UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10‑K

☒   ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018

☐   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                     to                    

OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.

OHI HEALTHCARE PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

 

303 International Circle, Suite 200, Hunt Valley, MD 21030

(Address of principal executive offices)

(410) 427‑1700

(Telephone number, including area code)

 Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

 

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 twelve 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.

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10‑K or any amendment to this Form 10‑K.

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T 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, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b‑2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one:)

 

 

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act.

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b‑2 of the Act).

 

The aggregate market value of the common stock Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. held by non-affiliates was $6,210,297,921 as of June 30, 2018, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter. The aggregate market value was computed using the $31.00 closing price per share for such stock on the New York Stock Exchange on such date.

As of February 19, 2019, there were 204,229,335 shares of Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. common stock outstanding. As of February 19, 2019, OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership had no publicly traded voting equity and no common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Proxy Statement for the registrant’s 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission no later than 120 days after December 31, 2018, is incorporated by reference in Part III herein.

 

 

 

 

EXPLANATORY NOTES

This report combines the annual reports on Form 10‑K for the year ended December 31, 2018 of Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership (“Omega OP”). Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, (i) references to “Omega” or the “Company” means Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries, (ii) references to “Parent” refer  to Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. without regard to its consolidated subsidiaries, and (iii) references to “Omega OP” means OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership and its consolidated subsidiaries.

Omega is a self-administered real estate investment trust (“REIT”) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Omega is structured as an umbrella partnership REIT (“UPREIT”) under which, all of Omega’s assets are owned directly or indirectly, and all of Omega’s operations are conducted directly or indirectly, by its subsidiary, Omega OP.

Parent directly owned approximately 96% of the issued and outstanding partnership units in Omega OP (the “Omega OP Units”) at December 31, 2018. Each Omega OP Unit (other than those owned by Parent) is redeemable at the election of the holder for cash equal to the then-fair market value of one share of common stock of Parent, subject to Parent’s election to exchange the Omega OP Units tendered for redemption for common stock of the Parent on a one-for-one basis in an unregistered transaction, subject to adjustment as set forth in the partnership agreement. The management of Parent consists of the same members as the management of Omega OP.

The financial results of Omega OP are consolidated into the financial statements of Omega. Omega has no significant assets other than its investments in Omega OP. Omega and Omega OP are managed and operated as one entity. Omega OP has no significant assets other than its interests in non-guarantor subsidiaries.

We believe it is important for investors to understand the few differences between Omega and Omega OP in the context of how we operate as a consolidated company. Omega acts as the general partner of Omega OP. Net proceeds from equity issuances by Parent are contributed to Omega OP in exchange for additional partnership units. Parent and Omega OP incur indebtedness. The net proceeds of the Parent’s borrowings are loaned to Omega OP. The outstanding senior notes and certain other debt of Parent is guaranteed by Omega OP.

The presentation of debt and related interest, including amounts accrued, stockholders’ equity, owners’ equity and noncontrolling interests are the main areas of difference between the consolidated financial statements of Omega and Omega OP. The differences between debt, stockholders’ equity and owners’ equity result from differences in the debt or equity issued at the Omega and Omega OP levels. With respect to owners’ equity, the units held by the partners in Omega OP other than the Parent are accounted for as owners’ equity in Omega OP’s financial statements and as noncontrolling interests in Omega’s financial statements. Although classified differently, total debt and equity of Omega and Omega OP are the same.

We believe combining the annual reports on Form 10‑K of Omega and Omega OP into this single report results in the following benefits:

In order to highlight the differences between Omega and Omega OP, the separate sections in this report for Omega and Omega OP specifically refer to Omega and Omega OP. In the sections that combine disclosure of Omega and Omega OP, this report refers to “we” and “us” actions or holdings as being “our” actions or holdings. Although Omega OP and its subsidiaries hold all of our assets, we believe that reference to “we,” “us” or “our” in this context is appropriate because the business is one enterprise and we operate substantially all of our business through Omega OP.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

Item 1 – Business

Overview; Recent Events

Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. (“Omega”) was formed as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) and incorporated in the State of Maryland on March 31, 1992.  All of Omega's assets are owned directly or indirectly, and all of Omega's operations are conducted directly or indirectly, through its subsidiary, OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership (“Omega OP”).  Omega OP was formed as a limited partnership and organized in the State of Delaware on October 24, 2014.  Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, the terms the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” means Omega and Omega OP, collectively.

The Company has one reportable segment consisting of investments in healthcare-related real estate properties located in the United States (“U.S.”) and the United Kingdom (“U.K.”).  Our core business is to provide financing and capital to the long-term healthcare industry with a particular focus on skilled nursing facilities (“SNFs”), and, to a lesser extent, assisted living facilities (“ALFs”), independent living facilities (“ILFs”) and rehabilitation and acute care facilities.  Our core portfolio consists of long-term leases and mortgage agreements.  All of our leases are “triple-net” leases, which require the operators (we use the term “operator” to refer to our tenants and mortgagors and their affiliates who manage and/or operate our properties) to pay all property-related expenses.  Our mortgage revenue derives from fixed rate mortgage loans, which are secured by first mortgage liens on the underlying real estate and personal property of the mortgagor.

Omega OP is governed by the Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of OHI Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership, dated as of April 1, 2015 (the “Partnership Agreement”).  Omega has exclusive control over Omega OP’s day-to-day management pursuant to the Partnership Agreement.  As of December 31, 2018, Omega owned approximately 96% of the issued and outstanding units of partnership interest in Omega OP (“Omega OP Units”), and investors owned approximately 4% of the outstanding Omega OP Units.

In 2018, we completed the following transactions totaling approximately $471 million in new investments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

As of December 31, 2018, our portfolio of investments included 924 healthcare facilities located in 41 states and the U.K. and operated by 68 third-party operators and was made up of the following:

As of December 31, 2018, our investments in these facilities, net of impairments and reserves for uncollectible loans, totaled approximately $8.6 billion.  In addition, we held other investments of approximately $504.6 million, consisting primarily of secured loans to third-party operators of our facilities and a $31.0 million investment in an unconsolidated joint venture.

On January 2, 2019, Omega and Omega OP entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) with MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc. (“MedEquities”) and its subsidiary operating partnership and the general partner of its subsidiary operating partnership.    Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement and subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Omega will acquire MedEquities and MedEquities will be merged with and into Omega (the “Merger”) at the effective time of the Merger with Omega continuing as the surviving company. At the effective time, each outstanding share of MedEquities common stock will be converted into the right to receive (i) 0.235 of a share of Omega common stock, plus cash in lieu of fractional shares, and (ii) $2.00 in cash, without interest, subject to adjustments as set forth in the Merger Agreement under certain limited circumstances.  As of December 31, 2018, the total consideration expected to be exchanged in the merger, including the assumption of debt is approximately $600 million.  The Merger Agreement also provides that MedEquities will declare a special dividend of $0.21 per share of MedEquities common stock (the “Pre-Closing Dividend”) payable to the holders of record of MedEquities common stock as of the trading day immediately prior to the closing date of the Merger, which dividend will be payable following the effective time of the Merger together with the cash consideration under the Merger Agreement.

Summary of Financial Information by Asset Category

The following table summarizes our revenues by asset category for 2018, 2017 and 2016. (See Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Note 3 – Properties,  Note 4 – Direct Financing Leases, Note 5 – Mortgage Notes Receivable and Note 6 – Other Investments).

Revenues by Asset Category

(in thousands)

 

 

The following table summarizes our real estate assets by asset category as of December 31, 2018 and 2017:

Assets by Category

(in thousands)

 

 

Description of the Business

Investment Strategy. We maintain a portfolio of long-term healthcare facilities and mortgages on healthcare facilities located in the U.S. and the U.K. Our investments are generally geographically diverse and operated by a diverse group of established, middle‑market healthcare operators that meet our standards for quality and experience of management and creditworthiness. Our criteria for evaluating potential investments includes but is not limited to:

the quality and experience of management and the creditworthiness of the operator of the facility;

the facility’s historical and forecasted cash flow and its ability to meet operational needs, capital expenditure requirements and lease or debt service obligations;

the construction quality, condition and design of the facility;

the location of the facility;

the tax, growth, regulatory and reimbursement environment of the applicable jurisdiction;

the occupancy rate for the facility and demand for similar healthcare facilities in the same or nearby communities; and

the payor mix of private, Medicare and Medicaid patients at the facility.

We seek to obtain (i) contractual rent escalations under long-term, non-cancelable, “triple-net” leases and (ii) fixed-rate mortgage loans. We typically obtain substantial liquidity deposits, covenants regarding minimum working capital and net worth, liens on accounts receivable and other operating assets, and various provisions for cross-default, cross-collateralization and corporate and or personal guarantees, when appropriate.

We prefer to invest in equity ownership of properties. Due to regulatory, tax or other considerations, we may pursue alternative investment structures. The following summarizes our primary investment structures. The average annualized yields described below reflect existing contractual arrangements. However, due to the nature of the long-term care industry, we cannot assure that the operators of our facilities will meet their payment obligations in full or when due. Therefore, the annualized yields as of December 31, 2018, set forth below, are not necessarily indicative of future yields, which may be lower.

Triple-Net Operating Leases. Triple-net operating leases typically range from 5 to 15 years, plus renewal options. Our leases generally provide for minimum annual rentals that are subject to annual formula increases based on factors such as increases in the Consumer Price Index. At December 31, 2018, our average annualized yield from operating leases was approximately 9.2%.

Direct Financing Leases. In addition to our typical lease agreements, three of our leases are being accounted for as direct financing leases with annual escalators. At December 31, 2018, our average annualized yield from the direct financing leases was approximately 9.0% (excluding our investments with Orianna Health Systems).

Fixed-Rate Mortgages. Our mortgages typically have a fixed interest rate for the mortgage term and are secured by first mortgage liens on the underlying real estate and personal property of the mortgagor. At December 31, 2018, our average annualized yield on these investments was approximately 10.1%.

The table set forth in Item 2 – Properties contains information regarding our properties and investments as of December 31, 2018.

Borrowing Policies. We generally attempt to match the maturity of our indebtedness with the maturity of our investment assets and employ long-term, fixed-rate debt to the extent practicable in view of market conditions in existence from time to time.

We may use the proceeds of new indebtedness to finance our investments in additional healthcare facilities. In addition, we may invest in properties subject to existing loans, secured by mortgages, deeds of trust or similar liens on properties.

Policies With Respect To Certain Activities. With respect to our capital requirements, we typically rely on equity offerings, debt financing and retention of cash flow (subject to provisions in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) concerning taxability of undistributed REIT taxable income), or a combination of these methods. Our financing alternatives include bank borrowings, publicly or privately placed debt instruments, purchase money obligations to the sellers of assets or securitizations, any of which may be issued as secured or unsecured indebtedness.

We have the authority to issue our common stock or other equity or debt securities in exchange for property and to repurchase or otherwise reacquire our securities.

Subject to the percentage of ownership limitations and gross income and asset tests necessary for REIT qualification, we may invest in securities of other REITs, other entities engaged in real estate activities or securities of other issuers, including for the purpose of exercising control over such entities.

We may engage in the purchase and sale of investments. We do not underwrite the securities of other issuers.

Our officers and directors may change any of these policies without a vote of our stockholders. In the opinion of our management, our properties are adequately covered by insurance.

Competition. The healthcare industry is highly competitive and will likely become more competitive in the future. We face competition from other REITs, investment companies, private equity and hedge fund investors, healthcare operators, lenders, developers and other institutional investors, some of whom have greater resources and lower costs of capital than us.  We believe our use of data analytics to assist our operators in enhancing their operations provides us a competitive advantage. Our operators compete on a local and regional basis with operators of facilities that provide comparable services. The basis of competition for our operators includes the quality of care provided, reputation, the physical appearance of a facility, price, the range of services offered, family preference, alternatives for healthcare delivery, the supply of competing properties, physicians, staff, referral sources, location and the size and demographics of the population and surrounding areas.

Increased competition makes it more challenging for us to identify and successfully capitalize on opportunities that meet our objectives. Our ability to compete is also impacted by national and local economic trends, availability of investment alternatives, availability and cost of capital, construction and renovation costs, existing laws and regulations, new legislation and population trends.

Taxation of Omega

The following is a general summary of the material United States federal income tax considerations applicable to (i) us, (ii) the holders of our securities and (iii) our election to be taxed as a REIT. It is not tax advice. This summary is not intended to represent a detailed description of the United States federal income tax consequences applicable to a particular holder of our securities in view of any person’s particular circumstances, nor is it intended to represent a detailed description of the United States federal income tax consequences applicable to holders of our securities subject to special treatment under the federal income tax laws such as insurance companies, tax-exempt organizations, financial institutions, securities broker-dealers, non-U.S. persons, persons holding our securities as part of a hedge, straddle, or other risk reduction, constructive sales or conversion transaction, investors in pass-through entities, expatriates and taxpayers subject to alternative minimum taxation.

The following discussion, to the extent it constitutes matters of law or legal conclusions (assuming the facts, representations and assumptions upon which the discussion is based are accurate), represents some of the material United States federal income tax considerations relevant to ownership of our securities. The sections of the Code relating to the qualification and operation as a REIT are highly technical and complex. The following discussion sets forth certain material aspects of those sections. The information in this section is based on, and is qualified in its entirety by the Code; the Tax Act (as defined in Item 1A. “Risk Factors” below); current, temporary and proposed Treasury Regulations (“Treasury Regulations”) promulgated under the Code; the legislative history of the Code; current administrative interpretations and practices of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”); and court decisions, in each case, as of the date of this report. In addition, the administrative interpretations and practices of the IRS include its practices and policies as expressed in private letter rulings, which are not binding on the IRS, except with respect to the particular taxpayers who requested and received those rulings.  For purposes of the discussion below, the “Highest Regular Corporate Tax Rate” means 21% for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2018, and 35% for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018.

General. We have elected to be taxed as a REIT, under Sections 856 through 860 of the Code, beginning with our taxable year ended December 31, 1992. We believe that we were organized and have operated in such a manner as to qualify for taxation as a REIT. We intend to continue to operate in a manner that will allow us to maintain our qualification as a REIT, but no assurance can be given that we have operated or will be able to continue to operate in a manner so as to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT.  Omega OP is a pass through entity for United States federal income tax purposes. 

 

If we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we generally will not be subject to federal corporate income taxes on our net income that is currently distributed to stockholders. However, we will be subject to certain federal income taxes as follows.  First, we will be taxed at regular corporate rates on any undistributed REIT taxable income, including undistributed net capital gains; provided, however, that if we have a net capital gain, we will be taxed at regular corporate rates on our undistributed REIT taxable income, computed without regard to net capital gain and the deduction for capital gains dividends, plus a 21% (35% for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018) tax on undistributed net capital gain, if our tax as thus computed is less than the tax computed in the regular manner. Second, for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018, under certain circumstances, we may have been subject to the “alternative minimum tax” on our items of tax preference that we do not distribute or allocate to our stockholders. Third, if we have (i) net income from the sale or other disposition of “foreclosure property,” which is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business, or (ii) other nonqualifying income from foreclosure property, we will be subject to tax at the Highest Regular Corporate Tax Rate on such income. Fourth, if we have net income from prohibited transactions (which are, in general, certain sales or other dispositions of property (other than foreclosure property) held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business by us, (i.e., when we are acting as a dealer), such income will be subject to a 100% tax. Fifth, if we should fail to satisfy the 75% gross income test or the 95% gross income test (as discussed below), but nonetheless have maintained our qualification as a REIT because certain other remedial requirements have been met, we will be subject to a 100% tax on an amount equal to (a) the gross income attributable to the greater of the amount by which we fail the 75% or 95% test, multiplied by (b) a fraction intended to reflect our profitability. Sixth, if we should fail to distribute by the end of each year at least the sum of (i) 85% of our REIT ordinary income for such year, (ii) 95% of our REIT capital gain net income for such year, and (iii) any undistributed taxable income from prior periods, we will be subject to a 4% excise tax on the excess of such required distribution over the amounts actually distributed. Seventh, we will be subject to a 100% excise tax on transactions with a taxable REIT subsidiary (“TRS”) that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis. Eighth, if we acquire any asset that is defined as a “built-in gain asset” from a C corporation that is not a REIT (i.e., generally a corporation subject to full corporate-level tax) in a transaction in which the basis of the built-in gain asset in our hands is determined by reference to the basis of the asset (or any other property) in the hands of the C corporation, and we recognize gain on the disposition of such asset (for dispositions made in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2016) during the 5-year period beginning on the date on which such asset was acquired by us (such period, the “recognition period”), then, to the extent of the built-in gain (i.e., the excess of (a) the fair market value of such asset on the date such asset was acquired by us over (b) our adjusted basis in such asset on such date), our recognized gain will be subject to tax at the Highest Regular Corporate Tax Rate. The results described above with respect to the recognition of built-in gain assume that we will not make an election pursuant to Treasury Regulations Section 1.337(d)-7(c)(5).

Requirements for Qualification. The Code defines a REIT as a corporation, trust or association: (1) which is managed by one or more trustees or directors; (2) the beneficial ownership of which is evidenced by transferable shares, or by transferable certificates of beneficial interest; (3) which would be taxable as a domestic corporation, but for Sections 856 through 859 of the Code; (4) which is neither a financial institution nor an insurance company as defined in provisions of the Code; (5) the beneficial ownership of which is held by 100 or more persons; (6) during the last half year of each taxable year not more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of which is owned, actually or constructively, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities); and (7) which meets certain other tests, described below, regarding the nature of its income and assets and the amount of its annual distributions to stockholders. The Code provides that conditions (1) to (4) inclusive, must be met during the entire taxable year and that condition (5) must be met during at least 335 days of a taxable year of twelve months, or during a proportionate part of a taxable year of less than twelve months. For purposes of conditions (5) and (6), pension funds and certain other tax-exempt entities are treated as individuals, subject to a “look-through” exception in the case of condition (6). We may avoid disqualification as a REIT for a failure to satisfy any of these tests if such failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, and we pay a penalty of $50,000 for each such failure.

Income Tests. To maintain our qualification as a REIT, we must satisfy two gross income requirements on an annual basis. First, at least 75% of our gross income (excluding gross income from prohibited transactions) for each taxable year must be derived directly or indirectly from investments relating to real property or mortgages on real property (including generally “rents from real property,” interest on mortgages on real property, and gains on sale of real property and real property mortgages, other than property described in Section 1221(a)(1) of the Code) and income derived from certain types of temporary investments. Second, at least 95% of our gross income (excluding gross income from prohibited transactions) for each taxable year must be derived from such real property investments, dividends, interest and gain from the sale or disposition of stock or securities other than property held for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business.

 

Rents received by us will qualify as “rents from real property” in satisfying the gross income requirements for a REIT described above only if several conditions are met. First, the amount of the rent must not be based in whole or in part on the net income or profits of any person. However, any amount received or accrued generally will not be excluded from the term “rents from real property” solely by reason of being based on a fixed percentage or percentages of gross receipts or sales. Second, the Code provides that rents received from a tenant (other than rent from a tenant that is a TRS that meets the requirements described below) will not qualify as “rents from real property” in satisfying the gross income tests if we, or an owner (actually or constructively) of 10% or more of the value of our stock, actually or constructively owns 10% or more of such tenant, which is defined as a related party tenant taking into account certain complex attribution rules. Third, if rent attributable to personal property, leased in connection with a lease of real property, is greater than 15% of the total rent received under the lease, then the portion of rent attributable to such personal property will not qualify as “rents from real property.” Finally, for rents received to qualify as “rents from real property,” we generally must not operate or manage the property, or furnish or render services to the tenants of such property, other than through an independent contractor from which we derive no revenue. We may, however, directly perform certain services that are “usually or customarily rendered” in connection with the rental of space for occupancy only and are not otherwise considered “rendered to the occupant” of the property. In addition, we may directly provide a minimal amount of “non-customary” services to the tenants of a property as long as our income from the services does not exceed 1% of our income from the related property. Furthermore, we may own up to 100% of the stock of a TRS, which may provide customary and non-customary services to our tenants without tainting our rental income from the related properties.

The term “interest” generally does not include any amount received or accrued (directly or indirectly) if the determination of such amount depends in whole or in part on the net income or profits of any person. However, an amount received or accrued generally will not be excluded from the term “interest” solely by reason of being based on a fixed percentage or percentages of gross receipts or sales. In addition, an amount that is based on the net income or profits of a debtor will be qualifying interest income as long as the debtor derives substantially all of its income from the real property securing the debt from leasing substantially all of its interest in the property, but only to the extent that the amounts received by the debtor would be qualifying “rents from real property” if received directly by a REIT.

If a loan contains a provision that entitles us to a percentage of the borrower’s gain upon the sale of the real property securing the loan or a percentage of the appreciation in the property’s value as of a specific date, income attributable to that loan provision will be treated as gain from the sale of the property securing the loan, which generally is qualifying income for purposes of both gross income tests.

Interest on debt secured by mortgages on real property or on interests in real property generally is qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test. However, if the highest principal amount of a loan outstanding during a taxable year exceeds the fair market value of the real property securing the loan as of the date we agreed to originate or acquire the loan, a portion of the interest income from such loan will not be qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, but will be qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test. The portion of the interest income that will not be qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test will be equal to the portion of the principal amount of the loan that is not secured by real property.  Prior to January 1, 2016, in the case of a mortgage loan that is secured by both real and personal property, an allocation of the interest received between qualified mortgage interest and interest that was not qualified mortgage interest on the loan was required to be made if the fair market value of the real property at the time the loan was made was less than the principal amount of the loan.  For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015, in the case of a mortgage loan that is secured by both real and personal property, such allocation is required only if the fair market value of the personal property exceeds 15% of the value of the property.  We do not expect the change in the rules for allocation of mortgage interest to have an impact on our ability to satisfy either of the gross income tests going forward. 

A modification of a mortgage loan, if it is deemed significant for income tax purposes, could be considered to be the deemed issuance of a new mortgage loan that is subject to re-testing under these rules, with the possible re-characterization of the mortgage interest on such loan as non-qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test (but not the 95% gross income test, which is discussed below), as well as non-qualifying assets under the asset test (discussed below) and the deemed exchange of the modified loan for the new loan could result in imposition of the 100% prohibited transaction tax (also discussed below). IRS guidance provides relief in the case of certain existing mortgage loans held by a REIT that are modified in response to these market conditions such that (i) the modified mortgage loan need not be re-tested for purposes of determining whether the income from the mortgage loan continues to be qualified income for purposes of the 75% gross income test or whether the mortgage loan retains its character as a qualified REIT asset for purposes of the asset test (discussed below), and (ii) the modification of the loan will not be treated as a prohibited transaction. At present, we do not hold any mortgage loans that have been modified, which would require us to take advantage of these rules for special relief.  We monitor our mortgage loans and direct financing leases for compliance with the above rules.

Prohibited Transactions. We will incur a 100% tax on the net income derived from any sale or other disposition of property, other than foreclosure property, that we hold primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business. We believe that none of our assets is primarily held for sale to customers and that a sale of any of our assets would not be in the ordinary course of our business. Whether a REIT holds an asset primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business depends, however, on the facts and circumstances in effect from time to time, including those related to a particular asset.  The Code provides a set of “safe-harbor provisions,” which, if met, generally will exempt a sale or disposition of property by us from being subject to the 100% tax on sales to customers in the ordinary course of our trade or business.  In connection with the sale of any of our assets, we generally attempt to comply with the terms of safe-harbor provisions in the Code so as to minimize the risk that a sale of property by us would be characterized as a prohibited transaction and subject to the 100% tax on any gain from such sale. The Code also provides a number of alternative exceptions from the 100% tax on “prohibited transactions” if certain requirements have been satisfied with respect to property disposed of by a REIT. These requirements relate primarily to the number and/or amount of properties disposed of by a REIT, the period of time the property has been held by the REIT, and/or aggregate expenditures made by the REIT with respect to the property being disposed of. The conditions needed to meet these requirements have been lowered several times through amendments to the Code. However, we cannot assure that we will be able to comply with the safe-harbor provisions or that we would be able to avoid the 100% tax on prohibited transactions if we were to dispose of an owned property that otherwise may be characterized as property that we hold primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business.

Foreclosure Property. We will be subject to tax at the Highest Regular Corporate Tax Rate on any income from foreclosure property, other than income that otherwise would be qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, less expenses directly connected with the production of that income. However, gross income from foreclosure property is treated as qualifying for purposes of the 75% and 95% gross income tests. Foreclosure property is any real property, including interests in real property, and any personal property incident to such real property:

Such property generally ceases to be foreclosure property at the end of the third taxable year following the taxable year in which the REIT acquired the property, or longer (for a total of up to six years) if an extension is granted by the Secretary of the Treasury. In the case of a “qualified health care property” acquired solely as a result of termination of a lease, but not in connection with default or an imminent default on the lease, the initial grace period terminates on the second (rather than the third) taxable year following the year in which the REIT acquired the property (unless the REIT establishes the need for and the Secretary of the Treasury grants one or more extensions, not exceeding six years in total, including the original two-year period, to provide for the orderly leasing or liquidation of the REIT’s interest in the qualified health care property). This grace period terminates and foreclosure property ceases to be foreclosure property on the first day:

The definition of foreclosure property includes any “qualified health care property,” as defined in Code Section 856(e)(6) acquired by us as the result of the termination or expiration of a lease of such property. We have from time to time operated qualified healthcare facilities acquired in this manner for up to two years (or longer if an extension was granted). However, we do not currently own any property with respect to which we have made foreclosure property elections.  Properties that we had taken back in a foreclosure or bankruptcy and operated for our own account were treated as foreclosure properties for income tax purposes, pursuant to Code Section 856(e). Gross income from foreclosure properties was classified as “good income” for purposes of the annual REIT income tests upon making the election on the tax return. Once made, the income was classified as “good” for a period of three years, or until the properties were no longer operated for our own account. In all cases of foreclosure property, we utilized an independent contractor to conduct day-to-day operations to comply with certain REIT requirements. In certain cases, we operated these facilities through a taxable REIT subsidiary. For those properties operated through the taxable REIT subsidiary, we utilized an eligible independent contractor to conduct day-to-day operations to comply with certain REIT requirements. As a result of the foregoing, we do not believe that our participation in the operation of nursing homes increased the risk that we would fail to qualify as a REIT. Through our 2017 taxable year, we had not paid any tax on our foreclosure property because those properties had been producing losses.  We cannot predict whether, in the future, our income from foreclosure property will be significant and whether we could be required to pay a significant amount of tax on that income.

 

Hedging Transactions. Our hedging activities may include entering into interest rate swaps, caps and floors, options to purchase these items and futures and forward contracts. To the extent that we enter into an interest rate swap or cap contract, option, futures contract, forward rate agreement, or any similar financial instrument for the purpose of hedging our indebtedness incurred to acquire or carry “real estate assets,” any periodic income or gain from the disposition of that contract should be qualifying income and excluded from the computations determining compliance with the 95% and 75% gross income tests.  As described in Item 7A – Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk, we have entered into certain interest rate swap agreements to hedge our risk against fluctuations in interest rates and the swaps have been structured to satisfy the requirements of the tax treatment outlined above.  Accordingly, our income and gain from our interest rate swap agreements generally is qualifying income and may be excluded from our computations in determining compliance with the 95% and 75% gross income tests.  To the extent that we hedge with other types of financial instruments, or in other situations, it is not entirely clear how the income from those transactions will be treated for purposes of the gross income tests.  We believe that we have structured and intend to continue to structure any hedging transactions in a manner that does not jeopardize our status as a REIT.  

TRS Income. A TRS may earn income that would not be qualifying income if earned directly by the parent REIT. Both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a TRS. If a TRS owns directly or indirectly owns more than 35% of the voting power or value of the stock of another corporation, the other corporation also will automatically be treated as a TRS. Overall, no more than 20% of the value of a REIT’s assets may consist of securities of one or more TRSs (for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018, the limitation on ownership of TRS stock was 25%).  After 2009, a TRS  was permitted to own or lease a health care facility provided that the facility is operated and managed by an “eligible independent contractor.” A TRS will pay income tax at regular corporate rates on any income that it earns. In addition, the new rules limit the deductibility of interest paid or accrued by a TRS to its parent REIT to assure that the TRS is subject to an appropriate level of corporate taxation. The rules also impose a 100% excise tax on transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT or the REIT’s operators that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis.  As stated above, we do not lease any of our facilities to any of our TRSs.

Failure to Satisfy Income Tests. If we fail to satisfy one or both of the 75% or 95% gross income tests for any taxable year, we may nevertheless qualify as a REIT for such year if we are entitled to relief under certain relief provisions of the Code. These relief provisions will be generally available if (1) our failure to meet such tests was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, (2) we attach a schedule of the sources of our income to our tax return, and (3) any incorrect information on the schedule was not due to fraud with intent to evade tax. It is not possible, however, to state whether in all circumstances we would be entitled to the benefit of these relief provisions. Even if these relief provisions apply, we would incur a 100% tax on the gross income attributable to the greater of the amounts by which we fail the 75% and 95% gross income tests, multiplied by a fraction intended to reflect our profitability and we would file a schedule with descriptions of each item of gross income that caused the failure.

Asset Tests. At the close of each quarter of our taxable year, we must also satisfy the following tests relating to the nature of our assets. First, at least 75% of the value of our total assets must be represented by real estate assets (including (i) our allocable share of real estate assets held by partnerships in which we own an interest and (ii) stock or debt instruments held for less than one year purchased with the proceeds of a stock offering or long-term (at least five years) debt offering of our company), cash, cash items and government securities. Second, of our investments not included in the 75% asset class, the value of our interest in any one issuer’s securities may not exceed 5% of the value of our total assets. Third, we may not own more than 10% of the voting power or value of any one issuer’s outstanding securities. Fourth, with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015, no more than 25% of the value of our total assets may be represented by nonqualified publicly offered REIT debt instruments.  Fifth, no more than 20% of the value of our total assets may consist of the securities of one or more TRSs (25% in the case of  a taxable year beginning before  January 1, 2018). Sixth, no more than 25% of the value of our total assets may consist of the securities of TRSs and other non-TRS taxable subsidiaries, or  other assets that are not qualifying assets for purposes of the 75% asset test.

For purposes of the second and third asset tests described above the term “securities” does not include our equity or debt securities of a qualified REIT subsidiary, a TRS, or an equity interest in any partnership, since we are deemed to own our proportionate share of each asset of any partnership of which we are a partner. Furthermore, for purposes of determining whether we own more than 10% of the value of only one issuer’s outstanding securities, the term “securities” does not include: (i) any loan to an individual or an estate; (ii) any Code Section 467 rental agreement; (iii) any obligation to pay rents from real property; (iv) certain government issued securities; (v) any security issued by another REIT; and (vi) our debt securities in any partnership, not otherwise excepted under (i) through (v) above, (A) to the extent of our interest as a partner in the partnership or (B) if 75% of the partnership’s gross income is derived from sources described in the 75% income test set forth above.

We may own up to 100% of the stock of one or more TRSs. However, overall, no more than 20% (or 25% with respect to taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018) of the value of our assets may consist of securities of one or more TRSs, and no more than 25% of the value of our assets may consist of the securities of TRSs and other non-TRS taxable subsidiaries (including stock in non-REIT C corporations) and other assets that are not qualifying assets for purposes of the 75% asset test.  We believe that the value of our TRSs is substantially less than 20% of the value of our assets and we do not expect the value of our TRSs to increase materially in the future.

If the outstanding principal balance of a mortgage loan exceeds the fair market value of the real property securing the loan, a portion of such loan likely will not be a qualifying real estate asset for purposes of the 75% test. The nonqualifying portion of that mortgage loan will be equal to the portion of the loan amount that exceeds the value of the associated real property.  Prior to January 1, 2016, in the case of a mortgage loan that is secured by both real and personal property, a portion of the mortgage loan was required to be treated as a nonqualifying assets for purposes of the 75% tests if the fair market value of the real property at the time the loan was made was less than the principal amount of the loan.  For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015, in the case of a mortgage loan that is secured by both real and personal property, such allocation is required only if the fair market value of the personal property exceeds 15% of the value of the property.  We do not expect the change in the rules for allocation of mortgage interest to have an impact on our ability to satisfy either of the asset tests going forward.  As discussed under the 75% gross income test (see above), the IRS provided relief from re-testing certain mortgage loans held by a REIT that have been modified as a result of the current distressed market conditions with respect to real property. At present, we do not hold any mortgage loans that have been modified, which would require us to take advantage of these rules for special relief.

After initially meeting the asset tests at the close of any quarter, we will not lose our status as a REIT for failure to satisfy any of the asset tests at the end of a subsequent quarter solely by reason of changes in asset values. If the failure to satisfy the asset tests results from an acquisition of securities or other property during a quarter, the failure can be cured by disposition of sufficient nonqualifying assets within 30 days after the close of that quarter.

Subject to certain de minimis exceptions, we may avoid REIT disqualification in the event of certain failures under the asset tests, provided that (i) we file a schedule with a description of each asset that caused the failure, (ii) the failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, (iii) we dispose of the assets within 6 months after the last day of the quarter in which the identification of the failure occurred (or the requirements of the rules are otherwise met within such period) and (iv) we pay a tax on the failure equal to the greater of (A) $50,000 per failure and (B) the product of the net income generated by the assets that caused the failure for the period beginning on the date of the failure and ending on the date we dispose of the asset (or otherwise satisfy the requirements) multiplied by the Highest Corporate Tax Rate.

Annual Distribution Requirements. To qualify as a REIT, we are required to distribute dividends (other than capital gain dividends) to our stockholders in an amount at least equal to (A) the sum of (i) 90% of our “REIT taxable income” (computed without regard to the dividends paid deduction and our net capital gain) and (ii) 90% of the net income (after tax), if any, from foreclosure property, minus (B) the sum of certain items of noncash income. Such distributions must be paid in the taxable year to which they relate, or in the following taxable year if declared before we timely file our tax return for such year and paid on or before the first regular dividend payment after such declaration. In addition, such distributions are required to be made pro rata, with no preference to any share of stock as compared with other shares of the same class, and with no preference to one class of stock as compared with another class except to the extent that such class is entitled to such a preference. To the extent that we do not distribute all of our net capital gain, or distribute at least 90%, but less than 100% of our “REIT taxable income,” as adjusted, we will be subject to tax thereon at regular ordinary and capital gain corporate tax rates.

Furthermore, if we fail to distribute during a calendar year, or by the end of January following the calendar year in the case of distributions with declaration and record dates falling in the last three months of the calendar year, at least the sum of:

we will incur a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the excess of such required distribution over the amounts we actually distribute. We may elect to retain and pay income tax on the net long-term capital gain we receive in a taxable year. If we so elect, we will be treated as having distributed any such retained amount for purposes of the 4% excise tax described above. We have made, and we intend to continue to make, timely distributions sufficient to satisfy the annual distribution requirements. We may also be entitled to pay and deduct deficiency dividends in later years as a relief measure to correct errors in determining our taxable income. Although we may be able to avoid income tax on amounts distributed as deficiency dividends, we will be required to pay interest to the IRS based upon the amount of any deduction we take for deficiency dividends.

The availability to us of, among other things, depreciation deductions with respect to our owned facilities (which reduce our taxable income and the amount of our required dividend distributions) depends upon the determination that, for federal income tax purposes, we are the true owner of such facilities for federal income tax purposes, which is dependent on the classification of the leases to operators or our facilities as “true leases” rather than financing arrangements for federal income tax purposes. The determinations of whether (1) we are the owner of such facilities, and (2) the leases are true leases, for federal tax purposes are essentially factual matters.  With the exception of certain financing arrangements for federal income tax purposes, we believe that we will be treated as the owner of each of the facilities that we lease, and such leases will be treated as true leases for federal income tax purposes. However, no assurances can be given that the IRS will not successfully challenge our status as the owner of our facilities subject to leases, and the status of such leases as true leases, asserting that the purchase of the facilities by us and the leasing of such facilities merely constitute steps in secured financing transactions in which the lessees are owners of the facilities and we are merely a secured creditor. In such event, we would not be entitled to claim depreciation deductions with respect to any of the affected facilities.  Other changes included in the Tax Act that could impact the amount of our taxable income for our taxable year ended December 31, 2018, include the limitation of the deduction for interest expense, the limitation on the deduction for certain compensation paid to certain of our executive officers, and the changes to the Code expanding the definitions of “lobbying and political expenditures” and “fines, penalties, and other amounts” for purposes of determining whether expenditures of these types continue to qualify as ordinary and necessary trade or business expenses that may be deducted in computing taxable income.  Since we are engaged in a qualified real property trade or business, we may elect out of the limitations on the deduction for interest expenses.  If we determine the need to make such an election, we will be required to use a longer depreciable life for certain of our real property, which will reduce the amount we may claim currently as depreciation expense for purposes of computing our taxable income.  The result of any of the above could cause us to fail to meet the 90% distribution requirement or, if such requirement is met, we might be subject to corporate income tax or the 4% excise tax.

Reasonable Cause Savings Clause. We may avoid disqualification in the event of a failure to meet certain requirements for REIT qualification if the failures are due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, and if the REIT pays a penalty of $50,000 for each such failure. This reasonable cause safe harbor is not available for failures to meet the 95% and 75% gross income tests or the assets tests.

Failure to Qualify. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, and the reasonable cause relief provisions do not apply, we will be subject to tax (including any applicable alternative minimum tax with respect to taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018) on our taxable income at regular corporate rates. Distributions to stockholders in any year in which we fail to qualify will not be deductible, and our failure to qualify as a REIT would reduce the cash available for distribution by us to our stockholders. In addition, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, all distributions to stockholders will be taxable as dividend income, to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits.  However, in such a case, subject to certain limitations of the Code, corporate distributees may be eligible for the dividends received deduction with respect to dividends that we make, and in the case of an individual, trust, or an estate, dividends are treated the same as capital gain income, which currently is subject to a maximum income tax rate that is lower than regular income tax rates.  In addition, in the case of an individual, trust or an estate, to the extent such taxpayer’s unearned income (including dividends) exceeds certain threshold amounts, the Medicare Tax on unearned income also will apply to dividend income.  Unless entitled to relief under specific statutory provisions, we would also be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification was lost. It is not possible to state whether in all circumstances we would be entitled to such statutory relief. Failure to qualify could result in our incurring indebtedness or liquidating investments to pay the resulting taxes.

Our Subsidiaries.  We own and operate a number of properties through subsidiaries and the classification of such subsidiaries varies for federal income tax purposes as described in this section. Some of the subsidiaries elected to be taxed as REITs beginning with the calendar year ending December 31, 2015. The stock of the REIT subsidiaries, and dividends received from the

REIT subsidiaries, will qualify under the asset tests and income tests, respectively, as described above, provided that such subsidiaries maintain their REIT qualification.

Some of the subsidiaries are classified as qualified REIT subsidiaries, which we refer to as QRSs.  Code Section 856(i) provides that a corporation that is a QRS shall not be treated as a separate corporation, and all assets, liabilities, and items of income, deduction, and credit of a qualified REIT subsidiary shall be treated as assets, liabilities and such items (as the case may be) of the REIT.  Thus, in applying the tests for REIT qualification described above, the QRSs will be ignored, and all assets, liabilities and items of income, deduction, and credit of such QRSs will be treated as our assets, liabilities and items of income, deduction, and credit.

Some of the subsidiaries are classified as TRSs. As described above, a TRS may earn income that would not be qualifying income if earned directly by the parent REIT; however, no more than 20% of the value of a REIT’s assets may consist of securities of one or more TRSs (25% for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018). One or more of our TRSs hold a number of assets that cannot be owned directly by a REIT.  We believe that  the value of the securities of our TRSs is far less than the permitted percentage thresholds described in this section.

Some of the subsidiaries are classified as partnerships. In the case of a REIT that is a partner in a partnership, such REIT is treated as owning its proportionate share of the assets of the partnership and as earning its allocable share of the gross income of the partnership for purposes of the applicable REIT qualification tests.  Thus, our proportionate share of the assets, liabilities, and items of income of any partnership, joint venture, or limited liability company that is treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes in which we own an interest, directly or indirectly, will be treated as our assets and gross income for purposes of applying the various REIT qualification requirements.  See Tax Aspects of Our Investments in our Operating Partnership and Subsidiary Partnerships below.

Tax Aspects of Investments in our Operating Partnership and Subsidiary Partnerships

The following discussion summarizes certain federal income tax considerations applicable to our direct or indirect investments in our operating partnership and any subsidiary partnerships or limited liability companies that we form or acquire including such subsidiary partnerships or limited liability companies that are treated as disregarded for income tax purposes (collectively, “Omega OP”). This discussion does not cover state or local tax laws or any federal tax laws other than income tax laws.

Classification as Partnerships.  We will be entitled to include in our income our distributive share of each item of Omega OP’s income and to deduct our distributive share of each item of Omega OP’s expense or loss only if Omega OP is classified for federal income tax purposes as a partnership (or an entity that is disregarded for federal income tax purposes if the entity is treated as having only one owner for federal income tax purposes) rather than as a corporation or an association taxable as a corporation. An unincorporated entity with at least two owners or members will be classified as a partnership, rather than as a corporation, for federal income tax purposes if it:

Under the check-the-box regulations, an unincorporated entity with at least two owners or members may elect to be classified either as an association taxable as a corporation or as a partnership. If such an entity fails to make an election, it generally will be treated as a partnership (or an entity that is disregarded for federal income tax purposes if the entity is treated as having only one owner for federal income tax purposes) for federal income tax purposes. Omega OP intends to be classified as a partnership for federal income tax purposes and will not elect to be treated as an association taxable as a corporation under the check-the-box regulations.

A publicly traded partnership is a partnership whose interests are traded on an established securities market or are readily tradable on a secondary market or the substantial equivalent thereof.  A partnership whose interests are traded on an established securities market or are readily tradable on a secondary market or the substantial equivalent thereof, and thus, characterized as a publicly traded partnership that is taxed as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, may nevertheless avoid characterization as a corporation for any taxable year if, for each taxable year beginning after December 31, 1987, in which it was classified as a publicly traded partnership, 90% or more of the partnership’s gross income for such year consists of certain passive-type income, including real property rents, gains from the sale or other disposition of real property, interest, and dividends (the “Qualifying Income Exception”). The Treasury Regulations provide limited safe harbors under which certain transfers of interests in the partnership may be ignored or not taken into account in the determination of whether a partnership’s interests are considered to be readily tradable on a secondary market or the substantial equivalent thereof (the “PTP Transfer Exceptions”). Omega OP’s partnership agreement contains provisions enabling its general partner to take such steps as are necessary or appropriate to prevent the issuance and transfers of interests in Omega OP that do not satisfy one of the PTP Transfer Exceptions, and thus, cause Omega OP to be treated as a publicly traded partnership.  To date, we believe that all transfers of Omega OP Units have satisfied one of the PTP Transfer Exceptions.  However, even if the transfers of Omega OP Units failed to qualify for any of the PTP Transfer Exceptions, and Omega OP was considered to be a publicly traded partnership, we believe that Omega OP would have sufficient qualifying income to satisfy the Qualifying Income Exception, and therefore, would not be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

We have not requested, and do not intend to request, a ruling from the IRS that Omega OP will be classified as a partnership and not as a corporation for federal income tax purposes. If for any reason the Omega OP were taxable as a corporation, rather than as a partnership, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we likely would not be able to qualify as a REIT unless we qualified for certain relief provisions. See the discussions entitled “Failure to Satisfy Income Tests,” “Asset Tests” and “Failure to Qualify” set forth above. In addition, any change in a partnership’s status for tax purposes might be treated as a taxable event, in which case we might incur tax liability without any related cash distribution. See Annual Distribution Requirements above. Further, items of income and deduction of such partnership would not pass through to its partners, and its partners would be treated as stockholders for tax purposes. Consequently, such partnership would be required to pay income tax at corporate rates on its net income, and distributions to its partners would constitute dividends that would not be deductible in computing such partnership’s taxable income.

Partners, Not the Partnerships, Subject to Tax. A partnership is not a taxable entity for federal income tax purposes. Rather, we are required to take into account our allocable share of each item of Omega OP’s income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit for any taxable year of Omega OP ending within or with our taxable year, without regard to whether we have received or will receive any distribution from Omega OP.

Partnership Allocations. Although a partnership agreement generally will determine the allocation of income and losses among partners, such allocations will be disregarded for tax purposes if they do not comply with the provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations governing partnership allocations. If an allocation is not recognized for federal income tax purposes, the item subject to the allocation will be reallocated in accordance with the partners’ interests in the partnership, which will be determined by taking into account all of the facts and circumstances relating to the economic arrangement of the partners with respect to such item.

Tax Allocations With Respect to Partnership Properties.  Income, gain, loss, and deduction attributable to property that has appreciated or depreciated that is contributed to a partnership in exchange for an interest in the partnership must be allocated in a manner such that the contributing partner is charged with, or benefits from, respectively, the unrealized gain or unrealized loss associated with the property at the time of the contribution (the “704(c) Allocations”). The amount of such unrealized gain or unrealized loss, referred to as “built-in gain” or “built-in loss”, generally is equal to the difference between the fair market value of the contributed property at the time of contribution and the adjusted tax basis of such property at the time of contribution (a “book-tax difference”). Allocations with respect to book-tax differences are solely for federal income tax purposes and do not affect the book capital accounts or other economic or legal arrangements among the partners. A book-tax difference attributable to depreciable property generally is decreased on an annual basis as a result of the allocation of depreciation deductions to the contributing partner for book purposes but not for tax purposes. The Treasury Regulations require entities taxed as partnerships to use a “reasonable method” for allocating items with respect to which there is a book-tax difference and outline several reasonable allocation methods.

Any gain or loss recognized by Omega OP on the disposition of contributed properties will be allocated first to the partners of Omega OP who contributed such properties to the extent of their built-in gain or loss on those properties for federal income tax purposes. The partners’ built-in gain or loss on such contributed properties will equal the difference between the partners’ proportionate share of the book value of those properties and the partners’ tax basis allocable to those properties at the time of the contribution as reduced for any decrease in the book-tax difference. Any remaining gain or loss recognized by Omega OP on the disposition of the contributed properties, and any gain or loss recognized by Omega OP on the disposition of the other properties, generally will be allocated among the partners in accordance with the partnership agreement, unless such allocations and agreement do not satisfy the requirements of applicable Treasury Regulations, in which case the allocation will be made in accordance with the partners’ interests in the partnership.

Omega OP has, in the past, received contributions of properties having a “carryover” tax basis that is different from the basis of such properties as determined for book or financial accounting purposes. As a result, such properties had significant built-in gain or loss subject to Section 704(c) of the Code. As the general partner of Omega OP, we are required to account for the book-tax difference with respect to the properties contributed to Omega OP under a method approved by Section 704(c) of the Code and the Treasury Regulations, which could result in an allocation of an amount of taxable income from the ownership, or gain or loss from the disposition, of such properties by Omega OP to holders of OP units that contributed such properties that varies from allocations of financial accounting income or gain realized as a result of the ownership and/or disposition of such properties.

Sale of a Partnership’s Property.  Generally, any gain realized by a partnership on the sale of property held by the partnership for more than one year will be long-term capital gain, except for any portion of such gain that is treated as depreciation or cost recovery recapture. Our share of any gain realized by Omega OP on the sale of any property held by Omega OP as inventory or other property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of Omega OP’s trade or business will be treated as income from a prohibited transaction that is subject to a 100% penalty tax. Such prohibited transaction income also may have an adverse effect upon our ability to satisfy the income tests for REIT status. See Income Tests above. We do not presently intend to acquire or hold or to allow Omega OP to acquire or hold any property that represents inventory or other property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of Omega OP’s trade or business.

Government Regulation and Reimbursement 

The healthcare industry is heavily regulated. Our operators are subject to extensive and complex federal, state and local healthcare laws and regulations. These laws and regulations are subject to frequent and substantial changes resulting from the adoption of new legislation, rules and regulations, and administrative and judicial interpretations of existing law. The ultimate timing or effect of these changes, which may be applied retroactively, cannot be predicted. Changes in laws and regulations impacting our operators, in addition to regulatory non-compliance by our operators, can have a significant effect on the operations and financial condition of our operators, which in turn may adversely impact us. There is the potential that we may be subject directly to healthcare laws and regulations because of the broad nature of some of these regulations, such as the Anti-kickback Statute and False Claims Act among others. The following is a discussion of certain laws and regulations generally applicable to our operators, and in certain cases, to us.

Healthcare Reform.  A substantial amount of rules and regulations have been issued under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively referred to as the “Healthcare Reform Law”). The Trump administration has brought several Congressional efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  We expect additional rules, regulations and judicial interpretations in response to legal and other constitutional challenges to be issued that may materially affect our operators’ financial condition and operations.  Even if the Healthcare Reform Law is not ultimately amended or repealed, the new administration could propose changes impacting implementation of the Healthcare Reform Law. The ultimate composition and timing of any legislation enacted under the new administration that would impact the current implementation of the Healthcare Reform Law remains uncertain. Given the complexity of the Healthcare Reform Law and the substantial requirements for regulation thereunder, the impact of the Healthcare Reform Law on our operators or their ability to meet their obligations to us cannot be predicted, whether in its current form or as amended or repealed.

Reform Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities.  On October 4, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued a final rule modifying the conditions of participation in Medicare and Medicaid for SNFs. CMS stated that the regulations, last updated in 1991, were “necessary to reflect the substantial advances that had been made over the past several years in the theory and practice of service delivery and safety” within long-term care. The extensive modifications require SNFs to implement new processes; make changes to current practices; and create new policies and procedures within a short timeframe to remain in compliance with their conditions for participation. Changes include provisions related to staff training, discharge planning, infection prevention and control programs, and pharmacy services, among others. While many of the regulations became effective on November 28, 2016, some of the regulations became effective in Phase 2 on November 28, 2017, with others becoming effective in Phase 3, beginning on November 28, 2019. CMS delayed for eighteen months the imposition of any fines for failure to implement Phase 2 of the new “Requirements of Participation” implemented in November 2017.  CMS also announced a freeze on the inspection star ratings for any surveys occurring between November 28, 2017 and November 27, 2018. CMS estimates the average cost for a SNF to implement the new regulations is estimated to be $62,900 the first year and $55,000 each year thereafter. 

Reimbursement Generally. A significant portion of our operators’ revenue is derived from government-funded reimbursement programs, consisting primarily of Medicare and Medicaid. As federal and state governments continue to focus on healthcare reform initiatives, and as the federal government and many states face significant current and future budget deficits, efforts to reduce costs by government payors will likely continue, which may result in reductions in reimbursement at both the federal and state levels. Additionally, new and evolving payor and provider programs, including but not limited to Medicare Advantage, dual eligible, accountable care organizations, and bundled payments could adversely impact our tenants’ and operators’ liquidity, financial condition or results of operations.  Significant limits on the scope of services reimbursed and/or reductions of reimbursement rates could have a material adverse effect on our operators’ results of operations and financial condition, which could adversely affect our operators’ ability to meet their obligations to us.

Medicaid.  State budgetary concerns, coupled with the implementation of rules under the Healthcare Reform Law, or prospective changes to the Healthcare Reform Law under the Trump administration, may result in significant changes in healthcare spending at the state level. Many states are currently focusing on the reduction of expenditures under their state Medicaid programs, which may result in a reduction in reimbursement rates for our operators. The need to control Medicaid expenditures by the states may be exacerbated by the potential for increased enrollment in Medicaid due to unemployment and declines in family incomes. Since our operators’ profit margins on Medicaid patients are generally relatively low, more than modest reductions in Medicaid reimbursement or an increase in the number of Medicaid patients could adversely affect our operators’ results of operations and financial condition, which in turn could negatively impact us.

The Healthcare Reform Law provided for Medicaid coverage to be expanded to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level, beginning January 1, 2014. While the federal government committed to paying the entire cost for Medicaid coverage for newly eligible beneficiaries from 2014 through 2016, the federal share declines to 95% in 2017, 94% in 2018, 93% in 2019, and 90% in 2020 and subsequent years. Although the Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 2012 that states could not be required to expand Medicaid or risk losing federal funding of their existing Medicaid programs, as of January 4, 2019, thirty-seven (37) states including the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid eligibility with additional states continuing to consider expansion.

Medicare.  On July 31, 2018, CMS issued a final rule regarding the fiscal year (“FY”) 2019 Medicare payment rates and quality payment programs for SNFs, which continues the trend of shifting Medicare payments from volume to value.  Proposed aggregate payments to SNFs, which became effective October 1, 2018 for FY 2019, are expected to increase by $820 million over FY 2017 payments. This reimbursement increase is attributable to a 2.4% market basket increase as required under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. As mandated by the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (“IMPACT Act”), the annual update is reduced by two percentage points for SNFs that fail to submit required quality data to CMS under the SNF Quality Reporting Program (“QRP”). 

Payments to providers are being increasingly tied to quality and efficiency.  CMS finalized the previously proposed rule to replace the SNF PPS RUG-IV case-mix classification methodology with a new value-based Patient Driven Payment Model (“PDPM”).  The PDPM is designed to improve the incentives to treat the needs of the whole patient, rather on the volume of services the patient receives.  The PDPM will be effective October 1, 2019 (FY 2020) to allow time for education and training of SNFs in preparation for the new payment model. 

These prospective reimbursement changes as well as the value-based purchasing programs applicable to SNFs under the 2014 Protecting Access to Medicare Act, which became effective on October 1, 2018, could have a material adverse effect on our operators’ financial condition and operations, adversely impacting their ability to meet their obligations to us.

In addition to Medicare payment rates, SNFs continue to be impacted by the “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018,” which extended Medicare sequestration and Medicare reimbursement cuts to providers and plans by 2% across the board, for an additional two years through 2027.

Furthermore, while the exceptions review process for therapy caps stipulated by MACRA expired December 31, 2017, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 permanently repealed the therapy caps and the exceptions review process that applied to Medicare Part B therapy coverage as of January 1, 2018.  The industry estimates that these changes may potentially (i) result in the restoration of Medicare Part B SNF revenues that would have declined had the therapy caps remained in place and (ii) permit continued medically necessary services to maintain beneficiary quality of care levels. However, these changes reduced the reimbursement rate for Medicare Part B therapy services performed by therapy assistants to 85% of the physician fee schedule beginning January 1, 2022 which may offset some of the additional expenses.  The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 also restored the limited post-pay claims review process and eliminated a threat to future SNF Medicare payment rates by ending the “Independent Payment Advisory Board” established under the Healthcare Reform Law.

Relatedly, CMS released a final rule on December 1, 2017 to significantly scale back mandatory participation in the bundled payment program for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement (“CJR”) procedures that went into effect on April 1, 2016, and was mandatory for all hospitals paid under the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System that are located in the 67 selected metropolitan statistical areas (“MSAs”). Effective January 1, 2018, CJR program participation under the final rule became voluntary for the eligible hospitals in 33 of the MSAs covered by the program as of February 2018.  The CJR program will remain mandatory in the 34 MSAs for the duration of the program, with an exception for certain low volume and rural hospitals.  CMS anticipates the number of mandatory participating hospitals to decrease from approximately 700 under this rule. SNFs receiving Medicare revenues related to hospital discharges subject to CJR bundled payment programs in the identified geographic areas could be either positively or negatively affected by the CJR bundled payment program. 

Quality of Care Initiatives.  In addition to quality or value based reimbursement reforms, CMS has implemented a number of initiatives focused on the quality of care provided by long term care facilities that could affect our operators. In December 2008, CMS released quality ratings for all of the nursing homes that participate in Medicare or Medicaid under its “Five Star Quality Rating System.” Facility rankings, ranging from five stars (“much above average”) to one star (“much below average”) are updated on a monthly basis. SNFs are required to provide information for the CMS Nursing Home Compare website regarding staffing and quality measures. Based on this data and the results of state health inspections, SNFs are then rated based on the five-star rating system.

In August 2016, CMS announced a modification to the Five Star Quality Rating System through the introduction of new quality measures based primarily on Medicare claims data submitted by hospitals, including: (1) percentage of short-stay residents who were successfully discharged to the community; (2) percentage of short-stay residents who have had an outpatient emergency department visit; (3) percentage of short-stay residents who were re-hospitalized after a nursing home admission; (4) percentage of short-stay residents who made improvements in function; and (5) percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to move independently worsened. These ratings were incorporated into the nursing home rating system in July 2016 and were phased in through January 2017. It is possible that this or any other ranking system could lead to future reimbursement policies that reward or penalize facilities on the basis of the reported quality of care parameters.

Office of the Inspector General Activities.  Beginning June 15, 2017, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) began updating its Work Plan website monthly in order to enhance transparency around the OIG’s continuous work planning efforts.  The OIG reported in its January 2018 update that it would review the quality of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries, including elders and disabled persons, who are being treated at inpatient and outpatient medical facilities for conditions that may be the result of abuse or neglect. The OIG referenced prior reviews which indicated problems with the quality of care and the reporting and investigation of potential abuse or neglect at group homes, nursing homes, and skilled nursing facilities.   The OIG additionally included a review of the staffing levels reported by SNFs as part of its August 2018 updates, as well as a review involuntary transfers and discharges from nursing homes in its November 2018 updates  The OIG is continuing to review whether ambulance services paid by Medicare Part B were appropriately subject to Part A SNF consolidated billing requirements.

These monthly Work Plan updates supplement the OIG’s Work Plan for government fiscal year 2017 that included seven projects related specifically to nursing homes: (1) determining to what extent State agencies investigate serious nursing home complaints within the required timeframes; (2) unreported incidents of potential abuse and neglect in SNFs; (3) review of SNF Medicare reimbursement documentation (determine if it meets requirements for each particular resource utilization group); (4) the SNF Adverse Event Screening Tool, which will disseminate practical information about the SNF Adverse Event Trigger Tool; (5) review of the National Background Check Program for long-term care employees; (6) compliance with the SNF prospective payment system requirement related to a three-day qualifying inpatient hospital stay; and (7) review of potentially avoidable hospitalizations of Medicare and Medicaid-Eligible nursing facility residents and prevention and detection services provided by nursing homes.  Additionally, regional Recovery Audit Contractor program auditors along with the OIG and Department of Justice are expected to continue their efforts to evaluate SNF Medicare claims for any excessive therapy charges. 

Department of Justice. SNFs are under intense scrutiny for the quality of care being rendered to residents and appropriate billing practices. The Department of Justice launched ten regional Elder Justice Task Forces in 2016 which are coordinating and enhancing efforts to pursue SNFs that provide grossly substandard care to their residents. They are also focusing on therapy billing issues. These Task Forces are composed of representatives from the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, State Medicaid Fraud Control Units, state and local prosecutors’ offices, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), State Adult Protective Services agencies, Long Term Care Ombudsmen programs, and law enforcement.

Medicare and Medicaid Program Audits.  Governmental agencies and their agents, such as the Medicare Administrative Contractors, fiscal intermediaries and carriers, as well as the HHS-OIG and HHS-OCR, CMS and state Medicaid programs, may conduct audits of our operators’ billing practices.  Under the Recovery Audit Contractor (“RAC”) program, CMS contracts with RACs on a contingency basis to conduct post-payment reviews to detect and correct improper payments in the fee-for-service Medicare program, to managed Medicare plans and in the Medicaid program.  CMS also employs Medicaid Integrity Contractors (“MICs”) to perform post-payment audits of Medicaid claims and identify overpayments. In addition to RACs and MICs, the state Medicaid agencies and other contractors have increased their review activities. Should any of our operators be found out of compliance with any of these laws, regulations or programs, our business, our financial position and our results of operations could be negatively impacted.

Fraud and Abuse. There are various federal and state civil and criminal laws and regulations governing a wide array of healthcare provider referrals, relationships and arrangements, including laws and regulations prohibiting fraud by healthcare providers. Many of these complex laws raise issues that have not been clearly interpreted by the relevant governmental authorities and courts.

These laws include: (i) federal and state false claims acts, which, among other things, prohibit providers from filing false claims or making false statements to receive payment from Medicare, Medicaid or other federal or state healthcare programs; (ii) federal and state anti-kickback and fee-splitting statutes, including the Medicare and Medicaid Anti-kickback statute, which prohibit the payment or receipt of remuneration to induce referrals or recommendations of healthcare items or services, such as services provided in a SNF; (iii) federal and state physician self-referral laws (commonly referred to as the Stark Law), which generally prohibit referrals by physicians to entities for designated health services (some of which are provided in SNFs) with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship; (iv) the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which prohibits, among other things, the knowing presentation of a false or fraudulent claim for certain healthcare services and (v) federal and state privacy laws, including the privacy and security rules contained in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which provide for the privacy and security of personal.   

Violations of healthcare fraud and abuse laws carry civil, criminal and administrative sanctions, including punitive sanctions, monetary penalties, imprisonment, denial of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and potential exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid or other federal or state healthcare programs. Additionally, there are criminal provisions that prohibit filing false claims or making false statements to receive payment or certification under Medicare and Medicaid, as well as failing to refund overpayments or improper payments. Violation of the Anti-kickback statute or Stark Law may form the basis for a federal False Claims Act violation. These laws are enforced by a variety of federal, state and local agencies and can also be enforced by private litigants through, among other things, federal and state false claims acts, which allow private litigants to bring qui tam or whistleblower actions, which have become more frequent in recent years. 

Several of our operators have responded to subpoenas and other requests for information regarding their operations in connection with inquiries by the U.S. Department of Justice or other regulatory agencies. 

Privacy. Our operators are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations designed to protect the confidentiality and security of patient health information, including the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and the corresponding regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively referred to herein as “HIPAA”). The HITECH Act expanded the scope of these provisions by mandating individual notification in instances of breaches of protected health information, providing enhanced penalties for HIPAA violations, and granting enforcement authority to states’ Attorneys General in addition to the HHS Office for Civil Rights.  Additionally, in a final rule issued in January, 2013, HHS modified the standard for determining whether a breach has occurred by creating a presumption that any non-permitted acquisition, access, use or disclosure of protected health information is a breach unless the covered entity or business associate can demonstrate that there is a low probability that the information has been compromised, based on a risk assessment.  HHS continued its auditing program in 2016 to assess compliance efforts by covered entities and business associates. Through a second phase of audits, which commenced for covered entities in July 2016, HHS focused on a review of policies and procedures adopted and employed by covered entities and their business associates to meet selected standards and implementation specifications of the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules.  Covered entities and business associates selected for a desk audit have the potential to be selected for an on-site audit.  The HHS Office for Civil Rights reported that as of February 2018, the Phase 2 desk audits of covered entities and business associates were completed, and additional comprehensive on-site audits would be conducted as part of a permanent audit program going forward. 

Various states have similar laws and regulations that govern the maintenance and safeguarding of patient records, charts and other information generated in connection with the provision of professional medical services. These laws and regulations require our operators to expend the requisite resources to secure protected health information, including the funding of costs associated with technology upgrades. Operators found in violation of HIPAA or any other privacy law or regulation may face significant monetary penalties. In addition, compliance with an operator’s notification requirements in the event of a breach of unsecured protected health information could cause reputational harm to an operator’s business.

Licensing and Certification. Our operators and facilities are subject to various federal, state and local licensing and certification laws and regulations, including laws and regulations under Medicare and Medicaid requiring operators of SNFs and ALFs to comply with extensive standards governing operations. Governmental agencies administering these laws and regulations regularly inspect our operators’ facilities and investigate complaints. Our operators and their managers receive notices of observed violations and deficiencies from time to time, and sanctions have been imposed from time to time on facilities operated by them. In addition, many states require certain healthcare providers to obtain a certificate of need, which requires prior approval for the construction, expansion or closure of certain healthcare facilities, which has the potential to impact some of our operators’ abilities to expand or change their businesses.

Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”).  Our properties must comply with the ADA and any similar state or local laws to the extent that such properties are public accommodations as defined in those statutes. The ADA may require removal of barriers to access by persons with disabilities in certain public areas of our properties where such removal is readily achievable. Should barriers to access by persons with disabilities be discovered at any of our properties, we may be directly or indirectly responsible for additional costs that may be required to make facilities ADA-compliant. Noncompliance with the ADA could result in the imposition of fines or an award of damages to private litigants. Our commitment to make readily achievable accommodations pursuant to the ADA is ongoing, and we continue to assess our properties and make modifications as appropriate in this respect.

Other Laws and Regulations.  Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affect how our operators conduct their operations, including laws and regulations protecting consumers against deceptive practices and otherwise generally affecting our operators’ management of their property and equipment and the conduct of their operations (including laws and regulations involving fire, health and safety; quality of services, including care and food service; residents’ rights, including abuse and neglect laws; and the health standards set by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration).

General and Professional Liability.  Although arbitration agreements have been effective in limiting general and professional liabilities for SNF and long term care providers, there have been numerous lawsuits challenging the validity of arbitration agreements in long term care settings. As set forth in the recent conditions of participation final rule issued on October 4, 2016, CMS prohibited pre-dispute arbitration agreements between SNFs and residents effective November 28, 2016, thereby increasing potential liabilities for SNFs and long-term care providers.   Subsequently, the authority of CMS to restrict the rights of these parties to arbitrate was challenged by litigation in various jurisdictions, and enforcement by CMS was suspended on November 7, 2016 following the issuance of a preliminary injunction by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.  In a reversal from its previous

position, CMS issued a proposed rule on June 5, 2017, that lifts CMS’ ban on pre-dispute arbitration agreements in the long-term care setting. The proposed rule continues to face challenges by certain industry groups.

Executive Officers of Our Company

Biographical information regarding our executive officers and their ages as of February 1, 2019 are set forth below:

C. Taylor Pickett (57) is our Chief Executive Officer and has served in this capacity since June 2001. Mr. Pickett has also served as Director of the Company since May 30, 2002. Mr. Pickett has also been a member of the board of trustees of Corporate Office Properties Trust, an office REIT focusing on U.S. government agencies and defense contractors, since November 2013. From January 1993 to June 2001, Mr. Pickett served as a member of the senior management team of Integrated Health Services, Inc., most recently as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Prior to joining Integrated Health Services, Inc. Mr. Pickett held various positions at PHH Corporation and KPMG Peat Marwick.

Daniel J. Booth (55) is our Chief Operating Officer and has served in this capacity since October 2001. From 1993 to October 2001, Mr. Booth served as a member of the management team of Integrated Health Services, Inc., most recently serving as Senior Vice President, Finance. Prior to joining Integrated Health Services, Inc., Mr. Booth served as a Vice President in the Healthcare Lending Division of Maryland National Bank (now Bank of America).

Steven J. Insoft (54) is our Chief Corporate Development Officer and has served in this capacity since April 1, 2015. Mr. Insoft served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Aviv REIT, Inc. since 2012, while previously serving as Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. Prior to joining Aviv REIT, Inc. in 2005, Mr. Insoft spent eight years as a Vice President and Senior Investment Officer of Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., a publicly-traded REIT. Before that, he was President and Chief Financial Officer of CMI Senior Housing & Healthcare, Inc., a privately-held nursing home and assisted living facility operations and development company, for seven years.

Robert O. Stephenson (55) is our Chief Financial Officer and has served in this capacity since August 2001. From 1996 to July 2001, Mr. Stephenson served as the Senior Vice President and Treasurer of Integrated Health Services, Inc. Prior to joining Integrated Health Services, Inc., Mr. Stephenson held various positions at CSX Intermodal, Inc., Martin Marietta Corporation and Electronic Data Systems.

Michael D. Ritz (50) is our Chief Accounting Officer and has served in this capacity since February 2007. From April 2005 to February 2007, Mr. Ritz served as the Vice President, Accounting & Assistant Corporate Controller of Newell Rubbermaid Inc., and from August 2002 to April 2005, Mr. Ritz served as the Director, Financial Reporting of Newell Rubbermaid Inc. From July 2001 through August 2002, Mr. Ritz served as the Director of Accounting and Controller of Novavax Inc.

As of February 18, 2019, we had 51 full-time employees, including the five executive officers listed above.

Item 1A – Risk Factors

Following are some of the risks and uncertainties that could cause our financial condition, results of operations, business and prospects to differ materially from those contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this report or our other filings with the SEC. These risks should be read in conjunction with the other risks described in this report, including but not limited to those described in Taxation and Government Regulation and Reimbursement under Item 1 above. The risks described in this report are not the only risks facing us and there may be additional risks we are not presently aware of or that we currently consider unlikely to significantly impact us. Our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity could be materially adversely affected by any of these risks, and, as a result, the trading price of our common stock could decline.

Risks Related to the Operators of Our Facilities

Our financial position could be weakened and our ability to make distributions and fulfill our obligations with respect to our indebtedness could be limited if our operators, or a portion thereof, become unable to meet their obligations to us or fail to renew or extend their relationship with us as their lease terms expire or their mortgages mature, or if we become unable to lease or re-lease our

facilities or make mortgage loans on economically favorable terms. We have no operational control over our operators. Adverse developments concerning our operators could arise due to a number of factors, including those listed below. 

The bankruptcy or insolvency of our operators could limit or delay our ability to recover on our investments. 

We are exposed to the risk that a distressed or insolvent operator may not be able to meet its lease, loan, mortgage or other obligations to us or other third parties. This risk is heightened during a period of economic or political instability. Although each of our lease and loan agreements typically provides us with the right to terminate, evict an operator, foreclose on our collateral, demand immediate payment and exercise other remedies upon the bankruptcy or insolvency of an operator, title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) would limit or, at a minimum, delay our ability to collect unpaid pre-bankruptcy rents and mortgage payments and to pursue other remedies against a bankrupt operator.  While we sometimes have third party guarantees of an operator’s lease or loan obligations, such guarantees can be expensive to enforce, and have their own risks of collection as against the guarantors.

Leases. A bankruptcy filing by one of our lessee operators would typically prevent us from collecting unpaid pre-bankruptcy rents or evicting the operator, absent approval of the bankruptcy court. The Bankruptcy Code provides a lessee with the option to assume or reject an unexpired lease within certain specified periods of time. Generally, a lessee is required to pay all rent that becomes payable between the date of its bankruptcy filing and the date of the assumption or rejection of the lease (although such payments will likely be delayed as a result of the bankruptcy filing). If one of our lessee operators chooses to assume its lease with us, the operator must promptly cure all monetary defaults existing under the lease (including payment of unpaid pre-bankruptcy rents) and provide adequate assurance of its ability to perform its future lease obligations. Even where a lessee operator assumes its lease with us, it will first often threaten to reject that lease to obtain better lease terms from us, and we sometimes have to consider making, or we do make, such economic concessions to avoid rejection of the lease and our taking a closed facility back. If one of our lessee operators opts to reject its lease with us, we would have a claim against such operator for unpaid and future rents payable under the lease, but such claim would be subject to a statutory “cap” under the Bankruptcy Code, and would likely result in a recovery substantially less than the face value of such claim. Although the operator’s rejection of the lease would permit us to recover possession of the leased facility, we would likely face losses, costs and delays associated with repairs and/or maintenance of the facility and then re-leasing the facility to a new operator, or costs associated with selling the facility. In any event, re-leasing a facility or selling it could take a material amount of time, and the pool of interested and qualified tenants or buyers will be limited due to the unique nature of our properties, which may depress values and our eventual recovery.  Finally, whether a lease operator in bankruptcy ends up assuming or rejecting our lease, we will incur legal and collection costs, which can be difficult or impossible to recover.

Several other factors could impact our rights under leases with bankrupt operators. First, the operator could seek to assign its lease with us to a third party. The Bankruptcy Code disregards anti-assignment provisions in leases to permit the assignment of unexpired leases to third parties (provided all monetary defaults under the lease are promptly cured and the assignee can demonstrate its ability to perform its obligations under the lease). Second, in instances in which we have entered into a master lease agreement with an operator that operates more than one facility, the bankruptcy court could determine that the master lease was comprised of separate, divisible leases (each of which could be separately assumed or rejected), rather than a single, integrated lease (which would have to be assumed or rejected in its entirety). Finally, the bankruptcy court could re-characterize our lease agreement as a disguised financing arrangement, which could require us to receive bankruptcy court approval to foreclose or pursue other remedies with respect to the facility.

Mortgages. A bankruptcy filing by an operator to which we have made a loan secured by a mortgage would typically prevent us from collecting unpaid pre-bankruptcy mortgage payments and foreclosing on our collateral, absent approval of the bankruptcy court. As an initial matter, we could ask the bankruptcy court to order the operator to make periodic payments or provide other financial assurances to us during the bankruptcy case (known as “adequate protection”), but the ultimate decision regarding “adequate protection” (including the timing and amount  of any “adequate protection” payments) rests with the bankruptcy court. In addition, we would need bankruptcy court approval before commencing or continuing any foreclosure action against the operator’s collateral (including a facility). The bankruptcy court could withhold such approval, especially if the operator can demonstrate that the facility or other collateral is necessary for an effective reorganization and that we have a sufficient “equity cushion” in the facility or that we are otherwise protected from any diminution in value of the collateral. If the bankruptcy court does not either grant us “adequate protection” or permit us to foreclose on our collateral, we may not receive any loan payments until after the bankruptcy court confirms a plan of reorganization for the operator.  In addition, in any bankruptcy case of an operator to which we have made a loan, the operator may seek bankruptcy court approval to pay us (i) over a longer period of time than the terms of our loan, (ii) at a different interest rate, and/or (iii) for only the value of the collateral, instead of the full amount of the loan.  Finally, even if the bankruptcy court permits us to foreclose on the facility, we would still be subject to the losses, costs and other risks associated with a foreclosure

sale, including possible successor liability under government programs, indemnification obligations and suspension or delay of third-party payments. Should such events occur, our income and cash flow from operations would be adversely affected.

Failure by our operators to comply with various local, state and federal government regulations may adversely impact their ability to make debt or lease payments to us.

Our operators are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations, including those described below, that are subject to frequent and substantial changes (sometimes applied retroactively) resulting from new legislation, adoption of rules and regulations, and administrative and judicial interpretations of existing law, and any changes in the regulatory framework could have a material adverse effect on our tenants, operators, guarantors and managers. The ultimate timing or effect of these changes cannot be predicted. These changes may have a dramatic effect on our operators’ costs of doing business and on the amount of reimbursement by both government and other third-party payors. The failure of any of our operators to comply with these laws, requirements and regulations could adversely affect their ability to meet their obligations to us.

 

 

 

 

 

Alternative payment models require certain changes to reimbursement and studies of reimbursement policies that may adversely affect payments to SNFs.

Alternative payment models, as well as other legislative initiatives included in the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 and other laws introduced by Congress, have the potential to affect Medicare payments to SNFs, including, but not limited to, provisions changing the payment methodology, setting reimbursement caps, implementing value-based purchasing and payment bundling, and studying the appropriateness of restrictions on payments for health care acquired conditions. Several commercial payors have expressed an intent to pursue certain value-based purchasing models and initiatives. These provisions are in various stages of implementation. See Item 1. Business – Government Regulation and Reimbursement – Healthcare Reform, Reimbursement Generally, and Medicare.    Although we cannot accurately predict the extent to which or how such provisions may be implemented, or the effect any such implementation would have on our operators or our business, these provisions could result in decreases in payments to our operators, increase our operators’ costs or otherwise adversely affect the results of operations or financial condition of our operators, thereby negatively impacting their ability to meet their obligations to us. 

The Healthcare Reform Law imposes additional requirements on SNFs regarding compliance and disclosure.

The Healthcare Reform Law requires SNFs to have a compliance and ethics program that is effective in preventing and detecting criminal, civil and administrative violations and in promoting quality of care. HHS included in Final Rule published on October 4, 2016 the requirement for operators to implement a compliance and ethics program as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid.  Long-term care facilities, including SNFs, have until November 28, 2019 to comply.  See Item 1. Business – Government Regulation and Reimbursement – Reform Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities for a further discussion of the reform requirements set forth in the Final Rule.  If our operators fall short in their compliance and ethics programs and quality assurance and performance improvement programs, if and when required, their reputations and ability to attract residents could be adversely affected.

Our operators depend on reimbursement from governmental and other third-party payors, and reimbursement rates from such payors may be reduced or modified.

Changes in the reimbursement rate or methods of payment from third-party payors, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs, or the implementation of other measures to reduce reimbursements for services provided by our operators has in the past, and could in the future, result in a substantial reduction in our operators’ revenues and operating margins. Additionally, reimbursement from governmental and other third party payors could be reduced as part of retroactive adjustments during claims settlement processes or as result of post-payment audits. See Item 1. Business – Government Regulation and Reimbursement – Reimbursement Generally, Medicaid, and Medicare.  We currently believe that our operator coverage ratios are adequate and that our operators can absorb moderate reimbursement rate reductions and still meet their obligations to us. However, significant limits on the scope of services reimbursed and on reimbursement rates, as well as changes in reimbursement policies or other measures altering payment methodologies for services provided by our operators, could have a material adverse effect on our operators’ results of operations and financial condition, which could cause the revenues of our operators to decline and negatively impact their ability to meet their obligations to us.

Additionally, net revenue realizable under third-party payor agreements can change after examination and retroactive adjustment by payors during the claims settlement processes or as a result of post-payment audits. Payors may disallow requests for reimbursement based on determinations that certain costs are not reimbursable or reasonable, additional documentation is necessary or certain services were not covered or were not medically necessary. New legislative and regulatory proposals could impose further limitations on government and private payments to healthcare providers. In some cases, states have enacted or are considering enacting measures designed to reduce Medicaid expenditures and to make changes to private healthcare insurance. We cannot make any assurances that adequate third-party payor reimbursement levels will continue to be available for the services provided by our operators. 

Government spending cuts or modifications could lead to a reduction in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement.

Approved or proposed cost-containment measures, spending cuts and tax reform initiatives have resulted or could result in changes (including substantial reductions in funding) to Medicare, Medicaid or Medicare Advantage Plans. Any such federal legislation that reduces reimbursement payments to healthcare providers could have a material adverse effect on certain of our operators’ liquidity, financial condition or results of operations, which could adversely affect their ability to satisfy their obligations to us and could have a material adverse effect on us. Additionally, as a result of state budget crises and financial shortfalls, many states are focusing on the reduction of expenditures under their Medicaid programs, which may result in a freeze on Medicaid rates or a reduction in reimbursement rates for our operators. See Item 1. Business – Government Regulation and Reimbursement – Reimbursement Generally, Medicaid, and Medicare.  These potential reductions could be compounded by the potential for federal cost-cutting efforts that could lead to reductions in reimbursement to our operators under both the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Potential reductions in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement to our operators could reduce the cash flow of our operators and their ability to make rent or mortgage payments to us. The need to control Medicaid expenditures may be exacerbated by the potential for increased enrollment in Medicaid due to unemployment and declines in family incomes. Medicaid enrollment may continue to increase in the future, as the Healthcare Reform Law allowed states to increase the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid in 2014. Since our operators’ profit margins on Medicaid patients are generally relatively low, more than modest reductions in Medicaid reimbursement and an increase in the number of Medicaid patients could place some operators in financial distress, which in turn could adversely affect us. If funding for Medicare and/or Medicaid is reduced, it could have a material adverse effect on our operators’ results of operations and financial condition, which could adversely affect our operators’ ability to meet their obligations to us.

We may be unable to find a replacement operator for one or more of our leased properties.

From time to time, we may need to find a replacement operator for one or more of our leased properties for a variety of reasons, including upon the expiration of the lease term or the occurrence of an operator default. During any period in which we are attempting to locate one or more replacement operators, there could be a decrease or cessation of rental payments on the applicable property or properties. We cannot assure you that any of our current or future operators will elect to renew their respective leases with us upon expiration of the terms thereof. Similarly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to locate a suitable replacement operator or, if we are successful in locating a replacement operator, that the rental payments from the new operator would not be significantly less than the existing rental payments. Our ability to locate a suitable replacement operator may be significantly delayed or limited by various state licensing, receivership, certificate of need or other laws, as well as by Medicare and Medicaid change-of-ownership rules. We also may incur substantial additional expenses in connection with any such licensing, receivership or change-of-ownership proceedings. Any such delays, limitations and expenses could materially delay or impact our ability to collect rent, obtain possession of leased properties or otherwise exercise remedies for default.

Our operators may be subject to significant legal actions that could result in their increased operating costs and substantial uninsured liabilities, which may affect their ability to meet their obligations to us.

Our operators may be subject to claims for damages relating to the services that they provide.  We can give no assurance that the insurance coverage maintained by our operators will cover all claims made against them or continue to be available at a reasonable cost, if at all. In some states, insurance coverage for the risk of punitive damages arising from professional and general liability claims and/or litigation may not, in certain cases, be available to operators due to state law prohibitions or limitations of availability. As a result, our operators operating in these states may be liable for punitive damage awards that are either not covered or are in excess of their insurance policy limits.

While we are unable to predict the scope of future federal, state and local regulations and legislation, including the Medicare and Medicaid statutes and regulations we believe that there has been, and will continue to be, an increase in governmental investigations of long-term care providers, particularly in the area of Medicare/Medicaid false claims, as well as an increase in the intensity of enforcement actions resulting from these investigations.  Insurance is not available to our operators to cover such losses. Any adverse determination in a legal proceeding or governmental investigation, whether currently asserted or arising in the future, could have a material adverse effect on an operator’s financial condition. If an operator is unable to obtain or maintain insurance coverage, if judgments are obtained in excess of the insurance coverage, if an operator is required to pay uninsured punitive damages, or if an operator is subject to an uninsurable government enforcement action, the operator could be exposed to substantial additional liabilities. Such liabilities could adversely affect the operator’s ability to meet its obligations to us, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.     

In addition, we may in some circumstances be named as a defendant in litigation involving the services provided by our operators. Although we generally have no involvement in the services provided by our operators, and our standard lease agreements and loan agreements generally require our operators to indemnify us and carry insurance to cover us in certain cases, a significant judgment against us in such litigation could exceed our and our operators’ insurance coverage, which would require us to make payments to cover the judgment. 

Increased competition as well as increased operating costs result in lower revenues for some of our operators and may affect the ability of our operators to meet their obligations to us.

The long-term healthcare industry is highly competitive and we expect that it may become more competitive in the future. Our operators are competing with numerous other companies providing similar healthcare services or alternatives such as home health agencies, life care at home, community-based service programs, retirement communities and convalescent centers. Our operators compete on a number of different levels including the quality of care provided, reputation, the physical appearance of a facility, price, the range of services offered, family preference, alternatives for healthcare delivery, the supply of competing properties, physicians, staff, referral sources, location and the size and demographics of the population in the surrounding areas. We cannot be certain that the operators of all of our facilities will be able to achieve occupancy and rate levels that will enable them to meet all of their obligations to us. Our operators may encounter increased competition in the future that could limit their ability to attract residents or expand their businesses and therefore affect their ability to pay their lease or mortgage payments.

In addition, the market for qualified nurses, healthcare professionals and other key personnel is highly competitive and our operators may experience difficulties in attracting and retaining qualified personnel. Increases in labor costs due to higher wages and greater benefits required to attract and retain qualified healthcare personnel incurred by our operators could affect their ability to meet their obligations to us. This situation could be particularly acute in certain states that have enacted legislation establishing minimum staffing requirements.

We may be unable to successfully foreclose on the collateral securing our mortgage loans, and even if we are successful in our foreclosure efforts, we may be unable to successfully find a replacement operator, or operate or occupy the underlying real estate, which may adversely affect our ability to recover our investments.

If an operator defaults under one of our mortgage loans, we may foreclose on the loan or otherwise protect our interest by acquiring title to the property. In such a scenario, we may be required to make substantial improvements or repairs to maximize the facility’s investment potential. Operators may contest enforcement of foreclosure or other remedies, seek bankruptcy protection against our exercise of enforcement or other remedies and/or bring claims for lender liability in response to actions to enforce mortgage obligations. Even if we are able to successfully foreclose on the collateral securing our mortgage loans, we may be unable to expeditiously find a replacement operator, if at all, or otherwise successfully operate or occupy the property, which could adversely affect our ability to recover our investment.

Uninsured losses or losses in excess of our operators’ insurance coverage could adversely affect our financial position and our cash flow.

Under the terms of our leases, our operators are required to maintain comprehensive general liability, fire, flood, earthquake, boiler and machinery, nursing home or long-term care professional liability and extended coverage insurance with respect to our properties with policy specifications, limits and deductibles set forth in the leases or other written agreements between us and the operator. However, our properties may be adversely affected by casualty losses which exceed insurance coverages and reserves. In addition, we cannot provide any assurances that our tenants will maintain the required coverages, that we will continue to require the same levels of insurance under our leases, or that such insurance will be available at a reasonable cost in the future or that the policies maintained will fully cover all losses on our properties upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event.  We also cannot make any guaranty as to the future financial viability of the insurers that underwrite the policies maintained by our tenants, or, alternatively if our tenants utilize captive or self-insurance programs, that such programs will be adequately funded.

Should an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of insured limits occur, we could lose both our investment in, and anticipated profits and cash flows from, the property. Even if it were practicable to restore the property to its condition prior to the damage caused by a major casualty, the operations of the affected property would likely be suspended for a considerable period of time. In the event of any substantial loss affecting a property, disputes over insurance claims could arise.

Our development and redevelopment projects may not yield anticipated returns.

We consider and, when appropriate, invest in various development and redevelopment projects. In deciding whether to make an investment in a particular project, we make certain assumptions regarding the expected future performance of the property. Our assumptions are subject to risks generally associated with development and redevelopment projects, including, among others, that:

If any of the risks described above occur, our development and redevelopment projects may not yield anticipated returns, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

Risks Related to Us and Our Operations

We rely on external sources of capital to fund future capital needs, and if we encounter difficulty in obtaining such capital, we may not be able to make future investments necessary to grow our business or meet maturing commitments.

To qualify as a REIT under the Code, we are required to, among other things, distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income each year to our stockholders. Because of this distribution requirement, we may not be able to fund, from cash retained from operations, all future capital needs, including capital needed to make investments and to satisfy or refinance maturing commitments. As a result, we rely on external sources of capital, including debt and equity financing. If we are unable to obtain needed capital at all or only on unfavorable terms from these sources, we might not be able to make the investments needed to grow our business, or to meet our obligations and commitments as they mature, which could negatively affect the ratings of our debt and even, in extreme circumstances, affect our ability to continue operations. Our access to capital depends upon a number of factors over which we have little or no control, including the performance of the national and global economies generally; competition in the healthcare industry; issues facing the healthcare industry, including regulations and government reimbursement policies; our operators’ operating costs; the ratings of our debt securities; the market’s perception of our growth potential; the market value of our properties; our current and potential future earnings and cash distributions; and the market price of the shares of our capital stock. While we currently have sufficient cash flow from operations to fund our obligations and commitments, we may not be in a position to take advantage of future investment opportunities in the event that we are unable to access the capital markets on a timely basis or we are only able to obtain financing on unfavorable terms.

Our ability to raise capital through equity sales is dependent, in part, on the market price of our common stock, and our failure to meet market expectations with respect to our business could negatively impact the market price of our common stock and availability of equity capital.

As with other publicly-traded companies, the availability of equity capital will depend, in part, on the market price of our common stock which, in turn, will depend upon various market conditions and other factors that may change from time to time including:

The market value of the equity securities of a REIT is generally based upon the market’s perception of the REIT’s growth potential and its current and potential future earnings and cash distributions. Our failure to meet the market’s expectation with regard to future earnings and cash distributions would likely adversely affect the market price of our common stock and, as a result, the availability of equity capital to us. 

We are subject to risks associated with debt financing, which could negatively impact our business and limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders and to repay maturing debt.

The financing required to make future investments and satisfy maturing commitments may be provided by borrowings under our credit facilities, private or public offerings of debt or equity, the assumption of secured indebtedness, mortgage financing on a portion of our owned portfolio or through joint ventures. To the extent we must obtain debt financing from external sources to fund our capital requirements, we cannot guarantee such financing will be available on favorable terms, if at all. In addition, if we are unable to refinance or extend principal payments due at maturity or pay them with proceeds from other capital transactions, our cash flow may not be sufficient to make distributions to our stockholders and repay our maturing debt. Furthermore, if prevailing interest rates, changes in our debt ratings or other factors at the time of refinancing result in higher interest rates upon refinancing, the interest expense relating to that refinanced indebtedness would increase, which could reduce our profitability and the amount of dividends we are able to pay. Moreover, additional debt financing increases the amount of our leverage. The degree of leverage could have important consequences to stockholders, including affecting our investment grade ratings and our ability to obtain additional financing in the future, and making us more vulnerable to a downturn in our results of operations or the economy generally.

The interest rate of our credit facilities, term loan facilities and derivatives contracts are priced using LIBOR.

London Inter-bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) is the basic rate of interest used in lending between banks on the London interbank market and is widely used as a reference for setting the interest rate on loans globally. We typically use LIBOR as a reference rate in credit facilities, term loan facilities and derivative contracts. 

On July 27, 2017, the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates LIBOR, announced that it intends to phase out LIBOR by the end of 2021. It is unclear if at that time whether or not LIBOR will cease to exist at that time (and if so, what reference rate will replace it) or if new methods of calculating LIBOR will be established such that it continues to exist after 2021.  The Alternative Reference Rates Committee ("ARRC") has proposed that the Secured Overnight Financing Rate ("SOFR") is the rate that represents best practice as the alternative to LIBOR for use in financial and other derivatives contracts that are currently indexed to LIBOR. ARRC has proposed a paced market transition plan to SOFR from LIBOR and organizations are currently working on industry wide and company specific transition plans as it relates to financial and other derivative contracts exposed to LIBOR. We have material borrowing contracts that are indexed to LIBOR.  At this time, we cannot predict the future impact of a departure from LIBOR as a reference rate, however, if future rates based upon the successor reference rate (or a new method of calculating LIBOR) are higher than LIBOR rates as currently determined, we may be adversely impacted.       

We may be subject to additional risks in connection with our recent and future acquisitions of long-term care facilities.

 

We may be subject to additional risks in connection with our recent and future acquisitions of long-term care facilities, including but not limited to the following:

 

 

We cannot assure you that we will be able to manage our recently acquired or future new facilities without encountering difficulties or that any such difficulties will not have a material adverse effect on us.

 

Our assets may be subject to impairment charges.

 

We periodically, but not less than annually, evaluate our real estate investments and other assets for impairment indicators. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based on factors such as market conditions, operator performance and legal structure. If we determine that a significant impairment has occurred, we are required to make an adjustment to the net carrying value of the asset, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

 

We may not be able to sell certain closed facilities for their book value.

 

From time to time, we close facilities and actively market such facilities for sale. To the extent we are unable to sell these properties for our book value, we may be required to take a non-cash impairment charge or loss on the sale, either of which would reduce our net income.

Our indebtedness could adversely affect our financial condition.

 

We have a material amount of indebtedness and we may increase our indebtedness in the future. Our level and type of indebtedness could have important consequences for our stockholders. For example, it could:

 

 

Further, we have the ability to incur substantial additional debt, including secured debt. If we incur additional debt, the related risks described above could intensify. In addition, if we are unable to refinance any of our floating rate debt, we would continue to be subject to interest rate risk. The short-term nature of some of our debt also subjects us to the risk that market conditions may be unfavorable or may prevent us from refinancing our debt at or prior to their existing maturities. In addition, our cash flow from operations may not be sufficient to repay all of our outstanding debt as it becomes due, and we may not be able to borrow money, sell assets or otherwise raise funds on acceptable terms, if at all, to refinance our debt.

 

Covenants in our debt documents limit our operational flexibility, and a covenant breach could materially adversely affect our operations.

 

The terms of our credit agreements and note indentures require us to comply with a number of customary financial and other covenants that may limit our management’s discretion by restricting our ability to, among other things, incur additional debt, redeem our capital stock, enter into certain transactions with affiliates, pay dividends and make other distributions, make investments and other restricted payments, engage in mergers and consolidations, create liens, sell assets or engage in new lines of business. In addition, our credit facilities require us to maintain compliance with specified financial covenants, including those relating to maximum total leverage, maximum secured leverage, maximum unsecured leverage, minimum fixed charge coverage, minimum consolidated tangible net worth, minimum unsecured debt yield, minimum unsecured interest coverage and maximum distributions. Any additional financing we may obtain could contain similar or more restrictive covenants. Our continued ability to incur indebtedness, conduct our operations, and take advantage of business opportunities as they arise is subject to compliance with these financial and other covenants. Breaches of these covenants could result in defaults under the instruments governing the applicable indebtedness, in addition to any other indebtedness cross-defaulted against such instruments. Any such breach could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are subject to particular risks associated with real estate ownership, which could result in unanticipated losses or expenses. 

 

Our business is subject to many risks that are associated with the ownership of real estate. For example, if our operators do not renew their leases, we may be unable to re-lease the facilities at favorable rental rates, if at all. Other risks that are associated with real estate acquisition and ownership include, without limitation, the following:

 

 

Our real estate investments are relatively illiquid.

 

Real estate investments are relatively illiquid and generally cannot be sold quickly. The real estate market is affected by many factors which are beyond our control, including general economic conditions, availability of financing, interest rates and supply and demand. Additional factors that are specific to our industry also tend to limit our ability to vary our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions. For example, all of our properties are ‘‘special purpose’’ properties that cannot be readily converted into general residential, retail or office use. In addition, transfers of operations of nursing homes and other healthcare-related facilities are subject to extensive regulatory approvals. We cannot predict whether we will be able to sell any property for the price or on the terms set by us 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, or that we will have funds available to make necessary repairs and improvements to a property held for sale. To the extent we are unable to sell any properties for our book value, we may be required to take a non-cash impairment charge or loss on the sale, either of which would reduce our net income.

 

As an owner or lender with respect to real property, we may be exposed to possible environmental liabilities.

 

Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, a current or previous owner of real property or a secured lender may be liable in certain circumstances for the costs of investigation, removal or remediation of, or related releases of, certain hazardous or toxic substances at, under or disposed of in connection with such property, as well as certain other potential costs relating to hazardous or toxic substances, including government fines and damages for injuries to persons and adjacent property. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner knew of, or was responsible for, the presence or disposal of such substances. As a result, liability may be imposed on the owner in connection with the activities of an operator of the property. The cost of any required investigation, remediation, removal, fines or personal or property damages and the owner’s liability therefore could exceed the value of the property and/or the assets of the owner. In addition, the presence of such substances, or the failure to properly dispose of or remediate such substances, may adversely affect an operators’ ability to attract additional residents and our ability to sell or rent such property or to borrow using such property as collateral which, in turn, could negatively impact our revenues.

 

Although our leases and mortgage loans generally require the lessee and the mortgagor to indemnify us for certain environmental liabilities, the scope of such obligations may be limited. For instance, most of our leases do not require the lessee to indemnify us for environmental liabilities arising before the lessee took possession of the premises. Further, we cannot assure you that any such mortgagor or lessee would be able to fulfill its indemnification obligations to us. 

The industry in which we operate is highly competitive. Increasing investor interest in our sector and consolidation at the operator level or REIT level could increase competition and reduce our profitability.

 

Our business is highly competitive and we expect that it may become more competitive in the future. We compete for healthcare facility investments with other healthcare investors, including other REITs, some of which have greater resources and lower costs of capital than we do. Increased competition makes it more challenging for us to identify and successfully capitalize on opportunities that meet our business goals. If we cannot capitalize on our development pipeline, identify and purchase a sufficient quantity of healthcare facilities at favorable prices, or are unable to finance such acquisitions on commercially favorable terms, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely affected. In addition, if our cost of capital should increase relative to the cost of capital of our competitors, the spread that we realize on our investments may decline if competitive pressures limit or prevent us from charging higher lease or mortgage rates.

 

We may be named as defendants in litigation arising out of professional liability and general liability claims relating to our previously owned and operated facilities that if decided against us, could adversely affect our financial condition.

 

We and several of our wholly owned subsidiaries were named as defendants in professional liability and general liability claims related to our owned and operated facilities prior to 2005. Other third-party managers responsible for the day-to-day operations of these facilities were also named as defendants in these claims. In these suits, patients of certain previously owned and operated facilities have alleged significant damages, including punitive damages, against the defendants. Although all of these prior suits have been settled, we or our affiliates could be named as defendants in similar suits in the future. There can be no assurance that we would be successful in our defense of such potential matters or in asserting our claims against various managers of the subject facilities or that the amount of any settlement or judgment would be substantially covered by insurance or that any punitive damages will be covered by insurance.

 

Our charter and bylaws contain significant anti-takeover provisions which could delay, defer or prevent a change in control or other transactions that could provide our stockholders with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of our common stock.

 

Our charter and bylaws contain various procedural and other requirements which could make it difficult for stockholders to effect certain corporate actions. Our Board of Directors (“Board”) has the authority to issue additional shares of preferred stock and to fix the preferences, rights and limitations of the preferred stock without stockholder approval. In addition, our charter contains limitations on the ownership of our capital stock intended to ensure we continue to meet the requirements for qualification as a REIT. These provisions could discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or make it more difficult for a third party to gain control of us, which could adversely affect the market price of our securities and/or result in the delay, deferral or prevention of a change in control or other transactions that could provide our stockholders with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of our common stock.

 

Ownership of property outside the U.S. may subject us to different or greater risks than those associated with our U.S. investments.

 

We have investments in the U.K., and may from time to time may seek to acquire other properties in the U.K. or otherwise outside the U.S. Although we currently have investments in the U.K., we have limited experience investing in healthcare properties or other real estate-related assets located outside the U.S. International development, investment, ownership and operating activities involve risks that are different from those we face with respect to our U.S. properties and operations. These risks include, but are not limited to, any international currency gain recognized with respect to changes in exchange rates may not qualify under the 75.0% gross income test or the 95.0% gross income test that we must satisfy annually in order to qualify and maintain our status as a REIT; challenges with respect to the repatriation of foreign earnings and cash; changes in foreign political, regulatory, and economic conditions, including regionally, nationally, and locally; challenges in managing international operations; challenges of complying with a wide variety of foreign laws and regulations, including those relating to real estate, corporate governance, operations, taxes, employment and legal proceedings; foreign ownership restrictions with respect to operations in countries; diminished ability to legally enforce our contractual rights in foreign countries; differences in lending practices and the willingness of domestic or foreign lenders to provide financing; regional or country-specific business cycles and economic instability; and changes in applicable laws and regulations in the U.S. that affect foreign operations. In addition, we have limited investing experience in international markets. If we are unable to successfully manage the risks associated with international expansion and operations, our results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

We may be adversely affected by fluctuations in currency exchange rates.

 

Our ownership of properties in the U.K. currently subjects us to fluctuations in the exchange rates between U.S. dollars and the British pound, which may, from time to time, impact our financial condition and results of operations. If we continue to expand our international presence through investments in, or acquisitions or development of healthcare assets outside the U.S. or the U.K., we may transact business in other foreign currencies. Although we may pursue hedging alternatives, including borrowing in local currencies, to protect against foreign currency fluctuations, we cannot assure you that such fluctuations will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

 

Economic and other conditions that negatively affect states in which a greater percentage of our investments are located could adversely affect our financial results.

 

At December 31, 2018, the three states in which we had our highest concentration of investments were Florida (10%), Texas (10%) and Michigan (8%). As a result, we are subject to increased exposure to adverse conditions affecting these regions, including unfavorable Medicaid reimbursements rates for SNFs, downturns in the local economies, local real estate conditions, increased competition or decreased demand for our facilities, regional climate events, and unfavorable legislative or regulatory developments, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.  The acquisition of MedEquities will increase the percentage of our investments in Texas, thereby increasing the impact of regulatory or other conditions in Texas on our portfolio.

   

 

The vote by the U.K. to leave the European Union could adversely affect us.

 

The United Kingdom’s (“U.K.”) referendum on withdrawal from the European Union (“E.U.”) on June 23, 2016 (referred to as “Brexit”), and subsequent notification of the U.K.’s intention to withdraw from the E.U. given on March 29, 2017, have adversely impacted global markets and foreign currencies. In particular, the value of the Pound Sterling has sharply declined as compared to the U.S. Dollar and other currencies. This volatility in foreign currencies is expected to continue as the U.K. negotiates and executes its exit from the E.U., but there is uncertainty over what time period this will occur. A significantly weaker Pound Sterling compared to the U.S. Dollar could have a significant negative effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The decrease in value to the Pound Sterling and the impacts across global markets and foreign currencies may influence trends in consumer confidence and discretionary spending habits, but given the lack of precedent and uncertainty, it is unclear how Brexit will impact us.



The intention to withdraw began a two-year negotiating period to establish the withdrawal terms. Even if no agreement is reached, the U.K.’s separation still becomes effective if either the U.K. passes legislation to withdraw its previous notification of its intent to withdraw or unless all E.U. members unanimously agree on an extension. Negotiations have commenced to determine the future terms of the U.K. relationship with the E.U., including, among other things, a transition period for implementation of the withdrawal and the terms of trade between the U.K. and the E.U. If no agreement is reached by March 19, 2019, the U.K.’s membership in the E.U. could terminate under a so-called “hard Brexit” although the U.K. Parliament recently voted on a non-binding measure indicating it did not support a “hard Brexit” outcome.

 

The effects of Brexit will depend on many factors, including the nature of any agreements that the U.K. makes to retain access to E.U. single markets either during a transitional period or more permanently. Brexit could lead to legal uncertainty and potentially divergent national laws and regulations as the U.K. determines which E.U. laws to replace or replicate. In a “hard Brexit” scenario, there could be increased costs from re-imposition of tariffs on trade between the U.K. and E.U., shipping delays because of the need for customs inspections and procedures (which may be severe in the near term given the lack of infrastructure or preparedness for such inspections and procedures), and temporary shortages of certain goods. In addition, trade and investment between the U.K., the E.U., the United States and other countries will be impacted by the fact that the U.K. currently operates under the E.U.’s tax treaties. The U.K. will need to negotiate its own tax and trade treaties with countries all over the world, which could take years to complete. While we cannot anticipate the outcome of these future negotiations, effects could include uncertainty regarding tax exemptions and reliefs within the E.U., as well as expected changes in tariffs and tax laws or regulations which could materially and adversely affect our business, future business opportunities, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and cash flows.

Our success depends in part on our ability to retain key personnel and our ability to attract or retain other qualified personnel.

 

Our future performance depends to a significant degree upon the continued contributions of our executive management team and other key employees. The loss of the services of our current executive management team could have an adverse impact on our operations. Although we have entered into employment agreements with the members of our executive management team, these agreements may not assure their continued service. In addition, our future success depends, in part, on our ability to attract, hire, train and retain other qualified personnel. Competition for qualified employees is intense, and we compete for qualified employees with companies with greater financial resources. Our failure to successfully attract, hire, retain and train the people we need would significantly impede our ability to implement our business strategy.

 

Failure to properly manage and integrate our rapid growth could distract our management or increase our expenses.

 

We have experienced rapid growth and development in a relatively short period of time and expect to continue this rapid growth in the future. This growth has resulted in increased levels of responsibility for our management. Future acquisitions or investments could place significant additional demands on, and require us to expand, our management, resources and personnel. In addition, we cannot assure you that we will be able to adapt our administrative, accounting and operational systems to integrate and manage the long-term care facilities we have acquired or may acquire in a timely manner. Our failure to manage any such rapid growth effectively could harm our business and, in particular, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, which could negatively affect our ability to make distributions to stockholders and the trading price of our common stock. Our growth could also increase our capital requirements, which may require us to issue potentially dilutive equity securities and incur additional debt. 

 

We rely on information technology in our operations, and any material failure, inadequacy, interruption or security failure of that technology could harm our business.

 

We rely on information technology networks and systems, including the Internet, to process, transmit and store electronic information, and to manage or support a variety of business processes, including financial transactions and records, personal identifying information, tenant and lease data. We purchase some of our information technology from vendors, on whom our systems depend. We rely on commercially available systems, software, tools and monitoring to provide security for processing, transmission and storage of confidential tenant and other customer information, such as individually identifiable information, including information relating to financial accounts. Although we have taken steps to protect the security of our information systems and the data maintained in those systems, it is possible that our safety and security measures will not be able to prevent the systems’ improper functioning or damage, or the improper access or disclosure of personally identifiable information such as in the event of cyber-attacks. Security breaches, including physical or electronic break-ins, computer viruses, attacks by hackers and similar breaches, can create system disruptions, shutdowns or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. Any failure to maintain proper function, security and availability of our information systems could interrupt our operations, damage our reputation, subject us to liability claims or regulatory penalties and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

Failure to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and stock price.

 

We are required to provide a report by management on internal control over financial reporting, including management’s assessment of the effectiveness of such control. Changes to our business will necessitate ongoing changes to our internal control systems and processes. Internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements due to inherent limitations, including the possibility of human error, the circumvention or overriding of controls, or fraud. Therefore, even effective internal controls can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements. In addition, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the control may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. If we fail to maintain the adequacy of our internal controls, including any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or if we experience difficulties in their implementation, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely harmed, we could fail to meet our reporting obligations and there could be a material adverse effect on our stock price.

Our primary assets are the units of partnership interest in Omega OP and, as a result, we will depend on distributions from Omega OP to pay dividends and expenses.

 

The Company is a holding company and has no material assets other than units of partnership interest in Omega OP. We intend to cause the Partnership to make distributions to its partners, including the Company, in an amount sufficient to allow us to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes and to pay all of our expenses. To the extent we need funds and the Partnership is restricted from making distributions under applicable law or otherwise, or if the Partnership is otherwise unable to provide such funds, the failure to make such distributions could materially adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition. 

 

Members of our management and Board are holders of units of partnership interest in Omega OP, and their interests may differ from those of our public stockholders.

 

Some members of our management and Board hold partnership interest in Omega OP. Those unitholders may have conflicting interests with holders of the Company’s common stock. For example, such unitholders of Omega OP Units may have different tax positions from the Company or holders of our common stock, which could influence their decisions in their capacities as members of management regarding whether and when to dispose of assets, whether and when to incur new or refinance existing indebtedness and how to structure future transactions.

 

Risks Related to Taxation

 

If we fail to maintain our REIT status, we will be subject to federal income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates.

 

We were organized to qualify for taxation as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Code. See Item 1. Business – Taxation of Omega. We believe that we have operated in such a manner as to qualify for taxation as a REIT under the Code and intend to continue to operate in a manner that will maintain our qualification as a REIT. Qualification as a REIT involves the satisfaction of numerous requirements, some on an annual and some on a quarterly basis, established under highly technical and complex provisions of the Code for which there are only limited judicial and administrative interpretations and involve the determination of various factual matters and circumstances not entirely within our control. We cannot assure that we will at all times satisfy these rules and tests.

 

If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, as a result of a determination that we failed to meet the annual distribution requirement or otherwise, we would be subject to federal income tax, including, with respect to taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018, any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates with respect to each such taxable year for which the statute of limitations remains open. Moreover, 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 is lost. This treatment would significantly reduce our net earnings and cash flow because of our additional tax liability for the years involved, which could significantly impact our financial condition.

 

We generally must distribute annually at least 90% of our taxable income to our stockholders to maintain our REIT status. To the extent that we do not distribute all of our net capital gain or do distribute at least 90%, but less than 100% of our “REIT taxable income,” as adjusted, we will be subject to tax thereon at regular ordinary and capital gain corporate tax rates.

 

As a result of all these factors, our failure to maintain our qualification as a REIT could impair our ability to expand our business and raise capital, and would substantially reduce our ability to make distributions to you.

 

Even if we remain qualified as a REIT, we may face other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow.

 

Even if we remain qualified for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, tax on income from some activities conducted as a result of a foreclosure, and state or local income, property and transfer taxes. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for the payment of our debt obligations. In addition, to meet REIT qualification requirements, we may hold some of our non-healthcare assets through taxable REIT subsidiaries or other subsidiary corporations that will be subject to corporate level income tax at regular rates.

 

Qualifying as a REIT involves highly technical and complex provisions of the Code and complying with REIT requirements may affect our profitability.

 

Qualification as a REIT involves the application of technical and intricate Code provisions. Even a technical or inadvertent violation could jeopardize our REIT qualification. To qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the nature and diversification of our assets, the sources of our income and the amounts we distribute to our stockholders. Thus, we may be required to liquidate otherwise attractive investments from our portfolio, or be unable to pursue investments that would be otherwise advantageous to us, to satisfy the asset and income tests or to qualify under certain statutory relief provisions. We may also be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution (e.g., if we have assets which generate mismatches between taxable income and available cash). Having to comply with the distribution requirement could cause us to: (i) sell assets in adverse market conditions; (ii) borrow on unfavorable terms; or (iii) distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions, capital expenditures or repayment of debt. As a result, satisfying the REIT requirements could have an adverse effect on our business results and profitability.

 

There is a risk of changes in the tax law applicable to REITs.

 

The IRS, the United States Treasury Department and Congress frequently review U.S. federal income tax legislation, regulations and other guidance. We cannot predict whether, when or to what extent new U.S. federal tax laws, regulations, interpretations or rulings will be adopted. Any legislative action may prospectively or retroactively modify our tax treatment and, therefore, may adversely affect taxation of us, our properties, or our shareholders.  In particular, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”) was enacted on December 22, 2017, and generally takes effect for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2018 (subject to certain exceptions). The Tax Act resulted in the broadest rewrite of the Code since 1986 and will have a broad impact across industries and taxpayers, including REITs and their shareholders. These changes will impact us and our shareholders in various ways (as further described below), some of which are adverse or potentially adverse compared to prior law. The IRS has issued limited guidance with respect to the provisions of the Tax Act, and there are numerous interpretive issues that will require guidance. It is likely that technical corrections legislation will be needed to clarify certain aspects of the new law and give proper effect to Congressional intent. There can be no assurance, however, that technical clarifications or changes needed to prevent unintended or unforeseen tax consequences will be enacted by Congress in the near future.

 

Certain provisions of the Tax Act could require us to increase our distributions to stockholders in order to maintain REIT status or to avoid entity-level taxes.

 

There are a number of provisions included in the Tax Act that will impact the computation of our taxable income before the deduction for dividends paid to our shareholders (i.e., our undistributed taxable income), which likely will impact, favorably or unfavorably, the amount we will be required to distribute annually as dividends in order to maintain REIT status or avoid an entity-level liability for U.S. federal income tax on our undistributed taxable income.

 

The provisions of the Tax Act likely to have the greatest impact on the computation of our undistributed taxable income are (i) the 30% limitation on the deduction for our interest expense, which limitation may be avoided if we elect to use the alternative depreciation system to depreciate our real property and qualified improvements thereto, ii) the provisions requiring revenue recognition in conformity with the Company’s applicable financial statements,  (iii) the provisions allowing for full expensing of qualified property placed in service prior to 2022 (this deduction is reduced by 20% per year beginning in 2023), and (iv) limitations imposed on the deductibility of performance-based compensation paid to the principal executive and financial officers, and our next three (3) highest compensated officers. Other provisions that could have a lesser impact on our undistributed taxable income include, for example, additional limitations on the deductions for certain travel and entertainment expenses and lobbying expenses before local governmental bodies.

 

To the extent that the deductibility of certain of our expenses is limited or the acceleration of revenue recognition is required by the Tax Act (as discussed above), there would be an increase in the amount we are required to distribute annually to our shareholders to avoid entity-level taxation but would not result in any corresponding increase in our cash available for distribution as dividends. On the other hand, depending on the manner in which the acquisition of property is financed, the full expensing rules could have the opposite impact – i.e., decreasing the amount we are required to distribute annually without any corresponding decrease in our cash available for distribution as dividends.

 

The ultimate impact of the Tax Act may differ from our description herein due to changes in interpretations, as well as additional regulatory guidance that may be issued.  Investors are strongly urged to consult their own tax advisors regarding the potential impact of the Tax Act on the U.S. federal income tax consequences applicable to investors based on their particular circumstances.

 

Risks Related to Our Stock

 

In addition to the risks related to our operators and our operations described above, the following are additional risks associated with our stock.

 

The market value of our stock could be substantially affected by various factors.

 

Market volatility may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. As with other publicly traded securities, the share price of our stock depends on many factors, which may change from time to time, including:

 

 

Our issuance of additional capital stock, warrants or debt securities, whether or not convertible, may reduce the market price for our outstanding securities, including our common stock, and dilute the ownership interests of existing stockholders.

 

We cannot predict the effect, if any, that future sales of our capital stock, warrants or debt securities, or the availability of our securities for future sale, will have on the market price of our securities, including our common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock or preferred shares, warrants or debt securities convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for common stock in the public market, or the perception that such sales might occur, could negatively impact the market price of our stock and the terms upon which we may obtain additional equity financing in the future. Our Board has the authority to designate and issue preferred stock that may have dividend, liquidation and other rights that are senior to those of our common stock.

 

In addition, we may issue additional capital stock in the future to raise capital or as a result of the following:

 

Any debt securities, preferred shares, warrants or other rights to acquire shares or convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common stock and may result in dilution to owners of our common stock. Holders of our common stock are not entitled to preemptive rights or other protections against dilution. Our preferred shares, if issued, could have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on dividend payments that could limit our ability pay dividends or other distributions to the holders of our common stock. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, our stockholders bear the risk that our future offerings could reduce the per share trading price of our common stock and dilute their interest in us.

Your ownership percentage in our company may be diluted in the future.

 

In the future, your percentage ownership in us may be diluted because of equity issuances for acquisitions, capital market transactions or otherwise. We also anticipate that we will grant future compensatory equity-based incentive awards to directors, officers and employees who provide services to us. Such awards will have a dilutive effect on our earnings per share, which could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

In addition, our charter authorizes us to issue, without the approval of our stockholders, one or more classes or series of preferred stock having such designation, powers, preferences and relative, participating, optional and other special rights, including preferences over our common stock respecting dividends and distributions, as our Board generally may determine. The terms of one or more classes or series of preferred stock could dilute the voting power or reduce the value of our common stock. For example, we could grant the holders of preferred stock the right to elect some number of our directors in all events or on the occurrence of specified events, or the right to veto specified transactions. Similarly, the repurchase or redemption rights or liquidation preferences we could assign to shares of preferred stock could affect the residual value of the common stock.

There are no assurances of our ability to pay dividends in the future.

 

Our ability to pay dividends may be adversely affected upon the occurrence of any of the risks described herein. Our payment of dividends is subject to compliance with restrictions contained in our credit agreements, the indentures governing our senior notes and any preferred stock that our Board may from time to time designate and authorize for issuance. All dividends will be paid at the discretion of our Board and will depend upon our earnings, our financial condition, maintenance of our REIT status and such other factors as our Board may deem relevant from time to time. There are no assurances of our ability to pay dividends in the future. In addition, our dividends in the past have included, and may in the future include, a return of capital.

 

A downgrade of our credit rating could impair our ability to obtain additional debt financing on favorable terms, if at all, and significantly reduce the trading price of our common stock.

 

If any rating agency downgrades our credit rating, or places our rating under watch or review for possible downgrade, then it may be more difficult or expensive for us to obtain additional debt financing, and the trading price of our common stock may decline. Factors that may affect our credit rating include, among other things, our financial performance, our success in raising sufficient equity capital, adverse changes in our debt and fixed charge coverage ratios, our capital structure and level of indebtedness and pending or future changes in the regulatory framework applicable to our operators and our industry. We cannot assure that these credit agencies will not downgrade our credit rating in the future.

 

Risks Related to our Proposed Acquisition of MedEquities

 

The consummation of the merger is subject to a number of conditions which, if not satisfied or waived, would adversely impact the parties’ ability to complete the merger.

 

The merger, which is expected to be completed in the first half of 2019, is subject to certain closing conditions, including, among others: (i) the receipt by MedEquities of the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of MedEquities common stock; (ii) the absence of any law that prohibits, restrains, enjoins or makes illegal the consummation of the merger; (iii) the absence of any order by any court of competent jurisdiction that prevents, restrains or enjoins the consummation of the merger or the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement; (iv) the receipt of certain legal opinions by Omega and MedEquities; and (v) other customary conditions specified in the Merger Agreement.

 

There can be no assurance these conditions will be satisfied or waived, if permitted. Therefore, there can be no assurance with respect to the timing of the closing of the merger, or that the merger will be completed at all.

 

The pendency of the merger could adversely affect our business and operations.    

In connection with the pending merger, some of our tenants, operators, borrowers, managers or vendors or MedEquities tenants, operators, borrowers, managers or vendors may react unfavorably or delay or defer decisions concerning their business relationships or transactions with us or MedEquities, which could adversely affect our business, regardless of whether the merger is completed. In addition, due to certain restrictions in the Merger Agreement on the conduct of business prior to completing the merger, we may be unable (without the other prior written consent of MedEquities), during the pendency of the merger, to pursue strategic transactions, undertake significant capital projects, undertake certain significant financing transactions and otherwise pursue other actions, even if such actions would prove beneficial, and may cause us to forego certain opportunities we might otherwise pursue.

The merger may not be accretive, and may be dilutive, to our earnings per share, which may negatively affect the market price of Omega common stock.    

Because shares of our common stock will be issued in the merger, it is possible that, although we expect the merger to be accretive to earnings per share in the first full year, excluding one-time charges, the merger may be dilutive to our earnings per share, which could negatively affect the market price of shares of our common stock.

The issuance of shares of our common stock in the merger could have the effect of depressing the market price of shares of our common stock through dilution of earnings per share or otherwise.

In addition, future events and conditions could decrease or delay the accretion that is currently expected, including adverse changes in market conditions, additional transaction and integration related costs and other factors such as the failure to realize some or all of the benefits anticipated in the merger. Any reduction in the expected accretion to our earnings per share could cause the price of shares of our common stock to decline or grow at a reduced rate.

MedEquities may be the target of securities class action and derivative lawsuits that could result in substantial costs and may delay or prevent the merger from being completed.    

Securities class action lawsuits and derivative lawsuits are often brought against companies that have entered into merger agreements. Even if the lawsuits are without merit, defending against these claims can result in substantial costs and divert management time and resources. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of such lawsuits, including the amount of costs associated with defending these claims or any other liabilities that may be incurred in connection with the litigation of these claims. Additionally, if a plaintiff is successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting consummation of the merger on the agreed-upon terms, such an injunction may delay or prevent the merger from being completed, which may adversely affect Omega’s and MedEquities’ respective business, financial position and results of operation.

If the merger is not consummated by June 30, 2019, either MedEquities or Omega may terminate the merger agreement.    

Either MedEquities or Omega may terminate the merger agreement if the merger has not been consummated by June 30, 2019. However, this termination right will not be available to a party if that party failed to fulfill its obligations under the merger agreement and that failure was the cause of, or resulted in, the failure to consummate the merger. In the event the Merger Agreement is terminated Omega will have incurred significant costs and will have diverted significant management focus and resources from other strategic opportunities without realizing the anticipated benefits of the merger.

Following the merger, we may be unable to timely and successfully integrate the MedEquities business or realize the anticipated synergies and related benefits of the merger.    

The merger involves the combination of two companies that currently operate as independent public companies. We will be required to devote significant management attention and resources to integrating the portfolio and operations of MedEquities. Potential difficulties that we may encounter in the integration process include the following:

The market price of our common stock may decline as a result of the merger.    

The market price of our common stock may decline as a result of the merger for a number of reasons, including if we do not achieve the perceived benefits of the merger as rapidly or to the extent anticipated by financial or industry analysts, or the effect of the merger on our financial results is not consistent with the expectations of financial or industry analysts. In addition, if the merger is consummated, our stockholders, including the former MedEquities’ stockholders, will own interests in a company operating an expanded business with a different mix of properties, risks and liabilities. Our current stockholders and former stockholders of MedEquities may not wish to continue to invest in us if the merger is consummated, or for other reasons may wish to dispose of some or all of their shares of Omega common stock. If, following the consummation of the merger, there is selling pressure on our common stock that exceeds demand at the market price, the price of our common stock could decline.    

We may incur adverse tax consequences if MedEquities has failed or fails to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes.    

It is a condition to the obligation of Omega to complete the merger that we receive the written opinion of MedEquities’ legal counsel to the effect that, for all taxable periods from MedEquities’ formation through the merger effective time, MedEquities has been organized and operated in conformity with the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT under the Code and its actual method of operation has enabled MedEquities to meet, through the merger effective time, the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT under the Code. The opinion will be subject to customary exceptions, assumptions and qualifications and will be based on customary representations made by MedEquities, and if any such representations are or become inaccurate or incomplete, such opinion may be invalid and the conclusions reached therein could be jeopardized. In addition, the opinion will not be binding on the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or any court, and there can be no assurance that the IRS will not take a contrary position or that such position would not be sustained. If MedEquities has failed or fails to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes and the merger is completed, Omega generally would succeed to and may incur significant tax liabilities and Omega could possibly fail to qualify as a REIT. In addition, if MedEquities has failed or fails to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes and the merger is completed, for the five-year period following the merger effective time, upon a taxable disposition of any of MedEquities’ assets, Omega generally would be subject to corporate level tax with respect to any gain in such asset at the time of the merger.

Failure to complete the merger could have material adverse effects on us.

 

There can be no assurance that the conditions to closing of the merger will be satisfied or waived or that the merger will be completed. If the merger is not completed, the ongoing business of Omega could be adversely affected and we will be subject to a variety of risks associated with the failure to complete the merger, including the following:

 

 

Item 1B – Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2 – Properties

At December 31, 2018, our real estate investments included long-term care facilities and rehabilitation hospital investments, in the form of (i) owned facilities that are leased to operators or their affiliates, (ii) investments in direct financing leases to operators or their affiliates and (iii) mortgages on facilities that are operated by the mortgagors or their affiliates. The properties are located in 41 states and the United Kingdom and are operated by 68 operators. We use the term “operator” to refer to our tenants and mortgagors and their affiliates who manage and/or operate our properties. In some cases, our tenants and mortgagors contract with a healthcare operator to operate the facilities. The following table summarizes our property investments as of December 31, 2018:

 

 

 

(1) Certain of our lease agreements contain purchase options that permit the lessees to purchase the underlying properties from us.

(2) In general, many of our mortgages contain prepayment provisions that permit prepayment of the outstanding principal amounts thereunder.

The following table presents the concentration of our real estate investments by state (and the U.K.) as of December 31, 2018:

 

(1)These states each include a facility/property that is classified as held for sale as of December 31, 2018.