third party’s obligations as landlord under its lease with its sole tenant,
including, but not limited to, provisions such as co-tenancy and exclusivity
requirements. Should YTC fail to cause performance, then the tenant under the
third party landlord’s lease may pursue certain remedies ranging from rights to
terminate its lease to receiving
reductions
in rent. We have guaranteed YTC’s performance under this agreement up to a
maximum of $22.0 million, which decreases by $0.8 million annually until the
guaranteed amount is reduced to $10.0 million. The guaranty expires on December
31, 2020. The maximum guaranteed obligation was $18.8 million as of
June 30, 2010. We entered into an agreement with our joint venture
partner under which the joint venture partner has agreed to reimburse us 50% of
any amounts we are obligated to fund under the guaranty. We did not
record an obligation for this guaranty because we determined that the fair value
of the guaranty is not material.
We have
guaranteed 100% of a construction loan of JG Gulf Coast town Center, LLC, an
unconsolidated affiliate in which we own a 50% interest, of which the maximum
guaranteed amount is $11.6 million. Proceeds from the construction
loan are designated for the development of Phase III of Gulf Coast Town Center,
an open-air center in Fort Myers, FL. The total amount outstanding at June 30,
2010 on the loan was $11.6 million. The guaranty will expire upon repayment of
the debt. The loan matures in April 2011 and has a one year extension
option available. We did not record an obligation for this guaranty
because we determined that the fair value of the guaranty is not
material.
Our
guarantees and the related accounting are more fully described in Note 9 to the condensed consolidated financial
statements.
CRITICAL
ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Our
significant accounting policies are disclosed in Note 2 to
the consolidated financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2009. The following discussion describes our
most critical accounting policies, which are those that are both important to
the presentation of our financial condition and results of operations and that
require significant judgment or use of complex estimates.
Revenue
Recognition
Minimum
rental revenue from operating leases is recognized on a straight-line basis over
the initial terms of the related leases. Certain tenants are required
to pay percentage rent if their sales volumes exceed thresholds specified in
their lease agreements. Percentage rent is recognized as revenue when
the thresholds are achieved and the amounts become determinable.
We
receive reimbursements from tenants for real estate taxes, insurance, common
area maintenance, and other recoverable operating expenses as provided in the
lease agreements. Tenant reimbursements are recognized as revenue in
the period the related operating expenses are incurred. Tenant
reimbursements related to certain capital expenditures are billed to tenants
over periods of 5 to 15 years and are recognized as revenue when
billed.
We
receive management, leasing and development fees from third parties and
unconsolidated affiliates. Management fees are charged as a percentage of
revenues (as defined in the management agreement) and are recognized as revenue
when earned. Development fees are recognized as revenue on a pro rata
basis over the development period. Leasing fees are charged for newly
executed leases and lease renewals and are recognized as revenue when earned.
Development and leasing fees received from unconsolidated affiliates during the
development period are recognized as revenue to the extent of the third-party
partners’ ownership interest. Fees to the extent of our ownership
interest are recorded as a reduction to our investment in the unconsolidated
affiliate.
Gains on
sales of real estate assets are recognized when it is determined that the sale
has been consummated, the buyer’s initial and continuing investment is adequate,
our receivable, if any, is not subject to future subordination, and the buyer
has assumed the usual risks and rewards of ownership of the asset. When we have
an ownership interest in the buyer, gain is recognized to the extent of the
third party partner’s ownership interest and the portion of the gain
attributable to our ownership interest is deferred.
Real
Estate Assets
We
capitalize predevelopment project costs paid to third parties. All
previously capitalized predevelopment costs are expensed when it is no longer
probable that the project will be completed. Once development of a
project commences, all direct costs incurred to construct the project, including
interest and real estate taxes, are capitalized. Additionally,
certain general and administrative expenses are allocated to the projects and
capitalized based on the amount of time applicable personnel work on the
development project.
Ordinary
repairs and maintenance are expensed as incurred. Major replacements
and improvements are capitalized and depreciated over their estimated useful
lives.
All
acquired real estate assets are accounted for using the purchase method of
accounting and accordingly, the results of operations are included in the
consolidated statements of operations from the respective dates of
acquisition. The purchase price is allocated to (i) tangible assets,
consisting of land, buildings and improvements, as if vacant, and tenant
improvements and (ii) identifiable intangible assets and liabilities generally
consisting of above- and below-market leases and in-place leases. We
use estimates of fair value based on estimated cash flows, using appropriate
discount rates, and other valuation methods to allocate the purchase price to
the acquired tangible and intangible assets. Liabilities assumed
generally consist of mortgage debt on the real estate assets
acquired. Assumed debt with a stated interest rate that is
significantly different from market interest rates is recorded at its fair value
based on estimated market interest rates at the date of
acquisition.
Depreciation
is computed on a straight-line basis over estimated lives of 40 years for
buildings, 10 to 20 years for certain improvements and 7 to 10 years for
equipment and fixtures. Tenant improvements are capitalized and depreciated on a
straight-line basis over the term of the related lease. Lease-related
intangibles from acquisitions of real estate assets are amortized over the
remaining terms of the related leases. The amortization of above- and
below-market leases is recorded as an adjustment to minimum rental revenue,
while the amortization of all other lease-related intangibles is recorded as
amortization expense. Any difference between the face value of the
debt assumed and its fair value is amortized to interest expense over the
remaining term of the debt using the effective interest method.
Carrying
Value of Long-Lived Assets
We
periodically evaluate long-lived assets to determine if there has been any
impairment in their carrying values and record impairment losses if there are
indicators of impairment and the undiscounted cash flows estimated to be
generated by those assets are less than their carrying amounts. If it is
determined that an impairment has occurred, the excess of the asset’s carrying
value over its estimated fair value is charged to operations.
During
the course of our normal quarterly impairment review process for the second
quarter of 2010, it was determined that a write-down of the depreciated book
value of Oak Hollow Mall in High Point, NC, to its estimated fair value was
necessary, resulting in a non-cash loss on impairment of real estate assets of
$25.4 million for the three and six months ended June 30,
2010. Subsequent to June 30, 2010, we entered into a contract to sell
this property, subject to due diligence and customary closing conditions, for a
sales price that is significantly less than the property’s carrying
value. The impending sale was considered in the quarterly impairment
review process, which resulted in a fair value of $11.6 million. If
the sale of this property closes in accordance with the terms of the current
contract, the lender of the non-recourse loan secured by this property with a
principal balance of $39.6 million as of June 30, 2010 has agreed to modify the
outstanding principal balance of the loan to equal the net sales price of the
property. Should this occur, we anticipate recording a gain on
extinguishment of debt of approximately $28.0 million upon completion of the
disposition.
No
impairments of the carrying values of long-lived assets were incurred during the
three and six month periods ended June 30, 2009.
Allowance
for Doubtful Accounts
We
periodically perform a detailed review of amounts due from tenants to determine
if accounts receivable balances are impaired based on factors affecting the
collectability of those balances. Our estimate of the allowance for
doubtful accounts requires significant judgment about the timing, frequency and
severity of collection losses, which affects the allowance and net
income. We recorded a provision for doubtful accounts of $1.7 million
and $3.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009,
respectively.
Investments
in Unconsolidated Affiliates
Initial
investments in joint ventures that are in economic substance a capital
contribution to the joint venture are recorded in an amount equal to our
historical carryover basis in the real estate contributed. Initial investments
in joint ventures that are in economic substance the sale of a portion of our
interest in the real estate are accounted for as a contribution of real estate
recorded in an amount equal to our historical carryover basis in the ownership
percentage retained and as a sale of real estate with profit recognized to the
extent of the other joint
venturers’
interests in the joint venture. Profit recognition assumes that we have no
commitment to reinvest with respect to the percentage of the real estate sold
and the accounting requirements of the full accrual method are
met.
We
account for our investment in joint ventures where we own a non-controlling
interest or where we are not the primary beneficiary of a variable interest
entity using the equity method of accounting. Under the equity method, our cost
of investment is adjusted for our share of equity in the earnings of the
unconsolidated affiliate and reduced by distributions received. Generally,
distributions of cash flows from operations and capital events are first made to
partners to pay cumulative unpaid preferences on unreturned capital balances and
then to the partners in accordance with the terms of the joint venture
agreements.
Any
differences between the cost of our investment in an unconsolidated affiliate
and our underlying equity as reflected in the unconsolidated affiliate’s
financial statements generally result from costs of our investment that are not
reflected on the unconsolidated affiliate’s financial statements, capitalized
interest on our investment and our share of development and leasing fees that
are paid by the unconsolidated affiliate to us for development and leasing
services provided to the unconsolidated affiliate during any development
periods. The net difference between our investment in unconsolidated affiliates
and the underlying equity of unconsolidated affiliates is generally amortized
over a period of 40 years.
On a
periodic basis, we assess whether there are any indicators that the fair value
of our investments in unconsolidated affiliates may be impaired. An investment
is impaired only if our estimate of the fair value of the investment is less
than the carrying value of the investment, and such decline in value is deemed
to be other than temporary. To the extent impairment has occurred, the loss is
measured as the excess of the carrying amount of the investment over the fair
value of the investment. Our estimates of fair value for each investment are
based on a number of assumptions such as future leasing expectations, operating
forecasts, discount rates and capitalization rates, among
others. These assumptions are subject to economic and market
uncertainties including, but not limited to, demand for space, competition for
tenants, changes in market rental rates, and operating costs. As these factors
are difficult to predict and are subject to future events that may alter our
assumptions, the fair values estimated in the impairment analyses may not be
realized.
In June
2010, our 50.6% owned unconsolidated joint venture, Mall Shopping Center
Company, sold Plaza del Sol in Del Rio, TX. The joint venture
recognized a gain of $1.2 million from the sale, of which our share was $0.1
million, net of the excess of our basis over our underlying equity in the amount
of $0.6 million.
During
the six months ended June 30, 2009, we recorded a non-cash impairment charge of
$7.7 million related to our cost-method investment in Jinsheng due to a decline
in expected future cash flows. The projected decrease was a result of
declining occupancy and sales due to the downturn of the real estate market in
China in early 2009. No impairments of investments in unconsolidated
affiliates were incurred during the six months ended June 30, 2010.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
Effective
January 1, 2010, we adopted ASU No. 2010-06, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures: Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements (“ASU
2010-06”). ASU 2010-06 provides that significant transfers in or out
of measurements classified as Levels 1 or 2 should be disclosed separately along
with reasons for the transfers. Information regarding purchases,
sales, issuances and settlements related to measurements classified as Level 3
are also to be presented separately. Existing disclosures have been
updated to include fair value measurement disclosures for each class of assets
and liabilities and information regarding the valuation techniques and inputs
used to measure fair value in measurements classified as either Levels 2 or
3. The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2009. The adoption of this guidance did not have an
impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements.
Effective
January 1, 2010, we adopted ASU No. 2009-16, Transfers and Servicing: Accounting
for Transfers of Financial Assets (“ASU 2009-16”). The
guidance eliminates the concept of a “qualifying special-purpose entity,”
changes the requirements for derecognizing financial assets and requires
additional related disclosures. The new accounting guidance is
effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2009. The
adoption of this guidance did not have an impact on our condensed consolidated
financial statements.
Effective
January 1, 2010, we adopted ASU No. 2009-17, Consolidations: Improvements to
Financial Reporting by Enterprises Involved with Variable Interest
Entities (“ASU 2009-17”). ASU 2009-17 modifies how a company
determines when an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or is not
controlled through voting, or similar, rights should be
consolidated. The guidance clarifies that the determination of
whether a company is required to consolidate an entity is based on, among other
things, an entity’s purpose and design and a company’s ability to direct the
activities of the entity that most significantly impact the entity’s economic
performance. This guidance requires an ongoing reassessment of
whether a company is the primary beneficiary of a variable interest
entity. It also requires additional disclosure about a company’s
involvement in variable interest entities and any significant changes in risk
exposure due to that involvement. The guidance is effective for
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2009. The adoption of this
guidance did not have an impact on our condensed consolidated financial
statements.
On
February 24, 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-09, Subsequent Events: Amendments to
Certain Recognition and Disclosure Requirements (“ASU
2010-09”). ASU 2010-09 amends the disclosure provision related to
subsequent events by removing the requirement for an SEC filer to disclose a
date through which subsequent events have been evaluated. The new
accounting guidance was effective immediately and we adopted ASU No. 2010-09
upon the date of issuance.
Impact
of Inflation
Deflation
can result in a decline in general price levels, often caused by a decrease in
the supply of money or credit. The predominant effects of deflation
are high unemployment, credit contraction and weakened consumer
demand. Restricted lending practices could impact our ability to
obtain financings or refinancings for our properties and our tenants’ ability to
obtain credit. Decreases in consumer demand can have a direct impact
on our tenants and the rents we receive.
During
late 2009, the markets that were impacted by the economic crisis that arose
primarily in the fourth quarter of 2008 seemed to stabilize and related
bankruptcy activity started to decline. The credit and investment
markets have been slowly, but steadily, showing signs of
improvement. Retailers seem to have revised their business plans to
better adapt to the current economic environment and are starting to report
improving margins and profitability. The primary focus has begun to shift to
planning for a market recovery.
During
inflationary periods, substantially all of our tenant leases contain provisions
designed to mitigate the impact of inflation. These provisions
include clauses enabling us to receive percentage rent based on tenants' gross
sales, which generally increase as prices rise, and/or escalation clauses, which
generally increase rental rates during the terms of the leases. In
addition, many of the leases are for terms of less than 10 years, which may
provide us the opportunity to replace existing leases with new leases at higher
base and/or percentage rent if rents of the existing leases are below the then
existing market rate. Most of the leases require the tenants to pay a
fixed amount subject to annual increases for, or their share of, operating
expenses, including common area maintenance, real estate taxes, insurance and
certain capital expenditures, which reduces our exposure to increases in costs
and operating expenses resulting from inflation.
Funds
From Operations
Funds
From Operations (“FFO”) is a widely used measure of the operating performance of
real estate companies that supplements net income (loss) determined in
accordance with GAAP. The National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts
(“NAREIT”) defines FFO as net income (loss) (computed in accordance with GAAP)
excluding gains or losses on sales of operating properties, plus depreciation
and amortization, and after adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and
joint ventures and noncontrolling interests. Adjustments for unconsolidated
partnerships and joint ventures and noncontrolling interests are calculated on
the same basis. We define FFO allocable to common shareholders as defined above
by NAREIT less dividends on preferred stock. Our method of calculating FFO
allocable to common shareholders may be different from methods used by other
REITs and, accordingly, may not be comparable to such other REITs.
We
believe that FFO provides an additional indicator of the operating performance
of our Properties without giving effect to real estate depreciation and
amortization, which assumes the value of real estate assets declines predictably
over time. Since values of well-maintained real estate assets have historically
risen with market conditions, we believe that FFO enhances investors’
understanding of our operating performance. The use of FFO as an indicator of
financial performance is influenced not only by the operations of our properties
and interest rates, but also by our capital structure.
We
present both FFO of our Operating Partnership and FFO allocable to common
shareholders, as we believe that both are useful performance
measures. We believe FFO of our Operating Partnership is a useful
performance measure since we conduct substantially all of our business through
our Operating Partnership and, therefore, it reflects the performance of the
properties in absolute terms regardless of the ratio of ownership interests of
our common shareholders and the noncontrolling interest in our Operating
Partnership. We believe FFO allocable to common shareholders is a
useful performance measure because it is the performance measure that is most
directly comparable to net income available to common shareholders.
In our
reconciliation of net income (loss) available to common shareholders to FFO
allocable to common shareholders that is presented below, we make an adjustment
to add back noncontrolling interest in income of our Operating Partnership in
order to arrive at FFO of our Operating Partnership. We then apply a
percentage to FFO of our Operating Partnership to arrive at FFO allocable to
common shareholders. The percentage is computed by taking the weighted average
number of common shares outstanding for the period and dividing it by the sum of
the weighted average number of common shares and the weighted average number of
Operating Partnership units outstanding during the period (excluding those
operating partnership units held by subsidiaries of the Company which correspond
to the outstanding common shares).
During
the quarter ended June 30, 2010, we recorded a loss on impairment of real estate
assets related to one operating property. Considering the
significance and nature of the impairment, we believe that it is important to
identify the impact of the charge on our FFO measures for a reader to have a
complete understanding of our results of operations. Therefore, we
have also presented our FFO measure excluding the impairment
charge.
FFO does
not represent cash flows from operations as defined by GAAP, is not necessarily
indicative of cash available to fund all cash flow needs and should not be
considered as an alternative to net income for purposes of evaluating our
operating performance or to cash flow as a measure of liquidity.
FFO of
the Operating Partnership decreased 28.7% to $68.6 million for the three months
ended June 30, 2010 from $96.3 million for the same period in 2009 primarily as
result of a $25.4 million non-cash impairment loss on real estate recognized in
the second quarter of 2010. Excluding the impairment charge, FFO of
the Operating Partnership decreased 2.3% for the three months ended June 30,
2010, compared to the prior year quarter. FFO of the Operating
Partnership decreased 12.2% for the six months ended June 30, 2010 to $162.2
million compared to $184.7 million for the same period in
2009. Excluding the impairment charge, FFO of the Operating
Partnership increased 1.6% for the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to
the prior-year period.
The
reconciliation of FFO to net income (loss) available to common shareholders is
as follows (in thousands):
|
|
Three
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
|
Six
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
income (loss) available to common shareholders
|
|
$ |
(7,242 |
) |
|
$ |
8,137 |
|
|
$ |
3,686 |
|
|
$ |
9,849 |
|
Noncontrolling
interest in earnings of Operating Partnership
|
|
|
(2,723 |
) |
|
|
5,109 |
|
|
|
1,387 |
|
|
|
6,415 |
|
Depreciation
and amortization expense of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated
properties
|
|
|
70,652 |
|
|
|
75,793 |
|
|
|
142,664 |
|
|
|
154,104 |
|
Unconsolidated
affiliates
|
|
|
8,486 |
|
|
|
7,555 |
|
|
|
15,371 |
|
|
|
15,064 |
|
Non-real
estate assets
|
|
|
(219 |
) |
|
|
(243 |
) |
|
|
(438 |
) |
|
|
(490 |
) |
Noncontrolling
investors' share of depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
(311 |
) |
|
|
(64 |
) |
|
|
(456 |
) |
|
|
(265 |
) |
Loss
on discontinued operations
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
72 |
|
Funds
from operations of the operating partnership
|
|
|
68,643 |
|
|
|
96,299 |
|
|
|
162,214 |
|
|
|
184,749 |
|
Loss
on impairment of real estate
|
|
|
25,435 |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
25,435 |
|
|
|
- |
|
Funds
from operations of the operating partnership, excluding loss on impairment
of real estate
|
|
$ |
94,078 |
|
|
$ |
96,299 |
|
|
$ |
187,649 |
|
|
$ |
184,749 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
reconciliations of FFO of the Operating Partnership to FFO allocable to the
Company shareholders, including and excluding the loss on impairment of real
estate, are as follows (in thousands):
|
|
Three
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
|
Six
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funds
from operations of the operating partnership
|
|
$ |
68,643 |
|
|
$ |
96,299 |
|
|
$ |
162,214 |
|
|
$ |
184,749 |
|
Percentage allocable
to Company shareholders (1)
|
|
|
72.66 |
% |
|
|
61.37 |
% |
|
|
72.65 |
% |
|
|
59.23 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funds
from operations allocable to Company shareholders
|
|
$ |
49,876 |
|
|
$ |
59,099 |
|
|
$ |
117,848 |
|
|
$ |
109,427 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funds
from operations of the operating partnership, excluding loss on impairment
of real estate
|
|
$ |
94,078 |
|
|
$ |
96,299 |
|
|
$ |
187,649 |
|
|
$ |
184,749 |
|
Percentage allocable
to Company shareholders (1)
|
|
|
72.66 |
% |
|
|
61.37 |
% |
|
|
72.65 |
% |
|
|
59.23 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funds
from operations allocable to Company shareholders, excluding loss on
impairment of real estate
|
|
$ |
68,357 |
|
|
$ |
59,099 |
|
|
$ |
136,327 |
|
|
$ |
109,427 |
|
(1)
|
Represents
the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period
divided by the sum of the weighted average number of common shares and the
weighted average number of operating partnership units outstanding during
the period.
|
We are
exposed to various market risk exposures, including interest rate risk and
foreign exchange rate risk. The following discussion regarding our risk
management activities includes forward-looking statements that involve risk and
uncertainties. Estimates of future performance and economic
conditions are reflected assuming certain changes in interest and foreign
exchange rates. Caution should be used in evaluating our overall
market risk from the information presented below, as actual results may
differ. We employ various derivative programs to manage certain
portions of our market risk associated with interest rates. See Note 5 of the notes to consolidated financial statements for
further discussions of the qualitative aspects of market risk, including
derivative financial instrument activity.
Based on
our proportionate share of consolidated and unconsolidated variable-rate debt at
June 30, 2010, a 0.5% increase or decrease in interest rates on variable rate
debt would increase or decrease annual cash flows by approximately $8.1 million
and, after the effect of capitalized interest, annual earnings by approximately
$8.1 million.
Based on
our proportionate share of total consolidated and unconsolidated debt at June
30, 2010, a 0.5% increase in interest rates would decrease the fair value of
debt by approximately $82.7 million, while a 0.5% decrease in interest rates
would increase the fair value of debt by approximately $84.8
million.
Disclosure
Controls and Procedures
Because
of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not
prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of its
effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance
with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
As of the
end of the period covered by this quarterly report, an evaluation was performed
under the supervision of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
and with the participation of our management, of the effectiveness of the design
and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures pursuant to Exchange Act
Rule 13a-15. Based on that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are
effective to ensure that information that we are required to disclose in the
reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act, is recorded, processed,
summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and
Exchange Commission rules and forms.
Changes
in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
There
have been no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during our
most recent fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably
likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial
reporting.
None
The
following information updates the information disclosed in “Item 1A – Risk
Factors” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009,
by providing information that is current as of June 30, 2010:
RISKS
RELATED TO REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
Real
property investments are subject to various risks, many of which are beyond our
control, that could cause declines in the operating revenues and/or the
underlying value of one or more of our Properties.
A number
of factors may decrease the income generated by a retail shopping center
property, including:
·
|
National,
regional and local economic climates, which may be negatively impacted by
loss of jobs, production slowdowns, adverse weather conditions, natural
disasters, acts of violence, war or terrorism, declines in residential
real estate activity and other factors which tend to reduce consumer
spending on retail goods.
|
·
|
Adverse
changes in levels of consumer spending, consumer confidence and seasonal
spending (especially during the holiday season when many retailers
generate a disproportionate amount of their annual
profits).
|
·
|
Local
real estate conditions, such as an oversupply of, or reduction in demand
for, retail space or retail goods, and the availability and
creditworthiness of current and prospective
tenants.
|
·
|
Increased
operating costs, such as increases in repairs and maintenance, real
property taxes, utility rates and insurance
premiums.
|
·
|
Delays
or cost increases associated with the opening of new or renovated
properties, due to higher than estimated construction costs, cost
overruns, delays in receiving zoning, occupancy or other governmental
approvals,
lack of availability of materials and labor, weather conditions, and
similar factors which may be outside our ability to
control.
|
·
|
Perceptions
by retailers or shoppers of the safety, convenience and attractiveness of
the shopping center.
|
·
|
The
willingness and ability of the shopping center’s owner to provide capable
management and maintenance
services.
|
·
|
The
convenience and quality of competing retail properties and other retailing
options, such as the Internet.
|
In
addition, other factors may adversely affect the value of our Properties without
affecting their current revenues, including:
·
|
Adverse
changes in governmental regulations, such as local zoning and land use
laws, environmental regulations or local tax structures that could inhibit
our ability to proceed with development, expansion, or renovation
activities that otherwise would be beneficial to our
Properties.
|
·
|
Potential
environmental or other legal liabilities that reduce the amount of funds
available to us for investment in our
Properties.
|
·
|
Any
inability to obtain sufficient financing (including construction financing
and permanent debt), or the inability to obtain such financing on
commercially favorable terms, to fund repayment of maturing loans, new
developments, acquisitions, and property expansions and renovations which
otherwise would benefit our
Properties.
|
·
|
An
environment of rising interest rates, which could negatively impact both
the value of commercial real estate such as retail shopping centers and
the overall retail climate.
|
Illiquidity
of real estate investments could significantly affect our ability to respond to
adverse changes in the performance of our Properties and harm our financial
condition.
Substantially
all of our total consolidated assets consist of investments in real
properties. Because real estate investments are relatively illiquid,
our ability to quickly sell one or more properties in our portfolio in response
to changing economic, financial and investment conditions is
limited. The real estate market is affected by many factors, such as
general economic conditions, availability of financing, interest rates and other
factors, including supply and demand for space, that are beyond our
control. We cannot predict whether we will be able to sell any
property for the price or on the terms we set, or whether any price or other
terms offered by a prospective purchaser would be acceptable to
us. We also cannot predict the length of time needed to find a
willing purchaser and to close the sale of a property. In addition,
current economic and capital market conditions might make it more difficult for
us to sell properties or might adversely affect the price we receive for
properties that we do sell, as prospective buyers might experience increased
costs of debt financing or other difficulties in obtaining debt
financing.
Moreover,
there are some limitations under federal income tax laws applicable to REITs
that limit our ability to sell assets. In addition, because our
Properties are generally mortgaged to secure our debts, we may not be able to
obtain a release of a lien on a mortgaged property without the payment of the
associated debt and/or a substantial prepayment penalty, which restricts our
ability to dispose of a property, even though the sale might otherwise be
desirable. Furthermore, the number of prospective buyers interested
in purchasing shopping centers is limited. Therefore, if we want to
sell one or more of our Properties, we may not be able to dispose of it in the
desired time period and may receive less consideration than we originally
invested in the Property.
Before a
property can be sold, we may be required to make expenditures to correct defects
or to make improvements. We cannot assure you that we will have funds
available to correct those defects or to make those improvements, and if we
cannot do so, we might not be able to sell the property, or might be required to
sell the property on unfavorable terms. In acquiring a property, we
might agree to provisions that materially restrict us from selling that property
for a period of time or impose other restrictions, such as limitations on the
amount of debt that can be placed or repaid on that property. These
factors and any others that would impede our ability to respond to adverse
changes in the performance of our Properties could adversely affect our
financial condition and results of operations.
We
may elect not to proceed with certain development or expansion projects once
they have been undertaken, resulting in charges that could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations for the period in which the charge
is taken.
We intend to pursue development and expansion activities as
opportunities arise. In connection with any development or expansion, we will
incur various risks, including the risk that development or expansion
opportunities explored by us may be abandoned for various reasons including, but
not limited to, credit disruptions that require the Company to conserve its cash
until the capital markets stabilize or alternative credit or funding
arrangements can be made. Developments or expansions also include the
risk that construction costs of a project may exceed original estimates,
possibly making the project unprofitable. Other risks include the risk that we
may not be able to refinance construction loans which are generally with full
recourse to us, the risk that occupancy rates and rents at a completed project
will not meet projections and will be insufficient to make the project
profitable, and the risk that we will not be able to obtain anchor, mortgage
lender and property partner approvals for certain expansion
activities.
When we elect not to proceed with a development
opportunity, the development costs ordinarily are charged against income for the
then-current period. Any such charge could have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations for the period in which the charge is
taken.
Certain
of our Properties are subject to ownership interests held by third parties,
whose interests may conflict with ours and thereby constrain us from taking
actions concerning these properties which otherwise would be in the best
interests of the Company and our stockholders.
We own
partial interests in 22 malls, twelve associated centers, six community centers
and eight office buildings. We manage all but three of these
properties. Governor’s Square, Governor’s Plaza and Kentucky Oaks are
all owned by joint ventures and are managed by a property manager that is
affiliated with the third party managing general partner. The
property manager performs the property management and leasing services for these
three Properties and receives a fee for its services. The managing partner of
the Properties controls the cash flow distributions, although our approval is
required for certain major decisions.
Where we
serve as managing general partner (or equivalent) of the entities that own our
Properties, we may have certain fiduciary responsibilities to the other owners
of those entities. In certain cases, the approval or consent of the other owners
is required before we may sell, finance, expand or make other significant
changes in the operations of such Properties. To the extent such approvals or
consents are required, we may experience difficulty in, or may be prevented
from, implementing our plans with respect to expansion, development, financing
or other similar transactions with respect to such Properties.
With
respect to those Properties for which we do not serve as managing general
partner (or equivalent), we do not have day-to-day operational control or
control over certain major decisions, including leasing and the timing and
amount of distributions, which could result in decisions by the managing entity
that do not fully reflect our interests. This includes decisions relating to the
requirements that we must satisfy in order to maintain our status as a REIT for
tax purposes. However, decisions relating to sales, expansion and disposition of
all or substantially all of the assets and financings are subject to approval by
the Operating Partnership.
Bankruptcy
of joint venture partners could impose delays and costs on us with respect to
the jointly owned retail properties.
In
addition to the possible effects on our joint ventures of a bankruptcy filing by
us, the bankruptcy of one of the other investors in any of our jointly owned
shopping centers could materially and adversely affect the relevant property or
properties. Under the bankruptcy laws, we would be precluded from
taking some actions affecting the estate of the other investor without prior
approval of the bankruptcy court, which would, in most cases, entail prior
notice to other parties and a hearing in the bankruptcy court. At a
minimum, the requirement to obtain court approval may delay the actions we would
or might want to take. If the relevant joint venture through which we
have invested in a property has incurred recourse obligations, the discharge in
bankruptcy of one of the other investors might result in our ultimate liability
for a greater portion of those obligations than we would otherwise
bear.
We
may incur significant costs related to compliance with environmental laws, which
could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows
and the funds available to us to pay dividends.
Under various federal, state and local laws, ordinances and
regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be
liable for the costs of removal or remediation of petroleum, certain hazardous
or toxic substances on, under or in such real estate. Such laws typically impose
such liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was
responsible for, the presence of such substances. The costs of remediation or
removal of such substances may be substantial. The presence of such substances,
or the failure to promptly remove or remediate such substances, may adversely
affect the owner’s or operator’s ability to lease or sell such real estate or to
borrow using such real estate as collateral. Persons who arrange for the
disposal or treatment of hazardous or toxic substances may also be liable for
the costs of removal or remediation of such substances at the disposal or
treatment facility, regardless of whether such facility is owned or operated by
such person. Certain laws also impose requirements on conditions and activities
that may affect the environment or the impact of the environment on human
health. Failure to comply with such requirements could result in the imposition
of monetary penalties (in addition to the costs to achieve compliance) and
potential liabilities to third parties. Among other things, certain laws require
abatement or removal of friable and certain non-friable asbestos-containing
materials in the event of demolition or certain renovations or remodeling.
Certain laws regarding asbestos-containing materials require building owners and
lessees, among other things, to notify and train certain employees working in
areas known or presumed to contain asbestos-containing materials. Certain laws
also impose liability for release of asbestos-containing materials into the air
and third parties may seek recovery from owners or operators of real properties
for personal injury or property damage associated with asbestos-containing
materials. In connection with the ownership and operation of properties, we may
be potentially liable for all or a portion of such costs or claims.
All of our Properties (but not properties for which we hold
an option to purchase but do not yet own) have been subject to Phase I
environmental assessments or updates of existing Phase I environmental
assessments. Such assessments generally consisted of a visual inspection of the
Properties, review of federal and state environmental databases and certain
information regarding historic uses of the property and adjacent areas and the
preparation and issuance of written reports. Some of the Properties contain, or
contained, underground storage tanks used for storing petroleum products or
wastes typically associated with automobile service or other operations
conducted at the Properties. Certain Properties contain, or contained,
dry-cleaning establishments utilizing solvents. Where believed to be warranted,
samplings of building materials or subsurface investigations were undertaken. At
certain Properties, where warranted by the conditions, we have developed and
implemented an operations and maintenance program that establishes operating
procedures with respect to
asbestos-containing
materials. The cost associated with the development and implementation of such
programs was not material. We have also obtained environmental insurance
coverage at certain of our Properties.
We
believe that our Properties are in compliance in all material respects with all
federal, state and local ordinances and regulations regarding the handling,
discharge and emission of hazardous or toxic substances. As of June 30, 2010, we
have recorded in our financial statements a liability of $2.8 million related to
potential future asbestos abatement activities at our Properties which are not
expected to have a material impact on our financial condition or results of
operations. We have not been notified by any governmental authority, and are not
otherwise aware, of any material noncompliance, liability or claim relating to
hazardous or toxic substances in connection with any of our present or former
Properties. Therefore, we have not recorded any liability related to hazardous
or toxic substances. Nevertheless, it is possible that the environmental
assessments available to us do not reveal all potential environmental
liabilities. It is also possible that subsequent investigations will identify
material contamination, that adverse environmental conditions have arisen
subsequent to the performance of the environmental assessments, or that there
are material environmental liabilities of which management is unaware. Moreover,
no assurances can be given that (i) future laws, ordinances or regulations
will not impose any material environmental liability or (ii) the current
environmental condition of the Properties has not been or will not be affected
by tenants and occupants of the Properties, by the condition of properties in
the vicinity of the Properties or by third parties unrelated to us, the
Operating Partnership or the relevant Property’s partnership.
Possible
terrorist activity or other acts of violence could adversely affect our
financial condition and results of operations.
Future
terrorist attacks in the United States, and other acts of violence, including
terrorism or war, might result in declining consumer confidence and spending,
which could harm the demand for goods and services offered by our tenants and
the values of our Properties, and might adversely affect an investment in our
securities. A decrease in retail demand could make it difficult for
us to renew or re-lease our Properties at lease rates equal to or above
historical rates and, to the extent our tenants are affected, could adversely
affect their ability to continue to meet obligations under their existing
leases. Terrorist activities also could directly affect the value of
our Properties through damage, destruction or loss. Furthermore,
terrorist acts might result in increased volatility in national and
international financial markets, which could limit our access to capital or
increase our cost of obtaining capital.
RISKS
RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS AND THE MARKET FOR OUR STOCK
Declines
in economic conditions, including increased volatility in the capital and credit
markets, could adversely affect our business, results of operations and
financial condition.
An
economic recession can result in extreme volatility and disruption of our
capital and credit markets. The resulting economic environment may be
affected by dramatic declines in the stock and housing markets, increases in
foreclosures, unemployment and costs of living, as well as limited access to
credit. This economic situation can, and most often will, impact
consumer spending levels, which can result in decreased revenues for our tenants
and related decreases in the values of our Properties. A sustained
economic downward trend could impact our tenants’ ability to meet their lease
obligations due to poor operating results, lack of liquidity, bankruptcy or
other reasons. Our ability to lease space and negotiate rents at
advantageous rates could also be affected in this type of economic
environment. Additionally, access to capital and credit markets could
be
disrupted
over an extended period, which may make it difficult to obtain the financing we
may need for future growth and/or to meet our debt service obligations as they
mature. Any of these events could harm our business, results of
operations and financial condition.
Both
our June 2009 common stock offering and the payment of a portion of our common
stock dividend for the first quarter of 2009 in shares of common stock were
dilutive, and there may be future dilution of our common stock.
In June
2009, we completed a public offering of 66,630,000 shares of our newly-issued
common stock. In April 2009, we issued 4,754,355 shares of common
stock in connection with the payment of a portion of our first quarter 2009
common stock dividend. These transactions have had a dilutive effect
on our earnings per share and funds from operations per share for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2010. We are not restricted by our
organizational documents, contractual arrangements or otherwise from issuing
additional common stock, including any securities that are convertible into or
exchangeable or exercisable for, or that represent the right to receive, common
stock or any substantially similar securities in the future. Future
sales or issuances of substantial amounts of our common stock may be at prices
below the then-current market price of our common stock and may adversely impact
the market price of our common stock. Additionally, the market price
of our common stock could decline as a result of sales of a large number of
shares of our common stock in the market after our recent common stock offering
or the perception that such sales could occur.
The
market price of our common stock or other securities may fluctuate
significantly.
The
market price of our common stock or other securities may fluctuate significantly
in response to many factors, including:
·
|
actual
or anticipated variations in our operating results, funds from operations,
cash flows or liquidity;
|
·
|
changes
in our earnings estimates or those of
analysts;
|
·
|
changes
in our dividend policy;
|
·
|
impairment
charges affecting the carrying value of one or more of our Properties or
other assets;
|
·
|
publication
of research reports about us, the retail industry or the real estate
industry generally;
|
·
|
increases
in market interest rates that lead purchasers of our securities to seek
higher dividend or interest rate
yields;
|
·
|
changes
in market valuations of similar
companies;
|
·
|
adverse
market reaction to the amount of our outstanding debt at any time, the
amount of our maturing debt in the near and medium term and our ability to
refinance such debt and the terms thereof or our plans to incur additional
debt in the future;
|
·
|
additions
or departures of key management
personnel;
|
·
|
actions
by institutional security holders;
|
·
|
speculation
in the press or investment
community;
|
·
|
the
occurrence of any of the other risk factors included in, or incorporated
by reference in, this report; and
|
·
|
general
market and economic conditions.
|
Many of
the factors listed above are beyond our control. Those factors may
cause the market price of our common stock or other securities to decline
significantly, regardless of our financial performance and condition and
prospects. It is impossible to provide any assurance that the market
price of our common stock or other securities will not fall in the future, and
it may be difficult for holders to sell such securities at prices they find
attractive, or at all.
The
issuance of additional preferred stock may adversely affect the earnings per
share available to common shareholders and amounts available to common
shareholders for payments of dividends.
In March
2010, we completed an equity offering of 6,300,000 depositary shares, each
representing 1/10th of a share of our 7.375% Series D Cumulative Redeemable
Preferred Stock, having a liquidation preference of $25.00 per
share. The securities are redeemable at liquidation preference, plus
accrued and unpaid dividends, at any time at the option of the
Company. The shares issued in the March 2010 offering will accrue
dividends totaling approximately $11.6 million annually, decreasing earnings per
share available to our common shareholders and the amounts available to our
common shareholders for dividend payments.
We are
not restricted by our organizational documents, contractual arrangements or
otherwise from issuing additional preferred shares, including any securities
that are convertible into or exchangeable or exercisable for, or that represent
the right to receive, preferred stock or any substantially similar securities in
the future.
Competition
could adversely affect the revenues generated by our Properties, resulting in a
reduction in funds available for distribution to our stockholders.
There are
numerous shopping facilities that compete with our Properties in attracting
retailers to lease space. In addition, retailers at our Properties face
competition for customers from:
|
·
|
discount
shopping centers;
|
|
·
|
television
shopping networks; and
|
|
·
|
shopping
via the internet.
|
Each of
these competitive factors could adversely affect the amount of rents and tenant
reimbursements that we are able to collect from our tenants, thereby reducing
our revenues and the funds available for distribution to our
stockholders.
We
compete with many commercial developers, real estate companies and major
retailers for prime development locations and for tenants. New
regional malls or other retail shopping centers with more convenient locations
or better rents may attract tenants or cause them to seek more favorable lease
terms at, or prior to, renewal.
Increased
operating expenses and decreased occupancy rates may not allow us to recover the
majority of our common area maintenance (CAM) and other operating expenses from
our tenants, which could adversely affect our financial position, results of
operations and funds available for future distributions.
Energy
costs, repairs, maintenance and capital improvements to common areas of our
Properties, janitorial services, administrative, property and liability
insurance costs and security costs are typically allocable to our Properties’
tenants. Our lease agreements typically provide that the tenant is
liable for a portion of the CAM and other operating expenses. While
historically our lease agreements provided for variable CAM provisions, the
majority of our current leases require an equal periodic tenant reimbursement
amount for our cost recoveries which serves to fix our tenants’ CAM
contributions to us. In these cases, a tenant will pay a single
specified rent amount, or a set expense reimbursement amount, subject to annual
increases, regardless of the actual amount of operating expenses. The
tenant’s payment remains the same regardless of whether operating expenses
increase or decrease, causing us to be responsible for any excess amounts or to
benefit from any declines. As a result, the CAM and tenant
reimbursements that we receive may or may not allow us to recover a substantial
portion of these operating costs.
Additionally,
in the event that our Properties are not fully occupied, we would be required to
pay the portion of any operating, redevelopment or renovation expenses allocable
to the vacant space(s) that would otherwise typically be paid by the residing
tenant(s).
The
loss of one or more significant tenants, due to bankruptcies or as a result of
ongoing consolidations in the retail industry, could adversely affect both the
operating revenues and value of our Properties.
Regional
malls are typically anchored by well-known department stores and other
significant tenants who generate shopping traffic at the mall. A decision by an
anchor tenant or other significant tenant to cease operations at one or more
Properties could have a material adverse effect on those Properties and, by
extension, on our financial condition and results of operations. The closing of
an anchor or other significant tenant may allow other anchors and/or tenants at
an affected Property to terminate their leases, to seek rent relief and/or cease
operating their stores or otherwise adversely affect occupancy at the Property.
In addition, key tenants at one or more Properties might terminate their leases
as a result of mergers, acquisitions, consolidations, dispositions or
bankruptcies in the retail industry. The bankruptcy and/or closure of one or
more significant tenants, if we are not able to successfully re-tenant the
affected space, could have a material adverse effect on both the operating
revenues and underlying value of the Properties involved, reducing the
likelihood that we would be able to sell the Properties if we decided to do so,
or we may be required to incur redevelopment costs in order to successfully
obtain new anchors or other significant tenants when such vacancies
exist.
Our
Properties may be subject to impairment charges which can adversely affect our
financial results.
We
periodically evaluate long-lived assets to determine if there has been any
impairment in their carrying values and record impairment losses if the
undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than
their carrying amounts or if there are other indicators of
impairment. If it is determined that an impairment has occurred, the
amount of the impairment charge is equal to the excess of the asset’s carrying
value over its estimated fair value, which could have a material adverse effect
on our financial results in the accounting period in which the adjustment is
made. Our estimates of undiscounted cash flows expected to be
generated by each property are based on a number of assumptions such as leasing
expectations, operating budgets, estimated useful lives, future maintenance
expenditures, intent to hold for use and capitalization rates. These
assumptions are subject to economic and market uncertainties including, but not
limited to, demand for space, competition for tenants, changes in market rental
rates and costs to operate each property. As these factors are difficult to
predict and are subject to future events that may alter our assumptions, the
future cash flows estimated in our impairment analyses may not be
achieved. During the second quarter of 2010, we recorded a non-cash
loss on impairment of real estate of $25.4 million related to one of our
Properties.
Inflation
or deflation may adversely affect our financial condition and results of
operations.
Increased
inflation could have a pronounced negative impact on our mortgage and debt
interest and general and administrative expenses, as these costs could increase
at a rate higher than our rents. Also, inflation may adversely affect
tenant leases with stated rent increases, which could be lower than the increase
in inflation at any given time. Inflation could also have an adverse effect on
consumer spending which could impact our tenants' sales and, in turn, our
percentage rents, where applicable.
Deflation
can result in a decline in general price levels, often caused by a decrease in
the supply of money or credit. The predominant effects of deflation
are high unemployment, credit contraction and weakened consumer
demand. Restricted lending practices could impact our ability to
obtain financings or refinancings for our Properties and our tenants’ ability to
obtain credit. Decreases in consumer demand can have a direct impact
on our tenants and the rents we receive.
Certain
agreements with prior owners of Properties that we have acquired may inhibit our
ability to enter into future sale or refinancing transactions affecting such
Properties, which otherwise would be in the best interests of the Company and
our stockholders.
Certain
Properties that we originally acquired from third parties had unrealized gain
attributable to the difference between the fair market value of such Properties
and the third parties’ adjusted tax basis in the Properties immediately prior to
their contribution of such Properties to the Operating Partnership pursuant to
our acquisition. For this reason, a taxable sale by us of any of such
Properties, or a significant reduction in the debt encumbering such Properties,
could result in adverse tax consequences to the third parties who contributed
these Properties in exchange for interests in the Operating Partnership. Under
the terms of these transactions, we have generally agreed that we either will
not sell or refinance such an acquired Property for a number of years in any
transaction that would trigger adverse tax consequences for the parties from
whom we acquired such Property, or else we will reimburse such parties for all
or a portion of the additional taxes they are required to pay as a result
of
the
transaction. Accordingly, these agreements may cause us not to engage in future
sale or refinancing transactions affecting such Properties which otherwise would
be in the best interests of the Company and our stockholders, or may increase
the costs to us of engaging in such transactions.
Uninsured
losses could adversely affect our financial condition, and in the future our
insurance may not include coverage for acts of terrorism.
We carry
a comprehensive blanket policy for general liability, property casualty
(including fire, earthquake and flood) and rental loss covering all of the
Properties, with specifications and insured limits customarily carried for
similar properties. However, even insured losses could result in a serious
disruption to our business and delay our receipt of
revenue. Furthermore, there are some types of losses, including lease
and other contract claims, as well as some types of environmental losses, that
generally are not insured or are not economically insurable. If an
uninsured loss or a loss in excess of insured limits occurs, we could lose all
or a portion of the capital we have invested in a Property, as well as the
anticipated future revenues from the Property. If this happens, we,
or the applicable Property’s partnership, may still remain obligated for any
mortgage debt or other financial obligations related to the
Property.
The
general liability and property casualty insurance policies on our Properties
currently include coverage for losses resulting from acts of terrorism, whether
foreign or domestic. While we believe that the Properties are adequately insured
in accordance with industry standards, the cost of general liability and
property casualty insurance policies that include coverage for acts of terrorism
has risen significantly subsequent to September 11, 2001. The cost of
coverage for acts of terrorism is currently mitigated by the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act (“TRIA”). If TRIA is not extended beyond its current expiration
date of December 31, 2014, we may incur higher insurance costs and greater
difficulty in obtaining insurance that covers terrorist-related damages. Our
tenants may also experience similar difficulties.
The
U.S. federal income tax treatment of corporate dividends may make our stock less
attractive to investors, thereby lowering our stock price.
The
maximum U.S. federal income tax rate for qualified dividends received by
individual taxpayers has been reduced generally from 38.6% to 15.0% (currently
effective from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2010). However,
dividends payable by REITs are generally not eligible for such treatment.
Although this legislation did not have a directly adverse effect on the taxation
of REITs or dividends paid by REITs, the more favorable treatment for certain
non-REIT dividends could cause individual investors to consider investments in
non-REIT corporations as more attractive relative to an investment in a REIT,
which could have an adverse impact on the market price of our
stock.
RISKS
RELATED TO DEBT AND FINANCIAL MARKETS
A
deterioration of the capital and credit markets could adversely affect our
ability to access funds and the capital needed to refinance debt or obtain new
debt.
We are
significantly dependent upon external financing to fund the growth of our
business and ensure that we meet our debt servicing requirements. Our access to
financing depends on the willingness of lending institutions to grant credit to
us and conditions in the capital markets in general. An economic
recession may cause extreme volatility and disruption in the capital and credit
markets. We rely upon our largest credit facilities as sources of
funding for numerous transactions. Our access to these funds is
dependent upon the ability of each of the participants to the credit facilities
to meet their funding commitments. When markets are volatile, access
to capital and credit markets could be disrupted over an extended period of time
and many financial institutions may not have the available capital to meet their
previous commitments. The failure of one or more significant
participants to our credit facilities to meet their funding commitments could
have an adverse affect on our financial condition and results of
operations. This may make it difficult to obtain the financing we may
need for future growth and/or to meet our debt service obligations as they
mature. Although we have successfully obtained debt for refinancings
of our maturing debt, acquisitions and the construction of new developments in
the past, we cannot make any assurances as to whether we will be able to obtain
debt in the future, or that the financing options available to us will be on
favorable or acceptable terms.
Our
indebtedness is substantial and could impair our ability to obtain additional
financing.
After
payment of the underwriting discount and our other offering expenses, we
received approximately $123.6 million in net proceeds, including accrued
dividends, from the sale of additional shares of our 7.375% Series D Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Stock in our recent offering which closed on March 1,
2010. These proceeds were used to reduce amounts outstanding under
our current credit facilities and for general corporate purposes.
At June
30, 2010, our total share of consolidated and unconsolidated debt outstanding
was approximately $6,019.7 million, which represented approximately 68.2%
of our total market capitalization at that time, and our total share of
consolidated and unconsolidated debt maturing in 2010, 2011 and 2012, giving
effect to all maturity extensions that are available at our election, was
approximately $219.6 million, $439.5 million and $966.3 million,
respectively. Our substantial leverage could have important
consequences. For example, it could:
·
|
result
in the acceleration of a significant amount of debt for non-compliance
with the terms of such debt or, if such debt contains cross-default or
cross-acceleration provisions, other
debt;
|
·
|
result
in the loss of assets due to foreclosure or sale on unfavorable terms,
which could create taxable income without accompanying cash
proceeds;
|
·
|
materially
impair our ability to borrow unused amounts under existing financing
arrangements or to obtain additional financing or refinancing on favorable
terms or at all;
|
·
|
require
us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow to paying principal
and interest on our indebtedness, reducing the cash flow available to fund
our business, to pay dividends, including those necessary to maintain our
REIT qualification, or to use for other
purposes;
|
·
|
increase
our vulnerability to an economic
downturn;
|
·
|
limit
our ability to withstand competitive pressures;
or
|
·
|
reduce
our flexibility to respond to changing business and economic
conditions.
|
If any of
the foregoing occurs, our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of
operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected, and the
trading price of our common stock or other securities could decline
significantly.
Rising
interest rates could both increase our borrowing costs, thereby adversely
affecting our cash flows and the amounts available for distributions to our
stockholders, and decrease our stock price, if investors seek higher yields
through other investments.
An
environment of rising interest rates could lead holders of our securities to
seek higher yields through other investments, which could adversely affect the
market price of our stock. One of the factors that may influence the price of
our stock in public markets is the annual distribution rate we pay as compared
with the yields on alternative investments. Numerous other factors, such as
governmental regulatory action and tax laws, could have a significant impact on
the future market price of our stock. In addition, increases in market interest
rates could result in increased borrowing costs for us, which may adversely
affect our cash flow and the amounts available for distributions to our
stockholders.
As of
June 30, 2010, our total share of consolidated and unconsolidated variable rate
debt was $1,613.1 million. Increases in interest rates will increase
our cash interest payments on the variable rate debt we have outstanding from
time to time. If we do not have sufficient cash flow from operations,
we might not be able to make all required payments of principal and interest on
our debt, which could result in a default or have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition and results of operations, and which might adversely
affect our cash flow and our ability to make distributions to
shareholders. These significant debt payment obligations might also
require us to use a significant portion of our cash flow from operations to make
interest and principal payments on our debt rather than for other purposes such
as working capital, capital expenditures or distributions on our common
equity.
Certain
of our credit facilities, the loss of which could have a material, adverse
impact on our financial condition and results of operations, are conditioned
upon the Operating Partnership continuing to be managed by certain members of
its current senior management and by such members of senior management
continuing to own a significant direct or indirect equity interest in the
Operating Partnership.
Certain
of the Operating Partnership’s lines of credit are conditioned upon the
Operating Partnership continuing to be managed by certain members of its current
senior management and by such members of senior management continuing to own a
significant direct or indirect equity interest in the Operating Partnership
(including both units of limited partnership in the Operating Partnership and
shares of our common stock owned by such members of senior management). If the
failure of one or more of these conditions resulted in the loss of these credit
facilities and we were unable to obtain suitable replacement financing, such
loss could have a material, adverse impact on our financial position and results
of operations.
Our
hedging arrangements might not be successful in limiting our risk exposure, and
we might be required to incur expenses in connection with these arrangements or
their termination that could harm our results of operations or financial
condition.
From time
to time, we use interest rate hedging arrangements to manage our exposure to
interest rate volatility, but these arrangements might expose us to additional
risks, such as requiring that we fund our contractual payment obligations under
such arrangements in relatively large amounts or on short
notice. Developing an effective interest rate risk strategy is
complex, and no strategy can completely insulate us from risks associated with
interest rate fluctuations. We cannot assure you that our hedging
activities will have a positive impact on our results of operations or financial
condition. We might be subject to additional costs, such as
transaction fees or breakage costs, if we terminate these
arrangements. In addition, although our interest rate risk management
policy establishes minimum credit ratings for counterparties, this does not
eliminate the risk that a counterparty might fail to honor its obligations,
particularly given current market conditions.
The
covenants in our credit facilities might adversely affect us.
Our
credit facilities require us to satisfy certain affirmative and negative
covenants and to meet numerous financial tests. The financial
covenants under the credit facilities require, among other things, that our Debt
to Gross Asset Value ratio, as defined in the agreements to our credit
facilities, be less than 65%, that our Interest Coverage ratio, as defined, be
greater than 1.75, and that our Debt Service Coverage ratio, as defined, be
greater than 1.50. Compliance with each of these ratios is dependent
upon our financial performance. The Debt to Gross Asset Value ratio
is based, in part, on applying a capitalization rate to our earnings before
income taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”), as defined in the
agreements to our credit facilities. Based on this calculation
method, decreases in EBITDA would result in an increased Debt to Gross Asset
Value ratio, although overall debt levels remain constant. As of June
30, 2010, the Debt to Gross Asset Value ratio was 54% and we were in compliance
with all other covenants related to our credit facilities.
RISKS
RELATED TO GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATIONS
Since
our Properties are located principally in the Southeastern and Midwestern United
States, our financial position, results of operations and funds available for
distribution to shareholders are subject generally to economic conditions in
these regions.
Our
Properties are located principally in the southeastern and midwestern United
States. Our Properties located in the southeastern United States accounted for
approximately 47.5% of our total revenues from all Properties for the six months
ended June 30, 2010 and currently include 44 malls, 20 associated centers, nine
community centers and 18 office buildings. Our Properties located in the
midwestern United States accounted for approximately 33.3% of our total revenues
from all Properties for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and currently include
26 malls and four associated centers. Our results of operations and funds
available for distribution to shareholders therefore will be subject generally
to economic conditions in the southeastern and midwestern United States. While
we already have Properties located in eight states across the southwestern,
northeastern and western regions, we will continue to look for opportunities to
geographically diversify our portfolio in order to minimize dependency on any
particular region; however, the expansion of the portfolio through both
acquisitions and developments is contingent on many factors including consumer
demand, competition and economic conditions.
Our
financial position, results of operations and funds available for distribution
to shareholders could be adversely affected by any economic downturn affecting
the operating results at our Properties in the St. Louis, MO, Nashville, TN,
Kansas City (Overland Park), KS, Madison, WI, and Chattanooga, TN metropolitan
areas, which are our five largest markets.
Our
Properties located in the St. Louis, MO, Nashville, TN, Kansas City (Overland
Park), KS, Madison, WI, and Chattanooga, TN metropolitan areas accounted for
approximately 9.8%, 3.8%, 3.0%, 2.8% and 2.6%, respectively, of our total
revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2010. No other market accounted for
more than 2.6% of our total revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2010. Our
financial position and results of operations will therefore be affected by the
results experienced at Properties located in these metropolitan
areas.
RISKS
RELATED TO INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS
Ownership
interests in investments or joint ventures outside the United States present
numerous risks that differ from those of our domestic investments.
We have
an investment in a mall operating and real estate development company in China
that is currently immaterial to our consolidated financial
position. International development and ownership activities yield
additional risks that differ from those related to our domestic properties and
operations. These additional risks include, but are not limited
to:
·
|
Impact
of adverse changes in exchange rates of foreign
currencies;
|
·
|
Difficulties
in the repatriation of cash and
earnings;
|
·
|
Differences
in managerial styles and customs;
|
·
|
Changes
in applicable laws and regulations in the United States that affect
foreign operations;
|
·
|
Changes
in foreign political, legal and economic environments;
and
|
·
|
Differences
in lending practices.
|
Our
international activities are currently limited in their
scope. However, should our investments in international joint
ventures or investments grow, these additional risks could increase in
significance and adversely affect our results of operations.
RISKS
RELATED TO DIVIDENDS
We
may change the dividend policy for our common stock in the future.
We issued 4,754,355 shares of common stock for a portion of
our dividend payment for the first quarter of 2009. All subsequent
dividend payments through the date of issuance of this report have been paid in
cash. Depending upon our liquidity needs, we reserve the right to pay
any or all of a dividend in a combination of cash and shares of common stock, in
accordance with applicable revenue procedures of the IRS. In the
event that we pay a portion of our dividends in shares of our common stock
pursuant to such procedures, taxable U.S. stockholders would be required to pay
tax on the entire amount of the dividend, including the portion paid in shares
of common stock, in which case such stockholders may have to use cash from other
sources to pay such tax. If a U.S. stockholder sells the common stock
it receives as a dividend in order to pay its taxes, the sales proceeds may be
less than the amount included in income with respect to the dividend, depending
on the market price of our common stock at the time of the
sale. Furthermore, with respect to non-U.S. stockholders, we may be
required to withhold federal tax with respect to our dividends, including
dividends that are paid in common stock. In addition, if a
significant number of our stockholders sell shares of our common stock in order
to pay taxes owed on dividends, such sales would put downward pressure on the
market price of our common stock.
The decision to declare and pay dividends on our common
stock in the future, as well as the timing, amount and composition of any such
future dividends, will be at the sole discretion of our Board of Directors and
will depend on our earnings, taxable income, funds from operations, liquidity,
financial condition, capital requirements, contractual prohibitions or other
limitations under our indebtedness and preferred stock, the annual distribution
requirements under the REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the
“Internal
Revenue Code”), Delaware law and such other factors as our Board of Directors
deems relevant. Any dividends payable will be determined by our Board
of Directors based upon the circumstances at the time of
declaration. Any change in our dividend policy could have a material
adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.
RISKS
RELATED TO FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS
We
conduct a portion of our business through taxable REIT subsidiaries, which are
subject to certain tax risks.
We have
established several taxable REIT subsidiaries including our management
company. Despite our qualification as a REIT, our taxable REIT
subsidiaries must pay income tax on their taxable income. In
addition, we must comply with various tests to continue to qualify as a REIT for
federal income tax purposes, and our income from and investments in our taxable
REIT subsidiaries generally do not constitute permissible income and investments
for these tests. While we will attempt to ensure that our dealings
with our taxable REIT subsidiaries will not adversely affect our REIT
qualification, we cannot provide assurance that we will successfully achieve
that result. Furthermore, we may be subject to a 100% penalty tax, or
our taxable REIT subsidiaries may be denied deductions, to the extent our
dealings with our taxable REIT subsidiaries are not deemed to be arm’s length in
nature.
If
we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, our funds available for
distribution to stockholders will be reduced.
We intend
to continue to operate so as to qualify as a REIT under the Internal Revenue
Code. Although we believe that we are organized and operate in such a manner, no
assurance can be given that we currently qualify and in the future will continue
to qualify as a REIT. Such qualification involves the application of highly
technical and complex Internal Revenue Code provisions for which there are only
limited judicial or administrative interpretations. The determination of various
factual matters and circumstances not entirely within our control may affect our
ability to qualify. In addition, no assurance can be given that legislation, new
regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions will not
significantly change the tax laws with respect to qualification or its
corresponding federal income tax consequences. Any such change could have a
retroactive effect.
If in any
taxable year we were to fail to qualify as a REIT, we would not be allowed a
deduction for distributions to stockholders in computing our taxable income and
we would be subject to federal income tax on our taxable income at regular
corporate rates. Unless entitled to relief under certain statutory provisions,
we also would be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable
years following the year during which qualification was lost. As a result, the
funds available for distribution to our stockholders would be reduced for each
of the years involved. This would likely have a significant adverse effect on
the value of our securities and our ability to raise additional capital. In
addition, we would no longer be required to make distributions to our
stockholders. We currently intend to operate in a manner designed to qualify as
a REIT. However, it is possible that future economic, market, legal, tax or
other considerations may cause our Board of Directors, with the consent of a
majority of our stockholders, to revoke the REIT election.
Any
issuance or transfer of our capital stock to any person in excess of the
applicable limits on ownership necessary to maintain our status as a REIT would
be deemed void ab initio, and those shares would automatically be transferred to
a non-affiliated charitable trust.
To
maintain our status as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code, not more than 50%
in value of our outstanding capital stock may be owned, directly or indirectly,
by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Internal Revenue Code to include
certain entities) at any time during the last half of a taxable year. Our
certificate of incorporation generally prohibits ownership of more than 6% of
the outstanding shares of our capital stock by any single stockholder determined
by vote, value or number of shares (other than Charles Lebovitz, Executive
Chairman of our board of directors and our former Chief Executive Officer, David
Jacobs, Richard Jacobs and their affiliates under the Internal Revenue Code’s
attribution rules). The affirmative vote of 66 2/3% of our outstanding
voting stock is required to amend this provision.
Our board
of directors may, subject to certain conditions, waive the applicable ownership
limit upon receipt of a ruling from the IRS or an opinion of counsel to the
effect that such ownership will not jeopardize our status as a REIT. Absent any
such waiver, however, any issuance or transfer of our capital stock to any
person in excess of the applicable ownership limit or any issuance or transfer
of shares of such stock which would cause us to be beneficially owned by fewer
than 100 persons, will be null and void and the intended transferee will acquire
no rights to the stock. Instead, such issuance or transfer with respect to that
number of shares that would be owned by the transferee in excess of the
ownership limit provision would be deemed void ab initio and those shares would
automatically be transferred to a trust for the exclusive benefit of a
charitable beneficiary to be designated by us, with a trustee designated by us,
but who would not be affiliated with us or with the prohibited owner. Any
acquisition of our capital stock and continued holding or ownership of our
capital stock constitutes, under our certificate of incorporation, a continuous
representation of compliance with the applicable ownership limit.
In
order to maintain our status as a REIT and avoid the imposition of certain
additional taxes under the Internal Revenue Code, we must satisfy minimum
requirements for distributions to shareholders, which may limit the amount of
cash we might otherwise have been able to retain for use in growing our
business.
To
maintain our status as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code, we generally will
be required each year to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our
taxable income after certain adjustments. However, to the extent that we do not
distribute all of our net capital gains or distribute at least 90% but less than
100% of our REIT taxable income, as adjusted, we will be subject to tax on the
undistributed amount at regular corporate tax rates, as the case may be. In
addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if
any, by which certain distributions paid by us during each calendar year are
less than the sum of 85% of our ordinary income for such calendar year, 95% of
our capital gain net income for the calendar year and any amount of such income
that was not distributed in prior years. In the case of property acquisitions,
including our initial formation, where individual Properties are contributed to
our Operating Partnership for Operating Partnership units, we have assumed the
tax basis and depreciation schedules of the entities’ contributing Properties.
The relatively low tax basis of such contributed Properties may have the effect
of increasing the cash amounts we are required to distribute as dividends,
thereby potentially limiting the amount of cash we might otherwise have been
able to retain for use in growing our business. This low tax basis may also have
the effect of reducing or eliminating the portion of distributions made by us
that are treated as a non-taxable return of capital.
Complying
with REIT requirements might cause us to forego otherwise attractive
opportunities.
In order
to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we must satisfy tests
concerning, among other things, our sources of income, the nature of our assets,
the amounts we distribute to our shareholders and the ownership of our
stock. We may also be required to make distributions to our
shareholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily
available for distribution. Thus, compliance with REIT requirements
may cause us to forego opportunities we would otherwise pursue. In
addition, the REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code impose a 100% tax on
income from “prohibited transactions.” “Prohibited transactions”
generally include sales of assets that constitute inventory or other property
held for sale in the ordinary course of business, other than foreclosure
property. This 100% tax could impact our desire to sell assets and
other investments at otherwise opportune times if we believe such sales could be
considered “prohibited transactions.”
Our
holding company structure makes us dependent on distributions from the Operating
Partnership.
Because
we conduct our operations through the Operating Partnership, our ability to
service our debt obligations and pay dividends to our shareholders is strictly
dependent upon the earnings and cash flows of the Operating Partnership and the
ability of the Operating Partnership to make distributions to
us. Under the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, the
Operating Partnership is prohibited from making any distribution to us to the
extent that at the time of the distribution, after giving effect to the
distribution, all liabilities of the Operating Partnership (other than some
non-recourse liabilities and some liabilities to the partners) exceed the fair
value of the assets of the Operating Partnership. Additionally, the
terms of some of the debt to which our Operating Partnership is a party may
limit its ability to make some types of payments and other distributions to
us. This in turn may limit our ability to make some types of
payments, including payment of dividends on our outstanding capital stock,
unless we meet certain financial tests or such payments or dividends are
required to maintain our qualification as a REIT or to avoid the imposition of
any federal income or excise tax
on
undistributed income. Any inability to make cash distributions from
the Operating Partnership could jeopardize our ability to pay dividends on our
outstanding shares of capital stock and to maintain qualification as a
REIT.
RISKS
RELATED TO OUR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The
ownership limit described above, as well as certain provisions in our amended
and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws, and certain provisions of
Delaware law, may hinder any attempt to acquire us.
There are
certain provisions of Delaware law, our amended and restated certificate of
incorporation, our bylaws, and other agreements to which we are a party that may
have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a third party from making
an acquisition proposal for us. These provisions may also inhibit a
change in control that some, or a majority, of our stockholders might believe to
be in their best interest or that could give our stockholders the opportunity to
realize a premium over the then-prevailing market prices for their shares. These
provisions and agreements are summarized as follows:
|
·
|
The Ownership
Limit – As described above, to maintain our status as a REIT under
the Internal Revenue Code, not more than 50% in value of our outstanding
capital stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer
individuals (as defined in the Internal Revenue Code to include certain
entities) during the last half of a taxable year. Our certificate of
incorporation generally prohibits ownership of more than 6% of the
outstanding shares of our capital stock by any single stockholder
determined by value (other than Charles Lebovitz, David Jacobs, Richard
Jacobs and their affiliates under the Internal Revenue Code’s attribution
rules). In addition to preserving our status as a REIT, the ownership
limit may have the effect of precluding an acquisition of control of us
without the approval of our board of
directors.
|
|
·
|
Classified Board of
Directors; Removal for Cause – Our certificate of incorporation
provides for a board of directors divided into three classes, with one
class elected each year to serve for a three-year term. As a result, at
least two annual meetings of stockholders may be required for the
stockholders to change a majority of our board of directors. In addition,
our stockholders can only remove directors for cause and only by a vote of
75% of the outstanding voting stock. Collectively, these provisions make
it more difficult to change the composition of our board of directors and
may have the effect of encouraging persons considering unsolicited tender
offers or other unilateral takeover proposals to negotiate with our board
of directors rather than pursue non-negotiated takeover
attempts.
|
|
·
|
Advance Notice
Requirements for Stockholder Proposals – Our bylaws establish
advance notice procedures with regard to stockholder proposals relating to
the nomination of candidates for election as directors or new business to
be brought before meetings of our stockholders. These procedures generally
require
advance written notice of any such proposals, containing prescribed
information, to be given to our Secretary at our principal executive
offices not less than 60 days nor more than 90 days prior to the
meeting.
|
|
·
|
Vote Required to Amend
Bylaws – A vote of 66
2/3% of
our outstanding voting stock (in addition to any separate approval that
may be required by the holders of any particular class of stock) is
necessary for stockholders to amend our
bylaws.
|
|
·
|
Delaware Anti-Takeover
Statute – We are a Delaware corporation and are subject to Section
203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. In general, Section 203
prevents an “interested stockholder” (defined generally as a person owning
15% or more of a company’s outstanding voting stock) from engaging in a
“business combination” (as defined in Section 203) with us for three years
following the date that person becomes an interested stockholder
unless:
|
|
(a)
|
before
that person became an interested holder, our board of directors approved
the transaction in which the interested holder became an interested
stockholder or approved the business
combination;
|
|
(b)
|
upon
completion of the transaction that resulted in the interested stockholder
becoming an interested stockholder, the interested stockholder owns 85% of
our voting stock outstanding at the time the transaction commenced
(excluding stock held by directors who are also officers and
by
|
|
|
employee
stock plans that do not provide employees with the right to determine
confidentially whether shares held subject to the plan will be tendered in
a tender or exchange offer); or
|
|
(c)
|
following
the transaction in which that person became an interested stockholder, the
business combination is approved by our board of directors and authorized
at a meeting of stockholders by the affirmative vote of the holders of at
least two-thirds of our outstanding voting stock not owned by the
interested stockholder.
|
Under
Section 203, these restrictions also do not apply to certain business
combinations proposed by an interested stockholder following the announcement or
notification of certain extraordinary transactions involving us and a person who
was not an interested stockholder during the previous three years or who became
an interested stockholder with the approval of a majority of our directors, if
that extraordinary transaction is approved or not opposed by a majority of the
directors who were directors before any person became an interested stockholder
in the previous three years or who were recommended for election or elected to
succeed such directors by a majority of directors then in office.
Certain
ownership interests held by members of our senior management may tend to create
conflicts of interest between such individuals and the interests of the Company
and our Operating Partnership.
·
|
Tax Consequences of
the Sale or Refinancing of Certain Properties – Since certain of
our Properties had unrealized gain attributable to the difference between
the fair market value and adjusted tax basis in such Properties
immediately prior to their contribution to the Operating Partnership, a
taxable sale of any such Properties, or a significant reduction in the
debt encumbering such Properties, could cause adverse tax consequences to
the members of our senior management who owned interests in our
predecessor entities. As a result, members of our senior management might
not favor a sale of a property or a significant reduction in debt even
though such a sale or reduction could be beneficial to us and the
Operating Partnership. Our bylaws provide that any decision relating to
the potential sale of any property that would result in a
disproportionately higher taxable income for members of our senior
management than for us and our stockholders, or that would result in a
significant reduction in such property’s debt, must be made by a majority
of the independent directors of the board of directors. The Operating
Partnership is required, in the case of such a sale, to distribute to its
partners, at a minimum, all of the net cash proceeds from such sale up to
an amount reasonably believed necessary to enable members of our senior
management to pay any income tax liability arising from such
sale.
|
·
|
Interests in Other
Entities; Policies of the Board of Directors – Certain entities
owned in whole or in part by members of our senior management, including
the construction company that built or renovated most of our properties,
may continue to perform services for, or transact business with, us and
the Operating Partnership.
Furthermore, certain property tenants are affiliated with members of our
senior management. Accordingly, although our bylaws provide that any
contract or transaction between us or the Operating Partnership and one or
more of our directors or officers, or between us or the Operating
Partnership and any other entity in which one or more of our directors or
officers are directors or officers or have a financial interest, must be
approved by our disinterested directors or stockholders after the material
facts of the relationship or interest of the contract or transaction are
disclosed or are known to them, these affiliations could nevertheless
create conflicts between the interests of these members of senior
management and the interests of the Company, our shareholders and the
Operating Partnership in relation to any transactions between us and any
of these entities.
|
|
(c) The
following table presents information with respect to repurchases of common
stock made by us during the three months ended June 30,
2010:
|
Period
|
|
Total
Number
of
Shares
Purchased
(1)
|
|
|
Average
Price
Paid
per
Share
(2)
|
|
Total
Number of
Shares
Purchased as
Part of a
Publicly
Announced
Plan
|
|
Maximum
Number of
Shares that
May Yet
Be
Purchased
Under the
Plan
|
April
1–30, 2010
|
|
—
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
May
1–31, 2010
|
|
10,668
|
|
$
|
13.98
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
June
1–30, 2010
|
|
159
|
|
$
|
14.20
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
Total
|
|
10,827
|
|
$
|
13.98
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
(1)
|
Represents
shares surrendered to the Company by employees to satisfy federal and
state income tax withholding requirements related to the vesting of shares
of restricted stock.
|
(2)
|
Represents
the market value of the common stock on the vesting date for the shares of
restricted stock, which was used to determine the number of shares
required to be surrendered to satisfy income tax withholding
requirements.
|
None
(a)
|
On
July 29, 2010, we extended and modified our $105.0 million secured credit
facility with First Tennessee Bank NA, as administrative
agent. The revised facility reflects an extension of the
maturity of the facility from June 2011 to June 2012. Amounts
outstanding thereunder will continue to bear interest at an annual rate
equal to one-month, three-month, six-month or one-year LIBOR (as selected
by us), subject to a floor of 1.50%, plus 300 basis points. At
June 1, 2011, the total capacity on this line of credit could decrease to
$82.5 million due to an exiting participant lender that has provided
$22,500 of this line’s total capacity. The Company is currently
negotiating the terms with a potential replacement lender and believes
that an agreement with a replacement lender or lenders will be executed
prior to that time.
|
The Exhibit Index attached
to this report is incorporated by reference into this Item 6.
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto
duly authorized.
CBL &
ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES, INC.
/s/ John
N. Foy
_____________________________________
John N.
Foy
Vice
Chairman of the Board, Chief Financial
Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary
(Authorized
Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Date:
August 9, 2010
INDEX
TO EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Number
|
Description
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
Effective May 4, 2010, in conjunction with an immaterial amendment waiving the
transfer restrictions imposed on common stock granted to Non-Employee Directors
in the event of death or disability, the Company’s Board of Directors and
Compensation Committee also approved a restatement of the Stock Incentive Plan
to incorporate and clearly reflect the changes made by this and all prior
amendments, as well as to reflect the antidilution adjustments made in
connection with the two-for-one stock split of the Company’s Common Stock which
was effected in the form of a stock dividend as of June 15,
2005.
68