e424b3
Filed
Pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3)
Registration
No. 333-158418
HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA, INC.
SUPPLEMENT
DATED APRIL 21, 2011
TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED MARCH 19, 2010
This document supplements, and should be read in conjunction
with our prospectus dated March 19, 2010, as supplemented
by Supplement No. 1 dated March 19, 2010, Supplement
No. 2 dated March 19, 2010, Supplement No. 3
dated June 17, 2010, Supplement No. 4 dated
August 16, 2010, Supplement No. 5 dated
August 20, 2010, Supplement No. 6 dated
October 15, 2010, Supplement No. 7 dated
October 19, 2010, Supplement No. 8 dated
November 3, 2010, Supplement No. 9 dated
November 24, 2010, Supplement No. 10 dated
December 8, 2010, Supplement No. 11 dated
December 22, 2010, Supplement No. 12 dated
January 21, 2011, and Supplement No. 13 dated
March 9, 2011.
2010
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
On March 25, 2011, we filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission our Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2010. This Annual Report
(excluding the exhibits thereto) is attached as
Annex A to this Supplement.
Update to
Experts Section
The section of the prospectus entitled Experts is
hereby supplemented by the following:
The consolidated financial statements, and the related financial
statement schedules, included in this Prospectus from the
Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2010 have been audited by
Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered
public accounting firm, as stated in their report (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion on the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules and includes an
explanatory paragraph regarding the change in method of
accounting for acquisition costs in business combinations)
appearing in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
which has been included in the Supplement dated April 21,
2011, to the Prospectus, which is part of the Registration
Statement. Such consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedules have been so included in reliance upon the
report of such firm given upon their authority as experts in
accounting and auditing.
ANNEX A
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
FORM 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
For the fiscal year ended December 31,
2010
|
or
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
For the transition period from
to
.
|
Commission file number:
000-53206
HEALTHCARE TRUST OF
AMERICA, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Maryland
|
|
20-4738467
|
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16435 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 320,
Scottsdale, Arizona
(Address of principal executive
offices)
|
|
85254
(Zip Code)
|
Registrants telephone number,
including area code:
(480) 998-3478
Securities registered pursuant to
Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
|
Title of each class
|
|
Name of each exchange on which
registered
|
|
None
|
|
None
|
Securities registered pursuant to
Section 12(g) of the Act:
Common Stock, $0.01 par
value per share
(Title of Class)
|
|
Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer,
as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
|
Yes o No þ
|
|
|
Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports
pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
|
Yes o No þ
|
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
|
|
Yes þ No o
|
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any,
every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of
Regulation S-T
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
|
|
Yes o No o
|
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
(§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein,
and will not be contained, to the best of registrants
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.
|
|
o
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated
filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of
large accelerated filer, accelerated
filer and smaller reporting company in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer
|
|
o
|
|
Accelerated filer
|
|
o
|
Non-accelerated filer
|
|
þ
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
|
Smaller reporting company
|
|
o
|
|
|
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as
defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the Act).
|
Yes o No þ
|
While there is no established market for the registrants
common stock, the aggregate market value of the
registrants common stock held by non-affiliates of the
registrant as of June 30, 2010, the last business day of
the registrants most recently completed second fiscal
quarter, was approximately $1,624,601,000, assuming a market
value of $10.00 per share which was the price per share in our
recently-completed offering.
As of March 21, 2010, there were 225,235,398 shares of
common stock of the registrant outstanding.
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
None
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
(A Maryland Corporation)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
PART I
The use of the words we, us or
our refers to Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. and
its subsidiaries, including Healthcare Trust of America
Holdings, LP, except where the context otherwise requires.
BUSINESS
OVERVIEW
We are a fully integrated, self-administered and self-managed
real estate investment trust, or REIT. We acquire, own and
operate medical office buildings and healthcare-related
facilities. Since January 2007, we have been an active,
disciplined buyer of medical office buildings and
healthcare-related facilities, acquiring properties with an
aggregate purchase price of approximately $2.3 billion over
a period of four years. We are one of the largest owners of
medical office buildings in the United States. Our portfolio is
primarily concentrated within major U.S. metropolitan areas
and located primarily on or adjacent to (within a
1/4
mile) the campuses of nationally recognized healthcare systems.
As of December 31, 2010, our portfolio consisted of 238
medical office buildings and other healthcare-related
facilities, as well as two other real estate-related assets.
This includes both our operating properties and those classified
as held for sale at December 31, 2010. Our portfolio
contains approximately 10.9 million square feet of gross
leasable area, or GLA, with an average occupancy rate of
approximately 91% (unaudited). Approximately 74% of our
portfolio (based on GLA) is located on or adjacent to a
healthcare system campus and approximately 40% of our off campus
portfolio is anchored by a healthcare system. Our portfolio is
diversified geographically, across 24 states, with no state
having more than 15% of the GLA of our portfolio.
We invest primarily in medical office buildings based on
fundamental healthcare and real estate economics. Medical office
buildings serve a critical role in the national healthcare
delivery system, which itself serves a fundamental need in our
society. We believe there are key dynamics within the healthcare
industry that work to increase the need for, and the value of,
medical office buildings. As hospital and other
healthcare-related facilities and physicians continue to
collaborate, an increasing number of healthcare services will be
undertaken in medical offices. Further, the performance of
office-based services will play a key role in providing quality
healthcare while also allowing for the recognition of cost
efficiencies. In addition, as the emphasis within the healthcare
industry moves toward preventative care, rather than responsive
care, we expect that more of such care will be undertaken at
medical offices.
Another key reason that we invest in medical office buildings is
the potential for higher returns with lower vacancy risk. Like
traditional commercial office property, as we renew leases and
lease new space, we expect that the recovering economy will
allow us to earn higher rents. Unlike commercial office space,
however, medical office tenants, primarily, physicians,
hospitals and other healthcare providers, typically do not move
or relocate, thus providing for stable tenancies and an ongoing
demand for medical office space.
We are a Maryland corporation, formed in April 2006. Since then,
we have raised equity capital to finance our real estate
investment activities through two public offerings of our common
stock. Our offerings raised an aggregate of approximately
$2.2 billion in gross offering proceeds through
March 21, 2011, excluding proceeds associated with shares
issued under our distribution reinvestment plan, or DRIP. We
were initially externally sponsored and advised by Grubb &
Ellis Company and its affiliates. We changed our business model
and became self-managed in the third quarter of 2009. Our
transition to a self-managed, self-administered REIT is
described more fully under Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations. Our principal executive offices are located at 16435
North Scottsdale Road, Suite 320, Scottsdale, AZ 85254 and
our telephone number is
(480) 998-3478.
We maintain a web site at www.htareit.com at which there
is additional information about us. The contents of that site
are not incorporated by reference in, or otherwise a part of,
this filing. We make our periodic and current reports available
at www.htareit.com as soon as reasonably practicable
after such materials are electronically filed with the SEC. They
are also available for printing for any stockholder upon request.
3
COMPANY
HIGHLIGHTS
|
|
|
|
|
During the year ended December 31, 2010, we completed 24
new portfolio acquisitions, we expanded six of our existing
portfolios through the purchase of additional medical office
buildings within each, and we purchased the remaining 20%
interest we previously did not own in HTA-Duke Chesterfield
Rehab, LLC, which owns the Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center.
The aggregate purchase price of these acquisitions was
approximately $806,048,000, bringing our total portfolio value
(including both our operating properties and those classified as
held for sale), based on acquisition price, to $2,266,359,000 as
of December 31, 2010. These acquisitions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
consist of 53 medical office buildings, four long-term acute
care hospitals, and one healthcare-related office;
|
|
|
|
comprise a total of approximately 3,514,000 square feet of
GLA, bringing our total portfolio square footage to
approximately 10,919,000 square feet as of
December 31, 2010; and
|
|
|
|
possess an average occupancy rate of approximately 96%
(unaudited) as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our total portfolio of properties maintained an average
occupancy rate of approximately 91% (unaudited) as of
December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
In March of 2010, we launched a follow-on offering to raise up
to $2.2 billion. As part of our strategic review process,
and in response to the substantial equity being raised in our
follow-on offering, we determined that it was in the best
interest of our stockholders to cease raising equity in that
offering. We announced the termination of our follow-on offering
in December 2010 and we stopped offering shares on
February 28, 2011, except for sales of shares pursuant to
the DRIP. Under the follow-on offering, we raised approximately
$506 million during the year ended December 31, 2010,
excluding shares issued under the DRIP.
|
|
|
|
On November 22, 2010, we entered into a credit agreement,
under which we obtained an unsecured revolving credit facility
in an aggregate maximum principal amount of $275,000,000.
Subject to the terms of the credit agreement, the maximum
principal amount of the credit agreement may be increased by up
to an additional $225,000,000, for a total principal amount of
$500,000,000, subject to customary conditions. JP Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A., serves as administrative agent with Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. as syndication
agents, U.S. Bank National Association and Fifth Third Bank as
documentation agents, and a syndicate of banks as lenders.
|
|
|
|
During the year ended December 31, 2010, we secured
approximately $79,125,000 in new long term financing with a
weighted average interest rate of 5.75% and a weighted average
term of 8.1 years. These loans are secured by our
Greenville, Wisconsin MOB II, Deaconess, and NIH Triad
properties.
|
|
|
|
On February 1, 2011, we closed a senior secured real estate
term loan in the amount of $125,500,000. Our lender is Wells
Fargo Bank, National Association, or Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The
purpose of the term loan was to refinance four Wells Fargo Bank
loans maturing in 2010 and 2011 that totaled approximately
$89,969,000, to pay off one Wells Fargo Bank loan totaling
$10,943,000, and to provide post-acquisition financing on a
recently purchased property. Additionally, we entered into an
interest rate swap on $75,000,000 of this secured term loan,
effectively fixing the interest rate for this portion from the
variable rate of one-month LIBOR plus 2.35% to 3.42%.
|
|
|
|
In August 2010, we engaged J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, or
JP Morgan, to act as our lead strategic advisor. JP Morgan is
assisting our board and management team in exploring various
actions to maximize stockholder value, including the assessment
of various liquidity alternatives. As we have previously
disclosed, we intend to effect a liquidity event by September
2013. We may consider, among other alternatives, listing our
shares on a national securities exchange, or a Listing, a merger
transaction, or a sale of substantially all of our assets.
|
|
|
|
On October 18, 2010 we entered into a Redemption,
Termination, and Release Agreement, or the
Redemption Agreement, with our former advisor to purchase
the limited partner interest, including all
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
rights with respect to a subordinated distribution upon the
occurrence of specified liquidity events and other rights that
our former advisor held in our operating partnership. In
addition, we have resolved all remaining issues with our former
advisor. In connection with the execution of the
Redemption Agreement, we made a one-time payment to our
former advisor of $8,000,000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
On December 20, 2010, our stockholders approved an
amendment to our charter to provide for the reclassification and
conversion of our common stock in the event our shares are
listed on a national securities exchange to implement a phased
in liquidity program. We proposed these amendments and submitted
them for approval by our stockholders to prepare our company in
the event we pursue a Listing. To accomplish a phased in
liquidity program, it is necessary to reclassify and convert our
common stock into shares of Class A common stock and
Class B common stock immediately prior to a Listing. In the
event of a Listing, the shares of Class A common stock
would be immediately listed on a national securities exchange.
The shares of Class B common stock would not be listed.
Rather, those shares would convert into shares of Class A
common stock and become listed in defined phases, over a defined
period of time within 18 months of a Listing. The phased in
liquidity program is intended to provide for our stock to be
transitioned into the public market in a way that minimizes the
stock-pricing instability that could result from concentrated
sales of our stock.
|
HEALTHCARE
INDUSTRY
We operate in the healthcare industry because we believe the
demand for healthcare real estate will continue to increase
consistent with health spending in the United States. According
to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, from
1960 to 2007, health spending as a percent of the
U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, increased 11%, from
5.2% to 16.2% and is projected to comprise 17.9% of GDP in 2011
according to the National Health Expenditures report by the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services dated January 2009.
Such national healthcare expenditures are projected to reach
20.3% of GDP by 2018, as set forth in the below chart.
Similarly, overall healthcare expenditures have risen sharply
since 2003.
5
National
Healthcare Expenditures
(2003-2018)
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Office of the Actuary.
National Health Expenditures and Selected Economic Indicators.
Levels and Annual Percent Change: Calendar Years 2003-2018*
(based on the 2007 version of the National Health Expenditures
released in January 2009).
We invest primarily in medical office buildings. We believe that
demand for medical office buildings and healthcare-related
facilities will increase due to a number of factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
Advances in medical technology will continue to enable
healthcare providers to identify and treat once fatal ailments
and will improve the survival rate of critically ill and injured
patients who will require continuing medical care. Along with
these technical innovations, the U.S. population is growing
older and living longer. In addition, according to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, from 1950 to 2005, the
average life expectancy at birth increased from 68.2 years
to 77.8 years. By 2050, the average life expectancy at
birth is projected to increase to 83.1 years, according to
the U.S. Census Bureau.
|
|
|
|
Between 2010 and 2050, the U.S. population over
65 years of age is projected to more than double from
40 million to nearly 88.5 million people, as reflected
in the below chart. Similarly, the 85 and older population is
expected to more than triple, from 5.4 million in 2008 to
19.0 million between 2008 and 2050. The number of older
Americans is also growing as a percentage of the total
U.S. population as the baby boomers enter their
60s. The number of persons older than 65 was estimated to
comprise 13.0% of the total U.S. population in 2010 and is
projected to grow to 20.2% by 2050, as reflected in the below
chart.
|
6
Projected
U.S. Population Aged 65+
(2010-2050)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, August 14,
2008.
Based on the information above, we believe that healthcare
expenditures for the population over 65 years of age will
continue to rise as a disproportionate share of healthcare
dollars is spent on older Americans. This older population group
will increasingly require treatment and management of chronic
and acute health ailments. This increased demand for healthcare
services will create a substantial need for the development of
additional medical office buildings and healthcare-related
facilities in many regions of the United States. We believe this
will result in a substantial increase in suitable, quality
properties meeting our acquisition criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
According to the U.S. Department of Labors Bureau of
Labor Statistics, the healthcare industry was the largest
industry in the U.S. in 2006, providing 14 million
jobs. Healthcare-related jobs are among the fastest growing
occupations, accounting for seven of the 20 fastest growing
occupations. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics estimates that
healthcare will generate three million new wage and salary
jobs between 2006 and 2016, more than any other industry. Wage
and salary employment in the healthcare industry is projected to
increase 22% through 2016, compared with 11% for all industries
combined. Despite the downturn in the economy and widespread job
losses in most industries, the healthcare industry has not been
impacted. In February 2009, there were 27,000 new
healthcare-related jobs according to the Bureau of Labor and
Statistics. We expect the increased growth in the healthcare
industry will correspond with a growth in demand for medical
office buildings and healthcare-related facilities.
|
|
|
|
Complex state and federal regulations govern physician hospital
referrals. Patients typically are referred to particular
hospitals by their physicians. To restrict hospitals from
inappropriately influencing physicians to refer patients to
them, federal and state governments adopted Medicare and
Medicaid anti-fraud laws and regulations. One aspect of these
complex laws and regulations addresses the leasing of medical
office space by hospitals to physicians. One intent of the
regulations is to restrict medical institutions from providing
facilities to physicians at below market rates or on other terms
that may present an opportunity for undue influence on physician
referrals. The regulations are complex, and adherence to the
regulations is time consuming and requires significant
documentation and extensive reporting to regulators. The costs
associated with regulatory compliance have encouraged many
hospital
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
and physician groups to seek third-party ownership
and/or
management of their healthcare-related facilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Physicians are increasingly forming practice groups. To increase
the numbers of patients they can see and thereby increase market
share, physicians have formed and are forming group practices.
By doing so, physicians can gain greater influence in
negotiating rates with managed care companies and hospitals in
which they perform services. Also, the creation of these groups
allows for the dispersion of overhead costs over a larger
revenue base and gives physicians the financial ability to
acquire new and expensive diagnostic equipment. Moreover,
certain group practices may benefit from certain exceptions to
federal and state self-referral laws, permitting them to offer a
broader range of medical services within their practices and to
participate in the facility fee related to medical procedures.
This increase in the number of group practices has led to the
construction of new medical facilities in which the groups are
housed and medical services are provided.
|
We believe that healthcare-related real estate rents and
valuations are less susceptible to changes in the general
economy than general commercial real estate due to demographic
trends and the resistance of rising healthcare expenditures to
economic downturns. For this reason, healthcare-related real
estate investments could potentially offer a more stable return
to investors compared to other types of real estate investments.
We believe the confluence of these factors over the last several
years has led to the following trends, which encourage
third-party ownership of existing and newly developed medical
properties:
|
|
|
|
|
Decentralization and Specialization. There is
a continuing evolution toward delivery of medical services
through smaller outpatient facilities located near patients and
designed to treat specific diseases and conditions. In order to
operate profitably within a managed care environment, physician
practice groups and other medical services providers are
aggressively trying to increase patient populations, while
maintaining lower overhead costs by building new healthcare
facilities in areas of population or patient growth. Continuing
population shifts and ongoing demographic changes create a
demand for additional properties, including an aging population
requiring and demanding more medical services.
|
|
|
|
Hospital Consolidation and
Recapitalization. Hospitals continue to
consolidate in an effort to secure or expand market share, gain
access to capital, and/or to achieve various economies of scale.
Historically, these have been in the form of: a) the expansion
of investor-owned health systems through acquisitions; or b) the
merger of one or more tax-exempt health systems. Recently, new
entrants include private equity firms that have either acquired
hospital assets or are investing capital into existing
tax-exempt organizations. We believe that accessing capital will
continue to be a major area of focus for health care
organizations, both in the short and long term.
|
|
|
|
Increasing Regulation. Evolving regulatory
factors affecting healthcare delivery create an incentive for
providers of medical services to focus on patient care, leaving
real estate ownership and operation to third-party real estate
professionals. Third-party ownership and management of
hospital-affiliated medical office buildings substantially
reduces the risk that hospitals will violate complex Medicare
and Medicaid fraud and abuse statutes.
|
|
|
|
Modernization. Hospitals are modernizing by
renovating existing properties and building new properties and
becoming more efficient in the face of declining reimbursement
and changing patient demographics. This trend has led to the
development of new, smaller, specialty healthcare-related
facilities as well as improvements to existing general acute
care facilities.
|
|
|
|
Redeployment of Capital. Medical providers are
increasingly focused on wisely investing their capital in their
medical business. A growing number of medical providers have
determined that third-party development and ownership of real
estate with long term leases is an attractive alternative to
investing their capital in
bricks-and-mortar.
Increasing use of expensive medical technology has placed
additional demands on the capital requirements of medical
services providers and physician practice groups. By selling
their real estate assets and relying on third-party ownership of
new healthcare properties, medical services providers and
physician practice groups can generate the capital necessary to
acquire
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
the medical technology needed to provide more comprehensive
services to patients and improve overall patient care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Physician Practice Ownership. Many physician
groups have reacquired their practice assets and real estate
from national physician management companies or otherwise formed
group practices to expand their market share. Other physicians
have left hospital-based or HMO-based practices to form
independent group practices. These physician groups are
interested in new healthcare properties that will house medical
businesses that regulations permit them to own. In addition to
existing group practices, there is a growing trend for
physicians in specialties, including cardiology, oncology,
womens health, orthopedics and urology, to enter into
joint ventures and partnerships with hospitals, operators and
financial sponsors to form specialty hospitals for the treatment
of specific diseases. We believe a significant number of these
types of organizations have no interest in owning real estate
and are aggressively looking for third-parties to develop and
own their healthcare properties.
|
The current regulatory environment remains an ongoing challenge
for healthcare providers, who are under pressure to comply with
complex healthcare laws and regulations designed to prevent
fraud and abuse. These regulations, for example, prohibit
physicians from referring patients to entities in which they
have investment interests and prohibit hospitals from leasing
space to physicians at below market rates. As a result,
healthcare providers seek reduced liability costs and have an
incentive to dispose of real estate to third parties, thus
reducing the risk of violating fraud and abuse regulations. This
environment creates investment opportunities for owners,
acquirers and joint venture partners of healthcare real estate
who understand the needs of healthcare professionals and can
help keep tenant costs low. While the current regulatory
environment is positive for healthcare operators, there is
uncertainty as to the future of government policies and its
potential impact on healthcare provider profitability.
BUSINESS
STRATEGIES
Our primary objective is to provide an attractive total
risk-adjusted return for our stockholders by increasing our cash
flow from operations, achieving sustainable growth in Funds From
Operations, or FFO, and realizing long-term capital
appreciation. FFO is a non-GAAP financial measure. For a
reconciliation of FFO to net loss, see Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Funds from Operations and Modified Funds
from Operations. The strategies we intend to execute to achieve
this objective include:
|
|
|
|
|
Continued Growth through Acquisitions. We
intend to grow earnings through the strategic acquisition of
high-quality medical office buildings and healthcare-related
facilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
using our demographic-based investment strategy that focuses on
the age, essential needs and the geographic regions appealing to
each dominant population group (seniors, the 65+ age group,
boomers, those who were born between 1946 and 1964, and echo
boomers, those born between 1982 and 1994);
|
|
|
|
that produce recurring income; and
|
|
|
|
in markets that indicate growing populations and employment base
or potential limitations on additions to supply.
|
Our overall acquisition strategy focuses on acquiring medical
office buildings and other healthcare-related facilities located
on or adjacent to the campuses of nationally recognized
healthcare systems in major U.S. metropolitan areas. We
believe we have relationships and a proven track record of
acquiring properties off-market at accretive cap rates.
|
|
|
|
|
Hands-On Asset Management, Leasing and Property Management
Oversight. Our asset management focuses on a
defined growth strategy seizing on opportunities to achieve more
profitable internal and
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
external growth. Our strategy focuses on increasing rental rates
and taking full advantage of our properties occupancies,
including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
obtaining post-recession rental rates on our lease rollovers and
actively leasing our vacant space at a time when there is
limited supply of medical office space in a recovering economy;
|
|
|
|
leveraging and proactively managing the best property management
and leasing companies in each of our geographic areas;
|
|
|
|
improving the quality of service provided to tenants by being
attentive to needs, managing expenses, and strategically
investing capital;
|
|
|
|
maintaining the high quality of our properties and building on
our marketing initiative to brand our Company as the landlord of
choice;
|
|
|
|
maintaining satellite offices in markets in which we have a
significant presence; and
|
|
|
|
purchasing in volume and using market expertise to continually
reduce our operating costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet Flexibility. We plan to continue
maintaining a low leverage strategy by maintaining a
debt-to-total
assets ratio of between 30%-40%. We intend to utilize our
unsecured line of credit for acquisition opportunities. To
effectively manage our long-term leverage strategy, we will
continue to utilize both secured and unsecured debt when we
determine it to be cost effective. We may also attempt to access
the public equity and debt markets to repay our secured debt
maturities or for future acquisition opportunities.
|
PORTFOLIO
OF PROPERTIES
As of December 31, 2010, our portfolio, including both our
operating properties and those classified as held for sale as of
December 31, 2010, consisted of 214 medical office
buildings and 24 other healthcare-related facilities, as well as
two other real estate-related assets. Our portfolio consisted of
approximately 10.9 million square feet of GLA with an
average occupancy rate of 91% as of December 31, 2010.
Our properties are primarily located on or adjacent to the
campuses of, nationally and regionally recognized healthcare
systems in the United States, including some of the largest in
the United States, such as Adventist Health Systems, Ascension
Health, Banner Health System, Catholic Healthcare Partners,
Catholic Healthcare West, Community Health Systems, HCA, Inc.
and Tenet Healthcare Corporation. As of December 31, 2010,
approximately 74% of our portfolio, based on GLA, is located on
or adjacent to the campuses of such healthcare systems. In
addition, approximately 40% of our off-campus portfolio is
anchored by a healthcare system.
10
The following table provides an overview of our portfolio of
medical office buildings, other healthcare-related facilities,
and other real estate-related assets as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# of
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
|
Annualized Base
|
|
|
Purchase
|
|
|
Purchase
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
Portfolio by Type
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
Base Rent
|
|
|
Rent
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
States
|
|
|
Medical office buildings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Single-tenant, net lease
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
$
|
36,460,000
|
|
|
|
18.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
463,214,000
|
|
|
|
20.4
|
%
|
|
|
13
|
|
Single-tenant, gross
lease
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
2,928,000
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
25,304,000
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
|
Multi-tenant, net lease
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
$
|
51,469,000
|
|
|
|
25.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
610,679,000
|
|
|
|
26.9
|
%
|
|
|
17
|
|
Multi-tenant, gross
lease
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
$
|
72,008,000
|
|
|
|
35.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
671,807,000
|
|
|
|
29.6
|
%
|
|
|
16
|
|
Other healthcare-related facilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hospitals, single-tenant, net lease
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
20,333,000
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
241,720,000
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
|
Seniors housing, single-
tenant net lease
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
$
|
8,045,000
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
91,600,000
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
|
Healthcare-related offices, multi-tenant, gross lease
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
11,506,000
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
%
|
|
$
|
109,900,000
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
|
Other real estate-related assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage notes
receivable
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
$
|
52,135,000
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTALS
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
202,749,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,266,359,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
SIGNIFICANT
TENANTS
As of December 31, 2010, none of our tenants at our
consolidated properties accounted for 10.0% or more of our
aggregate annual rental revenue.
GEOGRAPHIC
CONCENTRATION
As of December 31, 2010, we had interests in 16
consolidated properties located in Texas (including both
operating properties and those buildings classified as held for
sale), which accounted for 15.3% of our total annualized rental
income, interests in seven consolidated properties in Arizona,
which accounted for 11.7% of our total annualized rental income,
interests in five consolidated properties located in South
Carolina, which accounted for 9.7% of our total annualized
rental income, interests in 10 consolidated properties in
Florida, which accounted for 8.8% of our total annualized rental
income, and interests in seven consolidated properties in
Indiana, which accounted for 8.5% of our total annualized rental
income. This rental income is based on contractual base rent
from leases in effect as of December 31, 2010. In making
these investments, we took into account the geographic
concentration of our assets and corresponding rental income,
which we viewed as a favorable factor based on risk reward
analysis. Accordingly, there is a geographic concentration of
risk subject to fluctuations in each of these states
economies.
FINANCIAL
INFORMATION ABOUT INDUSTRY SEGMENTS
ASC 280, Segment Reporting (ASC 280)
establishes standards for reporting financial and descriptive
information about an enterprises reportable segment. We
have determined that we have one reportable segment, with
activities related to investing in medical office buildings,
healthcare-related facilities, and other real estate
11
related assets. Our investments in real estate and other real
estate related assets are geographically diversified and our
chief operating decision maker evaluates operating performance
on an individual asset level. As each of our assets has similar
economic characteristics, tenants, and products and services,
our assets have been aggregated into one reportable segment.
COMPETITION
We compete with many other real estate investment entities,
including financial institutions, institutional pension funds,
real estate developers, other REITs, other public and private
real estate companies and private real estate investors for the
acquisition of medical office buildings and healthcare-related
facilities. During the acquisitions process, we compete with
others who have a comparative advantage in terms of size,
capitalization, depth of experience, local knowledge of the
marketplace, and extended contacts throughout the region. Any
combination of these factors may result in an increased purchase
price for real properties or other real estate related assets
which may reduce the number of opportunities available that meet
our investment criteria. If the number of opportunities that
meet our investment criteria are limited, our ability to
increase stockholder value may be adversely impacted.
We face competition in leasing available medical office
buildings and healthcare-related facilities to prospective
tenants. As a result, we may have to provide rent concessions,
incur charges for tenant improvements, offer other inducements,
or we may be unable to timely lease vacant space, all of which
may have an adverse impact on our results of operations. At the
time we elect to dispose of our properties, we will also be in
competition with sellers of similar properties to locate
suitable purchasers.
We believe our focus on medical office buildings and
healthcare-related facilities, our experience and expertise, and
our ongoing relationships with healthcare providers provide us
with a competitive advantage. We have established an asset
identification and acquisition network, which provides for the
early identification of and access to acquisition opportunities.
In addition, this broad network allows for us to effectively
lease available medical office space, retain our tenants, and
maintain and improve our assets.
GOVERNMENT
REGULATIONS
Healthcare-related
Regulations
Overview. The healthcare industry is heavily
regulated by federal, state and local governmental bodies. Our
tenants generally are subject to laws and regulations covering,
among other things, licensure, certification for participation
in government programs, and relationships with physicians and
other referral sources. Changes in these laws and regulations
could negatively affect the ability of our tenants to satisfy
their contractual obligations, including making lease payments
to us.
Healthcare Legislation. On March 23,
2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act of 2010, or the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, and on March 30, 2010, the President
signed into law the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act
of 2010, or the Reconciliation Act, which in part modified the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Together, the two
laws serve as the primary vehicle for comprehensive healthcare
reform in the U.S. and will become effective through a
phased approach, which began in 2010 and will conclude in 2018.
The laws are intended to reduce the number of individuals in the
U.S. without health insurance and significantly change the
means by which healthcare is organized, delivered and
reimbursed. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
includes program integrity provisions that both create new
authorities and expand existing authorities for federal and
state governments to address fraud, waste and abuse in federal
healthcare programs. In addition, the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act expands reporting requirements and
responsibilities related to facility ownership and management,
patient safety and care quality. In the ordinary course of their
businesses, our tenants may be regularly subjected to inquiries,
investigations and audits by federal and state agencies that
oversee these laws and regulations. If they do not comply with
the additional reporting requirements and responsibilities, our
tenants ability to participate in federal healthcare
programs may be adversely affected. Moreover, there may be other
aspects of the comprehensive healthcare reform legislation for
which regulations have not yet been adopted, which, depending on
how they are implemented, could materially and adversely affect
our tenants and their ability to meet their lease obligations.
12
Reimbursement Programs. Sources of revenue for
our tenants may include the federal Medicare program, state
Medicaid programs, private insurance carriers, health
maintenance organizations, preferred provider arrangements,
self-insured employers and the patients themselves, among
others. Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as numerous
private insurance and managed care plans, generally require
participating providers to accept government-determined
reimbursement levels as payment in full for services rendered,
without regard to a facilitys charges. Changes in the
reimbursement rate or methods of payment from third-party
payors, including Medicare and Medicaid, could result in a
substantial reduction in our tenants revenues. Efforts by
such payors to reduce healthcare costs will likely continue,
which may result in reductions or slower growth in reimbursement
for certain services provided by some of our tenants. Further,
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 or because additional documentation is necessary or
because certain services were not covered or were not medically
necessary. The recently enacted healthcare reform law and
regulatory changes 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 their Medicaid expenditures and to make
changes to private healthcare insurance. In addition, the
failure of any of our tenants to comply with various laws and
regulations could jeopardize their ability to continue
participating in Medicare, Medicaid and other government
sponsored payment programs. The financial impact on our tenants
could restrict their ability to make rent payments to us.
Fraud and Abuse Laws. There are various
federal and state laws prohibiting fraudulent and abusive
business practices by healthcare providers who participate in,
receive payments from or are in a position to make referrals in
connection with government-sponsored healthcare programs,
including the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Our lease
arrangements with certain tenants may also be subject to these
fraud and abuse laws. These laws include, but are not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other
things, the offer, payment, solicitation or receipt of any form
of remuneration in return for, or to induce, the referral or
recommendation for the ordering of any item or service
reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid;
|
|
|
|
the Federal Physician Self-Referral Prohibition, commonly
referred to as the Stark Law, which, subject to specific
exceptions, restricts physicians from making referrals for
specifically designated health services for which payment may be
made under Medicare or Medicaid programs to an entity with which
the physician, or an immediate family member, has a financial
relationship;
|
|
|
|
the False Claims Act, which prohibits any person from knowingly
presenting or causing to be presented false or fraudulent claims
for payment to the federal government, including claims paid by
the Medicare and Medicaid programs;
|
|
|
|
the Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which authorizes the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to impose
monetary penalties for certain fraudulent acts; and
|
|
|
|
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, as
amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and
Clinical Health Act of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009, which protects the privacy and security of personal
health information.
|
Each of these laws includes criminal
and/or civil
penalties for violations that range from punitive sanctions,
damage assessments, penalties, imprisonment, denial of Medicare
and Medicaid payments
and/or
exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Certain laws,
such as the False Claims Act, allow for individuals to bring
whistleblower actions on behalf of the government for violations
thereof. Additionally, states in which the facilities are
located may have similar fraud and abuse laws. Investigation by
a federal or state governmental body for violation of fraud and
abuse laws or imposition of any of these penalties upon one of
our tenants could jeopardize that tenants ability to
operate or to make rent payments to us.
Healthcare Licensure and Certification. Some
of our medical properties and their tenants may require a
license or certificate of need, or CON, to operate. Failure to
obtain a license or CON, or loss of a required license or CON
would prevent a facility from operating in the manner intended
by the tenant. These events
13
could materially adversely affect our tenants ability to
make rent payments to us. State and local laws also may regulate
expansion, including the addition of new beds or services or
acquisition of medical equipment, and the construction of
healthcare-related facilities, by requiring a CON or other
similar approval. State CON laws are not uniform throughout the
United States and are subject to change. We cannot predict the
impact of state CON laws on our development of facilities or the
operations of our tenants.
Real
Estate Ownership-Related Regulations
Many laws and governmental regulations are applicable to our
properties and changes in these laws and regulations, or their
interpretation by agencies and the courts, occur frequently.
Costs of Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, as amended, or the ADA, all places of public accommodation
are required to comply with federal requirements related to
access and use by disabled persons. Although we believe that we
are in substantial compliance with present requirements of the
ADA, none of our properties have been audited and we have only
conducted investigations of a few of our properties to determine
compliance. We may incur additional costs in connection with
compliance with the ADA. Additional federal, state and local
laws also may require modifications to our properties or
restrict our ability to renovate our properties. We cannot
predict the cost of compliance with the ADA or other
legislation. We may incur substantial costs to comply with the
ADA or any other legislation.
Costs of Government Environmental Regulation and Private
Litigation. Environmental laws and regulations
hold us liable for the costs of removal or remediation of
certain hazardous or toxic substances which may be on our
properties. These laws could impose liability without regard to
whether we are responsible for the presence or release of the
hazardous materials. Government investigations and remediation
actions may have substantial costs and the presence of hazardous
substances on a property could result in personal injury or
similar claims by private plaintiffs. Various laws also impose
liability on persons who arrange for the disposal or treatment
of hazardous or toxic substances and such person often must
incur the cost of removal or remediation of hazardous substances
at the disposal or treatment facility. These laws often impose
liability whether or not the person arranging for the disposal
ever owned or operated the disposal facility. As the owner and
operator of our properties, we may be deemed to have arranged
for the disposal or treatment of hazardous or toxic substances.
Use of Hazardous Substances by Some of Our
Tenants. Some of our tenants routinely handle
hazardous substances and wastes on our properties as part of
their routine operations. Environmental laws and regulations
subject these tenants, and potentially us, to liability
resulting from such activities. We require our tenants, in their
leases, to comply with these environmental laws and regulations
and to indemnify us for any related liabilities. We are unaware
of any material noncompliance, liability or claim relating to
hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products in
connection with any of our properties.
Other Federal, State and Local
Regulations. Our properties are subject to
various federal, state and local regulatory requirements, such
as state and local fire and life safety requirements. If we fail
to comply with these various requirements, we may incur
governmental fines or private damage awards. While we believe
that our properties are currently in material compliance with
all of these regulatory requirements, we do not know whether
existing requirements will change or whether future requirements
will require us to make significant unanticipated expenditures
that will adversely affect our ability to make distributions to
our stockholders. We believe, based in part on engineering
reports which are generally obtained at the time we acquire the
properties, that all of our properties comply in all material
respects with current regulations. However, if we were required
to make significant expenditures under applicable regulations,
our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and
ability to satisfy our debt service obligations and to pay
distributions could be adversely affected.
EMPLOYEES
As of December 31, 2010, we had approximately
50 employees. We believe that we have a strong relationship
with our employees.
14
TAX
STATUS
The following discussion addresses U.S. federal income tax
considerations related to our election to be subject to taxation
as a REIT and the ownership and disposition of our common stock
that may be material to holders of our stock. This discussion
does not address any foreign, state, or local tax consequences
of holding our stock. The provisions of the Code concerning the
U.S. federal income tax treatment of a REIT are highly
technical and complex; the following discussion sets forth only
certain aspects of those provisions. This discussion is intended
to provide you with general information only and is not intended
as a substitute for careful tax planning.
This summary is based on provisions of the Code, applicable
final and temporary Treasury Regulations, judicial decisions,
and administrative rulings and practice, all in effect as of the
date of this prospectus, and should not be construed as legal or
tax advice. No assurance can be given that future legislative or
administrative changes or judicial decisions will not affect the
accuracy of the descriptions or conclusions contained in this
summary. In addition, any such changes may be retroactive and
apply to transactions entered into prior to the date of their
enactment, promulgation or release.
Federal
Income Taxation of HTA
Subject to the discussion below regarding the closing agreement
that we intend to request from the IRS, we believe that we have
qualified to be taxed as a REIT beginning with our taxable year
ended December 31, 2007 under Sections 856 through 860
of the Code for federal income tax purposes and we intend to
continue to be taxed as a REIT. To continue to qualify as a REIT
for federal income tax purposes, we must meet certain
organizational and operational requirements, including a
requirement to pay distributions to our stockholders of at least
90% of our annual taxable income (computed without regard to the
dividends paid deduction and excluding net capital gains). As a
REIT, we generally are not subject to federal income tax on net
income that we distribute to our stockholders.
If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, we will
then be subject to federal income taxes on our taxable income
and will not be permitted to qualify for treatment as a REIT for
federal income tax purposes for four years following the year
during which qualification is lost unless the IRS grants us
relief under certain statutory provisions. Such an event could
have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and
net cash available for distribution to stockholders.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, even if we qualify for taxation
as a REIT, we nonetheless may be subject to tax in certain
circumstances, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
We will be required to pay U.S. federal income tax on our
undistributed REIT taxable income, including net capital gain;
|
|
|
|
We may be subject to the alternative minimum tax;
|
|
|
|
We may be subject to tax at the highest corporate rate on
certain income from foreclosure property (generally,
property acquired by reason of default on a lease or
indebtedness held by us);
|
|
|
|
We will be subject to a 100% tax on net income from
prohibited transactions (generally, certain sales or
other dispositions of property, sometimes referred to as
dealer property, held primarily for sale to
customers in the ordinary course of business, other than
foreclosure property) unless the gain is realized in a
taxable REIT subsidiary, or TRS, or such property
has been held by us for two years and certain other requirements
are satisfied;
|
|
|
|
If we fail to satisfy the 75% gross income test or the 95% gross
income test (discussed below), but nonetheless maintain our
qualification as a REIT pursuant to certain relief provisions,
we will be subject to a 100% tax on the greater of (i) the
amount by which we fail the 75% gross income test or
(ii) the amount by which we fail the 95% gross income test,
in either case, multiplied by a fraction intended to reflect our
profitability;
|
15
|
|
|
|
|
If we fail to satisfy any of the asset tests, other than the 5%
or the 10% asset tests that qualify under a de minimis
exception, and the failure qualifies under the general
exception, as described below under
Qualification as a REIT Asset
Tests, then we will have to pay an excise tax equal to the
greater of (i) $50,000 and (ii) an amount determined
by multiplying the net income generated during a specified
period by the assets that caused the failure by the highest
U.S. federal income tax applicable to corporations;
|
|
|
|
If we fail to satisfy any REIT requirements other than the
income test or asset test requirements, described below under
Qualification as a REIT Income
Tests and Qualification as a
REIT Asset Tests, respectively, and we qualify
for a reasonable cause exception, then we will have to pay a
penalty equal to $50,000 for each such failure;
|
|
|
|
We will be subject to a 4% excise tax if certain distribution
requirements are not satisfied;
|
|
|
|
We may be required to pay monetary penalties to the IRS in
certain circumstances, including if we fail to meet
record-keeping requirements intended to monitor our compliance
with rules relating to the composition of a REITs
stockholders, as described below in
Recordkeeping Requirements;
|
|
|
|
If we dispose of an asset acquired by us from a C corporation in
a transaction in which we took the C corporations tax
basis in the asset, we may be subject to tax at the highest
regular corporate rate on the appreciation inherent in such
asset as of the date of acquisition by us;
|
|
|
|
We will be required to pay a 100% tax on any redetermined rents,
redetermined deductions, and excess interest. In general,
redetermined rents are rents from real property that are
overstated as a result of services furnished to any of our
non-TRS tenants by one of our TRSs. Redetermined deductions and
excess interest generally represent amounts that are deducted by
a TRS for amounts paid to us that are in excess of the amounts
that would have been deducted based on arms-length
negotiations; and
|
|
|
|
Income earned by our TRSs or any other subsidiaries that are
taxable as C corporations will be subject to tax at regular
corporate rates.
|
No assurance can be given that the amount of any such taxes will
not be substantial. In addition, we and our subsidiaries may be
subject to a variety of taxes, including payroll taxes and
state, local and foreign income, property and other taxes on
assets and operations. We could also be subject to tax in
situations and on transactions not presently contemplated.
Qualification
as a REIT
In
General
The REIT provisions of the Code apply to a domestic corporation,
trust, or association (i) that is managed by one or more
trustees or directors, (ii) the beneficial ownership of
which is evidenced by transferable shares or by transferable
certificates of beneficial interest, (iii) that properly
elects to be taxed as a REIT and such election has not been
terminated or revoked, (iv) that is neither a financial
institution nor an insurance company, (v) that uses a
calendar year for U.S. federal income tax purposes and
complies with applicable recordkeeping requirements, and
(vi) that meets the additional requirements discussed below.
Preferential dividends cannot be used to satisfy the REIT
distribution requirements. In 2007, 2008 and through July 2009,
shares of common stock issued pursuant to our DRIP were treated
as issued as of the first day following the close of the month
for which the distributions were declared, and not on the date
that the cash distributions were paid to stockholders not
participating in our DRIP. Because we declare distributions on a
daily basis, including with respect to shares of common stock
issued pursuant to our DRIP, the IRS could take the position
that distributions paid by us during these periods were
preferential. In addition, during the six months beginning
September 2009 through February 2010, we paid certain IRA
custodial fees with respect to IRA accounts that invested in our
shares. The payment of such amounts could also be treated as
dividend distributions to the IRAs, and therefore could result
in our being treated as having made additional preferential
dividends to our stockholders.
16
Accordingly, we intend to submit a request to the IRS seeking a
closing agreement under which the IRS would grant us relief for
preferential dividends that may have been paid. We cannot assure
you that the IRS will accept our proposal for a closing
agreement. Even if the IRS accepts our proposal, we may be
required to pay a penalty if the IRS were to view the prior
operation of our DRIP or the payment of such fees as
preferential dividends. We cannot predict whether such a penalty
would be imposed or, if so, the amount of the penalty.
If the IRS does not agree to our proposal for a closing
agreement and treats the foregoing amounts as preferential
dividends, we would likely rely on the deficiency dividend
provisions of the Code to address our continued qualification as
a REIT and to satisfy our distribution requirements.
Ownership
Tests
In order to qualify as a REIT, commencing with our second REIT
taxable year, (i) the beneficial ownership of our stock
must be held by 100 or more persons during at least
335 days of a
12-month
taxable year (or during a proportionate part of a taxable year
of less than 12 months) for each of our taxable years and
(ii) during the last half of each taxable year, no more
than 50% in value of our stock may be owned, directly or
indirectly, by or for five or fewer individuals (the 5/50
Test). Stock ownership for purposes of the 5/50 Test is
determined by applying the constructive ownership provisions of
Section 544(a) of the Code, subject to certain
modifications. The term individual for purposes of
the 5/50 Test includes a private foundation, a trust providing
for the payment of supplemental unemployment compensation
benefits, and a portion of a trust permanently set aside or to
be used exclusively for charitable purposes. A qualified
trust described in Section 401(a) of the Code and
exempt from tax under Section 501(a) of the Code generally
is not treated as an individual; rather, stock held by it is
treated as owned proportionately by its beneficiaries.
We believe that we have satisfied and will continue to satisfy
the above ownership requirements. In addition, our charter
restricts ownership and transfers of our stock that would
violate these requirements, although these restrictions may not
be effective in all circumstances to prevent a violation. We
will be deemed to have satisfied the 5/50 Test for a particular
taxable year if we have complied with all the requirements for
ascertaining the ownership of our outstanding stock in that
taxable year and have no reason to know that we have violated
the 5/50 Test.
Income
Tests
In order to maintain qualification as a REIT, we must annually
satisfy two gross income requirements:
(1) First, at least 75% of our gross income (excluding
gross income from prohibited transactions and certain other
income and gains as described below) for each taxable year must
be derived, directly or indirectly, from investments relating to
real property or mortgages on real property or from certain
types of temporary investments (or any combination thereof).
Qualifying income for purposes of this 75% gross income test
generally includes: (a) rents from real property,
(b) interest on obligations secured by mortgages on real
property or on interests in real property, (c) dividends or
other distributions on, and gain from the sale of, shares in
other REITs, (d) gain from the sale of real estate assets
(other than gain from prohibited transactions), (e) income
and gain derived from foreclosure property, and
(f) qualified temporary investment income (see
Qualified Temporary Investment Income
below); and
(2) Second, in general, at least 95% of our gross income
(excluding gross income from prohibited transactions and certain
other income and gains as described below) for each taxable year
must be derived from sources qualifying under the 75% gross
income test and from other types of dividends and interest, gain
from the sale or disposition of stock or securities that are not
dealer property, or any combination of the above.
Rents we receive will qualify as rents from real property only
if several conditions are met. First, the amount of rent
generally must not be based in whole or in part on the income or
profits of any person. However, an 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 receipts or sales. Second,
17
rents received from a related party tenant will not
qualify as rents from real property in satisfying the gross
income tests unless the tenant is a TRS and either (i) at
least 90% of the property is leased to unrelated tenants and the
rent paid by the TRS is substantially comparable to the rent
paid by the unrelated tenants for comparable space, or
(ii) the property leased is a qualified lodging
facility, as defined in Section 856(d)(9)(D) of the
Code, or a qualified health care property, as
defined in Section 856(e)(6)(D)(i), and certain other
conditions are satisfied. A tenant is a related party tenant if
the REIT, or an actual or constructive owner of 10% or more of
the REIT, actually or constructively owns 10% or more of the
tenant. 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 the personal property will not qualify as
rents from real property.
Generally, for rents to qualify as rents from real property, we
may provide directly only an insignificant amount of services,
unless those services are usually or customarily
rendered in connection with the rental of real property
and not otherwise considered rendered to the
occupant under the applicable tax rules. Accordingly, we
may not provide impermissible services to tenants
(except through an independent contractor from whom we derive no
revenue and that meets other requirements or through a TRS)
without giving rise to impermissible tenant service
income. Impermissible tenant service income is deemed to
be at least 150% of the direct cost to us of providing the
service. If the impermissible tenant service income exceeds 1%
of our total income from a property, then all of the income from
that property will fail to qualify as rents from real property.
If the total amount of impermissible tenant service income from
a property does not exceed 1% of our total income from the
property, the services will not disqualify any other income from
the property that qualifies as rents from real property, but the
impermissible tenant service income will not qualify as rents
from real property.
We do not intend to charge significant rent that is based in
whole or in part on the income or profits of any person, derive
significant rents from related party tenants, derive rent
attributable to personal property leased in connection with real
property that exceeds 15% of the total rents from that property,
or derive impermissible tenant service income that exceeds 1% of
our total income from any property if the treatment of the rents
from such property as nonqualified rents could cause us to fail
to qualify as a REIT.
Distributions that we receive from a TRS will be classified as
dividend income to the extent of the earnings and profits of the
TRS. Such distributions will generally constitute qualifying
income for purposes of the 95% gross income test, but not under
the 75% gross income test. Any dividends received by us from a
REIT will be qualifying income for purposes of both the 95% and
75% gross income tests.
If we fail to satisfy one or both of the 75% or the 95% gross
income tests, we may nevertheless qualify as a REIT for a
particular year if we are entitled to relief under certain
provisions of the Code. Those relief provisions generally will
be available if our failure to meet such tests is due to
reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect and we file a
schedule describing each item of our gross income for such
year(s) in accordance with the applicable Treasury Regulations.
It is not possible, however, to state whether in all
circumstances we would be entitled to the benefit of these
relief provisions.
Foreclosure property. Foreclosure property is
real property (including interests in real property) and any
personal property incident to such real property (1) that
is acquired by a REIT as a result of the REIT having bid in the
property at foreclosure, or having otherwise reduced the
property to ownership or possession by agreement or process of
law, after there was a default (or default was imminent) on a
lease of the property or a mortgage loan held by the REIT and
secured by the property, (2) for which the related loan or
lease was made, entered into or acquired by the REIT at a time
when default was not imminent or anticipated and (3) for
which such REIT makes an election to treat the property as
foreclosure property. REITs generally are subject to tax at the
maximum corporate rate (currently 35%) on any net income from
foreclosure property, including any gain from the disposition of
the foreclosure property, other than income that would otherwise
be qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test.
Any gain from the sale of property for which a foreclosure
property election has been made will not be subject to the 100%
tax on gains from prohibited transactions described above, even
if the property is held primarily for sale to customers in the
ordinary course of a trade or business.
18
Hedging transactions. We may enter into
hedging transactions with respect to one or more of our assets
or liabilities. Hedging transactions could take a variety of
forms, including interest rate swaps or cap agreements, options,
futures contracts, forward rate agreements or similar financial
instruments. Except to the extent as may be provided by future
Treasury Regulations, any income from a hedging transaction
which is clearly identified as such before the close of the day
on which it was acquired, originated or entered into, including
gain from the disposition or termination of such a transaction,
will not constitute gross income for purposes of the 95% and 75%
gross income tests, provided that the hedging transaction is
entered into (i) in the normal course of our business
primarily to manage risk of interest rate or price changes or
currency fluctuations with respect to indebtedness incurred or
to be incurred by us to acquire or carry real estate assets or
(ii) primarily to manage the risk of currency fluctuations
with respect to any item of income or gain that would be
qualifying income under the 75% or 95% income tests (or any
property which generates such income or gain). To the extent we
enter into other types of hedging transactions, the income from
those transactions is likely to be treated as non-qualifying
income for purposes of both the 75% and 95% gross income tests.
We intend to structure and monitor our hedging transactions so
that such transactions do not jeopardize our ability to qualify
as a REIT.
Qualified temporary investment income. Income
derived from certain types of temporary stock and debt
investments made with the proceeds of this offering, not
otherwise treated as qualifying income for the 75% gross income
test, generally will nonetheless constitute qualifying income
for purposes of the 75% gross income test for the year following
this offering. More specifically, qualifying income for purposes
of the 75% gross income test includes qualified temporary
investment income, which generally means any income that
is attributable to stock or a debt instrument, is attributable
to the temporary investment of new equity capital and certain
debt capital, and is received or accrued during the one-year
period beginning on the date on which the REIT receives such new
capital. After the one year period following this offering,
income from investments of the proceeds of this offering will be
qualifying income for purposes of the 75% income test only if
derived from one of the other qualifying sources enumerated
above.
Asset
Tests
At the close of each quarter of each taxable year, we must also
satisfy four tests relating to the nature of our assets. First,
real estate assets, cash and cash items, and government
securities must represent at least 75% of the value of our total
assets. Second, not more than 25% of our total assets may be
represented by securities other than those in the 75% asset
class. Third, of the investments that are not included in the
75% asset class and that are not securities of our TRSs,
(i) the value of any one issuers securities owned by
us may not exceed 5% of the value of our total assets and
(ii) we may not own more than 10% by vote or by value of
any one issuers outstanding securities. For purposes of
the 10% value test, debt instruments issued by a partnership are
not classified as securities to the extent of our
interest as a partner in such partnership (based on our
proportionate share of the partnerships equity interests
and certain debt securities) or if at least 75% of the
partnerships gross income, excluding income from
prohibited transactions, is qualifying income for purposes of
the 75% gross income test. For purposes of the 10% value test,
the term securities also does not include debt
securities issued by another REIT, certain straight
debt securities (for example, qualifying debt securities
of a corporation of which we own no more than a de minimis
amount of equity interest), loans to individuals or estates, and
accrued obligations to pay rent. Fourth, securities of our TRSs
cannot represent more than 25% of our total assets. Although we
intend to meet these asset tests, no assurance can be given that
we will be able to do so. For purposes of these asset tests, we
are treated as holding our proportionate share of our subsidiary
partnerships assets. Also, for purposes of these asset
tests, the term real estate assets includes any
property that is not otherwise a real estate asset and that is
attributable to the temporary investment of new capital, but
only if such property is stock or a debt instrument, and only
for the one-year period beginning on the date the REIT receives
such capital. Real estate assets include our
investments in stocks of other REITs but do not include stock of
any real estate company, or other company, that does not qualify
as a REIT (unless eligible for the special rule for temporary
investment of new capital).
19
We will monitor the status of our assets for purposes of the
various asset tests and will endeavor to manage our portfolio in
order to comply at all times with such tests. If we fail to
satisfy the asset tests at the end of a calendar quarter, we
will not lose our REIT status if one of the following exceptions
applies:
|
|
|
|
|
We satisfied the asset tests at the end of the preceding
calendar quarter, and the discrepancy between the value of our
assets and the asset test requirements arose from changes in the
market values of our assets and was not wholly or partly caused
by the acquisition of one or more non-qualifying assets; or
|
|
|
|
We eliminate any discrepancy within 30 days after the close
of the calendar quarter in which it arose.
|
Moreover, if we fail to satisfy the asset tests at the end of a
calendar quarter during a taxable year, we will not lose our
REIT status if one of the following additional exceptions
applies:
|
|
|
|
|
De Minimis Exception: The failure is due to a
violation of the 5% or 10% asset tests referenced above and is
de minimis (meaning that the failure is one that
arises from our ownership of assets the total value of which
does not exceed the lesser of 1% of the total value of our
assets at the end of the quarter in which the failure occurred
and $10 million), and we either dispose of the assets that
caused the failure or otherwise satisfy the asset tests within
six months after the last day of the quarter in which our
identification of the failure occurred; or
|
|
|
|
General Exception: All of the following
requirements are satisfied: (i) the failure is not due to
the above De Minimis Exception, (ii) the failure is due to
reasonable cause and not willful neglect, (iii) we file a
schedule in accordance with Treasury Regulations providing a
description of each asset that caused the failure, (iv) we
either dispose of the assets that caused the failure or
otherwise satisfy the asset tests within six months after the
last day of the quarter in which our identification of the
failure occurred, and (v) we pay an excise tax as described
above in Taxation of Our Company.
|
Annual
Distribution Requirements
In order to qualify as a REIT, each taxable year we must
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, determined without
regard to the dividends paid deduction and by excluding any 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 non-cash income. We generally must pay such
distributions 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 if paid on or before the first
regular dividend payment after such declaration. For these
purposes, if we declare a dividend in October, November, or
December, payable to stockholders of record on a day in such
months, and distribute such dividend in the following January,
it will be treated as having been paid on December 31 of the
year in which it was declared.
To the extent that we do not distribute all of our net capital
gain and taxable income, we will be subject to
U.S. federal, state and local tax on the undistributed
amount at regular corporate income tax rates. Furthermore, if we
should fail to distribute during each calendar year at least the
sum of (i) 85% of our REIT taxable income (subject to
certain adjustments) for such year, (ii) 95% of our capital
gain net income for such year, and (iii) 100% of any
corresponding undistributed amounts from prior periods, we will
be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the excess of
such required distribution over the sum of amounts actually
distributed plus retained income from such taxable year on which
we paid corporate income tax.
Under certain circumstances, we may be able to rectify a failure
to meet the distribution requirement for a year by paying
deficiency dividends to our stockholders in a later
year that may be included in our deduction for dividends paid
for the earlier year. Thus, we may be able to avoid being taxed
on amounts distributed as deficiency dividends; however, we will
be required to pay interest based upon the amount of any
deduction taken for deficiency dividends. Amounts paid as
deficiency dividends are generally treated as taxable income for
U.S. federal income tax purposes.
In order to satisfy the REIT distribution requirements, the
dividends we pay must not be preferential within the
meaning of the Code. A dividend determined to be preferential
will not qualify for the dividends
20
paid deduction. To avoid paying preferential dividends, we must
treat every stockholder of a class of stock with respect to
which we make a distribution the same as every other stockholder
of that class, and we must not treat any class of stock other
than according to its dividend rights as a class. Pursuant to an
IRS ruling, the prohibition on preferential dividends does not
prohibit REITs from offering shares under a dividend
reinvestment plan at discounts of up to 5% of fair market value,
but a discount in excess of 5% of the fair market value of the
shares would be considered a preferential dividend.
We may retain and pay income tax on net long-term capital gains
we received during the tax year. To the extent we so elect,
(i) each stockholder must include in its income (as
long-term capital gain) its proportionate share of our
undistributed long-term capital gains, (ii) each
stockholder is deemed to have paid, and receives a credit for,
its proportionate share of the tax paid by us on the
undistributed long-term capital gains, and (iii) each
stockholders basis in its stock is increased by the
included amount of the undistributed long-term capital gains
less their share of the tax paid by us.
To qualify as a REIT, we may not have, at the end of any taxable
year, any undistributed earnings and profits accumulated in any
non-REIT taxable year. We believe that we have not had any
non-REIT earnings and profits at the end of any taxable year and
we intend to distribute any non-REIT earnings and profits that
we accumulate before the end of any taxable year in which we
accumulate such earnings and profits.
Failure
to Qualify
If we fail to qualify as a REIT and such failure is not an asset
test or income test failure subject to the cure provisions
described above, we generally will be eligible for a relief
provision if the failure is due to reasonable cause and not
willful neglect and we pay a penalty of $50,000 with respect to
such failure.
If we fail to qualify for taxation as a REIT in any taxable year
and no relief provisions apply, we generally will be subject to
tax (including any applicable alternative minimum tax) on our
taxable income at regular corporate rates. Distributions to our
stockholders in any year in which we fail to qualify as a REIT
will not be deductible by us nor will they be required to be
made. In such event, to the extent of our current or accumulated
earnings and profits, all distributions to our stockholders will
be taxable as dividend income. Subject to certain limitations in
the Code, corporate stockholders may be eligible for the
dividends received deduction, and individual, trust and estate
stockholders may be eligible to treat the dividends received
from us as qualified dividend income taxable as net capital
gains, under the provisions of Section 1(h)(11) of the
Code, through the end of 2012. Unless entitled to relief under
specific statutory provisions, we also will be ineligible to
elect to be taxed as a REIT again prior to the fifth taxable
year following the first year in which we failed to qualify as a
REIT under the Code.
Our qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax
purposes will depend on our continuing to meet the various
requirements summarized above governing the ownership of our
outstanding stock, the nature of our assets, the sources of our
income, and the amount of our distributions to our stockholders.
Although we intend to operate in a manner that will enable us to
comply with such requirements, there can be no certainty that
such intention will be realized. In addition, because the
relevant laws may change, compliance with one or more of the
REIT requirements may become impossible or impracticable for us.
Taxation
of U.S. Stockholders
The term U.S. stockholder means an investor in
our stock that, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, is
(i) a citizen or resident of the United States, (ii) a
corporation or other entity treated as a corporation that is
created or organized in or under the laws of the United States,
any of its states or the District of Columbia, (iii) an
estate, the income of which is subject to U.S. federal
income taxation regardless of its source, or (iv) a trust
(a) if a court within the United States is able to exercise
primary supervision over the administration of the trust and one
or more U.S. persons have the authority to control all
substantial decisions of the trust or (b) that has a valid
election in effect under the applicable Treasury Regulations to
be treated as a U.S. person under the Code. If a
partnership, including any entity treated as a partnership for
U.S. federal income tax purposes, holds our stock, the
U.S. federal income tax treatment of a partner in the
partnership will generally depend on the status of the partner
and the activities of the partnership. If you are a partner in a
partnership
21
holding our stock, you are urged to consult your tax advisor
regarding the consequences of the ownership and disposition of
shares of our stock by the partnership. This summary assumes
that stockholders hold our stock as capital assets for
U.S. federal income tax purposes, which generally means
property held for investments.
This discussion does not address all aspects of federal income
taxation that may apply to persons that are subject to special
treatment under the Code, such as (i) insurance companies;
(ii) financial institutions or broker-dealers;
(iii) persons who
mark-to-market
our stock; (iv) subchapter S corporations;
(v) U.S. stockholders whose functional currency is not
the U.S. dollar; (vi) regulated investment companies;
(x) holders who receive our stock through the exercise of
employee stock options or otherwise as compensation;
(vii) persons holding shares of our stock as part of a
straddle, hedge, conversion
transaction, synthetic security or other
integrated investment; and (viii) persons subject to the
alternative minimum tax provisions of the Code.
Distributions
Distributions by us, other than capital gain dividends, will
constitute ordinary dividends to the extent of our current or
accumulated earnings and profits as determined for
U.S. federal income tax purposes. In general, these
dividends will be taxable as ordinary income and will not be
eligible for the dividends-received deduction for corporate
stockholders. Our ordinary dividends generally will not qualify
as qualified dividend income currently taxed as net
capital gain for U.S. stockholders that are individuals,
trusts, or estates. However, provided we properly designate the
distributions, distributions to U.S. stockholders that are
individuals, trusts, or estates generally will constitute
qualified dividend income to the extent the
U.S. stockholder satisfies certain holding period
requirements and to the extent the dividends are attributable to
(i) qualified dividend income we receive from other
corporations during the taxable year, including from our TRSs,
and (ii) our undistributed earnings or built-in gains taxed
at the corporate level during the immediately preceding year. We
do not anticipate distributing a significant amount of qualified
dividend income. Absent an extension, the favorable rates for
qualified dividend income will not apply for taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2012.
To the extent that we make a distribution in excess of our
current and accumulated earnings and profits (a return of
capital distribution), the distribution will be treated
first as a tax-free return of capital, reducing the tax basis in
a U.S. stockholders stock. To the extent a return of
capital distribution exceeds a U.S. stockholders tax
basis in its stock, the distribution will be taxable as capital
gain realized from the sale of such stock.
Dividends declared by us in October, November or December and
payable to a stockholder of record on a specified date in any
such month shall be treated both as paid by us and as received
by the stockholder on December 31, provided that the
dividend is actually paid by us during January of the following
calendar year.
We will be treated as having sufficient earnings and profits to
treat as a dividend any distribution up to the amount required
to be distributed in order to avoid imposition of the 4% excise
tax generally applicable to REITs if certain distribution
requirements are not met. Moreover, any deficiency dividend will
be treated as an ordinary or a capital gain dividend, as the
case may be, regardless of our earnings and profits at the time
the distribution is actually made. As a result, stockholders may
be required to treat certain distributions as taxable dividends
that would otherwise result in a tax-free return of capital.
Distributions that are properly designated as capital gain
dividends will be taxed as long-term capital gains (to the
extent they do not exceed our actual net capital gain for the
taxable year) without regard to the period for which the
stockholder has held its stock. However, corporate stockholders
may be required to treat up to 20% of certain capital gain
dividends as ordinary income. In addition,
U.S. stockholders may be required to treat a portion of any
capital gain dividend as unrecaptured Section 1250
gain, taxable at a maximum rate of 25%, if we incur such
gain. Capital gain dividends are not eligible for the
dividends-received deduction for corporations.
The REIT provisions of the Code do not require us to distribute
our long-term capital gain, and we may elect to retain and pay
income tax on our net long-term capital gains received during
the taxable year. If we so
22
elect for a taxable year, our stockholders would include in
income as long-term capital gains their proportionate share of
designated retained net long-term capital gains for the taxable
year. A U.S. stockholder would be deemed to have paid its
share of the tax paid by us on such undistributed capital gains,
which would be credited or refunded to the stockholder. The
U.S. stockholders basis in its stock would be
increased by the amount of undistributed long-term capital gains
(less the capital gains tax paid by us) included in the
U.S. stockholders long-term capital gains.
Passive
Activity Loss and Investment Interest Limitations; No Pass
Through of Losses
Our distributions and gain from the disposition of our stock
will not be treated as passive activity income and, therefore,
U.S. stockholders will not be able to apply any
passive losses against such income. With respect to
non-corporate U.S. stockholders, our distributions (to the
extent they do not constitute a return of capital) that are
taxed at ordinary income rates will generally be treated as
investment income for purposes of the investment interest
limitation; however, net capital gain from the disposition of
our stock (or distributions treated as such), capital gain
dividends, and dividends taxed at net capital gains rates
generally will be excluded from investment income except to the
extent the U.S. stockholder elects to treat such amounts as
ordinary income for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
U.S. stockholders may not include in their own
U.S. federal income tax returns any of our net operating or
net capital losses.
Sale or
Disposition of Stock
In general, any gain or loss realized upon a taxable disposition
of shares of our stock by a stockholder that is not a dealer in
securities will be a long-term capital gain or loss if the stock
has been held for more than one year and otherwise will be a
short-term capital gain or loss. However, any loss upon a sale
or exchange of the stock by a stockholder who has held such
stock for six months or less (after applying certain holding
period rules) will be treated as a long-term capital loss to the
extent of our distributions or undistributed capital gains
required to be treated by such stockholder as long-term capital
gain. All or a portion of any loss realized upon a taxable
disposition of shares of our stock may be disallowed if the
taxpayer purchases other shares of our common stock within
30 days before or after the disposition.
Medicare
Tax on Unearned Income
For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012,
certain U.S. stockholders that are individuals, estates or
trusts and have modified adjusted gross income exceeding certain
thresholds will be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax (the
Medicare Tax) on, among other things, certain
dividends on and capital gains from the sale or other
disposition of stock. U.S. stockholders that are
individuals, estates or trusts should consult their tax advisors
regarding the effect, if any, of the Medicare Tax on their
ownership and disposition of our stock.
Taxation
of U.S. Tax-Exempt Stockholders
In
General
In general, a U.S. tax-exempt organization is exempt from
U.S. federal income tax on its income, except to the extent
of its unrelated business taxable income or UBTI,
which is defined by the Code as the gross income derived from
any trade or business which is regularly carried on by a
tax-exempt entity and unrelated to its exempt purposes, less any
directly connected deductions and subject to certain
modifications. For this purpose, the Code generally excludes
from UBTI any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of
property (other than stock in trade or property held primarily
for sale in the ordinary course of a trade or business),
dividends, interest, rents from real property, and certain other
items. However, a portion of any such gains, dividends,
interest, rents, and other items generally is UBTI to the extent
derived from debt-financed property, based on the amount of
acquisition indebtedness with respect to such
debt-financed property.
Distributions we make to a tax-exempt employee pension trust or
other domestic tax-exempt stockholder or gains from the
disposition of our stock held as capital assets generally will
not constitute UBTI unless the exempt organizations stock
is debt-financed property (e.g., the stockholder has incurred
acquisition
23
indebtedness with respect to such stock). However, if we
are a pension-held REIT, this general rule may not
apply to distributions to certain pension trusts that are
qualified trusts and that hold more than 10% (by value) of our
stock. We will be treated as a pension-held REIT if
(i) treating qualified trusts as individuals would cause us
to fail the 5/50 Test (as defined above) and (ii) we are
predominantly held by qualified trusts. We will be
predominantly held by qualified trusts if either
(i) a single qualified trust holds more than 25% by value
of our stock or (ii) one or more qualified trusts, each
owning more than 10% by value of our stock, hold in the
aggregate more than 50% by value of our stock. In the event we
are a pension-held REIT, the percentage of any dividend received
from us treated as UBTI would be equal to the ratio of
(a) the gross UBTI (less certain associated expenses)
earned by us (treating us as if we were a qualified trust and,
therefore, subject to tax on UBTI) to (b) our total gross
income (less certain associated expenses). A de minimis
exception applies where the ratio set forth in the preceding
sentence is less than 5% for any year; in that case, no
dividends are treated as UBTI. We cannot assure you that we will
not be treated as a pension-held REIT.
Special
Issues
Social clubs, voluntary employee benefit associations,
supplemental unemployment benefit trusts, and qualified group
legal services plans that are exempt from taxation under
paragraphs (7), (9), (17), and (20), respectively, of
Section 501(c) of the Code are subject to different UBTI
rules, which generally will require them to characterize
distributions from us as UBTI.
Taxation
of Non-U.S.
Stockholders
The rules governing U.S. federal income taxation of
non-U.S. stockholders,
such as nonresident alien individuals, foreign corporations, and
foreign trusts and estates
(non-U.S. stockholders),
are complex. This section is only a partial discussion of such
rules. This discussion does not attempt to address the
considerations that may be relevant for
non-U.S. stockholders
that are partnerships or other pass-through entities, that hold
their stock through intermediate entities, that have special
statuses (such as sovereigns), or that otherwise are subject to
special rules. Prospective
non-U.S. stockholders
are urged to consult their tax advisors to determine the impact
of U.S. federal, state, local and foreign income tax laws
on their ownership of our stock, including any reporting
requirements.
Distributions
A
non-U.S. stockholder
that receives a distribution that is not attributable to gain
from our sale or exchange of United States real property
interests (as defined below) and that we do not designate
as a capital gain dividend generally will recognize ordinary
income to the extent that we pay the distribution out of our
current or accumulated earnings and profits. A withholding tax
equal to 30% of the gross amount of the distribution ordinarily
will apply unless an applicable tax treaty reduces or eliminates
the tax. Under some treaties, lower withholding rates do not
apply to dividends from REITs or are available in limited
circumstances. However, if a distribution is treated as
effectively connected with the
non-U.S. stockholders
conduct of a U.S. trade or business, the
non-U.S. stockholder
generally will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on the
distribution at graduated rates (in the same manner as
U.S. stockholders are taxed on distributions) and also may
be subject to the 30% branch profits tax in the case of a
corporate
non-U.S. stockholder.
We plan to withhold U.S. income tax at the rate of 30% on
the gross amount of any distribution paid to a
non-U.S. stockholder
that is neither a capital gain dividend nor a distribution that
is attributable to gain from the sale or exchange of
United States real property interests unless either
(i) a lower treaty rate or special provision of the Code
(e.g., Section 892) applies and the
non-U.S. stockholder
files with us any required IRS
Form W-8
(for example, an IRS
Form W-8BEN)
evidencing eligibility for that reduced rate or (ii) the
non-U.S. stockholder
files with us an IRS
Form W-8ECI
claiming that the distribution is effectively connected income.
A
non-U.S. stockholder
generally will not incur tax on a return of capital distribution
in excess of our current and accumulated earnings and profits
that is not attributable to the gain from our disposition of a
United States real property interest if the excess
portion of the distribution does not exceed the adjusted basis
of the
non-U.S. stockholders
stock. Instead, the excess portion of the distribution will
reduce the
24
adjusted basis of the stock. However, a
non-U.S. stockholder
will be subject to tax on such a distribution that exceeds both
our current and accumulated earnings and profits and the
non-U.S. stockholders
adjusted basis in the stock, if the
non-U.S. stockholder
otherwise would be subject to tax on gain from the sale or
disposition of its stock, as described below. Because we
generally cannot determine at the time we make a distribution
whether or not the distribution will exceed our current and
accumulated earnings and profits, we normally will withhold tax
on the entire amount of any distribution at the same rate as we
would withhold on a dividend. However, a
non-U.S. stockholder
may file a U.S. federal income tax return and obtain a
refund from the IRS of amounts that we withhold if we later
determine that a distribution in fact exceeded our current and
accumulated earnings and profits.
We may be required to withhold 10% of any distribution that
exceeds our current and accumulated earnings and profits.
Consequently, although we intend to withhold at a rate of 30% on
the entire amount of any distribution that is neither
attributable to the gain from our disposition of a United
States real property interest nor designated by us as a
capital gain dividend, to the extent that we do not do so, we
will withhold at a rate of 10% on any portion of a distribution
not subject to withholding at a rate of 30%.
Subject to the exception discussed below for 5% or smaller
holders of regularly traded classes of stock, a
non-U.S. stockholder
will incur tax on distributions that are attributable to gain
from our sale or exchange of United States real property
interests under special provisions of the Foreign
Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980, or FIRPTA,
regardless of whether we designate such distributions as capital
gain distributions. The term United States real property
interests includes interests in U.S. real property
and stock in U.S. corporations at least 50% of whose assets
consist of interests in U.S. real property. Under those
rules, a
non-U.S. stockholder
is taxed on distributions attributable to gain from sales of
United States real property interests as if the gain were
effectively connected with the
non-U.S. stockholders
conduct of a U.S. trade or business. A
non-U.S. stockholder
thus would be required to file a U.S. federal income tax
return to report such income and would be taxed on such a
distribution at the normal capital gain rates applicable to
U.S. stockholders, subject to applicable alternative
minimum tax and a special alternative minimum tax in the case of
a nonresident alien individual. A corporate
non-U.S. stockholder
not entitled to treaty relief or exemption also may be subject
to the 30% branch profits tax on such a distribution. We
generally must withhold 35% of any distribution subject to these
rules (35% FIRPTA Withholding). A
non-U.S. stockholder
may receive a credit against its tax liability for the amount we
withhold.
A
non-U.S. stockholder
that owns no more than 5% of our stock at all times during the
one-year period ending on the date of a distribution would not
be subject to FIRPTA, branch profits tax or 35% FIRPTA
Withholding with respect to a distribution on stock that is
attributable to gain from our sale or exchange of United States
real property interests, if our stock were regularly traded on
an established securities market in the United States. Instead,
any such distributions made to such
non-U.S. stockholder
would be subject to the general withholding rules discussed
above, which generally impose a withholding tax equal to 30% of
the gross amount of each distribution (unless reduced by
treaty). Our shares are not traded on an established securities
market.
Distributions that are designated by us as capital gain
dividends, other than those attributable to the disposition of a
U.S. real property interest, generally should not be
subject to U.S. federal income taxation unless:
|
|
|
|
|
such distribution is effectively connected with the
non-U.S. stockholders
U.S. trade or business and, if certain treaties apply, is
attributable to a U.S. permanent establishment maintained
by the
non-U.S. stockholder,
in which case the
non-U.S. stockholder
will be subject to tax on a net basis in a manner similar to the
taxation of U.S. stockholders with respect to such gain,
except that a holder that is a foreign corporation may also be
subject to the additional 30% branch profits tax; or
|
|
|
|
the
non-U.S. stockholder
is a nonresident alien individual who is present in the United
States for 183 days or more during the taxable year and has
a tax home in the United States, in which case such
nonresident alien individual generally will be subject to a 30%
tax on the individuals net U.S. source capital gain.
|
25
It is not entirely clear to what extent we are required to
withhold on distributions to
non-U.S. stockholders
that are not treated as ordinary income and are not attributable
to the disposition of a United States real property interest.
Unless the law is clarified to the contrary, we will generally
withhold and remit to the IRS 35% of any distribution to a
non-U.S. stockholder
that is designated as a capital gain dividend (or, if greater,
35% of a distribution that could have been designated as a
capital gain dividend). Distributions can be designated as
capital gain dividends to the extent of our net capital gain for
the taxable year of the distribution. The amount withheld is
creditable against the
non-U.S. stockholders
U.S. federal income tax liability.
Dispositions
If gain on the sale of the stock were taxed under FIRPTA, a
non-U.S. stockholder
would be taxed on that gain in the same manner as
U.S. stockholders with respect to that gain, subject to
applicable alternative minimum tax, and a special alternative
minimum tax in the case of nonresident alien individuals. A
non-U.S. stockholder
generally will not incur tax under FIRPTA on a sale or other
disposition of our stock if we are a domestically
controlled qualified investment entity, which requires
that, during the shorter of the period since our formation and
the five-year period ending on the date of the distribution or
disposition,
non-U.S.
stockholders hold, directly or indirectly, less than 50% in
value of our stock and we are qualified as a REIT. We cannot
assure you that we will be a domestically controlled qualified
investment entity. In addition, the gain from a sale of our
stock by a
non-U.S. stockholder
will not be subject to tax under FIRPTA if (i) our stock is
considered regularly traded under applicable Treasury
Regulations on an established securities market, such as the New
York Stock Exchange, and (ii) the
non-U.S. stockholder
owned, actually or constructively, 5% or less of our stock at
all times during a specified testing period. Our shares are not
traded on an established securities market.
In addition, even if we are a domestically controlled qualified
investment entity, upon a disposition of our stock, a
non-U.S. stockholder
may be treated as having gain from the sale or exchange of a
United States real property interest if the
non-U.S. stockholder
(i) disposes of an interest in our stock during the
30-day
period preceding the ex-dividend date of a distribution, any
portion of which, but for the disposition, would have been
treated as gain from sale or exchange of a United States real
property interest, and (ii) directly or indirectly
acquires, enters into a contract or option to acquire, or is
deemed to acquire, other shares of our stock within 30 days
before or after such ex-dividend date. The foregoing rule does
not apply if the exception described above for dispositions by
5% or smaller holders of regularly traded classes of stock is
satisfied.
Furthermore, a
non-U.S. stockholder
generally will incur tax on gain not subject to FIRPTA if
(i) the gain is effectively connected with the
non-U.S. stockholders
U.S. trade or business and, if certain treaties apply, is
attributable to a U.S. permanent establishment maintained
by the
non-U.S. stockholder,
in which case the
non-U.S. stockholder
will be subject to the same treatment as U.S. stockholders
with respect to such gain, or (ii) the
non-U.S. stockholder
is a nonresident alien individual who was present in the United
States for 183 days or more during the taxable year and has
a tax home in the United States, in which case the
non-U.S. stockholder
will generally incur a 30% tax on his or her net
U.S. source capital gains.
Purchasers of our stock from a
non-U.S. stockholder
generally will be required to withhold and remit to the IRS 10%
of the purchase price unless at the time of purchase
(i) any class of our stock is regularly traded on an
established securities market in the United States (subject to
certain limits if the stock sold are not themselves part of such
a regularly traded class) or (ii) we are a domestically
controlled qualified investment entity. The
non-U.S. stockholder
may receive a credit against its tax liability for the amount
withheld.
Information
Reporting Requirements and Backup Withholding Tax
We will report to our U.S. stockholders and to the IRS the
amount of distributions paid during each calendar year, and the
amount of tax withheld, if any. Under the backup withholding
rules, a U.S. stockholder may be subject to backup
withholding at the current rate of 28% with respect to
distributions paid, unless such stockholder (i) is a
corporation or other exempt entity and, when required, proves
its status or (ii) certifies under penalties of perjury
that the taxpayer identification number the stockholder has
furnished to us is correct
26
and the stockholder is not subject to backup withholding and
otherwise complies with the applicable requirements of the
backup withholding rules. A U.S. stockholder that does not
provide us with its correct taxpayer identification number also
may be subject to penalties imposed by the IRS.
We will also report annually to the IRS and to each
non-U.S. stockholder
the amount of dividends paid to such holder and the tax withheld
with respect to such dividends, regardless of whether
withholding was required. Copies of the information returns
reporting such dividends and withholding may also be made
available to the tax authorities in the country in which the
non-U.S. stockholder
resides under the provisions of an applicable income tax treaty.
A
non-U.S. stockholder
may be subject to
back-up
withholding unless applicable certification requirements are met.
New reporting requirements generally will apply with respect to
dispositions of REIT shares acquired after 2010 (2011 in the
case of shares acquired in connection with a distribution
reinvestment plan). Brokers that are required to report the
gross proceeds from a sale of shares on
Form 1099-B
will also be required to report the customers adjusted
basis in the shares and whether any gain or loss with respect to
the shares is long-term or short-term. In some caes, there may
be alternative methods of determining the basis in shares that
are disposed of, in which case your broker will apply a default
method of its choosing if you do not indicate which method you
choose to have applied. You should consult with your own tax
advisor regarding the new reporting requirements and your
election options.
Backup withholding is not an additional tax. Any amounts
withheld under the backup withholding rules may be allowed as a
refund or a credit against such holders U.S. federal
income tax liability, provided the required information is
furnished to the IRS.
Additional
U.S. Federal Income Tax Withholding Rules
Additional U.S. federal income tax withholding rules apply
to certain payments made after December 31, 2012 to foreign
financial institutions and certain other
non-U.S. entities.
A withholding tax of 30% would apply to dividends and the gross
proceeds of a disposition of our stock paid to certain foreign
entities unless various information reporting requirements are
satisfied. For these purposes, a foreign financial institution
generally is defined as any
non-U.S. entity
that (i) accepts deposits in the ordinary course of a
banking or similar business, (ii) as a substantial portion
of its business, holds financial assets for the account of
others, or (iii) is engaged or holds itself out as being
engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting, or
trading in securities, partnership interests, commodities, or
any interest in such assets. Prospective investors are
encouraged to consult their tax advisors regarding the
implications of these rules with respect to their investment in
our stock, as well as the status of any related federal
regulations.
Sunset of
Reduced Tax Rate Provisions
Several of the tax considerations described herein are subject
to a sunset provision. The sunset provisions generally provide
that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012,
certain provisions that are currently in the Code will revert
back to a prior version of those provisions. These provisions
include provisions related to the reduced maximum
U.S. federal income tax rate for long-term capital gains of
15% (rather than 20%) for taxpayers taxed at individual rates,
the application of the 15% U.S. federal income tax rate for
qualified dividend income, and certain other tax rate provisions
described herein. The impact of this reversion generally is not
discussed herein. Prospective stockholders are urged to consult
their tax advisors regarding the effect of sunset provisions on
an investment in our stock.
Legislative
or Other Actions Affecting REITs
The rules dealing with U.S. federal income taxation are
constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative
process and by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department. No
assurance can be given as to whether, when, or in what form, the
U.S. federal income tax laws applicable to us and our
stockholders may be enacted. Changes to the U.S. federal
tax laws and interpretations of federal tax laws could adversely
affect an investment in our stock.
27
State,
Local and Foreign Tax
We may be subject to state, local and foreign tax in states,
localities and foreign countries in which we do business or own
property. The tax treatment applicable to us and our
stockholders in such jurisdictions may differ from the
U.S. federal income tax treatment described above.
BOARD
REVIEW OF OUR INVESTMENT POLICIES
Our board of directors has established written policies on
investments and borrowing. Our board is responsible for
monitoring the administrative procedures, investment operations
and performance of our company and our management to ensure such
policies are carried out, and that such policies are updated and
adjusted consistent with our charter, our strategic plan and
business model, and any changes in law or regulation. Our
charter requires that our independent directors review our
investment policies at least annually to determine that our
policies are in the best interest of our stockholders. Each
determination and the basis thereof is required to be set forth
in the minutes of our applicable meetings of our directors.
Implementation of our investment policies also may vary as new
investment techniques are developed.
As required by our charter, our independent directors have
reviewed our policies referred to above and determined that they
are in the best interest of our stockholders because they
provide the basis for and increase the likelihood that we will
be able to acquire a diversified portfolio of stable income
producing properties, thereby properly managing risk and
creating stable yield and long term value in our portfolio, and
they define the attributes we seek when evaluating the
sufficiency of our acquisition opportunities. Our implementation
of and commitment to these policies is further enhanced by the
facts that (1) our executive officers, directors and
management have across the board expertise with the type of real
estate investments we seek to acquire and own, and (2) our
liquidity and borrowings have enabled us to purchase assets in
both good and challenging economic environments and to timely
earn short and rental income, thereby increasing our likelihood
of generating income for our stockholders and preserving
stockholder capital.
EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
The information regarding our executive officers included in
Part III, Item 10 of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
is incorporated herein by reference.
Investment
Risks
There
is currently no public market for shares of our common stock.
Therefore, it will be difficult for stockholders to sell their
shares and, if they are able to sell their shares, they will
likely sell them at a discount.
There currently is no public market for shares of our common
stock. We do not expect a public market for our stock to develop
prior to the listing of our shares on a national securities
exchange, which may not occur in the near future or at all.
Additionally, our charter contains restrictions on the ownership
and transfer of our shares, and these restrictions may inhibit
our stockholders ability to sell their shares. We have
adopted a share repurchase plan but it is limited in terms of
the amount of shares which may be repurchased quarterly and
annually and may be limited, suspended, terminated or amended at
any time by our board of directors, in its sole discretion, upon
30 days notice. On November 24, 2010, we, with
the approval of our board of directors, elected to amend and
restate our share repurchase plan effective January 1,
2011. Starting in the first calendar quarter of 2011, we will
fund a maximum of $10 million of share repurchase requests
per quarter, subject to available funding. Funding for our
repurchase program each quarter will come exclusively from and
will be limited to the sale of shares under our DRIP during such
quarter. These limits have prevented us from accommodating all
repurchase requests in the past and are likely to do so in the
future. In addition, with the termination of our follow-on
offering on February 28, 2011, except for the DRIP, we are
conducting an
28
ongoing review of potential alternatives for our share
repurchase plan, including the suspension or termination of the
plan.
Therefore, it may be difficult for our stockholders to sell
their shares promptly or at all. If our stockholders are able to
sell their shares, they may only be able to sell them at a
substantial discount from the price they paid. This may be the
result, in part, of the fact that, at the time we make our
investments, the amount of funds available for investment has
been reduced by approximately 11.5% of the gross offering
proceeds that was used to pay selling commissions, the dealer
manager fee and organizational and offering expenses. We also
are required to use gross offering proceeds to pay acquisition
expenses. Unless our aggregate investments increase in value to
compensate for these fees and expenses, which may not occur, it
is unlikely that our stockholders will be able to sell their
shares without incurring a substantial loss. We cannot assure
our stockholders that their shares will ever appreciate in value
equal to the price they paid for their shares. Thus,
stockholders should consider their investment in our common
stock as illiquid and a long-term investment, and they must be
prepared to hold their shares for an indefinite length of time.
The
availability and timing of cash distributions to our
stockholders is uncertain.
In the past we have made monthly distributions to our
stockholders. However, we bear all expenses incurred in our
operations, which are deducted from cash funds generated by
operations prior to computing the amount of cash distributions
to our stockholders. In the future, we will be restricted by the
terms of our credit agreement for our unsecured credit facility
from paying distributions in excess of our FFO, as adjusted
pursuant to the terms of the credit agreement, or a percentage
of such adjusted FFO. In addition, our board of directors, in
its discretion, may retain any portion of such funds for working
capital. We cannot assure our stockholders that sufficient cash
will be available to make distributions or that the amount of
distributions will increase over time. Should we fail for any
reason to distribute at least 90.0% of our ordinary taxable
income, we would not qualify for the favorable tax treatment
accorded to REITs.
We may
not have sufficient cash available from operations to pay
distributions, and, therefore, distributions may include a
return of capital.
Distributions payable to stockholders may include a return of
capital, rather than a return on capital. We expect to continue
to make monthly distributions to our stockholders. However, the
actual amount and timing of distributions will be determined by
our board of directors in its discretion and typically will
depend on the amount of funds available for distribution, which
will depend on items such as current and projected cash
requirements and tax considerations. As a result, our
distribution rate and payment frequency may vary from time to
time. We may not have sufficient cash available from operations
to pay distributions required to maintain our status as a REIT
and may need to use borrowed funds to make such cash
distributions, which may reduce the amount of proceeds available
for investment and operations. Additionally, if the aggregate
amount of cash distributed in any given year exceeds the amount
of our REIT taxable income generated during the
year, the excess amount will be deemed a return of capital,
which will decrease our stockholders tax basis in their
investment in shares of our common stock. Our organizational
documents do not establish a limit on the amount of net proceeds
we may use to fund distributions.
We may
not have sufficient cash available from operations to pay
distributions, and, therefore, distributions may be paid,
without limitation, with borrowed funds.
The amount of the distributions we make to our stockholders will
be determined by our board of directors, at its sole discretion,
and is dependent on a number of factors, including funds
available for payment of distributions, our financial condition,
and capital expenditure requirements and annual distribution
requirements needed to maintain our status as a REIT, as well as
any liquidity event alternatives we may pursue. On
February 14, 2007, our board of directors approved a 7.25%
per annum, or $0.725 per common share based on a
$10.00 share price, distribution to be paid to our
stockholders beginning with our February 2007 monthly
distribution, and we have continued to declare distributions at
that rate through the first quarter of 2011. However, our board
may reduce our distribution rate and we cannot guarantee the
amount and timing of distributions paid in the future, if any.
29
If our cash flow from operations is less than the distributions
our board of directors determines to pay, we would be required
to pay our distributions, or a portion thereof, with borrowed
funds. As a result, the amount of proceeds available for
investment and operations would be reduced, or we may incur
additional interest expense as a result of borrowed funds.
In the past we have paid a portion of our distributions using
offering proceeds or borrowed funds, and we may continue to use
borrowed funds in the future to pay distributions. For the year
ended December 31, 2010, we paid distributions of
$116,727,000 ($60,176,000 in cash and $56,551,000 in shares of
our common stock pursuant to the DRIP), as compared to cash flow
from operations of $58,503,000. The remaining $58,224,000 of
distributions paid in excess of our cash flow from operations,
or 50%, was paid using borrowed funds. In addition, the DRIP may
be terminated at any time by our board of directors and may be
amended at any time by our board of directors, at its sole
discretion, upon 10 days notice.
Our
operations have resulted in net losses to date, which makes our
future performance and the performance of an investment in our
shares difficult to predict.
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, our
operations resulted in a net loss of approximately
$7.92 million, $24.77 million and $28.41 million,
respectively. We have experienced net losses since our inception
and our net losses may increase in the future. Our net losses
increase the risk and uncertainty investors face in making an
investment in our shares, including risks related to our ability
to pay future distributions.
We
presently intend to effect a liquidity event by
September 20, 2013; however, we cannot assure our
stockholders that we will effect a liquidity event by such time
or at all. If we do not effect a liquidity event, it will be
very difficult for our stockholders to have liquidity for their
investment in shares of our common stock.
On a limited basis, our stockholders may be able to sell shares
through our share repurchase plan. We may amend or terminate our
share repurchase plan with 30 days notice. We may also
consider various forms of liquidity events, including but not
limited to (1) a Listing, (2) our sale or merger in a
transaction that provides our stockholders with a combination of
cash and/or
securities of a publicly traded company, and (3) the sale
of all or substantially all of our real property for cash or
other consideration. We presently intend to effect a liquidity
event by September 20, 2013. However, we cannot assure our
stockholders that we will effect a liquidity event within such
time or at all. If we do not effect a liquidity event, it will
be very difficult for our stockholders to have liquidity for
their investment in shares of our common stock.
Because a portion of the offering price from the sale of shares
was used to pay expenses and fees, the full offering price paid
by stockholders was not invested in real estate investments. As
a result, stockholders will only receive a full return of their
invested capital if we either (1) sell our assets or our
company for a sufficient amount in excess of the original
purchase price of our assets, or (2) the market value of
our company after a Listing is substantially in excess of the
original purchase price of our assets.
In the
event our shares of common stock are listed on a national
securities exchange, our common stock will be converted into
shares of Class A and Class B common stock, the shares
of Class B common stock would not immediately be listed on
such exchange and there would be no public market for the shares
of Class B common stock.
Our charter provides that in the event our shares of common
stock are listed on a national securities exchange, our common
stock will automatically be reclassified and converted into
shares of Class A common stock and Class B common
stock immediately prior to a Listing. The shares of Class A
common stock would be listed on a national securities exchange
upon Listing. The shares of Class B common stock would not
be listed. Rather, those shares would convert into shares of
Class A common stock and become listed in defined phases,
over a defined period of time. We believe all shares of
Class B common stock would convert into shares of
Class A common stock within 18 months of a Listing,
with individual classes of Class B common stock converting
into Class A common stock and becoming listed every six
months. If we pursue a Listing,
30
the ultimate length of the overall phased in liquidity program
and the timing of each of the phases will depend on a number of
factors, including the timing of the Listing. As a result, there
would be no public market for the shares of Class B common
stock. Until the shares of Class B common stock convert
into Class A shares and become listed, they cannot be
traded on a national securities exchange. As a result, after a
Listing, our stockholders will have very limited, if any,
liquidity with respect to their shares of Class B common
stock. Further, the trading price per share of Class A
common stock when each class of Class B common stock
converts into Class A common stock could be very different
than the trading price per share of the Class A common
stock on the date of a Listing. As a result, stockholders may
receive less consideration for their shares than they may have
received if they had been able to sell immediately upon the
effectiveness of a Listing.
Risks
Related to Our Business
We are
dependent on investments in a single industry, making our
profitability more vulnerable to a downturn or slowdown in that
sector than if we were investing in multiple
industries.
We concentrate our investments in the healthcare property
sector. As a result, we are subject to risks inherent to
investments in a single industry. A downturn or slowdown in the
healthcare property sector would have a greater adverse impact
on our business than if we were investing in multiple
industries. Specifically, any industry downturn could negatively
impact the ability of our tenants to make loan or lease payments
to us as well as their ability to maintain rental and occupancy
rates, which could adversely affect our business, financial
condition and results of operations as well as our ability to
make distributions to our stockholders.
If we
are unable to find suitable investments, we may not be able to
achieve our investment objectives.
Our stockholders must rely on us to evaluate our investment
opportunities, and we may not be able to achieve our investment
objectives or may make unwise decisions. We cannot assure our
stockholders that acquisitions of real estate or other real
estate related assets made using the proceeds of our offerings
will produce a return on our investment or will generate cash
flow to enable us to make distributions to our stockholders.
We
face competition for the acquisition of medical office buildings
and other healthcare-related facilities, which may impede our
ability to make future acquisitions or may increase the cost of
these acquisitions.
We compete with many other entities engaged in real estate
investment activities for acquisitions of medical office
buildings and healthcare-related facilities, including national,
regional and local operators, acquirers and developers of
healthcare real estate properties. The competition for
healthcare real estate properties may significantly increase the
price we must pay for medical office buildings and
healthcare-related facilities or other real estate related
assets we seek to acquire and our competitors may succeed in
acquiring those properties or assets themselves. In addition,
our potential acquisition targets may find our competitors to be
more attractive because they may have greater resources, may be
willing to pay more for the properties or may have a more
compatible operating philosophy. In particular, larger
healthcare REITs may enjoy significant competitive advantages
that result from, among other things, a lower cost of capital
and enhanced operating efficiencies. In addition, the number of
entities and the amount of funds competing for suitable
investment properties may increase. This competition will result
in increased demand for these assets and therefore increased
prices paid for them. Because of an increased interest in
single-property acquisitions among tax-motivated individual
purchasers, we may pay higher prices if we purchase single
properties in comparison with portfolio acquisitions. If we pay
higher prices for medical office buildings and
healthcare-related facilities, our business, financial condition
and results of operations and our ability to make distributions
to our stockholders may be materially and adversely affected.
31
Financial
markets are still recovering from a period of disruption and
recession, and we are unable to predict if and when the economy
will stabilize.
The financial markets are still recovering from a recession,
which created volatile market conditions, resulted in a decrease
in availability of business credit and led to the insolvency,
closure or acquisition of a number of financial institutions.
While the markets showed signs of stabilizing in 2010, it
remains unclear when the economy will fully recover to
pre-recession levels. Continued economic weakness in the
U.S. economy generally would likely adversely affect our
financial condition and that of our tenants and could impact the
ability of our tenants to pay rent to us.
Our
success may be hampered by the recent slowdown in the real
estate industry.
Our business is sensitive to trends in the general economy, as
well as the commercial real estate and credit markets. The
recent financial disruption and accompanying credit crisis
negatively impacted the value of commercial real estate assets,
contributing to a general slowdown in our industry, which may
continue through 2011. A slow economic recovery could continue
or accelerate the reduction in overall transaction volume and
size of sales and leasing activities that we have already
experienced, and would continue to put downward pressure on our
revenues and operating results. To the extent that any decline
in our revenues and operating results impacts our performance,
our results of operations, financial condition and ability to
pay distributions to our stockholders could also suffer.
Our
results of operations, our ability to pay distributions to our
stockholders and our ability to dispose of our investments are
subject to international, national and local economic factors we
cannot control or predict.
Our results of operations are subject to the risks of an
international or national economic slowdown or downturn and
other changes in international, national and local economic
conditions. The following factors may affect income from our
properties, our ability to acquire and dispose of properties,
and yields from our properties:
|
|
|
|
|
poor economic times may result in defaults by tenants of our
properties due to bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, or operational
failures. We may also be required to provide rent concessions or
reduced rental rates to maintain or increase occupancy levels;
|
|
|
|
reduced values of our properties may limit our ability to
dispose of assets at attractive prices or to obtain debt
financing secured by our properties and may reduce the
availability of unsecured loans;
|
|
|
|
the value and liquidity of our short-term investments and cash
deposits could be reduced as a result of a deterioration of the
financial condition of the institutions that hold our cash
deposits or the institutions or assets in which we have made
short-term investments, the dislocation of the markets for our
short-term investments, increased volatility in market rates for
such investment or other factors;
|
|
|
|
one or more lenders under our unsecured credit facility could
refuse to fund their financing commitment to us or could fail
and we may not be able to replace the financing commitment of
any such lenders on favorable terms, or at all;
|
|
|
|
one or more counterparties to our interest rate swaps could
default on their obligations to us or could fail, increasing the
risk that we may not realize the benefits of these instruments;
|
|
|
|
increases in supply of competing properties or decreases in
demand for our properties may impact our ability to maintain or
increase occupancy levels and rents;
|
|
|
|
constricted access to credit may result in tenant defaults or
non-renewals under leases; and
|
|
|
|
increased insurance premiums, real estate taxes or energy or
other expenses may reduce funds available for distribution or,
to the extent such increases are passed through to tenants, may
lead to tenant defaults. Also, any such increased expenses may
make it difficult to increase rents to tenants on turnover,
which may limit our ability to increase our returns.
|
32
The length and severity of any economic slowdown or downturn
cannot be predicted. Our results of operations, our ability to
pay distributions to our stockholders and our ability to dispose
of our investments may be negatively impacted to the extent an
economic slowdown or downturn is prolonged or becomes more
severe.
The
failure of any bank in which we deposit our funds could reduce
the amount of cash we have available to pay distributions and
make additional investments.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, will only
insure amounts up to $250,000 per depositor per insured bank. We
currently have cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash
deposited in certain financial institutions in excess of
federally insured levels. If any of the banking institutions in
which we have deposited funds ultimately fail, we may lose any
amount of our deposits over any federally-insured amounts. The
loss of our deposits could reduce the amount of cash we have
available to distribute or invest and could result in a decline
in the value of our stockholders investment.
Our
success depends to a significant degree upon the continued
contributions of certain key personnel, each of whom would be
difficult to replace. If we were to lose the benefit of the
experience, efforts and abilities of one or more of these
individuals, our operating results could suffer.
As a self-managed company, our ability to achieve our investment
objectives and to pay distributions is increasingly dependent
upon the performance of our board of directors, Scott D. Peters
as our Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the
Board, Kellie S. Pruitt as our Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary, Mark Engstrom as our Executive Vice
President Acquisitions, and our other employees, in
the identification and acquisition of investments, the
determination of any financing arrangements, the asset
management of our investments and operation of our
day-to-day
activities. Our stockholders will have no opportunity to
evaluate the terms of transactions or other economic or
financial data concerning our investments that are not described
in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
or other periodic filings with the SEC. We rely primarily on the
management ability of our Chief Executive Officer and other
executive officers and the governance of our board of directors,
each of whom would be difficult to replace. We do not have any
key man life insurance on Messrs. Peters, Engstrom or
Ms. Pruitt. We have entered into employment agreements with
each of Messrs. Peters, Engstrom and Ms. Pruitt;
however, the employment agreements contain various termination
rights. If we were to lose the benefit of their experience,
efforts and abilities, our operating results could suffer. In
addition, if any member of our board of directors were to
resign, we would lose the benefit of such directors
governance and experience. As a result of the foregoing, we may
be unable to achieve our investment objectives or to pay
distributions to our stockholders.
We may
structure acquisitions of property in exchange for limited
partnership units in our operating partnership on terms that
could limit our liquidity or our flexibility.
Approximately 0.08% of our operating partnership is owned by
individual physician investors that elected to exchange their
partnership interests in the partnership that owns the 7900
Fannin medical office building for limited partner units of our
operating partnership. We acquired the majority interest in the
Fannin partnership on June 30, 2010. We may continue to
acquire properties by issuing limited partnership units in our
operating partnership in exchange for a property owner
contributing property to the partnership. If we continue to
enter into such transactions, in order to induce the
contributors of such properties to accept units in our operating
partnership, rather than cash, in exchange for their properties,
it may be necessary for us to provide them additional
incentives. For instance, our operating partnerships
limited partnership agreement provides that any holder of units
may exchange limited partnership units on a
one-for-one
basis for shares of our common stock, or, at our option, cash
equal to the value of an equivalent number of our shares. We
may, however, enter into additional contractual arrangements
with contributors of property under which we would agree to
repurchase a contributors units for shares of our common
stock or cash, at the option of the contributor, at set times.
If the contributor required us to repurchase units for cash
pursuant to such a provision, it would limit our liquidity and
thus our ability to use cash to make other investments, satisfy
other obligations or make distributions to stockholders.
Moreover, if we were required to repurchase units for cash at a
time when we did not have sufficient cash to fund the
repurchase, we might be required to sell one or
33
more properties to raise funds to satisfy this obligation.
Furthermore, we might agree that if distributions the
contributor received as a limited partner in our operating
partnership did not provide the contributor with a defined
return, then upon redemption of the contributors units we
would pay the contributor an additional amount necessary to
achieve that return. Such a provision could further negatively
impact our liquidity and flexibility. Finally, in order to allow
a contributor of a property to defer taxable gain on the
contribution of property to our operating partnership, we might
agree not to sell a contributed property for a defined period of
time or until the contributor exchanged the contributors
units for cash or shares. Such an agreement would prevent us
from selling those properties, even if market conditions made
such a sale favorable to us.
Our
ownership of certain medical office building properties are
subject to ground lease or other similar agreements which limit
our uses of these properties and may restrict our ability to
sell or otherwise transfer such properties.
We hold interests in certain of our medical office building
properties through leasehold interests in the land on which the
buildings are located and we may acquire or develop additional
medical office building properties in the future that are
subject to ground leases or other similar agreements. Many of
our ground leases and other similar agreements limit our uses of
these properties and may restrict our ability to sell or
otherwise transfer such properties, which may impair their value.
Compliance
with changing government regulations may result in additional
expenses.
During July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, or the Dodd-Frank Act, was signed into federal
law. The provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act include new
regulations for
over-the-counter
derivatives and substantially increased regulation and risk of
liability for credit rating agencies, all of which could
increase our cost of capital. The Dodd-Frank Act also includes
provisions concerning corporate governance and executive
compensation which, among other things, require additional
executive compensation disclosures and enhanced independence
requirements for board compensation committees and related
advisors, as well as provide explicit authority for the SEC to
adopt proxy access, all of which could result in additional
expenses in order to maintain compliance. The Dodd-Frank Act is
wide-ranging, and the provisions are broad with significant
discretion given to the many and varied agencies tasked with
adopting and implementing the act. The majority of the
provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act did not go into effect
immediately and may be adopted and implemented over many months
or years. As such, we cannot predict the full impact of the
Dodd-Frank Act on our financial condition or results of
operations.
Risks
Related to Our Organizational Structure
We may
issue preferred stock or other classes of common stock, which
issuance could adversely affect the holders of our common
stock.
Our stockholders do not have preemptive rights to any shares
issued by us in the future. We may issue, without stockholder
approval, preferred stock or other classes of common stock with
rights that could dilute the value of our stockholders
shares of our common stock. Our charter authorizes us to issue
1,200,000,000 shares of capital stock, of which
1,000,000,000 shares of capital stock are designated as
common stock and 200,000,000 shares of capital stock are
designated as preferred stock. Our board of directors may amend
our charter to increase the aggregate number of authorized
shares of capital stock or the number of authorized shares of
capital stock of any class or series without stockholder
approval. If we ever created and issued preferred stock with a
distribution preference over our common stock, payment of any
distribution preferences of outstanding preferred stock would
reduce the amount of funds available for the payment of
distributions on our common stock. Further, holders of preferred
stock are normally entitled to receive a preference payment in
the event we liquidate, dissolve or wind up before any payment
is made to our common stockholders, likely reducing the amount
our common stockholders would otherwise receive upon such an
occurrence. In addition, under certain circumstances, the
issuance of preferred stock or a separate class or series of
common stock may render more difficult or tend to discourage:
|
|
|
|
|
a merger, tender offer or proxy contest;
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
assumption of control by a holder of large block of our
securities; or
|
|
|
|
removal of the incumbent board of directors and management.
|
Our
stockholders ability to control our operations is severely
limited.
Our board of directors determines our major strategies,
including our strategies regarding investments, financing,
growth, debt capitalization, REIT qualification and
distributions. Our board of directors may amend or revise these
and other strategies without a vote of the stockholders. Our
charter sets forth the stockholder voting rights required to be
set forth therein under the Statement of Policy Regarding Real
Estate Investment Trusts adopted by the North American
Securities Administrators Association, or the NASAA Guidelines.
Under our charter and Maryland law, our stockholders will have a
right to vote only on the following matters:
|
|
|
|
|
the election or removal of directors;
|
|
|
|
any amendment of our charter, except that our board of directors
may amend our charter without stockholder approval to change our
name or the name or other designation or the par value of any
class or series of our stock and the aggregate par value of our
stock, increase or decrease the aggregate number of our shares
of stock or the number of our shares of any class or series that
we have the authority to issue, or effect certain reverse stock
splits;
|
|
|
|
our dissolution; and
|
|
|
|
certain mergers, consolidations and sales or other dispositions
of all or substantially all of our assets.
|
All other matters are subject to the discretion of our board of
directors.
The
limit on the percentage of shares of our common stock that any
person may own may discourage a takeover or business combination
that may have benefited our stockholders.
Our charter restricts the direct or indirect ownership by one
person or entity to no more than 9.8% of the value of our then
outstanding capital stock (which includes common stock and any
preferred stock we may issue) and no more than 9.8% of the value
or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of our then
outstanding common stock. This restriction may discourage a
change of control of us and may deter individuals or entities
from making tender offers for shares of our common stock on
terms that might be financially attractive to stockholders or
which may cause a change in our management. This ownership
restriction may also prohibit business combinations that would
have otherwise been approved by our board of directors and our
stockholders. In addition to deterring potential transactions
that may be favorable to our stockholders, these provisions may
also decrease our stockholders ability to sell their
shares of our common stock.
Our
charter includes a provision that may discourage a stockholder
from launching a tender offer for shares of our common
stock.
Our charter requires that any tender offer made by a person,
including any mini-tender offer, must comply with
Regulation 14D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The offeror must provide us notice of the tender offer
at least ten business days before initiating the tender offer.
If the offeror does not comply with these requirements, we will
have the right to repurchase that persons shares of our
common stock and any shares of our common stock acquired in such
tender offer. In addition, the non-complying offeror shall be
responsible for all of our expenses in connection with that
stockholders noncompliance. This provision of our charter
does not apply to any shares of our common stock that are listed
on a national securities exchange. This provision of our charter
may discourage a person from initiating a tender offer for
shares of our common stock and prevent you from receiving a
premium price for your shares of our common stock in such a
transaction.
35
Our
board of directors may change our investment objectives without
seeking stockholder approval.
Our board of directors may change our investment objectives
without seeking stockholder approval. Although our board of
directors has fiduciary duties to our stockholders and intends
only to change our investment objectives when our board of
directors determines that a change is in the best interests of
our stockholders, a change in our investment objectives could
reduce our payment of cash distributions to our stockholders or
cause a decline in the value of our investments.
Maryland
law and our organizational documents limit our
stockholders right to bring claims against our officers
and directors.
Maryland law provides that a director will not have any
liability as a director so long as he or she performs his or her
duties in good faith, in a manner he or she reasonably believes
to be in our best interests, and with the care that an
ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under
similar circumstances. In addition, our charter provides that,
subject to the applicable limitations set forth therein or under
Maryland law, no director or officer will be liable to us or our
stockholders for monetary damages. Our charter also provides
that we will generally indemnify our directors, and our officers
for losses they may incur by reason of their service in those
capacities unless: (1) their act or omission was material
to the matter giving rise to the proceeding and was committed in
bad faith or was the result of active and deliberate dishonesty,
(2) they actually received an improper personal benefit in
money, property or services or (3) in the case of any
criminal proceeding, they had reasonable cause to believe the
act or omission was unlawful. Moreover, we have entered into
separate indemnification agreements with each of our directors
and all of our executive officers. As a result, we and our
stockholders may have more limited rights against these persons
than might otherwise exist under common law. In addition, we may
be obligated to fund the defense costs incurred by these persons
in some cases. However, our charter does provide that, prior to
Listing, we may not indemnify our directors for any liability
suffered by them or hold our directors harmless for any
liability suffered by us unless (1) they have determined
that the course of conduct that caused the loss or liability was
in our best interests, (2) they were acting on our behalf
or performing services for us, (3) the liability was not
the result of negligence or misconduct by our non-independent
directors, or gross negligence or willful misconduct by our
independent directors and (4) the indemnification or
agreement to hold harmless is recoverable only out of our net
assets or the proceeds of insurance and not from our
stockholders.
Certain
provisions of Maryland law could restrict a change in control
even if a change in control was in our stockholders
interests.
Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law
applicable to us prohibit business combinations with:
|
|
|
|
|
any person who beneficially owns 10.0% or more of the voting
power of our outstanding voting stock or any affiliate or
associate of ours who, at any time within the two-year period
prior to the date in question beneficially owns 10.0% or more of
the voting power of our then outstanding stock, each of, which
we refer to as an interested stockholder; or
|
|
|
|
an affiliate of an interested stockholder.
|
These prohibitions last for five years after the most recent
date on which the interested stockholder became an interested
stockholder. Thereafter, any business combination with the
interested stockholder must be recommended by our board of
directors and approved by the affirmative vote of at least 80.0%
of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of our outstanding
shares of our voting stock and two-thirds of the votes entitled
to be cast by holders of shares of our voting stock other than
shares held by the interested stockholder or by an affiliate or
associate of the interested stockholder. These requirements
could have the effect of inhibiting a change in control even if
a change in control were in our stockholders interest.
These provisions of Maryland law do not apply, however, to
business combinations that are approved or exempted by our board
of directors prior to the time that someone becomes an
interested stockholder. Our board of directors has adopted a
resolution providing that any business combination between us
and any other person is exempted from this
36
statute, provided that such business combination is first
approved by our board. This resolution, however, may be altered
or repealed in whole or in part at any time.
Our
stockholders approved amendments to our charter which provide
that certain provisions of our charter will not remain in effect
in the event our shares of common stock are listed on a national
securities exchange.
The provisions of the NASAA Guidelines apply to REITs with
shares of common stock that are publicly registered with the SEC
but are not listed on a national securities exchange. In the
event of a Listing, there are certain provisions of our charter
that will no longer be required to be included pursuant to the
NASAA Guidelines. At our annual meeting, our stockholder
approved amendments to our charter which provided that certain
provisions of our charter will not remain in effect in the event
of a Listing, including but not limited to provisions which:
|
|
|
|
|
limit the voting rights per share of stock sold in a private
offering;
|
|
|
|
prohibit distributions in kind, except for distributions of
readily marketable securities, distributions of beneficial
interests in a liquidity trust or distributions in which each
stockholder is advised of the risks of direct ownership of
property and offered the election of receiving such
distributions;
|
|
|
|
place limits on incentive fees;
|
|
|
|
place limits on our organizational and offering expenses;
|
|
|
|
place limits on our total operating expenses;
|
|
|
|
place limits on our acquisition fees and expenses;
|
|
|
|
relate to the requirement that a special meeting of stockholders
be called upon the request of stockholders holding 10% of our
shares entitled to vote;
|
|
|
|
relate to the restrictions on amending our charter in certain
circumstances without prior stockholder approval;
|
|
|
|
relate to inspection of our stockholder list and receipt of
reports;
|
|
|
|
relate to restrictions on exculpation, indemnification and the
advancement of expenses to our directors; and
|
|
|
|
relate to prohibitions on
roll-up
transactions.
|
Our
stockholders investment return may be reduced if we are
required to register as an investment company under the
Investment Company Act.
We are not registered as an investment company under the
Investment Company Act. If for any reason, we were required to
register as an investment company, we would have to comply with
a variety of substantive requirements under the Investment
Company Act imposing, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
limitations on capital structure;
|
|
|
|
restrictions on specified investments;
|
|
|
|
prohibitions on transactions with affiliates; and
|
|
|
|
compliance with reporting, record keeping, voting, proxy
disclosure and other rules and regulations that would
significantly change our operations.
|
We intend to continue to operate in such a manner that we will
not be subject to regulation under the Investment Company Act.
In order to maintain our exemption from regulation under the
Investment Company Act, we must comply with technical and
complex rules and regulations.
37
Specifically, so that we will not be subject to regulation as an
investment company under the Investment Company Act, we intend
to engage primarily in the business of investing in interests in
real estate and to make these investments within one year after
the end of our follow-on offering. If we are unable to invest a
significant portion of the proceeds of our follow-on offering in
properties within one year of the termination of the offering,
we may avoid being required to register as an investment company
under the Investment Company Act by temporarily investing any
unused proceeds in government securities with low returns.
Investments in government securities likely would reduce the
cash available for distribution to stockholders and possibly
lower investor returns.
In order to avoid coming within the application of the
Investment Company Act, either as a company engaged primarily in
investing in interests in real estate or under another exemption
from the Investment Company Act, we may be required to impose
limitations on our investment activities. In particular, we may
limit the percentage of our assets that fall into certain
categories specified in the Investment Company Act, which could
result in us holding assets we otherwise might desire to sell
and selling assets we otherwise might wish to retain. In
addition, we may have to acquire additional assets that we might
not otherwise have acquired or be forced to forgo investment
opportunities that we would otherwise want to acquire and that
could be important to our investment strategy. In particular, we
will monitor our investments in other real estate related assets
to ensure continued compliance with one or more exemptions from
investment company status under the Investment
Company Act and, depending on the particular characteristics of
those investments and our overall portfolio, we may be required
to limit the percentage of our assets represented by real estate
related assets.
If we were required to register as an investment company, our
ability to enter into certain transactions would be restricted
by the Investment Company Act. Furthermore, the costs associated
with registration as an investment company and compliance with
such restrictions could be substantial. In addition,
registration under and compliance with the Investment Company
Act would require a substantial amount of time on the part of
our management, thereby decreasing the time they spend actively
managing our investments. If we were required to register as an
investment company but failed to do so, we would be prohibited
from engaging in our business, and criminal and civil actions
could be brought against us. In addition, our contracts would be
unenforceable unless a court were to require enforcement, and a
court could appoint a receiver to take control of us and
liquidate our business.
Several
potential events could cause our stockholders investment
in us to be diluted, which may reduce the overall value of their
investment.
Our stockholders investment in us could be diluted by a
number of factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
future public offerings of our securities, including issuances
under our DRIP and up to 200,000,000 shares of any
preferred stock that our board of directors may authorize;
|
|
|
|
private issuances of our securities to other investors,
including institutional investors;
|
|
|
|
issuances of our securities under our amended and restated 2006
Incentive Plan; or
|
|
|
|
redemptions of units of limited partnership interest in our
operating partnership in exchange for shares of our common stock.
|
To the extent we issue additional equity interests, our
stockholders percentage ownership interest in us will be
diluted. In addition, depending upon the terms and pricing of
any additional offerings and the value of our real properties
and other real estate related assets, our stockholders may also
experience dilution in the book value and fair market value of
their shares.
Our
stockholders interests may be diluted in various ways,
which may reduce their returns.
Our board of directors is authorized, without stockholder
approval, to cause us to issue additional shares of our common
stock or to raise capital through the issuance of preferred
stock, options, warrants and other rights, on terms and for
consideration as our board of directors in its sole discretion
may determine, subject to certain restrictions in our charter in
the instance of options and warrants. Any such issuance could
result in dilution of the equity of our stockholders. Our board
of directors may, in its sole discretion, authorize us to
38
issue common stock or other equity or debt securities to persons
from whom we purchase properties, as part or all of the purchase
price of the property. Our board of directors, in its sole
discretion, may determine the value of any common stock or other
equity securities issued in consideration of properties or
services provided, or to be provided, to us, except that while
shares of our common stock are offered by us to the public, the
public offering price of the shares of our common stock will be
deemed their value.
Our
stockholders may not receive any profits resulting from the sale
of one of our properties, or receive such profits in a timely
manner, because we may provide financing to the purchaser of
such property.
If we sell one of our properties during liquidation, our
stockholders may experience a delay before receiving their share
of the proceeds of such liquidation. In a forced or voluntary
liquidation, we may sell our properties either subject to or
upon the assumption of any then outstanding mortgage debt or,
alternatively, may provide financing to purchasers. We may take
a purchase money obligation secured by a mortgage as partial
payment. We do not have any limitations or restrictions on our
taking such purchase money obligations. To the extent we receive
promissory notes or other property instead of cash from sales,
such proceeds, other than any interest payable on those
proceeds, will not be included in net sale proceeds until and to
the extent the promissory notes or other property are actually
paid, sold, refinanced or otherwise disposed of. In many cases,
we will receive initial down payments in the year of sale in an
amount less than the selling price and subsequent payments will
be spread over a number of years. Therefore, stockholders may
experience a delay in the distribution of the proceeds of a sale
until such time.
Risks
Related to Investments in Real Estate
Changes
in national, regional or local economic, demographic or real
estate market conditions may adversely affect our results of
operations and our ability to pay distributions to our
stockholders or reduce the value of their
investment.
We are subject to risks generally incident to the ownership of
real property, including changes in national, regional or local
economic, demographic or real estate market conditions. We are
unable to predict future changes in national, regional or local
economic, demographic or real estate market conditions. For
example, a recession or rise in interest rates could make it
more difficult for us to lease real properties or dispose of
them. In addition, rising interest rates could also make
alternative interest-bearing and other investments more
attractive and therefore potentially lower the relative value of
our existing real estate investments. These conditions, or
others we cannot predict, may adversely affect our results of
operations and our ability to pay distributions to our
stockholders or reduce the value of their investment.
Increasing
vacancy rates for commercial real estate resulting from a slow
economic recovery could result in increased vacancies at some or
all of our properties, which may result in reduced revenue and
resale value, a reduction in cash available for distribution and
a diminished return on their investment.
Recent disruptions in the financial markets and the slow
economic recovery have resulted in a trend toward increasing
vacancy rates for virtually all classes of commercial real
estate, including medical office buildings and
healthcare-related facilities, due to generally lower demand for
rentable space, as well as potential oversupply of rentable
space. Uncertain economic conditions and related levels of
unemployment have led to reduced demand for medical services,
causing physician groups and hospitals to delay expansion plans,
leaving a growing number of vacancies in new buildings. Reduced
demand for medical office buildings and healthcare-related
facilities could require us to increase concessions, tenant
improvement expenditures or reduce rental rates to maintain
occupancies beyond those anticipated at the time we acquire the
property. In addition, the market value of a particular property
could be diminished by prolonged vacancies. In addition to
financial market disruptions, some or all of our properties may
incur vacancies either by a default of tenants under their
leases or the expiration or termination of tenant leases. If
vacancies continue for a long period of time, we may suffer
reduced revenues resulting in less cash distributions to our
stockholders. In addition, the resale value of the property
could be diminished because the market value of a particular
property will depend principally upon the value of the leases of
such property.
39
We are
dependent on tenants for our revenue, and lease terminations
could reduce our distributions to our
stockholders.
The successful performance of our real estate investments is
materially dependent on the financial stability of our tenants.
Lease payment defaults by tenants would cause us to lose the
revenue associated with such leases and could cause us to reduce
the amount of distributions to our stockholders. If the property
is subject to a mortgage, a default by a significant tenant on
its lease payments to us may result in a foreclosure on the
property if we are unable to find an alternative source of
revenue to meet mortgage payments. In the event of a tenant
default, we may experience delays in enforcing our rights as
landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our
investment and re-leasing our property. Further, we cannot
assure our stockholders that we will be able to re-lease the
property for the rent previously received, if at all, or that
lease terminations will not cause us to sell the property at a
loss.
We may
incur additional costs in acquiring or re-leasing properties
which could adversely affect the cash available for distribution
to our stockholders.
We may invest in properties designed or built primarily for a
particular tenant of a specific type of use known as a
single-user facility. If the tenant fails to renew its lease or
defaults on its lease obligations, we may not be able to readily
market a single-user facility to a new tenant without making
substantial capital improvements or incurring other significant
re-leasing costs. We also may incur significant litigation costs
in enforcing our rights as a landlord against the defaulting
tenant. These consequences could adversely affect our revenues
and reduce the cash available for distribution to our
stockholders.
Uninsured
losses relating to real estate and lender requirements to obtain
insurance may reduce stockholder returns.
There are types of losses relating to real estate, generally
catastrophic in nature, such as losses due to wars, acts of
terrorism, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, pollution or
environmental matters, for which we do not intend to obtain
insurance unless we are required to do so by mortgage lenders.
If any of our properties incurs a casualty loss that is not
fully covered by insurance, the value of our assets will be
reduced by any such uninsured loss. In addition, other than any
reserves we may establish, we have no source of funding to
repair or reconstruct any uninsured damaged property, and we
cannot assure our stockholders that any such sources of funding
will be available to us for such purposes in the future. Also,
to the extent we must pay unexpectedly large amounts for
uninsured losses, we could suffer reduced earnings that would
result in less cash to be distributed to stockholders. In cases
where we are required by mortgage lenders to obtain casualty
loss insurance for catastrophic events or terrorism, such
insurance may not be available, or may not be available at a
reasonable cost, which could inhibit our ability to finance or
refinance our properties. Additionally, if we obtain such
insurance, the costs associated with owning a property would
increase and could have a material adverse effect on the net
income from the property, and, thus, the cash available for
distribution to our stockholders.
We may
obtain only limited warranties when we purchase a property and
would have only limited recourse in the event our due diligence
did not identify any issues that lower the value of our
property.
The seller of a property often sells such property in its
as is condition on a where is basis and
with all faults, without any warranties of
merchantability or fitness for a particular use or purpose. In
addition, purchase and sale agreements may contain only limited
warranties, representations and indemnifications that will only
survive for a limited period after the closing. The purchase of
properties with limited warranties increases the risk that we
may lose some or all of our invested capital in the property, as
well as the loss of rental income from that property.
40
Terrorist
attacks and other acts of violence or war may affect the markets
in which we operate and have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay
distributions to our stockholders.
Terrorist attacks may negatively affect our operations and our
stockholders investment. We may acquire real estate assets
located in areas that are susceptible to attack. These attacks
may directly impact the value of our assets through damage,
destruction, loss or increased security costs. Although we may
obtain terrorism insurance, we may not be able to obtain
sufficient coverage to fund any losses we may incur. Risks
associated with potential acts of terrorism could sharply
increase the premiums we pay for coverage against property and
casualty claims. Further, certain losses resulting from these
types of events are uninsurable or not insurable at reasonable
costs.
More generally, any terrorist attack, other act of violence or
war, including armed conflicts, could result in increased
volatility in, or damage to, the United States and worldwide
financial markets and economy, all of which could adversely
affect our tenants ability to pay rent on their leases or
our ability to borrow money or issue capital stock at acceptable
prices and have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations and ability to pay
distributions our stockholders.
Delays
in the acquisition, development and construction of real
properties may have adverse effects on our results of operations
and returns to our stockholders.
Delays we encounter in the selection, acquisition and
development of real properties could adversely affect
stockholder returns. Where properties are acquired prior to the
start of constructions or during the early stages of
construction, it will typically take several months to complete
construction and rent available space. Therefore, stockholders
could suffer delays in the receipt of cash distributions
attributable to those particular real properties. Delays in
completion of construction could give tenants the right to
terminate preconstruction leases for space at a newly developed
project. We may incur additional risks when we make periodic
progress payments or other advances to builders prior to
completion of construction. Each of those factors could result
in increased costs of a project or loss of our investment. In
addition, we are subject to normal
lease-up
risks relating to newly constructed projects. Furthermore, the
price we agree to for a real property will be based on our
projections of rental income and expenses and estimates of the
fair market value of real property upon completion of
construction. If our projections are inaccurate, we may pay too
much for a property.
Uncertain
market conditions relating to the future disposition of
properties could cause us to sell our properties at a loss in
the future.
We intend to hold our various real estate investments until such
time as we determine that a sale or other disposition appears to
be advantageous to achieve our investment objectives. Our Chief
Executive Officer and our board of directors may exercise their
discretion as to whether and when to sell a property, and we
will have no obligation to sell properties at any particular
time. We generally intend to hold properties for an extended
period of time, and we cannot predict with any certainty the
various market conditions affecting real estate investments that
will exist at any particular time in the future. Because of the
uncertainty of market conditions that may affect the future
disposition of our properties, we cannot assure our stockholders
that we will be able to sell our properties at a profit in the
future or at all. Additionally, we may incur prepayment
penalties in the event we sell a property subject to a mortgage
earlier than we otherwise had planned. Accordingly, the extent
to which our stockholders will receive cash distributions and
realize potential appreciation on our real estate investments
will, among other things, be dependent upon fluctuating market
conditions. Any inability to sell a property could adversely
impact our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.
41
We
face possible liability for environmental cleanup costs and
damages for contamination related to properties we acquire,
which could substantially increase our costs and reduce our
liquidity and cash distributions to stockholders.
Because we own and operate real estate, we are subject to
various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances
and regulations. Under these laws, ordinances and regulations, a
current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be
liable for the cost of removal or remediation of hazardous or
toxic substances on, under or in such property. The costs of
removal or remediation could be substantial. Such laws often
impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of,
or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic
substances. Environmental laws also may impose restrictions on
the manner in which property may be used or businesses may be
operated, and these restrictions may require substantial
expenditures. Environmental laws provide for sanctions in the
event of noncompliance and may be enforced by governmental
agencies or, in certain circumstances, by private parties.
Certain environmental laws and common law principles could be
used to impose liability for release of and exposure to
hazardous substances, including the release of
asbestos-containing materials into the air, and third parties
may seek recovery from owners or operators of real estate for
personal injury or property damage associated with exposure to
released hazardous substances. In addition, new or more
stringent laws or stricter interpretations of existing laws
could change the cost of compliance or liabilities and
restrictions arising out of such laws. The cost of defending
against these claims, complying with environmental regulatory
requirements, conducting remediation of any contaminated
property, or of paying personal injury claims could be
substantial, which would reduce our liquidity and cash available
for distribution to our stockholders. In addition, the presence
of hazardous substances on a property or the failure to meet
environmental regulatory requirements may materially impair our
ability to use, lease or sell a property, or to use the property
as collateral for borrowing.
Our
property investments are geographically concentrated in certain
states and subject to economic fluctuations in those
states.
As of December 31, 2010, we had interests in 16
consolidated properties located in Texas (including both our
operating properties and those buildings classified as held for
sale), which accounted for 15.3% of our total annualized rental
income, interests in seven consolidated properties in Arizona,
which accounted for 11.7% of our total annualized rental income,
interests in five consolidated properties located in South
Carolina, which accounted for 9.7% of our total annualized
rental income, interests in 10 consolidated properties in
Florida, which accounted for 8.8% of our total annualized rental
income, and interests in seven consolidated properties in
Indiana, which accounted for 8.5% of our total annualized rental
income. This rental income is based on contractual base rent
from leases in effect as of December 31, 2010. Accordingly,
there is a geographic concentration of risk subject to
fluctuations in each of these states economies.
Certain
of our properties may not have efficient alternative uses, so
the loss of a tenant may cause us not to be able to find a
replacement or cause us to spend considerable capital to adapt
the property to an alternative use.
Some of the properties we seek to acquire are specialized
medical facilities. If we or our tenants terminate the leases
for these properties or our tenants lose their regulatory
authority to operate such properties, we may not be able to
locate suitable replacement tenants to lease the properties for
their specialized uses. Alternatively, we may be required to
spend substantial amounts to adapt the properties to other uses.
Any loss of revenues or additional capital expenditures required
as a result may have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition and results of operations and our ability to
make distributions to our stockholders.
Our
medical office buildings, healthcare-related facilities and
tenants may be subject to competition.
Our medical office buildings and healthcare-related facilities
often face competition from nearby hospitals and other medical
office buildings that provide comparable services. Some of those
competing facilities are owned by governmental agencies and
supported by tax revenues, and others are owned by nonprofit
42
corporations and may be supported to a large extent by
endowments and charitable contributions. These types of support
are not available to our buildings.
Similarly, our tenants face competition from other medical
practices in nearby hospitals and other medical facilities. Our
tenants failure to compete successfully with these other
practices could adversely affect their ability to make rental
payments, which could adversely affect our rental revenues.
Further, from time to time and for reasons beyond our control,
referral sources, including physicians and managed care
organizations, may change their lists of hospitals or physicians
to which they refer patients. This could adversely affect our
tenants ability to make rental payments, which could
adversely affect our rental revenues.
Any reduction in rental revenues resulting from the inability of
our medical office buildings and healthcare-related facilities
and our tenants to compete successfully may have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results
of operations and our ability to make distributions to our
stockholders.
Long-term
leases may not result in fair market lease rates over time;
therefore, our income and our distributions could be lower than
if we did not enter into long-term leases.
We may enter into long-term leases with tenants of certain of
our properties. Our long-term leases would likely provide for
rent to increase over time. However, if we do not accurately
judge the potential for increases in market rental rates, we may
set the terms of these long-term leases at levels such that even
after contractual rental increases, the rent under our long-term
leases is less than then-current market rental rates. Further,
we may have no ability to terminate those leases or to adjust
the rent to then-prevailing market rates. As a result, our
income and distributions could be lower than if we did not enter
into long-term leases.
Our
costs associated with complying with the Americans with
Disabilities Act may reduce our cash available for
distributions.
Our properties may be subject to the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990, as amended, or the ADA. Under the ADA, all places
of public accommodation are required to comply with federal
requirements related to access and use by disabled persons. The
ADA has separate compliance requirements for public
accommodations and commercial facilities that
generally require that buildings and services be made accessible
and available to people with disabilities. The ADAs
requirements could require removal of access barriers and could
result in the imposition of injunctive relief, monetary
penalties or, in some cases, an award of damages. We attempt to
acquire properties that comply with the ADA or place the burden
on the seller or other third party, such as a tenant, to ensure
compliance with the ADA. However, we cannot assure our
stockholders that we will be able to acquire properties or
allocate responsibilities in this manner. If we cannot, our
funds used for ADA compliance may reduce cash available for
distributions and the amount of distributions to our
stockholders.
Our
real properties are subject to property taxes that may increase
in the future, which could adversely affect our cash
flow.
Our real properties are subject to real and personal property
taxes that may increase as tax rates change and as the real
properties are assessed or reassessed by taxing authorities.
Some of our leases generally provide that the property taxes or
increases therein are charged to the tenants as an expense
related to the real properties that they occupy while other
leases will generally provide that we are responsible for such
taxes. In any case, as the owner of the properties, we are
ultimately responsible for payment of the taxes to the
applicable government authorities. If real property taxes
increase, our tenants may be unable to make the required tax
payments, ultimately requiring us to pay the taxes even if
otherwise stated under the terms of the lease. If we fail to pay
any such taxes, the applicable taxing authority may place a lien
on the real property and the real property may be subject to a
tax sale. In addition, we are generally responsible for real
property taxes related to any vacant space.
43
Costs
of complying with governmental laws and regulations related to
environmental protection and human health and safety may be
high.
All real property investments and the operations conducted in
connection with such investments are subject to federal, state
and local laws and regulations relating to environmental
protection and human health and safety. Some of these laws and
regulations may impose joint and several liability on customers,
owners or operators for the costs to investigate or remediate
contaminated properties, regardless of fault or whether the acts
causing the contamination were legal.
Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, a
current or previous owner or operator of real property may be
liable for the cost of removing or remediating hazardous or
toxic substances on such real property. Such laws often impose
liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was
responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic
substances. In addition, the presence of hazardous substances,
or the failure to properly remediate those substances, may
adversely affect our ability to sell, rent or pledge such real
property as collateral for future borrowings. Environmental laws
also may impose restrictions on the manner in which real
property may be used or businesses may be operated. Some of
these laws and regulations have been amended so as to require
compliance with new or more stringent standards as of future
dates. Compliance with new or more stringent laws or regulations
or stricter interpretation of existing laws may require us to
incur material expenditures. Future laws, ordinances or
regulations may impose material environmental liability.
Additionally, our tenants operations, the existing
condition of land when we buy it, operations in the vicinity of
our real properties, such as the presence of underground storage
tanks, or activities of unrelated third parties may affect our
real properties. In addition, there are various local, state and
federal fire, health, life-safety and similar regulations with
which we may be required to comply, and which may subject us to
liability in the form of fines or damages for noncompliance. In
connection with the acquisition and ownership of our real
properties, we may be exposed to such costs in connection with
such regulations. The cost of defending against environmental
claims, of any damages or fines we must pay, of compliance with
environmental regulatory requirements or of remediating any
contaminated real property could materially and adversely affect
our business, lower the value of our assets or results of
operations and, consequently, lower the amounts available for
distribution to our stockholders.
Risks
Related to the Healthcare Industry
The
healthcare industry is heavily regulated. New laws or
regulations, including the recently enacted healthcare reform
act, changes to existing laws or regulations, loss of licensure
or failure to obtain licensure could result in the inability of
our tenants to make rent payments to us.
The healthcare industry is heavily regulated by federal, state
and local governmental bodies. Our tenants generally are subject
to laws and regulations covering, among other things, licensure,
certification for participation in government programs, and
relationships with physicians and other referral sources.
Changes in these laws and regulations could negatively affect
the ability of our tenants to make lease payments to us and our
ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Many of our medical properties and their tenants may require a
license or certificate of need, or CON, to operate. Failure to
obtain a license or CON, or loss of a required license or CON
would prevent a facility from operating in the manner intended
by the tenant. These events could materially adversely affect
our tenants ability to make rent payments to us. State and
local laws also may regulate expansion, including the addition
of new beds or services or acquisition of medical equipment, and
the construction of healthcare-related facilities, by requiring
a CON or other similar approval. State CON laws are not uniform
throughout the United States and are subject to change. We
cannot predict the impact of state CON laws on our development
of facilities or the operations of our tenants.
In addition, state CON laws often materially impact the ability
of competitors to enter into the marketplace of our facilities.
The repeal of CON laws could allow competitors to freely operate
in previously closed markets. This could negatively affect our
tenants abilities to make rent payments to us.
44
In limited circumstances, loss of state licensure or
certification or closure of a facility could ultimately result
in loss of authority to operate the facility and require new CON
authorization to re-institute operations. As a result, a portion
of the value of the facility may be reduced, which would
adversely impact our business, financial condition and results
of operations and our ability to make distributions to our
stockholders.
Recently
enacted comprehensive healthcare reform legislation could
materially and adversely affect our business, financial
condition and results of operations and our ability to pay
distributions to stockholders.
On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, or the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and on
March 30, 2010, the President signed into law the Health
Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or the
Reconciliation Act, which in part modified the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act. Together, the two laws serve
as the primary vehicle for comprehensive healthcare reform in
the U.S. and will become effective through a phased
approach, which began in 2010 and will conclude in 2018. The
laws are intended to reduce the number of individuals in the
U.S. without health insurance and significantly change the
means by which healthcare is organized, delivered and
reimbursed. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
includes program integrity provisions that both create new
authorities and expand existing authorities for federal and
state governments to address fraud, waste and abuse in federal
health programs. In addition, the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act expands reporting requirements and
responsibilities related to facility ownership and management,
patient safety and care quality. In the ordinary course of their
businesses, our tenants may be regularly subjected to inquiries,
investigations and audits by Federal and State agencies that
oversee these laws and regulations. If they do not comply with
the additional reporting requirements and responsibilities, our
tenants ability to participate in federal health programs
may be adversely affected. Moreover, there may be other aspects
of the comprehensive healthcare reform legislation for which
regulations have not yet been adopted, which, depending on how
they are implemented, could materially and adversely affect our
tenants, and therefore our business, financial condition,
results of operations and ability to pay distributions to you.
Reductions
in reimbursement from third party payors, including Medicare and
Medicaid, could adversely affect the profitability of our
tenants and hinder their ability to make rent payments to
us.
Sources of revenue for our tenants may include the federal
Medicare program, state Medicaid programs, private insurance
carriers, health maintenance organizations, preferred provider
arrangements, self-insured employers and the patients
themselves, among others. Medicare and Medicaid programs, as
well as numerous private insurance and managed care plans,
generally require participating providers to accept
government-determined reimbursement levels as payment in full
for services rendered, without regard to a facilitys
charges. Changes in the reimbursement rate or methods of payment
from third-party payors, including Medicare and Medicaid, could
result in a substantial reduction in our tenants revenues.
Efforts by such payors to reduce healthcare costs will likely
continue, which may result in reductions or slower growth in
reimbursement for certain services provided by some of our
tenants. Further, 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 or because additional
documentation is necessary or because certain services were not
covered or were not medically necessary. The recently enacted
healthcare reform law and regulatory changes 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 their Medicaid
expenditures and to make changes to private healthcare
insurance. In addition, the failure of any of our tenants to
comply with various laws and regulations could jeopardize their
ability to continue participating in Medicare, Medicaid and
other government sponsored payment programs.
The healthcare industry continues to face various challenges,
including increased government and private payor pressure on
healthcare providers to control or reduce costs. It is possible
that our tenants will continue to experience a shift in payor
mix away from
fee-for-service
payors, resulting in an increase in the percentage of revenues
attributable to managed care payors, and general industry trends
that include pressures to control
45
healthcare costs. Pressures to control healthcare costs and a
shift away from traditional health insurance reimbursement to
managed care plans have resulted in an increase in the number of
patients whose healthcare coverage is provided under managed
care plans, such as health maintenance organizations and
preferred provider organizations. These changes could have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition of some or
all of our tenants. The financial impact on our tenants could
restrict their ability to make rent payments to us, which would
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operations and our ability to make
distributions to our stockholders.
Government
budget deficits could lead to a reduction in Medicaid and
Medicare reimbursement.
The recent slowdown in the U.S. economy has negatively
affected state budgets, which may put pressure on states to
decrease reimbursement rates with the goal of decreasing state
expenditures under state Medicaid programs. The need to control
Medicaid expenditures may be exacerbated by the potential for
increased enrollment in state Medicaid programs due to
unemployment, declines in family incomes and eligibility
expansions required by the recently enacted healthcare reform
law. These potential reductions could be compounded by the
potential for federal cost-cutting efforts that could lead to
reductions in reimbursement rates under both the federal
Medicare program and state Medicaid programs. Potential
reductions in reimbursements under these programs could
negatively impact the ability of our tenants and their ability
to meet their obligations to us.
Some
tenants of our medical office buildings and healthcare-related
facilities are subject to fraud and abuse laws, the violation of
which by a tenant may jeopardize the tenants ability to
make rent payments to us.
There are various federal and state laws prohibiting fraudulent
and abusive business practices by healthcare providers who
participate in, receive payments from or are in a position to
make referrals in connection with government-sponsored
healthcare programs, including the Medicare and Medicaid
programs. Our lease arrangements with certain tenants may also
be subject to these fraud and abuse laws. These laws include,
but are not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other
things, the offer, payment, solicitation or receipt of any form
of remuneration in return for, or to induce, the referral or
recommendation for the ordering of any item or service
reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid;
|
|
|
|
the Federal Physician Self-Referral Prohibition, which, subject
to specific exceptions, restricts physicians from making
referrals for specifically designated health services for which
payment may be made under Medicare or Medicaid programs to an
entity with which the physician, or an immediate family member,
has a financial relationship;
|
|
|
|
the False Claims Act, which prohibits any person from knowingly
presenting or causing to be presented false or fraudulent claims
for payment to the federal government, including claims paid by
the Medicare and Medicaid programs; and
|
|
|
|
the Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which authorizes the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to impose
monetary penalties for certain fraudulent acts.
|
Each of these laws includes criminal
and/or civil
penalties for violations that range from punitive sanctions,
damage assessments, penalties, imprisonment, denial of Medicare
and Medicaid payments
and/or
exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Certain laws,
such as the False Claims Act, allow for individuals to bring
whistleblower actions on behalf of the government for violations
thereof. Additionally, states in which the facilities are
located may have similar fraud and abuse laws. Investigation by
a federal or state governmental body for violation of fraud and
abuse laws or imposition of any of these penalties upon one of
our tenants could jeopardize that tenants ability to
operate or to make rent payments, which may have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results
of operations and our ability to make distributions to our
stockholders.
46
Adverse
trends in healthcare provider operations may negatively affect
our lease revenues and our ability to make distributions to our
stockholders.
The healthcare industry is currently experiencing:
|
|
|
|
|
changes in the demand for and methods of delivering healthcare
services;
|
|
|
|
changes in third party reimbursement policies;
|
|
|
|
significant unused capacity in certain areas, which has created
substantial competition for patients among healthcare providers
in those areas;
|
|
|
|
continued pressure by private and governmental payors to reduce
payments to providers of services; and
|
|
|
|
increased scrutiny of billing, referral and other practices by
federal and state authorities.
|
These factors may adversely affect the economic performance of
some or all of our healthcare-related tenants and, in turn, our
lease revenues and our ability to make distributions to our
stockholders.
Our
healthcare-related tenants may be subject to significant legal
actions that could subject them to increased operating costs and
substantial uninsured liabilities, which may affect their
ability to pay their rent payments to us.
As is typical in the healthcare industry, our healthcare-related
tenants may often become subject to claims that their services
have resulted in patient injury or other adverse effects. Many
of these tenants may have experienced an increasing trend in the
frequency and severity of professional liability and general
liability insurance claims and litigation asserted against them.
The insurance coverage maintained by these tenants may not cover
all claims made against them nor 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
liability and general liability claims
and/or
litigation may not, in certain cases, be available to these
tenants due to state law prohibitions or limitations of
availability. As a result, these types of tenants of our medical
office buildings and healthcare-related facilities 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. There has been, and will continue to be, an increase in
governmental investigations of certain healthcare providers,
particularly in the area of Medicare/Medicaid false claims and
quality of care, as well as an increase in enforcement actions
resulting from these investigations. Insurance is not available
to cover such losses. Any adverse determination in a legal
proceeding or governmental investigation, whether currently
asserted or arising in the future, could lead to potential
termination from government programs, large penalties and fines
and otherwise have a material adverse effect on a tenants
financial condition. If a tenant is unable to obtain or maintain
insurance coverage, if judgments are obtained in excess of the
insurance coverage, if a tenant is required to pay uninsured
punitive damages, or if a tenant is subject to an uninsurable
government enforcement action, the tenant could be exposed to
substantial additional liabilities, which may affect the
tenants ability to pay rent, which in turn could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations and our ability to make distributions to
our stockholders.
We may
experience adverse effects as a result of potential financial
and operational challenges faced by the operators of our senior
healthcare facilities.
Operators of our senior healthcare facilities may face
operational challenges from potentially reduced revenue streams
and increased demands on their existing financial resources. Our
skilled nursing operators revenues are primarily derived
from governmentally-funded reimbursement programs, such as
Medicare and Medicaid. Accordingly, our facility operators are
subject to the potential negative effects of decreased
reimbursement rates offered through such programs. Our
operators revenue may also be adversely affected as a
result of falling occupancy rates or slow
lease-ups
for assisted and independent living facilities due to the recent
turmoil in the capital debt and real estate markets. In
addition, our facility operators may incur additional demands on
their existing financial resources as a result of increases in
senior healthcare operator
47
liability, insurance premiums and other operational expenses.
The economic deterioration of an operator could cause such
operator to file for bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy or
insolvency of an operator may adversely affect the income
produced by the property or properties it operates. Our
financial position could be weakened and our ability to make
distributions could be limited if any of our senior healthcare
facility operators were unable to meet their financial
obligations to us.
Our operators performance and economic condition may be
negatively affected if they fail to comply with various complex
federal and state laws that govern a wide array of referrals,
relationships, reimbursement and licensure requirements in the
senior healthcare industry. The violation of any of these laws
or regulations by a senior healthcare facility operator may
result in the imposition of fines or other penalties that could
jeopardize that operators ability to make payment
obligations to us or to continue operating its facility.
Moreover, advocacy groups that monitor the quality of care at
healthcare facilities have sued healthcare facility operators
and called upon state and federal legislators to enhance their
oversight of trends in healthcare facility ownership and quality
of care. In response, the recently enacted healthcare reform law
imposes additional reporting requirements and responsibilities
for healthcare facility operators. Patients have also sued
healthcare facility operators and have, in certain cases,
succeeded in winning very large damage awards for alleged
abuses. This litigation and potential litigation in the future
has materially increased the costs incurred by our operators for
monitoring and reporting quality of care compliance. In
addition, the cost of medical malpractice and liability
insurance has increased and may continue to increase so long as
the present litigation environment affecting the operations of
healthcare facilities continues. Compliance with the
requirements in the healthcare reform law could increase costs
as well. Increased costs could limit our healthcare
operators ability to meet their obligations to us,
potentially decreasing our revenue and increasing our collection
and litigation costs. To the extent we are required to remove or
replace a healthcare operator, our revenue from the affected
property could be reduced or eliminated for an extended period
of time.
In addition, legislative proposals are commonly being introduced
or proposed in federal and state legislatures that could affect
major changes in the senior healthcare sector, either nationally
or at the state level. It is impossible to say with any
certainty whether this proposed legislation will be adopted or,
if adopted, what effect such legislation would have on our
facility operators and our senior healthcare operations.
The
unique nature of our senior healthcare properties may make it
difficult to lease or transfer such properties and, as a result,
may negatively affect our performance.
Senior healthcare facilities present unique challenges with
respect to leasing and transferring the same. Skilled nursing,
assisted living and independent living facilities are typically
highly customized and may not be easily modified to accommodate
non-healthcare-related uses. The improvements generally required
to conform a property to healthcare use, such as upgrading
electrical, gas and plumbing infrastructure, are costly and
often times operator-specific. A new or replacement tenant may
require different features in a property, depending on that
tenants particular operations. If a current tenant is
unable to pay rent and vacates a property, we may incur
substantial expenditures to modify a property for a new tenant,
or for multiple tenants with varying infrastructure
requirements, before we are able to release the space. As a
result, these property types may not be suitable for lease to
traditional office tenants or other healthcare tenants with
unique needs without significant expenditures or renovations.
These renovation costs may materially adversely affect our
revenues, results of operations and financial condition.
Furthermore, because transfers of healthcare facilities may be
subject to regulatory approvals not required for transfers of
other types of property, there may be significant delays in
transferring operations of senior healthcare facilities to
successor operators. If we are unable to efficiently transfer
our senior healthcare properties our revenues and operations may
suffer.
48
Risks
Related to Investments in Other Real Estate Related
Assets
Real
estate related equity securities in which we may invest are
subject to specific risks relating to the particular issuer of
the securities and may be subject to the general risks of
investing in subordinated real estate securities.
We may invest in the common and preferred stock of both publicly
traded and private real estate companies, which involves a
higher degree of risk than debt securities due to a variety of
factors, including the fact that such investments are
subordinate to creditors and are not secured by the
issuers property. Our investments in real estate related
equity securities will involve special risks relating to the
particular issuer of the equity securities, including the
financial condition and business outlook of the issuer. Issuers
of real estate related common equity securities generally invest
in real estate or other real estate related assets and are
subject to the inherent risks associated with other real estate
related assets discussed in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
including risks relating to rising interest rates.
The
mortgage or other real estate-related loans in which we may
invest may be impacted by unfavorable real estate market
conditions, which could decrease their value.
If we make additional investments in mortgage loans, we will be
at risk of loss on those investments, including losses as a
result of defaults on mortgage loans. These losses may be caused
by many conditions beyond our control, including economic
conditions affecting real estate values, tenant defaults and
lease expirations, interest rate levels and the other economic
and liability risks associated with real estate described above
under the heading Risks Related to Investments
in Real Estate. If we acquire property by foreclosure
following defaults under our mortgage loan investments, we will
have the economic and liability risks as the owner described
above. We do not know whether the values of the property
securing any of our investments in other real estate related
assets will remain at the levels existing on the dates we
initially make the related investment. If the values of the
underlying properties drop, our risk will increase and the
values of our interests may decrease.
Delays
in liquidating defaulted mortgage loan investments could reduce
our investment returns.
If there are defaults under our mortgage loan investments, we
may not be able to foreclose on or obtain a suitable remedy with
respect to such investments. Specifically, we may not be able to
repossess and sell the underlying properties quickly which could
reduce the value of our investment. For example, an action to
foreclose on a property securing a mortgage loan is regulated by
state statutes and rules and is subject to many of the delays
and expenses of lawsuits if the defendant raises defenses or
counterclaims. Additionally, in the event of default by a
mortgagor, these restrictions, among other things, may impede
our ability to foreclose on or sell the mortgaged property or to
obtain proceeds sufficient to repay all amounts due to us on the
mortgage loan.
We
expect a portion of our investments in other real estate related
assets to be illiquid and we may not be able to adjust our
portfolio in response to changes in economic and other
conditions.
We may purchase other real estate related assets in connection
with privately negotiated transactions which are not registered
under the relevant securities laws, resulting in a prohibition
against their transfer, sale, pledge or other disposition except
in a transaction that is exempt from the registration
requirements of, or is otherwise in accordance with, those laws.
As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to
changes in economic and other conditions may be relatively
limited.
Interest
rate and related risks may cause the value of our investments in
other real estate related assets to be reduced.
Interest rate risk is the risk that fixed income securities such
as preferred and debt securities, and to a lesser extent
dividend paying common stocks, will decline in value because of
changes in market interest rates. Generally, when market
interest rates rise, the market value of such securities will
decline, and vice
49
versa. Our investment in such securities means that the net
asset value and market price of the common shares may tend to
decline if market interest rates rise.
During periods of rising interest rates, the average life of
certain types of securities may be extended because of slower
than expected principal payments. This may lock in a
below-market interest rate, increase the securitys
duration and reduce the value of the security. This is known as
extension risk. During periods of declining interest rates, an
issuer may be able to exercise an option to prepay principal
earlier than scheduled, which is generally known as call or
prepayment risk. If this occurs, we may be forced to reinvest in
lower yielding securities. This is known as reinvestment risk.
Preferred and debt securities frequently have call features that
allow the issuer to repurchase the security prior to its stated
maturity. An issuer may redeem an obligation if the issuer can
refinance the debt at a lower cost due to declining interest
rates or an improvement in the credit standing of the issuer.
These risks may reduce the value of our investments in other
real estate related assets.
If we
liquidate prior to the maturity of our investments in real
estate assets, we may be forced to sell those investments on
unfavorable terms or at a loss.
Our board of directors may choose to effect a liquidity event in
which we liquidate our assets, including our investments in
other real estate related assets. If we liquidate those
investments prior to their maturity, we may be forced to sell
those investments on unfavorable terms or at loss. For instance,
if we are required to liquidate mortgage loans at a time when
prevailing interest rates are higher than the interest rates of
such mortgage loans, we would likely sell such loans at a
discount to their stated principal values.
Risks
Related to Debt Financing
We
have and intend to incur mortgage indebtedness and other
borrowings, which may increase our business risks, could hinder
our ability to make distributions and could decrease the value
of our company.
We have and intend to continue to finance a portion of the
purchase price of our investments in real estate and other real
estate related assets by borrowing funds. We anticipate that our
overall leverage when comparing debt to total assets will fall
within approximately 35%-40%. Under our charter, we have a
limitation on borrowing which precludes us from borrowing in
excess of 300.0% of the value of our net assets, without the
approval of a majority of our independent directors. In
addition, any excess borrowing must be disclosed to stockholders
in our next quarterly report following the borrowing, along with
justification for the excess. Net assets for purposes of this
calculation are defined to be our total assets (other than
intangibles), valued at cost prior to deducting depreciation or
other non-cash reserves, less total liabilities. Generally
speaking, the preceding calculation is expected to approximate
75.0% of the sum of: the aggregate cost of our real property
investments before non-cash reserves and depreciation and the
aggregate cost of our investments in other real estate related
assets. In addition, we may incur mortgage debt and pledge some
or all of our real properties as security for that debt to
obtain funds to acquire additional real properties or for
working capital. We may also borrow funds to satisfy the REIT
tax qualification requirement that we distribute at least 90.0%
of our annual ordinary taxable income to our stockholders.
Furthermore, we may borrow if we otherwise deem it necessary or
advisable to ensure that we maintain our qualification as a REIT
for federal income tax purposes.
High debt levels will cause us to incur higher interest charges,
which would result in higher debt service payments and could be
accompanied by restrictive covenants. If there is a shortfall
between the cash flow from a property and the cash flow needed
to service mortgage debt on that property, then the amount
available for distributions to our stockholders may be reduced.
In addition, incurring mortgage debt increases the risk of loss
since defaults on indebtedness secured by a property may result
in lenders initiating foreclosure actions. In that case, we
could lose the property securing the loan that is in default,
thus reducing the value of our company. For tax purposes, a
foreclosure on any of our properties will be treated as a sale
of the property for a purchase price equal to the outstanding
balance of the debt secured by the mortgage. If the outstanding
balance of the debt secured by the mortgage exceeds our tax
basis in the property, we will recognize taxable
50
income on foreclosure, but we would not receive any cash
proceeds. We may give full or partial guarantees to lenders of
mortgage debt to the entities that own our properties. When we
give a guaranty on behalf of an entity that owns one of our
properties, we will be responsible to the lender for
satisfaction of the debt if it is not paid by such entity. If
any mortgage contains cross collateralization or cross default
provisions, a default on a single property could affect multiple
properties. If any of our properties are foreclosed upon due to
a default, our ability to pay cash distributions to our
stockholders will be adversely affected.
Higher
mortgage rates may make it more difficult for us to finance or
refinance properties, which could reduce the number of
properties we can acquire and the amount of cash distributions
we can make to our stockholders.
If mortgage debt is unavailable on reasonable terms as a result
of increased interest rates or other factors, we may not be able
to utilize financing in our initial purchase of properties. In
addition, if we place mortgage debt on properties, we run the
risk of being unable to refinance such debt when the loans come
due, or of being unable to refinance on favorable terms. If
interest rates are higher when we refinance debt, our income
could be reduced. We may be unable to refinance debt at
appropriate times, which may require us to sell properties on
terms that are not advantageous to us, or could result in the
foreclosure of such properties. If any of these events occur,
our cash flow would be reduced. This, in turn, would reduce cash
available for distribution to our stockholders and may hinder
our ability to raise more capital by issuing securities or by
borrowing more money.
Increases
in interest rates could increase the amount of our debt payments
and therefore negatively impact our operating
results.
Interest we pay on our debt obligations reduces cash available
for distributions. Whenever we incur variable rate debt,
increases in interest rates would increase our interest costs,
which would reduce our cash flows and our ability to make
distributions to our stockholders. If we need to repay existing
debt during periods of rising interest rates, we could be
required to liquidate one or more of our investments in
properties at times which may not permit realization of the
maximum return on such investments.
Lenders
may require us to enter into restrictive covenants relating to
our operations, which could limit our ability to make
distributions to our stockholders.
When providing financing, a lender may impose restrictions on us
that affect our ability to incur additional debt and affect our
distribution and operating policies. Loan documents we enter
into may contain covenants that limit our ability to further
mortgage the property or discontinue insurance coverage. These
or other limitations may adversely affect our flexibility and
our ability to achieve our investment objectives.
Hedging
activity may expose us to risks.
To the extent that we use derivative financial instruments to
hedge against interest rate fluctuations, we will be exposed to
credit risk and legal enforceability risks. In this context,
credit risk is the failure of the counterparty to perform under
the terms of the derivative contract. If the fair value of a
derivative contract is positive, the counterparty owes us, which
creates credit risk for us. Legal enforceability risks encompass
general contractual risks, including the risk that the
counterparty will breach the terms of, or fail to perform its
obligations under, the derivative contract. If we are unable to
manage these risks effectively, our results of operations,
financial condition and ability to pay distributions to our
stockholders will be adversely affected.
If we
enter into financing arrangements involving balloon payment
obligations, it may adversely affect our ability to refinance or
sell properties on favorable terms, and to make distributions to
stockholders.
Some of our financing arrangements may require us to make a
lump-sum or balloon payment at maturity. Our ability
to make a balloon payment at maturity is uncertain and may
depend upon our ability to obtain additional financing or our
ability to sell the particular property. At the time the balloon
payment is due, we may or may not be able to refinance the
balloon payment on terms as favorable as the original loan or
51
sell the particular property at a price sufficient to make the
balloon payment. The refinancing or sale could affect the rate
of return to stockholders and the projected time of disposition
of our assets. In an environment of increasing mortgage rates,
if we place mortgage debt on properties, we run the risk of
being unable to refinance such debt if mortgage rates are higher
at a time a balloon payment is due. In addition, payments of
principal and interest made to service our debts, including
balloon payments, may leave us with insufficient cash to pay the
distributions that we are required to pay to maintain our
qualification as a REIT. Any of these results would have a
significant, negative impact on our stockholders
investment.
Risks
Related to Joint Ventures
The
terms of joint venture agreements or other joint ownership
arrangements into which we have entered and may enter could
impair our operating flexibility and our results of
operations.
In connection with the purchase of real estate, we have entered
and may continue to enter into joint ventures with third
parties. We may also purchase or develop properties in
co-ownership arrangements with the sellers of the properties,
developers or other persons. These structures involve
participation in the investment by other parties whose interests
and rights may not be the same as ours. Our joint venture
partners may have rights to take some actions over which we have
no control and may take actions contrary to our interests. Joint
ownership of an investment in real estate may involve risks not
associated with direct ownership of real estate, including the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
a venture partner may at any time have economic or other
business interests or goals which become inconsistent with our
business interests or goals, including inconsistent goals
relating to the sale of properties held in a joint venture or
the timing of the termination and liquidation of the venture;
|
|
|
|
a venture partner might become bankrupt and such proceedings
could have an adverse impact on the operation of the partnership
or joint venture;
|
|
|
|
actions taken by a venture partner might have the result of
subjecting the property to liabilities in excess of those
contemplated; and
|
|
|
|
a venture partner may be in a position to take action contrary
to our instructions or requests or contrary to our policies or
objectives, including our policy with respect to qualifying and
maintaining our qualification as a REIT.
|
Under certain joint venture arrangements, neither venture
partner may have the power to control the venture, and an
impasse could occur, which might adversely affect the joint
venture and decrease potential returns to our stockholders. If
we have a right of first refusal or buy/sell right to buy out a
venture partner, we may be unable to finance such a buy-out or
we may be forced to exercise those rights at a time when it
would not otherwise be in our best interest to do so. If our
interest is subject to a buy/sell right, we may not have
sufficient cash, available borrowing capacity or other capital
resources to allow us to purchase an interest of a venture
partner subject to the buy/sell right, in which case we may be
forced to sell our interest when we would otherwise prefer to
retain our interest. In addition, we may not be able to sell our
interest in a joint venture on a timely basis or on acceptable
terms if we desire to exit the venture for any reason,
particularly if our interest is subject to a right of first
refusal of our venture partner.
We may
structure our joint venture relationships in a manner which may
limit the amount we participate in the cash flow or appreciation
of an investment.
We may enter into joint venture agreements, the economic terms
of which may provide for the distribution of income to us
otherwise than in direct proportion to our ownership interest in
the joint venture. For example, while we and a co-venturer may
invest an equal amount of capital in an investment, the
investment may be structured such that we have a right to
priority distributions of cash flow up to a certain target
return while the co-venturer may receive a disproportionately
greater share of cash flow than we are to receive once such
target return has been achieved. This type of investment
structure may result in the coventurer receiving more of the
cash flow, including appreciation, of an investment than we
would receive. If we do not accurately judge the appreciation
prospects of a particular investment or structure the venture
appropriately, we may incur losses on
52
joint venture investments or have limited participation in the
profits of a joint venture investment, either of which could
reduce our ability to make cash distributions to our
stockholders.
Federal
Income Tax Risks
Failure
to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes would
subject us to federal income tax on our taxable income at
regular corporate rates, which would substantially reduce our
ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
We elected to be taxed as a REIT for federal income tax purposes
beginning with our taxable year ended December 31, 2007 and
we intend to continue to be taxed as a REIT. To qualify as a
REIT, we must meet various requirements set forth in the
Internal Revenue Code concerning, among other things, the
ownership of our outstanding common stock, the nature of our
assets, the sources of our income and the amount of our
distributions to our stockholders. The REIT qualification
requirements are extremely complex, and interpretations of the
federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT are
limited. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that we will be
successful in operating so as to qualify as a REIT. At any time,
new laws, interpretations or court decisions may change the
federal tax laws relating to, or the federal income tax
consequences of, qualification as a REIT. It is possible that
future economic, market, legal, tax or other considerations may
cause our board of directors to revoke our REIT election, which
it may do without stockholder approval.
If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT for any taxable year, we
would be subject to federal income tax on our taxable income at
corporate rates. In addition, we would generally be disqualified
from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following
the year in which we lose our REIT status. Losing our REIT
status would reduce our net earnings available for investment or
distribution to stockholders because of the additional tax
liability. In addition, distributions to stockholders would no
longer be deductible in computing our taxable income, and we
would no longer be required to make distributions. To the extent
that distributions had been made in anticipation of our
qualifying as a REIT, we might be required to borrow funds or
liquidate some investments in order to pay the applicable
corporate income tax. In addition, although we intend to operate
in a manner intended to qualify as a REIT, it is possible that
future economic, market, legal, tax or other considerations may
cause our board of directors to recommend that we revoke our
REIT election.
As a result of all these factors, our failure to qualify as a
REIT could impair our ability to expand our business and raise
capital, and would substantially reduce our ability to make
distributions to our stockholders.
To
continue to qualify as a REIT and to avoid the payment of
federal income and excise taxes and maintain our REIT status, we
may be forced to borrow funds, use proceeds from the issuance of
securities, or sell assets to pay distributions, which may
result in our distributing amounts that may otherwise be used
for our operations.
To obtain the favorable tax treatment accorded to REITs, we
normally will be required each year to distribute to our
stockholders at least 90.0% of our taxable income, determined
without regard to the deduction for distributions paid and by
excluding net capital gains. We will be subject to federal
income tax on our undistributed taxable income and net capital
gain and to a 4.0% nondeductible excise tax on any amount by
which distributions we pay with respect to any calendar year are
less than the sum of: (1) 85.0% of our ordinary income,
(2) 95.0% of our capital gain net income and (3) 100%
of our undistributed income from prior years. These requirements
could cause us to distribute amounts that otherwise would be
spent on acquisitions of properties and it is possible that we
might be required to borrow funds, use proceeds from the
issuance of securities or sell assets in order to distribute
enough of our taxable income to maintain our REIT status and to
avoid the payment of federal income and excise taxes.
We
intend to request a closing agreement with the IRS granting us
relief for any preferential dividends we may have
paid.
Preferential dividends cannot be used to satisfy the REIT
distribution requirements. In 2007, 2008 and through July 2009,
shares of common stock issued pursuant to our DRIP were treated
as issued as of the first day following the close of the month
for which the distributions were declared, and not on the date
that the
53
cash distributions were paid to stockholders not participating
in our DRIP. Because we declare distributions on a daily basis,
including with respect to shares of common stock issued pursuant
to our DRIP, the IRS could take the position that distributions
paid by us during these periods were preferential. In addition,
during the six months beginning September 2009 through February
2010, we paid certain IRA custodial fees with respect to IRA
accounts that invested in our shares. The payment of such
amounts could also be treated as dividend distributions to the
IRAs, and therefore could result in our being treated as having
made additional preferential dividends to our stockholders.
Accordingly, we intend to submit a request to the IRS seeking a
closing agreement under which the IRS would grant us relief for
preferential dividends that may have been paid. We cannot assure
you that the IRS will accept our proposal for a closing
agreement. Even if the IRS accepts our proposal, we may be
required to pay a penalty if the IRS were to view the prior
operation of our DRIP or the payment of such fees as
preferential dividends. We cannot predict whether such a penalty
would be imposed or, if so, the amount of the penalty.
If the IRS does not agree to our proposal for a closing
agreement and treats the foregoing amounts as preferential
dividends, we would likely rely on the deficiency dividend
provisions of the Code to address our continued qualification as
a REIT and to satisfy our distribution requirements.
Investors
may have a current tax liability on distributions they elect to
reinvest in shares of our common stock.
If our stockholders participate in our DRIP, they will be deemed
to have received, and for income tax purposes will be taxed on,
the value of the shares received to the extent the amount
reinvested was not a tax-free return of capital. As a result,
except in the case of tax-exempt entities, our stockholders may
have to use funds from other sources to pay their tax liability
on the value of the common stock received.
Dividends
paid by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates that
apply to other corporate dividends.
The maximum tax rate for qualified dividends paid by
corporations to individuals is 15% through 2012, as extended in
recent tax legislation. Dividends paid by REITs, however,
generally continue to be taxed at the normal ordinary income
rate applicable to the individual recipient (subject to a
maximum rate of 35% through 2012), rather than the 15%
preferential rate. The more favorable rates applicable to
regular corporate dividends could cause potential investors who
are individuals to perceive investments in REITs to be
relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of
non-REIT corporations that pay qualified dividends, which could
adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs, including our
common stock.
In
certain circumstances, we may be subject to federal and state
income taxes as a REIT, which would reduce our cash available
for distribution to our stockholders.
Even if we qualify and maintain our status as a REIT, we may be
subject to federal income taxes or state taxes. For example, net
income from a prohibited transaction will be subject
to a 100% tax. We may not be able to make sufficient
distributions to avoid excise taxes applicable to REITs. We may
also decide to retain capital gains we earn from the sale or
other disposition of our property and pay income tax directly on
such income. In that event, our stockholders would be treated as
if they earned that income and paid the tax on it directly. We
may also be subject to state and local taxes on our income or
property, either directly or at the level of the companies
through which we indirectly own our assets. Any federal or state
taxes we pay will reduce our cash available for distribution to
our stockholders.
54
Distributions
to certain tax-exempt stockholders may be classified as
unrelated business taxable income.
Neither ordinary nor capital gain distributions with respect to
our common stock nor gain from the sale of common stock should
generally constitute unrelated business taxable income to a
tax-exempt stockholder. However, there are certain exceptions to
this rule. In particular:
|
|
|
|
|
part of the income and gain recognized by certain qualified
employee pension trusts with respect to our common stock may be
treated as unrelated business taxable income if shares of our
common stock are predominately held by qualified employee
pension trusts, and we are required to rely on a special
look-through rule for purposes of meeting one of the REIT share
ownership tests, and we are not operated in a manner to avoid
treatment of such income or gain as unrelated business taxable
income;
|
|
|
|
part of the income and gain recognized by a tax exempt
stockholder with respect to our common stock would constitute
unrelated business taxable income if the stockholder incurs debt
in order to acquire the common stock; and
|
|
|
|
part or all of the income or gain recognized with respect to our
common stock by social clubs, voluntary employee benefit
associations, supplemental unemployment benefit trusts and
qualified group legal services plans which are exempt from
federal income taxation under Sections 501(c)(7), (9),
(17) or (20) of the Internal Revenue Code may be
treated as unrelated business taxable income.
|
Complying
with the REIT requirements may cause us to forego otherwise
attractive opportunities.
To continue to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax
purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among
other things, the sources of our income, the nature and
diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our
stockholders and the ownership of shares of our common stock. We
may be required to make distributions to our stockholders at
disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily
available for distribution, or we may be required to liquidate
otherwise attractive investments in order to comply with the
REIT tests. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may
hinder our ability to operate solely on the basis of maximizing
profits.
Changes
to federal income tax laws or regulations could adversely affect
stockholders.
In recent years, numerous legislative, judicial and
administrative changes have been made to the federal income tax
laws applicable to investments in REITs and similar entities.
Additional changes to tax laws are likely to continue to occur
in the future, and we cannot assure our stockholders that any
such changes will not adversely affect the taxation of a
stockholder. Any such changes could have an adverse effect on an
investment in shares of our common stock. We urge prospective
investors to consult with their own tax advisor with respect to
the status of legislative, regulatory or administrative
developments and proposals and their potential effect on an
investment in shares of our common stock.
Foreign
purchasers of shares of our common stock may be subject to
FIRPTA tax upon the sale of their shares of our common
stock.
A foreign person disposing of a U.S. real property
interest, including shares of stock of a U.S. corporation
whose assets consist principally of U.S. real property
interests, is generally subject to the Foreign Investment in
Real Property Tax Act of 1980, as amended, or FIRPTA, on the
gain recognized on the disposition. Such FIRPTA tax does not
apply, however, to the disposition of stock in a REIT if the
REIT is domestically controlled. A REIT is
domestically controlled if less than 50.0% of the
REITs stock, by value, has been owned directly or
indirectly by persons who are not qualifying U.S. persons
during a continuous five-year period ending on the date of
disposition or, if shorter, during the entire period of the
REITs existence. We cannot assure our stockholders that we
will continue to qualify as a domestically
controlled REIT.
55
Foreign
stockholders may be subject to FIRPTA tax upon the payment of a
capital gains dividend.
A foreign stockholder also may be subject to FIRPTA upon the
payment of any dividend is attributable to gain from sales or
exchanges of U.S. real property interests.
Employee
Benefit Plan and IRA Risks
We, and our stockholders that are employee benefit plans or
individual retirement accounts, or IRAs, will be subject to
risks relating specifically to our having employee benefit plans
and IRAs as stockholders, which risks are discussed below.
If
investors fail to meet the fiduciary and other standards under
ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code as a result of an investment
in our common stock, they could be subject to criminal and civil
penalties.
There are special considerations that apply to pension,
profit-sharing trusts or IRAs investing in our common stock. If
investors are investing the assets of a pension, profit sharing
or 401(k) plan, health or welfare plan, or an IRA in us, they
should consider:
|
|
|
|
|
whether the investment is consistent with the applicable
provisions of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, or any other
applicable governing authority in the case of a government plan;
|
|
|
|
whether the investment is made in accordance with the documents
and instruments governing their plan or IRA, including their
plans investment policy;
|
|
|
|
whether the investment satisfies the prudence and
diversification requirements of Sections 404(a)(1)(B) and
404(a)(1)(C) of ERISA;
|
|
|
|
whether the investment will impair the liquidity of the plan or
IRA;
|
|
|
|
whether the investment will produce unrelated business taxable
income, referred to as UBTI and as defined in Sections 511
through 514 of the Internal Revenue Code, to the plan or
IRA; and
|
|
|
|
their need to value the assets of the plan annually in
accordance with ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code.
|
In addition to considering their fiduciary responsibilities
under ERISA and the prohibited transaction rules of ERISA and
the Internal Revenue Code, trustees or others purchasing shares
should consider the effect of the plan asset regulations of the
U.S. Department of Labor. To avoid our assets from being
considered plan assets under those regulations, our charter
prohibits benefit plan investors from owning 25.0%
or more of our common stock prior to the time that the common
stock qualifies as a class of publicly-offered securities,
within the meaning of the ERISA plan asset regulations. However,
we cannot assure our stockholders that those provisions in our
charter will be effective in limiting benefit plan investor
ownership to less than the 25.0% limit. For example, the limit
could be unintentionally exceeded if a benefit plan investor
misrepresents its status as a benefit plan. Even if our assets
are not considered to be plan assets, a prohibited transaction
could occur if we or any of our affiliates is a fiduciary
(within the meaning of ERISA) with respect to an employee
benefit plan or IRA purchasing shares, and, therefore, in the
event any such persons are fiduciaries (within the meaning of
ERISA) of a plan or IRA, investors should not purchase shares
unless an administrative or statutory exemption applies to the
purchase.
Governmental plans, church plans, and foreign plans generally
are not subject to ERISA or the prohibited transaction rules of
the Internal Revenue Code, but may be subject to similar
restrictions under other laws. A plan fiduciary making an
investment in our shares on behalf of such a plan should
consider whether the investment is in accordance with applicable
law and governing plan documents.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments.
|
Not applicable.
56
As of December 31, 2010, we leased our principal executive
offices located at The Promenade, 16435 North Scottsdale
Road, Suite 320, Scottsdale, AZ 85254.
As of December 31, 2010, including both our operating
properties and the four buildings within one of our portfolios
classified as held for sale (see Note 3, Real Estate
Investments, Net, Assets Held for Sale, and Discontinued
Operations) we had made 77 geographically diverse portfolio
acquisitions, 63 of which are medical office properties, 12 of
which are healthcare-related facilities (including four quality
healthcare-related office properties), and two of which are
other real estate-related assets, comprising 238 buildings with
approximately 10,919,000 square feet of GLA, for an
aggregate purchase price of $2,266,359,000, in 24 states.
Each of our properties is 100% owned by our operating
partnership, except for the 7900 Fannin medical office building
in which we own an approximate 84% interest through our
operating partnership.
The following table presents certain additional information
about our property portfolios as of December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base Rent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GLA
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Purchase
|
|
|
Base
|
|
|
Physical
|
|
|
Per Leased
|
|
Property
|
|
State
|
|
Property Type(1)
|
|
|
(Sq Ft)
|
|
|
Acquired
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Rent(2)
|
|
|
Occupancy(3)
|
|
|
Sq Ft(4)
|
|
|
Southpointe Office Parke and Epler Parke I
|
|
IN
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
97,000
|
|
|
|
1/22/2007
|
|
|
$
|
14,800,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,092,000
|
|
|
|
71.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
11.26
|
|
Crawfordsville Medical Office Park and Athens Surgery Center
|
|
IN
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
29,000
|
|
|
|
1/22/2007
|
|
|
|
6,900,000
|
|
|
|
593,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
20.45
|
|
The Gallery Professional Building
|
|
MN
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
105,000
|
|
|
|
3/9/2007
|
|
|
|
8,800,000
|
|
|
|
1,180,000
|
|
|
|
66.1
|
%
|
|
$
|
11.24
|
|
Lenox Office Park, Building G
|
|
TN
|
|
|
OFF
|
|
|
|
98,000
|
|
|
|
3/23/2007
|
|
|
|
18,500,000
|
|
|
|
2,216,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
22.61
|
|
Commons V Medical Office Building
|
|
FL
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
55,000
|
|
|
|
4/24/2007
|
|
|
|
14,100,000
|
|
|
|
1,190,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
21.64
|
|
Yorktown Medical Center and Shakerag Medical Center
|
|
GA
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
111,000
|
|
|
|
5/2/2007
|
|
|
|
21,500,000
|
|
|
|
1,796,000
|
|
|
|
68.8
|
%
|
|
$
|
16.18
|
|
Thunderbird Medical Plaza
|
|
AZ
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
109,000
|
|
|
|
5/15/2007
|
|
|
|
25,000,000
|
|
|
|
1,915,000
|
|
|
|
73.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
17.57
|
|
Triumph Hospital Northwest and Triumph Hospital Southwest
|
|
TX
|
|
|
HOSP
|
|
|
|
151,000
|
|
|
|
6/8/2007
|
|
|
|
36,500,000
|
|
|
|
2,990,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
19.80
|
|
Gwinnett Professional Center
|
|
GA
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
7/27/2007
|
|
|
|
9,300,000
|
|
|
|
733,000
|
|
|
|
52.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
12.22
|
|
1 & 4 Market Exchange
|
|
OH
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
116,000
|
|
|
|
8/15/2007
|
|
|
|
21,900,000
|
|
|
|
1,286,000
|
|
|
|
76.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
11.09
|
|
Kokomo Medical Office Park
|
|
IN
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
87,000
|
|
|
|
8/30/2007
|
|
|
|
13,350,000
|
|
|
|
1,370,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
15.75
|
|
St. Mary Physicians Center
|
|
CA
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
67,000
|
|
|
|
9/5/2007
|
|
|
|
13,800,000
|
|
|
|
1,466,000
|
|
|
|
68.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
21.88
|
|
2750 Monroe Boulevard
|
|
PA
|
|
|
OFF
|
|
|
|
109,000
|
|
|
|
9/10/2007
|
|
|
|
26,700,000
|
|
|
|
2,852,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
26.17
|
|
East Florida Senior Care Portfolio
|
|
FL
|
|
|
SEN
|
|
|
|
355,000
|
|
|
|
9/28/2007
|
|
|
|
52,000,000
|
|
|
|
4,411,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
12.42
|
|
Northmeadow Medical Center
|
|
GA
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
52,000
|
|
|
|
11/15/2007
|
|
|
|
11,850,000
|
|
|
|
1,276,000
|
|
|
|
97.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
24.54
|
|
Tucson Medical Office Portfolio
|
|
AZ
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
110,000
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007
|
|
|
|
21,050,000
|
|
|
|
1,530,000
|
|
|
|
58.8
|
%
|
|
$
|
13.91
|
|
Lima Medical Office Portfolio
|
|
OH
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
203,000
|
|
|
|
12/7/2007
|
|
|
|
26,060,000
|
|
|
|
2,212,000
|
|
|
|
79.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
10.90
|
|
Highlands Ranch Medical Plaza
|
|
CO
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
79,000
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007
|
|
|
|
14,500,000
|
|
|
|
1,590,000
|
|
|
|
81.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
20.13
|
|
Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center
|
|
SC
|
|
|
HOSP
|
|
|
|
112,000
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007
|
|
|
|
40,340,000
|
|
|
|
3,144,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
28.07
|
|
Park Place Office Park
|
|
OH
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
132,000
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007
|
|
|
|
16,200,000
|
|
|
|
1,544,000
|
|
|
|
67.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
11.70
|
|
Medical Portfolio 1
|
|
KS, FL
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
163,000
|
|
|
|
2/1/2008
|
|
|
|
36,950,000
|
|
|
|
3,499,000
|
|
|
|
94.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
21.47
|
|
Fort Road Medical Building
|
|
MN
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
3/6/2008
|
|
|
|
8,650,000
|
|
|
|
649,000
|
|
|
|
78.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
12.98
|
|
Liberty Falls Medical Plaza
|
|
OH
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
44,000
|
|
|
|
3/19/2008
|
|
|
|
8,150,000
|
|
|
|
650,000
|
|
|
|
91.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
14.77
|
|
Epler Parke Building B
|
|
IN
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
34,000
|
|
|
|
3/24/2008
|
|
|
|
5,850,000
|
|
|
|
477,000
|
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
14.03
|
|
Cypress Station Medical Office Building
|
|
TX
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
52,000
|
|
|
|
3/25/2008
|
|
|
|
11,200,000
|
|
|
|
935,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
17.98
|
|
Vista Professional Center
|
|
FL
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
32,000
|
|
|
|
3/27/2008
|
|
|
|
5,250,000
|
|
|
|
378,000
|
|
|
|
76.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
11.81
|
|
Senior Care Portfolio 1(5)
|
|
CA, TX
|
|
|
SEN
|
|
|
|
226,000
|
|
|
|
Various
|
|
|
|
39,600,000
|
|
|
|
3,636,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
16.08
|
|
Amarillo Hospital
|
|
TX
|
|
|
HOSP
|
|
|
|
65,000
|
|
|
|
5/15/2008
|
|
|
|
20,000,000
|
|
|
|
1,666,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
25.63
|
|
5995 Plaza Drive
|
|
CA
|
|
|
OFF
|
|
|
|
104,000
|
|
|
|
5/29/2008
|
|
|
|
25,700,000
|
|
|
|
2,079,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
19.99
|
|
Nutfield Professional Center
|
|
NH
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
70,000
|
|
|
|
6/3/2008
|
|
|
|
14,200,000
|
|
|
|
1,186,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
16.94
|
|
SouthCrest Medical Plaza
|
|
GA
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
81,000
|
|
|
|
6/24/2008
|
|
|
|
21,176,000
|
|
|
|
1,361,000
|
|
|
|
70.1
|
%
|
|
$
|
16.80
|
|
Medical Portfolio 3
|
|
IN
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
683,000
|
|
|
|
6/26/2008
|
|
|
|
90,100,000
|
|
|
|
9,211,000
|
|
|
|
75.1
|
%
|
|
$
|
13.49
|
|
Academy Medical Center
|
|
AZ
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
41,000
|
|
|
|
6/26/2008
|
|
|
|
8,100,000
|
|
|
|
735,000
|
|
|
|
84.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
17.93
|
|
Decatur Medical Plaza
|
|
GA
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
43,000
|
|
|
|
6/27/2008
|
|
|
|
12,000,000
|
|
|
|
1,077,000
|
|
|
|
99.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
25.05
|
|
Medical Portfolio 2
|
|
MO, TX
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
173,000
|
|
|
|
Various
|
|
|
|
44,800,000
|
|
|
|
3,796,000
|
|
|
|
96.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
21.94
|
|
Renaissance Medical Center
|
|
UT
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
112,000
|
|
|
|
6/30/2008
|
|
|
|
30,200,000
|
|
|
|
2,023,000
|
|
|
|
74.1
|
%
|
|
$
|
18.06
|
|
Oklahoma City Medical Portfolio
|
|
OK
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
186,000
|
|
|
|
9/16/2008
|
|
|
|
29,250,000
|
|
|
|
3,596,000
|
|
|
|
92.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
19.33
|
|
Medical Portfolio 4
|
|
OH, TX
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
227,000
|
|
|
|
Various
|
|
|
|
48,000,000
|
|
|
|
4,243,000
|
|
|
|
80.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
18.69
|
|
Mountain Empire Portfolio
|
|
TN, VA
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
287,000
|
|
|
|
9/12/2008
|
|
|
|
27,775,000
|
|
|
|
4,049,000
|
|
|
|
90.7
|
%
|
|
$
|
14.11
|
|
Mountain Plains Portfolio
|
|
TX
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
170,000
|
|
|
|
12/18/2008
|
|
|
|
43,000,000
|
|
|
|
3,885,000
|
|
|
|
98.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
22.85
|
|
Marietta Health Park
|
|
GA
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
81,000
|
|
|
|
12/22/2008
|
|
|
|
15,300,000
|
|
|
|
1,080,000
|
|
|
|
88.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
13.33
|
|
Wisconsin Medical Portfolio 1
|
|
WI
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
185,000
|
|
|
|
2/27/2009
|
|
|
|
33,719,000
|
|
|
|
2,871,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
15.52
|
|
Wisconsin Medical Portfolio 2
|
|
WI
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
130,000
|
|
|
|
5/28/2009
|
|
|
|
40,700,000
|
|
|
|
3,435,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
26.42
|
|
Greenville Hospital Portfolio
|
|
SC
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
857,000
|
|
|
|
9/18/2009
|
|
|
|
162,820,000
|
|
|
|
14,705,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
17.16
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base Rent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GLA
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Purchase
|
|
|
Base
|
|
|
Physical
|
|
|
Per Leased
|
|
Property
|
|
State
|
|
Property Type(1)
|
|
|
(Sq Ft)
|
|
|
Acquired
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Rent(2)
|
|
|
Occupancy(3)
|
|
|
Sq Ft(4)
|
|
|
Mary Black Medical Office Building
|
|
SC
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
109,000
|
|
|
|
12/11/2009
|
|
|
|
16,250,000
|
|
|
|
1,596,000
|
|
|
|
72.7
|
%
|
|
$
|
14.64
|
|
Hampden Place Medical Office Building
|
|
CO
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
66,000
|
|
|
|
12/21/2009
|
|
|
|
18,600,000
|
|
|
|
1,643,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
24.89
|
|
Dallas LTAC Hospital
|
|
TX
|
|
|
HOSP
|
|
|
|
52,000
|
|
|
|
12/23/2009
|
|
|
|
27,350,000
|
|
|
|
2,743,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
52.75
|
|
Smyth Professional Building
|
|
MD
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
62,000
|
|
|
|
12/30/2009
|
|
|
|
11,250,000
|
|
|
|
1,054,000
|
|
|
|
97.8
|
%
|
|
$
|
17.00
|
|
Atlee Medical Portfolio
|
|
IN, TX
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
93,000
|
|
|
|
12/30/2009
|
|
|
|
20,501,000
|
|
|
|
1,811,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
19.47
|
|
Denton Medical Rehabilitation Hospital
|
|
TX
|
|
|
HOSP
|
|
|
|
44,000
|
|
|
|
12/30/2009
|
|
|
|
15,485,000
|
|
|
|
1,364,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
31.00
|
|
Banner Sun City Medical Portfolio
|
|
AZ
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
643,000
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009
|
|
|
|
107,000,000
|
|
|
|
12,040,000
|
|
|
|
88.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
18.72
|
|
Camp Creek
|
|
GA
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
80,000
|
|
|
|
3/9/2010
|
|
|
|
19,550,000
|
|
|
|
1,811,000
|
|
|
|
97.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
22.64
|
|
King Street
|
|
GA
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
53,000
|
|
|
|
3/2/2010
|
|
|
|
10,775,000
|
|
|
|
1,293,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
24.40
|
|
Deaconess Evansville Clinic Portfolio
|
|
IN
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
262,000
|
|
|
|
3/23/2010
|
|
|
|
45,257,000
|
|
|
|
3,772,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
14.40
|
|
Sugar Land II Medical Office Building
|
|
TX
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
3/23/2010
|
|
|
|
12,400,000
|
|
|
|
1,689,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
28.15
|
|
East Cooper Medical Center
|
|
SC
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
61,000
|
|
|
|
3/31/2010
|
|
|
|
9,925,000
|
|
|
|
1,508,000
|
|
|
|
87.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
24.72
|
|
Pearland Medical Portfolio
|
|
TX
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
55,000
|
|
|
|
3/31/2010
|
|
|
|
10,476,000
|
|
|
|
1,001,000
|
|
|
|
98.8
|
%
|
|
$
|
18.20
|
|
Hilton Head Medical Portfolio
|
|
SC
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
31,000
|
|
|
|
3/31/2010
|
|
|
|
10,710,000
|
|
|
|
910,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
30.33
|
|
NIH @ Triad Technology Center
|
|
MD
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
101,000
|
|
|
|
3/31/2010
|
|
|
|
29,250,000
|
|
|
|
2,379,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
23.55
|
|
Federal North Medical Office Building
|
|
PA
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
192,000
|
|
|
|
4/29/2010
|
|
|
|
40,472,000
|
|
|
|
4,394,000
|
|
|
|
99.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
22.89
|
|
Balfour Concord Portfolio
|
|
TX
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
56,000
|
|
|
|
6/25/2010
|
|
|
|
13,500,000
|
|
|
|
1,164,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
20.79
|
|
Cannon Park Place
|
|
SC
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
47,000
|
|
|
|
6/28/2010
|
|
|
|
10,446,000
|
|
|
|
962,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
20.47
|
|
7900 Fannin
|
|
TX
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
176,000
|
|
|
|
6/30/2010
|
|
|
|
38,100,000
|
|
|
|
5,033,000
|
|
|
|
99.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
28.60
|
|
Overlook at Eagles Landing
|
|
GA
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
35,000
|
|
|
|
7/15/2010
|
|
|
|
8,140,000
|
|
|
|
673,000
|
|
|
|
88.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
19.23
|
|
Sierra Vista Medical Office Building
|
|
CA
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
45,000
|
|
|
|
8/4/2010
|
|
|
|
10,950,000
|
|
|
|
908,000
|
|
|
|
84.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
20.18
|
|
Orlando Medical Portfolio
|
|
FL
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
102,000
|
|
|
|
9/29/2010
|
|
|
|
18,300,000
|
|
|
|
1,437,000
|
|
|
|
86.1
|
%
|
|
$
|
14.09
|
|
Santa Fe Medical Portfolio
|
|
NM
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
54,000
|
|
|
|
9/30/2010
|
|
|
|
15,792,000
|
|
|
|
1,236,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
22.89
|
|
Rendina Medical Portfolio
|
|
AZ, FL, MO, NV, NY
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
306,000
|
|
|
|
9/30/2010
|
|
|
|
83,412,000
|
|
|
|
6,701,000
|
|
|
|
96.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
21.90
|
|
Allegheny HQ Building
|
|
PA
|
|
|
OFF
|
|
|
|
229,000
|
|
|
|
10/29/2010
|
|
|
|
39,000,000
|
|
|
|
4,358,000
|
|
|
|
88.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
19.03
|
|
Raleigh Medical Center
|
|
NC
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
89,000
|
|
|
|
11/12/2010
|
|
|
|
16,500,000
|
|
|
|
1,903,000
|
|
|
|
91.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
21.38
|
|
Columbia Medical Portfolio
|
|
FL, NY
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
914,000
|
|
|
|
11/19/2010
|
|
|
|
187,464,000
|
|
|
|
13,590,000
|
|
|
|
96.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
14.87
|
|
Florida Orthopedic ASC
|
|
FL
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
17,000
|
|
|
|
12/7/2010
|
|
|
|
5,875,000
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
29.41
|
|
Select Medical LTACH
|
|
FL, GA, TX
|
|
|
HOSP
|
|
|
|
219,000
|
|
|
|
12/17/2010
|
|
|
|
102,045,000
|
|
|
|
8,425,000
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
38.47
|
|
Phoenix MOB Portfolio
|
|
AZ
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
181,000
|
|
|
|
12/22/2010
|
|
|
|
35,809,000
|
|
|
|
4,648,000
|
|
|
|
94.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
25.68
|
|
Medical Park of Cary
|
|
NC
|
|
|
MOB
|
|
|
|
152,000
|
|
|
|
12/30/2010
|
|
|
|
28,000,000
|
|
|
|
2,595,000
|
|
|
|
84.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
17.07
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total/Weighted Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,919,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,214,224,000
|
|
|
|
202,749,000
|
|
|
|
91.1
|
%
|
|
$
|
18.57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
With respect to property type, MOB refers to Medical Office
Building, HOSP refers to specialty inpatient facilities
including specialty rehabilitation hospitals and long-term acute
care hospitals, SEN refers to senior care facilities, and OFF
refers to healthcare-related office buildings. |
|
(2) |
|
Annualized base rent is based on contractual base rent from
leases in effect as of December 31, 2010. |
|
(3) |
|
Occupancy includes all leased space of the respective portfolio
including master leases, as of December 31, 2010. |
|
(4) |
|
Average annualized base rent per occupied square foot as of
December 31, 2010. |
|
(5) |
|
On December 31, 2010, we received notice from the lessee of
four of the buildings within our Senior Care Portfolio 1
portfolio that the lessee intended to exercise a purchase option
within the lease. This option provides the lessee with the
ability to purchase these buildings at the July 6, 2011
expiration of the lease, provided that we were given timely
notice and that a specified deposit was made, among other
customary closing conditions. The lessee made the necessary
deposit to evidence their intention to purchase these buildings,
and we have thus classified these buildings as held for sale as
of December 31, 2010 within our consolidated financial
statements, as further discussed within Note 3, Real Estate
Investments, Net, Assets Held for Sale, and Discontinued
Operations, to our consolidated financial statements. |
Each of the above properties is a medical office building,
specialty inpatient facility (long term acute care hospital or
rehabilitation hospital), skilled nursing and assisted living
facility, or other healthcare-related office building, the
principal tenants of which are healthcare providers or
healthcare-related service providers.
As of December 31, 2010, we owned fee simple interests in
173 of the 238 buildings comprising our portfolio. These 173
buildings represent approximately 68.2% of our total
portfolios GLA. We hold long-term leasehold interests in
the remaining 65 buildings within our portfolio, which represent
approximately 31.8% of
58
our total GLA. As of December 31, 2010, these leasehold
interests had an average remaining term of approximately
72 years.
The following information generally applies to our properties:
|
|
|
|
|
we believe all of our properties are adequately covered by
insurance and are suitable for their intended purposes;
|
|
|
|
our properties are located in markets where we are subject to
competition in attracting new tenants and retaining current
tenants; and
|
|
|
|
depreciation is provided on a straight-line basis over the
estimated useful lives of the buildings, 39 years, and over
the shorter of the lease term or useful lives of the tenant
improvements.
|
Lease
Expirations
The following table presents the sensitivity of our annualized
base rent due to lease expirations for the next 10 years at
our properties (both operating and those classified as held for
sale), by number, square feet, percentage of leased area,
annualized base rent, and percentage of annualized rent as of
December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Leased
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Area
|
|
|
Base
|
|
|
Annualized
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Total Sq. Ft.
|
|
|
Represented
|
|
|
Rent Under
|
|
|
Base Rent
|
|
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
of Expiring
|
|
|
by Expiring
|
|
|
Expiring
|
|
|
Represented by
|
|
Year Ending December 31(2)
|
|
Expiring
|
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
Expiring Leases(1)
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
233
|
|
|
|
684,610
|
|
|
|
6.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
14,854,000
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
%
|
2012
|
|
|
255
|
|
|
|
803,245
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
15,815,000
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
2013
|
|
|
221
|
|
|
|
1,069,843
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
|
|
22,050,000
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
2014
|
|
|
153
|
|
|
|
846,730
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
14,952,000
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
2015
|
|
|
181
|
|
|
|
804,930
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
17,480,000
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
2016
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
|
827,561
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
15,424,000
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
2017
|
|
|
121
|
|
|
|
676,755
|
|
|
|
6.8
|
|
|
|
14,357,000
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
2018
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
580,918
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
|
|
|
10,974,000
|
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
2019
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
525,082
|
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
|
|
11,615,000
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
|
2020
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
368,204
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
7,740,000
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
130
|
|
|
|
2,769,032
|
|
|
|
27.8
|
|
|
|
60,978,000
|
|
|
|
29.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,613
|
|
|
|
9,956,910
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
206,239,000
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The annualized rent percentage is based on the total annual
contractual base rent as of December 31, 2010. |
|
(2) |
|
Leases scheduled to expire on December 31 of a given year are
included within that year in the table. |
59
Geographic
Diversification/Concentration Table
The following table lists the states in which our properties
(both operating and those classified as held for sale) are
located and provides certain information regarding our
portfolios geographic diversification/concentration as of
December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
GLA
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 Annualized
|
|
|
% of 2010
|
|
State
|
|
Buildings(1)
|
|
|
(Square Feet)
|
|
|
% of GLA
|
|
|
Base Rent(2)
|
|
|
Annualized Base Rent
|
|
|
Arizona
|
|
|
36
|
(3)
|
|
|
1,225,000
|
|
|
|
11.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
23,857,000
|
|
|
|
11.7
|
%
|
California
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
287,000
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
5,327,000
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
Colorado
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
145,000
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
3,233,000
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
Florida
|
|
|
20
|
(3)
|
|
|
940,000
|
|
|
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
17,844,000
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
Georgia
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
615,000
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
|
|
12,145,000
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
Indiana
|
|
|
44
|
(3)
|
|
|
1,220,000
|
|
|
|
11.2
|
|
|
|
17,235,000
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
Kansas
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
63,000
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
1,552,000
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
Maryland
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
164,000
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
3,433,000
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
Minnesota
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
155,000
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
1,829,000
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
Missouri
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
297,000
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
|
|
7,074,000
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
North Carolina
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
241,000
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
4,498,000
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
New Hampshire
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
70,000
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
1,186,000
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
New Mexico
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
54,000
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
1,236,000
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
Nevada
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
73,000
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
1,584,000
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
New York
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
909,000
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
14,140,000
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
Ohio
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
525,000
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
6,132,000
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
Oklahoma
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
186,000
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
3,596,000
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
530,000
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
11,604,000
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
South Carolina
|
|
|
22
|
(3)
|
|
|
1,104,000
|
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
|
19,681,000
|
|
|
|
9.7
|
|
Tennessee
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
321,000
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
5,669,000
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
Texas
|
|
|
26
|
(3)
|
|
|
1,304,000
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
30,969,000
|
|
|
|
15.3
|
|
Utah
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
112,000
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
2,023,000
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
Virginia
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
64,000
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
596,000
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
Wisconsin
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
315,000
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
6,306,000
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
238
|
|
|
|
10,919,000
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
202,749,000
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents the number of buildings acquired within each
particular state as of December 31, 2010. |
|
(2) |
|
Annualized base rent is based on contractual base rent from
leases in effect as of December 31, 2010. |
|
(3) |
|
As further discussed in Note 19, Concentration of Credit
Risk, we had the greatest geographic concentration as of
December 31, 2010 within the following states: Texas (16
consolidated properties consisting of 26 total buildings,
including 4 buildings classified as held for sale), Arizona
(seven consolidated properties consisting of 36 total
buildings), South Carolina (five consolidated properties
consisting of 22 total buildings), Florida (10 consolidated
properties consisting of 20 total buildings), and Indiana (seven
consolidated properties consisting of 44 total buildings). |
Indebtedness
See Note 7, Mortgage Loans Payable, Net, Note 8,
Derivative Financial Instruments, Note 9, Revolving Credit
Facility, and Note 22, Subsequent Events, to our
accompanying consolidated financial statements for further
discussions of our indebtedness.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings.
|
None.
60
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
|
Market
Information
There is no established public trading market for shares of our
common stock.
In order for members of the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, or FINRA, and their associated persons to participate
in our offerings of shares of our common stock, we are required
to disclose in each annual report distributed to stockholders a
per share estimated value of the shares, the method by which it
was developed, and the date of the data used to develop the
estimated value. In addition, we will prepare annual statements
of estimated share values to assist fiduciaries of retirement
plans subject to the annual reporting requirements of ERISA in
the preparation of their reports relating to an investment in
shares of our common stock. For these purposes,
managements estimated value of the shares is $10.00 per
share as of December 31, 2010. The basis for this valuation
is the fact that the public offering price for shares of our
common stock in our recently completed follow-on public offering
was $10.00 per share (ignoring purchase price discounts for
certain categories of purchasers). However, there is no public
trading market for the shares of our common stock at this time,
and there can be no assurance that stockholders could receive
$10.00 per share if such a market did exist and they sold their
shares of our common stock or that they will be able to receive
such amount for their shares of our common stock in the future.
Until August 28, 2012 (18 months after the completion
of our follow-on offering of shares of our common stock), or
upon the occurrence of our shares being listed on a national
securities exchange, we intend to continue to use the offering
price of shares of our common stock in our most recent offering
as the estimated per share value reported in our Annual Reports
on
Form 10-K
distributed to stockholders. Beginning 18 months after the
last offering of shares of our common stock, the value of the
properties and our other assets will be determined in a manner
deemed appropriate by our board of directors, and we will
disclose the resulting estimated per share value in a Current
Report on Form 8-K and in our subsequent Annual Reports on
Form 10-K
distributed to stockholders.
Stockholders
As of March 21, 2011, we had 55,728 stockholders of record.
Distributions
In order to continue to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax
purposes, among other things, we must distribute at least 90.0%
of our annual taxable income to our stockholders. The amount of
distributions we pay to our stockholders is determined by our
board of directors, at its sole discretion, and is dependent on
a number of factors, including funds available for the payment
of distributions, our financial condition, capital expenditure
requirements and annual distribution requirements needed to
maintain our status as a REIT under the Code, as well as any
liquidity alternative we may pursue. We have paid distributions
monthly since February 2007 and if our investments produce
sufficient cash flow, we expect to continue to pay distributions
to our stockholders on a monthly basis. However, our board of
directors could, at any time, elect to pay distributions
quarterly to reduce administrative costs. Because our cash
available for distribution in any year may be less than 90.0% of
our taxable income for the year, we may obtain the necessary
funds by borrowing, issuing new securities or selling assets to
pay out enough of our taxable income to satisfy the distribution
requirement. Our organizational documents do not establish a
limit on the amount of any offering proceeds we may use to fund
distributions.
For the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, our board
of directors authorized, and we declared and paid, monthly
distributions to our stockholders, based on daily record dates,
at a rate that would equal a 7.25% annualized rate, or $0.725
per common share based on a $10.00 per share price. It is our
intent to continue to pay distributions. However, our board may
reduce our distribution rate and we cannot guarantee the timing
and amount of distributions paid in the future, if any.
61
If distributions are in excess of our taxable income, such
distributions will result in a return of capital to our
stockholders. Our distribution of amounts in excess of our
taxable income has historically resulted in a return of capital
to our stockholders.
The following presents the amount of our distributions and the
source of payment of such distributions for each of the last
four quarters ended December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Distributions paid in cash
|
|
$
|
17,306,000
|
|
|
$
|
15,666,000
|
|
|
$
|
14,366,000
|
|
|
$
|
12,838,000
|
|
Distributions reinvested
|
|
|
15,995,000
|
|
|
|
14,490,000
|
|
|
|
13,544,000
|
|
|
|
12,522,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total distributions
|
|
$
|
33,301,000
|
|
|
$
|
30,156,000
|
|
|
$
|
27,910,000
|
|
|
$
|
25,360,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source of distributions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flow from operations
|
|
$
|
8,880,000
|
|
|
$
|
17,847,000
|
|
|
$
|
19,230,000
|
|
|
$
|
12,546,000
|
|
Debt financing
|
|
|
24,421,000
|
|
|
|
12,309,000
|
|
|
|
8,680,000
|
|
|
|
12,814,000
|
|
Offering proceeds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sources
|
|
$
|
33,301,000
|
|
|
$
|
30,156,000
|
|
|
$
|
27,910,000
|
|
|
$
|
25,360,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Distributions paid in cash
|
|
$
|
12,006,000
|
|
|
$
|
11,024,000
|
|
|
$
|
9,156,000
|
|
|
$
|
7,313,000
|
|
Distributions reinvested
|
|
|
11,894,000
|
|
|
|
10,884,000
|
|
|
|
8,848,000
|
|
|
|
6,934,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total distributions
|
|
$
|
23,900,000
|
|
|
$
|
21,908,000
|
|
|
$
|
18,004,000
|
|
|
$
|
14,247,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source of distributions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flow from operations
|
|
$
|
5,033,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,718,000
|
|
|
$
|
8,355,000
|
|
|
$
|
5,895,000
|
|
Offering proceeds
|
|
|
18,867,000
|
|
|
|
20,190,000
|
|
|
|
9,649,000
|
|
|
|
8,352,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sources
|
|
$
|
23,900,000
|
|
|
$
|
21,908,000
|
|
|
$
|
18,004,000
|
|
|
$
|
14,247,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the year ended December 31, 2010, we paid distributions
of $116,727,000 ($60,176,000 in cash and $56,551,000 in shares
of our common stock pursuant to the DRIP), as compared to cash
flows from operations of $58,503,000. From inception through
December 31, 2010, we paid cumulative distributions of
$228,824,000 ($117,941,000 in cash and $110,883,000 in shares of
our common stock pursuant to the DRIP), as compared to
cumulative cash flows from operations of $107,813,000. The
difference between our cumulative distributions paid and our
cumulative cash flows from operations is indicative of our high
volume of acquisitions completed since our date of inception.
The distributions paid in excess of our cash flows from
operations in 2010 were paid using proceeds from debt financing.
For the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, our FFO was
$69,449,000 and $28,314,000, respectively. FFO was reduced by
$19,717,000 and $19,715,000 for the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, for certain
transition charges, one-time charges, and acquisition-related
expenses. Acquisition-related expenses were previously
capitalized as part of the purchase price allocations and have
historically been added back to FFO over time through
depreciation. Excluding one-time charges, transition charges,
and acquisition-related expenses, FFO at December 31, 2010
and 2009 would have been $89,166,000 and $48,029,000,
respectively.
FFO is a non-GAAP measure. See our disclosure regarding FFO in
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations Funds
from Operations and Modified Funds from Operations.
62
Recent
Sales of Unregistered Securities
On May 20, 2010, our board of directors approved the
adoption of an employee retention program pursuant to which we
will grant our executive officers and employees restricted
shares of our common stock. In accordance with this program, on
May 24, 2010, Mr. Peters, Ms. Pruitt and
Mr. Engstrom, were entitled to receive grants of 100,000,
50,000 and 50,000 shares of restricted stock, respectively.
Mr. Peters elected to receive a restricted cash award in
lieu of 50,000 shares. The restricted shares and the
restricted cash award granted to Mr. Peters will vest in
thirds on each anniversary of the grant date, provided that the
grantee is employed by us on such date. The shares granted to
Ms. Pruitt and Mr. Engstrom will vest 100% on the
third anniversary of the grant date, provided that the grantee
is employed by us on such date. All shares have been granted
pursuant to our 2006 Incentive Plan, as amended, or the 2006
Plan. The restricted shares will become immediately vested upon
the earlier occurrence of (1) the executives
termination of employment by reason of his or her death or
disability, (2) a change in control of the company (as
defined in the 2006 Plan) or (3) the executives
termination of employment by us without cause or by the
executive for good reason (as such terms are defined in the
executive officers respective employment agreements). The
shares were issued pursuant to an exemption from registration
under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act for transactions
not involving a public offering.
Pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement, on
July 1, 2010, Mr. Peters was entitled to receive a
grant of 120,000 fully-vested shares. Pursuant to the terms of
his employment agreement, Mr. Peters elected to receive a
$600,000 cash payment, in lieu of one-half of such shares, and
60,000 fully-vested shares. The shares were issued pursuant to
an exemption from registration under Section 4(2) of the
Securities Act for transactions not involving a public offering.
Use of
Public Offering Proceeds
On September 20, 2006, we commenced a best efforts public
offering, or our initial offering, in which we offered up to
200,000,000 shares of our common stock for $10.00 per share
and up to 21,052,632 shares of our common stock pursuant to
our DRIP, at $9.50 per share, aggregating up to $2,200,000,000.
The initial offering expired on March 19, 2010. As of
March 19, 2010, we had received and accepted subscriptions
in our initial offering for 147,562,354 shares of our
common stock, or $1,474,062,00, excluding shares of our common
stock issued under the DRIP.
On March 19, 2010, we commenced a best efforts public
offering, or our follow-on offering, in which we offered up to
200,000,000 shares of our common stock for $10.00 per share
in our primary offering and up to 21,052,632 shares of our
common stock pursuant to the DRIP at $9.50 per share,
aggregating up to $2,200,000,000. As of December 31, 2010,
we received and accepted subscriptions in our follow-on offering
for 50,604,239 shares of our common stock, or $505,534,000,
excluding shares of our common stock issued under the DRIP. The
primary offering terminated on February 28, 2011. For
noncustodial accounts, subscription agreements signed on or
before February 28, 2011 with all documents and funds
received by the end of business March 15, 2011 were
accepted. For custodial accounts, subscription agreements signed
on or before February 28, 2011 with all documents and funds
received by the end of business March 31, 2011 will be
accepted. As of March 21, 2011, we had received and
accepted subscriptions in our follow-on offering for 71,659,602
shares of our common stock, or $715,591,000, excluding shares of
our common stock issued under the DRIP.
The ratio of the costs we incurred in connection with our
offerings as of December 31, 2010 to the total amount of
capital we raised in the offerings as of December 31, 2010
was approximately 10.1%.
As of December 31, 2010, we have used $1,632,795,000 in
offering proceeds to make our 77 geographically diverse
portfolio acquisitions and repay debt incurred in connection
with such acquisitions.
Purchases
of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated
Purchasers
Our share repurchase plan allows for share repurchases by us
when certain criteria are met by our stockholders. Share
repurchases will be made at the sole discretion of our board of
directors.
63
During the three months ended December 31, 2010, we
repurchased shares of our common stock as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dollar Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of
|
|
of Shares that May
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Purchased
|
|
Yet be Purchased
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as Part of
|
|
Under the
|
|
|
Total Number of
|
|
Average Price
|
|
Publicly Announced
|
|
Plans or
|
Period
|
|
Shares Purchased
|
|
Paid per Share
|
|
Plan or Program(1)
|
|
Programs
|
|
October 1, 2010 to October 31, 2010
|
|
|
2,055,466
|
|
|
$
|
9.53
|
|
|
|
2,055,466
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
November 1, 2010 to November 30, 2010
|
|
|
93,648
|
|
|
$
|
9.36
|
|
|
|
93,648
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
December 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010
|
|
|
21,562
|
|
|
$
|
9.63
|
|
|
|
21,562
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Our board of directors adopted a share repurchase plan effective
September 20, 2006. Our board of directors adopted, and we
publicly announced, an amended share repurchase plan effective
August 25, 2008. On November 24, 2010, we amended and
restated our share repurchase plan again effective
January 1, 2011. From inception through December 31,
2010, we had repurchased 7,288,019 shares of our common
stock pursuant to our share repurchase plan. Our share
repurchase plan does not have an expiration date but may be
terminated at our board of directors discretion. |
|
(2) |
|
Repurchases under our share repurchase plan are subject to the
discretion of our board of directors. The plan provides that
repurchases are subject to funds being available and are limited
in any calendar year to 5.0% of the weighted average number of
shares of our common stock outstanding during the prior calendar
year. The plan also provides that we will fund a maximum of
$10 million of share repurchase requests per quarter,
subject to available funding, and that funding for repurchases
will come exclusively from and will be limited to proceeds we
receive from the sale of shares under our DRIP during such
quarter. |
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Financial Data.
|
The following should be read with Item 1A. Risk Factors and
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations and our
consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto. Our
historical results are not necessarily indicative of results for
any future period.
The following tables present summarized consolidated financial
information, including balance sheet data, statement of
operations data reflecting the results of our operating
properties, and statement of cash flows data in a format
consistent with our consolidated financial statements under
Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
April 28, 2006
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
2006
|
|
(Date of Inception)
|
|
BALANCE SHEET DATA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
2,271,795,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,673,535,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,113,923,000
|
|
|
$
|
431,612,000
|
|
|
$
|
385,000
|
|
|
$
|
202,000
|
|
Mortgage loans payable, net
|
|
$
|
699,526,000
|
|
|
$
|
540,028,000
|
|
|
$
|
460,762,000
|
|
|
$
|
185,801,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Stockholders equity (deficit)
|
|
$
|
1,487,246,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,071,317,000
|
|
|
$
|
599,320,000
|
|
|
$
|
175,590,000
|
|
|
$
|
(189,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period from
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 28, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Date of Inception)
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
through
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS DATA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues (operating properties)
|
|
$
|
199,879,000
|
|
|
$
|
126,286,000
|
|
|
$
|
78,010,000
|
|
|
$
|
17,626,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(7,919,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(24,773,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(28,409,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7,674,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(242,000
|
)
|
Net loss attributable to controlling interest
|
|
$
|
(7,903,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(25,077,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(28,448,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(7,666,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(242,000
|
)
|
Loss per share basic and diluted(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.66
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.77
|
)
|
|
$
|
(149.03
|
)
|
Net loss attributable to controlling interest
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.66
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.77
|
)
|
|
$
|
(149.03
|
)
|
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS DATA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by operating activities
|
|
$
|
58,503,000
|
|
|
$
|
21,628,000
|
|
|
$
|
20,677,000
|
|
|
$
|
7,005,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Cash flows used in investing activities
|
|
$
|
626,849,000
|
|
|
$
|
455,105,000
|
|
|
$
|
526,475,000
|
|
|
$
|
385,440,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by financing activities
|
|
$
|
378,615,000
|
|
|
$
|
524,147,000
|
|
|
$
|
628,662,000
|
|
|
$
|
383,700,000
|
|
|
$
|
202,000
|
|
OTHER DATA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions declared
|
|
$
|
120,507,000
|
|
|
$
|
82,221,000
|
|
|
$
|
31,180,000
|
|
|
$
|
7,250,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Distributions declared per share
|
|
$
|
0.73
|
|
|
$
|
0.73
|
|
|
$
|
0.73
|
|
|
$
|
0.70
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Distributions paid in cash
|
|
$
|
60,176,000
|
|
|
$
|
39,499,000
|
|
|
$
|
14,943,000
|
|
|
$
|
3,323,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Distributions reinvested
|
|
$
|
56,551,000
|
|
|
$
|
38,559,000
|
|
|
$
|
13,099,000
|
|
|
$
|
2,673,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Funds from operations(2)
|
|
$
|
69,449,000
|
|
|
$
|
28,314,000
|
|
|
$
|
8,745,000
|
|
|
$
|
2,124,000
|
|
|
$
|
(242,000
|
)
|
Modified funds from operations(2)
|
|
$
|
89,166,000
|
|
|
$
|
48,029,000
|
|
|
$
|
8,757,000
|
|
|
$
|
2,124,000
|
|
|
$
|
(242,000
|
)
|
Net operating income(3)
|
|
$
|
137,419,000
|
|
|
$
|
84,462,000
|
|
|
$
|
52,244,000
|
|
|
$
|
11,589,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Net loss per share is based upon the weighted average number of
shares of our common stock outstanding. Distributions by us of
our current and accumulated earnings and profits for federal
income tax purposes are taxable to stockholders as ordinary
income. Distributions in excess of these earnings and profits
generally are treated as a non-taxable reduction of the
stockholders basis in the shares of our common stock to
the extent thereof (a return of capital for tax purposes) and,
thereafter, as taxable gain. These distributions in excess of
earnings and profits will have the effect of deferring taxation
of the distributions until the sale of the stockholders
common stock. |
|
(2) |
|
For additional information on FFO and modified funds from
operations, or MFFO, see Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Funds from Operations and Modified Funds
From Operations, which includes a reconciliation of our GAAP net
loss to FFO and MFFO for the years ended December 31, 2010,
2009 and 2008. Neither FFO nor MFFO should be considered as
alternatives to net loss or other measurements under GAAP as
indicators of our operating performance, nor should they be
considered as alternatives to cash flow from operating
activities or other measurements under GAAP as indicators of our
liquidity. |
|
(3) |
|
For additional information on net operating income, see
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations Net
Operating Income, which includes a reconciliation of our GAAP
net income(loss) to net operating income for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008. |
65
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations.
|
The use of the words we, us or
our refers to Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. and
its subsidiaries, including Healthcare Trust of America
Holdings, LP, except where the context otherwise requires.
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our
consolidated financial statements and notes appearing elsewhere
in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Such consolidated financial statements and information have been
prepared to reflect our financial position as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, together with our results of
operations and cash flows for the years ended December 31,
2010, 2009, and 2008.
Forward-Looking
Statements
Historical results and trends should not be taken as indicative
of future operations. Our statements contained in this report
that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements
within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. Actual
results may differ materially from those included in the
forward-looking statements. We intend those forward-looking
statements to be covered by the safe-harbor provisions for
forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and are including this statement
for purposes of complying with those safe-harbor provisions.
Forward-looking statements, which are based on certain
assumptions and describe future plans, strategies and
expectations, are generally identifiable by use of the terms
such as expect, project,
may, will, should,
could, would, intend,
plan, anticipate, estimate,
believe, continue, predict,
potential or the negative of such terms and other
comparable terminology. Our ability to predict results or the
actual effect of future plans or strategies is inherently
uncertain. Factors which could have a material adverse effect on
our operations and future prospects on a consolidated basis
include, but are not limited to: changes in economic conditions
generally and the real estate market specifically; legislative
and regulatory changes, including changes to laws governing the
taxation of real estate investment trusts, or REITs and changes
to laws governing the healthcare industry; the success of our
assessment of strategic alternatives, including potential
liquidity alternatives; the availability of capital; changes in
interest rates; competition in the real estate industry; the
supply and demand for operating properties in our proposed
market areas; changes in accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America, or GAAP, policies and
guidelines applicable to REITs; the availability of properties
to acquire; and the availability of financing. These risks and
uncertainties should be considered in evaluating forward-looking
statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such
statements. Additional information concerning us and our
business, including additional factors that could materially
affect our financial results, including but not limited to the
risks described under Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors,
is included herein and in our other filings with the SEC.
Overview
and Background
Healthcare Trust of America, Inc., a Maryland corporation, was
incorporated on April 20, 2006. We were initially
capitalized on April 28, 2006, and consider that our date
of inception. We are a fully integrated, self-administered, and
self-managed REIT. Accordingly, our internal management team
manages our
day-to-day
operations and oversees and supervises our employees and outside
service providers. Acquisitions and asset management services
are performed in-house by our employees, with certain monitored
services provided by third parties at market rates. We do not
pay acquisition, disposition or asset management fees to an
external advisor and we have not and will not pay any
internalization fees.
Our primary business consists of acquiring, owning and operating
our portfolio of medical office buildings and other
healthcare-related facilities. We have been an active,
disciplined buyer of medical office buildings since January 2007
acquiring approximately $2.3 billion over a period of four
years and we are one of the largest owners of medical office
buildings in the United States. Our portfolio is concentrated
within major U.S. metropolitan areas and is located
primarily on the campuses of nationally recognized healthcare
systems. As of December 31, 2010, including both our
operating properties and four buildings classified as held for
sale, we had made 77 geographically diverse portfolio
acquisitions, 63 of which are medical office properties, 12 of
which are healthcare-related facilities (including four quality
healthcare-related office
66
properties), and two of which are other real estate-related
assets, comprising 238 buildings with approximately
10,919,000 square feet of GLA, for an aggregate purchase
price of $2,266,359,000, in 24 states.
Our business strategy consists of the following:
(1) achieve continued growth through acquisitions,
(2) maximize internal growth through hands-on asset
management, leasing and property management oversight, and
(3) maintain balance sheet flexibility with low leverage.
We believe that these strategies allow us to proactively
identify and undertake actions that drive growth and enhance
stockholder value. We believe our mission is to maintain a
strong balance sheet and to buy, own and operate assets in an
optimal manner. Our overall philosophy is to undertake actions
which are in the best interests of our stockholders. In moving
to our self-management model, we put our stockholders first and
put the focus on performance-based behavior, which has saved
costs and increased productivity at all levels of our company.
On November 14, 2008, we amended and restated the advisory
agreement with our former advisor in order to reduce and
ultimately eliminate fees and to transition our company to a
self-managed, self-administered REIT. We completed our
transition to self-management during the third quarter of 2009
at cost, which was minimal, and the advisory agreement with our
former advisor expired without renewal on September 20,
2009. We did not have to pay an internalization fee to our
former advisor upon or after our transition. On October 18,
2010, we purchased the limited partner interest of our former
advisor, including its rights under our operating partnership
agreement, which included a subordinated distribution upon the
occurrence of specified liquidity events and other rights.
On September 20, 2006, we commenced a best efforts public
offering, or our initial offering, in which we offered up to
200,000,000 shares of our common stock for $10.00 per share
and up to 21,052,632 shares of our common stock pursuant to
our distribution reinvestment plan, or the DRIP, at $9.50 per
share, aggregating up to $2,200,000,000. As of March 19,
2010, the date upon which our initial offering terminated, we
had received and accepted subscriptions in our initial offering
for 147,562,354 shares of our common stock, or
$1,474,062,000, excluding shares of our common stock issued
under the DRIP.
On March 19, 2010, we commenced a best efforts public
offering, or our follow-on offering, in which we offered up to
200,000,000 shares of our common stock for $10.00 per share
in our primary offering and up to 21,052,632 shares of our
common stock pursuant to the DRIP at $9.50 per share,
aggregating up to $2,200,000,000. As of December 31, 2010,
we received and accepted subscriptions in our follow-on offering
for 50,604,239 shares of our common stock, or $505,534,000,
excluding shares of our common stock issued under the DRIP. We
stopped offering shares in the primary offering on
February 28, 2011. For noncustodial accounts, subscription
agreements signed on or before February 28, 2011 with all
documents and funds received by the end of business
March 15, 2011 were accepted. For custodial accounts,
subscription agreements signed on or before February 28,
2011 with all documents and funds received by the end of
business March 31, 2011 will be accepted. As of
March 21, 2011, we had received and accepted subscriptions
in our follow-on offering for 71,659,602 shares of our common
stock, or $715,591,000, excluding shares of our common stock
issued under the DRIP. We will continue to offer shares pursuant
to the DRIP; however, we may terminate the DRIP at any time.
Company
Highlights
Acquisitions
and Portfolio Performance
|
|
|
|
|
During the year ended December 31, 2010, we completed 24
new portfolio acquisitions, expanded six of our existing
portfolios through the purchase of additional medical office
buildings within each, and purchased the remaining 20% interest
we previously did not own in HTA-Duke Chesterfield Rehab, LLC,
which owns the Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center for an
aggregate purchase price of $806,048,000. These purchases
consist of 58 buildings comprised of 3,514,000 GLA with an
average occupancy of 96% as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
Our asset management performance and acquisition performance has
allowed us to realize an approximately 63% increase in our net
operating income, or NOI, for the year ended December 31,
2010 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2009 and an
approximately 163% increase in NOI
|
67
|
|
|
|
|
as compared to the year ended December 31, 2008. NOI is a
non-GAAP financial measure. For a reconciliation of NOI to net
loss, see Net Operating Income.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our total portfolio of properties maintained an average
occupancy rate of approximately 91% (unaudited) as of
December 31, 2010.
|
FFO
and MFFO Performance
|
|
|
|
|
For the year ended December 31, 2010, our funds from
operations, or FFO, has increased by 145% to $69,449,000 from
$28,314,000 for the year ended December 31, 2009, primarily
as a result of our 24 portfolio acquisitions in 2010. FFO
is a non-GAAP financial measure. For a reconciliation of FFO to
net income (loss), see Funds from Operations and Modified
Funds from Operations.
|
|
|
|
For the year ended December 31, 2010, our modified funds
from operations, or MFFO, was $89,166,000. MFFO is a non-GAAP
financial measure. For a reconciliation of MFFO to net income
(loss), see Funds from Operations and Modified Funds from
Operations below.
|
Financing &
Liquidity
|
|
|
|
|
We increased our financial flexibility by closing on our
$275,000,000 unsecured credit facility, which is expandable to
$500,000,000, subject to syndication. We believe that, going
forward, this greater flexibility will allow for enhanced
ability to structure deals under beneficial terms to us, which
in turn will allow for reductions to our overall cost of capital.
|
|
|
|
We closed a senior secured real estate term loan in the amount
of $125,500,000 on February 1, 2011. The primary purposes
of this debt included paying off one of our 2010 maturities
totaling $10,943,000 and refinancing a total of $89,969,000 of
our 2010 and 2011 debt maturities. The interest rate associated
with this loan, excluding the impact of interest rate swap
instruments, is one-month LIBOR plus 2.35%, which currently
equates to 2.61%. Including the impact of the interest rate swap
discussed in Note 22, Subsequent Events, to our consolidated
financial statements, the weighted average rate associated with
this term loan is approximately 3.10%. This is lower than the
weighted average rate of 4.18% (including the impact of interest
rate swaps) we were previously paying on the refinanced debt.
|
|
|
|
We secured approximately $79,125,000 in new long term financing
on certain of our 2009 and 2010 acquisitions.
|
|
|
|
We maintained a leverage ratio of our mortgage loans payable
debt to total assets of 30.8%.
|
Self-Management
Impact
|
|
|
|
|
For the year ended December 31, 2010, we would have been
required to pay acquisition, asset management and above market
property management fees of approximately $44,351,000, to our
former advisor if we were still subject to the advisory
agreement under its original terms prior to the commencement of
our transition to self-management.
|
|
|
|
The cost of self-management, which includes costs related to
management and employee salaries and share-based compensation
and corporate office overhead, during the year ended
December 31, 2010 was approximately $10,630,000. Therefore,
we achieved a net cost savings of approximately $33,721,000
($44,351,000 fees saved minus $10,630,000) for the year ended
December 31, 2010 resulting from our self-management cost
structure. In addition and just as importantly, we eliminated
internalization fees, established a management and employee team
dedicated to our stockholders, and we put ourselves in a
position to move our company forward to the next stage of our
lifecycle.
|
|
|
|
Consistent with our self-management model, we have implemented
another upgrade to our asset management capabilities by
implementing Resolve Technologys business intelligence
solution. The new information technology integrates and
consolidates our existing technology platforms and provides
management with reports that enable real-time visibility into
asset and portfolio performance.
|
68
Stockholder
Value Enhancement
|
|
|
|
|
During the year ended December 31, 2010, we engaged
J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, or JP Morgan, to act as our
lead strategic advisor. JP Morgan is assisting our board and
management team in exploring various actions to maximize
stockholder value, including the assessment of various liquidity
alternatives. As we have previously disclosed, we intend to
effect a liquidity event by September 2013.
|
|
|
|
On October 18, 2010 we entered into a Redemption,
Termination, and Release Agreement, or the
Redemption Agreement, with our former advisor to purchase
the advisors limited partner interest, including all
rights with respect to a subordinated distribution upon the
occurrence of specified liquidity events and other rights that
our former advisor held in our operating partnership. In
addition, we have resolved all remaining issues with our former
advisor. In connection with the execution of the
Redemption Agreement, we made a one-time payment to our
former advisor of $8,000,000.
|
|
|
|
On December 20, 2010, our stockholders approved an
amendment to our charter to provide for the reclassification and
conversion of our common stock in the event our shares are
listed on a national securities exchange to implement a
phased-in liquidity program. We proposed these amendments and
submitted them for approval by our stockholders to prepare our
company in the event we pursue a Listing. To accomplish a
phased-in liquidity program, it is necessary to reclassify and
convert our common stock into shares of Class A common
stock and Class B common stock immediately prior to a
Listing. The shares of Class A common stock would
immediately be listed on a national securities exchange. The
shares of Class B common stock would not be listed. Rather,
we believe those shares would convert into shares of
Class A common stock and become listed in defined phases,
over a defined period of time within 18 months of a
Listing. The phased in liquidity program is intended to provide
for our stock to be transitioned into the public market in a way
that minimizes the stock-pricing instability that could result
from concentrated sales of our stock.
|
Critical
Accounting Policies
We believe that our critical accounting policies are those that
require significant judgments and estimates such as those
related to revenue recognition, allowance for uncollectible
accounts, capitalization of expenditures, depreciation of
assets, impairment of real estate, properties held for sale,
purchase price allocation, and qualification as a REIT. These
estimates are made and evaluated on an on-going basis using
information that is currently available as well as recent
various other assumptions believed to be reasonable under the
circumstances.
Use of
Estimates
The preparation of our consolidated financial statements in
conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets,
liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of
contingent assets and liabilities. These estimates are made and
evaluated on an on-going basis using information that is
currently available as well as various other assumptions
believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual
results could differ from those estimates, perhaps in material
adverse ways, and those estimates could be different under
different assumptions or conditions.
Revenue
Recognition, Tenant Receivables and Allowance for Uncollectible
Accounts
In accordance with ASC 840, Leases (ASC
840), minimum annual rental revenue is recognized on a
straight-line basis over the term of the related lease
(including rent holidays). Differences between rental income
recognized and amounts contractually due under the lease
agreements are credited or charged, as applicable, to rent
receivable. Tenant reimbursement revenue, which is comprised of
additional amounts recoverable from tenants for common area
maintenance expenses and certain other recoverable expenses, is
recognized as revenue in the period in which the related
expenses are incurred. Tenant reimbursements are recognized and
presented in accordance with
ASC 605-45,
Revenue Principal Agent Considerations. This
guidance requires that these reimbursements be recorded on a
gross basis, as we are generally the primary obligor with
respect to purchasing goods and services from third-party
suppliers, have discretion in selecting the supplier and have
credit risk. We
69
recognize lease termination fees if there is a signed
termination letter agreement, all of the conditions of the
agreement have been met, and the tenant is no longer occupying
the property.
Tenant receivables and unbilled deferred rent receivables are
carried net of the allowances for uncollectible current tenant
receivables and unbilled deferred rent. An allowance is
maintained for estimated losses resulting from the inability of
certain tenants to meet the contractual obligations under their
lease agreements. We also maintain an allowance for deferred
rent receivables arising from the straight-lining of rents. Such
allowance is charged to bad debt expense which is included in
general and administrative expenses on our accompanying
consolidated statement of operations. Our determination of the
adequacy of these allowances is based primarily upon evaluations
of historical loss experience, the tenants financial
condition, security deposits, letters of credit, lease
guarantees and current economic conditions and other relevant
factors
Capitalization
of Expenditures and Depreciation of Assets
The cost of operating properties includes the cost of land and
completed buildings and related improvements. Expenditures that
increase the service life of properties are capitalized and the
cost of maintenance and repairs is charged to expense as
incurred. The cost of building and improvements is depreciated
on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of
39 years and the shorter of the lease term or useful life,
ranging from one month to 240 months, respectively.
Furniture, fixtures and equipment is depreciated over five
years. When depreciable property is retired, replaced or
disposed of, the related costs and accumulated depreciation are
removed from the accounts and any gain or loss reflected in
operations.
Investments
in Real Estate and Real Estate Related Assets
Our properties are carried at the lower of historical cost less
accumulated depreciation or fair value less costs to sell. We
assess the impairment of a real estate asset when events or
changes in circumstances indicate its carrying amount may not be
recoverable. Indicators we consider important and that we
believe could trigger an impairment review include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
significant negative industry or economic trends;
|
|
|
|
a significant underperformance relative to historical or
projected future operating results; and
|
|
|
|
a significant change in the manner in which the asset is used.
|
In the event that the carrying amount of a property exceeds the
sum of the undiscounted cash flows (excluding interest) that
would be expected to result from the use and eventual
disposition of the property, we would recognize an impairment
loss to the extent the carrying amount exceeds the estimated
fair value of the property. The fair value of the property is
based on discounted cash flow analyses, which involve
managements best estimate of market participants
holding periods, market comparables, future occupancy levels,
rental rates, capitalization rates,
lease-up
periods, and capital requirements. The estimation of expected
future net cash flows is inherently uncertain and relies on
subjective assumptions dependent upon future and current market
conditions and events that affect the ultimate value of the
property. It will require us to make assumptions related to
future rental rates, tenant allowances, operating expenditures,
property taxes, capital improvements, occupancy levels, and the
estimated proceeds generated from the future sale of the
property.
Also, we evaluate the carrying values of mortgage loans
receivable on an individual basis. Management periodically
evaluates the realizability of future cash flows from the
mortgage loan receivable when events or circumstances, such as
the non-receipt of principal and interest payments
and/or
significant deterioration of the financial condition of the
borrower, indicate that the carrying amount of the mortgage loan
receivable may not be recoverable. An impairment charge is
recognized in current period earnings and is calculated as the
difference between the carrying amount of the mortgage loan
receivable and the discounted cash flows expected to be
received, or if foreclosure is probable, the fair value of the
collateral securing the mortgage.
70
Investment
in Real Estate
Held-for-Sale
We evaluate the
held-for-sale
classification of our owned real estate each quarter. Assets
that are classified as
held-for-sale
are recorded at the lower of their carrying amount or fair value
less cost to sell. The fair value is based on discounted cash
flow analyses, which involve managements best estimate of
market participants holding period, market comparables,
future occupancy levels, rental rates, capitalization rates,
lease-up periods, and capital requirements. Assets are generally
classified as
held-for-sale
once management commits to a plan to sell the properties and has
determined that the sale of the asset is probable and transfer
of the asset is expected to occur within one year. The results
of operations of these real estate properties are reflected as
discontinued operations in all periods reported, and the
properties are presented separately on our balance sheet at the
lower of their carrying value or their fair value less costs to
sell. As of December 31, 2010, we determined that four
buildings within one of our portfolios should be classified as
held for sale. See Note 3, Real Estate Investments, Net,
Assets Held for Sale, and Discontinued Operations, for further
discussion of our assets classified as held for sale as of
December 31, 2010.
Purchase
Price Allocation
In accordance with ASC 805, Business Combinations
(ASC 805), we, with assistance from independent
valuation specialists, allocate the purchase price of acquired
properties to tangible and identified intangible assets and
liabilities based on their respective fair values. The
allocation to tangible assets (building and land) is based upon
our determination of the value of the property as if it were to
be replaced and vacant using discounted cash flow models similar
to those used by independent appraisers. Factors considered by
us include an estimate of carrying costs during the expected
lease-up
periods considering current market conditions and costs to
execute similar leases. Additionally, the purchase price of the
applicable property is allocated to the above or below market
value of in place leases, the value of in place leases, tenant
relationships and above or below market debt assumed.
The value allocable to the above or below market component of
the acquired in place leases is determined based upon the
present value (using a discount rate which reflects the risks
associated with the acquired leases) of the difference between:
(1) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to the
lease over its remaining term and (2) managements
estimate of the amounts that would be paid using fair market
rates over the remaining term of the lease including any bargain
renewal periods, with respect to a below market lease. The
amounts allocated to above market leases are included in
identified intangible assets, net in our accompanying
consolidated balance sheets and amortized to rental income over
the remaining non-cancelable lease term of the acquired leases
with each property. The amounts allocated to below market lease
values are included in identified intangible liabilities, net in
our accompanying consolidated balance sheets and amortized to
rental income over the remaining non-cancelable lease term plus
any below market renewal options of the acquired leases with
each property.
The total amount of other intangible assets acquired is further
allocated to in place lease costs and the value of tenant
relationships based on managements evaluation of the
specific characteristics of each tenants lease and our
overall relationship with that respective tenant.
Characteristics considered by us in allocating these values
include the nature and extent of the credit quality and
expectations of lease renewals, among other factors. The amounts
allocated to in place lease costs are included in identified
intangible assets, net in our accompanying consolidated balance
sheets and will be amortized over the average remaining
non-cancelable lease term of the acquired leases with each
property. The amounts allocated to the value of tenant
relationships are included in identified intangible assets, net
in our accompanying consolidated balance sheets and are
amortized over the average remaining non-cancelable lease term
of the acquired leases plus a market lease term.
The value allocable to above or below market debt is determined
based upon the present value of the difference between the cash
flow stream of the assumed mortgage and the cash flow stream of
a market rate mortgage. The amounts allocated to above or below
market debt are included in mortgage loans payable, net on our
accompanying consolidated balance sheets and amortized to
interest expense over the remaining term of the assumed mortgage.
71
These allocations are subject to change based on information
received within one year of the purchase related to one or more
events identified at the time of purchase which confirm the
value of an asset or liability received in an acquisition of
property.
Qualification
as a REIT
Subject to the discussion in
Item 1. Business Tax Status regarding the
closing agreement that we intend to request from the IRS, we
believe that we have qualified to be taxed as a REIT under
Sections 856 through 860 of the Code for federal income tax
purposes beginning with our tax year ended December 31,
2007 and we intend to continue to be taxed as a REIT. To
continue to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes,
we must meet certain organizational and operational
requirements, including a requirement to pay distributions to
our stockholders of at least 90.0% of our annual taxable income.
As a REIT, we generally are not subject to federal income tax on
net income that we distribute to our stockholders.
As part of the process of preparing our consolidated financial
statements, significant management judgment is required to
evaluate our compliance with REIT requirements. Our
determinations are based on interpretation of tax laws, and our
conclusions may have an impact on income tax expense
recognized. Adjustments to income tax expense recognized may be
required as a result of, among other things, changes in tax laws
or our ability to qualify as a REIT. If we fail to qualify as a
REIT in any taxable year, we will then be subject to federal
income taxes on our taxable income and will not be permitted to
qualify for treatment as a REIT for federal income tax purposes
for four years following the year during which qualification is
lost unless the Internal Revenue Service grants us relief under
certain statutory provisions. Such an event could have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations and net
cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
Recently
Issued Accounting Pronouncements
See Note 2, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, to
our accompanying consolidated financial statements, for a
discussion of recently issued accounting pronouncements.
Acquisitions
See Note 3, Real Estate Investments, Net, Assets Held for
Sale, and Discontinued Operations and Note 22, Subsequent
Events, to our accompanying consolidated financial statements,
for a discussion of our acquisitions.
Factors
Which May Influence Results of Operations
We are not aware of any material trends or uncertainties, other
than national economic conditions affecting real estate
generally and those risks listed in Part I, Item 1A.
Risk Factors, that may reasonably be expected to have a material
impact, favorable or unfavorable, on revenues or income from the
acquisition, management and operation of properties.
Rental
Income
The amount of rental income generated by our properties depends
principally on our ability to maintain the occupancy rates of
currently leased space and to lease currently available space
and space available from unscheduled lease terminations at the
existing rental rates. Negative trends in one or more of these
factors could adversely affect our rental income in future
periods.
Offering
Proceeds
With the termination of our follow-on offering as of
February 28, 2011, except for the DRIP, we will be limited
in our ability to acquire new real estate assets. To the extent
our portfolio is not sufficiently diversified, we could have
increased exposure to local and regional economic downturns and
the poor performance of one or more of our properties and,
therefore, expose our stockholders to increased risk. In
72
addition, some of our general and administrative expenses are
fixed regardless of the size of our real estate portfolio.
Therefore, we could spend a larger portion of our income on
operating expenses. This would reduce our profitability and, in
turn, the amount of net income available for distribution to our
stockholders.
Scheduled
Lease Expirations
As of December 31, 2010, our consolidated properties were
91% occupied. Our leasing strategy for 2011 focuses on
negotiating renewals for leases scheduled to expire during the
remainder of the year. If we are unable to negotiate such
renewals, we will try to identify new tenants or collaborate
with existing tenants who are seeking additional space to
occupy. Of the leases expiring in 2011, we anticipate, but
cannot assure, that a majority of the tenants will renew for
another term.
Sarbanes-Oxley
Act and Dodd-Frank Act
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, or the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, or the Dodd-Frank Act, and related
laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance
and disclosure requirements applicable to public companies, have
increased the costs of compliance with corporate governance,
reporting and disclosure practices. These costs may have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations and could
impact our ability to continue to pay distributions at current
rates to our stockholders. Furthermore, we expect that these
costs will increase in the future due to our continuing
implementation of compliance programs mandated by these
requirements. Any increased costs may affect our ability to
distribute funds to our stockholders.
In addition, these laws, rules and regulations create new legal
bases for potential administrative enforcement, civil and
criminal proceedings against us in the event of non-compliance,
thereby increasing the risks of liability and potential
sanctions against us. We expect that our efforts to comply with
these laws and regulations will continue to involve significant
and potentially increasing costs, and that our failure to comply
with these laws could result in fees, fines, penalties or
administrative remedies against us.
As part of our compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we
provided managements assessment of our internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010 and
continue to comply with such regulations.
Results
of Operations
Comparison
of the Years Ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and
2008
Our operating results, as presented below, are primarily
comprised of income derived from our portfolio of our operating
properties. For results of the four buildings within one of our
portfolios that were classified as held for sale as of
December 31, 2010, see Note 3, Real Estate
Investments, Net, Assets Held for Sale, and Discontinued
Operations, to our consolidated financial statements.
Except where otherwise noted, the change in our results of
operations is primarily due to our 77 geographically
diverse portfolio acquisitions, 53 geographically diverse
portfolio acquisitions and 42 geographically diverse portfolio
acquisitions as of December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008,
respectively.
Rental
Income
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008,
rental income attributable to our operating properties was
$192,294,000, $123,133,000, and $78,007,000, respectively. For
the year ended December 31, 2010, rental income was
primarily comprised of base rent of $144,285,000 and expense
recoveries of $37,946,000. For the year ended December 31,
2009, rental income was primarily comprised of base rent of
$93,269,000 and expense recoveries of $23,779,000. For the year
ended December 31, 2008, rental income was primarily
comprised of base rent of $59,011,000 and expense recoveries of
$15,147,000. The increase in rental income is due to the
increase in the number of properties in our portfolio discussed
above.
73
The aggregate occupancy for our operating properties was
approximately 91% as of December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008.
Rental
Expenses
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008,
rental expenses attributable to our operating properties were
$65,338,000, $44,667,000, and $27,912,000, respectively. Rental
expenses consisted of the following for the periods then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Real estate taxes
|
|
$
|
19,547,000
|
|
|
$
|
14,277,000
|
|
|
$
|
9,411,000
|
|
Utilities
|
|
|
14,679,000
|
|
|
|
9,771,000
|
|
|
|
5,774,000
|
|
Building maintenance
|
|
|
15,461,000
|
|
|
|
9,099,000
|
|
|
|
5,395,000
|
|
Property management fees
|
|
|
2,786,000
|
|
|
|
3,026,000
|
|
|
|
2,350,000
|
|
Administration
|
|
|
4,186,000
|
|
|
|
3,273,000
|
|
|
|
1,988,000
|
|
Grounds maintenance
|
|
|
3,530,000
|
|
|
|
2,058,000
|
|
|
|
1,320,000
|
|
Non-recoverable operating expenses
|
|
|
3,370,000
|
|
|
|
2,036,000
|
|
|
|
861,000
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
1,278,000
|
|
|
|
960,000
|
|
|
|
676,000
|
|
Other
|
|
|
501,000
|
|
|
|
167,000
|
|
|
|
137,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total rental expenses
|
|
$
|
65,338,000
|
|
|
$
|
44,667,000
|
|
|
$
|
27,912,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General
and Administrative Expenses
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008,
general and administrative expenses attributable to our
operating properties were $18,753,000, $12,285,000, and
$3,261,000, respectively. General and administrative expenses
include such costs as professional and legal fees, salaries,
share-based compensation expense, investor services expense, and
corporate office overhead, among others.
For the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the
year ended December 31, 2009, the increase in total general
and administrative expenses of $6,468,000, or 53%, is primarily
due to the following factors:
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in the number of employees hired during the year
ended December 31, 2010, commensurate with the completion
of our successful transition to self-management and the
increased size of our portfolio. As of December 31, 2010,
we had approximately 50 employees, as compared to
29 employees as of December 31, 2009. The associated
increases in salaries expense, restricted stock compensation
expense, and corporate office overhead in order to accommodate
our growing workforce and increased level of activity accounted
for $5,184,000 of the overall
year-over-year
general and administrative fluctuation.
|
|
|
|
A net increase in investor services expense of $577,000 for the
year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to the year ended
December 1, 2009, which is the result of an increase in the
number of our stockholders as well as our implementation of the
latest state of the art investor services platform provided by
DST Systems, Inc. in 2009. This upgrade was done in conjunction
with our transition to self-management and provides our
stockholders and their financial advisors with direct access to
real-time information.
|
For the year ended December 31, 2009 as compared to the
year ended December 31, 2008, the increase in total general
and administrative expenses of $9,024,000, or 277%, was
primarily due to the following factors:
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in the number of employees hired for the transition
to self-management during the year ended December 31, 2009.
As of December 31, 2009, we had approximately
29 employees, as compared to just one employee as of
December 31, 2008. The related increases in salaries
expense and
|
74
|
|
|
|
|
restricted stock compensation expense accounted for $4,525,000
of the overall
year-over-year
general and administrative fluctuation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in professional and legal expenses of $1,174,000 due
to higher outside consulting and legal costs incurred in
conjunction with, among other things, our transition to
self-management.
|
|
|
|
An increase in investor services expense of $544,000 due to the
increase in the number of our stockholders as well as one-time
costs associated with the transition to DST Systems, Inc. as our
transfer agent.
|
|
|
|
An increase in corporate office overhead of $887,000 due
primarily to the establishment of our corporate offices in
Scottsdale, Arizona following our transition to self-management.
|
Asset
Management Fees
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008,
asset management fees attributable to our operating properties
were $0, $3,783,000, and $6,177,000, respectively. The decrease
in asset management fees of $3,783,000 for the year ended
December 31, 2010, as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2009, is due to our transition to a
self-managed cost structure. We no longer pay asset management
fees to our former advisor pursuant to the advisory agreement,
which expired on September 20, 2009. For the year ended
December 31, 2010, we would have been required to pay asset
management fees of approximately $16,993,000 to our former
advisor if we were still subject to the advisory agreement
(under its original terms).
The decrease in asset management fees of $2,394,000 for the year
ended December 31, 2009, as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2008, is primarily a result of the reduction
in this fee from 1.0% to 0.5% paid to our former advisor
pursuant to the amended advisory agreement and the expiration of
such agreement on September 20, 2009, which is partially
offset by an increase of $1,531,000 resulting from the increase
in the number of properties and other real estate related assets
discussed above. After September 20, 2009, we no longer pay
asset management fees to our former advisor.
Acquisition-Related
Expenses
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008,
acquisition-related expenses attributable to our operating
properties were $11,317,000, $15,997,000 and $122,000,
respectively. Acquisition-related expenses were expensed as
incurred for acquisitions for the years ended December 31,
2010 and 2009 in accordance with ASC 805.
Acquisition-related expenses for the year ended
December 31, 2008 were capitalized and recorded as part of
the purchase price allocations.
Depreciation
and Amortization
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008,
depreciation and amortization attributable to our operating
properties was $77,338,000, $52,372,000 and $36,482,000,
respectively. See Note 3, Real Estate Investments, Net for
further information on depreciation of our properties. For
information regarding the amortization recorded on our
identified intangible assets and on our lease commissions, see
Note 5, Identified Intangible Assets, Net and Note 6,
Other Assets, Net, respectively.
One-time
Redemption, Termination, and Release Payment Made to Former
Advisor
On October 18, 2010, we entered into a Redemption,
Termination, and Release Agreement, or the
Redemption Agreement, with our former advisor. This
agreement served to purchase the limited partner interest held
by our former advisor, including all associated rights, as well
as resolve all remaining issues between the parties. Pursuant to
the Redemption Agreement, we made a one-time payment to our
former advisor of $8,000,000, of which $7,285,000 was charged to
operating expense. The remainder of the total payment was
applied toward the partnership interest purchase, as discussed
in Note 13, Redeemable Noncontrolling Interest of Limited
Partners, and toward the resolution of previously-accrued claims
between the parties. See Note 12, Related Party
Transactions, for further information regarding the
Redemption Agreement.
75
Interest
Expense and Gain (Loss) on Derivative Instruments
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008,
interest expense and gain (loss) on derivative financial
instruments associated with our operating properties were
$29,382,000, $22,833,000 and $33,146,000, respectively. Interest
expense and gain (loss) on derivative financial instruments
associated with our operating properties consisted of the
following for the periods then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Interest expense on our mortgage loans payable
|
|
$
|
32,503,000
|
|
|
$
|
25,801,000
|
|
|
$
|
17,933,000
|
|
Interest expense on our previous secured revolving credit
facility(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,266,000
|
|
Amortization of deferred financing fees associated with our
mortgage loans payable
|
|
|
1,693,000
|
|
|
|
1,504,000
|
|
|
|
914,000
|
|
Amortization of deferred financing fees associated with our
previous credit facility(1)
|
|
|
501,000
|
|
|
|
381,000
|
|
|
|
377,000
|
|
Amortization of debt discount/premium
|
|
|
395,000
|
|
|
|
276,000
|
|
|
|
110,000
|
|
Unused credit facility fees on our previous credit facility
|
|
|
244,000
|
|
|
|
150,000
|
|
|
|
108,000
|
|
Interest expense on our unsecured note payable to affiliate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest expense
|
|
|
35,336,000
|
|
|
|
28,112,000
|
|
|
|
20,710,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (gain) loss on derivative financial instruments
|
|
|
(5,954,000
|
)
|
|
|
(5,279,000
|
)
|
|
|
12,436,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest expense and (gain) loss on derivative financial
instruments
|
|
$
|
29,382,000
|
|
|
$
|
22,833,000
|
|
|
$
|
33,146,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Pertains to the credit facility we had initially opened on
September 10, 2007 (and modified on December 12,
2007), which we voluntarily terminated during the year ended
2010. As further discussed in Note 9, Revolving Credit
Facility, we and our operating partnership entered into a credit
agreement for a new, unsecured revolving credit facility on
November 22, 2010. |
The increase in interest expense for the year ended
December 31, 2010 as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2009 was due to an increase in average
outstanding mortgage loans payable of $699,526,000 as of
December 31, 2010 compared to $540,028,000 as of
December 31, 2009. Additionally, during the year ended
December 31, 2010, we terminated two of our interest rate
swap derivative financial instruments with an aggregate notional
amount of $27,200,000 in conjunction with our prepayment of
certain loan balances.
The decrease in interest expense for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as compared to the year ended
December 31, 2008 was due to the non-cash gain on mark to
market adjustments we made on our interest rate swaps. This
decrease was partially offset by an increase in our interest
expense due to an increase in our mortgage loans payable to
$540,028,000 as of December 31, 2009 from $460,762,000 as
of December 31, 2008 and a full year of interest expense on
new loans incurred in 2008.
We use interest rate swaps in order to minimize the impact of
fluctuations in interest rates. To achieve our objectives, we
borrow at fixed rates and variable rates. We also enter into
derivative financial instruments such as interest rate swaps in
order to mitigate our interest rate risk on a related financial
instrument. We do not enter into derivative or interest rate
transactions for speculative purposes. Derivatives not
designated as hedges are not speculative and are used to manage
our exposure to interest rate movements.
Interest
and Dividend Income
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008,
interest and dividend income was $119,000, $249,000 and
$469,000, respectively. For the year ended December 31,
2010, interest and dividend income was related primarily to
interest earned on our money market and cash accounts. For the
years ended December 31, 2009, and 2008, interest and
dividend income was related primarily to interest earned on our
money market accounts and U.S. Treasury Bills. The decrease
in our interest and dividend income in 2010 as
76
compared to 2009 was primarily driven by a lower cash balance
throughout 2010 relative to the prior year. The decrease in our
interest and dividend income in 2009 as compared to 2008 was due
to the use of cash investments to offset service fees as well as
lower interest rates through the year. This decrease was
partially offset by a higher cash balance in 2009 as compared to
2008.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
We are dependent upon our debt financing, operating cash flows
from properties, and the net proceeds from our offerings to
conduct our activities. We stopped offering shares in our
primary offering as of February 28, 2011. We continue to
offer shares pursuant to our DRIP; however, we may terminate our
DRIP at any time. We may also conduct additional public
offerings of our common stock in the future. Our ability to
raise funds through any potential future offerings will be
dependent on general economic conditions, general market
conditions for REITs, and our operating performance. The capital
required to purchase real estate and other real estate related
assets is obtained from the proceeds of our offerings and from
any indebtedness that we may incur.
Our principal demands for funds continue to be for acquisitions
of real estate and other real estate related assets, to pay
operating expenses and principal and interest on our outstanding
indebtedness, and to make distributions to our stockholders.
Generally, cash needs for items other than acquisitions of real
estate and other real estate related assets continue to be met
from operations, borrowing, and the net proceeds of our
offerings. We believe that these cash resources will be
sufficient to satisfy our cash requirements for the foreseeable
future, and we do not anticipate a need to, though we may, raise
funds from other than these sources within the next
12 months.
We evaluate potential additional investments and engage in
negotiations with real estate sellers, developers, brokers,
investment managers, and lenders. As of December 31, 2010,
the majority of the proceeds of our offerings had been invested
in properties and other real estate-related assets.
When we acquire a property, we prepare a capital plan that
contemplates the estimated capital needs of that investment. In
addition to operating expenses, capital needs may also include
costs of refurbishment, tenant improvements or other major
capital expenditures. The capital plan also sets forth the
anticipated sources of the necessary capital, which may include
a credit facility or other loan established with respect to the
investment, operating cash generated by the investment,
additional equity investments from us or joint venture partners
or, when necessary, capital reserves. Any capital reserve would
be established from the proceeds from sales of other
investments, operating cash generated by other investments,
other cash on hand, or the gross proceeds of our offerings. In
some cases, a lender may require us to establish capital
reserves for a particular investment. The capital plan for each
investment will be adjusted through ongoing, regular reviews of
our portfolio or as necessary to respond to unanticipated
additional capital needs.
Other
Liquidity Needs
In the event that there is a shortfall in net cash available due
to various factors, including, without limitation, the timing of
distributions or the timing of the collections of receivables,
we may seek to obtain capital to pay distributions by means of
secured or unsecured debt financing through one or more third
parties. We may also pay distributions from cash from capital
transactions, including, without limitation, the sale of one or
more of our properties.
As of December 31, 2010, we estimate that our expenditures
for capital improvements will require up to approximately
$37,114,000 within the next 12 months. As of
December 31, 2010, we had $7,276,000 of restricted cash in
loan impounds and reserve accounts for such capital
expenditures. We cannot provide assurance, however, that we will
not exceed these estimated expenditure and distribution levels
or be able to obtain additional sources of financing on
commercially favorable terms or at all. As of December 31,
2010, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately
$29,270,000. Additionally, as of December 31, 2010, we had
unencumbered properties with a gross book value of approximately
$978,124,000 that may be used as
77
collateral to secure additional financing in future periods or
as additional collateral to facilitate the refinancing of
current mortgage debt as it becomes due.
If we experience lower occupancy levels, reduced rental rates,
reduced revenues as a result of asset sales, or increased
capital expenditures and leasing costs compared to historical
levels due to competitive market conditions for new and renewal
leases, the effect would be a reduction of net cash provided by
operating activities. If such a reduction of net cash provided
by operating activities is realized, we may have a cash flow
deficit in subsequent periods. Our estimate of net cash
available is based on various assumptions which are difficult to
predict, including the levels of leasing activity and related
leasing costs. Any changes in these assumptions could impact our
financial results and our ability to fund working capital and
unanticipated cash needs.
Cash
Flows
Cash flows provided by operating activities for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, were $58,503,000,
$21,628,000, and $20,677,000, respectively. For the year ended
December 31, 2010, cash flows provided by operating
activities related primarily to operations from our 75 property
portfolios and two real estate-related assets. For the year
ended December 31, 2009, cash flows provided by operating
activities related primarily to operations from our 51 property
portfolios and two real estate related assets. For the year
ended December 31, 2008, cash flows provided by operating
activities related primarily to operations from our 41
properties and one real estate related asset. We anticipate cash
flows from operating activities will increase as we purchase
more properties.
Cash flows used in investing activities for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, were $626,849,000,
$455,105,000, and $526,475,000, respectively. For the year ended
December 31, 2010, cash flows used in investing activities
related primarily to cash paid for the acquisitions of our 24
new property portfolios totaling $597,097,000. For the year
ended December 31, 2009, cash flows used in investing
activities related primarily to cash paid for the acquisition of
our 10 new property portfolios and one real estate related asset
totaling $402,268,000. For the year ended December 31,
2008, cash flows used in investing activities related primarily
to the acquisition of our 21 new property portfolios and one
real estate related asset for a total purchase amount of
$503,638,000. Cash flows used in investing activities is heavily
dependent upon the deployment of our offering proceeds in
properties and real estate related assets.
Cash flows provided by financing activities for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, were $378,615,000,
$524,147,000, and $628,662,000, respectively. For the year ended
December 31, 2010, cash flows provided by financing
activities related primarily to funds raised from investors in
the amount of $594,677,000, borrowings on mortgage loans payable
of $79,125,000, the payment of offering costs of $56,621,000 for
our offerings, distributions of $60,176,000, and principal and
demand note repayments of $123,117,000 on mortgage loans payable
and demand notes payable. Additional cash outflows related to
our purchase of the noncontrolling interest in the joint venture
entity that owns Chesterfield Rehabilitation for $3,900,000, as
well as to debt financing costs of $7,507,000. For the year
ended December 31, 2009, cash flows provided by financing
activities related primarily to funds raised from investors in
the amount of $622,652,000 and borrowings on mortgage loans
payable of $37,696,000, the payment of offering costs of
$68,360,000, distributions of $39,500,000 and principal
repayments of $11,671,000 on mortgage loans payable. Additional
cash outflows related to deferred financing costs of $792,000 in
connection with the debt financing for our acquisitions. For the
year ended December 31, 2008, cash flows provided by
financing activities related primarily to funds raised from
investors in the amount of $528,816,000 and borrowings on
mortgage loans payable of $227,695,000, partially offset by net
payments under our secured revolving credit facility of
$51,801,000, the payment of offering costs of $54,339,000,
distributions of $14,943,000 and principal repayments of
$1,832,000 on mortgage loans payable. Additional cash outflows
related to deferred financing costs of $3,688,000 in connection
with the debt financing for our acquisitions.
78
Distributions
The income tax treatment for distributions reportable for the
years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 was as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Ordinary income
|
|
$
|
47,041,000
|
|
|
|
40.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,836,000
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
5,879,000
|
|
|
|
21.0
|
%
|
Capital gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Return of capital
|
|
|
69,686,000
|
|
|
|
59.7
|
|
|
|
75,223,000
|
|
|
|
96.4
|
|
|
|
22,163,000
|
|
|
|
79.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
116,727,000
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
78,059,000
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
28,042,000
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Item 5. Market for Registrants Common Equity,
Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity
Securities Distributions, for a further discussion
of our distributions.
Capital
Resources
Financing
We anticipate that our aggregate borrowings, both secured and
unsecured, will approximate 35%-40% of all of our
properties and other real estate related assets
combined fair market values, as determined at the end of each
calendar year. For these purposes, the fair market value of each
asset will be equal to the purchase price paid for the asset or,
if the asset was appraised subsequent to the date of purchase,
then the fair market value will be equal to the value reported
in the most recent independent appraisal of the asset. Our
policies do not limit the amount we may borrow with respect to
any individual investment. As of December 31, 2010, our
aggregate borrowings were 38.9% of all of our properties
and other real estate related assets combined fair market
values. Of the $194,467,000 of mortgage notes payable maturing
in 2011, $152,887,000 have two one-year extensions available and
$22,000,000 have a one-year extension available. In addition,
the proceeds of our new senior secured real estate term loan,
which we obtained on February 1, 2011 and which is further
discussed in Note 22, Subsequent Events, will, in part, be
used to refinance approximately $81,116,000 of debt scheduled to
mature in 2011. At present, there are no extension options
associated with our debt that matures in 2012. We anticipate
utilizing the extensions available to us.
Until a Listing, our charter precludes us from borrowing in
excess of 300% of the value of our net assets, unless approved
by a majority of our independent directors and the justification
for such excess borrowing is disclosed to our stockholders in
our next quarterly report. For purposes of this determination,
net assets are our total assets, other than intangibles,
calculated at cost before deducting depreciation, bad debt and
other similar non-cash reserves, less total liabilities and
computed at least quarterly on a consistently- applied basis.
Generally, the preceding calculation is expected to approximate
75.0% of the sum of the aggregate cost of our real estate and
real estate related assets before depreciation, amortization,
bad debt and other similar non-cash reserves. As of
March 25, 2011 and December 31, 2010, our leverage did
not exceed 300% of the value of our net assets.
Mortgage
Loans Payable, Net
See Note 7, Mortgage Loans Payable, Net, to our
accompanying consolidated financial statements, for a further
discussion of our mortgage loans payable, net.
Revolving
Credit Facility
See Note 9, Revolving Credit Facility, to our accompanying
consolidated financial statements, for a further discussion of
our unsecured revolving credit facility.
79
Senior
Secured Real Estate Term Loan
See Note 22, Subsequent Events, to our accompanying
consolidated financial statements, for additional information
regarding the senior secured real estate term loan that we
obtained on February 1, 2011.
REIT
Requirements
In order remain qualified as a REIT for federal income tax
purposes, we are required to make distributions to our
stockholders of at least 90.0% of REIT taxable income. In the
event that there is a shortfall in net cash available due to
factors including, without limitation, the timing of such
distributions or the timing of the collections of receivables,
we may seek to obtain capital to pay distributions by means of
secured debt financing through one or more third parties. We may
also pay distributions from cash from capital transactions
including, without limitation, the sale of one or more of our
properties.
Limitation
on Total Operating Expenses
Our charter provides that our total operating expenses during
any four consecutive fiscal quarters cannot exceed the greater
of: (1) 2.0% of our average invested assets, as defined in
our charter, or (2) 25.0% of our net income, as defined in
our charter, for such year. Our board of directors is
responsible for limiting our total operating expenses to that
amount, unless a majority of our independent directors determine
that such excess expenses are justified based on unusual and
non-recurring factors and such excess expenses, if any, are
disclosed in writing to our stockholders, together with an
explanation of the factors the independent directors considered
in determining that such excess amount was justified. Our total
operating expenses did not exceed this limitation in 2010. Our
total operating expenses as a percentage of our average invested
assets for the year ended December 31, 2010 was 1.3%.
Commitments
and Contingencies
See Note 11, Commitments and Contingencies, to our
accompanying consolidated financial statements, for a further
discussion of our commitments and contingencies.
Debt
Service Requirements
One of our principal liquidity needs is the payment of principal
and interest on outstanding indebtedness. As of
December 31, 2010, we had fixed and variable rate mortgage
loans payable in the principal amount of $699,526,000, which
includes a premium of $2,968,000, which are secured by our
properties. We are required by the terms of the applicable loan
documents to meet certain financial covenants, such as minimum
net worth and liquidity amounts, and reporting requirements. As
of December 31, 2010, we believe that we were in compliance
with all such covenants and requirements on $638,558,000 of our
mortgage loans payable. We have reduced the amount deposited
within our restricted collateral account to $12,000,000 as of
December 31, 2010, and we are currently working with
lenders in order to comply with certain covenants on the
remaining $58,000,000 balance of our mortgage loans payable. On
August 19, 2010, we voluntarily terminated the secured
revolving credit facility that we had initially opened on
September 10, 2007 and had modified on December 12,
2007. On November 22, 2010, we and Healthcare Trust of
America Holdings, LP, our operating partnership, entered into a
credit agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as
administrative agent, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Deutsche Bank
Securities, Inc., as syndication agents, U.S. Bank National
Association and Fifth Third Bank, as documentation agents, and
the lenders named therein to obtain an unsecured revolving
credit facility in an aggregate maximum principal amount of
$275,000,000, subject to increase. See Note 9, Revolving
Credit Facility, for additional discussion of this credit
facility. In addition, See Note 22, Subsequent Events, for
information regarding our closure of a $125,500,000 senior
secured real estate term loan with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. on
February 1, 2011.
As of December 31, 2010, the weighted average interest rate
on our outstanding debt was 4.95% per annum.
80
Contractual
Obligations
The table below presents our obligations and commitments to make
future payments under debt obligations and lease agreements as
of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payment Due by Period
|
|
|
|
Less than 1 Year
|
|
|
1-3 Years
|
|
|
3-5 Years
|
|
|
More than 5 Years
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed rate(1)
|
|
$
|
7,662,000
|
|
|
$
|
70,399,000
|
|
|
$
|
121,620,000
|
|
|
$
|
271,134,000
|
|
|
$
|
470,815,000
|
|
Variable rate(1)
|
|
|
214,913,000
|
|
|
|
1,840,000
|
|
|
|
8,990,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
225,743,000
|
|
Interest(2)
|
|
|
31,359,000
|
|
|
|
50,365,000
|
|
|
|
40,541,000
|
|
|
|
30,501,000
|
|
|
|
152,766,000
|
|
Credit facility borrowings(3)
|
|
|
7,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,000,000
|
|
Ground lease and other operating lease obligations(4)
|
|
|
2,382,000
|
|
|
|
6,933,000
|
|
|
|
7,078,000
|
|
|
|
179,610,000
|
|
|
|
196,003,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
263,316,000
|
|
|
$
|
129,537,000
|
|
|
$
|
178,229,000
|
|
|
$
|
481,245,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,052,327,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Long-term debt obligations are related to our fixed rate and
variable rate mortgage loans payable. Approximately $81,116,000
of the variable debt due in less than one year was refinanced in
February 2011 from the proceeds of our senior secured real
estate term loan, as further discussed in Note 22,
Subsequent Events. |
|
(2) |
|
Interest on variable rate debt is calculated using the rates in
effect at December 31, 2010. |
|
(3) |
|
The $7,000,000 drawn on our unsecured revolving credit facility
as of December 31, 2010 was repaid on January 31,
2011, as further discussed in Note 22, Subsequent Events. |
|
(4) |
|
Operating lease obligations include our corporate office
locations in Scottsdale, Arizona and Johns Island, South
Carolina. |
With respect to the debt service obligations shown above, the
table does not reflect available extension options. Of the
amounts maturing in 2011 and 2012, $152,887,000 have two
one-year extensions available and $22,000,000 have a one-year
extension available, subject to customary conditions.
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, we had no off-balance
sheet transactions nor do we currently have any such
arrangements or obligations.
Inflation
We are exposed to inflation risk as income from future long-term
leases is the primary source of our cash flows from operations.
There are provisions in the majority of our tenant leases that
protect us from the impact of inflation. These provisions
include rent escalations, reimbursement billings for operating
expense pass-through charges, real estate tax and insurance
reimbursements on a per square foot allowance. However, due to
the long-term nature of the leases, among other factors, the
leases may not re-set frequently enough to cover inflation.
Funds
from Operations and Modified Funds from Operations
We define Funds from Operations, or FFO, a non-GAAP measure, as
net income or loss computed in accordance with GAAP, excluding
gains or losses from sales of property but including asset
impairment write downs, plus depreciation and amortization, and
after adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint
ventures. Adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint
ventures are calculated to reflect FFO. We present FFO because
we consider it an important supplemental measure of our
operating performance and believe it is frequently used by
securities analysts, investors and other interested parties in
the evaluation of REITs, many of which present FFO when
reporting their results. FFO is intended to exclude GAAP
historical cost depreciation and amortization of real estate and
related assets, which assumes that the value of real estate
81
diminishes ratably over time. Historically, however, real estate
values have risen or fallen with market conditions. Because FFO
excludes depreciation and amortization unique to real estate,
gains and losses from property dispositions and extraordinary
items, it provides a performance measure that, when compared
year over year, reflects the impact to operations from trends in
occupancy rates, rental rates, operating costs, development
activities and interest costs, providing perspective not
immediately apparent from net income.
We compute FFO in accordance with standards established by the
Board of Governors of NAREIT in its March 1995 White Paper (as
amended in November 1999 and April 2002), which may differ from
the methodology for calculating FFO utilized by other equity
REITs and, accordingly, may not be comparable to such other
REITs. Further, FFO does not represent amounts available for
managements discretionary use because of needed capital
replacement or expansion, debt service obligations or other
commitments and uncertainties. FFO should not be considered as
an alternative to net income (loss) (computed in accordance with
GAAP) as an indicator of our financial performance or to cash
flow from operating activities (computed in accordance with
GAAP) as an indicator of our liquidity, nor is it indicative of
funds available to fund our cash needs, including our ability to
pay distributions.
Changes in the accounting and reporting rules under GAAP have
prompted a significant increase in the amount of non-operating
items included in FFO, as defined. Therefore, we use modified
funds from operations, or MFFO, which excludes from FFO one-time
charges, transition charges, and acquisition-related expenses,
to further evaluate our operating performance. We believe that
MFFO with these adjustments, like those already included in FFO,
are helpful as a measure of operating performance because it
excludes costs that management considers more reflective of
investing activities or non-operating changes. We believe that
MFFO better reflects the overall operating performance of our
real estate portfolio, which is not immediately apparent from
reported net income (loss). As such, we believe MFFO, in
addition to net income (loss) as defined by GAAP, is a
meaningful supplemental performance measure and is useful in
understanding how our management evaluates our ongoing operating
performance. However, MFFO should not be considered as an
alternative to net income (loss) or to cash flows from operating
activities and is not intended to be used as a liquidity measure
indicative of cash flow available to fund our cash needs,
including our ability to make distributions. However, we believe
MFFO may provide an indication of the sustainability of our
distributions in the future. MFFO should be reviewed in
connection with other GAAP measurements. Management considers
the following items in the calculation of MFFO:
Acquisition-related expenses: Prior to 2009,
acquisition-related expenses were capitalized and have
historically been added back to FFO over time through
depreciation; however, beginning in 2009, acquisition-related
expenses related to business combinations are expensed. These
acquisition-related expenses have been and will continue to be
funded from the proceeds of our offerings and our debt and not
from operations. We believe by excluding expensed
acquisition-related expenses, MFFO provides useful supplemental
information that is comparable for our real estate investments.
Transition charges: FFO includes certain
charges related to the cost of our transition to
self-management. These items include, but are not limited to,
the majority of the one-time redemption and termination payment
made to our former advisor, as further discussed in
Note 12, Related Party Transactions, to our consolidated
financial statements, as well as additional legal expenses,
system conversion costs (including updates to certain estimate
development procedures) and non-recurring employment costs.
Because MFFO excludes such costs, management believes MFFO
provides useful supplemental information by focusing on the
changes in our fundamental operations that will be comparable
rather than on such transition charges. We do not believe such
costs will recur now that our transition to a self-management
infrastructure has been substantially completed.
Our calculation of MFFO may have limitations as an analytical
tool because it reflects the costs unique to our transition to a
self-management model, which may be different from that of other
healthcare REITs. Additionally, MFFO reflects features of our
ownership interests in our medical office buildings and
healthcare-related facilities that are unique to us. Companies
that are considered to be in our industry may not have similar
ownership structures; and therefore those companies may not
calculate MFFO in the same manner that
82
we do, or at all, limiting its usefulness as a comparative
measure. We compensate for these limitations by relying
primarily on our GAAP and FFO results and using our MFFO as a
supplemental performance measure.
The following is the calculation of FFO and MFFO for the years
ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Per Share
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Per Share
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Per Share
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(7,919,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
(24,773,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(28,409,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.66
|
)
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization consolidated properties
|
|
|
78,561,000
|
|
|
|
0.47
|
|
|
|
53,595,000
|
|
|
|
0.47
|
|
|
|
37,398,000
|
|
|
|
0.87
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interest of
limited partners
|
|
|
16,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(304,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(39,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization related to noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
(1,209,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(204,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(205,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FFO attributable to controlling interest
|
|
$
|
69,449,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
28,314,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,745,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FFO per share basic and diluted
|
|
$
|
0.42
|
|
|
$
|
0.42
|
|
|
$
|
0.25
|
|
|
$
|
0.25
|
|
|
$
|
0.20
|
|
|
$
|
0.20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition-related expenses
|
|
|
11,317,000
|
|
|
|
0.07
|
|
|
|
15,997,000
|
|
|
|
0.14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition charges
|
|
|
8,400,000
|
|
|
|
0.05
|
|
|
|
3,718,000
|
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MFFO attributable to controlling interest
|
|
$
|
89,166,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
48,029,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,745,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MFFO per share basic and diluted
|
|
$
|
0.54
|
|
|
$
|
0.54
|
|
|
$
|
0.43
|
|
|
$
|
0.43
|
|
|
$
|
0.21
|
|
|
$
|
0.21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding basic
|
|
|
165,952,860
|
|
|
|
165,952,860
|
|
|
|
112,819,638
|
|
|
|
112,819,638
|
|
|
|
42,844,603
|
|
|
|
42,844,603
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding diluted
|
|
|
165,952,860
|
|
|
|
165,952,860
|
|
|
|
112,819,638
|
|
|
|
112,819,638
|
|
|
|
42,844,603
|
|
|
|
42,844,603
|
|
For the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, MFFO per
share has been impacted by the increase in net proceeds realized
from our initial and follow-on offerings. For the year ended
December 31, 2010, we sold 61,191,096 shares of our
common stock, increasing our outstanding shares by 43.5%, and
for the year ended December 31, 2009, we sold
62,696,254 shares of our common stock, increasing our
outstanding shares by 83.1%. During both years, the proceeds
from this issuance were temporarily invested in short-term cash
equivalents until they could be invested in medical office
buildings and other healthcare-related facilities at favorable
pricing. Due to lower interest rates on cash equivalent
investments, interest earnings were minimal. As of
December 31, 2010, virtually all of our offering proceeds
were invested in higher-earning medical office buildings or
other healthcare-related facility investments consistent with
our investment policy to identify high quality investments. We
believe this will add value to our stockholders over our
longer-term investment horizon, even if this results in less
current period earnings.
Net
Operating Income
Net operating income is a non-GAAP financial measure that is
defined as net income (loss), computed in accordance with GAAP,
generated from our total portfolio of properties (including both
our operating
83
properties and those classified as held for sale as of
December 31, 2010) before interest expense, general
and administrative expenses, depreciation, amortization, certain
one-time charges, and interest and dividend income. We believe
that net operating income provides an accurate measure of the
operating performance of our operating assets because net
operating income excludes certain items that are not associated
with management of the properties. Additionally, we believe that
net operating income is a widely accepted measure of comparative
operating performance in the real estate community. However, our
use of the term net operating income may not be comparable to
that of other real estate companies as they may have different
methodologies for computing this amount.
To facilitate understanding of this financial measure, a
reconciliation of net loss to net operating income has been
provided for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and
2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(7,919,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(24,773,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(28,409,000
|
)
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expense
|
|
|
18,753,000
|
|
|
|
12,285,000
|
|
|
|
3,261,000
|
|
Asset management fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,783,000
|
|
|
|
6,177,000
|
|
Acquisition-related expenses
|
|
|
11,317,000
|
|
|
|
15,997,000
|
|
|
|
122,000
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
78,561,000
|
|
|
|
53,595,000
|
|
|
|
37,398,000
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
29,541,000
|
|
|
|
23,824,000
|
|
|
|
34,164,000
|
|
One-time redemption, termination, and release payment to former
advisor
|
|
|
7,285,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and dividend income
|
|
|
(119,000
|
)
|
|
|
(249,000
|
)
|
|
|
(469,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net operating income
|
|
$
|
137,419,000
|
|
|
$
|
84,462,000
|
|
|
$
|
52,244,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsequent
Events
See Note 22, Subsequent Events, to our accompanying
consolidated financial statements, for a further discussion of
our subsequent events.
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk.
|
Market risk includes risks that arise from changes in interest
rates, foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices, equity
prices and other market changes that affect market sensitive
instruments. In pursuing our business plan, the primary market
risk to which we are exposed is interest rate risk.
We are exposed to the effects of interest rate changes primarily
as a result of borrowings used to maintain liquidity and fund
expansion and refinancing of our real estate investment
portfolio and operations. Our interest rate risk management
objectives are to limit the impact of interest rate changes on
earnings, prepayment penalties and cash flows and to lower
overall borrowing costs while taking into account variable
interest rate risk. To achieve our objectives, we borrow at
fixed rates and variable rates.
We may also enter into derivative financial instruments such as
interest rate swaps and caps in order to mitigate our interest
rate risk on a related financial instrument. To the extent we
enter into such derivative financial instruments, we are exposed
to credit risk and market risk. Credit risk is the failure of
the counterparty to perform under the terms of the derivative
contract. When the fair value of a derivative contract is
positive, the counterparty owes us, which creates credit risk
for us. When the fair value of a derivative contract is
negative, we owe the counterparty and, therefore, it does not
possess credit risk. It is our policy to enter into these
transactions with the same party providing the underlying
financing. In the alternative, we will seek to minimize the
credit risk associated with derivative instruments by entering
into transactions with what we believe are high-quality
counterparties. We believe the likelihood of realized losses
from counterparty non-performance is remote. Market risk is the
adverse effect on the value of a financial instrument that
results
84
from a change in interest rates. We manage the market risk
associated with interest rate contracts by establishing and
monitoring parameters that limit the types and degree of market
risk that may be undertaken. We do not enter into derivative or
interest rate transactions for speculative purposes.
We have, and may in the future enter into, derivative
instruments for which we have not and may not elect hedge
accounting treatment. Because we have not elected to apply hedge
accounting treatment to these derivatives, the gains or losses
resulting from their
mark-to-market
at the end of each reporting period are recognized as an
increase or decrease in interest expense on our consolidated
statements of operations.
Our interest rate risk is monitored using a variety of
techniques.
The table below presents, as of December 31, 2010, the
principal amounts and weighted average interest rates by year of
expected maturity to evaluate the expected cash flows and
sensitivity to interest rate changes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected Maturity Date
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
2015
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Fixed rate debt principal payments
|
|
$
|
7,662,000
|
|
|
$
|
43,470,000
|
|
|
$
|
26,929,000
|
|
|
$
|
49,890,000
|
|
|
$
|
71,730,000
|
|
|
$
|
271,134,000
|
|
|
$
|
470,815,000
|
|
Weighted average interest rate on maturing debt
|
|
|
5.88
|
%
|
|
|
6.48
|
%
|
|
|
5.76
|
%
|
|
|
6.40
|
%
|
|
|
5.37
|
%
|
|
|
5.81
|
%
|
|
|
5.75
|
%
|
Variable rate debt principal payments
|
|
$
|
214,913,000
|
(1)
|
|
$
|
913,000
|
|
|
$
|
927,000
|
|
|
$
|
193,000
|
|
|
$
|
8,797,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
225,743,000
|
|
Weighted average interest rate on maturing debt (based on rates
in effect as of December 31, 2010)
|
|
|
2.77
|
%
|
|
|
1.76
|
%
|
|
|
1.76
|
%
|
|
|
1.76
|
%
|
|
|
1.76
|
%
|
|
|
0.00
|
%
|
|
|
1.92
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Of the total amount of variable rate debt shown to be maturing
within 2011, approximately $81,116,000 was refinanced using the
proceeds of our new senior secured real estate term loan on
February 1, 2011. See Note 22, Subsequent Events, for
further information on this secured term loan. |
Mortgage loans payable were $696,558,000 ($699,526,000,
including premium) as of December 31, 2010. As of
December 31, 2010, we had fixed and variable rate mortgage
loans with effective interest rates ranging from 1.61% to 12.75%
per annum and a weighted average effective interest rate of
4.95% per annum. We had $470,815,000 ($473,783,000, including
premium) of fixed rate debt, or 67.6% of mortgage loans payable,
at a weighted average interest rate of 6.02% per annum and
$225,743,000 of variable rate debt, or 32.4% of mortgage loans
payable, at a weighted average interest rate of 2.72% per annum
as of December 31, 2010.
As of December 31, 2010, the fair value of our fixed rate
debt was $501,813,000 and the fair value of our variable rate
date was $225,557,000.
As of December 31, 2010, we had fixed rate interest rate
swaps or caps on four of our variable mortgage loans, thereby
effectively fixing our interest rate on those mortgage loans
payable.
As of December 31, 2010, we had drawn $7,000,000 on our new
unsecured revolving credit facility in order to fund the
acquisition of operating properties. As discussed within the
preceding Subsequent Events section, we repaid this amount in
full on January 31, 2011.
In addition to changes in interest rates, the value of our
future properties is subject to fluctuations based on changes in
local and regional economic conditions and changes in the
creditworthiness of tenants, which may affect our ability to
refinance our debt if necessary.
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data.
|
See the index at Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement
Schedules.
|
|
Item 9.
|
Changes
in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure.
|
None.
85
|
|
Item 9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures.
|
(a) Evaluation of disclosure controls and
procedures. We maintain disclosure controls and
procedures that are designed to ensure that information required
to be disclosed in our reports pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, is
recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time
periods specified in the SEC rules and forms, and that such
information is accumulated and communicated to us, including our
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer as
appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required
disclosure. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls
and procedures, we recognize that any controls and procedures,
no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only
reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control
objectives, as ours are designed to do, and we necessarily were
required to apply our judgment in evaluating whether the
benefits of the controls and procedures that we adopt outweigh
their costs.
As of December 31, 2010, an evaluation was conducted under
the supervision and with the participation of our management,
including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in
Rules 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e)
under the Exchange Act). Based on this evaluation, the Chief
Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that
our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of
December 31, 2010.
(b) Managements report on internal control over
financial reporting. Our management is
responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal
control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in
Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f).
Under the supervision and with the participation of our
management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, we conducted an evaluation of the
effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting
based on the framework in Internal Control-Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission, or COSO.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can
only provide reasonable assurance with respect to financial
statement preparation and presentation.
Based on our evaluation under the Internal Control-Integrated
Framework, our management concluded that our internal control
over financial reporting was effective as of December 31,
2010.
(c) Changes in internal control over financial
reporting. There were no changes in our internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the fourth
quarter of 2010 that have materially affected, or are reasonably
likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial
reporting.
This Annual Report on Form 10-K does not include an attestation
report of our independent registered public accounting firm
regarding internal control over financial reporting.
Managements report was not subject to attestation by our
independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street and Consumer Protection Act, which
exempts non-accelerated filers from the auditor attestation
requirement of section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information.
|
None.
86
PART III
|
|
Item 10.
|
Directors,
Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
|
The following table and biographical descriptions set forth
information with respect to the individuals who are our officers
and directors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position
|
|
Term of Office
|
|
Scott D. Peters
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board
|
|
|
Since 2006
|
|
Kellie S. Pruitt
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
|
|
|
Since 2009
|
|
Mark D. Engstrom
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
Executive Vice President Acquisitions
|
|
|
Since 2009
|
|
W. Bradley Blair, II
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
Independent Director
|
|
|
Since 2006
|
|
Maurice J. DeWald
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
Independent Director
|
|
|
Since 2006
|
|
Warren D. Fix
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
Independent Director
|
|
|
Since 2006
|
|
Larry L. Mathis
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
Independent Director
|
|
|
Since 2007
|
|
Gary T. Wescombe
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
Independent Director
|
|
|
Since 2006
|
|
There are no family relationships between any directors,
executive officers or between any director and executive officer.
Scott D. Peters has served as our Chairman of the Board
since July 2006, Chief Executive Officer since April 2006 and
President since June 2007. He served as the Chief Executive
Officer of our former advisor from July 2006 to July 2008. He
served as the Executive Vice President of Grubb &
Ellis Apartment REIT, Inc. from January 2006 to November 2008
and served as one of its directors from April 2007 to June 2008.
He also served as the Chief Executive Officer, President and a
director of Grubb & Ellis Company, or
Grubb & Ellis, our former sponsor, from December 2007
to July 2008, and as the Chief Executive Officer, President and
director of NNN Realty Advisors, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Grubb & Ellis, from its formation in September 2006
and as its Chairman of the Board from December 2007 to July
2008. NNN Realty Advisors became a wholly owned subsidiary of
Grubb & Ellis upon its merger with Grubb &
Ellis in December 2007. Mr. Peters also served as Chief
Executive Officer of Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors
from November 2006 to July 2008, having served from September
2004 to October 2006, as Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer. From December 2005 to January 2008,
Mr. Peters also served as Chief Executive Officer and
President of G REIT, Inc., having previously served as its
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since
September 2004. Mr. Peters also served as Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of T REIT, Inc. from
September 2004 to December 2006. From February 1997 to February
2007, Mr. Peters served as Senior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer and a director of Golf Trust of America, Inc.,
a publicly traded REIT. Mr. Peters received his B.B.A.
degree in Accounting and Finance from Kent State University.
Kellie S. Pruitt has served as our Chief Financial
Officer since May 2010, as our Treasurer since April 2009, and
as our Secretary since July 2009. She also served as our Chief
Accounting Officer from January 2009 until May 2010, as our
Assistant Secretary from March 2009 to July 2009, and as our
Controller for a portion of January 2009. From September 2007 to
December 2008, Ms. Pruitt served as the Vice President,
Financial Reporting and Compliance, for Fender Musical
Instruments Corporation. Prior to joining Fender Musical
Instruments Corporation in 2007, Ms. Pruitt served as a
senior manager at Deloitte & Touche LLP, from 1995 to
2007, serving both public and privately held companies primarily
concentrated in the real estate and consumer business
industries. She graduated from the University of Texas with a
B.A. degree in Accounting and is a member of the AICPA.
Ms. Pruitt is a Certified Public Accountant licensed in
Arizona and Texas.
Mark D. Engstrom has served as our Executive Vice
President Acquisitions since July 2009. From
February 2009 to July 2009, Mr. Engstrom served as our
independent consultant providing acquisition and asset
management support. Mr. Engstrom has 22 years of
experience in organizational leadership, acquisitions,
management, asset management, project management, leasing,
planning, facilities development, financing, and establishing
industry leading real estate and facilities groups. From 2006
through 2009, Mr. Engstrom was the
87
Chief Executive Officer of Insite Medical Properties, a real
estate services and investment company. From 2001 through 2005,
Mr. Engstrom served as a Manager of Real Estate Services
for Hammes Company and created a new business unit within the
company which was responsible for providing asset and property
management. Mr. Engstrom graduated from Michigan State
University with a B.A. degree in Pre-Law and Public
Administration and a Masters Degree from the University of
Minnesota in Hospital and Healthcare Administration.
W. Bradley Blair, II has served as an
independent director of our company since September 2006.
Mr. Blair served as the Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chairman of the board of directors of Golf Trust of America,
Inc. from the time of its formation and initial public offering
in 1997 as a REIT until his resignation and retirement in
November 2007. During such term, Mr. Blair managed the
acquisition, operation, leasing and disposition of the assets of
the portfolio. From 1993 until February 1997, Mr. Blair
served as Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and
General Counsel for The Legends Group. As an officer of The
Legends Group, Mr. Blair was responsible for all aspects of
operations, including acquisitions, development and marketing.
From 1978 to 1993, Mr. Blair was the managing partner at
Blair Conaway Bograd & Martin, P.A., a law firm
specializing in real estate, finance, taxation and acquisitions.
Currently, Mr. Blair operates the Blair Group consulting
practice, which focuses on real estate acquisitions and finance.
Mr. Blair earned a B.S. degree in Business from Indiana
University in Bloomington, Indiana and his Juris Doctorate
degree from the University of North Carolina School of Law.
Maurice J. DeWald has served as an independent director
of our company since September 2006. He has served as the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Verity Financial Group,
Inc., a financial advisory firm, since 1992, where the primary
focus has been in both the healthcare and technology sectors.
Mr. DeWald also serves as a director of Mizuho Corporate
Bank of California and as non-executive Chairman of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. Mr. DeWald also previously served
as a director of Tenet Healthcare Corporation, ARV Assisted
Living, Inc. and Quality Systems, Inc. From 1962 to 1991,
Mr. DeWald was with the international accounting and
auditing firm of KPMG, LLP, where he served at various times as
an audit partner, a member of their board of directors as well
as the managing partner of the Orange County, Los Angeles, and
Chicago offices. Mr. DeWald has served as Chairman and
director of both the United Way of Greater Los Angeles and the
United Way of Orange County California. Mr. DeWald holds a
B.B.A. degree in Accounting and Finance from the University of
Notre Dame and is a member of its Mendoza School of Business
Advisory Council. Mr. DeWald is a Certified Public
Accountant (inactive), and is a member of the California Society
of Certified Public Accountants and the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants.
Warren D. Fix has served as an independent director of
our company since September 2006. He is the Chairman of FDW,
LLC, a real estate investment and management firm. Mr. Fix
also serves as a director of First Financial Advisors, First
Foundation Bank, Accel Networks, and CT Realty Investors. Until
November of 2008, when he completed a process of dissolution, he
served for five years as the chief executive officer of WCH,
Inc., formerly Candlewood Hotel Company, Inc., having served as
its Executive Vice President, chief financial officer and
Secretary since 1995. During his tenure with Candlewood Hotel
Company, Inc., Mr. Fix oversaw the development of a chain
of extended-stay hotels, including 117 properties aggregating
13,300 rooms. From July 1994 to October 1995, Mr. Fix was a
consultant to Doubletree Hotels, primarily developing debt and
equity sources of capital for hotel acquisitions and
refinancing. Mr. Fix has been and continues to be a partner
in The Contrarian Group, a business management and investment
company since December 1992. From 1989 to December 1992,
Mr. Fix served as President of The Pacific Company, a real
estate investment and a development company. During his tenure
at The Pacific Company, Mr. Fix was responsible for the
development, acquisition and management of an apartment
portfolio comprising in excess of 3,000 units From 1964 to
1989, Mr. Fix held numerous positions, including Chief
Financial Officer, within The Irvine Company, a major
California-based real estate firm that develops residential
property, for-sale housing, apartments, commercial, industrial,
retail, hotel and other land related uses. Mr. Fix was one
of the initial team of ten professionals hired by The Irvine
Company to initiate the development of 125,000 acres of
land in Orange County, California. Mr. Fix is a Certified
Public Accountant (inactive). He received his B.A. degree from
Claremont McKenna College and is a graduate of the UCLA
Executive Management Program, the Stanford
88
Financial Management Program, the UCLA Anderson Corporate
Director Program, and the Stanford Directors Consortium.
Larry L. Mathis has served as an independent director of
our company since April 2007. Since 1998 he has served as an
executive consultant with D. Peterson & Associates in
Houston, Texas, providing counsel to select clients on
leadership, management, governance, and strategy and is the
author of The Mathis Maxims, Lessons in Leadership. For
over 35 years, Mr. Mathis has held numerous leadership
positions in organizations charged with planning and directing
the future of healthcare delivery in the United States.
Mr. Mathis is the founding President and Chief Executive
Officer of The Methodist Hospital System in Houston, Texas,
having served that institution in various executive positions
for 27 years, including the last 14 years as CEO
before his retirement in 1997. During his extensive career in
the healthcare industry, he has served as a member of the board
of directors of a number of national, state and local industry
and professional organizations, including Chairman of the board
of directors of the Texas Hospital Association, the American
Hospital Association, and the American College of Healthcare
Executives, and has served the federal government as Chairman of
the National Advisory Council on Health Care Technology
Assessment and as a member of the Medicare Prospective Payment
Assessment Commission. From 1997 to 2003, Mr. Mathis was a
member of the board of directors and Chairman of the
compensation committee of Centerpulse, Inc., and from 2004 to
present a member of the board and Chairman of the nominating and
governance committee of Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., both
U.S. publicly traded companies. Mr. Mathis received a
B.A. degree in Social Sciences from Pittsburg State University
and a M.A. degree in Health Administration from Washington
University in St. Louis, Missouri.
Gary T. Wescombe has served as an independent director of
our company since October 2006. He manages and develops real
estate operating properties through American Oak Properties,
LLC, where he is a principal. He is also director, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Arnold and Mabel Beckman
Foundation, a nonprofit foundation established for the purpose
of supporting scientific research. From October 1999 to December
2001, he was a partner in Warmington Wescombe Realty Partners in
Costa Mesa, California, where he focused on real estate
investments and financing strategies. Prior to retiring in 1999,
Mr. Wescombe was a partner with Ernst & Young,
LLP (previously Kenneth Leventhal & Company) from 1970
to 1999. In addition, Mr. Wescombe also served as a
director of G REIT, Inc. from December 2001 to January 2008
and has served as chairman of the trustees of G REIT
Liquidating Trust since January 2008. Mr. Wescombe received
a B.S. degree in Accounting and Finance from California State
University and is a member of the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants and California Society of Certified
Public Accountants.
Board
Experience
Our board of directors has diverse and extensive knowledge and
expertise in industries that are of particular importance to us,
including the real estate and healthcare industries. This
knowledge and experience includes acquiring, financing,
developing, constructing, leasing, managing and disposing of
both institutional and non-institutional commercial real estate.
In addition, our board of directors has extensive and broad
legal, auditing and accounting experience. Our board of
directors has numerous years of hands-on and executive
commercial real estate experience drawn from a wide range of
disciplines. Each director was nominated to the board of
directors on the basis of the unique skills he brings to the
board, as well as how such skills collectively enhance our board
of directors. On an individual basis:
|
|
|
|
|
Our Chairman, Mr. Peters, has over 20 years of
experience in managing publicly traded real estate investment
trusts and brings insight into all aspects of our business due
to both his current role and his history with the company. His
comprehensive experience and extensive knowledge and
understanding of the healthcare and real estate industries has
been instrumental in the creation, development and launching of
our company, as well as our current investment strategy.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Blair provides broad real estate and legal experience,
having served a variety of companies in advisory, executive
and/or
director roles for over 35 years, including over
10 years as CEO, president and Chairman of the board of
directors of a publicly traded REIT. He also operates a
consulting
|
89
|
|
|
|
|
practice which focuses on real estate acquisitions and finance.
His diverse background in other business disciplines, coupled
with his deep understanding and knowledge of real estate,
contributes to the quality guidance and oversight he brings to
our board of directors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. DeWald, based on his 30 year career with the
international accounting and auditing firm of KPMG LLP, offers
substantial expertise in accounting and finance. Mr. DeWald
also has over 15 years of experience as a director of a
number of companies in the healthcare, financial, banking and
manufacturing sectors.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Fix offers financial and management expertise, with
particular industry knowledge in real estate, hospitality,
agriculture and financial services. He has served in various
executive
and/or
director roles in a number of public and private companies in
the real estate, financial and technology sectors, for over
40 years.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Mathis brings extensive experience in the healthcare
industry, having held numerous leadership positions in
organizations charged with planning and directing the future of
healthcare delivery in the United States for over 35 years,
including serving as Chairman of the National Advisory Council
on Health Care Technology Assessment and as a member of the
Medicare Prospective Payment Assessment Commission. He is the
founding president and CEO of The Methodist Hospital System in
Houston, Texas, and has served as an executive consultant in the
healthcare sector for over ten years.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Wescombe provides expertise in accounting, real estate
investments and financing strategies, having served a number of
companies in various executive
and/or
director roles for over 40 years in both the real estate
and non-profit sectors, including almost 30 years as a
partner with Ernst & Young, LLP. He currently manages
and develops real estate operating properties as a principal of
a real estate company.
|
Committees
of Our Board of Directors
Our board of directors may establish committees it deems
appropriate to address specific areas in more depth than may be
possible at a full board meeting, provided that the majority of
the members of each committee are independent directors. Our
board of directors has established an audit committee, a
compensation committee, a nominating and corporate governance
committee, an investment committee and a risk management
committee.
Audit Committee. Our audit committees
primary function is to assist the board of directors in
fulfilling its oversight responsibilities by reviewing the
financial information to be provided to the stockholders and
others, the system of internal controls which management has
established, and the audit and financial reporting process. The
audit committee is responsible for the selection, evaluation
and, when necessary, replacement of our independent registered
public accounting firm. Under our audit committee charter, the
audit committee will always be comprised solely of independent
directors. The audit committee is currently comprised of Messrs
Blair, DeWald, Fix, Mathis and Wescombe, all of whom are
independent directors. Mr. DeWald currently serves as the
chairman and has been designated as the audit committee
financial expert.
Compensation Committee. The primary
responsibilities of our compensation committee are to advise the
board on compensation policies, establish performance objectives
for our executive officers, review and recommend to our board of
directors the appropriate level of director compensation and
annually review our compensation strategy and assess its
effectiveness. Under our compensation committee charter, the
compensation committee will always be comprised solely of
independent directors. The compensation committee is currently
comprised of Messrs. Blair, DeWald, Fix and Wescombe, all
of whom are independent directors. Mr. Wescombe currently
serves as the chairman.
Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committee. The nominating and corporate
governance committees primary purposes are to identify
qualified individuals to become board members, to recommend to
the board the selection of director nominees for election at the
annual meeting of stockholders, to make recommendations
regarding the composition of the board of directors and its
committees, to assess director independence and board
effectiveness, to develop and implement corporate governance
guidelines and to oversee our compliance and ethics program. The
nominating and corporate governance committee is currently
90
comprised of Messrs. Blair, Fix and Mathis, all of whom are
independent directors. Mr. Fix currently serves as the
chairman.
Investment Committee. Our investment
committees primary function is to assist the board of
directors in reviewing proposed acquisitions presented by our
management. The investment committee has the authority to reject
but not to approve proposed acquisitions, which must receive the
approval of the board of directors. The investment committee is
currently comprised of Messrs. Blair, Fix, Peters and
Wescombe. Messrs. Blair, Fix and Wescombe are independent
directors. Mr. Blair currently serves as the chairman.
Risk Management Committee. Our risk management
committees primary function is to assist the board of
directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities by
reviewing, assessing and discussing with our management team,
general counsel and auditors: (1) material risks or
exposures associated with the conduct of our business;
(2) internal risk management systems management has
implemented to identity, minimize, monitor or manage such risks
or exposures; and (3) managements policies and
procedures for risk management. The risk management committee is
currently comprised of Messrs. Blair, DeWald and Mathis,
all of whom are independent directors. Mr. Mathis currently
serves as the chairman.
Amended
and Restated 2006 Incentive Plan and Independent Directors
Compensation Plan
We have adopted an incentive stock plan, which we use to attract
and retain qualified independent directors, employees and
consultants providing services to us who are considered
essential to our long-term success by offering these individuals
an opportunity to participate in our growth through awards in
the form of, or based on, our common stock.
The incentive stock plan provides for the granting of awards to
participants in the following forms to those independent
directors, employees, and consultants selected by the plan
administrator for participation in the incentive stock plan:
|
|
|
|
|
options to purchase shares of our common stock, which may be
nonstatutory stock options or incentive stock options under the
U.S. tax code;
|
|
|
|
stock appreciation rights, which give the holder the right to
receive the difference between the fair market value per share
on the date of exercise over the grant price;
|
|
|
|
performance awards, which are payable in cash or stock upon the
attainment of specified performance goals;
|
|
|
|
restricted stock, which is subject to restrictions on
transferability and other restrictions set by the committee;
|
|
|
|
restricted stock units, which give the holder the right to
receive shares of our common stock, or the equivalent value in
cash or other property, in the future;
|
|
|
|
deferred stock units, which give the holder the right to receive
shares of our common stock, or the equivalent value in cash or
other property, at a future time;
|
|
|
|
dividend equivalents, which entitle the participant to payments
equal to any dividends paid on the shares of our common stock
underlying an award; and/or
|
|
|
|
other stock based awards in the discretion of the plan
administrator, including unrestricted stock grants and units of
our operating partnership.
|
Any such awards will provide for exercise prices, where
applicable, that are not less than the fair market value of our
common stock on the date of the grant. Any shares issued under
the incentive stock plan will be subject to the ownership limits
contained in our charter.
Our board of directors or a committee of its independent
directors administers the incentive stock plan, with sole
authority to select participants, determine the types of awards
to be granted and all of the terms and conditions of the awards,
including whether the grant, vesting or settlement of awards may
be subject to the attainment of one or more performance goals.
No awards will be granted under the plan if the grant, vesting
91
and/or
exercise of the awards would jeopardize our status as a REIT
under the Code or otherwise violate the ownership and transfer
restrictions imposed under our charter.
The maximum number of shares of our common stock that may be
issued upon the exercise or grant of an award under the
incentive stock plan is 10,000,000. In the event of a
nonreciprocal corporate transaction that causes the per-share
value of our common stock to change, such as a stock dividend,
stock split, spin-off, rights offering, or large nonrecurring
cash dividend, the share authorization limits of the incentive
stock plan will be adjusted proportionately.
Unless otherwise provided in an award certificate or any special
plan document governing an award, upon the termination of a
participants service due to death or disability (as
defined in the plan) or a change of control for grants made
prior to February 24, 2011, (i) all of that
participants outstanding options and stock appreciation
rights will become fully vested and exercisable; (ii) all
time-based vesting restrictions on that participants
outstanding awards will lapse; and (iii) the payout level
under all of that participants outstanding
performance-based awards will be determined and deemed to have
been earned based upon an assumed achievement of all relevant
performance goals at the target level, and the
awards will payout on a pro rata basis, based on the time within
the performance period that has elapsed prior to the date of
termination.
Unless otherwise provided in an award certificate or any special
plan document governing an award, upon the occurrence of a
change in control of the company (as defined in the plan) in
which awards are not assumed by the surviving entity or
otherwise equitably converted or substituted in connection with
the change in control in a manner approved by the compensation
committee or our board of directors: (i) all outstanding
options and stock appreciation rights will become fully vested
and exercisable; (ii) all time-based vesting restrictions
on outstanding awards will lapse as of the date of termination;
and (iii) the payout level under outstanding
performance-based awards will be determined and deemed to have
been earned as of the effective date of the change in control
based upon an assumed achievement of all relevant performance
goals at the target level, and the awards will
payout on a pro rata basis, based on the time within the
performance period that has elapsed prior to the change in
control. With respect to awards assumed by the surviving entity
or otherwise equitably converted or substituted in connection
with a change in control, if within one year after the effective
date of the change in control, a participants employment
is terminated without cause or the participant resigns for good
reason (as such terms are defined in the plan), then:
(i) all of that participants outstanding options and
stock appreciation rights will become fully vested and
exercisable; (ii) all time-based vesting restrictions on
that participants outstanding awards will lapse as of the
date of termination; and (iii) the payout level under all
of that participants performance-based awards that were
outstanding immediately prior to effective time of the change in
control will be determined and deemed to have been earned as of
the date of termination based upon an assumed achievement of all
relevant performance goals at the target level, and
the awards will payout on a pro rata basis, based on the time
within the performance period that has elapsed prior to the date
of termination.
The plan will automatically expire on the tenth anniversary of
the date on which it is adopted, unless extended or earlier
terminated by the board of directors. The board of directors may
terminate the plan at any time, but such termination will have
no adverse impact on any award that is outstanding at the time
of such termination. The board of directors may amend the plan
at any time, but any amendment would be subject to stockholder
approval if, in the reasonable judgment of the board,
stockholder approval would be required by any law, regulation or
rule applicable to the plan. No termination or amendment of the
plan may, without the written consent of the participant, reduce
or diminish the value of an outstanding award determined as if
the award had been exercised, vested, cashed in or otherwise
settled on the date of such amendment or termination. The board
may amend or terminate outstanding awards, but those amendments
may require consent of the participant and, unless approved by
the stockholders or otherwise permitted by the antidilution
provisions of the plan, the exercise price of an outstanding
option may not be reduced, directly or indirectly, and the
original term of an option may not be extended.
Under Section 162(m) of the Code, a public company
generally may not deduct compensation in excess of
$1 million paid to its Chief Executive Officer and the four
next most highly compensated executive
92
officers. In order for awards granted under the plan to be
exempt, the incentive stock plan must be amended to comply with
the exemption conditions and be resubmitted for approval by our
stockholders.
Code of
Business Conduct and Ethics
We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, or the
Code of Ethics, which contains general guidelines for conducting
our business and is designed to help directors, employees and
independent consultants resolve ethical issues in an
increasingly complex business environment. The Code of Ethics
applies to our principal executive officer, principal financial
officer, principal accounting officer, controller and persons
performing similar functions and all members of our board of
directors. The Code of Ethics covers topics including, but not
limited to, conflicts of interest, confidentiality of
information, and compliance with laws and regulations. The full
text of our Code of Ethics is published on our web site at
www.htareit.com. We intend to disclose future amendments
to certain provisions of our Code of Ethics, or waivers of such
provisions granted to executive officers and directors, on the
web site within four business days following the date of such
amendment or waiver.
Indemnification
Agreements
We have entered into indemnification agreements with each of our
independent directors, non-independent director and executive
officers. Pursuant to the terms of these indemnification
agreements, we will indemnify and advance expenses and costs
incurred by our directors and officers in connection with any
claims, suits or proceedings brought against such directors and
officers as a result of his or her service. However, our
indemnification obligation is subject to the limitations set
forth in the indemnification agreements and in our charter.
Section 16(a)
Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires each director,
officer, and individual beneficially owning more than 10.0% of a
registered security of the company to file with the SEC, within
specified time frames, initial statements of beneficial
ownership (Form 3) and statements of changes in
beneficial ownership (Forms 4 and 5) of common stock
of the company. These specified time frames require the
reporting of changes in ownership within two business days of
the transaction giving rise to the reporting obligation.
Reporting persons are required to furnish us with copies of all
Section 16(a) forms filed with the SEC. Based solely on a
review of the copies of such forms furnished to us during and
with respect to the year ended December 31, 2010 or written
representations that no additional forms were required, to the
best of our knowledge, all required Section 16(a) filings
were timely and correctly made by reporting persons during 2010.
|
|
Item 11.
|
Executive
Compensation.
|
COMPENSATION
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
In the paragraphs that follow, we provide an overview and
analysis of our compensation program and policies, the material
compensation decisions we have made under those programs and
policies with respect to our named executive officers, and the
material factors that we considered in making those decisions.
Following this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, under the
heading Executive Compensation you will find a
series of tables containing specific data about the compensation
earned in 2010 by the following individuals, whom we refer to as
our named executive officers:
|
|
|
|
|
Scott D. Peters, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of the Board;
|
|
|
|
Kellie S. Pruitt, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
Treasurer; and
|
|
|
|
Mark D. Engstrom, Executive Vice President
Acquisitions.
|
93
Compensation
Philosophy and Objectives
Our objective is to provide compensation packages that take into
account the scope of the duties and responsibilities of each
executive officer. Our executive compensation packages reflect
the increased level of responsibilities and scope of duties
attendant with our self-management model, the increase in the
size of our company, and our focus on performance-based
compensation. We completed the transition to self-management in
the third quarter of 2009. In addition, we strive to provide
compensation that rewards the achievement of specific short-,
medium- and long-term strategic goals, and aligns the interests
of key employees with stockholders. The compensation paid to the
executives is designed to achieve the right balance of
incentives, appropriately reward our executives and maximize
their performance over the long-term. We recognize the
importance of our compensation system being properly aligned
with our current business model and strategic plans.
Another key priority for us today and in the future is to
attract, retain and motivate a top quality management team. In
order to accomplish this objective, the compensation paid to our
executives must be competitive in the marketplace.
In furtherance of these objectives, we refrain from using highly
leveraged incentives that drive risky, short-term behavior. By
rewarding short-, medium- and long-term performance, we are
better positioned to achieve the ultimate objective of
increasing stockholder value.
Ongoing
Assessment of Compensation Program
The compensation committee and the Board of Directors conduct
ongoing comprehensive reviews of our compensation program to
ensure it meets our primary objective to reward
demonstrated performance and to incentivize future performance
by our management and Board of Directors, which results in added
value to our company and our stockholders, in the short, mid,
and long term. The compensation committee and the Board of
Directors as a whole recognize that an effective compensation
structure is critical to our success now and in the future. A
key element of this ongoing compensation review is to look at
our company today as a self-managed entity and to take into
account our future strategic direction and objectives, including
potential stockholder value enhancement and liquidity events.
Our compensation structure needs to be both competitive and
focused on aligning the performance by our executives and
employees with a fair reward system.
We recently determined that certain strategic opportunities and
initiatives should be undertaken and that our compensation
programs need to be adjusted and amended to be consistent with
changes in our corporate strategies, different timeframes,
changes in scope of work, changes in the potential value and
application of previously contemplated incentive programs,
extraordinary performance and other factors. The compensation
committee and Board of Directors are reviewing and adjusting the
existing compensation program to ensure that performance
incentives are put in place consistent with our strategic
initiatives and the expected employee performance to achieve
these initiatives. The compensation committee has engaged Towers
Watson & Co., an independent compensation consultant,
to assist and advise the compensation committee with this
review. The compensation committee may also engage additional
consultants as part of this process. After such review is
completed, the compensation committee and our Board of Directors
may make changes to the current compensation structure,
including, without limitation, the establishment of performance
compensation based on early and mid-range liquidity and other
stockholder value enhancement actions and changes to the
employee retention program discussed below.
Our
Business and 2010 Performance
During 2010, we continued to execute our business plan, generate
stockholder value and position our company for continued 2011
growth. Here are some of the highlights.
Equity Proceeds. In March of 2010, we
successfully launched a follow-on offering to raise up to
$2.2 billion. Under the follow-on offering, we raised
approximately $506 million during the year ended December
31, 2010, excluding shares issued under the DRIP. As part of our
strategic review process and in response to the substantial
equity being raised, we announced our intention to stop raising
equity in the near
94
future. On February 28, 2011, we terminated our follow-on
offering, except for sales pursuant to the DRIP. As of the date
of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
we have raised approximately $2.2 billion in equity
proceeds since our inception, excluding proceeds associated with
shares issued under the DRIP.
Acquisitions. During 2010, we purchased a
substantial amount of assets, investing approximately
$806 million in 24 new portfolio acquisitions. These
acquisitions consist of over 3.5 million square feet with
approximately 96% occupancy as of December 31, 2010. They
were chosen for and are located in areas that continue to
complement our existing overall portfolio. Notably, over 50% of
our acquisitions were identified and made available to us
through direct, off-market sources with quality healthcare
systems and owners. We believe this reflects the strength of our
acquisition network and our relationships in the industry.
Balance Sheet. In 2010, we continued to focus
on maintaining a strong balance sheet with leverage levels in
the low 30% range. Our strategy has been and continues to be a
prudent consumer and user of credit. In tight economic times,
our strong balance sheet and low leverage are critical and
provide significant acquisition opportunities. We have avoided
the credit problems which affected many highly leveraged
companies. In 2010, our strong liquidity position continued to
provide us with the funding ability to take advantage of
acquisition opportunities.
Credit Transactions. In addition to asset
acquisitions, we entered into a number of key credit
transactions and expanded key lending relationships in 2010. As
the economy and credit markets improved, we took the opportunity
to access quality credit at low interest rates. Accessing such
credit provides us with a lower cost structure as the cost of
credit is well below the cost of capital associated with raising
equity.
In 2010, we established key banking relationships with
J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo, Deutsche Bank and other quality
investment bankers and banks. In November 2010, we successfully
closed a $275 million, three-year, unsecured credit
facility with this banking group. This unsecured credit facility
can be expanded to $500 million, subject to conditions.
Asset Management. As of December 31,
2010, our total assets were approximately $2.27 billion
based on purchase price. Our portfolio consists of approximately
10.9 million square feet with an overall portfolio
occupancy over 91% as of December 31, 2010. Our assets are
located in 24 states. We continue to focus on states that
we believe have strong healthcare macro-economic drivers, like
Arizona, Texas, South Carolina, and Indiana. We believe that the
healthcare reform legislation enacted in 2010 builds upon the
strong sector fundamentals with expanded coverage for
individuals, increasing GDP spending, an aging population, and
the continued demand for healthcare services.
Cost Savings. For the year ended
December 31, 2010, we would have been required to pay
acquisition, asset management and above market property
management fees of approximately $44,351,000, to our former
advisor if we were still subject to the advisory agreement under
its original terms prior to the commencement of our transition
to self-management. The cost of self-management during the year
ended December 31, 2010 was approximately $10,630,000.
Therefore, we achieved a net cost savings of approximately
$33,721,000 ($44,351,000 fees saved minus $10,630,000) for the
year ended December 31, 2010 resulting from our
self-management cost structure. In addition and just as
importantly, we eliminated internalization fees, established a
management and employee team dedicated to our stockholders, and
we put ourselves in a position to move our company forward to
the next stage of our lifecycle.
How We
Determine our Compensation Arrangements
The compensation committee reviews on an ongoing basis the
compensation arrangements of our executive officers and
employees, and our overall compensation structure. In addition,
the employment agreements of our named executive officers
require that their base salary be reviewed by the compensation
committee no less frequently than annually. In conducting these
ongoing reviews in 2010, the compensation committee took into
account, among other things, the following:
|
|
|
|
|
the successful completion of the highlighted actions set forth
in the section above entitled Our Business and 2010
Performance;
|
95
|
|
|
|
|
the successful completion of our transition to self-management
and the continued growth and productivity of our organization as
a self-managed entity;
|
|
|
|
the commencement and success of our follow-on offering;
|
|
|
|
the substantial level and quality of new acquisitions that we
completed in the past year;
|
|
|
|
our increasing coverage of distributions with cash flow from
operations;
|
|
|
|
the gross cost savings of $10.8 million in 2009 and
$44.4 million in 2010 resulting from our self-management
program;
|
|
|
|
our completion of significant credit transactions;
|
|
|
|
our overall financial strength and growth; and
|
|
|
|
the anticipated added scope of work in 2011 and beyond as we
explore strategic opportunities to benefit our stockholders.
|
Our compensation committees independent consultant, Towers
Watson, conducted a competitive market assessment of the
compensation levels of each of our named executive officers
compared to survey data from the 2009 NAREIT Compensation
Survey, as well as a peer group assembled by Towers Watson
consisting of the following companies:*
|
|
|
HCP, Inc.
|
|
Nationwide Health Properties, Inc.
|
Health Care REIT, Inc.
|
|
BioMed Realty Trust, Inc.
|
Ventas, Inc.
|
|
Healthcare Realty Trust Incorporated
|
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.
|
|
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.
|
Brandywine Realty Trust
|
|
Medical Properties Trust, Inc.
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Companies reviewed from the 2009 NAREIT Compensation Survey
included healthcare REITs of all sectors with total
capitalization within a range of $3 billion to
$6 billion. Towers Watson selected the peer group companies
based on financial scope ($1 billion to $12 billion in
assets and median assets of $3.6 billion), business segment
(healthcare-related and office REITs) and structure
(self-managed and publicly traded). In its market assessment,
Towers Watson analyzed median and 75th percentile pay levels.
For market pay comparisons, Towers Watson considers executives
to be paid competitively and within the range of
competitive practice if their: (i) base salary is within
+/−10% of the competitive pay standard; (ii) total
cash compensation is within +/−15% of the competitive pay
standard; and (iii) total direct compensation is within
+/−20% of the competitive pay standard. |
Towers Watson found that total direct compensation (base salary,
annual bonus and long-term incentives) for our Chief Executive
Officer is competitive at the market median and that total
direct compensation for our other named executive officers was
below the median when compared to both the 2009 NAREIT
Compensation Survey data and the peer group proxy data. As
stated above, Towers Watson also reviewed competitive equity
holdings and found that our named executive officers total
equity holdings were low relative to current total equity
holdings of named executive officers at our peer companies.
Finally, Towers Watson reviewed the
change-in-control
severance protections afforded to our named executive officers
and concluded that for the Chief Executive Officer, the current
severance provision is above competitive practice and for the
other named executive officers, the current severance provisions
are somewhat below competitive levels. The compensation
committee uses the market information to help guide its
compensation decisions, but does not benchmark to a particular
percentile within the peer group or otherwise target any element
of compensation at a particular level or quartile within the
peer group. As discussed below, the compensation committee
approved a change to the base salary for Ms. Pruitt and
approved a change to the bonus target for Ms. Pruitt to
bring her compensation more in line with peers at similar
companies. In addition, our compensation committee approved
additional equity grants to Messrs. Peters and Engstrom and
Ms. Pruitt to increase their level of equity holdings
closer to the levels held by named executive officers at our
peer
96
companies, as well as to provide performance and retention
incentives to these executive officers, as discussed in more
detail below.
Elements
of our 2010 Compensation Program
During 2010, the key elements of compensation for our named
executive officers were base salary, annual bonus and long-term
equity incentive awards, as described in more detail below. In
addition to these key elements, we also provide severance
protection for our named executive officers, as discussed below.
Base Salary. Base salary provides the
fixed portion of compensation for our named executive officers
and is intended to reward core competence in their role relative
to skill, experience and contributions to us. In connection with
entering into the employment agreements in 2009, the
compensation committee approved the following initial annual
base salaries: Mr. Peters, $500,000; Mr. Engstrom,
$275,000; and Ms. Pruitt, $180,000. In May 2010, as a
result of its review of our compensation structure discussed
above, the compensation committee approved a $250,000 increase
to Mr. Peters annual base salary and a $45,000
increase to Ms. Pruitts base salary. The compensation
committee determined that Mr. Engstroms base salary
continued to be appropriate at that time. In December 2010,
based on continued demonstrated performance and added scope of
work, which includes ongoing assessment and implementation of
anticipated strategic opportunities to benefit our stockholders,
the compensation committee approved increases to the annual base
salaries of Mr. Engstrom and Ms. Pruitt, both to
$300,000.
Annual Bonus. Annual bonuses reward and
recognize contributions to our financial goals and achievement
of individual objectives. Each of our named executive officers
is eligible to earn an annual performance bonus in an amount
determined at the sole discretion of the compensation committee
for each year. Pursuant to the terms of their employment
agreements, Mr. Peters initial maximum bonus is 200%
of base salary. Mr. Engstroms target bonus is 100% of
base salary. In May 2010, the compensation committee increased
Ms. Pruitts target bonus to 100% of her base salary
in order to better align her performance based compensation with
her level of responsibilities and duties.
The compensation committee, together with Mr. Peters,
developed a broad list of goals and objectives for
Mr. Peters for 2010. The compensation committee
awarded Mr. Peters the maximum bonus payable to him under
his employment agreement based on its assessment of his
performance during fiscal year 2010. In reviewing his
performance, the compensation committee concluded that
Mr. Peters accomplished, and in many cases, exceeded such
goals and objectives, which included:
|
|
|
|
|
effectively leading the expansion of the company, including
growing our portfolio through the acquisition of quality,
performing assets;
|
|
|
|
successfully negotiating substantial and creative value-added
transaction terms and conditions;
|
|
|
|
coordinating successful and competitive refinancing transactions
during a time of significant dislocations in the credit markets;
|
|
|
|
maintaining a strong and solid balance sheet;
|
|
|
|
successfully launching our follow-on offering;
|
|
|
|
recruiting and effectively supervising our employees;
|
|
|
|
implementing effective risk management at all key levels of the
company;
|
|
|
|
establishing and enhancing our relationships with commercial and
investment banks;
|
|
|
|
maintaining and actively enhancing our stockholder
first, performance-driven philosophy;
|
|
|
|
effectively establishing our independent brand name as an asset
to our company; and
|
|
|
|
facilitating an open and effective dialogue with our board.
|
The compensation committee relied primarily on the
recommendations of Mr. Peters in determining the bonus
amounts for Mr. Engstrom and Ms. Pruitt.
Mr. Peters based his recommendations on his
assessment of
97
Mr. Engstrom and Ms. Pruitts performance during
2010. For example, Mr. Peters considered the number of
successful acquisitions that Mr. Engstrom negotiated and
completed and his management of our acquisitions team.
Mr. Peters considered Ms. Pruitts outstanding
performance and significant accomplishments during 2010,
including playing a key role in obtaining unsecured and secured
financing for the company and developing relationships with key
commercial and investment banks, as well as further developing
our corporate office and infrastructure, building our accounting
team and assisting in the coordination of ongoing stockholder
value enhancement actions. The compensation committee considered
Mr. Peters recommendations and approved the bonuses
for Mr. Engstrom and Ms. Pruitt.
Long-Term Equity Incentive
Awards. Long-term equity incentive awards are
an important element of our compensation program because these
awards align the interests of our named executive officers with
those of our stockholders and provide a strong retentive
component to the executives compensation arrangement. In
2010, restricted stock was the primary equity award vehicle
offered to our named executive officers. The compensation
committee reviewed the grant practices of the peer group
companies and awarded our named executive officers equity awards
with a value that is consistent with the equity grants provided
by the peer group, and with the demonstrated performance to
date, and expected ongoing performance and correlated added
value to us in the future.
In May 2010, our board approved an employee retention program
pursuant to which we have and will grant our executive officers
and employees restricted shares of our common stock. The purpose
of this program is to incentivize our executive officers and
employees to remain with us for a minimum of three years,
subject to meeting our performance standards. The board and the
compensation committee determined that this program is
consistent with our overall goal of hiring and retaining highly
qualified employees. Pursuant to this program, on May 24,
2010, Messrs. Peters and Engstrom and Ms. Pruitt were
entitled to receive grants of 100,000, 50,000 and
50,000 shares of restricted stock, respectively.
Mr. Peters elected to receive a restricted cash award in
lieu of 50,000 shares. The restricted shares and the
restricted cash award granted to Mr. Peters will vest in
three equal installments on each anniversary of the grant date,
and the restricted shares granted to Ms. Pruitt and
Mr. Engstrom will vest 100% on the third anniversary of the
grant date, in each case provided that the executive is employed
by us on each vesting date. Mr. Peters is also entitled to
certain annual restricted stock grants pursuant to the terms of
his employment agreement. For additional information regarding
these grants, see the Grants of Plan-Based Award table and the
narrative following such table later in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
In December 2010, our board approved additional grants to our
named executive officers that were made on January 3, 2011,
taking into account advice from Towers Watson, demonstrated
extraordinary performance, our current strategic plan, and the
importance to our company of retaining and motivating
experienced key officers as we move into the next stage of our
life-cycle. Messrs. Peters and Engstrom and Ms. Pruitt
were entitled to receive grants of 200,000, 80,000 and
80,000 shares of restricted stock, respectively.
Mr. Peters elected to receive a restricted cash award in
lieu of 100,000 shares. The restricted shares and the
restricted cash award granted to Mr. Peters vested with
respect to 25% on the grant date and will vest in three
additional installments of 25% on each anniversary of the grant
date, and the restricted shares granted to Ms. Pruitt and
Mr. Engstrom will vest 100% on the third anniversary of the
grant date, in each case provided that the executive is employed
by us on each vesting date.
Restricted stock has a number of attributes that makes it an
attractive equity award for our named executive officers. The
vesting schedule provides a strong retention element to their
compensation package if the executive voluntarily
terminates employment, he or she will forfeit any unvested
restricted stock. At the same time, the executive retains the
attributes of stock ownership through voting rights and
distributions. Given that there is no readily available market
providing liquidity for our common shares, and in light of the
limitation in our governing documents that poses an obstacle to
our withholding shares from the restricted stock when it vests,
the compensation committee designed Mr. Peters award
so that he could elect to receive a portion of the value of the
award in cash in order to satisfy his tax obligations.
Employment Agreements. We are party to
an employment agreement with each of Messrs. Peters and
Engstrom and Ms. Pruitt. In considering the appropriate
terms of the employment agreements, the
98
compensation committee focused on the increased duties and
responsibilities of such individuals under self-management. Each
of these executives has played and will continue to play a major
role in hiring, supervising and overseeing our employees, the
transition and implementation of self-management and the
post-transition management of our company. In particular, as
part of and as a result of this transition, the role of
Mr. Peters, as our Chief Executive Officer and President,
has been significantly expanded on a number of levels. Each of
the employment agreements also specifies the payments and
benefits to which Messrs. Peters and Engstrom and
Ms. Pruitt are entitled upon a termination of employment
for specified reasons. For additional information regarding the
potential severance payments to our named executive officers,
see Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in
Control later in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Material
Changes to Our Compensation Program
Approval of Amended and Restated 2006 Incentive
Plan. On February 24, 2011, our board
approved the Amended and Restated 2006 Incentive Plan in order
to increase the number of shares available for grant thereunder
from 2,000,000 to 10,000,000. The Amended and Restated 2006
Incentive Plan also includes additional amendments designed,
among other things, to address recent tax developments and
address stockholder preferences, including removal of the
liberal share counting provisions and elimination of
the single-trigger vesting of awards upon a change in control on
a go-forward basis. Our board has not yet made any additional
grants pursuant to the Amended and Restated 2006 Incentive Plan.
COMPENSATION
COMMITTEE REPORT
Our compensation committee of our board of directors oversees
our compensation program on behalf of our board. In fulfilling
its oversight responsibilities, the committee reviewed and
discussed with management the above Compensation Discussion and
Analysis included in this report.
In reliance on the review and discussion referred to above, our
compensation committee recommended to the board of directors
that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in our
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2010, and our proxy
statement on Schedule 14A to be filed in connection with
our 2011 annual meeting of stockholders, each of which has been
or will be filed with the SEC.
This report shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
by any general statement incorporating by reference this Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
the Exchange Act and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under
such acts. This report is provided by the following independent
directors, who constitute the committee:
Gary T. Wescombe, Chair
W. Bradley Blair, II
Maurice J. DeWald
Warren D. Fix
Summary
Compensation Table
The summary compensation table below reflects the total
compensation earned by our named executive officers for the
years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010. We did not
employ any other executive officer other than Mr. Peters
for the year ended December 31, 2008.
99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive Plan
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
Name and Principal Position
|
|
Year
|
|
Salary ($)
|
|
Bonus ($)(4)
|
|
Stock Awards ($)(5)
|
|
Compensation ($)
|
|
Compensation ($)(7)
|
|
Total ($)
|
|
Scott D. Peters
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
655,208
|
|
|
|
1,500,000
|
|
|
|
1,100,000
|
|
|
|
325,000
|
(6)
|
|
|
217,045
|
|
|
|
3,797,253
|
|
Chief Executive Officer,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
504,753
|
|
|
|
1,200,000
|
|
|
|
750,000
|
|
|
|
375,000
|
(6)
|
|
|
67,623
|
|
|
|
2,897,376
|
|
President and Chairman of the Board (Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
148,333
|
(3)
|
|
|
58,333
|
|
|
|
400,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,252
|
|
|
|
608,918
|
|
Kellie S. Pruitt(1)
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
207,937
|
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,594
|
|
|
|
973,531
|
|
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer (Principal
Financial Officer)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
168,942
|
|
|
|
125,000
|
|
|
|
250,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,022
|
|
|
|
546,964
|
|
Mark D. Engstrom(2)
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
275,000
|
|
|
|
275,000
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,877
|
|
|
|
1,091,877
|
|
Executive Vice President Acquisitions
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
252,403
|
|
|
|
110,000
|
|
|
|
400,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,589
|
|
|
|
788,992
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Ms. Pruitt was appointed as Chief Accounting Officer in
January 2009, as Treasurer in April 2009, as Secretary in July
2009, and was promoted to Chief Financial Officer in May 2010. |
|
(2) |
|
Mr. Engstrom was appointed as Executive Vice
President Acquisitions in July, 2009. |
|
(3) |
|
Reflects (a) $90,000 received pursuant to
Mr. Peters consulting arrangement with us from
August 1, 2008, through October 31, 2008, and
(b) $58,333 received as base salary pursuant to his 2008
employment agreement with us from November 1, 2008, through
December 31, 2008. |
|
(4) |
|
Reflects the annual cash bonuses earned by our named executive
officers for the applicable year. |
|
(5) |
|
Reflects the aggregate grant date fair value of awards granted
to the named executive officers in the reported year, determined
in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board ASC
Topic 718 Stock Compensation (ASC Topic 718). For
information regarding the grant date fair value of awards of
unrestricted stock, restricted stock and restricted stock units,
see Note 14, Stockholders Equity, to our accompanying
consolidated financial statements. |
|
(6) |
|
For 2010, reflects two restricted cash awards that
Mr. Peters elected to receive in lieu of a grant of
restricted shares. Under one award, $200,000 was fully-vested on
the date of grant and $400,000 remains subject to vesting. Under
the second award, $125,000 vested from a previous grant. For
2009, reflects two restricted cash awards that
Mr. Peters elected to receive in lieu of a grant of
restricted shares. Under one award, $125,000 was fully-vested on
the date of grant and $375,000 remains subject to vesting. Under
the second award, $250,000 fully vested at issuance. See the
Grants of Plan-Based Awards table and the narrative following
the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table for additional information
regarding this award. |
|
(7) |
|
Amounts in this column for 2010 include: (1) payments for
100% of the premiums for health care coverage under our group
health plan for each of the named executive officers in the
following amounts: Mr. Peters, $15,338; Ms. Pruitt,
$15,338; and Mr. Engstrom, $15,338; (2) distributions
on stock awards in the following amounts: Mr. Peters,
$187,284; Ms. Pruitt, $20,929; and Mr. Engstrom,
$21,261; and (3) payment for unused earned vacation benefit
in the following amounts: Mr. Peters, $14,423;
Ms. Pruitt, $4,327; and Mr. Engstrom, $5,288. Amounts
in this column for 2009 include: (1) payments for 100% of
the premiums for health care coverage under our group health
plan for each of the named executive officers in the following
amounts: Mr. Peters, $4,935; Ms. Pruitt, $3,022; and
Mr. Engstrom, $4,935; (2) distributions on stock
awards of $62,688 for Mr. Peters; and (3) relocation
expenses of $21,654 for Mr. Engstrom. Such amounts reflect
the aggregate cost to us of providing the benefit. |
Grants of
Plan-Based Awards
The following table presents information concerning plan-based
awards granted to our named executive officers for the year
ended December 31, 2010. All awards were granted pursuant
to the NNN Healthcare/
100
Office REIT, Inc. 2006 Incentive Plan (the 2006 Incentive
Plan). The narrative following the Grants of Plan-Based
Awards table provides additional information regarding the
awards reflected in this table.
Grants of
Plan-Based Awards Table in Fiscal Year 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Other Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Future Payouts under Non-Equity
|
|
Awards: Number of
|
|
Grant Date Fair
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive Plan Awards(1)
|
|
Shares of Stock or
|
|
Value of Stock and
|
Name
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
Threshold ($)
|
|
Target ($)
|
|
Maximum ($)
|
|
Units (#)
|
|
Option Awards ($)
|
|
Mr. Peters
|
|
|
05/24/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
07/01/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
600,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05/24/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,000(2
|
)
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
|
07/01/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60,000(3
|
)
|
|
|
600,000
|
|
Ms. Pruitt
|
|
|
05/24/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,000(2
|
)
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
Mr. Engstrom
|
|
|
05/24/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,000(2
|
)
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Reflects restricted cash awards. There is no threshold, target
or maximum payable pursuant to this award; instead, the award
vests based on Mr. Peters continued service with us.
See the narrative following this table for additional
information regarding the 2010 restricted cash award. |
|
(2) |
|
Reflects a grant of 50,000 restricted shares of our common stock. |
|
(3) |
|
Reflects a grant of 60,000 restricted shares of our common stock. |
Material
Terms of 2010 Compensation
We are party to an employment agreement with each of
Messrs. Peters and Engstrom and Ms. Pruitt. The
material terms of the employment agreements are described below.
In conjunction with the termination of our follow-on offering,
the compensation committee is reviewing the terms of these
employment agreements.
Term. Mr. Peters employment
agreement is for an initial term of four and one-half years,
ending on December 31, 2013. Beginning on that date, and on
each anniversary thereafter, the term of the agreement
automatically will extend for additional one-year periods unless
either party gives prior notice of non-renewal.
Mr. Engstroms and Ms. Pruitts employment
agreement each had an initial term of two years, ending on
June 30, 2011. The compensation committee has exercised its
right to extend the employment agreements of Mr. Engstrom and
Ms. Pruitt for a period of one year, ending on
June 30, 2012.
Base Salary and Benefits. The agreements
provided for the following initial annual base salaries:
Mr. Peters, $500,000; Mr. Engstrom, $275,000; and
Ms. Pruitt, $180,000. All salaries may be adjusted from
year to year in the sole discretion of the compensation
committee, provided that Mr. Peters base salary may
not be reduced. On May 20, 2010, the compensation committee
increased Mr. Peters and Ms. Pruitts
annual base salary from $500,000 to $750,000 and from $180,000
to $225,000, respectively. In December 2010, the compensation
committee increased both Ms. Pruitts and
Mr. Engstroms salaries to $300,000. The agreements
provide that each of the executives will be eligible to earn an
annual performance bonus in an amount determined at the sole
discretion of the compensation committee for each year.
Mr. Peters initial maximum bonus is 200% of base
salary. Mr. Engstroms initial target bonus is 100% of
base salary. On May 24, 2010, the compensation committee
increased Ms. Pruitts target bonus from 60% to 100%
of her base salary. Each executive is entitled to all employee
benefits and perquisites made available to our senior
executives, provided that we will pay 100% of the premiums for
each executives health care coverage under our group
health plan.
Equity Grants. Pursuant to the terms of his
employment agreement, Mr. Peters is entitled to receive
additional restricted stock grants on each of July 1, 2010,
July 1, 2011 and July 1, 2012 (the first three
anniversaries of the effective date of the agreement), which
restricted shares will vest in equal installments on the grant
date and on each anniversary of the grant date during the
balance of the term of the employment agreement, provided he is
employed by us on each such vesting date. Mr. Peters may in
his sole discretion elect to receive a restricted cash award in
lieu of up to one-half of each grant of restricted shares, which
restricted cash award will be equal to the fair market value of
the foregone restricted shares and will be subject to the same
restrictions and vesting schedule as the foregone restricted
shares. On May 20, 2010, the compensation committee
approved an
101
amendment to Mr. Peters employment agreement to
(i) increase the number of restricted shares
Mr. Peters will receive on each of the first three
anniversaries of the effective date of his employment agreement
from 100,000 to 120,000; and (ii) provide that we will pay
interest at the distribution rate we pay on our shares of common
stock (currently 7.25%) on Mr. Peters outstanding
restricted cash award and any future restricted cash award(s)
granted to Mr. Peters upon his election. Accordingly, on
July 1, 2010, Mr. Peters received 60,000 restricted
shares and a $600,000 restricted cash award, each as described
below.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 1, 2010, Mr. Peters was entitled to receive a
grant of 120,000 restricted shares of our common stock. Pursuant
to the terms of his employment agreement, Mr. Peters
elected to receive a restricted cash award in lieu of 60,000
restricted shares. The restricted shares vest as follows: 20,000
on July 1, 2010 (the date of grant); 20,000 on July 1,
2011; and 20,000 on July 1, 2012, provided Mr. Peters
is employed by us on each such vesting date.
|
|
|
|
As described above, Mr. Peters elected to receive a
restricted cash award in lieu of 60,000 restricted shares. The
restricted cash award is equal to $600,000, the fair market
value of the foregone restricted shares on the date of grant,
and is subject to the same restrictions and vesting schedule as
the foregone restricted shares. Accordingly, the restricted cash
award vests as follows: $150,000 vested on July 1, 2010
(the date of grant), $150,000 on July 1, 2011; $150,000 on
July 1, 2012; and $150,000 on July 1, 2013, provided
Mr. Peters is employed by us on each such vesting date.
Pursuant to the terms of the restricted cash award, we will pay
interest at the distribution rate paid by us on our shares of
common stock (currently 7.25%) on such award.
|
Pursuant to the employee retention plan described in the
Compensation Discussion and Analysis, on May 24, 2010,
Mr. Peters, Ms. Pruitt and Mr. Engstrom were
entitled to receive grants of 100,000, 50,000 and
50,000 shares of restricted stock, respectively.
Mr. Peters elected to receive a restricted cash award in
lieu of 50,000 shares. The restricted shares and the
restricted cash award granted to Mr. Peters will vest in
three equal installments on each anniversary of the grant date,
provided that he is employed by us on such date. The shares
granted to Ms. Pruitt and Mr. Engstrom will vest 100%
on the third anniversary of the grant date, provided that the
executive is employed by us on such date. All shares have been
granted pursuant to our 2006 Incentive Plan. The restricted
shares will become immediately vested upon the earlier
occurrence of (1) the executives termination of
employment by reason of his or her death or disability,
(2) a change in control (as defined in the 2006 Plan) or
(3) the executives termination of employment by us
without cause or by the executive for good reason (as such terms
are defined in the executive officers respective
employment agreements).
In December 2010, our board approved additional grants to our
named executive officers that were made on January 3, 2011,
taking into account advice from Towers Watson, demonstrated
extraordinary performance, our current strategic plan, and the
importance to our company of retaining and motivating
experienced key officers as we move into the next stage of our
life-cycle. Messrs. Peters and Engstrom and Ms. Pruitt
were entitled to receive grants of 200,000, 80,000 and
80,000 shares of restricted stock, respectively.
Mr. Peters elected to receive a restricted cash award in
lieu of 100,000 shares. The restricted shares and the
restricted cash award granted to Mr. Peters vested with
respect to 25% on the grant date and will vest in three
additional installments of 25% on each anniversary of the grant
date, and the restricted shares granted to Ms. Pruitt and
Mr. Engstrom will vest 100% on the third anniversary of the
grant date, in each case provided that the executive is employed
by us on each vesting date.
Severance. Each of the employment agreements
also specifies the payments and benefits to which
Messrs. Peters and Engstrom and Ms. Pruitt are
entitled upon a termination of employment for specified reasons.
See Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in
Control, later in this filing, for a description of these
benefits.
102
Outstanding
Equity Awards
The following table presents information concerning outstanding
equity awards held by our named executive officers as of
December 31, 2010. Our named executive officers do not hold
any option awards.
Outstanding
Equity Awards at 2010 Fiscal Year-End
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|
|
Number of Shares or Units of
|
|
Market Value of Shares or
|
|
|
Stock That Have
|
|
Units of Stock That Have Not
|
Name
|
|
Not Vested (#)
|
|
Vested ($)(8)
|
|
Mr. Peters
|
|
|
13,333(1
|
)
|
|
|
133,333
|
|
|
|
|
25,000(2
|
)
|
|
|
250,000
|
|
|
|
|
50,000(3
|
)
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
|
40,000(4
|
)
|
|
|
400,000
|
|
Ms. Pruitt
|
|
|
16,667(5
|
)
|
|
|
166,667
|
|
|
|
|
50,000(6
|
)
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
Mr. Engstrom
|
|
|
26,667(7
|
)
|
|
|
266,667
|
|
|
|
|
50,000(6
|
)
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Reflects restricted shares of our common stock, which vest and
become non-forfeitable on November 14, 2011, provided
Mr. Peters is employed by us on such vesting date. |
|
(2) |
|
Reflects restricted shares of our common stock, which vest and
become non-forfeitable in equal installments on each of
July 1, 2011 and July 1, 2012, provided
Mr. Peters is employed by us on each such vesting date. |
|
(3) |
|
Reflects restricted shares of our common stock, which vest and
become non-forfeitable in equal installments on each of
May 24, 2011, May 24, 2012 and May 24, 2013,
provided Mr. Peters is employed by us on each such vesting
date. |
|
(4) |
|
Reflects restricted shares of our common stock, which vest and
become non-forfeitable in equal installments on each of
July 1, 2011 and July 1, 2012, provided
Mr. Peters is employed by us on each such vesting date. |
|
(5) |
|
Reflects restricted stock units, which vest in equal annual
installments on each of July 30, 2011, and July 30,
2012, provided Ms. Pruitt is employed by us on each such
vesting date. |
|
(6) |
|
Reflects restricted shares of our common stock, which vest and
become non-forfeitable on May 24, 2013, the third
anniversary of the date of grant, provided the executive is
employed by us on such vesting date. |
|
(7) |
|
Reflects restricted stock units, which vest in equal annual
installments on each of August 31, 2011 and August 31,
2012, provided Mr. Engstrom is employed by us on each such
vesting date. |
|
(8) |
|
Calculated using the per share price of shares of our common
stock as of the close of business on December 31, 2010,
based upon the price per share offered in our initial and
follow-on public offerings ($10). |
103
Option
Exercises and Stock Vested
The following table shows the number of shares acquired and the
value realized upon vesting of stock awards for each of the
named executive officers. Our named executive officers do not
hold any option awards.
Stock
Vested in Fiscal Year 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
Value Realized
|
Named Executive Officer
|
|
Acquired on Vesting (#)
|
|
on Vesting ($)
|
|
Mr. Peters
|
|
|
13,333
|
(1)
|
|
|
133,333
|
|
|
|
|
12,500
|
(2)
|
|
|
125,000
|
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
(3)
|
|
|
200,000
|
|
Ms. Pruitt
|
|
|
8,333
|
(4)
|
|
|
83,333
|
|
Mr. Engstrom
|
|
|
13,333
|
(5)
|
|
|
133,333
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Reflects shares that vested pursuant to the terms of
Mr. Peters restricted stock grant on
November 14, 2008. |
|
(2) |
|
Reflects shares that vested pursuant to the terms of
Mr. Peters restricted stock grant on July 1,
2009. |
|
(3) |
|
Reflects shares that vested pursuant to the terms of
Mr. Peters restricted stock grant on July 1,
2010. |
|
(4) |
|
Reflects restricted stock units that vested and converted to
shares of our common stock pursuant to the terms of
Ms. Pruitts restricted stock unit grant on
July 30, 2009. |
|
(5) |
|
Reflects restricted stock units that vested and converted to
shares of our common stock pursuant to the terms of
Mr. Engstroms restricted stock unit grant on
August 31, 2009. |
Potential
Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control
Summary of Potential Payments Upon Termination of
Employment. As mentioned earlier in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K, we are party to an employment
agreement with each of our named executive officers, which
provide benefits to the executive in the event of his or her
termination of employment under certain conditions. The amount
of the benefits varies depending on the reason for the
termination, as explained below.
Termination without Cause; Resignation for Good
Reason. If we terminate the executives
employment without Cause, or he or she resigns for Good Reason
(as such terms are defined in the employment agreement), the
executive will be entitled to the following benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
in the case of Mr. Peters, a lump sum severance payment
equal to (a) the sum of (1) three times his
then-current base salary plus (2) an amount equal to the
average of the annual bonuses earned prior to the termination
date, multiplied by (b) (1) if the date of termination
occurs during the initial term, the greater of one, or the
number of full calendar months remaining in the initial term,
divided by 12, or (2) if the date of termination occurs
during a renewal term after December 31, 2013, one;
provided that in no event may the severance benefit be less than
$3,000,000;
|
|
|
|
in the case of Mr. Engstrom and Ms. Pruitt, a lump sum
severance payment equal to two times his or her then-current
base salary;
|
|
|
|
continued health care coverage under COBRA for 18 months,
in the case of Mr. Peters, or six months, in the case of
Mr. Engstrom and Ms. Pruitt, with all premiums paid by
us; and
|
|
|
|
immediate vesting of Mr. Peters shares of restricted
stock and restricted cash award(s) and Mr. Engstroms
and Ms. Pruitts restricted stock units.
|
Cause, as defined in the employment agreements,
generally means: (i) the executives conviction of or
entering into a plea of guilty or no contest to a felony or a
crime involving moral turpitude or the intentional commission of
any other act or omission involving dishonesty or fraud that is
materially injurious to us; (ii) the executives
substantial and repeated failure to perform his or her duties;
(iii) with respect to Ms. Pruitt
104
and Mr. Engstrom, gross negligence or willful misconduct in
the performance of the executives duties which materially
injures us or our reputation; or (iv) with respect to
Ms. Pruitt and Mr. Engstrom, the executives
willful breach of the material covenants of his or her
employment agreement.
Good Reason, as defined in Mr. Peters
employment agreement generally means, in the absence of his
written consent: (i) a material diminution in his
authority, duties or responsibilities; (ii) a material
diminution in his base salary; (iii) relocation more than
35 miles from Scottsdale, Arizona; or (iv) a material
diminution in the authority, duties, or responsibilities of the
supervisor to whom he is required to report, including a
requirement that he report to a corporate officer or employee
instead of reporting directly to the board of directors.
Good Reason as defined in Ms. Pruitts and
Mr. Engstroms employment agreements, generally means,
in the absence of a written consent of the executive:
(i) except for executive nonperformance, a material
diminution in the executives authority, duties or
responsibilities (provided that this provision will not apply if
executives then-current base salary is kept in place) or
(ii) except in connection with a material decrease in our
business, a diminution in the executives base salary in
excess of 30%.
Disability. If we terminate the
executives employment by reason of his or her disability,
in addition to receiving his or her accrued rights, such as
earned but unpaid base salary and any earned but unpaid benefits
under company incentive plans, the executive will be entitled to
continued health care coverage under COBRA, with all premiums
paid by us, for 18 months, in the case of Mr. Peters,
or six months, in the case of Mr. Engstrom or
Ms. Pruitt. In addition, Mr. Peters shares of
restricted stock and restricted cash award(s) and
Mr. Engstroms and Ms. Pruitts restricted
stock units will become immediately vested.
Death; For Cause; Resignation without Good
Reason. In the event of a termination due to
death, cause or resignation without good reason, an executive
will receive his or her accrued rights, but he or she will not
be entitled to receive severance benefits under the agreement.
In the event of the executives death,
Mr. Peters shares of restricted stock and restricted
cash award(s) and Mr. Engstroms and
Ms. Pruitts restricted stock units will become
immediately vested.
Non-Compete Agreement. Each of
Messrs. Peters and Engstrom and Ms. Pruitt entered
into a non-compete and non-solicitation agreement with us. These
agreements generally require the executives to refrain from
competing with us within the United States and soliciting our
customers, vendors, or employees during employment through the
occurrence of a liquidity event. The agreements also limit the
executives ability to disclose or use any of our
confidential business information or practices.
105
The following table summarizes the value of the termination
payments and benefits that each of our named executive officers
would receive if he or she had terminated employment on
December 31, 2010 under the circumstances shown. The
amounts shown in the tables do not include accrued but unpaid
salary, earned annual bonus for 2010, or payments and benefits
to the extent they are provided on a non-discriminatory basis to
salaried employees generally upon termination of employment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination for
|
|
Termination without
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cause or
|
|
Cause or
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resignation without
|
|
Resignation For
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good Reason ($)
|
|
Good Reason ($)
|
|
Death ($)
|
|
Disability ($)
|
|
Mr. Peters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Severance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,800,000
|
(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit Continuation(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,173
|
|
Value of Unvested Equity Awards(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,283,333
|
|
|
|
1,283,333
|
|
|
|
1,283,333
|
|
Value of Unvested Restricted Cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,150,000
|
|
|
|
1,150,000
|
|
|
|
1,150,000
|
|
Awards(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,257,506
|
|
|
|
2,433,333
|
|
|
|
2,457,506
|
|
Ms. Pruitt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Severance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
450,000
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit Continuation(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,058
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,058
|
|
Value of Unvested Equity Awards(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
666,667
|
|
|
|
666,667
|
|
|
|
666,667
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,124,725
|
|
|
|
666,667
|
|
|
|
674,725
|
|
Mr. Engstrom
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Severance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
550,000
|
(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit Continuation(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,058
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,058
|
|
Value of Unvested Equity Awards(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
766,667
|
|
|
|
766,667
|
|
|
|
766,667
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,324,725
|
|
|
|
766,667
|
|
|
|
774,725
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents a lump sum cash severance payment calculated using
the following formula (as discussed above): (a) the sum of
(1) three times his then-current base salary plus
(2) an amount equal to the average of the annual bonuses
earned prior to the termination date, multiplied by (b)(1) if
the date of termination occurs during the initial term, the
greater of one, or the number of full calendar months remaining
in the initial term, divided by 12, or (2) if the date of
termination occurs during a renewal term after December 31,
2013, one. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents company-paid COBRA for medical and dental coverage
based on 2010 rates for 18 months, in the case of
Mr. Peters, or six months, in the case of Mr. Engstrom
and Ms. Pruitt. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents the value of unvested equity awards that vest upon
the designated event. Pursuant to the 2006 Incentive Plan,
equity awards vest upon the executives termination of
service with us due to death or disability or upon the
executives termination by us without Cause or the
executives resignation for Good Reason. Awards of
restricted stock and restricted stock units are valued as of
year-end 2010 based upon the fair market value of our common
stock on December 31, 2010, the last day in our 2010 fiscal
year ($10). |
|
(4) |
|
Represents the value of Mr. Peters unvested
restricted cash awards. |
|
(5) |
|
Represents a lump sum cash severance payment equal to two times
the executives then-current base salary. |
Summary of Potential Payments upon a Change in
Control. Pursuant to the 2006 Incentive Plan,
equity awards, and Mr. Peters restricted cash awards,
vest upon the occurrence of a change in control of our company.
The 2006 Incentive Plan generally provides that a Change in
Control occurs upon the occurrence of any of the following:
(1) when our incumbent board of directors cease to
constitute a majority of the board of directors; (2) except
in the case of certain issuances or acquisitions of stock, when
any person acquires a 25%
106
or more ownership interest in the outstanding combined voting
power of our then outstanding securities; or (3) the
consummation of a reorganization, merger or consolidation or
sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of our
assets, unless (a) the beneficial owners of our combined
voting power immediately prior to the transaction continue to
own 50% or more of the combined voting power of our then
outstanding securities, (b) no person acquires a 25% or
more ownership interest in the combined voting power of our then
outstanding securities, and (c) at least a majority of the
members of the board of directors of the surviving corporation
were incumbent directors at the time of approval of the
corporate transaction.
The following table summarizes the value of the payments that
each of our named executive officers would receive if a change
in control occurred on December 31, 2010, independent of
whether the executive incurs a termination of employment. Upon
the occurrence of a change in control followed by the
executives termination by us without Cause or the
executives resignation for Good Reason, the executive
would also be entitled to the severance benefits set forth above.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Peters
|
|
|
|
|
Value of Unvested Equity Awards(1)
|
|
|
1,283,333
|
|
Value of Unvested Restricted Cash Awards(2)
|
|
|
1,150,000
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
2,433,333
|
|
Ms. Pruitt
|
|
|
|
|
Value of Unvested Equity Awards(1)
|
|
|
666,667
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
666,667
|
|
Mr. Engstrom
|
|
|
|
|
Value of Unvested Equity Awards(1)
|
|
|
766,667
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
766,667
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents the value of unvested awards of restricted stock and
restricted stock units, as applicable, which are valued as of
year-end 2010 based upon the fair market value of our common
stock on December 31, 2010, the last day in our 2010 fiscal
year ($10). |
|
(2) |
|
Represents the value of unvested restricted cash awards. |
The risk management committee reviews our compensation policies
and practices as a part of its overall review of the material
risks or exposures associated with our internal and external
exposures. Through its continuous process of review, we have
concluded that our compensation policies are not reasonably
likely to have a material adverse effect on us.
Director
Compensation
Our independent directors receive compensation pursuant to the
terms of our 2006 Independent Directors Compensation Plan, a
sub-plan of
our 2006 Incentive Plan, as amended. In 2010, the compensation
committee reviewed the compensation payable to our independent
directors. In conducting this review, the compensation committee
took into account, among other things, the substantial time and
effort required of our directors, the value to our company of
retaining experienced directors with a history at our company,
the successful completion of our transition to self-management,
and our overall financial strength and growth, as well as the
results of a 2008 NAREIT survey regarding director compensation
and a 2009 report from Towers Watson. On May 20, 2010,
based upon the recommendation of the compensation committee, our
board approved certain amendments to our independent director
compensation plan, each of which is described below.
Annual Retainer. Our independent directors
receive an annual retainer of $50,000.
Annual Retainer, Committee Chairman. Effective
May 20, 2010, the board increased the annual retainer
payable to the chairman of the audit committee from $7,500 to
$15,000 and increased the annual retainer payable to the
chairman of each of the compensation committee, the nominating
and corporate governance committee, the investment committee and
the risk management committee from $7,500 to $12,500. These
retainers are in addition to the annual retainer payable to all
independent board members for board service.
107
Meeting Fees. Our independent directors
receive $1,500 for each board meeting attended in person or by
telephone and $1,000 for each committee meeting attended in
person or by telephone. An additional $1,000 is paid to the
committee chair for each committee meeting attended in person or
by telephone. Effective May 20, 2010, if a board meeting is
held on the same day as a committee meeting, the independent
directors will receive a fee for each meeting attended.
Equity Compensation. Upon initial election to
our board of directors, each independent director receives
5,000 shares of restricted common stock. Effective
May 20, 2010, our board increased the number shares of
restricted common stock each independent director is entitled to
receive upon his or her subsequent election each year from 5,000
to 7,500 restricted shares. The shares of restricted common
stock vest as to 20% of the shares on the date of grant and on
each anniversary thereafter over four years from the date of
grant.
Expense Reimbursement. We reimburse our
directors for reasonable
out-of-pocket
expenses incurred in connection with attendance at meetings,
including committee meetings, of our board of directors.
Independent directors do not receive other benefits from us. Our
non-independent director, Mr. Peters, does not receive any
compensation in connection with his service as a director.
The following table sets forth the compensation earned by our
independent directors for the year ended December 31, 2010:
Director
Compensation Table for 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees Earned or
|
|
Stock Awards
|
|
Total
|
Name
|
|
Paid in Cash ($)
|
|
($)(1)
|
|
($)
|
|
W. Bradley Blair, II
|
|
|
133,000
|
|
|
|
75,000
|
|
|
|
208,000
|
|
Maurice J. DeWald
|
|
|
128,000
|
|
|
|
75,000
|
|
|
|
203,000
|
|
Warren D. Fix
|
|
|
126,000
|
|
|
|
75,000
|
|
|
|
201,000
|
|
Larry L. Mathis
|
|
|
121,000
|
|
|
|
75,000
|
|
|
|
196,000
|
|
Gary T. Wescombe
|
|
|
129,000
|
|
|
|
75,000
|
|
|
|
204,000
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Reflects the aggregate grant date fair value of restricted stock
awards granted to the directors, determined in accordance with
ASC Topic 718. For information regarding the grant date fair
value of awards of restricted stock, see Note 14,
Stockholders Equity, to our accompanying consolidated
financial statements. On December 8, 2010, each of the
independent directors received 7,500 shares of restricted
stock. The aggregate number of shares of restricted common stock
held by each independent director as of December 31, 2010
is as follows: Mr. Blair, 22,500; Mr. DeWald, 22,500;
Mr. Fix, 26,006; Mr. Mathis, 28,025; and
Mr. Wescombe, 22,500. |
COMPENSATION
COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION
During 2010, W. Bradley Blair, II, Maurice J. DeWald,
Warren D. Fix and Gary T. Wescombe, all of whom are independent
directors, served on our compensation committee. None of them
was an officer or employee of our company in 2010 or any time
prior thereto. During 2010, none of the members of the
compensation committee had any relationship with our company
requiring disclosure under Item 404 of
Regulation S-K.
None of our executive officers served as a member of the board
of directors or compensation committee, or similar committee, of
another entity, one of whose executive officer(s) served as a
member of our board of directors or our compensation committee.
108
|
|
Item 12.
|
Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and
Related Stockholder Matters.
|
PRINCIPAL
STOCKHOLDERS
The following table shows, as of March 21, 2011, the number
of shares of our common stock beneficially owned by:
(1) any person who is known by us to be the beneficial
owner of more than 5.0% of the outstanding shares of our common
stock, (2) our directors, (3) our named executive
officers and (4) all of our directors and executive
officers as a group. The percentage of common stock beneficially
owned is based on 225,235,398 shares of our common stock
outstanding as of March 21, 2011. Beneficial ownership is
determined in accordance with the rules of the SEC and generally
includes securities over which a person has voting or investment
power and securities that a person has the right to acquire
within 60 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
Name of Beneficial Owners(1)
|
|
Beneficially Owned
|
|
Percentage
|
|
Scott D. Peters
|
|
|
325,000
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Kellie Pruitt
|
|
|
136,343
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Mark D. Engstrom
|
|
|
140,481
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
W. Bradley Blair, II
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Maurice J. DeWald
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Warren D. Fix
|
|
|
26,006
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Larry L. Mathis
|
|
|
28,025
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Gary T. Wescombe
|
|
|
22,500
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All directors and executive officers as a group (8 persons)
|
|
|
723,355
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Represents less than 1.0% of our outstanding common stock. |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The address of each beneficial owner listed is
c/o Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc., The Promenade, 16435 North Scottsdale
Road, Suite 320, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254. |
EQUITY
COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION
The following table gives information as of December 31,
2010 about the common stock that may be issued under our equity
compensation plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
to be Issued Upon
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
|
Exercise of
|
|
|
Exercise Price of
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Available for Future
|
|
Plan Category
|
|
Warrants and Rights(2)
|
|
|
Warrants and Rights(3)
|
|
|
Issuance(4)
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders(1)
|
|
|
43,334
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,387,500
|
|
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
43,334
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,387,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
2006 Incentive Plan. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes shares issuable pursuant to conversion of restricted
stock units. Does not include 364,333 outstanding restricted
shares granted under the 2006 Incentive Plan. |
|
(3) |
|
Excludes restricted stock and restricted stock units that
convert to shares of common stock for no consideration. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes approximately 1,387,500 shares that are available
for issuance pursuant to grants of full-value stock awards, such
as restricted stock and restricted stock units as of
December 31, 2010. As discussed |
109
|
|
|
|
|
above, on February 24, 2011, our board approved the Amended and
Restated 2006 Incentive Plan, which increased the number of
shares available for grant thereunder from 2,000,000 to
10,000,000. |
|
|
Item 13.
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director
Independence.
|
Fees and
Expenses Paid to Affiliates
See Note 12, Related Party Transactions, to our
accompanying consolidated financial statements, for a further
discussion of our related party transactions.
Related
Person Transactions
In order to reduce or eliminate certain potential conflicts of
interest, our charter contains restrictions and conflict
resolution procedures relating to transactions we enter into
with our directors or their respective affiliates. These
restrictions and procedures include, among others, the following:
|
|
|
|
|
We will not purchase or lease any asset (including any property)
in which any of our directors or any of their affiliates has an
interest without a determination by a majority of our directors,
including a majority of the independent directors, not otherwise
interested in such transaction that such transaction is fair and
reasonable to us and at a price to us no greater than the cost
of the property to such director or directors or any such
affiliate, unless there is substantial justification for any
amount that exceeds such cost and such excess amount is
determined to be reasonable. In no event will we acquire any
such asset at an amount in excess of its appraised value.
|
|
|
|
We will not sell or lease assets to any of our directors or any
of their affiliates unless a majority of our directors,
including a majority of the independent directors, not otherwise
interested in the transaction determine the transaction is fair
and reasonable to us, which determination will be supported by
an appraisal obtained from a qualified, independent appraiser
selected by a majority of our independent directors.
|
|
|
|
We will not make any loans to any of our directors or any of
their affiliates. In addition, any loans made to us by our
directors or any of their affiliates must be approved by a
majority of our directors, including a majority of the
independent directors, not otherwise interested in the
transaction as fair, competitive and commercially reasonable,
and no less favorable to us than comparable loans between
unaffiliated parties.
|
|
|
|
We will not invest in any joint ventures with any of our
directors or any of their affiliates unless a majority of our
directors, including a majority of the independent directors,
not otherwise interested in the transaction determine the
transaction is fair and reasonable to us and on substantially
the same terms and conditions as those received by other joint
ventures.
|
Our board of directors recognizes that transactions between us
and any of our directors, executive officers and significant
stockholders can present potential or actual conflicts of
interest and create the appearance that our decisions are based
on considerations other than the best interests of our company
and our stockholders. Therefore, as a general matter and
consistent with our charter and code of ethics, it is our
preference to avoid such transactions. Nevertheless, we
recognize that there are situations where such transactions may
be in, or may not be inconsistent with, the best interests of
our company and our stockholders. Accordingly, in addition to
the restrictions and conflict resolution procedures described
above and as set forth in our charter, our board of directors
has adopted a Related Person Transactions Policy which provides
that our nominating and corporate governance committee will
review all transactions in which we are or will be a participant
and the amount involved exceeds $120,000 if a related person
had, has or will have a direct or indirect material interest in
such transaction. Any such potential transaction is required to
be reported to our nominating and corporate governance committee
for their review. Our nominating and corporate governance
committee will only approve or ratify such related person
transactions that are (i) in, or are not inconsistent with,
the best interests of us and our stockholders, as the nominating
and corporate governance committee determines in good faith,
(ii) on terms comparable to those that could be obtained in
arms length dealings with an unrelated
110
third person and (iii) approved or ratified by a majority
of the disinterested members of the nominating and corporate
governance committee.
In making such a determination, the nominating and corporate
governance committee is required to consider all of the relevant
and material facts and circumstances available to it including
(if applicable, and without limitation) the benefits to us of
the transaction, the ongoing impact of the transaction on a
directors independence, the availability of other sources
for comparable products or services, the terms of the
transaction, and whether the terms are comparable to the terms
available to unrelated third parties generally. A member of the
nominating and corporate governance committee is precluded from
participating in any review, consideration or approval of any
transaction with respect to which the director or the
directors immediate family members are related persons.
Director
Independence
We have a six-member board of directors. One of our directors,
Mr. Peters, is employed by us and we do not consider him to
be an independent director. Our remaining directors qualify as
independent directors as defined in our charter in
compliance with the requirements of the North American
Securities Administrators Associations Statement of Policy
Regarding Real Estate Investment Trusts. Our charter is
available on our web site at www.htareit.com. Our charter
provides that a majority of the directors must be
independent directors.
Each of our independent directors would also qualify as
independent under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange and
our audit committee members would qualify as independent under
the New York Stock Exchanges rules applicable to audit
committee members. However, our stock is not listed on the New
York Stock Exchange.
|
|
Item 14.
|
Principal
Accounting Fees and Services.
|
Deloitte & Touche, LLP has served as our independent
auditors since April 24, 2006 and audited our consolidated
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2010,
2009, 2008 and 2007.
The following table lists the fees for services billed by our
independent auditors in 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Services
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Audit Fees(1)
|
|
$
|
1,496,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,221,000
|
|
Audit related fees(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax fees(3)
|
|
|
284,000
|
|
|
|
77,000
|
|
All other fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,580,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,298,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Audit fees billed in 2010 and 2009 consisted of the audit of our
annual consolidated financial statements, a review of our
quarterly consolidated financial statements, and statutory and
regulatory audits, consents and other services related to
filings with the SEC, including filings related to our offering. |
|
(2) |
|
Audit related fees consist of financial accounting and reporting
consultations. |
|
(3) |
|
Tax services consist of tax compliance and tax planning and
advice. |
The audit committee preapproves all auditing services and
permitted non-audit services (including the fees and terms
thereof) to be performed for us by our independent auditor,
subject to the de minimis exceptions for non-audit services
described in Section 10A(i)(1)(b) of the Exchange Act and
the rules and regulations of the SEC.
111
PART IV
|
|
Item 15.
|
Exhibits,
Financial Statement Schedules.
|
(a)(1) Financial Statements:
INDEX TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
|
114
|
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
|
117
|
|
|
|
|
118
|
|
(a)(2) Financial Statement Schedules:
The following financial statement schedules for the year ended
December 31, 2010 are submitted herewith:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
Valuation and Qualifying Accounts (Schedule II)
|
|
|
167
|
|
Real Estate Investments and Accumulated Depreciation
(Schedule III)
|
|
|
168
|
|
Mortgage loans on Real Estate (Schedule IV)
|
|
|
172
|
|
(a)(3) Exhibits:
The exhibits listed on the Exhibit Index (following the
signatures section of this report) are included, or incorporated
by reference, in this annual report.
(b) Exhibits:
See Item 15(a)(3) above.
(c) Financial Statement Schedule:
See Item 15(a)(2) above.
112
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Healthcare Trust of America, Inc.
Scottsdale, Arizona
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. and subsidiaries (the
Company) as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and
the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2010. Our audits
also included the financial statement schedules listed in the
Index at Item 15. These consolidated financial statements
and financial statement schedules are the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedules based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to
have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal
control over financial reporting. Our audits included
consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a
basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion
on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An
audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements, assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating
the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that
our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of
Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2010, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. Also, in our opinion, such financial statement
schedules, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated
financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in all
material respects the information set forth therein.
As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial
statements, due to recent accounting pronouncements that became
effective on January 1, 2009, the Company changed its
method of accounting for acquisition costs in business
combinations.
/s/ Deloitte &
Touche LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
March 25, 2011
113
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS
As of
December 31, 2010 and 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Real estate investments, net:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating properties, net
|
|
$
|
1,772,923,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,149,789,000
|
|
Properties classified as held for sale, net
|
|
|
24,540,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total real estate investments, net
|
|
|
1,797,463,000
|
|
|
|
1,149,789,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate notes receivable, net
|
|
|
57,091,000
|
|
|
|
54,763,000
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
29,270,000
|
|
|
|
219,001,000
|
|
Accounts and other receivables, net
|
|
|
16,385,000
|
|
|
|
10,820,000
|
|
Restricted cash and escrow deposits
|
|
|
26,679,000
|
|
|
|
14,065,000
|
|
Identified intangible assets, net
|
|
|
300,587,000
|
|
|
|
203,222,000
|
|
Non-real estate assets of properties held for sale
|
|
|
3,768,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets, net
|
|
|
40,552,000
|
|
|
|
21,875,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
2,271,795,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,673,535,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loans payable, net
|
|
$
|
699,526,000
|
|
|
$
|
540,028,000
|
|
Outstanding balance on unsecured revolving credit facility
|
|
|
7,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
|
|
43,033,000
|
|
|
|
30,471,000
|
|
Accounts payable due to former affiliates, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,776,000
|
|
Derivative financial instruments interest rate swaps
|
|
|
1,527,000
|
|
|
|
8,625,000
|
|
Security deposits, prepaid rent and other liabilities
|
|
|
16,168,000
|
|
|
|
7,815,000
|
|
Identified intangible liabilities, net
|
|
|
13,059,000
|
|
|
|
6,954,000
|
|
Liabilities of properties held for sale
|
|
|
369,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
780,682,000
|
|
|
|
598,669,000
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (Note 11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redeemable noncontrolling interest of limited partners
(Note 13)
|
|
|
3,867,000
|
|
|
|
3,549,000
|
|
Equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value; 200,000,000 shares
authorized; none issued and outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.01 par value; 1,000,000,000 shares
authorized; 202,643,705 and 140,590,686 shares issued and
outstanding as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively
|
|
|
2,026,000
|
|
|
|
1,405,000
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
1,795,413,000
|
|
|
|
1,251,996,000
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(310,193,000
|
)
|
|
|
(182,084,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
1,487,246,000
|
|
|
|
1,071,317,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and equity
|
|
$
|
2,271,795,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,673,535,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
114
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rental income
|
|
$
|
192,294,000
|
|
|
$
|
123,133,000
|
|
|
$
|
78,007,000
|
|
Interest income from mortgage notes receivable and other income
|
|
|
7,585,000
|
|
|
|
3,153,000
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
199,879,000
|
|
|
|
126,286,000
|
|
|
|
78,010,000
|
|
Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rental expenses
|
|
|
65,338,000
|
|
|
|
44,667,000
|
|
|
|
27,912,000
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
18,753,000
|
|
|
|
12,285,000
|
|
|
|
3,261,000
|
|
Asset management fees to former advisor (Note 12)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,783,000
|
|
|
|
6,177,000
|
|
Acquisition-related expenses
|
|
|
11,317,000
|
|
|
|
15,997,000
|
|
|
|
122,000
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
77,338,000
|
|
|
|
52,372,000
|
|
|
|
36,482,000
|
|
Redemption, termination, and release payment to former advisor
(Note 12)
|
|
|
7,285,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses
|
|
|
180,031,000
|
|
|
|
129,104,000
|
|
|
|
73,954,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before other income (expense)
|
|
|
19,848,000
|
|
|
|
(2,818,000
|
)
|
|
|
4,056,000
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense (including amortization of deferred financing
costs and debt discount):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense related to unsecured notes payable to affiliate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,000
|
)
|
Interest expense related to mortgage loans payable, credit
facility, and derivative financial instruments
|
|
|
(35,336,000
|
)
|
|
|
(28,112,000
|
)
|
|
|
(20,708,000
|
)
|
Net gain (loss) on derivative financial instruments
|
|
|
5,954,000
|
|
|
|
5,279,000
|
|
|
|
(12,436,000
|
)
|
Interest and dividend income
|
|
|
119,000
|
|
|
|
249,000
|
|
|
|
469,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(9,415,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(25,402,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(28,621,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
1,496,000
|
|
|
|
629,000
|
|
|
|
212,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(7,919,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(24,773,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(28,409,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: Net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interest
of limited partners
|
|
|
16,000
|
|
|
|
(304,000
|
)
|
|
|
(39,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to controlling interest
|
|
$
|
(7,903,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(25,077,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(28,448,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share attributable to controlling
interest on distributed and undistributed earnings
basic and diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(0.06
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.23
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.67
|
)
|
Discontinued operations
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss per share attributable to controlling interest
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.66
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
165,952,860
|
|
|
|
112,819,638
|
|
|
|
42,844,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
165,952,860
|
|
|
|
112,819,638
|
|
|
|
42,844,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
115
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
For the
Years Ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
Preferred
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Stockholders
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Paid-In Capital
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Deficit
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
BALANCE December 31, 2007
|
|
|
21,449,451
|
|
|
|
214,000
|
|
|
|
190,534,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15,158,000
|
)
|
|
|
175,590,000
|
|
Issuance of common stock
|
|
|
52,694,439
|
|
|
|
528,000
|
|
|
|
525,824,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
526,352,000
|
|
Offering costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55,146,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55,146,000
|
)
|
Issuance of restricted common stock
|
|
|
52,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of share-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
130,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
130,000
|
|
Issuance of common stock under the DRIP
|
|
|
1,378,795
|
|
|
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
13,085,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,099,000
|
|
Repurchase of common stock
|
|
|
(109,748
|
)
|
|
|
(1,000
|
)
|
|
|
(1,076,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,077,000
|
)
|
Distributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31,180,000
|
)
|
|
|
(31,180,000
|
)
|
Net loss attributable to controlling interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28,448,000
|
)
|
|
|
(28,448,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE December 31, 2008
|
|
|
75,465,437
|
|
|
$
|
755,000
|
|
|
$
|
673,351,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(74,786,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
599,320,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock
|
|
|
62,696,254
|
|
|
|
627,000
|
|
|
|
622,025,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
622,652,000
|
|
Offering costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(64,793,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(64,793,000
|
)
|
Issuance of restricted common stock
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of share-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
816,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
816,000
|
|
Issuance of common stock under the DRIP
|
|
|
4,059,006
|
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
|
|
38,519,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,559,000
|
|
Repurchase of common stock
|
|
|
(1,730,011
|
)
|
|
|
(17,000
|
)
|
|
|
(16,249,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16,266,000
|
)
|
Distributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(82,221,000
|
)
|
|
|
(82,221,000
|
)
|
Adjustment to redeemable noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,673,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,673,000
|
)
|
Net loss attributable to controlling interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25,077,000
|
)
|
|
|
(25,077,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE December 31, 2009
|
|
|
140,590,686
|
|
|
$
|
1,405,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,251,996,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(182,084,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,071,317,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock
|
|
|
61,191,096
|
|
|
|
615,000
|
|
|
|
594,062,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
594,677,000
|
|
Offering costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(56,621,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(56,621,000
|
)
|
Issuance of restricted common stock
|
|
|
357,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of share-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,313,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,313,000
|
|
Issuance of common stock under the DRIP
|
|
|
5,952,683
|
|
|
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
56,491,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56,551,000
|
|
Repurchase of common stock
|
|
|
(5,448,260
|
)
|
|
|
(54,000
|
)
|
|
|
(51,802,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(51,856,000
|
)
|
Distributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(120,507,000
|
)
|
|
|
(120,507,000
|
)
|
Adjustment to redeemable noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
301,000
|
|
|
|
275,000
|
|
Net loss attributable to controlling interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,903,000
|
)
|
|
|
(7,903,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE December 31, 2010
|
|
|
202,643,705
|
|
|
$
|
2,026,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,795,413,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(310,193,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,487,246,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
116
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$
|
(7,919,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(24,773,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(28,409,000
|
)
|
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization (including deferred financing
costs, above/below market leases, debt discount, leasehold
interests, deferred rent receivable, note receivable closing
costs and discount, and lease inducements) operating
properties and held for sale properties
|
|
|
72,678,000
|
|
|
|
48,808,000
|
|
|
|
35,617,000
|
|
Share-based compensation, net of forfeitures
|
|
|
1,313,000
|
|
|
|
816,000
|
|
|
|
130,000
|
|
Loss on property insurance settlements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
90,000
|
|
Bad debt expense
|
|
|
1,022,000
|
|
|
|
965,000
|
|
|
|
442,000
|
|
Change in fair value of derivative financial instruments
|
|
|
(6,095,000
|
)
|
|
|
(5,523,000
|
)
|
|
|
12,822,000
|
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts and other receivables, net
|
|
|
(7,102,000
|
)
|
|
|
(5,167,000
|
)
|
|
|
(4,261,000
|
)
|
Other assets
|
|
|
(3,207,000
|
)
|
|
|
(3,332,000
|
)
|
|
|
(1,076,000
|
)
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
|
|
7,815,000
|
|
|
|
4,856,000
|
|
|
|
5,578,000
|
|
Accounts payable due to former affiliates, net
|
|
|
(4,776,000
|
)
|
|
|
3,631,000
|
|
|
|
(176,000
|
)
|
Security deposits, prepaid rent and other liabilities
|
|
|
4,774,000
|
|
|
|
1,341,000
|
|
|
|
(80,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
58,503,000
|
|
|
|
21,628,000
|
|
|
|
20,677,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of real estate operating properties
|
|
|
(597,097,000
|
)
|
|
|
(402,268,000
|
)
|
|
|
(503,638,000
|
)
|
Acquisition of real estate notes receivable and related options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37,135,000
|
)
|
|
|
(15,000,000
|
)
|
Acquisition costs related to real estate notes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(555,000
|
)
|
|
|
(338,000
|
)
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(14,888,000
|
)
|
|
|
(9,060,000
|
)
|
|
|
(4,478,000
|
)
|
Restricted cash and escrow deposits
|
|
|
(12,614,000
|
)
|
|
|
(6,318,000
|
)
|
|
|
(3,142,000
|
)
|
Real estate deposits
|
|
|
(2,250,000
|
)
|
|
|
(250,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from insurance settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
481,000
|
|
|
|
121,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(626,849,000
|
)
|
|
|
(455,105,000
|
)
|
|
|
(526,475,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowings on mortgage loans payable
|
|
|
79,125,000
|
|
|
|
37,696,000
|
|
|
|
227,695,000
|
|
Purchase of noncontrolling interest
|
|
|
(4,097,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowings on unsecured notes payable to affiliate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,000,000
|
|
(Payments) borrowings under the previous secured revolving
credit facility with LaSalle Bank and KeyBank, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(51,801,000
|
)
|
(Payments) borrowings under the unsecured revolving credit
facility with JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, net
|
|
|
7,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments on mortgage loans payable and demand note
|
|
|
(123,117,000
|
)
|
|
|
(11,671,000
|
)
|
|
|
(1,832,000
|
)
|
Payments on unsecured notes payable to affiliate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,000,000
|
)
|
Derivative financial instrument termination payments
|
|
|
(793,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common stock
|
|
|
594,677,000
|
|
|
|
622,652,000
|
|
|
|
528,816,000
|
|
Deferred financing costs
|
|
|
(7,507,000
|
)
|
|
|
(792,000
|
)
|
|
|
(3,688,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Security deposits
|
|
|
2,144,000
|
|
|
|
767,000
|
|
|
|
127,000
|
|
Repurchase of common stock
|
|
|
(51,856,000
|
)
|
|
|
(16,266,000
|
)
|
|
|
(1,077,000
|
)
|
Payment of offering costs
|
|
|
(56,621,000
|
)
|
|
|
(68,360,000
|
)
|
|
|
(54,339,000
|
)
|
Distributions
|
|
|
(60,176,000
|
)
|
|
|
(39,500,000
|
)
|
|
|
(14,943,000
|
)
|
Distributions to noncontrolling interest of limited partners
|
|
|
(164,000
|
)
|
|
|
(379,000
|
)
|
|
|
(296,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
378,615,000
|
|
|
|
524,147,000
|
|
|
|
628,662,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET CHANGE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
|
|
(189,731,000
|
)
|
|
|
90,670,000
|
|
|
|
122,864,000
|
|
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS Beginning of period
|
|
|
219,001,000
|
|
|
|
128,331,000
|
|
|
|
5,467,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS End of period
|
|
$
|
29,270,000
|
|
|
$
|
219,001,000
|
|
|
$
|
128,331,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
$
|
30,438,000
|
|
|
$
|
27,623,000
|
|
|
$
|
19,323,000
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
$
|
345,000
|
|
|
$
|
337,000
|
|
|
$
|
45,000
|
|
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF NONCASH ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
2,768,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,783,000
|
|
|
$
|
2,112,000
|
|
The following represents the significant increase in certain
assets & liabilities in connection with our
acquisitions of real estate investments & notes
receivable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loan payable, net
|
|
$
|
190,294,000
|
|
|
$
|
52,965,000
|
|
|
$
|
48,989,000
|
|
Security deposits, prepaid rent, and other liabilities
|
|
$
|
14,552,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Issuance of operating partnership units in connection with
Fannin acquisition
|
|
$
|
1,557,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Financing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock under the DRIP
|
|
$
|
56,551,000
|
|
|
$
|
38,559,000
|
|
|
$
|
13,099,000
|
|
Distributions declared but not paid including stock issued under
the DRIP
|
|
$
|
12,317,000
|
|
|
$
|
8,555,000
|
|
|
$
|
4,393,000
|
|
Accrued offering costs to former affiliate
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,918,000
|
|
Adjustment to redeemable noncontrolling interests
|
|
$
|
(275,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,673,000
|
|
|
$
|
883,000
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
117
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
For the
Years Ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008
The use of the words we, us or
our refers to Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. and
its subsidiaries, including Healthcare Trust of America
Holdings, LP, except where the context otherwise requires.
|
|
1.
|
Organization
and Description of Business
|
Healthcare Trust of America, Inc., a Maryland corporation, was
incorporated on April 20, 2006. We were initially
capitalized on April 28, 2006 and consider that to be our
date of inception.
We are a fully integrated, self-administered, and self-managed
real estate investment trust, or REIT. Accordingly, our internal
management team manages our
day-to-day
operations and oversees and supervises our employees and outside
service providers. Acquisitions and asset management services
are performed in-house by our employees, with certain monitored
services provided by third parties at market rates. We do not
pay acquisition, disposition, or asset management fees to an
external advisor, and we have not and will not pay any
internalization fees.
We provide stockholders the potential for income and growth
through investment in a diversified portfolio of real estate
properties. We focus primarily on medical office buildings and
healthcare-related facilities. We also invest to a limited
extent in other real estate-related assets. However, we do not
presently intend to invest more than 15.0% of our total assets
in such other real estate-related assets. We focus primarily on
investments that produce recurring income. Subject to the
discussion in Note 11, Commitments and Contingencies,
regarding the closing agreement that we intend to request from
the IRS, we believe that we have qualified to be taxed as a REIT
for federal income tax purposes and we intend to continue to be
taxed as a REIT. We conduct substantially all of our operations
through Healthcare Trust of America Holdings, LP, or our
operating partnership.
As of December 31, 2010, we had made 77 portfolio
acquisitions comprising approximately 10,919,000 square
feet of gross leasable area, or GLA, which includes 238
buildings and two real estate-related assets. Additionally, we
purchased the remaining 20% interest that we previously did not
own in HTA-Duke Chesterfield Rehab, LLC, or the JV Company that
owns the Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center. The aggregate
purchase price of these acquisitions was $2,266,359,000. As of
December 31, 2010, the average occupancy of these
properties was 91%.
On September 20, 2006, we commenced a best efforts initial
public offering, or our initial offering, in which we offered up
to 200,000,000 shares of our common stock for $10.00 per
share and up to 21,052,632 shares of our common stock
pursuant to our distribution reinvestment plan, or the DRIP, at
$9.50 per share, aggregating up to $2,200,000,000. As of
March 19, 2010, the date upon which our initial offering
terminated, we had received and accepted subscriptions in our
initial offering for 147,562,354 shares of our common
stock, or $1,474,062,000, excluding shares of our common stock
issued under the DRIP.
On March 19, 2010, we commenced a best efforts follow-on
public offering, or our follow-on offering, in which we offered
up to 200,000,000 shares of our common stock for $10.00 per
share in our primary offering and up to 21,052,632 shares
of our common stock pursuant to the DRIP at $9.50 per share,
aggregating up to $2,200,000,000. As of December 31, 2010,
we received and accepted subscriptions in our follow-on offering
for 50,604,239 shares of our common stock, or $505,534,000,
excluding shares of our common stock issued under the DRIP. The
primary offering terminated on February 28, 2011. For
noncustodial accounts, subscription agreements signed on or
before February 28, 2011 with all documents and funds
received by the end of business March 15, 2011 were
accepted. For custodial accounts, subscription agreements signed
on or before February 28, 2011 with all documents and funds
received by the end of business March 31, 2011 will be
accepted. As of March 21, 2011, we had received and
accepted subscriptions in our follow-on offering for 71,659,602
shares of our common stock, or $715,591,000, excluding shares of
our common stock issued under the DRIP.
118
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Realty Capital Securities, LLC, or RCS, an unaffiliated third
party, served as the dealer manager for our follow-on offering.
RCS is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
or the SEC, and with all 50 states and is a member of the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA. RCS offered
our shares of common stock for sale through a network of
broker-dealers and their licensed registered representatives.
|
|
2.
|
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
|
The summary of significant accounting policies presented below
is designed to assist in understanding our consolidated
financial statements. Such financial statements and the
accompanying notes are the representations of our management,
who are responsible for their integrity and objectivity. These
accounting policies conform to accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America, or GAAP, in all
material respects, and have been consistently applied in
preparing our accompanying consolidated financial statements.
Basis
of Presentation
Our accompanying consolidated financial statements include our
accounts and those of our operating partnership, the
wholly-owned subsidiaries of our operating partnership and any
variable interest entities, or VIEs, as defined in the Financial
Accounting Standards Board, or the FASB, Accounting Standard
Codification, or ASC, 810, Consolidation, or
ASC 810. All significant intercompany balances and
transactions have been eliminated in the consolidated financial
statements. We operate in an umbrella partnership REIT, or
UPREIT, structure in which wholly-owned subsidiaries of our
operating partnership own all of the properties acquired on our
behalf. We are the sole general partner of our operating
partnership and as of December 31, 2010 and
December 31, 2009, we owned an approximately 99.92% and an
approximately 99.99%, respectively, general partner interest in
our operating partnership. Grubb & Ellis Healthcare
REIT Advisor, LLC, or our former advisor, was a limited partner
of our operating partnership and as of December 31, 2009,
owned an approximately 0.01% limited partner interest in our
operating partnership. On October 18, 2010, we entered into
a Redemption, Termination, and Release Agreement, or the
Redemption Agreement, with our former advisor, our former
dealer manager, and certain of their affiliates. Pursuant to the
Redemption Agreement, we purchased the limited partner
interest, including all rights with respect to a subordinated
distribution upon the occurrence of specified liquidity events
and other rights held by our former advisor in our operating
partnership. See Note 12, Related Party Transactions, for
further information regarding redemption of this limited partner
interest held by our former advisor. Additionally, as of
December 31, 2010, approximately 0.08% of our operating
partnership was owned by certain physician investors who
obtained limited partner interests in connection with the Fannin
acquisition (see Note 13).
Because we are the sole general partner of our operating
partnership and have unilateral control over its management and
major operating decisions (even if additional limited partners
are admitted to our operating partnership), the accounts of our
operating partnership are consolidated in our consolidated
financial statements.
Use of
Estimates
The preparation of our consolidated financial statements in
conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets,
liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of
contingent assets and liabilities. These estimates are made and
evaluated on an on-going basis using information that is
currently available as well as various other assumptions
believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual
results could differ from those estimates, perhaps in material
adverse ways, and those estimates could be different under
different assumptions or conditions.
119
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents consist of all highly liquid
investments with a maturity of three months or less when
purchased.
Restricted
Cash
Restricted cash is comprised of impound reserve accounts for
property taxes, insurance, capital improvements and tenant
improvements as well as collateral accounts for debt and
interest rate swaps.
Revenue
Recognition, Tenant Receivables and Allowance for Uncollectible
Accounts
In accordance with ASC 840, Leases , or
ASC 840, minimum annual rental revenue is recognized on a
straight-line basis over the term of the related lease
(including rent holidays). Differences between rental income
recognized and amount contractually due under the lease
agreements will be credited or charged, as applicable, to rent
receivable. Tenant reimbursement revenue, which is comprised of
additional amounts recoverable from tenants for common area
maintenance expenses and certain other recoverable expenses, is
recognized as revenue in the period in which the related
expenses are incurred. Tenant reimbursements are recognized and
presented in accordance with
ASC 605-45,
Revenue Principal Agent Considerations. This
guidance requires that these reimbursements be recorded on a
gross basis, as we are generally the primary obligor with
respect to purchasing goods and services from third-party
suppliers, have discretion in selecting the supplier and have
credit risk. We recognize lease termination fees if there is a
signed termination letter agreement, all of the conditions of
the agreement have been met, and the tenant is no longer
occupying the property.
Tenant receivables and unbilled deferred rent receivables are
carried net of the allowances for uncollectible current tenant
receivables and unbilled deferred rent. An allowance is
maintained for estimated losses resulting from the inability of
certain tenants to meet the contractual obligations under their
lease agreements. We maintain an allowance for deferred rent
receivables arising from the straight-lining of rents. Such
allowance is charged to bad debt expense which is included in
general and administrative on our accompanying consolidated
statement of operations. Our determination of the adequacy of
these allowances is based primarily upon evaluations of
historical loss experience, the tenants financial
condition, security deposits, letters of credit, lease
guarantees and current economic conditions and other relevant
factors. As December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, we had
$1,926,000, $1,222,000 and $398,000, respectively, in allowances
for uncollectible accounts as determined to be necessary to
reduce receivables to our estimate of the amount recoverable.
During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008,
$1,022,000, $965,000 and $442,000, respectively, of receivables
was directly written off to bad debt expense.
Purchase
Price Allocation
In accordance with ASC 805, Business Combinations,
or ASC 805, we, with the assistance of independent
valuation specialists, allocate the purchase price of acquired
properties to tangible and identified intangible assets and
liabilities based on their respective fair values. The
allocation to tangible assets (building and land) is based upon
our determination of the value of the property as if it were to
be replaced and vacant using discounted cash flow models similar
to those used by independent appraisers. Factors considered by
us include an estimate of carrying costs during the expected
lease-up
periods considering current market conditions and costs to
execute similar leases. Additionally, the purchase price of the
applicable property is allocated to the above or below market
value of in place leases, the value of in place leases, tenant
relationships and above or below market debt assumed.
The value allocable to the above or below market component of
the acquired in place leases is determined based upon the
present value (using a discount rate which reflects the risks
associated with the
120
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
acquired leases) of the difference between: (1) the
contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to the lease over its
remaining term, and (2) our estimate of the amounts that
would be paid using fair market rates over the remaining term of
the lease including any bargain renewal periods, with respect to
a below market lease. The amounts allocated to above market
leases are included in identified intangible assets, net in our
accompanying consolidated balance sheets and amortized to rental
income over the remaining non-cancelable lease term of the
acquired leases with each property. The amounts allocated to
below market lease values are included in identified intangible
liabilities, net in our accompanying consolidated balance sheets
and amortized to rental income over the remaining non-cancelable
lease term plus any below market renewal options of the acquired
leases with each property.
The total amount of other intangible assets acquired is further
allocated to in place lease costs and the value of tenant
relationships based on our evaluation of the specific
characteristics of each tenants lease and our overall
relationship with that respective tenant. Characteristics
considered by us in allocating these values include the nature
and extent of the credit quality and expectations of lease
renewals, among other factors. The amounts allocated to in place
lease costs are included in identified intangible assets, net in
our accompanying consolidated balance sheets and will be
amortized over the average remaining non-cancelable lease term
of the acquired leases with each property. The amounts allocated
to the value of tenant relationships are included in identified
intangible assets, net in our accompanying consolidated balance
sheets and are amortized over the average remaining
non-cancelable lease term of the acquired leases plus a market
lease term.
The value allocable to above or below market debt is determined
based upon the present value of the difference between the cash
flow stream of the assumed mortgage and the cash flow stream of
a market rate mortgage. The amounts allocated to above or below
market debt are included in mortgage loans payable, net on our
accompanying consolidated balance sheets and are amortized to
interest expense over the remaining term of the assumed mortgage.
These allocations are subject to change based on information
received within one year of the purchase related to one or more
events identified at the time of purchase which confirm the
value of an asset or liability received in an acquisition of
property.
On January 1, 2009, in accordance with the provisions of
ASC 805, Business Combinations, we began to expense
acquisition-related costs for acquisitions. Prior to this date,
acquisition-related expenses had been capitalized as part of the
purchase price allocations. We expensed $11,317,000 and
$15,997,000 for acquisition related expenses during the years
ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Real
Estate Investments, Net
Operating properties are carried at the lower of historical cost
less accumulated depreciation or fair value less costs to sell.
The cost of operating properties includes the cost of land and
completed buildings and related improvements. Expenditures that
increase the service life of properties are capitalized and the
cost of maintenance and repairs is charged to expense as
incurred. The cost of buildings is depreciated on a
straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the
buildings up to 39 years and for tenant improvements, the
shorter of the lease term or useful life, ranging from one month
to 240 months, respectively. Furniture, fixtures and
equipment is depreciated over five years. When depreciable
property is retired, replaced or disposed of, the related costs
and accumulated depreciation are removed from the accounts and
any gain or loss is reflected in operations.
Investment
in Real Estate
Held-for-Sale
We evaluate the
held-for-sale
classification of our owned real estate each quarter. Assets
that are classified as
held-for-sale
are recorded at the lower of their carrying amount or fair value
less cost to sell. The fair value is based on discounted cash
flow analyses, which involve managements best estimate of
market
121
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
participants holding period, market comparables, future
occupancy levels, rental rates, capitalization rates, lease-up
periods, and capital requirements. Assets are generally
classified as
held-for-sale
once management commits to a plan to sell the properties and has
determined that the sale of the asset is probable and transfer
of the asset is expected to occur within one year. The results
of operations of these real estate properties are reflected as
discontinued operations in all periods reported, and the
properties are presented separately on our balance sheet at the
lower of their carrying value or their fair value less costs to
sell. As of December 31, 2010, we determined that four
buildings within one of our portfolios should be classified as
held for sale. See Note 3, Real Estate Investments, Net,
Assets Held for Sale, and Discontinued Operations, for further
discussion of our assets classified as held for sale as of
December 31, 2010.
Recoverability
of Real Estate Investments
An operating property is evaluated for potential impairment
whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that its
carrying amount may not be recoverable. Impairment losses are
recorded on an operating property when indicators of impairment
are present and the carrying amount of the asset is greater than
the sum of the future undiscounted cash flows expected to be
generated by that asset. We would recognize an impairment loss
to the extent the carrying amount exceeded the fair value of the
property. The fair value of the property is based on discounted
cash flow analyses, which involve managements best
estimate of market participants holding periods, market
comparables, future occupancy levels, rental rates,
capitalization rates,
lease-up
periods, and capital requirements. For the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, there were no impairment
losses recorded.
Real
Estate Notes Receivable, Net
Real estate notes receivable consist of mortgage loans. Interest
income from loans is recognized as earned based upon the
principal amount outstanding. Mortgage loans are collateralized
by interests in real property. We record loans at cost. We
evaluate the collectability of both interest and principal for
each of our loans to determine whether they are impaired. A loan
is considered impaired when, based on current information and
events, it is probable that we will be unable to collect all
amounts due according to the existing contractual terms. When a
loan is considered to be impaired, the amount of the allowance
is calculated by comparing the recorded investment to either the
value determined by discounting the expected future cash flows
using the loans effective interest rate or to the fair value of
the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent.
Derivative
Financial Instruments
We are exposed to the effect of interest rate changes in the
normal course of business. We seek to mitigate these risks by
following established risk management policies and procedures
which include the occasional use of derivatives. Our primary
strategy in entering into derivative contracts is to add
stability to interest expense and to manage our exposure to
interest rate movements. We utilize derivative instruments,
including interest rate swaps and caps, to effectively convert a
portion of our variable-rate debt to fixed-rate debt. We do not
enter into derivative instruments for speculative purposes.
Derivatives are recognized as either assets or liabilities in
our consolidated balance sheets and are measured at fair value
in accordance with ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging,
or ASC 815. Since our derivative instruments are not
designated as hedge instruments, they do not qualify for hedge
accounting under ASC 815, and accordingly, changes in fair
value are included as a component of interest expense in our
consolidated statements of operations in the period of change.
Fair
Value Measurements
ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, or
ASC 820, defines fair value, establishes a framework for
measuring fair value, and expands disclosures about fair value
measurements. ASC 820 applies
122
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
to reported balances that are required or permitted to be
measured at fair value under existing accounting pronouncements;
accordingly, the standard does not require any new fair value
measurements of reported balances. We have provided these
disclosures in Note 15, Fair Value of Financial Instruments.
Other
Assets, Net
Other assets consist primarily of deferred rent receivables,
leasing commissions, prepaid expenses, deposits and deferred
financing costs. Costs incurred for property leasing have been
capitalized as deferred assets. Deferred leasing costs include
leasing commissions that are amortized using the straight-line
method over the term of the related lease. Deferred financing
costs include amounts paid to lenders and others to obtain
financing. Such costs are amortized using the straight-line
method over the term of the related loan, which approximates the
effective interest rate method. Amortization of deferred
financing costs is included in interest expense in our
accompanying consolidated statements of operations.
Stock
Compensation
We follow ASC 718, Compensation Stock
Compensation, to account for our stock compensation pursuant
to our 2006 Incentive Plan and the 2006 Independent Directors
Compensation Plan, a
sub-plan of
our 2006 Incentive Plan. See Note 14, Stockholders
Equity 2006 Incentive Plan and Independent Directors
Compensation Plan, for a further discussion of grants under our
2006 Incentive Plan.
Redeemable
Noncontrolling Interests
Redeemable noncontrolling interests relate to the interests in
our consolidated entities that are not wholly owned by us. As
these redeemable noncontrolling interests provide for redemption
features not solely within the control of the issuer, we
classify such interests outside of permanent equity in
accordance with Accounting Series Release 268:
Presentation in the Financial Statements of Redeemable
Preferred Stock, as applied in ASU
No. 2009-4,
Accounting for Redeemable Equity Instruments.
Income
Taxes
Subject to the discussion in Note 11, Commitments and
Contingencies, regarding the closing agreement that we intend to
request from the IRS, we believe that we have qualified to be
taxed as a REIT beginning with our taxable year ended
December 31, 2007 under Sections 856 through 860 of
the Code, for federal income tax purposes and we intend to
continue to be taxed as a REIT. To continue to qualify as a REIT
for federal income tax purposes, we must meet certain
organizational and operational requirements, including a
requirement to pay distributions to our stockholders of at least
90.0% of our annual taxable income (computed without regard to
the dividends paid deduction and excluding net capital gain). As
a REIT, we generally are not subject to federal income tax on
net income that we distribute to our stockholders.
If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, we will
then be subject to federal income taxes on our taxable income
and will not be permitted to qualify for treatment as a REIT for
federal income tax purposes for four years following the year
during which qualification is lost unless the Internal Revenue
Service grants us relief under certain statutory provisions.
Such an event could have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations and net cash available for distribution to
stockholders.
We follow
ASC 740-10,
Income Taxes, or
ASC 740-10,
and requires us to recognize, measure, present and disclose in
our consolidated financial statements uncertain tax positions
that we have taken or expect to take on. We do not have any
liability for uncertain tax positions that we believe should be
recognized in our consolidated financial statements.
123
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Segment
Disclosure
ASC 280, Segment Reporting, or ASC 280, which
establishes standards for reporting financial and descriptive
information about an enterprises reportable segment. We
have determined that we have one reportable segment, with
activities related to investing in medical office buildings,
healthcare-related facilities, commercial office properties and
other real estate related assets. Our investments in real estate
and other real estate related assets are geographically
diversified and our chief operating decision maker evaluates
operating performance on an individual asset level. As each of
our assets has similar economic characteristics, tenants, and
products and services, our assets have been aggregated into one
reportable segment.
Recently
Issued Accounting Pronouncements
Below are the recently issued accounting pronouncements and our
evaluation of the impact of such pronouncements.
Consolidation
Pronouncements
In June 2009, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 167, Amendments to FASB Interpretation
No. 46(R) codified primarily in
ASC 810-10,
Consolidation Overall, or
ASC 810-10,
which modifies how a company determines when an entity that is a
VIE should be consolidated. This guidance clarifies that the
determination of whether a company is required to consolidate an
entity is based on, among other things, an entitys purpose
and design and a companys ability to direct the activities
of the entity that most significantly impact the entitys
economic performance. It also requires an ongoing reassessment
of whether a company is the primary beneficiary of a VIE, and it
requires additional disclosures about a companys
involvement in VIEs and any significant changes in risk exposure
due to that involvement. This guidance became effective for us
on January 1, 2010. The adoption of this pronouncement did
not have a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
Fair
Value Pronouncements
In September 2009, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
2009-12,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures: Investments in
Certain Entities that Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or
its Equivalent), or ASU
2009-12,
(previously exposed for comments as proposed FSP
FAS 157-g)
to provide guidance on measuring the fair value of certain
alternative investments. The ASU amends ASC 820 to offer
investors a practical expedient for measuring the fair value of
investments in certain entities that calculate net asset value
per share. The ASU is effective for the first reporting period
(including interim periods) ending after December 15, 2009;
early adoption is permitted. The adoption of ASU
2009-12 did
not have a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
In January 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
2010-06,
Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820), or
ASU 2010-06,
which provides amendments to Subtopic
820-10 that
require new disclosures and that clarify existing disclosures in
order to increase transparency in financial reporting with
regard to recurring and nonrecurring fair value measurements.
ASU 2010-06
requires new disclosures with respect to the amounts of
significant transfers in and out of Level 1 and
Level 2 fair value measurements and the reasons for those
transfers, as well as separate presentation about purchases,
sales, issuances, and settlements in the reconciliation for fair
value measurements using significant unobservable inputs
(Level 3). In addition, ASU
2010-06
provides amendments that clarify existing disclosures, requiring
a reporting entity to provide fair value measurement disclosures
for each class of assets and liabilities as well as disclosures
about the valuation techniques and inputs used to measure fair
value for both recurring and nonrecurring fair value
measurements that fall in either Level 2 or Level 3.
Finally, ASU
2010-06
amends guidance on employers disclosures about
postretirement benefit plan assets under ASC 715 to require
that disclosures be provided by classes of assets instead of by
major categories of assets. ASU
2010-06 is
effective for the interim and annual
124
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2009, except
for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and
settlements in the rollforward of activity in Level 3 fair
value measurements, which are effective for fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2010. Accordingly, ASU
2010-06
became effective for us on January 1, 2010 (except for the
Level 3 activity disclosures, which will become effective
for us on January 1, 2011). The adoption of ASU
2010-06 has
not had a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
Equity
Pronouncements
In January 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
2010-01,
Accounting for Distributions to Shareholders with Components
of Stock and Cash, or ASU
2010-01, the
objective of which was to address the diversity in practice
related to the accounting for a distribution to shareholders
that offers them the ability to elect to receive their entire
distribution in cash or shares of equivalent value with a
potential limitation on the total amount of cash that
shareholders can elect to receive in the aggregate. ASU
2010-01
clarifies that the stock portion of a distribution to
shareholders that allows them to elect to receive cash or shares
with a potential limitation on the total amount of cash that all
shareholders can elect to receive in the aggregate is considered
a share issuance that is reflected in earnings per share (EPS)
prospectively. ASU
2010-01
became effective for us January 1, 2010. The adoption of
ASU 2010-01
did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
Credit
Risk Pronouncements
In July 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
2010-20,
Disclosures about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables
and the Allowance for Credit Losses, or ASU
2010-20,
which requires disclosures about the nature of the credit risk
in an entitys financing receivables, how that risk is
incorporated into the allowance for credit losses, and the
reasons for any changes in the allowance. Disclosure is required
to be disaggregated, primarily at the level at which an entity
calculates its allowance for credit losses. The specific
required disclosures are a rollforward schedule of the allowance
for credit losses for the reporting period, the related
investment in financing receivables, the nonaccrual status of
financing receivables, impaired financing receivables, credit
quality indicators, the aging of past due financing receivables,
any troubled debt restructurings and their effect on the
allowance for credit losses, the extent of any financing
receivables modified by troubled debt restructuring that have
defaulted and their impact on the allowance for credit losses,
and significant sales or purchases of financing receivables. The
ASU 2010-20
disclosure requirements primarily pertain to our mortgage notes
receivables and are effective for interim and annual reporting
periods ending on or after December 15, 2010. The adoption
of this pronouncement did not have a material impact on our
consolidated financial statements, as discussed within
Note 4, Real Estate Notes Receivable, Net.
Other
Pronouncements
In May 2009, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 165, Subsequent Events, codified
primarily in
ASC 855-10,
Subsequent Events Overall, or
ASC 855-10,
which provides guidance to establish general standards of
accounting for and disclosures of events that occur after the
balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued or
are available to be issued. We adopted
ASC 855-10
on April 1, 2009 and provided the required disclosures. In
February 2010, the FASB issued ASU
2010-09,
Subsequent Event (Topic 855) Amendments to
Certain Recognition and Disclosure Requirements. ASU
2010-09
removes the requirement for an SEC filer to disclose a date
through which subsequent events are evaluated in both issued and
revised financial statements. Revised financial statements
include financial statements revised as a result of either
correction of an error or retrospective application of GAAP. All
of the amendments in SU
2010-09 are
effective upon issuance of the final ASU, except for the use of
the issued date for conduit debt obligors (which is effective
for interim or annual periods ending after June 15, 2010).
We adopted ASU
125
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
2010-09 in
February 2010, and as such our Subsequent Event footnote does
not include disclosure of the date through which subsequent
events were evaluated for the 2010 consolidated financial
statements.
On December 21, 2010, the FASB issued ASU
2010-29,
Disclosure of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for
Business Combinations, to address differences in the ways
entities have interpreted the requirements of ASC 805,
Business Combinations, or ASC 805, for disclosures
about pro forma revenue and earnings in a business combination.
The ASU states that if a public entity presents
comparative financial statements, the entity should disclose
revenue and earnings of the combined entity as though the
business combination(s) that occurred during the current year
had occurred as of the beginning of the comparable prior annual
reporting period only. In addition, the ASU
expand[s] the supplemental pro forma disclosures under
ASC 805 to include a description of the nature and amount
of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly
attributable to the business combination included in the
reported pro forma revenue and earnings. The amendments in
this ASU are effective prospectively for business combinations
for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of
the first annual reporting period beginning on or after
December 15, 2010. We do not expect the adoption of ASU
2010-29 to have a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements.
|
|
3.
|
Real
Estate Investments, Net, Assets Held for Sale, and Discontinued
Operations
|
Investment
in Operating Properties
Our investments in our consolidated operating properties
consisted of the following as of December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
164,821,000
|
|
|
$
|
122,972,000
|
|
Building and improvements
|
|
|
1,711,054,000
|
|
|
|
1,083,496,000
|
|
Furniture and equipment
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,875,885,000
|
|
|
|
1,206,478,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(102,962,000
|
)
|
|
|
(56,689,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,772,923,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,149,789,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense related to our portfolio of operating
properties for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and
2008 was $48,043,000, $31,701,000, and $19,898,000, respectively.
Assets
Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations
Assets and liabilities of properties sold or to be sold are
classified as held for sale, to the extent not sold, on the
Companys Consolidated Balance Sheets, and the results of
operations of such properties are included in discontinued
operations on the Companys Consolidated Statements of
Operations for all periods presented. Properties classified as
held for sale at December 31, 2010 include four buildings
within our Senior Care 1 portfolio, which is a portfolio
consisting of six total buildings located in various cities
throughout Texas and California. Pursuant to a master lease
agreement in effect at the time of our purchase of this
portfolio, the lessee of the four buildings within the portfolio
that are located in Texas was afforded the option to purchase
these buildings at the June 30, 2011 expiration of the
first five years of the ten year lease term. On
December 31, 2010, the lessee opened escrow with a deposit
of 5% of the minimum repurchase price and provided us with
timely notice, as required by the agreement, of their intent to
exercise this option. As a result of these actions, in
accordance with
ASC 360-10-45-9,
Property, Plant, and Equipment
Overall Other Presentation Matters Long
Lived Assets Classified as Held for Sale, we have determined
that these four
126
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
buildings meet the criteria for held for sale designation and we
have therefore separately presented the assets and liabilities
of these buildings on our Consolidated Balance Sheet.
The table below reflects the assets and liabilities of
properties classified as held for sale as of December 31,
2010:
Assets: Real Estate Investments, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
2,302,000
|
|
Building and improvements, net of accumulated depreciation of
$2,161,000 as of December 31, 2010
|
|
|
22,238,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total real estate investments of properties held for sale,
net
|
|
$
|
24,540,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense related to our properties classified as
held for sale for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009,
and 2008 was $786,000, $786,000 and $589,000, respectively.
Assets: Identified Intangible Assets, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
In place leases, net of accumulated amortization of $824,000 as
of December 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
1,648,000
|
|
Tenant relationships, net of accumulated amortization of
$376,000 as of December 31, 2010
|
|
|
2,120,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets of properties held for sale, net
|
|
$
|
3,768,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization expense recorded on the identified intangible
assets related to our properties classified as held for sale for
the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 was
$437,000, $437,000, and $327,000, respectively.
Liabilities: Identified Intangible Liabilities, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Below market leases, net of accumulated amortization of $184,000
as of December 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
369,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities of properties held for sale, net
|
|
$
|
369,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization expense recorded on the identified intangible
liabilities related to our properties classified as held for
sale for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
was $68,000, $68,000, and $50,000, respectively, which is
recorded to rental income in our accompanying consolidated
statements of operations.
In accordance with
ASC 205-20,
Presentation of Financial Statements Discontinued
Operations, the operating results of the buildings
classified as held for sale has been reported within
Discontinued Operations for all periods presented in our
consolidated statements of operations. The table below reflects
the results of operations of the properties classified as held
for sale at December 31, 2010, which are included within
127
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
discontinued operations within the Companys Consolidated
Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31,
2010, 2009, and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rental income
|
|
$
|
3,202,000
|
|
|
$
|
3,200,000
|
|
|
$
|
2,408,000
|
|
Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rental expenses
|
|
|
324,000
|
|
|
|
357,000
|
|
|
|
262,000
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
1,223,000
|
|
|
|
1,223,000
|
|
|
|
916,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses
|
|
|
1,547,000
|
|
|
|
1,580,000
|
|
|
|
1,178,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before other income (expense)
|
|
$
|
1,655,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,620,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,230,000
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense related to mortgage loan payables and credit
facility
|
|
|
(300,000
|
)
|
|
|
(1,235,000
|
)
|
|
|
(633,000
|
)
|
Gain (loss) on derivative financial instruments
|
|
|
141,000
|
|
|
|
244,000
|
|
|
|
(385,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
$
|
1,496,000
|
|
|
$
|
629,000
|
|
|
$
|
212,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations per common
share basic and diluted
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
$
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
165,952,860
|
|
|
|
112,819,638
|
|
|
|
42,844,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
165,952,860
|
|
|
|
112,819,638
|
|
|
|
42,844,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property
Acquisitions in 2010
During the year ended December 31, 2010, we completed the
acquisition of 24 new property portfolios as well as purchased
additional buildings within six of our existing portfolios.
Additionally, we purchased the remaining 20.0% interest that we
previously did not own in HTA-Duke Chesterfield Rehab, LLC, the
JV Company that owns Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center. The
aggregate purchase price of these properties was $806,048,000.
See Note 18, Business Combinations, for the allocation of
the purchase price of the acquired properties to tangible assets
and to identified intangible assets and liabilities based on
their respective fair values. A portion of the aggregate
purchase price for these acquisitions was initially financed or
subsequently secured by $218,538,000 in mortgage loans payable.
Total acquisition-related expenses of $11,317,000 include
amounts for legal fees, closing costs, due diligence and other
costs. Acquisitions completed during the year ended
December 31, 2010 are set forth below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
|
Purchase
|
|
|
Loans
|
|
Property
|
|
Property Location
|
|
Acquired
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Payable(1)
|
|
|
Camp Creek
|
|
Atlanta, GA
|
|
|
3/02/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
$
|
19,550,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
King Street
|
|
Jacksonville, FL
|
|
|
3/09/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
10,775,000
|
|
|
|
6,602,000
|
|
Sugarland
|
|
Houston, TX
|
|
|
3/23/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
12,400,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deaconess
|
|
Evansville, IN
|
|
|
3/23/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
45,257,000
|
|
|
|
21,250,000
|
|
Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center(2)
|
|
Chesterfield, MO
|
|
|
3/24/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
3,900,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pearland Cullen
|
|
Pearland, TX
|
|
|
3/31/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
6,775,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hilton Head Heritage
|
|
Hilton Head, SC
|
|
|
3/31/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
8,058,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Triad Technology Center
|
|
Baltimore, MD
|
|
|
3/31/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
29,250,000
|
|
|
|
12,000,000
|
|
Mt. Pleasant (E. Cooper)
|
|
Mount Pleasant, SC
|
|
|
3/31/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
9,925,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal North
|
|
Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
|
4/29/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
40,472,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balfour Concord Portfolio
|
|
Lewisville, TX
|
|
|
6/25/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
4,800,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
128
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
|
Purchase
|
|
|
Loans
|
|
Property
|
|
Property Location
|
|
Acquired
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Payable(1)
|
|
|
Cannon Park Place
|
|
Charleston, SC
|
|
|
6/28/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
10,446,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
7900 Fannin(3)
|
|
Houston, TX
|
|
|
6/30/10
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
|
38,100,000
|
|
|
|
22,687,000
|
|
Balfour Concord Portfolio(4)
|
|
Denton, TX
|
|
|
6/30/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
8,700,000
|
|
|
|
4,657,000
|
|
Pearland Broadway(4)
|
|
Pearland, TX
|
|
|
6/30/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
3,701,000
|
|
|
|
2,381,000
|
|
Overlook
|
|
Stockbridge, GA
|
|
|
7/15/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
8,140,000
|
|
|
|
5,440,000
|
|
Sierra Vista
|
|
San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
|
8/04/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
10,950,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hilton Head Moss Creek(4)
|
|
Hilton Head, SC
|
|
|
8/12/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
2,652,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orlando Portfolio
|
|
Orlando & Oviedo, FL
|
|
|
9/29/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
18,300,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Santa Fe Portfolio Building 440
|
|
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
9/30/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
9,560,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rendina Portfolio San Martin and St. Francis
|
|
Las Vegas, NV and
|
|
|
9/30/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
40,204,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegheny Admin Headquarters
|
|
Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
|
10/29/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
39,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rendina Portfolio Des Peres(4)
|
|
St. Louis, MO
|
|
|
11/12/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
14,034,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raleigh Medical Center
|
|
Raleigh, NC
|
|
|
11/12/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
16,500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia Portfolio Washington Medical Arts
I & II
|
|
Albany, NY
|
|
|
11/19/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
23,533,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia 1092 Madison & Patroon Creek(4)
|
|
Albany, NY
|
|
|
11/22/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
36,254,000
|
|
|
|
26,057,000
|
|
Columbia Portfolio Capital Region Health
Park &
|
|
Latham, NY and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FL Orthopaedic(4)
|
|
Temple Terrace, FL
|
|
|
11/23/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
63,254,000
|
|
|
|
29,432,000
|
|
Rendina Portfolio Gateway(4)
|
|
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
12/07/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
16,349,000
|
|
|
|
10,613,000
|
|
Florida Orthopaedic ASC
|
|
Temple Terrace, FL
|
|
|
12/08/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
5,875,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Select Medical LTACH Portfolio
|
|
Orlando and
|
|
|
12/17/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
102,045,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tallahassee, FL, Augusta, GA, and Dallas, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Santa Fe Portfolio Building 1640(4)
|
|
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
12/22/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
6,232,000
|
|
|
|
3,555,000
|
|
Phoenix Portfolio Estrella & MOB IV
|
|
Phoenix, AZ
|
|
|
12/22/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
35,809,000
|
|
|
|
25,050,000
|
|
Rendina Portfolio Wellington(4)
|
|
Wellington, FL
|
|
|
12/23/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
12,825,000
|
|
|
|
8,303,000
|
|
Columbia Portfolio Putnam(4)
|
|
Carmel, NY
|
|
|
12/29/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
28,216,000
|
|
|
|
19,329,000
|
|
Columbia Portfolio CDPHP Corporate Headquarters(4)
|
|
Albany, NY
|
|
|
12/30/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
36,207,000
|
|
|
|
21,182,000
|
|
Medical Park of Cary
|
|
Cary, NC
|
|
|
12/30/10
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
28,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
806,048,000
|
|
|
$
|
218,538,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents the amount of the mortgage loan payable assumed or
newly placed on the property in connection with the acquisition
or secured by the property subsequent to acquisition. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents our purchase of the remaining 20% interest we
previously did not own in the JV Company that owns Chesterfield
Rehabilitation Center. See Note 13, Redeemable
Noncontrolling Interest of Limited Partners, and Note 16,
Business Combinations, for further information regarding this
purchase. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents our purchase of the majority interest in the Fannin
partnership, which owns the 7900 Fannin medical office building,
the value of which is approximately $38,100,000. We acquired
both the general partner interest and the majority of the
limited partner interests in the Fannin partnership. The
transaction provided the original physician investors with the
right to remain in the Fannin partnership, to receive limited
partnership units in our operating partnership, and/or receive
cash. Ten investors elected to remain in the Fannin partnership,
which represents a 16% noncontrolling interest in the property. |
|
(4) |
|
Represent purchases of additional medical office buildings
during the year ended December 31, 2010 that are within
portfolios we had previously acquired. |
Property
Acquisitions in 2009
During the year ended December 31, 2009, we completed the
acquisition of 10 new property portfolios as well as purchased
three additional buildings within two of our existing
portfolios. The aggregate purchase price of these properties was
$456,760,000. A portion of the aggregate purchase price for
these acquisitions
129
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
was initially financed or subsequently secured by $91,590,000 in
mortgage loans payable. Total acquisition-related expenses of
$15,997,000 also include amounts for legal fees, closing costs,
due diligence and other costs. We paid $10,183,000 in
acquisition fees to our former advisor and its affiliates in
connection with these acquisitions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage
|
|
|
Fee to our Former
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
Ownership
|
|
|
|
Purchase
|
|
|
Loan
|
|
|
Advisor and its
|
|
Property
|
|
Property Location
|
|
Acquired
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Payables(1)
|
|
|
its Affiliate
|
|
|
Lima Medical Office Ste 207 Add-On(2)
|
|
Lima, OH
|
|
|
01/16/09
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
$
|
385,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
9,000
|
|
Wisconsin Medical Portfolio 1
|
|
Milwaukee, WI
|
|
|
02/27/09
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
|
33,719,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
843,000
|
|
Rogersville (Mountain Empire) Add-On(2)
|
|
Rogersville, TN
|
|
|
03/27/09
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
|
2,275,000
|
|
|
|
1,696,000
|
|
|
|
57,000
|
|
Lima Medical Office Ste 220 Add-On(2)
|
|
Lima, OH
|
|
|
04/21/09
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
|
425,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,000
|
|
Wisconsin Medical Portfolio 2
|
|
Franklin, WI
|
|
|
05/28/09
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
|
40,700,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,017,000
|
|
Greenville Hospital Portfolio
|
|
Greenville, SC
|
|
|
09/18/09
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
|
162,820,000
|
|
|
|
36,000,000
|
|
|
|
4,071,000
|
|
Mary Black Medical Office Building
|
|
Spartanburg, SC
|
|
|
12/11/09
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
|
16,250,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
406,000
|
|
Hampden Place Medical Office Building
|
|
Englewood, CO
|
|
|
12/21/09
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
|
18,600,000
|
|
|
|
8,785,000
|
|
|
|
465,000
|
|
Dallas LTAC Hospital
|
|
Dallas, TX
|
|
|
12/23/09
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
|
27,350,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
684,000
|
|
Smyth Professional Building
|
|
Baltimore, MD
|
|
|
12/30/09
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
|
11,250,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
281,000
|
|
Atlee Medical Portfolio
|
|
Corsicana, TX and
|
|
|
12/30/09
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
|
20,501,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
410,000
|
|
|
|
Ft. Wayne, IN and San Angelo, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denton Medical Rehabilitation Hospital
|
|
Denton, TX
|
|
|
12/30/09
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
|
15,485,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
324,000
|
|
Banner Sun City Medical Portfolio
|
|
Sun City, AZ and
|
|
|
12/31/09
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
%
|
|
|
107,000,000
|
|
|
|
45,109,000
|
|
|
|
1,605,000
|
|
|
|
Sun City West, AZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
456,760,000
|
|
|
$
|
91,590,000
|
|
|
$
|
10,183,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents the amount of the mortgage loan payable assumed by us
or newly placed on the property in connection with the
acquisition or secured by the property subsequent to acquisition. |
|
(2) |
|
Represent purchases of additional medical office buildings
during the year ended December 31, 2009 that are within
portfolios we had previously acquired. |
|
|
4.
|
Real
Estate Notes Receivable, Net
|
On December 1, 2009, we acquired a real estate related
asset in a note receivable secured by the Rush Medical Office
Building, or the Rush Presbyterian Note Receivable, for a total
purchase price of $37,135,000, plus closing costs. The note may
be repaid in full on or within ninety days prior to the maturity
date for a $4,000,000 cancellation of principal due. We acquired
the real estate related asset from an unaffiliated third party.
We financed the purchase price of the real estate related asset
with funds raised through our initial offering. An acquisition
fee of $555,000, or approximately 1.5% of the purchase price,
was paid to our former advisor.
On December 31, 2008, we acquired a real estate related
asset in four notes receivable secured by two buildings located
in Phoenix, Arizona and Berwyn, Illinois, or the Presidential
Note Receivable, for a total purchase price of $15,000,000, plus
closing costs. We acquired the real estate related asset from an
unaffiliated third party. We financed the purchase price of the
real estate related asset with funds raised through our initial
offering. An acquisition fee of $225,000, or approximately 1.5%
of the purchase price, was paid to our former advisor.
130
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Real estate notes receivable, net consisted of the following as
of December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property Name
|
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Location of Property
|
|
Property Type
|
|
Interest Rate
|
|
|
Maturity Date
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
MacNeal Hospital Medical Office Building
Berwyn, Illinois
|
|
Medical Office
Building
|
|
|
5.95
|
%(1)
|
|
|
11/01/11
|
|
|
$
|
7,500,000
|
|
|
$
|
7,500,000
|
|
MacNeal Hospital Medical Office Building
Berwyn, Illinois
|
|
Medical Office
Building
|
|
|
5.95
|
%(1)
|
|
|
11/01/11
|
|
|
|
7,500,000
|
|
|
|
7,500,000
|
|
St. Lukes Medical Office Building
Phoenix, Arizona
|
|
Medical Office
Building
|
|
|
5.85
|
%(2)
|
|
|
11/01/11
|
|
|
|
3,750,000
|
|
|
|
3,750,000
|
|
St. Lukes Medical Office Building
Phoenix, Arizona
|
|
Medical Office
Building
|
|
|
5.85
|
%(2)
|
|
|
11/01/11
|
|
|
|
1,250,000
|
|
|
|
1,250,000
|
|
Rush Presbyterian Medical Office
Building Oak Park, Illinois(b)
|
|
Medical Office
Building
|
|
|
7.76
|
%(3)
|
|
|
12/01/14
|
|
|
|
41,150,000
|
|
|
|
41,150,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total real estate note receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,150,000
|
|
|
|
61,150,000
|
|
Add: Note receivable closing costs, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
540,000
|
|
|
|
788,000
|
|
Less: discount, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,599,000
|
)
|
|
|
(7,175,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate notes receivable, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
57,091,000
|
|
|
$
|
54,763,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The effective interest rate associated with these notes as of
December 31, 2010 is 7.93%. |
|
(2) |
|
The effective interest rate associated with these notes as of
December 31, 2010 is 7.80%. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents an average contractual interest rate for the life of
the note with an effective interest rate of 8.6%. |
|
(4) |
|
The closing costs and discount are amortized on a straight-line
basis over the respective life, and impact the yield, of each
note. |
We monitor the credit quality of our real estate notes
receivable portfolio on an ongoing basis by tracking possible
credit quality indicators. As of December 31, 2010, all of
our real estate notes receivable are current and we have not
provided for any allowance for losses on notes receivable.
Additionally, as of December 31, 2010 we have had no
impairment with respect to our notes receivable. We made no
significant purchases or sales of notes or other receivables
during the year ended December 31, 2010.
131
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
5.
|
Identified
Intangible Assets, Net
|
Identified intangible assets, net for our operating properties
consisted of the following as of December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
In place leases, net of accumulated amortization of $42,361,000
and $25,452,000 as of December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively, (with a weighted average remaining life of
154 months and 95 months as of December 31, 2010
and 2009, respectively).
|
|
$
|
122,682,000
|
|
|
$
|
80,577,000
|
|
Above market leases, net of accumulated amortization of
$5,971,000 and $3,233,000 as of December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively, (with a weighted average remaining life of
89 months and 87 months as of December 31, 2010
and 2009, respectively).
|
|
|
17,943,000
|
|
|
|
11,831,000
|
|
Tenant relationships, net of accumulated amortization of
$23,561,000 and $13,598,000 as of December 31, 2010 and
2009, respectively, (with a weighted average remaining life of
168 months and 150 months as of December 31, 2010
and 2009, respectively).
|
|
|
133,901,000
|
|
|
|
89,610,000
|
|
Leasehold interests, net of accumulated amortization of $526,000
and 103,000 as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively,
(with a weighted average remaining life of 855 months and
899 months as of December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively).
|
|
|
26,061,000
|
|
|
|
21,204,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
300,587,000
|
|
|
$
|
203,222,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For identified intangible assets, net associated with our
properties classified as held for sale as of December 31,
2010, see Note 3, Real Estate Investments, Net, Assets Held
for Sale, and Discontinued Operations.
Amortization expense recorded on the identified intangible
assets related to our operating properties for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 was $32,042,000,
$22,287,000, and $17,902,000, respectively, which included
$3,046,000, $1,889,000, and $1,369,000, respectively, of
amortization recorded against rental income for above market
leases and $423,000, $58,000, and 42,000, respectively, of
amortization recorded against rental expenses for above market
leasehold interests.
Estimated amortization expense on the identified intangible
assets associated with our operating properties as of
December 31, 2010 for each of the next five years ending
December 31 and thereafter is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
42,442,000
|
|
2012
|
|
|
36,184,000
|
|
2013
|
|
|
30,771,000
|
|
2014
|
|
|
27,636,000
|
|
2015
|
|
|
24,610,000
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
138,944,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
300,587,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
132
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Other assets, net for our operating properties consisted of the
following as of December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Deferred financing costs, net of accumulated amortization of
$5,015,000 and $3,346,000 as of December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively
|
|
$
|
8,620,000
|
|
|
$
|
3,281,000
|
|
Lease commissions, net of accumulated amortization of $1,132,000
and $427,000 as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively
|
|
|
4,275,000
|
|
|
|
3,061,000
|
|
Lease inducements, net of accumulated amortization of $527,000
and $280,000 as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively
|
|
|
1,284,000
|
|
|
|
1,215,000
|
|
Deferred rent receivable
|
|
|
17,422,000
|
|
|
|
9,380,000
|
|
Prepaid expenses, deposits, and other assets
|
|
|
8,951,000
|
|
|
|
4,938,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
40,552,000
|
|
|
$
|
21,875,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization expense recorded on deferred financing costs, lease
commissions, lease inducements and note receivable closing costs
for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 was
$3,163,000, $2,064,000, and $1,472,000, respectively, of which
$2,195,000, $1,885,000, and $1,291,000, respectively, of
amortization was recorded as interest expense for deferred
financing costs and $248,000, $153,000, and $88,000,
respectively, of amortization was recorded against rental income
for lease inducements and note receivable closing costs.
Estimated amortization expense on the deferred financing costs,
lease commissions and lease inducements as of December 31,
2010 for each of the next five years ending December 31 and
thereafter is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
3,778,000
|
|
2012
|
|
|
3,165,000
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2,638,000
|
|
2014
|
|
|
1,264,000
|
|
2015
|
|
|
975,000
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
2,359,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
14,179,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.
|
Mortgage
Loans Payable, Net
|
Mortgage
Loans Payable, Net
Mortgage loans payable were $696,558,000 ($699,526,000,
including premium) and $542,462,000 ($540,028,000, net of
discount) as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
As of December 31, 2010, we had fixed and variable rate
mortgage loans with effective interest rates ranging from 1.61%
to 12.75% per annum and a weighted average effective interest
rate of 4.95% per annum. As of December 31, 2010, we had
$470,815,000 ($473,783,000, including premium) of fixed rate
debt, or 67.6% of mortgage loans payable, at a weighted average
interest rate of 6.02% per annum and $225,743,000 of variable
rate debt, or 32.4% of mortgage loans payable, at a weighted
average interest rate of 2.72% per annum. As of
December 31, 2009, we had fixed and variable rate mortgage
loans with effective interest rates ranging from 1.58% to 12.75%
per annum and a weighted average effective interest rate of
3.94% per annum. As of December 31, 2009, we had
$209,858,000 ($207,424,000, net of discount) of fixed rate debt,
or 38.7% of mortgage loans payable, at a weighted average
interest rate of 5.99% per annum and $332,604,000 of variable
rate debt, or 61.3% of mortgage loans payable, at a weighted
average interest rate of 2.65% per annum.
133
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
We are required by the terms of the applicable loan documents to
meet certain financial covenants, such as debt service coverage
ratios, rent coverage ratios and reporting requirements. As of
December 31, 2010, we believe that we were in compliance
with all such covenants and requirements on $638,558,000 of our
mortgage loans payable and were making appropriate adjustments
to comply with such covenants on $58,000,000 of our mortgage
loans payable by maintaining a deposit of $12,000,000 within a
restricted collateral account. As of December 31, 2009, we
were in compliance with all such covenants and requirements on
$457,262,000 of our mortgage loans payable and were making
appropriate adjustments to comply with such covenants on
$85,200,000 of our mortgage loans payable by depositing
$22,676,000 into a restricted collateral account.
Mortgage loans payable, net consisted of the following as of
December 31, 2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Property
|
|
Interest Rate
|
|
Maturity Date
|
|
|
2010(a)
|
|
|
2009(b)
|
|
|
Fixed Rate Debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southpointe Office Parke and Epler Parke I
|
|
|
6
|
.11%
|
|
|
09/01/16
|
|
|
$
|
9,121,000
|
|
|
$
|
9,146,000
|
|
Crawfordsville Medical Office Park and Athens Surgery Center
|
|
|
6
|
.12
|
|
|
10/01/16
|
|
|
|
4,256,000
|
|
|
|
4,264,000
|
|
The Gallery Professional Building
|
|
|
5
|
.76
|
|
|
03/01/17
|
|
|
|
6,000,000
|
|
|
|
6,000,000
|
|
Lenox Office Park, Building G
|
|
|
5
|
.88
|
|
|
02/01/17
|
|
|
|
12,000,000
|
|
|
|
12,000,000
|
|
Commons V Medical Office Building
|
|
|
5
|
.54
|
|
|
06/11/17
|
|
|
|
9,672,000
|
|
|
|
9,809,000
|
|
Yorktown Medical Center and Shakerag Medical Center
|
|
|
5
|
.52
|
|
|
05/11/17
|
|
|
|
13,434,000
|
|
|
|
13,530,000
|
|
Thunderbird Medical Plaza
|
|
|
5
|
.67
|
|
|
06/11/17
|
|
|
|
13,740,000
|
|
|
|
13,917,000
|
|
Gwinnett Professional Center
|
|
|
5
|
.88
|
|
|
01/01/14
|
|
|
|
5,417,000
|
|
|
|
5,509,000
|
|
Northmeadow Medical Center
|
|
|
5
|
.99
|
|
|
12/01/14
|
|
|
|
7,545,000
|
|
|
|
7,706,000
|
|
Medical Portfolio 2
|
|
|
5
|
.91
|
|
|
07/01/13
|
|
|
|
14,024,000
|
|
|
|
14,222,000
|
|
Renaissance Medical Centre
|
|
|
5
|
.38
|
|
|
09/01/15
|
|
|
|
18,464,000
|
|
|
|
18,767,000
|
|
Renaissance Medical Centre
|
|
|
12
|
.75
|
|
|
09/01/15
|
|
|
|
1,240,000
|
|
|
|
1,242,000
|
|
Medical Portfolio 4
|
|
|
5
|
.50
|
|
|
06/01/19
|
|
|
|
6,404,000
|
|
|
|
6,586,000
|
|
Medical Portfolio 4
|
|
|
6
|
.18
|
|
|
06/01/19
|
|
|
|
1,625,000
|
|
|
|
1,684,000
|
|
Marietta Health Park
|
|
|
5
|
.11
|
|
|
11/01/15
|
|
|
|
7,200,000
|
|
|
|
7,200,000
|
|
Hampden Place
|
|
|
5
|
.98
|
|
|
01/01/12
|
|
|
|
8,551,000
|
|
|
|
8,785,000
|
|
Greenville Patewood
|
|
|
6
|
.18
|
|
|
01/01/16
|
|
|
|
35,609,000
|
|
|
|
36,000,000
|
|
Greenville Greer
|
|
|
6
|
.00
|
|
|
02/01/17
|
|
|
|
8,413,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greenville Memorial
|
|
|
6
|
.00
|
|
|
02/01/17
|
|
|
|
4,454,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greenville MMC
|
|
|
6
|
.25
|
|
|
06/01/20
|
|
|
|
22,743,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sun City-Note B
|
|
|
6
|
.54
|
|
|
09/01/14
|
|
|
|
14,819,000
|
|
|
|
14,997,000
|
|
Sun City-Note C
|
|
|
6
|
.50
|
|
|
09/01/14
|
|
|
|
4,412,000
|
|
|
|
4,509,000
|
|
Sun City Note D
|
|
|
6
|
.98
|
|
|
09/01/14
|
|
|
|
13,839,000
|
|
|
|
13,985,000
|
|
King Street
|
|
|
5
|
.88
|
|
|
03/05/17
|
|
|
|
6,429,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin MOB II Mequon
|
|
|
6
|
.25
|
|
|
07/10/17
|
|
|
|
9,952,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balfour Concord Denton
|
|
|
7
|
.95
|
|
|
08/10/12
|
|
|
|
4,592,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pearland-Broadway
|
|
|
5
|
.57
|
|
|
09/01/12
|
|
|
|
2,361,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
7900 Fannin-Note A
|
|
|
7
|
.30
|
|
|
01/01/21
|
|
|
|
21,783,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
7900 Fannin-Note B
|
|
|
7
|
.68
|
|
|
01/01/16
|
|
|
|
819,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deaconess Evansville
|
|
|
4
|
.90
|
|
|
08/06/15
|
|
|
|
21,151,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overlook
|
|
|
6
|
.00
|
|
|
11/05/16
|
|
|
|
5,408,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Triad
|
|
|
5
|
.60
|
|
|
09/01/22
|
|
|
|
11,961,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Santa Fe Building 1640
|
|
|
5
|
.57
|
|
|
07/01/15
|
|
|
|
3,555,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rendina Wellington
|
|
|
5
|
.97
|
|
|
11/21/16
|
|
|
|
8,296,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rendina Gateway
|
|
|
6
|
.49
|
|
|
08/13/18
|
|
|
|
10,596,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia Patroon Creek Note A
|
|
|
6
|
.10
|
|
|
06/01/16
|
|
|
|
23,123,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia Patroon Creek Note B
|
|
|
6
|
.10
|
|
|
06/01/16
|
|
|
|
890,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia 1092 Madison
|
|
|
6
|
.25
|
|
|
01/30/18
|
|
|
|
2,006,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia FL Orthopaedic
|
|
|
5
|
.45
|
|
|
06/30/13
|
|
|
|
7,041,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia Capital Region Health Park
|
|
|
6
|
.51
|
|
|
06/30/12
|
|
|
|
22,309,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia Putnam
|
|
|
5
|
.33
|
|
|
04/30/15
|
|
|
|
19,329,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia CDPHP
|
|
|
5
|
.40
|
|
|
05/15/16
|
|
|
|
21,182,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix Estrella
|
|
|
6
|
.26
|
|
|
08/01/17
|
|
|
|
20,695,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix MOB IV
|
|
|
6
|
.01
|
|
|
06/11/17
|
|
|
|
4,355,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fixed rate debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
470,815,000
|
|
|
|
209,858,000
|
|
134
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Property
|
|
Interest Rate
|
|
Maturity Date
|
|
|
2010(a)
|
|
|
2009(b)
|
|
|
Variable Rate Debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Care Portfolio 1
|
|
|
4
|
.75%(c)
|
|
|
03/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
(e)
|
|
|
24,800,000
|
|
1 and 4 Market Exchange
|
|
|
1
|
.61(c)
|
|
|
09/30/10
|
|
|
|
|
(e)
|
|
|
14,500,000
|
|
East Florida Senior Care Portfolio
|
|
|
1
|
.66(c)
|
|
|
10/01/10
|
|
|
|
|
(e)
|
|
|
29,451,000
|
|
Kokomo Medical Office Park
|
|
|
1
|
.66(c)
|
|
|
11/30/10
|
|
|
|
|
(e)
|
|
|
8,300,000
|
|
Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center
|
|
|
1
|
.91(c)
|
|
|
12/30/11
|
|
|
|
22,000,000
|
|
|
|
22,000,000
|
|
Park Place Office Park
|
|
|
1
|
.81(c)
|
|
|
12/31/10
|
|
|
|
10,943,000
|
(g)
|
|
|
10,943,000
|
|
Highlands Ranch Medical Plaza
|
|
|
1
|
.81(c)
|
|
|
12/31/10
|
|
|
|
8,853,000
|
(f)
|
|
|
8,853,000
|
|
Medical Portfolio 1
|
|
|
1
|
.94(c)
|
|
|
02/28/11
|
|
|
|
19,580,000
|
(f)
|
|
|
20,460,000
|
|
Fort Road Medical Building
|
|
|
1
|
.91(c)
|
|
|
03/06/11
|
|
|
|
|
(e)
|
|
|
5,800,000
|
|
Medical Portfolio 3
|
|
|
2
|
.51(c)
|
|
|
06/26/11
|
|
|
|
58,000,000
|
|
|
|
58,000,000
|
|
SouthCrest Medical Plaza
|
|
|
2
|
.46(c)
|
|
|
06/30/11
|
|
|
|
12,870,000
|
(f)
|
|
|
12,870,000
|
|
Wachovia Pool Loans(d)
|
|
|
4
|
.65(c)
|
|
|
06/30/11
|
|
|
|
48,666,000
|
(f)
|
|
|
49,696,000
|
|
Cypress Station Medical Office Building
|
|
|
2
|
.01(c)
|
|
|
09/01/11
|
|
|
|
7,043,000
|
|
|
|
7,131,000
|
|
Medical Portfolio 4
|
|
|
2
|
.41(c)
|
|
|
09/24/11
|
|
|
|
|
(e)
|
|
|
21,400,000
|
|
Decatur Medical Plaza
|
|
|
2
|
.26(c)
|
|
|
09/26/11
|
|
|
|
7,900,000
|
|
|
|
7,900,000
|
|
Mountain Empire Portfolio
|
|
|
2
|
.36(c)
|
|
|
09/28/11
|
|
|
|
18,408,000
|
|
|
|
18,882,000
|
|
Sun City-Sun 1
|
|
|
1
|
.76(c)
|
|
|
12/31/14
|
|
|
|
2,000,000
|
|
|
|
2,000,000
|
|
Sun City-Sun 2
|
|
|
1
|
.76(c)
|
|
|
12/31/14
|
|
|
|
9,480,000
|
|
|
|
9,618,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total variable rate debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
225,743,000
|
|
|
|
332,604,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fixed and variable debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
696,558,000
|
|
|
|
542,462,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add: Net premium
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,968,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: Net discount
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,434,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loans payable, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
699,526,000
|
|
|
$
|
540,028,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
As of December 31, 2010, we had variable rate mortgage
loans on 15 of our properties with effective interest rates
ranging from 1.76% to 4.65% per annum and a weighted average
effective interest rate of 2.72% per annum. However, as of
December 31, 2010, we had fixed rate interest rate swaps
and caps on our Medical Portfolio 1, Decatur, Mountain Empire,
and Sun City-Sun 1 variable rate mortgage loans payable, thereby
effectively fixing our interest rates on those mortgage loans
payable at 5.23%, 5.16%, 5.87%, and 2.00%, respectively. |
|
(b) |
|
As of December 31, 2009, we had variable rate mortgage
loans on 22 of our properties with effective interest rates
ranging from 1.58% to 4.75% per annum and a weighted average
effective interest rate of 2.65% per annum. However, as of
December 31, 2009, we had fixed rate interest rate swaps,
ranging from 4.51% to 6.02%, on our variable rate mortgage loans
payable on 20 of our properties, thereby effectively fixing our
interest rate on those mortgage loans payable. |
|
(c) |
|
Represents the interest rate in effect as of December 31,
2010. |
|
(d) |
|
We have a mortgage loan in the principal amount of $48,666,000
and $49,696,000, as of December 31, 2010 and
December 31, 2009, respectively, secured by Epler Parke
Building B, 5995 Plaza Drive, Nutfield Professional Center,
Medical Portfolio 2 and Academy Medical Center. |
|
(e) |
|
Represent loan balances that have matured or that we have paid
off during the year ended December 31, 2010. |
|
(f) |
|
Represent bank loans, the aggregate principal balance of which
as of December 31, 2010 was $89,969,000, which were
refinanced using the proceeds of our $125,500,000 senior secured
real estate term loan. We closed on this term loan with Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., on February 1, 2011. See Note 22,
Subsequent Events, for additional discussion of this new
financing. |
|
(g) |
|
Represents a bank loan, the principal balance of which as of
December 31, 2010 was $10,943,000, which was paid off using
the proceeds of our $125,500,000 senior secured real estate term
loan. See Note 22, Subsequent Events, for additional
discussion of this new financing. |
135
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The principal payments due on our mortgage loans payable as of
December 31, 2010 for each of the next five years ending
December 31 and thereafter is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
222,575,000
|
|
2012
|
|
|
44,383,000
|
|
2013
|
|
|
27,856,000
|
|
2014
|
|
|
50,083,000
|
|
2015
|
|
|
80,527,000
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
271,134,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
696,558,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The table above does not reflect all available extension
options. Of the amounts maturing in 2011, $152,887,000 has two
one year extensions available and $22,000,000 has a one year
extension available. At present, there are no extension options
associated with our debt that matures in 2012.
|
|
8.
|
Derivative
Financial Instruments
|
ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging, or ASC 815,
establishes accounting and reporting standards for derivative
instruments, including certain derivative instruments embedded
in other contracts, and for hedging activities. We utilize
derivatives such as fixed interest rate swaps and interest rate
caps to add stability to interest expense and to manage our
exposure to interest rate movements. Consistent with
ASC 815, we record derivative financial instruments on our
accompanying consolidated balance sheets as either an asset or a
liability measured at fair value. ASC 815 permits special
hedge accounting if certain requirements are met. Hedge
accounting allows for gains and losses on derivatives designated
as hedges to be offset by the change in value of the hedged
item(s) or to be deferred in other comprehensive income. As of
December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, no
derivatives were designated as fair value hedges or cash flow
hedges. Derivatives not designated as hedges are not speculative
and are used to manage our exposure to interest rate movements,
but do not meet the strict hedge accounting requirements of
ASC 815. Changes in the fair value of derivative financial
instruments are recorded in the net gain on derivative financial
instruments in our accompanying consolidated statements of
operations.
On November 3, 2010, we entered into an interest rate swap
with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as counterparty for a notional
amount of $75,000,000. The interest rate swap is secured by the
pool of assets collateralizing the $125,500,000 secured term
loan with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which we obtained on
February 1, 2011 (see Note 22, Subsequent Events, for
further discussion of this term loan). The effective date of the
swap is February 1, 2011, and its termination date of
December 31, 2013 coincides with the initial term of the
secured term loan. The swap will fix the LIBOR portion of our
monthly interest payments at 1.0725%, thereby effectively fixing
our all-in interest rate on the secured term loan at 3.4225%. As
this instrument is a forward swap with a trade date of
November 3, 2010, its fair value as of December 31,
2010, and the associated impact to our consolidated statement of
operations for the year ended December 31, 2010 are
presented in the tables below.
During the year ended December 31, 2010, eleven of our
interest rate swap derivative instruments with an aggregate
notional amount of $246,980,000 reached maturity and two of our
interest rate swap derivative instruments with an aggregate
notional amount of $27,200,000 were terminated early in
conjunction with our prepayment of certain loan balances. In
connection with our prepayment of these loan balances, we paid
approximately $793,000 to unwind the associated interest rate
swaps.
136
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table lists the derivative financial instruments
held by us as of December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional Amount
|
|
Index
|
|
Rate
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
Instrument
|
|
Maturity
|
|
$
|
19,507,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.23
|
|
|
|
(109,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
01/31/11
|
|
|
7,900,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.16
|
|
|
|
(185,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
09/26/11
|
|
|
16,912,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.87
|
|
|
|
(1,233,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
09/28/13
|
|
|
75,000,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
3.42
|
|
|
|
297,000
|
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
12/31/13
|
|
|
9,480,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
383,000
|
|
|
Cap
|
|
|
12/31/14
|
|
The following table lists the derivative financial instruments
held by us as of December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional Amount
|
|
Index
|
|
Rate
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
Instrument
|
|
Maturity
|
|
$
|
14,500,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.97
|
%
|
|
$
|
(505,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
09/28/10
|
|
|
8,300,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.86
|
|
|
|
(327,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
11/30/10
|
|
|
8,853,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.52
|
|
|
|
(326,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
12/31/10
|
|
|
10,943,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.52
|
|
|
|
(403,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
12/31/10
|
|
|
22,000,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.59
|
|
|
|
(759,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
12/30/10
|
|
|
29,101,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
6.02
|
|
|
|
(998,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
10/01/10
|
|
|
22,000,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.23
|
|
|
|
(688,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
01/31/11
|
|
|
5,800,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
4.70
|
|
|
|
(173,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
03/06/11
|
|
|
7,292,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
4.51
|
|
|
|
(75,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
05/03/10
|
|
|
24,800,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
4.85
|
|
|
|
(206,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
03/31/10
|
|
|
50,321,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.60
|
|
|
|
(922,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
06/30/10
|
|
|
12,870,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.65
|
|
|
|
(236,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
06/30/10
|
|
|
58,000,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.59
|
|
|
|
(1,016,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
06/26/10
|
|
|
21,400,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.27
|
|
|
|
(782,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
09/23/11
|
|
|
7,900,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.16
|
|
|
|
(296,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
09/26/11
|
|
|
17,304,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
5.87
|
|
|
|
(913,000
|
)
|
|
Swap
|
|
|
09/28/13
|
|
|
9,618,000
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
890,000
|
|
|
Cap
|
|
|
12/31/14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Participation
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,000,000
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
1,051,000
|
|
|
Interest(a)
|
|
|
12/01/29
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
During the year ended December 31, 2010, we reevaluated a
feature within the Rush Presbyterian Note Receivable which had
been disclosed in the 2009 Annual Report on
Form 10-K
as a derivative financial instrument. Based on this
reevaluation, we determined that this feature, by its nature,
qualifies for a scope exception under ASC 815,
Derivatives and Hedging, and thus may be excluded from
classification as a derivative financial instrument. As such, we
have prospectively corrected our fair value and derivative
instrument disclosures with respect to this feature. |
As of December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the
fair value of our derivative financial instruments was as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Derivatives
|
|
Liability Derivatives
|
Derivatives Not
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
Designated as
|
|
Balance Sheet
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet
|
|
|
Hedging Instruments:
|
|
Location
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
Location
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
Location
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
Location
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Rate Swaps
|
|
Other Assets
|
|
$
|
297,000
|
|
|
Other Assets
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
Derivative Financial Instruments
|
|
$
|
1,527,000
|
|
|
Derivative Financial Instruments
|
|
$
|
8,625,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Rate Cap
|
|
Other Assets
|
|
$
|
383,000
|
|
|
Other Assets
|
|
$
|
890,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
137
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the year ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, the
derivative financial instruments associated with our operating
properties had the following effect on our consolidated
statements of operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognized
|
Derivatives Not Designated
|
|
Location of Gain (Loss)
|
|
For the Year Ended
|
as Hedging Instruments Under:
|
|
Recognized:
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
Interest Rate Swaps
|
|
Gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
$
|
6,461,000
|
|
|
$
|
5,279,000
|
|
|
$
|
(12,436,000
|
)
|
Interest Rate Cap
|
|
Gain (loss) on derivative instruments
|
|
$
|
(507,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
We have agreements with each of our interest rate swap
derivative counterparties that contain a provision whereby if we
default on certain of our unsecured indebtedness, then we could
also be declared in default on our interest rate swap derivative
obligations resulting in an acceleration of payment. In
addition, we are exposed to credit risk in the event of
non-performance by our derivative counterparties. We believe we
mitigate our credit risk by entering into agreements with
credit-worthy counterparties. We record counterparty credit risk
valuation adjustments on interest rate swap derivative assets in
order to properly reflect the credit quality of the
counterparty. In addition, our fair value of interest rate swap
derivative liabilities is adjusted to reflect the impact of our
credit quality. As of December 31, 2010 and
December 31, 2009, there have been no termination events or
events of default related to the interest rate swaps.
|
|
9.
|
Revolving
Credit Facility
|
On September 10, 2007, we entered into a loan agreement, or
the Loan Agreement, in which we had a secured revolving credit
facility in an aggregate maximum principal amount of
$50,000,000. A modification to this agreement executed on
December 12, 2007, increased the aggregate maximum
principal amount to $80,000,000. We voluntarily closed this
credit facility on August 19, 2010. We did not borrow on
this credit facility during the years ended December 31,
2010 or 2009. Additionally, we were in compliance with all
covenants and requirements associated with this facility, all of
which were customary for facilities and transactions of this
type, as of August 19, 2010, the date of this credit
facilitys closure, and December 31, 2009.
On November 22, 2010, we and Healthcare Trust of America
Holdings, LP, our operating partnership, entered into a credit
agreement, or the credit agreement, with JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., as administrative agent, or JPMorgan, Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., as syndication agents,
U.S. Bank National Association and Fifth Third Bank, as
documentation agents, and the lenders named therein to obtain an
unsecured revolving credit facility in an aggregate maximum
principal amount of $275,000,000, or the unsecured credit
facility, subject to increase as described below.
The proceeds of loans made under the credit agreement may be
used for our working capital needs and general corporate
purposes, including permitted acquisitions and repayment of
debt. In addition to loans, our operating partnership may obtain
up to $27,500,000 of the credit available under the credit
agreement in the form of letters of credit or up to $15,000,000
of the credit available under the credit agreement in the form
of swingline loans. The credit facility matures in November 2013.
The actual amount of credit available under the credit agreement
is a function of certain
loan-to-cost,
loan-to-value
and debt service coverage ratios contained in the credit
agreement. Subject to the terms of the credit agreement, the
maximum principal amount of the credit agreement may be
increased by up to an additional $225,000,000, for a total
principal amount of $500,000,000, subject to such additional
financing being offered and provided by existing lenders or new
lenders under the credit agreement.
138
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
At the option of our operating partnership, loans under the
credit agreement bear interest at per annum rates equal to:
|
|
|
|
|
(i) the greatest of: (x) the prime rate publicly
announced by JPMorgan, (y) the Federal Funds effective rate
plus 0.5% and (z) the Adjusted LIBO Rate plus 1.0%, plus
(ii) a margin ranging from 1.50% to 2.50% based on our
operating partnerships total leverage ratio, which we
refer to as ABR loans; or
|
|
|
|
(i) the Adjusted LIBO Rate plus (ii) a margin ranging
from 2.50% to 3.50% based on our operating partnerships
total leverage ratio, which we refer to as Eurodollar loans.
|
Accrued interest under the credit agreement is payable quarterly
and at maturity. If our operating partnership obtains a credit
rating, the margin for ABR loans will be adjusted so that it
ranges from 0.85% to 1.95%, and the margin for Eurodollar loans
will be adjusted so that it ranges from 1.85% to 2.95%, in each
case based on our operating partnerships credit rating.
Our operating partnership is required to pay a fee on the unused
portion of the lenders commitments under the credit
agreement at a per annum rate equal to 0.375% if the average
daily used amount is greater than 50% of the commitments and
0.50% if the average daily used amount is less than 50% of the
commitments, payable quarterly in arrears. In the event our
operating partnership obtains a credit rating, our operating
partnership is required to pay a facility fee on the total
commitments ranging from 0.40% to 0.55% but no longer will be
required to pay a fee on unused commitments.
Our operating partnerships obligations with respect to the
credit agreement are guaranteed by us and by certain
subsidiaries of our operating partnership, as identified in the
credit agreement.
The credit agreement contains various affirmative and negative
covenants that we believe are usual for facilities and
transactions of this type, including limitations on the
incurrence of debt by us, our operating partnership and its
subsidiaries that own unencumbered assets, limitations on the
nature of our operating partnerships business, and
limitations on distributions by our operating partnership and
its subsidiaries that own unencumbered assets. Pursuant to the
credit agreement, beginning with the quarter ending
September 30, 2011, our operating partnership may not make
distribution payments to us in excess of the greater of:
(i) 100% of its normalized adjusted FFO (as defined in the
credit agreement) for the period of four quarters ending
September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2011,
(ii) 95% of normalized adjusted FFO for the period of four
quarters ending March 31, 2012 and (iii) 90% of
normalized adjusted FFO for the period of four quarters ending
June 30, 2012 and thereafter.
The credit agreement also imposes a number of financial
covenants on us and our operating partnership, including: a
maximum ratio of total indebtedness to total asset value; a
maximum ratio of secured indebtedness to total asset value; a
maximum ratio of recourse secured indebtedness to total asset
value; a minimum ratio of EBITDA to fixed charges; a minimum
tangible net worth covenant; a maximum ratio of unsecured
indebtedness to unencumbered asset value; a minimum ratio of
unencumbered net operating income to unsecured indebtedness; and
a minimum ratio of unencumbered asset value to total
commitments. As of December 31, 2010, we were in compliance
with these covenants.
In addition, the credit agreement includes events of default
that we believe are usual for facilities and transactions of
this type, including restricting us from making distributions to
our stockholders in the event we are in default under the credit
agreement, except to the extent necessary for us to maintain our
REIT status.
As of December 31, 2010, we had drawn $7,000,000 on our new
unsecured revolving credit facility in order to fund the
acquisition of operating properties. See Note 22,
Subsequent Events, for information regarding our repayment of
this amount in full on January 31, 2011.
In connection with the entry into the credit agreement, a
temporary credit agreement entered into on October 13,
2010, by and among us, our operating partnership, JPMorgan, as
administrative agent, Wells
139
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Fargo Bank, N.A. and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., as
syndication agents, and the lenders named therein, to obtain an
unsecured revolving credit facility in an aggregate maximum
principal amount of $200,000,000 was terminated, and, in
connection with such termination, we paid commitment fees of
approximately $111,000. There were no amounts outstanding under
such credit facility at the time of its termination.
|
|
10.
|
Identified
Intangible Liabilities, Net
|
Identified intangible liabilities, net for our operating
properties consisted of the following as of December 31,
2010 and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Below market leases, net of accumulated amortization of
$4,550,000 and $3,033,000 as of December 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively, (with a weighted average remaining life of
213 months and 94 months as of December 31, 2010
and 2009, respectively).
|
|
$
|
9,271,000
|
|
|
$
|
6,954,000
|
|
Below market leasehold interests, net of accumulated
amortization of $40,000 and $0 as of December 31, 2010 and
2009, respectively, (with a weighted average remaining life of
738 months and 0 months as of December 31, 2010
and 2009, respectively).
|
|
$
|
3,788,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
13,059,000
|
|
|
$
|
6,954,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For identified intangible liabilities, net associated with our
properties classified as held for sale as of December 31,
2010, see Note 3, Real Estate Investments, Net, Assets Held
for Sale, and Discontinued Operations.
Amortization expense recorded on the identified intangible
liabilities attributable to our operating properties for the
years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 was
$1,669,000, $1,715,000, and $1,230,000, respectively, which is
recorded to rental income in our accompanying consolidated
statements of operations.
Estimated amortization expense on the identified intangible
liabilities associated with our operating properties as of
December 31, 2010 for each of the next five years ending
December 31 and thereafter is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
1,624,000
|
|
2012
|
|
$
|
1,359,000
|
|
2013
|
|
$
|
1,152,000
|
|
2014
|
|
$
|
760,000
|
|
2015
|
|
$
|
601,000
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
$
|
7,563,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
13,059,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Litigation
We are not presently subject to any material litigation nor, to
our knowledge, is any material litigation threatened against us,
which if determined unfavorably to us, would have a material
adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results
of operations or cash flows.
140
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Environmental
Matters
We follow the policy of monitoring our properties for the
presence of hazardous or toxic substances. While there can be no
assurance that a material environmental liability does not exist
at our properties, we are not currently aware of any
environmental liability with respect to our properties that
would have a material effect on our consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows. Further, we are
not aware of any material environmental liability or any
unasserted claim or assessment with respect to an environmental
liability that we believe would require additional disclosure or
the recording of a loss contingency.
Other
Organizational and Offering Expenses
As a self-managed company, we are responsible for all of our
current and future organizational and offering expenses,
including those incurred in connection with our follow-on
offering. These other organizational and offering expenses
include all expenses (other than selling commissions and dealer
manager fees, which generally represent 7.0% and 3.0% of our
gross offering proceeds, respectively) paid by us in connection
with our follow-on offering.
Tax
Status
We intend to request a closing agreement with the IRS granting
us relief for any preferential dividends we may have paid.
Preferential dividends cannot be used to satisfy the REIT
distribution requirements. In 2007, 2008 and through July 2009,
shares of common stock issued pursuant to our DRIP were treated
as issued as of the first day following the close of the month
for which the distributions were declared, and not on the date
that the cash distributions were paid to stockholders not
participating in our DRIP. Because we declare distributions on a
daily basis, including with respect to shares of common stock
issued pursuant to our DRIP, the IRS could take the position
that distributions paid by us during these periods were
preferential. In addition, during the six months beginning
September 2009 through February 2010, we paid certain IRA
custodial fees with respect to IRA accounts that invested in our
shares. The payment of such amounts could also be treated as
dividend distributions to the IRAs, and therefore could result
in our being treated as having made additional preferential
dividends to our stockholders.
We cannot assure you that the IRS will accept our proposal for a
closing agreement. Even if the IRS accepts our proposal, we may
be required to pay a penalty if the IRS were to view the prior
operation of our DRIP or the payment of such fees as
preferential dividends. We cannot predict whether such a penalty
would be imposed or, if so, the amount of the penalty. If the
IRS does not agree to our proposal for a closing agreement and
treats the foregoing amounts as preferential dividends, we would
likely rely on the deficiency dividend provisions of the Code to
address our continued qualification as a REIT and to satisfy our
distribution requirements. We estimate the range of loss that is
reasonably possible is from $60,000 to $150,000 if we obtain the
closing agreement. If we cannot obtain a closing agreement, we
would likely pursue the deficiency dividend procedure which
would require us to pay a penalty of approximately $500,000.
Other
Our other commitments and contingencies include the usual
obligations of real estate owners and operators in the normal
course of business. In our opinion, these matters are not
expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
|
|
12.
|
Related
Party Transactions
|
Transition:
Self-Management
Upon the effectiveness of our initial offering on
September 20, 2006, we entered into the Advisory Agreement
with our former advisor, and Grubb & Ellis Realty
Investors, LLC, or GERI, and a dealer manager
141
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
agreement with Grubb & Ellis Securities, Inc., our
former dealer manager. These agreements entitled our former
advisor, our former dealer manager and their affiliates to
specified compensation for certain services as well as
reimbursement of certain expenses.
In 2008, we announced our plans to transition to a self-managed
company. As part of our transition to self management, on
November 14, 2008, we amended and restated the Advisory
Agreement effective as of October 24, 2008, to reduce
acquisition and asset management fees, eliminate the need to pay
disposition or internalization fees, to set the framework for
our transition to self-management and to create an enterprise
value for our company. On November 14, 2008, we also
amended the partnership agreement for our operating partnership.
Pursuant to the terms of the partnership agreement as amended,
our former advisor had the ability to elect to defer its right,
if applicable, to receive a subordinated distribution from our
operating partnership after the termination or expiration of the
advisory agreement upon certain liquidity events if specified
stockholder return thresholds were met. This right was subject
to a number of conditions and had been the subject of dispute
between the parties, as well as monetary and other claims.
On May 21, 2009, we provided notice to Grubb &
Ellis Securities that we would proceed with a dealer manager
transition pursuant to which Grubb & Ellis Securities
ceased to serve as our dealer manager for our initial offering
at the end of the day on August 28, 2009. Commencing
August 29, 2009, RCS, an unaffiliated third party, assumed
the role of dealer manager for the remainder of the offering
period. The Advisory Agreement expired in accordance with its
terms on September 20, 2009.
On October 18, 2010, we and our former advisor and certain
of its affiliates entered into a redemption, termination and
release agreement, or the Redemption Agreement. Pursuant to
the Redemption Agreement, we purchased the limited partner
interest, including all rights with respect to a subordinated
distribution upon the occurrence of specified liquidity events
and other rights held by our former advisor in our operating
partnership, for $8,000,000, of which $7,285,000 is reflected in
our Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended
December 31, 2010. In addition, pursuant to the
Redemption Agreement the parties resolved all monetary
claims and other matters between them, and entered into certain
mutual and other releases of the parties. We believe that the
execution of the Redemption Agreement represents the final
stage of our successful separation from Grubb & Ellis
and that the Redemption Agreement further positions us to
take advantage of potential strategic opportunities in the
future.
Fees
and Expenses Paid to Former Affiliates
In the aggregate, for the years ended December 31, 2010,
2009 and 2008, we incurred fees to our former advisor and its
affiliates of $0, $71,194,000, and $82,622,000, respectively.
Offering
Stage
Selling
Commissions
Prior to the transition of the dealer manager function to RCS,
our former dealer manager received selling commissions of up to
7.0% of the gross offering proceeds from the sale of shares of
our common stock in our initial offering other than shares of
our common stock sold pursuant to the DRIP. Our former dealer
manager re-allowed all or a portion of these fees to
participating broker-dealers. For the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, we incurred $0,
$35,337,000, and $36,307,000, respectively, in selling
commissions to our former dealer manager. Such selling
commissions are charged to stockholders equity as such
amounts were reimbursed to our former dealer manager from the
gross proceeds of our initial offering.
Marketing
Support Fees and Due Diligence Expense Reimbursements
Our former dealer manager received non-accountable marketing
support fees of up to 2.5% of the gross offering proceeds from
the sale of shares of our common stock in our initial offering
other than shares of our
142
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
common stock sold pursuant to the DRIP. Our former dealer
manager re-allowed a portion up to 1.5% of the gross offering
proceeds for non-accountable marketing fees to participating
broker-dealers. In addition, in our initial offering, we
reimbursed our former dealer manager or its affiliates an
additional 0.5% of the gross offering proceeds for accountable
bona fide due diligence expenses, all or a portion of
which could be re-allowed to participating broker-dealers. For
the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, we
incurred $0, $12,786,000, and $13,209,000, respectively, in
marketing support fees and due diligence expense reimbursements
to our former dealer manager. Such fees and reimbursements are
charged to stockholders equity as such amounts are
reimbursed to our former dealer manager or its affiliates from
the gross proceeds of our initial offering.
Other
Organizational and Offering Expenses
Our other organizational and offering expenses were paid by our
former advisor or its affiliates, who we generally refer to as
our former advisor, on our behalf. Our former advisor was
reimbursed for actual expenses incurred up to 1.5% of the gross
offering proceeds from the sale of shares of our common stock in
our initial offering other than shares of our common stock sold
pursuant to the DRIP. For the years ended December 31,
2010, 2009, and 2008, we incurred $0, $2,557,000, and
$5,630,000, respectively, in offering expenses to our former
advisor. Other organizational expenses are expensed as incurred,
and offering expenses are charged to stockholders equity
as such amounts are reimbursed to our former advisor from the
gross proceeds of our initial offering.
Acquisition
and Development Stage
Acquisition
Fee
For the period from September 20, 2006 through
October 24, 2008, our former advisor received, as
compensation for services rendered in connection with the
investigation, selection and acquisition of properties, an
acquisition fee of up to 3.0% of the contract purchase price for
each property acquired or up to 4.0% of the total development
cost of any development property acquired, as applicable. As we
moved toward self-management, we entered into an amendment to
the Advisory Agreement, effective as of October 24, 2008,
which reduced the acquisition fee payable to our former advisor
from up to 3.0% to a lower fee determined as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
for the first $375,000,000 in aggregate contract purchase price
for properties acquired directly or indirectly by us after
October 24, 2008, 2.5% of the contract purchase price of
each such property;
|
|
|
|
for the second $375,000,000 in aggregate contract purchase price
for properties acquired directly or indirectly by us after
October 24, 2008, 2.0% of the contract purchase price of
each such property, which amount is subject to downward
adjustment, but not below 1.5%, based on reasonable projections
regarding the anticipated amount of net proceeds to be received
in our initial offering; and
|
|
|
|
for above $750,000,000 in aggregate contract purchase price for
properties acquired directly or indirectly by us after
October 24, 2008, 2.25% of the contract purchase price of
each such property.
|
The Advisory Agreement also provided that we would pay an
acquisition fee in connection with the acquisition of real
estate related assets in an amount equal to 1.5% of the amount
funded to acquire or originate each such real estate related
asset.
We paid our former advisor acquisition fees for properties and
other real estate related assets acquired with funds raised in
our initial offering by our former dealer manager for such
acquisitions completed after the expiration of the Advisory
Agreement. We are no longer required to pay such fees to our
former advisor.
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, we
incurred $0, $10,738,000, and $16,226,000, respectively, in
acquisition fees to our former advisor. Acquisition fees are
included in acquisition-related
143
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
expenses in our accompanying consolidated statements of
operations for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009.
Acquisition fees are capitalized as part of the purchase price
allocations for the year ended December 31, 2008.
Operational
Stage
Asset
Management Fee
For the period from September 20, 2006 through
October 24, 2008, our former advisor was paid a monthly fee
for services rendered in connection with the management of our
assets in an amount equal to one-twelfth of 1.0% of the average
invested assets calculated as of the close of business on the
last day of each month, subject to our stockholders receiving
annualized distributions in an amount equal to at least 5.0% per
annum on average invested capital. The asset management fee was
calculated and payable monthly in cash or shares of our common
stock at the option of our former advisor.
In connection with the amendment to the Advisory Agreement,
effective as of October 24, 2008, we reduced the monthly
asset management fee to one-twelfth of 0.5% of our average
invested assets. As part of our transition to self-management,
this fee to our former advisor was eliminated in connection with
the expiration of the Advisory Agreement.
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, we
incurred $0, $3,783,000, and $6,177,000, respectively, in asset
management fees to our former advisor.
Property
Management Fee
Our former advisor was paid a monthly property management fee
equal to 4.0% of the gross cash receipts of our properties
through August 31, 2009. For properties managed by other
third parties besides our former advisor, our former advisor was
paid up to 1.0% of the gross cash receipts from the property as
a monthly oversight fee. For the years ended December 31,
2010, 2009, and 2008, we incurred $0, $2,289,000, and
$2,372,000, respectively, in property management fees and
oversight fees to our former advisor, which is included in
rental expenses in our accompanying consolidated statements of
operations. As part of our transition to self-management, this
fee to our former advisor was eliminated in connection with the
expiration of the Advisory Agreement. Under self-management, we
pay property management fees to third parties at market rates.
Lease
Fee
Our former advisor, as the property manager, was paid a separate
fee for leasing activities in an amount not to exceed the fee
customarily charged in arms length transactions by others
rendering similar services in the same geographic area for
similar properties, as determined by a survey of brokers and
agents in such area ranging between 3.0% and 8.0% of gross
revenues generated from the initial term of the lease. For the
years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, we incurred
$0, $1,665,000, and $1,248,000, respectively, to Triple Net
Properties Realty, Inc., or Realty and its affiliates in lease
fees, which are capitalized and included in other assets, net,
in our accompanying consolidated balance sheets.
On-site
Personnel and Engineering Payroll
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, GERI
incurred $0, $1,827,000, and $1,012,000 respectively, which is
included in rental expenses in our accompanying consolidated
statements of operations.
144
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Operating
Expenses
We reimbursed our former advisor for operating expenses incurred
in rendering its services to us, subject to certain limitations
on our operating expenses. We did not reimburse our former
advisor for operating expenses that exceeded the greater of:
(1) 2.0% of our average invested assets, as defined in the
Advisory Agreement, or (2) 25.0% of our net income, as
defined in the Advisory Agreement, unless a majority of our
independent directors determined that such excess expenses were
justified based on unusual and non-recurring factors. Our
operating expenses did not exceed this limitation during the
term of the Advisory Agreement.
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, GERI
incurred on our behalf $0, $35,000, and $278,000, respectively,
in operating expenses which is included in general and
administrative expenses in our accompanying condensed
consolidated statements of operations.
Related
Party Services Agreement
We entered into a services agreement, effective January 1,
2008, with GERI for subscription agreement processing and
investor services. The services agreement had an initial one
year term and was subject to successive one year renewals. On
March 17, 2009, GERI provided notice of its termination of
the services agreement. The termination was to be effective
September 20, 2009; however as part of our transition to
self-management, we transitioned to DST Systems, Inc., our
transfer agent and provider of subscription processing and
investor relations services, as of August 10, 2009.
Accordingly, the services agreement with GERI terminated on
August 9, 2009.
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, we
incurred $0, $177,000, and $130,000, respectively, for investor
services that GERI provided to us, which is included in general
and administrative expenses in our accompanying condensed
consolidated statements of operations.
Compensation
for Additional Services
In periods preceding our transition to self-management during
the third quarter of 2009, our former advisor was paid for
services performed for us other than those required to be
rendered by our former advisor under the Advisory Agreement. The
rate of compensation for these services was required to be
approved by a majority of our board of directors, including a
majority of our independent directors, and could not exceed an
amount that would be paid to unaffiliated third parties for
similar services. For the years ended December 31, 2010,
2009, and 2008, we incurred $0, $0, and $7,000, respectively,
for tax services that GERI provided to us, which is included in
general and administrative expense in our accompanying
consolidated statements of operations.
Liquidity
Stage
Disposition
Fee
We paid no disposition fees to our former advisor under the
terms of the Advisory Agreement. In addition, we have no
obligation to pay any disposition fees to our former advisor in
the future.
Subordinated
Participation Interest
Pursuant to the terms of the partnership agreement for our
operating partnership, as amended on November 14, 2008, our
former advisor had the right to receive a subordinated
distribution upon the occurrence of certain liquidity events
based on the value of our assets owned at the time the Advisory
Agreement was terminated plus any assets acquired after such
termination for which our former advisor received an acquisition
fee. We incurred no such distribution during the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, and, on October 18,
2010, this right was purchased along with our former
advisors
145
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
partnership units in our operating partnership pursuant to the
Redemption Agreement as discussed above. As a result, our
former advisor no longer has the right to receive any
subordinated distribution.
Accounts
Payable Due to Former Affiliates, Net
The following amounts were outstanding to former affiliates as
of December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Entity
|
|
Fee
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
27,000
|
|
Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors
|
|
Offering costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90,000
|
|
Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors
|
|
Due diligence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors
|
|
On-site payroll and engineering
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
104,000
|
|
Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors
|
|
Acquisition related expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,769,000
|
|
Triple Net Properties Realty, Inc.
|
|
Asset and property management fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
771,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,776,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuant to the Redemption Agreement with our former
advisor, which was executed on October 18, 2010 and is
discussed in further detail above, all monetary claims and other
matters between the parties were resolved and we no longer owe
any fees or payments to our former advisor.
|
|
13.
|
Redeemable
Noncontrolling Interest of Limited Partners
|
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, we owned an approximately
99.92% and an approximately 99.99%, respectively, general
partner interest in our operating partnership. Our former
advisor was a limited partner of our operating partnership as of
December 31, 2009, and owned an approximately 0.01% limited
partner interest in our operating partnership. This limited
partner interest was redeemed pursuant to the
Redemption Agreement we entered into with our former
advisor on October 18, 2010. See Note 12, Related
Party Transactions, for additional information on our redemption
of this interest. As of December 31, 2010, approximately
0.08% of our operating partnership was owned by individual
physician investors that elected to exchange their partnership
interests in the partnership that owns the 7900 Fannin medical
office building for limited partner units of our operating
partnership. We acquired the majority interest in the Fannin
partnership on June 30, 2010. In aggregate, approximately
0.08% of the earnings of our operating partnership are allocated
to redeemable noncontrolling interest of limited partners.
As of December 31, 2009, we owned an 80.0% interest in the
JV Company that owns the Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center,
which was originally purchased on December 20, 2007. The
redeemable noncontrolling interest balance related to this
arrangement at December 31, 2009 was comprised of the
noncontrolling interests initial contribution, 20.0% of
the earnings at the Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center, and
accretion of the change in the redemption value over the period
from the purchase date to January 1, 2011, the earliest
redemption date. On March 24, 2010, our subsidiary
exercised its call option to buy, for $3,900,000, 100% of the
interest owned by its joint venture partner, BD St. Louis,
in the JV Company. As a result of the closing of the purchase on
March 24, 2010, we own a 100% interest in the Chesterfield
Rehabilitation Center, and the associated redeemable
noncontrolling interest balance related to this entity was
reduced to zero.
On June 30, 2010, we completed the acquisition of the
majority interest in the Fannin partnership, which owns the 7900
Fannin medical office building located in Houston, Texas on the
Texas Medical Center campus. At closing, we acquired the general
partner interest and the majority of the limited partner
interests in the Fannin partnership. The original physician
investors were provided the right to remain in the Fannin
146
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
partnership, receive limited partner units in our operating
partnership,
and/or
receive cash. Some of the original physician investors elected
to remain in the Fannin partnership post-closing as limited
partners. Those investors electing to remain in the Fannin
partnership or to receive limited partner units in our operating
partnership were provided opportunities for future redemption of
their interests/units, exercisable at the option of the holder
during periods specified within the agreement.
Redeemable noncontrolling interests are accounted for in
accordance with ASC 480, Distinguishing Liabilities From
Equity, or ASC 480, at the greater of their carrying
amount or redemption value at the end of each reporting period.
Changes in the redemption value from the purchase date to the
earliest redemption date are accreted using the straight-line
method. Additionally, as the noncontrolling interests provide
for redemption features not solely within the control of the
issuer, we classify such interests outside of permanent equity
in accordance with Accounting Series Release 268:
Presentation in the Financial Statements of Redeemable
Preferred Stock, as applied in ASU
No. 2009-4,
Accounting for Redeemable Equity Instruments. As of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, redeemable noncontrolling
interest of limited partners was $3,867,000 and $3,549,000,
respectively. Below is a table reflecting the activity of the
redeemable noncontrolling interests.
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
1,951,000
|
|
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest of limited
partners
|
|
|
304,000
|
|
Distributions
|
|
|
(379,000
|
)
|
Adjustments to noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
1,673,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
3,549,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
3,549,000
|
|
Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest of limited
partners
|
|
|
(16,000
|
)
|
Distributions
|
|
|
(145,000
|
)
|
Valuation adjustments to noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
570,000
|
|
Redemption of limited partner interest of former advisor
|
|
|
(197,000
|
)
|
Purchase of Chesterfield 20% interest
|
|
|
(3,900,000
|
)
|
Addition of noncontrolling interest attributable to the Fannin
acquisition
|
|
|
4,006,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
3,867,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ($16,000) in net loss attributable to noncontrolling
interest shown on our December 31, 2010 condensed
consolidated statement of operations reflects $64,000 in net
income earned by the noncontrolling interest in the JV Company
prior to our purchase of this noncontrolling interest on
March 24, 2010 and $18,000 in net income attributable to
our operating partnership unit holders during the year ended
December 31, 2010, offset by a net loss of ($98,000)
attributable to the Fannin partnership following our purchase of
this partnership on June 30, 2010.
For the year ended December 31, 2010, we recorded no
additional net income attributable to the Chesterfield
noncontrolling interest beyond the $64,000 earned prior to our
purchase of this noncontrolling interest. The net impact to our
equity as a result of this purchase was $275,000.
Common
Stock
Through December 31, 2010, we granted an aggregate of
564,324 shares of restricted common stock to our
independent directors, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer, Executive Vice President Acquisitions, and
other employees pursuant to the terms and conditions of our 2006
Incentive Plan,
147
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Employment Agreements, and the employee retention program
described below. Through December 31, 2010, we issued
197,712,159 shares of our common stock in connection with
our initial offering and follow-on offering and
11,671,865 shares of our common stock under the DRIP, and
we repurchased 7,288,019 shares of our common stock under
our share repurchase plan. As of December 31, 2010 and
2009, we had 202,643,705 and 140,590,686 shares of our
common stock outstanding, respectively.
Pursuant to our follow-on offering, we offered to the public up
to 200,000,000 shares of our $0.01 par value common
stock for $10.00 per share and up to 21,052,632 shares of
our $0.01 par value common stock pursuant to the DRIP at
$9.50 per share. Our charter authorizes us to issue
1,000,000,000 shares of our common stock. On
February 28, 2011, we stopped offering shares in our
primary offering. However, for noncustodial accounts,
subscription agreements signed on or before February 28,
2011 with all documents and funds received by end of business
March 15, 2011 were accepted. For custodial accounts,
subscription agreements signed on or before February 28,
2011 with all documents and funds received by end of business
March 31, 2011 will be accepted.
Preferred
Stock
Our charter authorizes us to issue 200,000,000 shares of
our $0.01 par value preferred stock. As of
December 31, 2010 and 2009, no shares of preferred stock
were issued and outstanding.
Distribution
Reinvestment Plan
We adopted the DRIP that allows stockholders to purchase
additional shares of common stock through the reinvestment of
distributions, subject to certain conditions. We registered and
reserved 21,052,632 shares of our common stock for sale
pursuant to the DRIP in our initial offering and we registered
and reserved 21,052,632 shares of our common stock for sale
pursuant to the DRIP in our follow-on offering. For the years
ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, $56,551,000,
$38,559,000, and $13,099,000, respectively, in distributions
were reinvested and 5,952,683, 4,059,006, and
1,378,795 shares of our common stock, respectively, were
issued under the DRIP. We are conducting an ongoing review of
potential alternatives for our DRIP, including the suspension or
termination of the plan.
Share
Repurchase Plan
Our board of directors has approved a share repurchase plan. On
August 24, 2006, we received SEC exemptive relief from
rules restricting issuer purchases during distributions. The
share repurchase plan allows for share repurchases by us when
certain criteria are met by the requesting stockholders. Share
repurchases will be made at the sole discretion of our board of
directors. On November 24, 2010, we, with the approval of
our board of directors, elected to amend and restate our share
repurchase plan. Starting in the first calendar quarter of 2011,
we will fund a maximum of $10 million of share repurchase
requests per quarter, subject to available funding. Funds for
the repurchase of shares of our common stock will come
exclusively from the proceeds we receive from the sale of shares
of our common stock under the DRIP. In addition, with the
termination of our follow-on offering on February 28, 2011,
except for the DRIP, we are conducting an ongoing review of
potential alternatives for our share repurchase plan, including
the suspension or termination of the plan.
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 we
repurchased 5,448,260 shares of our common stock, for an
aggregate amount of $51,856,000, 1,730,011 shares of our
common stock for an aggregate amount of $16,266,000, and
109,748 shares of our common stock for an aggregate amount
of $1,077,000, respectively. As of December 31, 2010 and
2009, we had repurchased a total of 7,288,019 shares of our
common stock for an aggregate amount of $69,199,000, and
1,839,759 shares of our common stock for an aggregate
amount of $17,343,000, respectively.
148
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
2006
Incentive Plan and Independent Directors Compensation
Plan
Under the terms of our 2006 Incentive Plan, the aggregate number
of shares of our common stock subject to options, shares of
restricted common stock, stock purchase rights, stock
appreciation rights or other awards, including those issuable
under its
sub-plan,
the 2006 Independent Directors Compensation Plan, will be no
more than 2,000,000 shares. On May 20, 2010, based
upon the recommendation of the compensation committee, our board
of directors approved the following amendments to our
independent director compensation plan, all of which were
effective May 20, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Retainer. The annual retainer for
independent directors remains unchanged at $50,000.
|
|
|
|
Annual Retainer, Committee Chairman. The
chairman of the audit committee will receive an annual retainer
of $15,000. The chairman of each of the compensation committee,
the nominating and corporate governance committee, the
investment committee and the risk management committee will
receive an annual retainer of $12,500. These retainers are in
addition to the annual retainer payable to all independent board
members for board service.
|
|
|
|
Meeting Fees. The meeting fee for each board
of directors meeting attended in person or by telephone remains
unchanged at $1,500 and the meeting fee for each committee
meeting attended in person or by telephone remains unchanged at
$1,000.
|
|
|
|
Equity Compensation. Each independent director
will receive a grant of 7,500 shares of restricted common
stock upon each re-election to the board.
|
|
|
|
Fees for Non-Telephonic Meetings on the Same
Day. Independent board members will be entitled
to receive fees for non-telephonic committee meetings that occur
on the same day as non-telephonic board meetings.
|
In 2006, 2007 and 2008, we granted an aggregate of 20,000,
17,500 and 12,500 shares, respectively to our independent
directors. During the years ended December 31, 2010 and
2009, we granted an aggregate of 37,500 and 25,000 shares,
respectively, to our independent directors. Each of these
restricted stock awards vested 20.0% on the grant date and 20.0%
will vest on each of the first four anniversaries of the date of
grant.
On November 14, 2008, we granted Mr. Peters
40,000 shares of restricted common stock under, and
pursuant to the terms and conditions of our 2006 Incentive Plan.
The shares of restricted common stock will vest and become
non-forfeitable in equal annual installments of 33.3% each, on
the first, second and third anniversaries of the grant date.
Pursuant to the terms of his new employment agreement, on
July 1, 2009, Mr. Peters was entitled to receive
50,000 shares of fully vested stock under, and pursuant to,
the terms and conditions of our 2006 Incentive plan and his
employment agreement. Pursuant to the terms of his new
employment agreement, on July 1, 2009, Mr. Peters was
also entitled to receive an annual award of 100,000 shares
of restricted common stock with three additional annual awards
of 100,000 shares beginning July 1, 2010, subject to
board approval, under, and pursuant to, the terms and conditions
of our 2006 Incentive plan and his employment agreement. On
May 20, 2010, the Board approved an amendment to
Mr. Peters employment agreement with the Company to
increase the number of restricted shares Mr. Peters is
entitled to receive on each of the first three anniversaries of
the effective date of his employment agreement from 100,000 to
120,000. The share awards will vest and become non-forfeitable
over the balance of the term of his employment agreement. The
terms of his employment agreement provide Mr. Peters with
the option to receive cash in lieu of stock for up to 50% of the
grants made under his employment agreement at the time of
issuance at the common stock fair value on the grant date, which
option has been exercised with respect to all grants under his
agreement.
In the third quarter of 2009, we granted an aggregate of
65,000 shares of restricted common stock units under, and
pursuant to the terms and conditions of our 2006 Incentive plan
and the employment agreement of certain key employees. The
shares of restricted common stock units will vest and convert on
a one-to-one
149
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
basis into common stock shares in equal annual installments of
33.3% which will vest on each of the first three anniversaries
of the date of grant.
Employee
Retention Program
The Board approved on May 20, 2010 the adoption of an
employee retention program pursuant to which the Company will
grant its executive officers and employees restricted shares of
the Companys common stock. The purpose of this program is
to incentivize the Companys executive officers and
employees to remain with the Company for a minimum of three
years, subject to meeting the Companys performance
standards. The Board and the compensation committee determined
that this program is consistent with the Companys overall
goal of hiring and retaining highly qualified employees. The
program will be implemented in two stages. The first stage is
aimed at the Companys three named executive officers. The
second stage applies to all of the Companys employees.
This program will be subject to adjustment in the future to
accommodate the comprehensive compensation review being
conducted by the compensation committee and the Board.
As part of the first stage of this program, on May 24,
2010, Mr. Peters, Ms. Pruitt and Mark D. Engstrom were
entitled to receive grants of 100,000, 50,000 and
50,000 shares of restricted stock, respectively.
Mr. Peters elected to receive a restricted cash award in
lieu of 50,000 shares. The restricted shares and the
restricted cash award granted to Mr. Peters will vest in
thirds on each anniversary of the grant date, provided that the
grantee is employed by the Company on such date. The shares
granted to Ms. Pruitt and Mr. Engstrom will vest 100%
on the third anniversary of the grant date, provided that the
grantee is employed by the Company on such date. All shares have
been granted pursuant to the Companys 2006 Incentive Plan,
as amended. The restricted shares will become immediately vested
upon the earlier occurrence of (1) the executives
termination of employment by reason of his or her death or
disability, (2) a change in control of the Company (as
defined in the 2006 Plan) or (3) the executives
termination of employment by the Company without cause or by the
executive for good reason (as such terms are defined in the
executive officers respective employment agreements). In
December 2010, we granted 110,000 shares to other employees
as part of the second stage of this program.
Share-Based
Compensation
The fair value of each share of restricted common stock and
restricted common stock unit that has been granted under the
plan is estimated at the date of grant at $10.00 per share, the
per share price of shares in our initial offering and our
follow-on offering, and is amortized on a straight-line basis
over the vesting period. Shares of restricted common stock and
restricted common stock units may not be sold, transferred,
exchanged, assigned, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise
encumbered. Such restrictions expire upon vesting.
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, we
recognized compensation expense of $1,313,000, $816,000, and
$130,000, respectively, related to the restricted common stock
grants, which is included in general and administrative in our
accompanying consolidated statements of operations. Shares of
restricted common stock have full voting rights and rights to
dividends. Shares of restricted common stock units do not have
voting rights or rights to dividends.
A portion of our awards may be paid in cash in lieu of stock in
accordance with the respective employment agreement and vesting
schedule of such awards. These awards are revalued every
reporting period end with the cash redemption liability
reflected on our consolidated balance sheets, if material. For
the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, approximately
32,500 shares were settled in cash for approximately
$325,000 and 37,500 shares were settled in cash for
approximately $375,000, respectively. As of December 31,
2010, the liability balance associated with the cash awards was
$263,000.
150
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, there was $4,143,000, and
$1,881,000, respectively, of total unrecognized compensation
expense, net of estimated forfeitures, related to nonvested
shares of restricted common stock. As of December 31, 2010,
this expense is expected to be recognized over a remaining
weighted average period of 2.4 years.
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the fair value of the
nonvested shares of restricted common stock was $4,352,000 and
$1,677,000, respectively. A summary of the status of the
nonvested shares of restricted common stock as of
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
Restricted
|
|
|
Average Grant
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Date Fair
|
|
|
|
Stock/Units
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Balance December 31, 2007
|
|
|
26,000
|
|
|
|
10.00
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
52,500
|
|
|
|
10.00
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(10,000
|
)
|
|
|
10.00
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance December 31, 2008
|
|
|
68,500
|
|
|
$
|
10.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested shares expected to vest December 31,
2008
|
|
|
68,500
|
|
|
$
|
10.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
165,500
|
|
|
|
10.00
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(65,833
|
)
|
|
|
10.00
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance December 31, 2009
|
|
|
167,667
|
|
|
$
|
10.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested shares expected to vest December 31,
2009
|
|
|
167,667
|
|
|
$
|
10.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
357,500
|
|
|
|
10.00
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(85,157
|
)
|
|
|
10.00
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(4,842
|
)
|
|
|
10.00
|
|
Balance December 31, 2010
|
|
|
435,168
|
|
|
$
|
10.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested shares expected to vest December 31,
2010
|
|
|
435,168
|
|
|
$
|
10.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.
|
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
|
ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, or
ASC 820, defines fair value, establishes a framework for
measuring fair value in GAAP and expands disclosures about fair
value measurements. ASC 820 emphasizes that fair value is a
market-based measurement, as opposed to a transaction-specific
measurement and most of the provisions were effective for our
consolidated financial statements beginning January 1, 2008.
Fair value is defined by ASC 820 as the price that would be
received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an
orderly transaction between market participants at the
measurement date. Depending on the nature of the asset or
liability, various techniques and assumptions can be used to
estimate the fair value. Financial assets and liabilities are
measured using inputs from three levels of the fair value
hierarchy, as follows:
Level 1 Inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted)
in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that we
have the ability to access at the measurement date. An active
market is defined as a market in which
151
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
transactions for the assets or liabilities occur with sufficient
frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an
ongoing basis.
Level 2 Inputs include quoted prices for
similar assets and liabilities in active markets, quoted prices
for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that
are not active (markets with few transactions), inputs other
than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or
liability (i.e., interest rates, yield curves, etc.), and inputs
that derived principally from or corroborated by observable
market data correlation or other means (market corroborated
inputs).
Level 3 Unobservable inputs, only used to the
extent that observable inputs are not available, reflect our
assumptions about the pricing of an asset or liability.
ASC 825, Financial Instruments, ASC 825, requires
disclosure of fair value of financial instruments in interim
financial statements as well as in annual financial statements.
We use fair value measurements to record fair value of certain
assets and to estimate fair value of financial instruments not
recorded at fair value but required to be disclosed at fair
value.
Financial
Instruments Reported at Fair Value
Cash and
Cash Equivalents
We invest in money market funds which are classified within
Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy because they are valued
using unadjusted quoted market prices in active markets for
identical securities.
Derivative
Financial Instruments
Currently, we use interest rate swaps and interest rate caps to
manage interest rate risk associated with floating rate debt.
The valuation of these instruments is determined using widely
accepted valuation techniques including discounted cash flow
analysis on the expected cash flows of each derivative. This
analysis reflects the contractual terms of the derivatives,
including the period to maturity, and uses observable
market-based inputs, including interest rate curves, foreign
exchange rates, and implied volatilities. The fair values of
interest rate swaps and interest rate caps are determined using
the market standard methodology of netting the discounted future
fixed cash payments and the discounted expected variable cash
receipts. The variable cash receipts are based on an expectation
of future interest rates (forward curves) derived from
observable market interest rate curves.
To comply with the provisions of ASC 820, we incorporate
credit valuation adjustments to appropriately reflect both our
own nonperformance risk and the respective counterpartys
nonperformance risk in the fair value measurements. In adjusting
the fair value of our derivative contracts for the effect of
nonperformance risk, we have considered the impact of netting
and any applicable credit enhancements, such as collateral
postings, thresholds, mutual puts, and guarantees.
Although we have determined that the majority of the inputs used
to value our interest rate swap and interest rate cap
derivatives fall within Level 2 of the fair value
hierarchy, the credit valuation adjustments associated with
these instruments utilize Level 3 inputs, such as estimates
of current credit spreads to evaluate the likelihood of default
by us and our counterparties. However, as of December 31,
2010, we have assessed the significance of the impact of the
credit valuation adjustments on the overall valuation of our
interest rate swap and interest rate cap derivative positions
and have determined that the credit valuation adjustments are
not significant to their overall valuation. As a result, we have
determined that our interest rate swap and interest rate cap
derivative valuations in their entirety are classified in
Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.
As of December 31, 2010, there have been no transfers of
assets or liabilities between levels.
152
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Assets
and Liabilities at Fair Value
The table below presents our assets and liabilities measured at
fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2010,
aggregated by the level in the fair value hierarchy within which
those measurements fall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Markets for
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identical Assets
|
|
|
Significant Other
|
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Liabilities
|
|
|
Observable Inputs
|
|
|
Unobservable Inputs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Level 1 )
|
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
|
(Level 3)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Money market funds
|
|
$
|
43,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
43,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative financial instruments
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
680,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
680,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets at fair value
|
|
$
|
43,000
|
|
|
$
|
680,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
723,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative financial instruments
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(1,527,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(1,527,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities at fair value
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(1,527,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(1,527,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The table below presents our assets and liabilities measured at
fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2009,
aggregated by the level in the fair value hierarchy within which
those measurements fall:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Markets for
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identical Assets
|
|
|
Significant Other
|
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Liabilities
|
|
|
Observable Inputs
|
|
|
Unobservable Inputs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Level 1 )
|
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
|
(Level 3)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Money market funds
|
|
$
|
43,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
43,000
|
|
Derivative financial instruments(a)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
890,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,051,000
|
(a)
|
|
$
|
1,941,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets at fair value
|
|
$
|
43,000
|
|
|
$
|
890,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,051,000
|
(a)
|
|
$
|
1,984,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative financial instruments
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(8,625,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(8,625,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities at fair value
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(8,625,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(8,625,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
During the third quarter of 2010, we reevaluated a feature
within the Rush Presbyterian Note Receivable which had been
disclosed in our Annual Report on
Form 10-K
as a derivative financial instrument. Based on this
reevaluation, we determined that this feature, by its nature,
qualifies for a scope exception under ASC 815,
Derivatives and Hedging, and thus may be excluded from
classification as a derivative financial instrument. As such, we
have prospectively corrected our fair value and derivative
instrument disclosures with respect to this feature. |
Financial
Instruments Disclosed at Fair Value
ASC 825 requires disclosure of the fair value of financial
instruments, whether or not recognized on the face of the
balance sheet. Fair value is defined under ASC 820.
Our accompanying consolidated balance sheets include the
following financial instruments: real estate notes receivable,
net, cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, accounts and
other receivables, net, accounts payable and accrued
liabilities, accounts payable due to affiliates, net, mortgage
loans payable, net, and borrowings under the credit facility.
153
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
We consider the carrying values of cash and cash equivalents,
restricted cash, accounts and other receivables, net, and
accounts payable and accrued liabilities to approximate fair
value for these financial instruments because of the short
period of time between origination of the instruments and their
expected realization. The fair value of accounts payable due to
affiliates, net, is not determinable due to the related party
nature.
The fair value of the mortgage loan payable is estimated using
borrowing rates available to us for mortgage loans payable with
similar terms and maturities. As of December 31, 2010, the
fair value of the mortgage loans payable was $727,370,000
compared to the carrying value of $699,526,000. As of
December 31, 2009, the fair value of the mortgage loans
payable was $532,000,000, compared to the carrying value of
$540,028,000.
The fair value of the notes receivable is estimated by
discounting the expected cash flows on the notes at current
rates at which management believes similar loans would be made.
The fair value of these notes was approximately $67,540,000 and
approximately $61,120,000 at December 31, 2010 and
December 31, 2009, respectively, as compared to the
carrying values of approximately $57,091,000 and approximately
$54,763,000 at December 31, 2010 and December 31,
2009, respectively.
|
|
16.
|
Tax
Treatment of Distributions
|
The income tax treatment for distributions reportable for the
years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 was as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Ordinary income
|
|
$
|
47,041,000
|
|
|
|
40.3
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,836,000
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
$
|
5,879,000
|
|
|
|
21.0
|
%
|
Capital gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Return of capital
|
|
|
69,686,000
|
|
|
|
59.7
|
|
|
|
75,223,000
|
|
|
|
96.4
|
|
|
|
22,163,000
|
|
|
|
79.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
116,727,000
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
78,059,000
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
28,042,000
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rental
Income
We have operating leases with tenants that expire at various
dates through 2037 and in some cases subject to scheduled fixed
increases or adjustments based on the consumer price index.
Generally, the leases grant tenants renewal options. Leases also
provide for additional rents based on certain operating
expenses. Future minimum rent contractually due under operating
leases, excluding tenant reimbursements of certain costs, as of
December 31, 2010 for each of the next five years ending
December 31 and thereafter is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
2011
|
|
$
|
199,572,000
|
|
2012
|
|
|
191,958,000
|
|
2013
|
|
|
174,385,000
|
|
2014
|
|
|
157,674,000
|
|
2015
|
|
|
142,316,000
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
737,137,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,603,042,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
154
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
A certain amount of our rental income is from tenants with
leases which are subject to contingent rent provisions. These
contingent rents are subject to the tenant achieving periodic
revenues in excess of specified levels. For the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the amount of contingent
rent earned by us was not significant.
|
|
18.
|
Business
Combinations
|
For the year ended December 31, 2010, we completed the
acquisition of 24 new property portfolios as well as purchased
additional medical office buildings within six of our existing
portfolios. In addition, we purchased the remaining 20% interest
in the JV Company that owns Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center.
These purchases added a total of approximately
3,514,000 square feet of GLA to our overall property
portfolio. The aggregate purchase price for these acquisitions
was $806,048,000 plus closing costs of $6,253,000. See
Note 3, Real Estate Investments, for a listing of the
properties acquired and the dates of acquisition. Results of
operations for the property acquisitions are reflected in our
condensed consolidated statements of operations for the year
ended December 31, 2010 for the periods subsequent to the
acquisition dates.
For the year ended December 31, 2009, we completed the
acquisition of ten property portfolios, as well as purchased
three office condominiums related to existing property
portfolios, adding a total of approximately
2,258,000 square feet of GLA to our overall property
portfolio. The aggregate purchase price of these properties was
$456,760,000 plus closing costs of $1,099,000. The aggregate
purchase price was allocated in the amount of $15,584,000 to
land, $323,888,000 to building and improvements, $23,921,000 to
tenant improvements, $14,432,000 to lease commissions,
$24,542,000 to leases in place, $31,848,000 to tenant
relationships, $17,499,000 to leasehold interest in land,
$930,000 to below market debt, $3,238,000 to above market
leases, $(610,000) to below market leases, and $890,000 to other
assets reflecting the value of an interest rate cap derivative
instrument associated with debt assumed on one of our
acquisitions. Additionally, the allocable portion of the
aggregate purchase price does not include $598,000 in certain
credits representative of liabilities assumed by us that served
to reduce the total cash tendered for these acquisitions.
In accordance with ASC 805, Business Combinations
(ASC 805), formerly Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 141R, Business
Combinations, we, with assistance from independent valuation
specialists, allocate the purchase price of acquired properties
to tangible and identified intangible assets and liabilities
based on their respective fair values. The allocation to
tangible assets (building and land) is based upon our
determination of the value of the property as if it were to be
replaced and vacant using discounted cash flow models similar to
those used by independent appraisers. Factors considered by us
include an estimate of carrying costs during the expected
lease-up
periods considering current market conditions and costs to
execute similar leases. Additionally, the purchase price of the
applicable property is allocated to the above or below market
value of in place leases, the value of in place leases, tenant
relationships, above or below market debt assumed, and any
contingent consideration transferred in the combination.
The following sections summarize the estimated fair value of the
assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the date of
acquisition for acquisitions occurring during 2010. We present a
separate purchase price allocation for our purchase of eight of
the nine buildings comprising the Columbia portfolio, which we
consider to be an individually significant acquisition during
the year based on purchase price. The purchase price allocation
disclosure for the remaining acquisitions that occurred during
the year ended December 31, 2010 is presented in the
aggregate in accordance with the provisions of ASC 805,
which allow aggregate presentation for individually immaterial
business combinations that are material collectively.
Amounts presented in the allocations below pertain to all
acquisitions completed during the year ended December 31,
2010 except for the Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center
noncontrolling interest purchase; this purchase of the remaining
20% interest in the joint venture entity that owns the
Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center was accounted for as an
equity transaction and thus it is not included within the
aggregate purchase price allocation disclosed herein.
Additionally, the allocable portion of the aggregate purchase
price does not
155
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
include $1,004,000 in certain credits representative of
contingent purchase price adjustments and liabilities assumed by
us that served to reduce the total cash tendered for these
acquisitions.
As of December 31, 2010, we owned one property, purchased
during the third quarter of 2010, that is subject to an earnout
provision obligating us to pay additional consideration to the
seller contingent on the future leasing and occupancy of vacant
space at the property. This earnout payment is based on a
predetermined formula and has a set
24-month
time period regarding the obligation to make these payments. If,
at the end of this time period, certain space has not been
leased and occupied, we will have no further obligation.
Assuming all conditions are satisfied under the earnout
agreement, we, at the time of acquisition, calculated that we
would be obligated to pay an estimated $1,752,000 to the seller.
Upon review of this item of contingent consideration as of
December 31, 2010, we determined that no material change to
this valuation was warranted. As of December 31, 2010, no
payments under the earnout agreement have been made.
Columbia
Portfolio
Throughout the fourth quarter of 2010, we, through our
subsidiaries, acquired eight buildings within a nine-building
portfolio, seven of which are located in upstate New York and
one of which is located in Florida. See Note 22, Subsequent
Events, for information regarding our purchase of the final
building within this portfolio, located in Massachusetts, which
was purchased on February 16, 2011. We refer to these nine
buildings collectively as the Columbia Portfolio, which is
composed of a total of approximately 960,000 square feet of
both on- and off-campus medical office buildings and has a total
aggregate purchase price of $196,646,000. The occupancy rate of
the entire portfolio is approximately 97% (unaudited) as of
December 31, 2010.
During the year ended December 31, 2010, we paid an
aggregate purchase price of $187,464,000 for the following eight
buildings within this portfolio (occupancy rates provided are
unaudited):
|
|
|
|
|
An approximately 81,000 square foot building located in
Albany, New York. This two-story medical office building was
purchased on November 19, 2010 for approximately
$13,545,000 and was approximately 97% occupied as of
December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
An interest in a condominium building consisting of
approximately 41,000 rentable square feet, located in
Albany, New York that was 98% occupied as of December 31,
2010 and was purchased on November 19, 2010 for
approximately $9,988,000.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 166,000 square foot medical office
building located in Albany New York. This building, which had an
occupancy rate in excess of 99% as of December 31, 2010,
was purchased November 22, 2010 for $33,083,000.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 15,000 square foot medical office building
located in Albany, New York. This building was approximately 97%
occupied as of December 31, 2010 and was purchased on
November 22, 2010 for $3,171,000.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 259,000 square foot medical mall located
in Latham, New York, which was 90% occupied as of
December 31, 2010 and was purchased on November 23,
2010 for approximately $45,861,000.
|
|
|
|
A three-story building consisting of approximately
82,000 square feet located in Temple Terrace, Florida. This
building, which was purchased on November 23, 2010 for
$17,393,000, is 100% occupied to and serves as the primary and
corporate headquarters for Florida Orthopaedic Institute.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 90,000 square foot, three-story medical
office building located on the main campus of Putnam Hospital
Center in Carmel, New York. This building is 100% leased to
Putnam Hospital
|
156
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
Center and to private physician groups, and it was purchased on
December 29, 2010 for approximately $28,216,000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A four-story, approximately 180,000 square foot building
located in Albany, New York. This building, which was purchased
on December 30, 2010 for $36,207,000, is 100% leased to and
serves as the corporate headquarters for Capital District
Physicians Health Plan, Inc, a
not-for-profit
individual practice association model health maintenance
organization.
|
Relative to the purchase prices associated with the majority of
our 2010 acquisitions, we consider the acquisition of the
majority of this portfolio to be significant. As such, in
accordance with ASC 805, the relevant details of the
transaction and the aggregate purchase price allocation, as
depicted below, are presented on a standalone basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
9,567,000
|
|
Building as vacant
|
|
|
139,227,000
|
|
Site improvements
|
|
|
6,389,000
|
|
Unamortized tenant improvement costs
|
|
|
7,822,000
|
|
Leasehold interest in land, net
|
|
|
236,000
|
|
Leased fee interest in land
|
|
|
(272,000
|
)
|
Above market debt
|
|
|
(834,000
|
)
|
Above market leases
|
|
|
1,023,000
|
|
Below market leases
|
|
|
(3,227,000
|
)
|
Unamortized lease origination costs
|
|
|
8,310,000
|
|
In place leases
|
|
|
8,984,000
|
|
Tenant relationships
|
|
|
10,239,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets acquired
|
|
$
|
187,464,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
Aggregate 2010 Acquisitions
As the remaining acquisitions that occurred in 2010 were
individually not significant but material collectively, the
purchase price allocations for these acquisitions are presented
in the aggregate, in accordance with the guidance prescribed by
ASC 805.
157
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Land
|
|
$
|
34,483,000
|
|
Building as vacant
|
|
|
447,439,000
|
|
Site improvements
|
|
|
15,653,000
|
|
Unamortized tenant improvement costs
|
|
|
20,271,000
|
|
Leasehold interest in land, net
|
|
|
1,768,000
|
|
Leased fee interest in land
|
|
|
|
|
Above market debt
|
|
|
(4,171,000
|
)
|
Above market leases
|
|
|
7,585,000
|
|
Below market leases
|
|
|
(885,000
|
)
|
Unamortized lease origination costs
|
|
|
13,981,000
|
|
In place leases
|
|
|
30,729,000
|
|
Tenant relationships
|
|
|
46,827,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets acquired
|
|
$
|
613,680,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A brief description of the remaining property acquisitions
completed in 2010 are as follows (occupancy rates provided are
unaudited):
|
|
|
|
|
An approximately 80,000 square foot medical office
portfolio consisting of two buildings located in Atlanta,
Georgia. This portfolio was approximately 98% occupied as of
December 31, 2010 and was purchased on March 2, 2010
for $19,550,000.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 53,000 square foot medical office building
located in Jacksonville, Florida, purchased on March 9,
2010 for $10,775,000. This building was 100% occupied as of
December 31, 2010, and it is situated on the campus of St.
Vincents Medical Center.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 60,000 square foot medical office building
located in Sugarland, Texas, purchased on March 23, 2010
for $12,400,000. This facility is located near three acute-care
hospitals and was, as of December 31, 2010, 100% occupied
with 83% of the space occupied by Texas Childrens Health
Centers.
|
|
|
|
A five-building medical office portfolio located in Evansville
and Newburgh, Indiana, totaling approximately
262,000 square feet and purchased on March 23, 2010
for $45,257,000. The portfolio is 100% master-leased to
Deaconess Clinic, Inc., an affiliate of Deaconess Health System,
Inc.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 61,000 square foot medical office building
located on the campus of East Cooper Regional Medical Center in
Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, purchased on March 31, 2010
for $9,925,000. The building was 88% occupied of
December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 35,000 square foot medical office building
located in Pearland, Texas, purchased on March 31, 2010 for
$6,775,000. The building was 98% occupied as of
December 31, 2010. On June 30, 2010, we purchased a
second building within the Pearland portfolio: this add-on
acquisition consisted of an approximately 20,000 square
foot medical office building that was purchased for $3,701,000
and was 100% occupied as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 22,000 square foot medical office building
located in Hilton Head, South Carolina, purchased on
March 31, 2010 for $8,058,000. The building was 100%
occupied as of December 31, 2010. On August 12, 2010,
we purchased a second building within the Hilton ad portfolio:
this add-on acquisition consisted of an approximately
9,000 square foot medical office building that is 100%
occupied and was purchased for $2,652,000.
|
158
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
An approximately 101,000 square foot medical office
building located in Baltimore, Maryland, purchased on
March 31, 2010 for $29,250,000. The building is located on
the Johns Hopkins University Bayview Medical Center Research
Campus and was 100% occupied as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
The remaining 20% interest in the JV Company that owns
Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center. Our subsidiary exercised its
call option to buy, for $3,900,000, 100% of the interest owned
by its joint venture partner. As we continued to retain control
of this entity despite the change in ownership interest, in
accordance with ASC 805, we are accounting for this as an
equity transaction. Thus, no gains or losses with respect to
these changes were recognized in net income, nor are the
carrying amounts of the assets and liabilities of the subsidiary
adjusted. As such, this acquisition is not included within the
purchase price allocation disclosed within this footnote.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 192,000 square foot medical office
building located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This building,
which is located near the Federal North and Allegheny General
Hospital Centers, was 99% occupied as of December 31, 2010
and was purchased on April 29, 2010 for $40,472,000.
|
|
|
|
A two-building medical office portfolio in Denton, Texas, and
Lewisville, Texas totaling approximately 56,000 square
feet. The Lewisville medical office building, purchased on
June 25, 2010 for $4,800,000, consists of approximately
18,000 square feet and is 100% leased to one tenant with a
remaining term of 10 years. The Denton medical office
building, purchased on June 30, 2010 for $8,700,000, is an
approximately 38,000 square foot facility located on the
campus of Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Denton, and it is
100% leased through 2017.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 47,000 square foot medical office building
located in Charleston, South Carolina for approximately
$10,446,000. This building, which was purchased on June 28,
2010, was 100% leased as of December 31, 2010, and it is
located immediately adjacent to the campus of the Medical
University of South Carolina, or MUSC, and MUSC Childrens
Hospital.
|
|
|
|
The majority interest in the Fannin partnership, which owns a
medical office building located in Houston, Texas, on
June 30, 2010. The value of the 7900 Fannin building is
approximately $38,100,000. We acquired the general partner
interest and the majority of the limited partner interests in
the Fannin partnership. The original physician investors were
provided the right to remain in the Fannin partnership, receive
limited partner units in our operating partnership,
and/or
receive cash. Some of the original physician investors elected
to remain in the Fannin partnership post-closing as limited
partners. The property, known as 7900 Fannin, consists of a
four-story building totaling approximately 176,000 square
feet that is adjacent to The Womans Hospital of Texas, an
HCA-affiliated hospital within the Texas Medical Center. The
building was over 99% occupied as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 35,000 square foot medical office building
located in Stockbridge, Georgia. This building, which is
situated in the southern suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia near the
Henry Medical Center, had an occupancy rate of 89% as of
December 31, 2010 and was purchased on July 15, 2010
for $8,140,000.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 45,000 square foot Class A medical
office building located in San Luis Obispo, California.
This building, which is located on the campus of the Sierra
Vista Regional Medical Center, was approximately 85% occupied as
of December 31, 2010 and was purchased on August 4,
2010 for $10,950,000.
|
|
|
|
A two-building medical office portfolio in Orlando, Florida
totaling approximately 102,000 square feet for an aggregate
purchase price of $18,300,000. The Oviedo Medical Center is
located approximately 10 miles northeast of Orlando and is
adjacent to Florida Hospitals CentraCare urgent care
center. The Lake Underhill Medical Center is located on the
campus of Florida Hospital East Orlando. Both
|
159
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
buildings were purchased on September 29, 2010, and they
had an aggregate occupancy of 86% as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A two-building medical office portfolio is Santa Fe, New
Mexico totaling approximately 54,000 square feet for an
aggregate purchase price of $15,792,000. One of these buildings,
which comprises approximately 34,000 square feet of the
total, was purchased on September 30, 2010 for $9,560,000.
The second, approximately 20,000 square foot building was
purchased on December 22, 2010 for $6,232,000. Both of the
buildings are located adjacent to the CHRISTUS St. Vincent
Hospital and are 100% leased by St. Vincent Hospital.
|
|
|
|
A five-building portfolio located in Nevada, New York, Missouri,
Arizona, and Florida. The portfolio, which had an aggregate
purchase price of approximately $83,412,000, was 97% leased as
of December 31, 2010 and is comprised of on-campus medical
office buildings totaling over 306,000 square feet.
San Martin Medical Arts Pavilion is an approximately
73,000 square foot multi-tenant medical office building
located in Las Vegas, Nevada, that was purchased on
September 30, 2010 for approximately $18,061,000. The St.
Francis Medical Arts Pavilion, also purchased on
September 30, 2010, is an approximately 77,000 square
foot multi-tenant medical office building located in
Poughkeepsie, New York that was acquired for approximately
$22,143,000. We purchased the Des Peres Medical Arts Pavilion,
an approximately 48,000 square foot multi-tenant medical
office building located in St. Louis, Missouri, for
approximately $14,034,000 on November 12, 2010. The Gateway
Medical Plaza, an approximately 60,000 square foot
multi-tenant medical office building in Tucson, Arizona, was
purchased on December 7, 2010 for approximately
$16,349,000. Finally, the Medical Arts Pavilion, an
approximately 48,000 square foot multi-tenant medical
office building located on the campus of the Wellington Regional
Medical Center acute care hospital in Wellington, Florida, was
purchased on December 23, 2010 for approximately
$12,825,000.
|
|
|
|
A six-story, approximately 229,000 square foot building
located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania that serves as the corporate
headquarters for West Penn Allegheny Health System. This
building, which was purchased for $39,000,000 on
October 29, 2010, was approximately 88% occupied as of
December 31, 2010 and is located a half mile from Allegheny
General Hospital.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 89,000 square foot medical office building
located in Raleigh, North Carolina. This building was purchased
on November 12, 2010 for $16,500,000 and had an occupancy
rate of approximately 91% as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
An approximately 17,000 square foot, single tenant building
in Temple Terrace, Florida. This building, which is located
adjacent to a medical office building purchased as part of the
Columbia Portfolio, is 100% occupied by the Florida Orthopaedic
Institute Surgery Center and was purchased on December 7,
2010 for $5,875,000.
|
|
|
|
A portfolio of four long-term acute care hospitals located in
Orlando and Tallahassee, Florida, Augusta, Georgia, and Dallas
Texas totaling approximately 219,000 square feet. Each
hospital is 100% occupied by a single tenant, and all are within
proximity to multiple referring health systems. This portfolio
was purchased on December 17, 2010 for an aggregate
purchase price of $102,045,000.
|
|
|
|
Two buildings within a three-building, approximately 201,000
aggregate square foot medical office portfolio located in
Phoenix, Arizona. The Estrella Medical Center, which was
approximately 93% occupied as of December 31, 2010 and was
purchased December 22, 2010 for $29,500,000, is an
approximately 147,000 square foot medical office building
located on the campus of the Banner Estrella Hospital. Phoenix
Medical Center, which was 100% occupied as of December 31,
2010 and was purchased on December 22, 2010 for $6,309,000,
is a two story off-campus medical office building consisting of
approximately 34,000 square feet. See Note 22,
Subsequent Events, for discussion of our purchase of the third
and final building within this portfolio.
|
160
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
Nine buildings consisting of approximately 152,000 square
feet located in Cary, North Carolina. This medical office park,
which was purchased December 30, 2010 for $28,000,000, is
situated on 15 acres of land adjacent to the Wake Med Cary
Hospital and had a weighted average aggregate occupancy rate of
85% as of December 31, 2010.
|
We recorded revenues and net income for the year ended
December 31, 2010 of approximately $27,365,000 and $622,000
respectively, related to our 2010 acquisitions.
Supplementary
Pro Forma Information
Assuming the property acquisitions discussed above had occurred
on January 1, 2010, for the year ended December 31,
2010, pro forma revenues, net income (loss) attributable to
controlling interest and net income (loss) per basic and diluted
share would have been $267,887,000, $35,284,000 and $0.21,
respectively.
Assuming the property acquisitions discussed above had occurred
on January 1, 2009, for the year ended December 31,
2009, pro forma revenues, net income (loss) attributable to
controlling interest and net income (loss) per basic and diluted
share would have been $228,880,000, $32,684,000 and $0.29,
respectively.
The pro forma results are not necessarily indicative of the
operating results that would have been obtained had the
acquisitions occurred at the beginning of the periods presented,
nor are they necessarily indicative of future operating results.
|
|
19.
|
Concentration
of Credit Risk
|
Financial instruments that potentially subject us to a
concentration of credit risk are primarily cash and cash
equivalents, restricted cash and accounts receivable from
tenants. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, we had cash and
cash equivalents and restricted cash accounts in excess of
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, insured limits.
We believe this risk is not significant. Concentration of credit
risk with respect to accounts receivable from tenants is
limited. We perform credit evaluations of prospective tenants,
and security deposits or letters of credit are obtained upon
lease execution. In addition, we evaluate tenants in connection
with the acquisition of a property.
As of December 31, 2010, we had interests in 16
consolidated properties located in Texas, which accounted for
15.3% of our total annualized rental income, interests in seven
consolidated properties in Arizona, which accounted for 11.7% of
our total annualized rental income, interests in five
consolidated properties located in South Carolina, which
accounted for 9.7% of our total annualized rental income,
interests in 10 consolidated properties in Florida, which
accounted for 8.8% of our total annualized rental income, and
interests in seven consolidated properties in Indiana, which
accounted for 8.5% of our total annualized rental income. This
rental income is based on contractual base rent from leases in
effect as of December 31, 2010. Accordingly, there is a
geographic concentration of risk subject to fluctuations in each
of these states economies.
As of December 31, 2009, we had interests in ten
consolidated properties located in Texas, which accounted for
16.9% of our total rental income, interests in two consolidated
properties located in South Carolina, which accounted for 13.0%
of our total rental income, and interests in five consolidated
properties located in Arizona, which accounted for 12.2% of our
total rental income. This rental income is based on contractual
base rent from leases in effect as of December 31, 2009.
Accordingly, there is a geographic concentration of risk subject
to fluctuations in each states economy.
For the year ended December 31, 2008, we had interests in
seven consolidated properties located in Texas, which accounted
for 17.1% of our total rental income and interests in five
consolidated properties located in Indiana, which accounted for
15.5% of our total rental income. Medical Portfolio 3 accounts
for 11.3% of our aggregate total rental income. This rental
income is based on contractual base rent from leases
161
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
in effect as of December 31, 2008. Accordingly, there is a
geographic concentration of risk subject to fluctuations in each
states economy.
For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, none
of our tenants at our consolidated properties accounted for
10.0% or more of our aggregate annual rental income.
We report earnings (loss) per share pursuant to ASC 260,
Earnings Per Share, or ASC 260. We include unvested
share-based payment awards that contain non-forfeitable rights
to dividends or dividend equivalents as participating
securities in the computation of basic and diluted income
per share pursuant to the two-class method as described in
ASC 260. We have two classes of common stock for purposes
of calculating our earnings per share. These classes are our
common stock and our restricted stock. For the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, all of our earnings were
distributed and the calculated earnings per share amount would
be the same for both classes as they all have the same rights to
distributed earnings.
Basic earnings (loss) per share attributable for all periods
presented are computed by dividing net income (loss), reduced by
the amount of dividends declared in the current period, by the
weighted average number of shares of our common stock
outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings (loss) per share
are computed based on the weighted average number of shares of
our common stock and all potentially dilutive securities, if
any. For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008,
we did not have any securities that gave rise to potentially
dilutive shares of our common stock.
|
|
21.
|
Selected
Quarterly Financial Data
(Unaudited)
|
Set forth below is the unaudited selected quarterly financial
data. We believe that all necessary adjustments, consisting only
of normal recurring adjustments, have been included in the
amounts stated below to present fairly, and in accordance with
GAAP, the unaudited selected quarterly financial data when read
in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements.
162
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarters Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010
|
|
|
September 30, 2010
|
|
|
June 30, 2010
|
|
|
March 31, 2010
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
56,717,000
|
|
|
$
|
51,692,000
|
|
|
$
|
46,522,000
|
|
|
$
|
44,948,000
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
(58,230,000
|
)
|
|
|
(43,413,000
|
)
|
|
|
(39,968,000
|
)
|
|
|
(38,420,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before other income (expense)
|
|
|
(1,513,000
|
)
|
|
|
8,279,000
|
|
|
|
6,554,000
|
|
|
|
6,528,000
|
|
Other expense, net
|
|
|
(7,596,000
|
)
|
|
|
(7,682,000
|
)
|
|
|
(6,686,000
|
)
|
|
|
(7,299,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before discontinued operations
|
|
|
(9,109,000
|
)
|
|
|
597,000
|
|
|
|
(132,000
|
)
|
|
|
(771,000
|
)
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
419,000
|
|
|
|
411,000
|
|
|
|
377,000
|
|
|
|
289,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(8,690,000
|
)
|
|
|
1,008,000
|
|
|
|
245,000
|
|
|
|
(482,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: net (income) loss attributable to noncontrolling interest
of limited partners
|
|
|
(44,000
|
)
|
|
|
125,000
|
|
|
|
(1,000
|
)
|
|
|
(64,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interest
|
|
$
|
(8,734,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,133,000
|
|
|
$
|
244,000
|
|
|
$
|
(546,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share basic and diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share attributable to controlling interest
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
191,583,752
|
|
|
|
166,281,800
|
|
|
|
154,594,418
|
|
|
|
145,335,661
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
191,583,752
|
|
|
|
166,480,852
|
|
|
|
154,815,137
|
|
|
|
145,335,661
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
163
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarters Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
September 30, 2009
|
|
|
June 30, 2009
|
|
|
March 31, 2009
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
36,644,000
|
|
|
$
|
30,948,000
|
|
|
$
|
29,678,000
|
|
|
$
|
29,016,000
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
(36,254,000
|
)
|
|
|
(34,481,000
|
)
|
|
|
(28,587,000
|
)
|
|
|
(29,782,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before other income (expense)
|
|
|
390,000
|
|
|
|
(3,533,000
|
)
|
|
|
1,091,000
|
|
|
|
(766,000
|
)
|
Other expense, net
|
|
|
(4,947,000
|
)
|
|
|
(6,671,000
|
)
|
|
|
(4,780,000
|
)
|
|
|
(6,186,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before discontinued operations
|
|
|
(4,557,000
|
)
|
|
|
(10,204,000
|
)
|
|
|
(3,689,000
|
)
|
|
|
(6,952,000
|
)
|
Income from discontinued operations
|
|
|
193,000
|
|
|
|
130,000
|
|
|
|
154,000
|
|
|
|
152,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
(4,364,000
|
)
|
|
|
(10,074,000
|
)
|
|
|
(3,535,000
|
)
|
|
|
(6,800,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less: net income attributable to noncontrolling interest of
limited partners
|
|
|
(62,000
|
)
|
|
|
(70,000
|
)
|
|
|
(102,000
|
)
|
|
|
(70,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss attributable to controlling interest
|
|
$
|
(4,426,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10,144,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3,637,000
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6,870,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share basic and diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing operations
|
|
$
|
(0.03
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.08
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.03
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.08
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
$
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss per share attributable to controlling interest
|
|
$
|
(0.03
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.08
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.03
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.08
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
135,259,514
|
|
|
|
124,336,078
|
|
|
|
106,265,880
|
|
|
|
84,672,174
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
135,259,514
|
|
|
|
124,336,078
|
|
|
|
106,265,880
|
|
|
|
84,672,174
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The significant events that occurred subsequent to the balance
sheet date but prior to the filing of this report that would
have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements
are summarized below.
Status
of our Offering
From January 1, 2011 through February 28, 2011, the
date at which we stopped offering shares in our follow-on
offering (except for the DRIP), we had received and accepted
subscriptions in our follow-on offering for
15,978,486 shares of our common stock, for an aggregate
amount of $159,458,000, excluding shares of our common stock
issued under the DRIP. As of February 28, 2011, we had
received and accepted subscriptions in our follow-on offering
for 66,582,725 shares of our common stock, for an aggregate
amount of $664,992,000, excluding shares of our common stock
issued under the DRIP.
For noncustodial accounts, subscription agreements signed on or
before February 28, 2011 with all documents and funds
received by end of business March 15, 2011 were accepted.
For custodial accounts, subscription agreements signed on or
before February 28, 2011 with all documents and funds
received by end of business March 31, 2011 will be
accepted. From January 1, 2011 through March 21, 2011,
we had received and accepted subscriptions in our follow-on
offering for 21,055,363 shares of our common stock, for an
164
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
aggregate amount of $210,057,000, excluding shares of our common
stock issued under the DRIP. As of March 21, 2011, we had
received and accepted subscriptions in our follow-on offering
for 71,659,602 shares of our common stock, for an aggregate
amount of $715,591,000, excluding shares of our common stock
issued under the DRIP.
Financing
On February 1, 2011, we closed a senior secured real estate
term loan in the amount of $125,500,000 from Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, or Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The primary
purposes of the term loan included refinancing four Wells Fargo
Bank loans totaling approximately $89,969,000, paying off one
Wells Fargo Bank loan totaling $10,943,000, and providing
post-acquisition financing on a recently purchased property.
Interest shall be payable monthly at a rate of one-month LIBOR
plus 2.35%, which currently equates to 2.61%. Including the
impact of the interest rate swap discussed below, the weighted
average rate associated with this term loan is 3.10%. This is
lower than the weighted average rate of 4.18% (including the
impact of interest rate swaps) that we were previously paying on
the refinanced debt. The term loan matures on December 31,
2013 and includes two
12-month
extension options, subject to the satisfaction of certain
conditions. The loan agreement for the term loan includes
customary financial covenants for loans of this type, including
a maximum ratio of total indebtedness to total assets, a minimum
ratio of EBITDA to fixed charges, and a minimum level of
tangible net worth. In addition, the term loan agreement for
this secured term loan includes events of default that we
believe are usual for loans and transactions of this type. The
term loan is secured by 25 buildings within 12 property
portfolios in 13 states and has a two year period in which
no prepayment is permitted. Our operating partnership has
guaranteed 25% of the principal balance and 100% of the interest
under the term loan.
In anticipation of the term loan, we purchased an interest rate
swap on November 3, 2010, with Wells Fargo Bank as
counterparty, for a notional amount of $75,000,000. The interest
rate swap was amended on January 25, 2011. The interest
rate swap is secured by the pool of assets collateralizing the
secured term loan. The effective date of the swap is
February 1, 2011, and matures no later than
December 31, 2013. The swap will fix one-month LIBOR at
1.0725% which when added to the spread of 2.35%, will result in
a total interest rate of approximately 3.4225% for $75,000,000
of the term loan during the initial term.
Credit
Facility Repayment
As discussed in Note 9, Revolving Credit Facility, as of
December 31, 2010, we had drawn $7,000,000 on our new
unsecured revolving credit facility in order to fund the
acquisition of operating properties. This amount was repaid in
full on January 31, 2011.
Share
Repurchases
In January 2011, we repurchased 815,845 shares of our
common stock, for an aggregate amount of approximately
$7,857,000, under our share repurchase plan.
Distributions
On January 3, 2011, for the month ended December 31,
2010, we paid distributions of $12,280,000 ($6,401,000 in cash
and $5,879,000 in shares of our common stock) pursuant to the
DRIP.
On February 1, 2011, for the month ended January 31,
2011, we paid distributions of $12,722,000 ($6,646,000 in cash
and $6,076,000 in shares of our common stock) pursuant to the
DRIP.
On March 1, 2011, for the month ended February 28,
2011, we paid distributions of $11,969,000 ($6,273,000 in cash
and $5,696,000 in shares of our common stock) pursuant to the
DRIP.
165
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Completed
Acquisitions
|
|
|
|
|
On February 11, 2011, we closed on the final building
within a portfolio of three medical office buildings located in
Phoenix, Arizona. This one story, approximately
20,000 square foot medical office building was purchased
for $3,762,000 and has an occupancy rate of approximately 84%.
As discussed in Note 18, Business Combinations, the other
two buildings comprising this portfolio were purchased during
the year ended December 31, 2010. The aggregate purchase
price of the total portfolio was $39,494,000 and the aggregate
gross leasable area acquired is approximately
201,000 square feet. The portfolio has an aggregate
weighted average occupancy rate of approximately 95%.
|
|
|
|
On February 16, 2011, we closed on the final building
within a portfolio of nine medical office buildings located in
Albany and Carmel, New York, North Adams, Massachusetts, and
Temple Terrace Florida, the aggregate purchase price for which
was $196,646,000. As discussed in Note 18, Business
Combinations, the other eight buildings comprising the remainder
of this portfolio were purchased during the year ended
December 31, 2010. This particular building, purchased for
$9,182,000 is located in North Adams, Massachusetts has
approximately 47,000 square feet of gross leasable area and
is 100% occupied.
|
|
|
|
On March 24, 2011, we closed on a portfolio of two medical
office buildings located in Bristol, Tennessee, both of which
are located near the campus of Wellmont Health Systems
Bristol Regional Medical Center. The first building, which is a
two-story, approximately 40,000 square foot medical office
building, was purchased for $5,925,000 and is 100% occupied. The
second building, the purchase price for which was $17,445,000,
is a three-story medical office building consisting of
approximately 81,000 square feet. This building is also
100% occupied.
|
Amended
and Restated 2006 Incentive Plan
On February 24, 2011, our board approved the Amended and
Restated 2006 Incentive Plan in order to increase the number of
shares available for grant thereunder from 2,000,000 to
10,000,000. The Amended and Restated 2006 Incentive Plan also
includes additional amendments designed, among other things, to
address recent tax developments and address stockholder
preferences, including removal of the liberal share
counting provisions and elimination of the single-trigger
vesting of awards upon a change in control on a go-forward
basis. Our board has not yet made any additional grants pursuant
to the Amended and Restated 2006 Incentive Plan.
April
2011 Distributions
On March 24, 2011, our board authorized distributions for
April 2011. These distributions will be calculated based on
stockholders of record each day during such month and will equal
a 7.25% annualized rate based on a $10.00 share price.
166
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
SCHEDULE II
VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
December 31,
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning
|
|
|
Charged to
|
|
|
to Valuation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
|
of Period
|
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
Accounts
|
|
|
Deductions
|
|
|
End of Period
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
442,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
44,000
|
|
|
$
|
398,000
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
398,000
|
|
|
$
|
965,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
141,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,222,000
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
1,222,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,022,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
318,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,926,000
|
|
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
SCHEDULE III REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND
ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
December 31, 2010
The following schedule presents our total real estate
investments and accumulated depreciation for both our operating
properties and those properties classified as held for sale as
of December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Gross Amount at Which
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial Cost to Company
|
|
|
Capitalized
|
|
|
Carried at Close of Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buildings,
|
|
|
Subsequent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buildings,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improvements and
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improvements and
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
Encumbrances
|
|
|
Land
|
|
|
Fixtures
|
|
|
Acquisition(a)
|
|
|
Land
|
|
|
Fixtures
|
|
|
Total(b)
|
|
|
Depreciation(d)(e)
|
|
|
Date of construction
|
|
acquired
|
|
Southpointe Office Parke and Epler Parke I (Medical Office)
|
|
Indianapolis, IN
|
|
$
|
9,121,000
|
|
|
$
|
2,889,000
|
|
|
$
|
10,015,000
|
|
|
$
|
4,700,000
|
|
|
$
|
2,889,000
|
|
|
$
|
14,716,000
|
|
|
$
|
17,605,000
|
|
|
|
(2,145,000)
|
|
|
1991 &1996/2002
|
|
|
1/22/2007
|
|
Crawfordsville Medical Office Park and Athens Surgery Center
(Medical Office)
|
|
Crawfordsville, IN
|
|
|
4,256,000
|
|
|
|
699,000
|
|
|
|
5,474,000
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
699,000
|
|
|
|
5,494,000
|
|
|
|
6,193,000
|
|
|
|
(747,000)
|
|
|
1998/2000
|
|
|
1/22/2007
|
|
The Gallery Professional Building (Medical Office)
|
|
St. Paul, MN
|
|
|
6,000,000
|
|
|
|
1,157,000
|
|
|
|
5,009,000
|
|
|
|
2,587,000
|
|
|
|
1,157,000
|
|
|
|
7,596,000
|
|
|
|
8,753,000
|
|
|
|
(1,300,000)
|
|
|
1979
|
|
|
3/9/2007
|
|
Lenox Office Park, Building G (Office)
|
|
Memphis, TN
|
|
|
12,000,000
|
|
|
|
1,670,000
|
|
|
|
13,626,000
|
|
|
|
67,000
|
|
|
|
1,670,000
|
|
|
|
13,693,000
|
|
|
|
15,363,000
|
|
|
|
(2,518,000)
|
|
|
2000
|
|
|
3/23/2007
|
|
Commons V Medical Office Building (Medical Office)
|
|
Naples, FL
|
|
|
9,672,000
|
|
|
|
4,173,000
|
|
|
|
9,070,000
|
|
|
|
61,000
|
|
|
|
4,173,000
|
|
|
|
9,131,000
|
|
|
|
13,304,000
|
|
|
|
(1,032,000)
|
|
|
1991
|
|
|
4/24/2007
|
|
Yorktown Medical Center and Shakerag Medical Center (Medical
Office)
|
|
Peachtree City and Fayetteville, GA
|
|
|
13,434,000
|
|
|
|
3,545,000
|
|
|
|
15,792,000
|
|
|
|
1,988,000
|
|
|
|
3,545,000
|
|
|
|
17,780,000
|
|
|
|
21,325,000
|
|
|
|
(2,516,000)
|
|
|
1987/1994
|
|
|
5/2/2007
|
|
Thunderbird Medical Plaza (Medical Office)
|
|
Glendale, AZ
|
|
|
13,741,000
|
|
|
|
3,842,000
|
|
|
|
19,680,000
|
|
|
|
1,352,000
|
|
|
|
3,842,000
|
|
|
|
21,032,000
|
|
|
|
24,874,000
|
|
|
|
(2,792,000)
|
|
|
1975, 1983, 1987
|
|
|
5/15/2007
|
|
Triumph Hospital Northwest and Triumph Hospital Southwest
(Healthcare Related Facility)
|
|
Houston and Sugarland, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,047,000
|
|
|
|
28,550,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,047,000
|
|
|
|
28,550,000
|
|
|
|
31,597,000
|
|
|
|
(4,139,000)
|
|
|
1986/1989
|
|
|
6/8/2007
|
|
Gwinnett Professional Center (Medical Office)
|
|
Lawrenceville, GA
|
|
|
5,417,500
|
|
|
|
1,290,000
|
|
|
|
7,246,000
|
|
|
|
293,000
|
|
|
|
1,290,000
|
|
|
|
7,539,000
|
|
|
|
8,829,000
|
|
|
|
(1,057,000)
|
|
|
1985
|
|
|
7/27/2007
|
|
1 and 4 Market Exchange (Medical Office)
|
|
Columbus, OH
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
2,326,000
|
|
|
|
17,208,000
|
|
|
|
1,387,000
|
|
|
|
2,326,000
|
|
|
|
18,595,000
|
|
|
|
20,921,000
|
|
|
|
(2,025,000)
|
|
|
2001/2003
|
|
|
8/15/2007
|
|
Kokomo Medical Office Park (Medical Office)
|
|
Kokomo, IN
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
1,779,000
|
|
|
|
9,613,000
|
|
|
|
308,000
|
|
|
|
1,779,000
|
|
|
|
9,921,000
|
|
|
|
11,700,000
|
|
|
|
(1,520,000)
|
|
|
1992, 1994, 1995, 2003
|
|
|
8/30/2007
|
|
St. Mary Physicians Center (Medical Office)
|
|
Long Beach, CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,815,000
|
|
|
|
10,242,000
|
|
|
|
115,000
|
|
|
|
1,815,000
|
|
|
|
10,358,000
|
|
|
|
12,173,000
|
|
|
|
(951,000)
|
|
|
1992
|
|
|
9/5/2007
|
|
2750 Monroe Boulevard (Office)
|
|
Valley Forge, PA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,323,000
|
|
|
|
22,631,000
|
|
|
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
2,323,000
|
|
|
|
22,645,000
|
|
|
|
24,968,000
|
|
|
|
(2,631,000)
|
|
|
1985
|
|
|
9/10/2007
|
|
East Florida Senior Care Portfolio (Healthcare Related Facility)
|
|
Jacksonville, Winter Park and Sunrise,FL
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
10,078,000
|
|
|
|
34,870,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,078,000
|
|
|
|
34,869,000
|
|
|
|
44,948,000
|
|
|
|
(4,907,000)
|
|
|
1985, 1988, 1989
|
|
|
9/28/2007
|
|
Northmeadow Medical Center (Medical Office)
|
|
Roswell, GA
|
|
|
7,545,000
|
|
|
|
1,245,000
|
|
|
|
9,109,000
|
|
|
|
174,000
|
|
|
|
1,245,000
|
|
|
|
9,283,000
|
|
|
|
10,528,000
|
|
|
|
(1,215,000)
|
|
|
1999
|
|
|
11/15/2007
|
|
Tucson Medical Office Portfolio (Medical Office)
|
|
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,309,000
|
|
|
|
17,574,000
|
|
|
|
403,000
|
|
|
|
1,309,000
|
|
|
|
17,976,000
|
|
|
|
19,286,000
|
|
|
|
(2,127,000)
|
|
|
1979, 1980, 1994 1970, 1985, 1990,
|
|
|
11/20/2007
|
|
Lima Medical Office Portfolio (Medical Office)
|
|
Lima, OH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
701,000
|
|
|
|
19,052,000
|
|
|
|
86,000
|
|
|
|
701,000
|
|
|
|
19,137,000
|
|
|
|
19,839,000
|
|
|
|
(2,531,000)
|
|
|
1996, 2004, 1920
|
|
|
12/7/2007
|
|
Highlands Ranch Park Plaza (Medical Office)
|
|
Highlands Ranch, CO
|
|
|
8,853,000
|
|
|
|
2,240,000
|
|
|
|
10,426,000
|
|
|
|
709,000
|
|
|
|
2,240,000
|
|
|
|
11,136,000
|
|
|
|
13,376,000
|
|
|
|
(1,536,000)
|
|
|
19,831,985
|
|
|
12/19/2007
|
|
Park Place Office Park (Medical Office)
|
|
Dayton, OH
|
|
|
10,943,000
|
|
|
|
1,987,000
|
|
|
|
11,341,000
|
|
|
|
275,000
|
|
|
|
1,987,000
|
|
|
|
11,616,000
|
|
|
|
13,603,000
|
|
|
|
(1,670,000)
|
|
|
1987, 1988, 2002
|
|
|
12/20/2007
|
|
Chesterfield Rehabilitation Center (Medical Office)
|
|
Chesterfield, MO
|
|
|
22,000,000
|
|
|
|
4,212,000
|
|
|
|
27,901,000
|
|
|
|
771,000
|
|
|
|
4,313,000
|
|
|
|
28,570,400
|
|
|
|
32,883,400
|
|
|
|
(2,467,000)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
12/20/2007
|
|
Medical Portfolio 1 (Medical Office)
|
|
Overland, KS and Largo, Brandon, and Lakeland, FL
|
|
|
19,580,000
|
|
|
|
4,206,000
|
|
|
|
28,373,000
|
|
|
|
1,393,000
|
|
|
|
4,206,000
|
|
|
|
29,766,000
|
|
|
|
33,972,000
|
|
|
|
(3,364,000)
|
|
|
1978, 1986, 1997, 1995
|
|
|
2/1/2008
|
|
168
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND
ACCUMULATED
DEPRECIATION (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Gross Amount at Which
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial Cost to Company
|
|
|
Capitalized
|
|
|
Carried at Close of Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buildings,
|
|
|
Subsequent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buildings,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improvements and
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improvements and
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
Encumbrances
|
|
|
Land
|
|
|
Fixtures
|
|
|
Acquisition(a)
|
|
|
Land
|
|
|
Fixtures
|
|
|
Total(b)
|
|
|
Depreciation(d)(e)
|
|
|
Date of construction
|
|
acquired
|
|
Fort Road Medical Building (Medical Office)
|
|
St. Paul, MN
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
$
|
1,571,000
|
|
|
$
|
5,786,000
|
|
|
|
199,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,571,000
|
|
|
$
|
5,984,000
|
|
|
$
|
7,556,000
|
|
|
|
(615,000)
|
|
|
1981
|
|
|
3/6/2008
|
|
Liberty Falls Medical Plaza (Medical Office)
|
|
Liberty Township, OH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
842,000
|
|
|
|
5,640,000
|
|
|
|
514,000
|
|
|
|
842,000
|
|
|
|
6,153,000
|
|
|
|
6,996,000
|
|
|
|
(664,000)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
3/19/2008
|
|
Epler Parke Building B (Medical Office)
|
|
Indianapolis, IN
|
|
|
3,734,000
|
|
|
|
857,000
|
|
|
|
4,461,000
|
|
|
|
(4,610,000
|
)
|
|
|
857,000
|
|
|
|
(148,000
|
)
|
|
|
708,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
3/24/2008
|
|
Cypress Station Medical Office Building (Medical Office)
|
|
Houston, TX
|
|
|
7,043,000
|
|
|
|
1,345,000
|
|
|
|
8,312,000
|
|
|
|
584,000
|
|
|
|
1,345,000
|
|
|
|
8,897,000
|
|
|
|
10,241,000
|
|
|
|
(945,000)
|
|
|
1981/2004-2006
|
|
|
3/25/2008
|
|
Vista Professional Center (Medical Office)
|
|
Lakeland, FL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,082,000
|
|
|
|
3,588,000
|
|
|
|
27,000
|
|
|
|
1,082,000
|
|
|
|
3,614,819
|
|
|
|
4,696,819
|
|
|
|
(547,000)
|
|
|
1996/1998
|
|
|
3/27/2008
|
|
Senior Care Portfolio 1 (Healthcare Related Facility)
|
|
Arlington, Galveston, Port Arthur and Texas City, TX and Lomita
and El Monte, CA
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
4,871,000
|
|
|
|
30,002,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,871,000
|
|
|
|
30,002,000
|
|
|
|
34,873,000
|
|
|
|
(2,609,000)
|
|
|
1993, 1994, 1994, 1994/1996 1964/1969 1959/1963
|
|
|
Various
|
|
Amarillo Hospital (Healthcare Related Facility)
|
|
Amarillo, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,110,000
|
|
|
|
17,688,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
|
1,110,000
|
|
|
|
17,693,000
|
|
|
|
18,803,000
|
|
|
|
(1,327,000)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
5/15/2008
|
|
5995 Plaza Drive (Office)
|
|
Cypress, CA
|
|
|
16,276,000
|
|
|
|
5,109,000
|
|
|
|
17,961,000
|
|
|
|
161,000
|
|
|
|
5,109,000
|
|
|
|
18,122,000
|
|
|
|
23,231,000
|
|
|
|
(1,806,000)
|
|
|
1986
|
|
|
5/29/2008
|
|
Nutfield Professional Center (Medical Office)
|
|
Derry, NH
|
|
|
8,518,000
|
|
|
|
1,075,000
|
|
|
|
10,320,000
|
|
|
|
102,000
|
|
|
|
1,075,000
|
|
|
|
10,423,000
|
|
|
|
11,497,000
|
|
|
|
(774,000)
|
|
|
1963/1990 & 1996
|
|
|
6/3/2008
|
|
SouthCrest Medical Plaza (Medical Office)
|
|
Stockbridge, GA
|
|
|
12,870,000
|
|
|
|
4,259,000
|
|
|
|
14,636,000
|
|
|
|
119,000
|
|
|
|
4,259,000
|
|
|
|
14,755,000
|
|
|
|
19,014,000
|
|
|
|
(1,589,000)
|
|
|
2005-2006
|
|
|
6/24/2008
|
|
Medical Portfolio 3 (Medical Office)
|
|
Indianapolis, IN
|
|
|
58,000,000
|
|
|
|
9,355,000
|
|
|
|
70,259,000
|
|
|
|
6,555,000
|
|
|
|
9,355,000
|
|
|
|
76,813,000
|
|
|
|
86,169,000
|
|
|
|
(9,056,000)
|
|
|
1995, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1993, 1995, 1989, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1989
|
|
|
6/26/2008
|
|
Academy Medical Center (Medical Office)
|
|
Tuczon, AZ
|
|
|
4,851,000
|
|
|
|
1,193,000
|
|
|
|
6,106,000
|
|
|
|
375,000
|
|
|
|
1,193,000
|
|
|
|
6,481,000
|
|
|
|
7,674,000
|
|
|
|
(813,000)
|
|
|
1975-1985
|
|
|
6/26/2008
|
|
Decatur Medical Plaza (Medical Office)
|
|
Decatur, GA
|
|
|
7,900,000
|
|
|
|
3,166,000
|
|
|
|
6,862,000
|
|
|
|
325,000
|
|
|
|
3,166,000
|
|
|
|
7,187,000
|
|
|
|
10,353,000
|
|
|
|
(631,000)
|
|
|
1976
|
|
|
6/27/2008
|
|
Medical Portfolio 2 (Medical Office)
|
|
OFallon and St. Louis, MO and Keller and Wichita
Falls, TX
|
|
|
29,311,000
|
|
|
|
5,360,000
|
|
|
|
33,506,000
|
|
|
|
71,000
|
|
|
|
5,360,000
|
|
|
|
33,576,000
|
|
|
|
38,937,000
|
|
|
|
(3,372,000)
|
|
|
2001, 2001, 2006, 1957/1989/2003 & 2003
|
|
|
Various
|
|
Renaissance Medical Centre (Medical Office)
|
|
Bountiful, UT
|
|
|
19,703,000
|
|
|
|
3,701,000
|
|
|
|
24,442,000
|
|
|
|
39,000
|
|
|
|
3,701,000
|
|
|
|
24,481,000
|
|
|
|
28,182,000
|
|
|
|
(1,708,000)
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
6/30/2008
|
|
Oklahoma City Medical Portfolio (Medical Office)
|
|
Oklahoma City, OK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,976,000
|
|
|
|
1,505,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,481,000
|
|
|
|
27,481,000
|
|
|
|
(2,044,000)
|
|
|
1991, 1996/2007
|
|
|
9/16/2008
|
|
Medical Portfolio 4 (Medical Office)
|
|
Phoenix, AZ, Parma and Jefferson West, OH, and Waxahachie,
Greenville, and Cedar Hill, TX
|
|
|
8,029,000
|
|
|
|
2,632,000
|
|
|
|
38,652,000
|
|
|
|
1,200,000
|
|
|
|
2,632,000
|
|
|
|
39,852,000
|
|
|
|
42,484,000
|
|
|
|
(3,248,000)
|
|
|
1972/1980 & 2006, 1977, 1984, 2006, 2007, 2007
|
|
|
Various
|
|
Mountain Empire Portfolio (Medical Office)
|
|
Kingsport and Bristol, TN and Pennington Gap and Norton, VA
|
|
|
18,408,000
|
|
|
|
804,000
|
|
|
|
20,149,000
|
|
|
|
630,000
|
|
|
|
804,000
|
|
|
|
20,775,000
|
|
|
|
21,579,000
|
|
|
|
(2,692,000)
|
|
|
1986/1991/1993/1982/1990,1997/1976 & 2007, 1986, 1993
& 1995, 1981 & 1987/1999
|
|
|
9/12/2008
|
|
Mountain Plains TX (Medical Office)
|
|
San Antonio and Webster, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,248,000
|
|
|
|
34,857,000
|
|
|
|
(14,000
|
)
|
|
|
1,248,000
|
|
|
|
34,843,000
|
|
|
|
36,091,000
|
|
|
|
(2,405,000)
|
|
|
1998, 2005, 2006, 2006
|
|
|
12/18/2008
|
|
Marietta Health Park (Medical Office)
|
|
Marietta, GA
|
|
|
7,200,000
|
|
|
|
1,276,000
|
|
|
|
12,197,000
|
|
|
|
200,000
|
|
|
|
1,276,000
|
|
|
|
12,397,000
|
|
|
|
13,673,000
|
|
|
|
(1,017,000)
|
|
|
2000
|
|
|
12/22/2008
|
|
Wisconsin Medical Portfolio 1
|
|
Milwaukee, WI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,980,000
|
|
|
|
26,032,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,980,000
|
|
|
|
26,032,000
|
|
|
|
28,012,000
|
|
|
|
(2,168,000)
|
|
|
1964/1969, 1983-1997 & 2007
|
|
|
2/27/2009
|
|
Wisconsin Medical Portfolio 2
|
|
Franklin, WI
|
|
|
9,952,000
|
|
|
|
1,574,000
|
|
|
|
31,655,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,574,000
|
|
|
|
31,655,000
|
|
|
|
33,229,000
|
|
|
|
(2,007,000)
|
|
|
2001-2004
|
|
|
5/28/2009
|
|
Greenville Hospital Portfolio
|
|
Greenville, SC
|
|
|
71,220,000
|
|
|
|
3,952,000
|
|
|
|
135,776,000
|
|
|
|
923,000
|
|
|
|
3,952,000
|
|
|
|
136,699,000
|
|
|
|
140,651,000
|
|
|
|
(5,187,000)
|
|
|
1974, 1982-1999, & 2004-2009
|
|
|
9/18/2009
|
|
169
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND
ACCUMULATED
DEPRECIATION (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Gross Amount at Which
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial Cost to Company
|
|
|
Capitalized
|
|
|
Carried at Close of Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buildings,
|
|
|
Subsequent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buildings,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improvements and
|
|
|
to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improvements and
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
Encumbrances
|
|
|
Land
|
|
|
Fixtures
|
|
|
Acquisition(a)
|
|
|
Land
|
|
|
Fixtures
|
|
|
Total(b)
|
|
|
Depreciation(d)(e)
|
|
|
Date of construction
|
|
acquired
|
|
Mary Black Medical Office Building
|
|
Spartanburg, SC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,523,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,523,000
|
|
|
|
12,523,000
|
|
|
|
(504,000)
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
12/11/2009
|
|
Hampden Place Medical Office Building
|
|
Englewood, CO
|
|
|
8,551,000
|
|
|
|
3,032,000
|
|
|
|
12,553,000
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
3,032,000
|
|
|
|
12,554,000
|
|
|
|
15,586,000
|
|
|
|
(475,000)
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
12/21/2009
|
|
Dallas LTAC Hospital
|
|
Dallas, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,301,000
|
|
|
|
20,627,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,301,000
|
|
|
|
20,627,000
|
|
|
|
22,928,000
|
|
|
|
(602,000)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
12/23/2009
|
|
Smyth Professional Building
|
|
Baltimore, MD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,760,000
|
|
|
|
(80,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,680,000
|
|
|
|
7,680,000
|
|
|
|
(394,000)
|
|
|
1984
|
|
|
12/30/2009
|
|
Atlee Medical Portfolio
|
|
Coriscana, TX and Ft. Wayne, IN and San Angelo, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,267,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,267,000
|
|
|
|
17,267,000
|
|
|
|
(588,000)
|
|
|
2007-2008
|
|
|
12/30/2009
|
|
Denton Medical Rehabilitation Hospital
|
|
Denton, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,000,000
|
|
|
|
11,705,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,000,000
|
|
|
|
11,704,000
|
|
|
|
13,705,000
|
|
|
|
(402,000)
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
12/30/2009
|
|
Banner Sun City Medical Portfolio
|
|
Sun City, AZ and Sun City West, AZ
|
|
|
44,551,000
|
|
|
|
744,000
|
|
|
|
70,035,000
|
|
|
|
783,000
|
|
|
|
744,000
|
|
|
|
70,817,000
|
|
|
|
71,562,000
|
|
|
|
(3,840,000)
|
|
|
1971-1997 & 2001-2004
|
|
|
12/31/2009
|
|
Camp Creek
|
|
Atlanta, GA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,022,000
|
|
|
|
12,965,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,022,000
|
|
|
|
12,965,000
|
|
|
|
14,987,000
|
|
|
|
(525,000)
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
3/2/2010
|
|
King Street
|
|
Jacksonville, GA
|
|
|
6,429,000
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
7,232,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,232,000
|
|
|
|
7,232,000
|
|
|
|
(183,000)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
3/9/2010
|
|
Deaconess Evansville Clinic Portfolio
|
|
Evansville, IN
|
|
|
21,151,000
|
|
|
|
2,109,000
|
|
|
|
36,180,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,109,000
|
|
|
|
36,180,000
|
|
|
|
38,289,000
|
|
|
|
(970,000)
|
|
|
1952-2006/1994
|
|
|
3/23/2010
|
|
Sugar Land II Medical Office Building
|
|
Sugar Land, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
9,648,000
|
|
|
|
22,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,670,000
|
|
|
|
9,670,000
|
|
|
|
(248,000)
|
|
|
1999
|
|
|
3/23/2010
|
|
East Cooper Medical Center
|
|
Mount Pleasant, SC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,073,000
|
|
|
|
5,939,000
|
|
|
|
11,000
|
|
|
|
2,073,000
|
|
|
|
5,950,000
|
|
|
|
8,023,000
|
|
|
|
(213,000)
|
|
|
1992
|
|
|
3/31/2010
|
|
Pearland Medical Portfolio
|
|
Pearland, TX
|
|
|
2,361,000
|
|
|
|
1,602,000
|
|
|
|
7,017,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,602,000
|
|
|
|
7,017,000
|
|
|
|
8,619,000
|
|
|
|
(228,000)
|
|
|
2003-2007
|
|
|
3/31/2010
|
|
Hilton Head Medical Portfolio
|
|
Hilton Head Island, SC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,333,000
|
|
|
|
7,463,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,333,000
|
|
|
|
7,463,000
|
|
|
|
8,796,000
|
|
|
|
(177,000)
|
|
|
1996-2010
|
|
|
3/31/2010
|
|
NIH @ Triad Technology Center
|
|
Baltimore, MD
|
|
|
11,961,000
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
26,548,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,548,000
|
|
|
|
26,548,000
|
|
|
|
(547,000)
|
|
|
1989
|
|
|
3/31/2010
|
|
Federal North Medical Office Building
|
|
Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,489,000
|
|
|
|
30,268,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,489,000
|
|
|
|
30,268,000
|
|
|
|
32,757,000
|
|
|
|
(590,000)
|
|
|
1999
|
|
|
4/29/2010
|
|
Balfour Concord Portfolio
|
|
Denton,TX and Lewisville,TX
|
|
|
4,592,000
|
|
|
|
452,000
|
|
|
|
11,384,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
452,000
|
|
|
|
11,384,000
|
|
|
|
11,836,000
|
|
|
|
(198,000)
|
|
|
2000
|
|
|
6/25/2010
|
|
Cannon Park Place
|
|
Charleston, SC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
425,000
|
|
|
|
8,651,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
425,000
|
|
|
|
8,651,000
|
|
|
|
9,076,000
|
|
|
|
(126,000)
|
|
|
1998
|
|
|
6/28/2010
|
|
7900 Fannin
|
|
Houston, TX
|
|
|
22,602,000
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
34,764,000
|
|
|
|
25,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,789,000
|
|
|
|
34,789,000
|
|
|
|
(515,000)
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
6/30/2010
|
|
Overlook at Eagles Landing
|
|
Stockbridge, GA
|
|
|
5,408,000
|
|
|
|
638,000
|
|
|
|
6,685,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
638,000
|
|
|
|
6,685,000
|
|
|
|
7,323,000
|
|
|
|
(121,000)
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
7/15/2010
|
|
Sierra Vista Medical Office Building
|
|
San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
11,900,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,900,000
|
|
|
|
11,900,000
|
|
|
|
(150,000)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
8/4/2010
|
|
Orlando Medical Portfolio
|
|
Orlando, FL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
14,226,000
|
|
|
|
17,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,243,000
|
|
|
|
14,243,000
|
|
|
|
(146,000)
|
|
|
1998-2000
|
|
|
9/29/2010
|
|
Santa Fe Medical Portfolio
|
|
Sante Fe, NM
|
|
|
3,555,000
|
|
|
|
1,539,000
|
|
|
|
11,716,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,539,000
|
|
|
|
11,716,000
|
|
|
|
13,255,000
|
|
|
|
(67,000)
|
|
|
1978/2010-1985/2004
|
|
|
9/30/2010
|
|
Rendina Medical Portfolio
|
|
Las Vegas, NV and Poughkeepsie, NY and St. Louis, MO and
Tucson, AZ and Wellington, FL
|
|
|
18,892,000
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
68,488,000
|
|
|
|
34,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68,522,000
|
|
|
|
68,522,000
|
|
|
|
(345,000)
|
|
|
2006-2008
|
|
|
9/30/2010
|
|
Allegheny HQ Building
|
|
Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,514,000
|
|
|
|
32,368,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,514,000
|
|
|
|
32,368,000
|
|
|
|
33,882,000
|
|
|
|
(180,000)
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
10/29/2010
|
|
Raleigh Medical Center
|
|
Raleigh, NC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,281,000
|
|
|
|
12,530,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,281,000
|
|
|
|
12,530,000
|
|
|
|
13,811,000
|
|
|
|
(79,000)
|
|
|
1989
|
|
|
11/12/2010
|
|
Columbia Medical Portfolio
|
|
Albany, NY, and Latham, NY, and Temple Terrace, FL and Carmel NY
|
|
|
95,879,000
|
|
|
|
9,567,000
|
|
|
|
153,437,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,567,000
|
|
|
|
153,437,000
|
|
|
|
163,004,000
|
|
|
|
(281,000)
|
|
|
1964-2007
|
|
|
11/19/2010
|
|
Florida Orthopedic ASC
|
|
Temple Terrace, FL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
752,000
|
|
|
|
4,211,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
752,000
|
|
|
|
4,211,000
|
|
|
|
4,963,000
|
|
|
|
(15,000)
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
12/8/2010
|
|
Select Medical LTACH
|
|
Augusta, GA and Dallas, TX and Orlando, FL, and Tallahassee, FL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,719,000
|
|
|
|
76,186,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,719,000
|
|
|
|
76,186,000
|
|
|
|
88,905,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-2007
|
|
|
12/17/2010
|
|
Phoenix MOB Portfolio
|
|
Phoenix, AZ
|
|
|
25,050,000
|
|
|
|
605,000
|
|
|
|
29,343,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
605,000
|
|
|
|
29,343,000
|
|
|
|
29,948,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1989-2004
|
|
|
12/22/2010
|
|
Medical Park of Cary
|
|
Cary, NC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,931,000
|
|
|
|
19,855,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,931,000
|
|
|
|
19,855,000
|
|
|
|
22,786,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1996
|
|
|
12/30/2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
696,559,500
|
|
|
$
|
167,023,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,709,139,000
|
|
|
$
|
26,426,000
|
|
|
$
|
167,124,000
|
|
|
$
|
1,735,456,219
|
|
|
$
|
1,902,586,219
|
|
|
|
(105,123,000)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
170
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND
ACCUMULATED
DEPRECIATION (Continued)
(a) The cost capitalized subsequent to acquisition is net
of dispositions.
(b) The changes in total real estate (including both our
operating properties and those classified as held for sale as of
December 31, 2010) for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
357,578,000
|
|
Acquisitions
|
|
|
473,132,000
|
|
Additions
|
|
|
6,590,000
|
|
Dispositions
|
|
|
(1,730,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
835,570,000
|
|
Acquisitions
|
|
|
363,679,000
|
|
Additions
|
|
|
7,556,000
|
|
Dispositions
|
|
|
(327,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
|
1,206,478,000
|
|
Acquisitions
|
|
|
683,055,000
|
|
Additions
|
|
|
13,358,000
|
|
Dispositions
|
|
|
(305,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
1,902,586,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) |
|
The aggregate cost of our real estate (both operating properties
and those classified as held for sale as of December 31,
2010) for federal income tax purposes was $2,262,357,000. |
|
(d) |
|
The changes in accumulated depreciation (including both our
operating properties and those classified as held for sale as of
December 31, 2010) for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 are as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Additions
|
|
$
|
20,523,000
|
|
Dispositions
|
|
|
(461,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2008
|
|
|
24,650,000
|
|
Additions
|
|
|
32,189,000
|
|
Dispositions
|
|
|
(150,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009
|
|
|
56,689,000
|
|
Additions
|
|
|
48,737,000
|
|
Dispositions
|
|
|
(303,000
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
105,123,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(e) |
|
The cost of building and improvements is depreciated on a
straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of
39 years and the shorter of the lease term or useful life,
ranging from one month to 240 months, respectively.
Furniture, fixtures and equipment is depreciated over five years. |
171
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
SCHEDULE IV
MORTGAGE LOANS ON REAL ESTATE ASSETS
12/31/2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Periodic
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payment
|
|
|
Face Amount
|
|
|
Amount of
|
|
Mortgage Loans
|
|
Description
|
|
Security
|
|
|
Interest Rate
|
|
|
Maturity Date
|
|
|
Terms(4)
|
|
|
of Mortgages
|
|
|
Mortgages
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MacNeal Hospital Medical Office Building Berwyn, Illinois
|
|
Medical Office Building
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
|
5.95
|
%(1)
|
|
|
11/01/2011
|
|
|
|
I
|
|
|
$
|
7,500,000
|
|
|
$
|
6,988,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MacNeal Hospital Medical Office Building Berwyn, Illinois
|
|
Medical Office Building
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
|
5.95
|
%(1)
|
|
|
11/01/2011
|
|
|
|
I
|
|
|
|
7,500,000
|
|
|
|
6,988,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
St. Lukes Medical Office Building Phoenix, Arizona
|
|
Medical Office Building
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
|
5.85
|
%(2)
|
|
|
11/01/2011
|
|
|
|
I
|
|
|
|
3,750,000
|
|
|
|
3,495,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
St. Lukes Medical Office Building Phoenix, Arizona
|
|
Medical Office Building
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
|
5.85
|
%(2)
|
|
|
11/01/2011
|
|
|
|
I
|
|
|
|
1,250,000
|
|
|
|
1,165,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rush Presbyterian Medical Office Building Oak Park, Illinois
|
|
Medical Office Building
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
|
7.76
|
%(3)
|
|
|
12/01/2014
|
|
|
|
I
|
|
|
|
41,150,000
|
|
|
|
38,455,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
61,150,000
|
|
|
$
|
57,091,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The effective interest rate associated with these notes as of
December 31, 2010 is 7.93%. |
|
(2) |
|
The effective interest rate associated with these notes as of
December 31, 2010 is 7.80%. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents an average interest rate for the life of the note
with an effective interest rate of 8.6%. |
|
(4) |
|
I = Interest only |
The following shows changes in the carrying amounts of mortgage
loans receivable during the period:
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
54,763,000
|
|
Additions:
|
|
|
|
|
New mortgage loans
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of discount and capitalized loan costs
|
|
|
2,328,000
|
|
Deductions:
|
|
|
|
|
Collections of principal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2010
|
|
$
|
57,091,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
172
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Healthcare
Trust of America, Inc.
(Registrant)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
|
|
/s/ Scott
D. Peters
Scott
D. Peters
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board
(principal executive officer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
March 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
|
|
/s/ Kellie
S. Pruitt
Kellie
S. Pruitt
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer and principal
accounting officer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
March 25, 2011
|
|
|
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
|
|
/s/ Scott
D. Peters
Scott
D. Peters
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board
(principal executive officer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
March 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
|
|
/s/ Kellie
S. Pruitt
Kellie
S. Pruitt
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer and principal
accounting officer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
March 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
|
|
/s/ Maurice
J. DeWald
Maurice
J. DeWald
|
|
Director
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
March 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
|
|
/s/ W.
Bradley Blair, II
W.
Bradley Blair, II
|
|
Director
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
March 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
|
|
/s/ Warren
D. Fix
Warren
D. Fix
|
|
Director
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
March 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
|
|
/s/ Larry
L. Mathis
Larry
L. Mathis
|
|
Director
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
March 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
|
|
/s/ Gary
T. Wescombe
Gary
T. Wescombe
|
|
Director
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
March 25, 2011
|
|
|
173
EXHIBIT INDEX
Following the consummation of the merger of NNN Realty Advisors,
Inc., which previously served as our sponsor, with and into a
wholly owned subsidiary of Grubb & Ellis Company on
December 7, 2007, NNN Healthcare/Office REIT, Inc., NNN
Healthcare/Office REIT Holdings, L.P., NNN Healthcare/Office
REIT Advisor, LLC and NNN Healthcare/Office Management, LLC
changed their names to Grubb & Ellis Healthcare REIT,
Inc., Grubb & Ellis Healthcare REIT Holdings, L.P.,
Grubb & Ellis Healthcare REIT Advisor, LLC, and
Grubb & Ellis Healthcare Management, LLC, respectively.
Following the Registrants transition to self-management,
on August 24, 2009, Grubb & Ellis Healthcare
REIT, Inc. and Grubb & Ellis Healthcare REIT Holdings,
L.P. changed their names to Healthcare Trust of America, Inc.
and Healthcare Trust of America Holdings, LP, respectively.
The following Exhibit List refers to the entity names used
prior to such name changes in order to accurately reflect the
names of the parties on the documents listed.
Pursuant to Item 601(a)(2) of
Regulation S-K,
this Exhibit Index immediately precedes the exhibits.
The following exhibits are included, or incorporated by
reference, in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (and are
numbered in accordance with Item 601 of
Regulation S-K).
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
Fourth Articles of Amendment and Restatement (included as
Exhibit 3.1 to our Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed December 20, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
3.2
|
|
Bylaws of NNN Healthcare/Office REIT, Inc. (included as
Exhibit 3.2 to our Registration Statement on
Form S-11
(Commission File.
No. 333-133652)
filed on April 28, 2006 and incorporated herein by
reference)
|
3.3
|
|
Amendment to the Bylaws of Grubb & Ellis Healthcare
REIT, Inc., effective April 21, 2009 (included as
Exhibit 3.4 to Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 to our
Registration Statement on
Form S-11
(File
No. 333-133652)
filed on April 21, 2009
|
3.4
|
|
Amendment to the Bylaws of Grubb & Ellis Healthcare
REIT, Inc., effective January 1, 2011 (included as
Exhibit 3.2 to our Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed August 27, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference)
|
4.1
|
|
Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. Share Repurchase Plan,
effective August 25, 2008 (included as Exhibit C to
our Post-Effective Amendment No. 14 to the
Form S-11
filed on October 23, 2009 and incorporated herein by
reference)
|
4.2
|
|
Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. Distribution Reinvestment
Plan, effective September 20, 2006 (included as
Exhibit B to our Post-Effective Amendment No. 14 to
the
Form S-11
filed on October 23, 2009 and incorporated herein by
reference)
|
10.1
|
|
Agreement of Limited Partnership of NNN Healthcare/Office REIT
Holdings, L.P. (included as Exhibit 10.2 to our Quarterly
Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 and incorporated
herein by reference)
|
10.2
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement of Limited Partnership of
Grubb & Ellis Healthcare REIT Holdings, LP (included
as Exhibit 10.2 to our Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed on November 19, 2008 and incorporated herein by
reference)
|
10.3
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement of Limited Partnership of
Grubb & Ellis Healthcare REIT Holdings, LP by
Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. (formerly known as
Grubb & Ellis Healthcare REIT, Inc.) dated as of
August 24, 2009 (included as Exhibit 10.1 to our
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed August 27, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference)
|
10.4
|
|
NNN Healthcare/Office REIT, Inc. 2006 Incentive Plan (including
the 2006 Independent Directors Compensation Plan) (included as
Exhibit 10.3 to our Registration Statement on
Form S-11
(Commission File
No. 333-133652)
filed on April 28, 2006 and incorporated herein by
reference)
|
174
|
|
|
10.5
|
|
Amendment to the NNN Healthcare/Office REIT, Inc. 2006 Incentive
Plan (including the 2006 Independent Directors Compensation
Plan) (included as Exhibit 10.4 to Amendment No. 6 to
our Registration Statement on
Form S-11
(Commission File
No. 333-133652)
filed on September 12, 2006 and incorporated herein by
reference)
|
10.6
|
|
Amendment to the Grubb & Ellis Healthcare REIT, Inc.
2006 Independent Directors Compensation Plan, effective
January 1, 2009 (included as Exhibit 10.68 in our
Annual Report of
Form 10-K
filed March 27, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference)
|
10.7
|
|
Amendment to the Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. 2006
Independent Directors Compensation Plan, effective as of
May 20, 2010 (included as Exhibit 10.1 to our
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
filed August 16, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference).
|
10.8
|
|
Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. Amended and Restated 2006
Incentive Plan, dated February 24, 2011 (included as
Exhibit 10.1 to our Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed March 2, 2011 and incorporated herein by reference).
|
10.9
|
|
Employment Agreement between Grubb & Ellis Healthcare
REIT, Inc. and Scott D. Peters, effective as of July 1,
2009 (included as Exhibit 10.1 to our Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed July 8, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference)
|
10.10
|
|
Amendment to Employment Agreement with Scott D. Peters,
effective as of May 20, 2010 (included as Exhibit 10.2
to our Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
filed August 16, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference).
|
10.11
|
|
Employment Agreement between Grubb & Ellis Healthcare
REIT, Inc. and Mark Engstrom, effective as of July 1, 2009
(included as Exhibit 10.2 to our Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed July 8, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference)
|
10.12
|
|
Employment Agreement between Grubb & Ellis Healthcare
REIT, Inc. and Kellie S. Pruitt, effective as of July 1,
2009 (included as Exhibit 10.3 to our Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed July 8, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference)
|
10.13
|
|
Form of Amended and Restated Indemnification Agreement executed
by Scott D. Peters, W. Bradley Blair, II, Maurice J.
DeWald, Warren D. Fix, Larry L. Mathis and Gary T. Wescombe
(included as Exhibit 10.1 to our Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed December 20, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
10.14
|
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement executed by Kellie S. Pruitt
and Mark D. Engstrom (included as Exhibit 10.2 to our
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed December 20, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
10.15
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between Greenville Hospital
System and HTA Greenville, LLC, dated July 15, 2009
(included as Exhibit 10.1 to our Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed July 16, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference)
|
10.16
|
|
First Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between
Greenville Hospital System and HTA Greenville, LLC, dated
August 14, 2009 (included as Exhibit 10.1 to our
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed August 20, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference)
|
10.17
|
|
Second Amendment to Agreement of Sale and Purchase by and
between Greenville Hospital System and HTA Greenville, LLC,
dated August 21, 2009 (included as Exhibit 10.2 to our
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed August 27, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference)
|
10.18
|
|
Third Amendment to Agreement of Sale and Purchase by and between
Greenville Hospital System and HTA Greenville, LLC, dated
August 26, 2009 (included as Exhibit 10.3 to our
Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed August 27, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference)
|
10.19
|
|
Fourth Amendment to Agreement of Sale and Purchase by and
between Greenville Hospital System and HTA
Greenville, LLC, dated September 4, 2009 (included as
Exhibit 10.1 to our Current Report on
Form 8-K,
filed September 11, 2009 and incorporated herein by
reference)
|
10.20
|
|
Future Development Agreement by and between HTA
Greenville, LLC and Greenville Hospital System, dated
September 9, 2009 (included as Exhibit 10.1 to our
Current Report on
Form 8-K,
filed September 22, 2009 and incorporated herein by
reference)
|
175
|
|
|
10.21
|
|
Right of First Opportunity by and between HTA
Greenville, LLC and Greenville Hospital System, dated
September 9, 2009 (included as Exhibit 10.2 to our
Current Report on
Form 8-K,
filed September 22, 2009 and incorporated herein by
reference)
|
10.22
|
|
Credit Agreement by and among Healthcare Trust of America
Holdings, LP, Healthcare Trust of America, Inc., JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., U.S. Bank National Association and Fifth Third Bank and
the Lenders Party Hereto, dated November 22, 2010 (included
as Exhibit 10.1 to our Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed November 23, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
10.23
|
|
Guaranty for the benefit of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. dated
November 22, 2010 by Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. and
certain Subsidiaries of Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. named
therein (included as Exhibit 10.2 to our Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed November 23, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
10.24
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 26, 2010 by and
between COLUMBIA NAH GROUP, LLC and HTA NORTHERN
BERKSHIRE, LLC (included as Exhibit 10.7 to Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to the Companys
Form S-11
Registration Statement (Commission File
No. 333-158418),
filed on December 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
10.25
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 26, 2010 by and
between COLUMBIA 90 ASSOCIATES, LLC and HTA REGION
HEALTH, LLC (included as Exhibit 10.8 to Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to the Companys
Form S-11
Registration Statement (Commission File
No. 333-158418),
filed on December 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
10.26
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 26, 2010 by and
between WASHINGTON AVE. CAMPUS, LLC and HTA 1223
WASHINGTON, LLC (included as Exhibit 10.9 to Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to the Companys
Form S-11
Registration Statement (Commission File
No. 333-158418),
filed on December 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
10.27
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 26, 2010 by and
between COLUMBIA TEMPLE TERRACE, LLC and HTA 13020
TELECOM, LLC (included as Exhibit 10.10 to Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to the Companys
Form S-11
Registration Statement (Commission File
No. 333-158418),
filed on December 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
10.28
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 26, 2010 by and
between PATROON CREEK BLVD, LLC and HTA PATROON
CREEK, LLC (included as Exhibit 10.11 to Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to the Companys
Form S-11
Registration Statement (Commission File
No. 333-158418),
filed on December 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
10.29
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 26, 2010 by and
between COLUMBIA PHC GROUP, LLC and HTA PUTNAM
CENTER, LLC (included as Exhibit 10.12 to Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to the Companys
Form S-11
Registration Statement (Commission File
No. 333-158418),
filed on December 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
10.30
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 26, 2010 by and
between PINSTRIPES, LLC and HTA 1092 MADISON, LLC
(included as Exhibit 10.13 to Post-Effective Amendment
No. 1 to the Companys
Form S-11
Registration Statement (Commission File
No. 333-158418),
filed on December 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
10.31
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 26, 2010 by and
between COLUMBIA WASHINGTON VENTURES, LLC and HTA
WASHINGTON MEDICAL ARTS I, LLC (included as
Exhibit 10.14 to Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the
Companys
Form S-11
Registration Statement (Commission File
No. 333-158418),
filed on December 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
10.32
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 26, 2010 by and
between 1375 ASSOCIATES, LLC, ERLY REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC, and
HTA WASHINGTON MEDICAL ARTS II, LLC (included as
Exhibit 10.15 to Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the
Companys
Form S-11
Registration Statement (Commission File
No. 333-158418),
filed on December 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by
reference).
|
176
|
|
|
21.1*
|
|
Subsidiaries of Healthcare Trust of America, Inc.
|
23.1*
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
31.1*
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
31.2*
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer, pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
32.1*
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
32.2*
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Filed herewith. |
|
|
|
Compensatory plan or arrangement. |
177