EQUITY RESIDENTIAL (EQR)

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

The Company does not believe that there have been any material developments in the legal proceedings that were discussed in Part I, Item 3 of the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

The Company is party to a housing discrimination lawsuit brought by a non-profit civil rights organization in April 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The suit alleges that the Company designed and built approximately 300 of its properties in violation of the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and Americans With Disabilities Act. The suit seeks actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief (including modification of non-compliant properties), costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes it has a number of viable defenses, including that a majority of the named properties were completed before the operative dates of the statutes in question and/or were not designed or built by the Company. Accordingly, the Company is defending the suit vigorously. Due to the pendency of the Company’s defenses and the uncertainty of many other critical factual and legal issues, it is not possible to determine or predict the outcome of the suit and as a result, no amounts have been accrued at December, 31, 2008. While no assurances can be given, the Company does not believe that the suit, if adversely determined, would have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company does not believe there is any other litigation pending or threatened against it that, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably may be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

The Company is party to a housing discrimination lawsuit brought by a non-profit civil rights organization in April 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The suit alleges that the Company designed and built approximately 300 of its properties in violation of the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and Americans With Disabilities Act. The suit seeks actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief (including modification of non-compliant properties), costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes it has a number of viable defenses, including that a majority of the named properties were completed before the operative dates of the statutes in question and/or were not designed or built by the Company. Accordingly, the Company is defending the suit vigorously. Due to the pendency of the Company’s defenses and the uncertainty of many other critical factual and legal issues, it is not possible to determine or predict the outcome of the suit and as a result, no amounts have been accrued at December, 31, 2008. While no assurances can be given, the Company does not believe that the suit, if adversely determined, would have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company does not believe there is any other litigation pending or threatened against it that, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably may be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

The Company does not believe that there have been any material developments in the legal proceedings that were discussed in Part I, Item 3 of the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

The Company does not believe that there have been any material developments in the legal proceedings that were discussed in Part I, Item 3 of the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.

Item 1.  Legal Proceedings

The Company is party to a housing discrimination lawsuit brought by a non-profit civil rights organization in April 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The suit alleges that the Company designed and built approximately 300 of its properties in violation of the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act.  The suit seeks actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief (including modification of non-compliant properties), costs and attorneys’ fees.  The Company believes it has a number of viable defenses, including that a majority of the named properties were completed before the operative dates of the statutes in question and/or were not designed or built by the Company.  Accordingly, the Company is defending the suit vigorously.  Due to the pendency of the Company’s defenses and the uncertainty of many other critical factual and legal issues, it is not possible to determine or predict the outcome of the suit and as a result, no amounts have been accrued at March 31, 2008.  While no assurances can be given, the Company does not believe that the suit, if adversely determined, will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company does not believe there is any other litigation pending or threatened against it that, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably may be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Item 1.  Legal Proceedings

                The Company is party to a housing discrimination lawsuit brought by a non-profit civil rights organization in April 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The suit alleges that the Company designed and built approximately 300 of its properties in violation of the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act.  The suit seeks actual and punitive damages,

42

Item 1.   Legal Proceedings

The Company is party to a housing discrimination lawsuit brought by a non-profit civil rights organization in April 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The suit alleges that the Company designed and built approximately 300 of its properties in violation of the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and Americans With Disabilities Act.  The suit seeks actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief (including modification of non-compliant properties), costs and attorneys’ fees.  The Company believes it has a number of viable defenses, including that a majority of the named properties were completed before the operative dates of the statutes in question and/or were not designed or built by the Company.  Accordingly, the Company is defending the suit vigorously.  Due to the pendency of the Company’s defenses

40

and the uncertainty of many other critical factual and legal issues, it is not possible to determine or predict the outcome of the suit and as a result, no amounts have been accrued at June 30, 2007.  While no assurances can be given, the Company does not believe that the suit, if adversely determined, will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company does not believe there is any other litigation pending or threatened against it that, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably may be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company is party to a housing discrimination lawsuit brought by a non-profit civil rights organization in April 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The suit alleges that the Company designed and built approximately 300 of its properties in violation of the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and Americans With Disabilities Act.  The suit seeks actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief (including modification of non-compliant properties), costs and attorneys’ fees.  The Company believes it has a number of viable defenses, including that a majority of the named properties were completed before the operative dates of the statutes in question and/or were not designed or built by the Company.  Accordingly, the Company is defending the suit vigorously.  Due to the pendency of the Company’s defenses and the uncertainty of many other critical factual and legal issues, it is not possible to determine or predict the outcome of the suit and as a result, no amounts have been accrued at December, 31, 2006.  While no assurances can be given, the Company does not believe that the suit, if adversely determined, would have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company does not believe there is any other litigation pending or threatened against it that, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably may be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Item 1.   Legal Proceedings

The Company is party to a housing discrimination lawsuit brought in April of 2006 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.  The suit alleges that the Company designed and built approximately 300 of the Company’s properties in violation of the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and Americans With Disabilities Act.  The suit seeks actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief (including modification of non-compliant properties), costs and attorneys’ fees.  The Company believes it has a number of viable defenses, including that a majority of the named properties were completed before the operative dates of the statutes in question and/or were not designed or built by the Company.  Accordingly, the Company is defending the suit vigorously.  Due to the pendency of the Company’s defenses and the uncertainty of many other critical factual and legal issues, it is not possible to determine or predict the outcome of the suit and as a result, no amounts have been accrued at September 30, 2006.  While no assurances can be given, the Company does not believe that the suit, if adversely determined, will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company does not believe there is any other litigation pending or threatened against the Company which, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably may be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

38

Item 1.  Legal Proceedings

The Company is party to a housing discrimination lawsuit brought in April of 2006 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.  The suit alleges that the Company designed and built approximately 300 of the Company’s properties in violation of the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and Americans With Disabilities Act.  The suit seeks actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief (including modification of non-compliant properties), costs and attorneys’ fees.  The Company believes it has a number of viable defenses, including that a majority of the named properties were completed before the operative dates of the statutes in question and/or were not designed or built by the Company.  Accordingly, the Company is defending the suit vigorously.  Due to the pendency of the Company’s defenses and the uncertainty of many other critical factual and legal issues, it is not possible to determine or predict the outcome of the suit and as a result, no amounts have been accrued at June 30, 2006.  While no assurances can be given, the Company does not believe that the suit, if adversely determined, will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company does not believe there is any other litigation pending or threatened against the Company

38

which, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably may be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

There have been no new or significant developments related to the legal proceedings that were discussed in Part I, Item 3 of the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.

The Company tried a class action lawsuit in Palm Beach County, Florida during the last week of August of 2004 which challenged the assessment and collection of certain lease termination fees.  The case has been settled, subject to court approval.  The Company will pay $1.7 million into a class fund, $1.629 million of which was previously accrued during 2004.  In addition, the Company will pay $325,000 to reimburse class counsel for its out of pocket expenses, plus $2.55 million in attorney’s fees.  Costs of claims administration will be approximately $100,000.  An accrual for these additional potential payments was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2005.  Preliminary court approval of the settlement was obtained in February 2006 and final judgment is expected in the second quarter of 2006.

The Company does not believe there is any other litigation pending or threatened against the Company which, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably may be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

In August 2004, the Company tried a class action lawsuit in Palm Beach County, Florida regarding certain charges made to residents who terminated their leases early or failed to provide sufficient notice of intent to vacate.  In December 2004, the Court issued a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law holding those fees legally uncollectible under Florida law. In recognition of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which awarded damages and interest to the class in the amount of approximately $1.6 million, the Company established a reserve of approximately $1.6 million and correspondingly recorded this as a general and administrative expense. Due to pending appeals, the award is neither final nor enforceable.  Accordingly, it is not possible to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of the case.  While no assurances can be given, the Company does not believe that this lawsuit, if the ultimate outcome is unfavorable, will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company does not believe there is any other litigation pending or threatened against the Company which, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably may be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company.