|
|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| |||||||||
General Growth Properties, Inc. 10-K 2009 Documents found in this filing:Table of Contents
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Commission File Number 1-11656
GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES,
INC.
(312) 960-5000
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. YES 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 if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of 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. þ
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):
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). YES o NO þ
On June 30, 2008, the last business day of the
registrants most recently completed second quarter, the
aggregate market value of the shares of common stock held by
non-affiliates of the registrant was $8.923 billion based
upon the closing price of the common stock on the New York Stock
Exchange composite tape on such date.
As of February 20, 2009, there were 313,573,413 shares
of the registrants common stock outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the proxy statement for the annual stockholders
meeting to be held on May 12, 2009 are incorporated by
reference into Part III.
GENERAL
GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC.
Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
December 31,
2008
Table of Contents
All references to numbered Notes are to specific footnotes to
the Consolidated Financial Statements of General Growth
Properties, Inc. (GGP or the Company) as
included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
(Annual Report). The descriptions included in such
Notes are incorporated into the applicable Item response by
reference. The following discussion should be read in
conjunction with such Consolidated Financial Statements and
related Notes. The terms we, us and
our may also be used to refer to GGP and its
subsidiaries. See also the Glossary at the end of Item 7,
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations, for definitions of selected terms
used in this Annual Report.
GGP is a self-administered and self-managed real estate
investment trust, referred to as a REIT. The Company
has ownership interest in, or management responsibility for,
over 200 regional shopping malls in 44 states, as well as
ownership in master planned communities and commercial office
buildings. GGP is a Delaware corporation and was organized in
1986.
Our business is focused in two main areas:
Substantially all of our business is conducted through GGP
Limited Partnership (the Operating Partnership or
GGPLP). We own one hundred percent of many of our
properties and a majority or controlling interest of certain
others. As a result, these properties are consolidated under
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and
we refer to them as the Consolidated Properties.
Some properties are held through joint venture entities in which
we own a non-controlling interest (Unconsolidated Real
Estate Affiliates) and we refer to those properties as the
Unconsolidated Properties. Collectively, we refer to
the Consolidated Properties and Unconsolidated Properties as our
Company Portfolio.
We generally make all key strategic decisions for our
Consolidated Properties. However, in connection with the
Unconsolidated Properties, such strategic decisions are made
with the respective stockholders, members or joint venture
partners. We are also the asset manager for most of the Company
Portfolio, executing the strategic decisions and overseeing the
day-to-day property management functions, including operations,
leasing, construction management, maintenance, accounting,
marketing and promotional services. With respect to jointly
owned properties, we generally conduct the management activities
through one of our taxable REIT subsidiaries (TRS).
As of December 31, 2008, we managed the properties for 19
of our unconsolidated joint ventures and 10 of our consolidated
joint ventures. Our joint venture partners or other third
parties managed 11 of our unconsolidated joint ventures and one
of our consolidated joint ventures.
During 2008, the global economy entered into a significant
downturn. For the domestic retail market, the recession has
resulted in sales declines, reduced margins and cash flows and,
for some of our tenants, bankruptcies. This, in turn, has
yielded revenue and occupancy declines at our properties, as a
function of terminations, reduced demand for rental space, and
reductions in rents that can be charged and collected.
Concurrently, the new and replacement commercial lending market
has come to a virtual standstill. Accordingly, we have been
unable to refinance or repay a number of our existing loans
which had scheduled 2008 maturities, triggering certain
cross-default provisions on certain other financing
arrangements. To temporarily forestall foreclosure or bankruptcy
proceedings, we have entered into a number of short-term
extension and forbearance agreements with our various lender
groups (Note 1 Liquidity). Such agreements have
imposed lender operational oversight on our operations and, with
respect to certain properties, have resulted in lender control
of operational cash receipts. Reduced cashflows, increased
borrowing costs and the suspension of our common stock dividend
have raised liquidity concerns in the equity markets such that
our stock price as of December 31, 2008 has declined by
almost 97% since December 31, 2007.
Table of Contents
Accordingly, this annual report describes a number of risks and
uncertainties concerning our future operations. Although we
believe a forced liquidation is not likely, the potential for
such a substantially adverse outcome to our current liquidity
crisis raises substantial doubts as to our ability to continue
as a going concern. We continue to work with our financial
advisors and lender groups to reach a collectively satisfactory
resolution of these liquidity and financing difficulties.
As described above, our current focus is the management and
refinancing of our existing debt. Preservation of capital is
paramount and, operationally, we are striving to increase net
operating income (NOI) at our existing retail
operations through proactive property management and leasing and
through operating cost reductions. Specific actions we have used
to increase productivity of our properties include changing the
tenant mix, increasing alternative sources of revenue and
integrating new retail formats such as power, lifestyle and
mixed use centers.
Prior to the acquisition of The Rouse Company (the TRC
Merger) in November 2004, acquisitions had been a key
contributor to our growth. Since 2005, our only major
acquisition has been the July 6, 2007 acquisition of the
fifty percent interest owned by New York State Common Retirement
Fund (NYSCRF) in the GGP/Homart I portfolio of 19
regional shopping malls, one community center and three regional
shopping malls owned with joint venture partners pursuant to an
election by NYSCRF to exercise its exchange right with respect
to its ownership in GGP/Homart I.
From 2005 to the third quarter of 2008, our operational focus
was on development projects, including new development and
redevelopment and expansion of existing properties. In such
regard, we opened in September 2007 Natick Collection in
Natick, Massachusetts, which, anchored by Nordstrom, Neiman
Marcus, JC Penney, Lord & Taylor, Macys and
Sears, is the largest mall in New England. Additionally, we
opened The Shops at Fallen Timbers in Maumee, Ohio in October
2007. In March 2008, we opened The Shoppes at River Crossing in
Macon, Georgia, a 750,600 square foot open-air center
anchored by Dillards and Belk. Internationally, in
November 2008 we opened Shopping Caxias in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil. As a result of our current financial condition, we have
halted or suspended substantially all of our development and
redevelopment activity. Accordingly, development expenditures,
including new developments, redevelopments and expansions were
approximately $1.01 billion as of December 31, 2008
and the cost to complete the remaining active projects is
expected to approximate $308 million in 2009 and beyond.
Financial
Information About Industry Segments
Reference is made to Note 16 for information regarding our
segments.
Narrative
Description of Business
Our Retail and Other segment consists of retail centers, office
and industrial buildings and mixed-use and other properties.
The Retail Portfolio is comprised primarily of regional shopping
centers, but also includes festival market places, urban
mixed-use centers and strip/community centers. Most of our
shopping centers are strategically located in major and middle
markets where they have strong competitive positions. Most of
these properties contain at least one major department store as
an Anchor. We also own non-controlling interests in various
international joint ventures in Brazil, Turkey and Costa Rica.
We believe the Retail Portfolios geographic
diversification mitigates the effects of regional economic
conditions and local factors.
A detailed listing of the principal properties in our Retail
Portfolio is included in Item 2 of this Annual Report.
The majority of the income from the properties in the Retail
Portfolio is derived from rents received through long-term
leases with retail tenants. These long-term leases generally
require the tenants to pay base rent which is a fixed
Table of Contents
amount specified in the lease. The base rent is often subject to
scheduled increases during the term of the lease. Another
component of income is overage rent. Overage rent is paid by a
tenant generally if its sales exceed an agreed upon minimum
amount. Overage rent is calculated by multiplying the sales in
excess of the minimum amount by a percentage defined in the
lease, the majority of which is typically earned in the fourth
quarter. Our leases include both a base rent component and a
component which requires tenants to pay amounts related to all,
or substantially all, of their share of real estate taxes and
certain property operating expenses, including common area
maintenance and insurance. The portion of these leases
attributable to real estate tax and operating expense recoveries
are recorded as Tenant recoveries.
The following table reflects retail tenant representation by
category for the domestic Consolidated Properties as of
December 31, 2008. In general, similar percentages existed
for the Unconsolidated Properties.
Table of Contents
As of December 31, 2008, our largest tenant (based on
common parent ownership) accounted for approximately 3% of
consolidated rents.
Office and other properties are primarily components of
large-scale mixed-use properties (which include retail, parking
and other uses) located in urban markets. In addition, we have
certain free-standing office or industrial properties in office
parks in the Baltimore/Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas
markets. Including properties adjacent to our retail centers, we
own approximately seven million square feet of leasable office
and industrial space.
The Master Planned Communities segment is comprised primarily of
the following large-scale, long-term community development
projects:
We develop and sell land in these communities to builders and
other developers for residential, commercial and other uses.
Additionally, certain saleable land within these properties may
be transferred to our Retail and Other segment to be developed
as commercial properties for either our own use or to be
operated as investment rental property. Finally, our
215 unit residential condominium project (Nouvelle at
Natick in Natick (Boston), Massachusetts) has been reflected
within this segment.
The nature and extent of the competition we face varies from
property to property within each segment of our business. In our
Retail and Other segment, our direct competitors include other
publicly-traded retail mall development and operating companies,
retail real estate companies, commercial property developers and
other owners of retail real estate that engage in similar
businesses.
Within our Retail Portfolio, we compete for retail tenants. We
believe the principal factors that retailers consider in making
their leasing decision include:
Table of Contents
Based on these criteria, we believe that the size and scope of
our property portfolio, as well as the overall quality and
attractiveness of our individual properties, enable us to
compete effectively for retail tenants in our local markets.
Because our revenue potential is linked to the success of our
retailers, we indirectly share exposure to the same competitive
factors that our retail tenants experience in their respective
markets when trying to attract individual shoppers. These
dynamics include general competition from other regional
shopping centers, including outlet malls and other discount
shopping centers, as well as competition with discount shopping
clubs, catalog companies, internet sales and telemarketing. We
believe that we have a competitive advantage with respect to
operational retail property management as our expertise allows
us to evaluate existing retail properties for their increased
profit potential through expansion, remodeling, re-merchandising
and more efficient management of the property.
With respect to our office and other properties, we experience
competition in the development and management of our properties
similar to that of our Retail Portfolio. Prospective tenants
generally consider quality and appearance, amenities, location
relative to other commercial activity and price in determining
the attractiveness of our properties. Based on the quality and
location of our properties, which are generally in urban markets
or are concentrated in the commercial centers of our master
planned communities, we believe that our properties are viewed
favorably among prospective tenants.
In our Master Planned Communities segment, we compete with other
landholders and residential and commercial property developers
in the development of properties within the
Baltimore/Washington, D.C., Las Vegas and Houston markets.
Significant factors affecting our competition in this business
include:
We believe our projects offer significant advantages when viewed
against these criteria.
Under various Federal, state and local laws and regulations, an
owner of real estate is liable for the costs of removal or
remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances on such
real estate. These laws often impose such liability without
regard to whether the owner knew of, or was responsible for, the
presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. The costs of
remediation or removal of such substances may be substantial,
and the presence of such substances, or the failure to promptly
remediate such substances, may adversely affect the owners
ability to sell such real estate or to borrow using such real
estate as collateral. In connection with our ownership and
operation of our properties, we, or the relevant joint venture
through which the property is owned, may be potentially liable
for such costs.
Substantially all of our properties have been subject to Phase I
environmental assessments, which are intended to evaluate the
environmental condition of the surveyed and surrounding
properties. The Phase I environmental assessments included a
historical review, a public records review, a preliminary
investigation of the site and surrounding properties, screening
for the presence of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and underground storage tanks and the
preparation and issuance of a written report, but do not include
soil sampling or subsurface investigations. A Phase II
assessment, when necessary, was conducted to further investigate
any issues raised by the Phase I assessment. In each case where
Phase I
and/or
Phase II assessments resulted in specific
Table of Contents
recommendations for remedial actions required by law, management
has either taken or scheduled the recommended action.
Neither the Phase I nor the Phase II assessments have
revealed any environmental liability that we believe would have
a material effect on our overall business, financial condition
or results of operations. Nevertheless, it is possible that
these assessments do not reveal all environmental liabilities or
that there are material environmental liabilities of which we
are unaware. Moreover, no assurances can be given that future
laws, ordinances or regulations will not impose any material
environmental liability or the current environmental condition
of our properties will not be adversely affected by tenants and
occupants of the properties, by the condition of properties in
the vicinity of our properties (such as the presence on such
properties of underground storage tanks) or by third parties
unrelated to us.
Future development opportunities may require additional capital
and other expenditures in order to comply with Federal, state
and local statutes and regulations relating to the protection of
the environment. We cannot predict with any certainty the
magnitude of any such expenditures or the long-range effect, if
any, on our operations. Compliance with such laws has had no
material adverse effect on our operating results or competitive
position in the past.
Employees
As of February 20, 2009, we had approximately
3,500 employees.
GGP currently qualifies as a real estate investment trust
pursuant to the requirements contained in
Sections 856-858
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
Code). If, as we contemplate, such qualification
continues, GGP will not be subject to Federal tax on its real
estate investment trust taxable income. During 2008, GGP met its
distribution requirements to its common stockholders as provided
for in Section 857 of the Code.
Our Internet website address is www.ggp.com. Our Annual
Reports on
Form 10-K,
Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q,
Current Reports on
Form 8-K
and amendments to those reports are available and may be
accessed free of charge through the Investment section of our
Internet website under the Shareholder Info subsection, as soon
as reasonably practicable after those documents are filed with,
or furnished to, the SEC. Our Internet website and included or
linked information on the website are not intended to be
incorporated into this Annual Report.
As described below under Liquidity Risks, we have a
substantial amount of debt which we may not be able to refinance
or extend. If we are unable to refinance or extend our debt, or
if such debt is accelerated due to our default, our assets may
not be sufficient to repay such debt in full, and our available
cash flow may not be adequate to maintain our current
operations. Under such circumstances, or if we believe such
circumstances are likely to occur, we may consider or pursue
various forms of negotiated restructurings of our debt and
equity obligations
and/or asset
sales, which may be required to occur under court supervision
pursuant to a voluntary bankruptcy filing under Chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In addition, under certain
circumstances creditors may file an involuntary petition for
bankruptcy against us. Due to the possibility of such
circumstances occurring, we have begun active planning for such
potential restructurings.
Table of Contents
A bankruptcy filing by or against GGP, GGPLP and certain of our
subsidiaries (each referred to as a filer) would
subject our business and operations to various risks, including
but not limited to, the following:
Liquidity
Risks
We have a substantial amount of debt which we may not be able to
extend, refinance or repay. As of December 31, 2008, we had
an aggregate consolidated indebtedness outstanding of
$24.85 billion (Note 6) of which
$6.58 billion was unsecured, recourse indebtedness of the
Operating Partnership and consolidated subsidiaries, while
$18.27 billion was secured by our properties. A majority of
the secured indebtedness was non-recourse to us. This
indebtedness does not include our proportionate share of
indebtedness incurred by our Unconsolidated Properties. In
December, 2008, we entered into forbearance agreements with the
lenders for certain loans, as described elsewhere in this report.
There can be no assurance that we will be able to refinance or
extend our debt on acceptable terms or otherwise. Our ability to
refinance our debt is negatively affected by the current
condition of the credit markets, which have significantly
reduced levels of commercial lending. Our ability to
successfully refinance or extend our debt is also negatively
affected by recent downgrades of our debt by national credit
ratings agencies as well as the real or perceived decline in the
value of our properties based on continued significant
deterioration of general and retail economic conditions, as
discussed further below. Our substantial indebtedness also
requires us to use a material portion of our cash flow to
service principal and interest on our debt, which will limit the
cash flow available for other business expenses or opportunities.
Table of Contents
We do not have the cash necessary to repay our debt as it
matures. Therefore, failure to refinance or extend our debt as
it comes due, or a failure to satisfy the conditions and
requirements of such debt, will result in an event of default
under such debt and would allow the lender to accelerate such
debt. In addition, a default under certain debt obligations
could also constitute an event of default under other debt as a
result of certain cross-default and cross collateralization
provisions. Although we have entered into forbearance agreements
with certain lenders pursuant to which they have agreed to
refrain from exercising certain rights and remedies under
specified loans, these agreements are subject to certain early
termination provisions, and there can be no assurance that these
forbearance agreements will be extended beyond their existing
terms or that similar agreements will be reached with lenders of
other debt in the event of a default by us. In the event we
default under debt which is secured by one or more properties,
we may be required to transfer such property or properties to
the lender to satisfy the terms of such debt.
If we are unable to refinance or extend our debt as it comes due
and maintain sufficient cash flow, our business, financial
condition, results of operations and common stock price will be
materially and adversely affected, and we may be required to
file for bankruptcy protection, as discussed under
Bankruptcy Risks.
Risks related to debt level. Even if we are
able to refinance or extend our substantial indebtedness, our
indebtedness could still have important consequences to us and
the value of our common stock, including:
The terms of the 2006 Credit Facility and certain other debt
also require us to satisfy certain customary affirmative and
negative covenants and to meet financial ratios and tests,
including ratios and tests based on leverage, interest coverage
and net worth. In addition, the forbearance agreements we have
entered into further restrict our operations. The covenants and
other restrictions under our debt and forbearance agreements
affect, among other things, our ability to:
Risks related to refinancings. Due to the
current lending environment, our financial condition and general
economic factors, it is unlikely that we will be able to
refinance our debt. In addition, in the event we are able to
refinance all or a portion of our debt, it is likely that this
new debt will contain terms which are less attractive than
Table of Contents
the terms contained in the debt being refinanced. Such terms may
include more restrictive operational and financial covenants, as
well as higher fees and interest rates.
Risks related to extensions. In the event we
obtain extensions on existing debt, including both short term
forbearance agreements and longer term extensions, such
extensions will likely include operational and financial
covenants significantly more restrictive than our current debt
covenants. For example, the forbearance agreements entered into
in December 2008 significantly restrict our ability to, among
other things, incur indebtedness, sell assets, make capital
expenditures, makes changes to our organizational structure,
manage our cash flows and engage in other transactions outside
the ordinary course of business. Additional forbearance
agreements or longer term extensions may contain similar or more
stringent conditions, which are likely to include provisions
which significantly restrict the distribution of cash flows from
properties serving as collateral for such debt. Any such
extensions will also require us to pay certain fees to, and
expenses of, our lenders. These fees and cash flow restrictions
will affect our ability to fund our on-going operations from our
operating cash flows, as discussed below.
Given the restrictions in our debt covenants, as well as the
significant additional covenants and restrictions contained in
our forbearance agreements and in any loan extensions we may
obtain in the future, we may be significantly limited in our
operating and financial flexibility and may be limited in our
ability to respond to changes in our business or competitive
activities.
Our operating cash flows are not sufficient to pay our debt as
it comes due. In addition, there can be no assurance that our
cash flows from operations will be sufficient to pay the
interest on our debt and other operating expenses. Cash inflows
could be negatively affected by deteriorating conditions in the
retail sector, as described under Business Risks. In
addition, we face significantly higher operating expenses due in
part to payments to our financial and legal advisors, as well as
fees and other amounts payable to our lenders in connection with
loan extensions or refinancings. Such extensions and
refinancings may also restrict how we utilize our operating cash
flows. Because we have limited short term sources of cash, in
the event that our cash flows from operations are insufficient
to fund our operating expenses, we may be required to file for
bankruptcy protection, as discussed under Bankruptcy
Risks.
We are working to generate capital from a variety of sources,
including, but not limited to, both core and non-core property
sales, the sale of joint venture interests, a corporate level
capital infusion,
and/or
strategic business combinations. There can be no assurance that
any of these planned capital raising activities will be
successful.
Our ability to sell our properties or raise capital through
other means is limited. The deteriorating retail
economic climate negatively affects the value of our properties
and therefore reduces our ability to sell these properties on
acceptable terms. Our ability to sell our properties is also
negatively affected by the weakness of the credit markets, which
increases the cost and difficulty for potential purchasers to
acquire financing, as well as by the illiquid nature of real
estate. Finally, our current financial difficulties may
encourage potential purchasers to offer less attractive terms
for our properties. These conditions also negatively affect our
ability to raise capital through other means, including through
the sale of equity or joint venture interests, or through a
potential strategic business combination. See Business
Risks for a further discussion of the effects of the
deteriorating retail economic climate on our properties, as well
as the illiquid nature of our investments in our properties.
We have a low tax basis in many of our properties relative to
fair market value. We have a low tax basis in
many of our properties relative to the fair market value of such
properties. As a result of this low tax basis, we could
recognize a substantial taxable gain upon the sale of such
properties, which would impact the amount of net proceeds we
would retain from any such sales as a result of the REIT
distribution requirements.
Table of Contents
The price of our common stock has declined significantly and
rapidly since September 2008. In the event we seek bankruptcy
protection, it is possible that the value of our common stock
could decline further. This reduction in stock price could have
materially adverse effects on our business, including reducing
our ability to use our common stock as compensation or to
otherwise provide incentives to employees and by reducing our
ability to generate capital through stock sales or otherwise use
our stock as currency with third parties.
The average closing price of our common stock has been less than
$1.00 over a consecutive 30
trading-day
period, and as a result, our stock could be delisted from the
NYSE. The threat of delisting
and/or a
delisting of our common stock could have adverse effects by,
among other things:
The price at which our common stock will trade may be volatile
and may fluctuate due to factors such as:
Fluctuations may be unrelated to or disproportionate to our
financial performance. These fluctuations may result in a
material decline in the trading price of our common stock.
As of February 20, 2008, 12.6 million shares of common
stock were issuable upon exercise of conversion
and/or
redemption rights as to units of limited partnership interest in
the Operating Partnership. An additional 14.0 million
Table of Contents
shares of our common stock are reserved for issuance to meet our
obligations under the CSA, although based on the current market
price of our common stock, a substantially greater number of
shares may ultimately be issuable pursuant to the CSA, which
would result in the beneficiaries of the CSA holding
substantially all of our outstanding common stock. In addition,
we have reserved a number of shares of common stock for issuance
under our restricted stock, option and other benefit plans for
employees and directors and in connection with certain other
obligations, including convertible debt and these shares will be
available for sale from time to time. Finally, we may issue
stock dividends in order to satisfy the requirements for
qualification of a REIT in the event that we have insufficient
liquidity to pay the dividend in cash. No prediction can be made
as to the effect, if any, that these and other future sales of
our common stock, or the availability of common stock for future
sales, will have on the market price of the stock. Sales in the
public market of substantial amounts of our common stock, or the
perception that such sales could occur, could adversely affect
prevailing market prices for our common stock.
Although we suspended our dividend in October 2008, we believe
that investors consider the distribution rate on REIT stocks,
expressed as a percentage of the price of the stocks, relative
to market interest rates, as an important factor in deciding
whether to buy or sell the stocks. If market interest rates
increase, prospective purchasers of REIT stocks may expect a
higher distribution rate. Higher interest rates would not,
however, result in more funds being available for us to
distribute and, in fact, would likely increase our borrowing
costs and might decrease our funds available for distribution.
Thus, higher market interest rates could cause the market price
of our common stock to decline further.
Business
Risks
We are currently working with our advisors to develop a
comprehensive strategic plan to generate capital from a variety
of sources. In addition, in October 2008, we replaced our Chief
Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer. This
focus on capital raising activities and recent changes in our
senior management could adversely affect our operations in a
number of ways, including the risks that such activities could,
among other things:
We and certain of our current and former directors and officers
have been named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (collectively, the Shareholder
Suits). The Shareholder Suits seek unspecified damages and
purport to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5
on the grounds that false and misleading statements were made
relating to the Companys refinancing ability and the
nondisclosure of certain loans to officers from an affiliate of
another officers family trust. In addition, three former
employees, each claiming to represent a putative class, filed
separate lawsuits against us and certain of our current and
former directors and officers in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (collectively, the
ERISA Suits) asserting breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the management and administration of the
Companys 401(k) Savings Plan (the Plan). The
ERISA Suits seek unspecified damages from the defendants for the
alleged breach of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence
owed to the Plan participants by continuing to
Table of Contents
allow or failing to cap purchases of our stock when the
defendants allegedly knew or should have known such purchases
were not prudent. Also, a shareholder has also filed a
derivative lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Cook County,
Illinois (the Derivative Suit) seeking recovery on
behalf of the Company against certain of our current and former
directors and officers for the defendants alleged breach
of fiduciary duties in making false and misleading statements
regarding our ability to access financing, failing to disclose
the existence of certain loans to two officers from an affiliate
of another officers family trust, and engaging in insider
trading (with respect to certain defendants). With respect to
all of these matters (collectively, the Pending
Suits), we have certain obligations to indemnify and
advance expenses to our officers and directors. Although we have
directors and officers liability insurance and fiduciary
liability insurance, it is uncertain whether the insurance will
be sufficient to cover all damages, if any, that we may be
required to pay. In addition, the Pending Suits may distract the
attention of our management, and we have and may continue to
incur substantial legal and other professional service costs in
connection with each of the Pending Suits. The amount of any
future costs or damages cannot be determined at this time and
could be significant.
General and retail economic conditions continue to weaken, and
we expect this weakness to continue and worsen in 2009. The
unemployment rate is expected to continue to rise, consumer
confidence and spending has decreased dramatically and the stock
market remains extremely volatile. Given these expected economic
conditions, we believe there is a significantly increased risk
that the sales of stores operating in our centers will continue
to decrease, which will have the following negative effect on
our operations:
Ability to lease and collect rent. Our results
of operations depend on our ability to continue to lease space
in our properties on economically favorable terms. If the sales
of stores operating in our centers decline sufficiently, tenants
might be unable to pay their existing minimum rents or expense
recovery charges, since these rents and charges would represent
a higher percentage of their sales. If our tenants sales
decline, new tenants would be less likely to be willing to pay
minimum rents as high as they would otherwise pay. In addition,
as substantially all of our income is derived from rentals of
real property, our income and cash available for debt service,
operations or distribution to our stockholders would be
adversely affected if a significant number of tenants were
unable to meet their obligations to us.
Bankruptcy or store closures of tenants. Our
leases generally do not contain provisions designed to ensure
the creditworthiness of the tenant, and a number of companies in
the retail industry, including some of our tenants, have
declared bankruptcy or voluntarily closed certain of their
stores in recent years, and this trend is expected to increase
in 2009. The bankruptcy or closure of a major tenant,
particularly an Anchor, may have a material adverse effect on
the retail properties affected and the income produced by these
properties and may make it substantially more difficult to lease
the remainder of the affected retail properties. As a result,
the bankruptcy or closure of a major tenant and potential
additional closures as a result of co-tenancy requirements could
result in a lower level of revenues and cash available.
Department store productivity. Department
store consolidations, as well as declining sales productivity in
certain instances, are resulting in the closure of existing
department stores and we may be unable to re-lease this area or
to re-lease it on comparable or more favorable terms. Other
tenants may be entitled to modify the terms of their existing
leases, including those pertaining to rent payment, in the event
of such closures. Additionally, department store closures could
result in decreased customer traffic which could lead to
decreased sales at other stores.
Ability to attract new tenants. The factors
described above not only effect our current tenants and
operations, but also indirectly effect our ability to attract
new tenants.
Equity real estate investments are relatively illiquid, and this
characteristic tends to limit our ability to vary our portfolio
promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions.
In addition, significant expenditures associated with each
equity investment, such as mortgage payments, real estate taxes
and maintenance costs, are
Table of Contents
generally not reduced when circumstances cause a reduction in
income from the investment. If income from a property declines
while the related expenses do not decline, our income and cash
available to us would be adversely affected. A significant
portion of our properties are mortgaged to secure payment of
indebtedness, and if we were unable to meet our mortgage
payments, we could lose money as a result of foreclosure on the
properties by the various mortgagees. In addition, if it becomes
necessary or desirable for us to dispose of one or more of the
mortgaged properties, we might not be able to obtain a release
of the lien on the mortgaged property without payment of the
associated debt. The foreclosure of a mortgage on a property or
inability to sell a property could adversely affect the level of
cash available to us.
If we have a change in control, as defined in section 382 of the
Code, our ability to use our net operating loss and interest
expense carry forwards to offset future cash taxes may be
reduced or eliminated. The significant stock activity we have
recently experienced and the possibility of issuing additional
equity to address our liquidity needs increases the risk of this
provision impacting us in the future.
Statutory liens, including mechanics and tax liens, have
been imposed on our properties, and the imposition of additional
liens may occur. In the event that the holders of these liens
seek to perfect their interests in our properties subject to
such liens, foreclosure proceeds with respect to such properties
could occur.
Real property investments are subject to varying degrees of risk
that may affect the ability of our properties to generate
sufficient revenues. A number of factors may decrease the income
generated by a retail property, including:
Our Master Planned Communities are also affected by some of the
above factors, as well as the significant weakening of the
housing market which began in 2007 and is expected to continue.
If we are unable to generate sufficient revenue from our
properties, including those held by joint ventures, we will be
unable to meet operating and other expenses, including debt
service, lease payments, capital expenditures and tenant
improvements, and to make distributions from our joint ventures
and then, in turn, to our stockholders.
Although we have significantly reduced our development and
expansion activities, certain development and expansion projects
will be undertaken. In connection with any development or
expansion, we will be subject to various risks, including the
following:
Table of Contents
If a development project is unsuccessful, our investment in the
project may not be fully recoverable from future operations or
sale.
Under various federal, state or local laws, ordinances and
regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of real
estate may be required to investigate and clean up hazardous or
toxic substances released at a property, and may be held liable
to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage
or personal injuries and for investigation and
clean-up
costs incurred by the parties in connection with the
contamination. These laws often impose liability without regard
to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible
for, the release of the hazardous or toxic substances. The
presence of contamination or the failure to remediate
contamination may adversely affect the owners ability to
sell or lease real estate or to borrow using the real estate as
collateral. Other federal, state and local laws, ordinances and
regulations require abatement or removal of asbestos-containing
materials in the event of demolition or certain renovations or
remodeling, the cost of which may be substantial for some of our
redevelopments, and also govern emissions of and exposure to
asbestos fibers in the air. Federal and state laws also regulate
the operation and removal of underground storage tanks. In
connection with the ownership, operation and management of our
properties, we could be held liable for the costs of remedial
action with respect to these regulated substances or tanks or
related claims.
Our properties have been subjected to varying degrees of
environmental assessment at various times. However, the
identification of new areas of contamination, a change in the
extent or known scope of contamination or changes in cleanup
requirements could result in significant costs to us.
There are numerous shopping facilities that compete with our
properties in attracting retailers to lease space. In addition,
retailers at our properties face continued competition from
retailers at other regional shopping centers, including outlet
malls and other discount shopping centers, discount shopping
clubs, catalog companies, internet sales and telemarketing.
Competition of this type could adversely affect our revenues and
cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
We compete with other major real estate investors with
significant capital for attractive investment opportunities.
These competitors include other REITs, investment banking firms
and private institutional investors.
A number of our properties are located in areas which are
subject to natural disasters. For example, two of our
properties, located in the New Orleans area, suffered major
hurricane
and/or
vandalism damage in 2005. It is uncertain as to whether the New
Orleans area will recover to its prior economic strength.
Certain of our properties are located in California or in other
areas with higher risk of earthquakes. In addition, many of our
properties are located in coastal regions, and would therefore
be affected by any future increases in sea levels or in the
frequency or severity of hurricanes and tropical storms, whether
such increases are caused by global climate changes or other
factors.
Table of Contents
Future terrorist attacks in the United States, and other acts of
violence, including terrorism or war, might result in declining
economic activity, which could harm the demand for goods and
services offered by our tenants and the value of our properties
and might adversely affect the value of an investment in our
securities. A decrease in retail demand could make it difficult
for us to renew or re-lease our properties at lease rates equal
to or above historical rates. Terrorist activities or violence
also could directly affect the value of our properties through
damage, destruction or loss, and the availability of insurance
for such acts, or of insurance generally, might be lower, or
cost more, which could increase our operating expenses and
adversely affect our financial condition and results of
operations. To the extent that our tenants are affected by
future attacks, their businesses similarly could be adversely
affected, including their ability to continue to meet
obligations under their existing leases. These acts might erode
business and consumer confidence and spending, and might result
in increased volatility in national and international financial
markets and economies. Any one of these events might decrease
demand for real estate, decrease or delay the occupancy of our
new or redeveloped properties, and limit our access to capital
or increase our cost of raising capital.
We carry comprehensive liability, fire, flood, earthquake,
terrorism, extended coverage and rental loss insurance on all of
our properties. We believe the policy specifications and insured
limits of these policies are adequate and appropriate. There
are, however, some types of losses, including lease and other
contract claims, which generally are not insured. If an
uninsured loss or a loss in excess of insured limits occurs, we
could lose all or a portion of the capital we have invested in a
property, as well as the anticipated future revenue from the
property. If this happens, we might nevertheless remain
obligated for any mortgage debt or other financial obligations
related to the property.
Should inflation increase in the future, we may experience any
or all of the following:
Inflation also poses a potential threat to us due to the
probability of future increases in interest rates. Such
increases would adversely impact us due to our outstanding
variable-rate debt as well as result in higher interest rates on
new fixed-rate debt.
We hold interests in joint venture properties in Brazil, Turkey
and Costa Rica. Although we do not currently expect to pursue
additional expansion opportunities outside the United States, we
may do so in the future. International development and ownership
activities carry additional risks that are different from those
we face with our domestic properties and operations. These
additional risks include:
Table of Contents
Although our international activities currently are a relatively
small portion of our business (international properties
represented less than approximately 1% of the NOI of all of our
properties in 2008), to the extent that we expand our
international activities, these additional risks could increase
in significance and adversely affect our results of operations
and financial condition.
Organizational
Risks
Substantially all of our assets are owned through our general
partnership interest in the Operating Partnership, including
TRCLP. The Operating Partnership holds substantially all of its
properties and assets through subsidiaries, including subsidiary
partnerships, limited liability companies and corporations that
have elected to be taxed as REITs. The Operating Partnership
therefore derives substantially all of its cash flow from cash
distributions to it by its subsidiaries, and we, in turn, derive
substantially all of our cash flow from cash distributions to us
by the Operating Partnership. The creditors and preferred
security holders, if any, of each of our direct and indirect
subsidiaries are entitled to payment of that subsidiarys
obligations to them, when due and payable, before that
subsidiary may make distributions to us. Thus, the Operating
Partnerships ability to make distributions to its
partners, including us, depends on its subsidiaries
ability first to satisfy obligations to their creditors and
preferred security holders, if any, and then to make
distributions to the Operating Partnership. Similarly, our
ability to pay dividends to holders of our common stock depends
on the Operating Partnerships ability first to satisfy its
obligations to its creditors and preferred security holders and
then to make distributions to us.
In addition, we will have the right to participate in any
distribution of the assets of any of our direct or indirect
subsidiaries upon the liquidation, reorganization or insolvency
of the subsidiary only after the claims of the creditors,
including trade creditors, and preferred security holders, if
any, of the subsidiary are satisfied. Our common stockholders,
in turn, will have the right to participate in any distribution
of our assets upon the liquidation, reorganization or insolvency
of us only after the claims of our creditors, including trade
creditors, and preferred security holders, if any, are satisfied.
We have assumed the obligations of TRC under a Contingent Stock
Agreement, which we refer to as the CSA. The
assumption includes the obligation under the CSA to potentially
issue shares of common stock twice a year to the beneficiaries
under the CSA and certain indemnification obligations. The
number of shares is based upon our stock price and upon a
formula set forth in the CSA. In addition, the CSA requires a
valuation of certain assets that we own as of December 31,
2009, which is expected to result in the issuance of a
significant number of additional shares to the beneficiaries
under the CSA. Such issuances will be significantly dilutive to
our existing stockholders. Based on the current market price of
our common stock, the number of shares ultimately issuable under
the CSA would be substantially greater than previously
anticipated, which would result in the beneficiaries under the
CSA holding substantially all of our outstanding common stock.
While we generally make all operating decisions for the
Unconsolidated Properties, we are required to make other
decisions with the other investors who have interests in the
relevant property or properties. For example, the approval of
certain of the other investors is required with respect to
operating budgets and refinancing, encumbering, expanding or
selling any of these properties, as well as to bankruptcy
decisions related to the Unconsolidated Properties and related
joint ventures. We might not have the same interests as the
other investors in relation to these
Table of Contents
transactions. Accordingly, we might not be able to favorably
resolve any of these issues, or we might have to provide
financial or other inducement to the other investors to obtain a
favorable resolution.
In addition, various restrictive provisions and rights apply to
sales or transfers of interests in our jointly owned properties.
These may work to our disadvantage because, among other things,
we might be required to make decisions about buying or selling
interests in a property or properties at a time that is
disadvantageous to us.
In addition to the possible effects on our joint ventures of a
bankruptcy filing by us, the bankruptcy of one of the other
investors in any of our jointly owned shopping centers could
materially and adversely affect the relevant property or
properties. Under the bankruptcy laws, we would be precluded
from taking some actions affecting the estate of the other
investor without prior approval of the bankruptcy court, which
would, in most cases, entail prior notice to other parties and a
hearing in the bankruptcy court. At a minimum, the requirement
to obtain court approval may delay the actions we would or might
want to take. If the relevant joint venture through which we
have invested in a property has incurred recourse obligations,
the discharge in bankruptcy of one of the other investors might
result in our ultimate liability for a greater portion of those
obligations than we would otherwise bear.
We own properties through partnerships which have arrangements
in place that protect the deferred tax situation of our existing
third party limited partners. Violation of these arrangements
could impose costs on us. As a result, we may be restricted with
respect to decisions such as financing, encumbering, expanding
or selling these properties.
Several of our joint venture partners are tax-exempt. As such,
they are taxable to the extent of their share of unrelated
business taxable income generated from these properties. As the
managing partner in these joint ventures, we have obligations to
avoid the creation of unrelated business taxable income at these
properties. As a result, we may be restricted with respect to
decisions such as financing and revenue generation with respect
to these properties.
One of the requirements of the Code for a REIT generally is that
it distribute or pay tax on 100% of its capital gains and
distribute at least 90% of its ordinary taxable income to its
stockholders. We may not have sufficient liquidity to meet these
distribution requirements.
If, with respect to any taxable year, we fail to maintain our
qualification as a REIT, we would not be allowed to deduct
distributions to stockholders in computing our taxable income
and federal income tax. The corporate level income tax,
including any applicable alternative minimum tax, would apply to
our taxable income at regular corporate rates. As a result, the
amount available for distribution to stockholders would be
reduced for the year or years involved, and we would no longer
be required to make distributions. In addition, unless we were
entitled to relief under the relevant statutory provisions, we
would be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for four
subsequent taxable years.
The ownership limit. Generally, for us to
maintain our qualification as a REIT under the Code, not more
than 50% in value of the outstanding shares of our capital stock
may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer
individuals at any time during the last half of our taxable
year. The Code defines individuals for purposes of
the requirement described in the preceding sentence to include
some types of entities. In general, under our current
certificate of incorporation, no person other than Martin
Bucksbaum (deceased), Matthew Bucksbaum, their families and
related trusts and entities, including M.B. Capital Partners
III, may own more than 7.5% of the value of our outstanding
capital stock. However, our certificate of incorporation also
permits our company to exempt a
Table of Contents
person from the 7.5% ownership limit upon the satisfaction of
certain conditions which are described in our certificate of
incorporation.
Selected provisions of our charter
documents. Our board of directors is divided into
three classes of directors. Directors of each class are chosen
for three-year staggered terms. Staggered terms of directors may
reduce the possibility of a tender offer or an attempt to change
control of our company, even though a tender offer or change in
control might be in the best interest of our stockholders. Our
charter authorizes the board of directors:
Stockholder rights plan. We have a stockholder
rights plan which will impact a potential acquirer unless the
acquirer negotiates with our board of directors and the board of
directors approves the transaction.
Selected provisions of Delaware law. We are a
Delaware corporation, and Section 203 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law applies to us. In general,
Section 203 prevents an interested stockholder,
as defined in the next sentence, from engaging in a
business combination, as defined in the statute,
with us for three years following the date that person becomes
an interested stockholder unless one or more of the following
occurs:
The statute defines interested stockholder to mean
generally any person that is the owner of 15% or more of our
outstanding voting stock or is an affiliate or associate of us
and was the owner of 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock
at any time within the three-year period immediately before the
date of determination.
Each item discussed above may delay, deter or prevent a change
in control of our Company, even if a proposed transaction is at
a premium over the then current market price for our common
stock. Further, these provisions may apply in instances where
some stockholders consider a transaction beneficial to them. As
a result, our stock price may be negatively affected by these
provisions.
We may make forward-looking statements in this Annual Report and
in other reports which we file with the SEC. In addition, our
senior management might make forward-looking statements orally
to analysts, investors, the media and others.
Forward-looking statements include:
Table of Contents
In this Annual Report, for example, we make forward-looking
statements discussing our expectations about:
Forward-looking statements discuss matters that are not
historical facts. Because they discuss future events or
conditions, forward-looking statements often include words such
as anticipate, believe,
estimate, expect, intend,
plan, project, target,
can, could, may,
should, will, would or
similar expressions. Forward-looking statements should not be
unduly relied upon. They give our expectations about the future
and are not guarantees. Forward-looking statements speak only as
of the date they are made and we might not update them to
reflect changes that occur after the date they are made.
There are several factors, many beyond our control, which could
cause results to differ significantly from our expectations.
Factors such as bankruptcy, credit, market, operational,
liquidity, interest rate and other risks are described elsewhere
in this Annual Report. Any factor described in this Annual
Report could by itself, or together with one or more other
factors, adversely affect our business, results of operations or
financial condition. There are also other factors that we have
not described in this Annual Report that could cause results to
differ from our expectations.
None.
Our investment in real estate as of December 31, 2008
consisted of our interests in the properties in our Retail and
Other and Master Planned Communities segments. We generally own
the land underlying the properties in our Retail and Other
segment. However, at certain of the properties, all or part of
the underlying land is owned by a third party that leases the
land to us pursuant to a long-term ground lease. The leases
generally contain various purchase options and typically provide
us with a right of first refusal in the event of a proposed sale
of the property by the landlord. Information regarding
encumbrances on these properties is included in
Schedule III of this Annual Report.
The following tables set forth certain information regarding the
Consolidated Properties and the Unconsolidated Properties in our
Retail Portfolio as of December 31, 2008. These tables do
not reflect subsequent activity in 2009 including purchases,
sales or consolidations of Anchor stores. Anchors include all
stores with Gross Leasable Area greater than 30,000 square
feet.
Combined occupancy for Consolidated Properties and
Unconsolidated Properties as of December 31, 2008 was 92.5%.
Consolidated
Retail Properties
Table of Contents
20
Table of Contents
21
Table of Contents
22
Table of Contents
23
Table of Contents
24
Table of Contents
25
Table of Contents
Unconsolidated
Retail Properties
Table of Contents
27
Table of Contents
Anchors
Anchors have traditionally been a major component of a regional
shopping center. Anchors are frequently department stores whose
merchandise appeals to a broad range of shoppers. Anchors
generally either own their stores, the land under them and
adjacent parking areas, or enter into long-term leases at rates
that are generally lower than the rents charged to Mall Store
tenants. We also typically enter into long-term reciprocal
agreements with Anchors that provide for, among other things,
mall and Anchor operating covenants and Anchor expense
participation. The centers in the Retail Portfolio receive a
smaller percentage of their operating income from Anchors than
from Mall Stores. While the market share of many traditional
department store Anchors has been declining, strong Anchors
continue to play an important role in maintaining customer
traffic and making the centers in the Retail Portfolio desirable
locations for Mall Store tenants.
28
Table of Contents
The following table indicates the parent company of certain
Anchors and sets forth the number of stores and square feet
owned or leased by each Anchor in the Retail Portfolio as of
December 31, 2008.
Table of Contents
The following table indicates various lease expiration
information related to the minimum rent for our leases at
December 31, 2008. See Note 2 for our accounting
policies for revenue recognition from our tenant leases and
Note 8 for the future minimum rentals of our operating
leases.
See Item 1 Narrative Description of Business
for information regarding our other properties (office,
industrial and mixed-use buildings) and our Master Planned
Communities segment.
Neither the Company nor any of the Unconsolidated Real Estate
Affiliates is currently involved in any material pending legal
proceedings nor, to our knowledge, is any material legal
proceeding currently threatened against the Company or any of
the Unconsolidated Real Estate Affiliates.
No matters were submitted to a vote of GGPs stockholders
during the fourth quarter of 2008.
GGPs common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE) and is traded under the symbol
GGP. As of February 20, 2009, our common stock
was held by 3,304 stockholders of record.
The following table summarizes the quarterly high and low sales
prices per share of our common stock as reported by the NYSE.
Table of Contents
The following table summarizes quarterly distributions per share
of our common stock.
Payment of the quarterly dividend was suspended as of
October 1, 2008. There can be no assurance as to when
dividends will be reinstated.
There were no repurchases of our common stock during the quarter
ended December 31, 2008.
See Note 12 for information regarding redemptions of Common
Units for common stock and Note 10 for information
regarding shares of our common stock that may be issued under
our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2008.
Table of Contents
The following table sets forth selected financial data which is
derived from, and should be read in conjunction with, the
Consolidated Financial Statements and the related Notes and
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations contained in this Annual Report.
Table of Contents
Consistent with real estate industry and investment community
practices, we use FFO as a supplemental measure of our operating
performance. The National Association of Real Estate Investment
Trusts (NAREIT) defines FFO as net income (loss)
(computed in accordance with GAAP), excluding gains or losses
from cumulative effects of accounting changes, extraordinary
items and sales of operating rental properties, plus real estate
related depreciation and amortization and after adjustments for
the preceding items in our unconsolidated partnerships and joint
ventures.
We consider FFO a useful supplemental measure for equity REITs
and a complement to GAAP measures because it facilitates an
understanding of the operating performance of our properties.
FFO does not include real estate depreciation and amortization
required by GAAP since these amounts are computed to allocate
the cost of a property over its useful life. Since values for
well-maintained real estate assets have historically increased
or decreased based upon prevailing market conditions, we believe
that FFO provides investors with a clearer view of our operating
performance, particularly with respect to our rental properties.
In order to provide a better understanding of the relationship
between FFO and net income available to common stockholders, a
reconciliation of FFO to net income available to common
stockholders has been provided. FFO does not represent cash flow
from operations as defined by GAAP, should not be considered as
an alternative to GAAP net income and is not necessarily
indicative of cash available to fund cash requirements.
33
Table of Contents
Reconciliation
of FFO to Net Income Available to Common Stockholders
All references to numbered Notes are to specific footnotes to
our Consolidated Financial Statements included in this Annual
Report and which descriptions are incorporated into the
applicable response by reference. The following discussion
should be read in conjunction with such Consolidated Financial
Statements and related Notes, especially our discussion of
liquidity and going concern considerations in Note 1.
Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations (MD&A) have the same
meanings as in such Notes. See also the Glossary at the end of
this Item 7 for definitions of selected terms used in this
Annual Report.
GGP is the owner or manager of over 200 regional shopping malls
in 44 states and the owner of five master planned
communities. We operate in two reportable business segments:
Retail and Other and Master Planned Communities.
Since the third quarter of 2008, liquidity has been our primary
issue. As of December 31, 2008, we had approximately
$169 million of cash on hand. As of February 26, 2009,
we have $1.18 billion in past due debt and an additional
$4.09 billion of debt that could be accelerated by our
lenders as discussed below.
The $900 million mortgage loans secured by our Fashion Show
and The Shoppes at the Palazzo shopping centers (the
Fashion Show/Palazzo Loans) matured on
November 28, 2008. As we were unable to extend, repay or
refinance these loans, on December 16, 2008, we entered
into forbearance and waiver agreements with respect to these
loan agreements, which expired on February 12, 2009. As of
the date of this report we are in default with respect to these
loans, but the lenders have not commenced foreclosure
proceedings with respect to these properties. Additional past
due loans include the $225 million Short Term Secured Loan
which matured on February 1, 2009 and the
$57.3 million mortgage loan secured by Chico Mall. The
$95 million mortgage loan secured by the Oakwood Center,
with an original scheduled maturity date of February 9,
2009, was extended to March 16, 2009.
The maturity date of each of the 2006 Credit Facility and the
Secured Portfolio Facility could be accelerated by our lenders.
As a result of the maturity of the Fashion Show/Palazzo Loans,
we entered into forbearance agreements in December 2008 relating
to each of the 2006 Credit Facility and Secured Portfolio
Facility.
Table of Contents
Pursuant and subject to the terms of the forbearance agreement
related to the 2006 Credit Facility, the lenders agreed to waive
certain identified events of default under the 2006 Credit
Facility and forbear from exercising certain of the
lenders default related rights and remedies with respect
to such identified defaults until January 30, 2009. These
defaults included, among others, the failure to timely repay the
Fashion Show/Palazzo Loans. Without acknowledging the existence
or validity of the identified defaults, we agreed that, during
the forbearance period, without the consent of the lenders
required under the 2006 Credit Facility and subject to certain
ordinary course of business exceptions, we would not
enter into any transaction that would result in a change in
control, incur any indebtedness, dispose of any assets or issue
any capital stock for other than fair market value, make any
redemption or restricted payment, purchase any subordinated
debt, or amend the CSA. In addition, we agreed that investments
in TRCLP and its subsidiaries would not be made by non-TRCLP
subsidiaries and their other subsidiaries, subject to certain
ordinary course of business exceptions. We also agreed that
certain proceeds received in connection with financings or
capital transactions would be retained by the Company subsidiary
receiving such proceeds. Finally, the forbearance agreement
modified the 2006 Credit Facility to eliminate the obligation of
the lenders to provide additional revolving credit borrowings,
letters of credit and the option to extend the term of the 2006
Credit Facility.
On January 30, 2009, we amended and restated the
forbearance agreement relating to the 2006 Credit Facility.
Pursuant and subject to the terms of the amended and restated
forbearance agreement, the lenders agreed to extend the period
during which they would forbear from exercising certain of their
default related rights and remedies with respect to certain
identified defaults from January 30, 2009 to March 15,
2009. Without acknowledging or confirming the existence or
occurrence of the identified defaults, we agreed to extend the
covenants and restrictions contained in the original forbearance
agreement and also agreed to certain additional covenants during
the extended forbearance period. Certain termination events were
added to the forbearance agreement, including foreclosure on
certain potential mechanics liens prior to March 15, 2009
and certain cross defaults in respect of six loan agreements
relating to the mortgage loans secured by each of the Oakwood,
the Fashion Show/Palazzo and Jordan Creek shopping centers as
well as certain additional portfolios of properties.
Pursuant and subject to the terms of the forbearance agreement
related to the Secured Portfolio Facility, the lenders agreed to
waive certain identified events of default under the Secured
Portfolio Facility and forbear from exercising certain of the
lenders default related rights and remedies with respect
to such identified defaults until January 30, 2009. These
defaults included, among others, the failure to timely repay the
Fashion Show/Palazzo Loans. On January 30, 2009, we amended
and restated the forbearance agreement relating to the Secured
Portfolio Facility. Pursuant and subject to the terms of the
amended and restated forbearance agreement, the lenders agreed
to waive certain identified events of default under the Secured
Portfolio Facility and agreed to extend the period during which
they would forbear from exercising certain of their default
related rights and remedies with respect to certain identified
defaults from January 30, 2009 to March 15, 2009. We
did not acknowledge the existence or validity of the identified
defaults.
As a condition to the lenders agreeing to enter into the
forbearance agreements described above, we agreed to pay the
lenders certain fees and expenses, including an extension fee to
the lenders equal to five (5) basis points of the
outstanding loan balance under the 2006 Credit Facility and
Secured Portfolio Facility in connection with the amendment and
restatement of the forbearance agreements relating to such loan
facilities.
The expiration of the Fashion Show/Palazzo loan forbearance
agreements permitted the lenders under our 2006 Credit Facility
and Secured Portfolio Facility to elect to terminate the
forbearance agreements related to those loan facilities.
However, as of February 26, 2009, we have not received notice of
any such termination, which is required under the terms of these
forbearance agreements.
In addition, we have approximately $1.60 billion of
consolidated property-specific mortgage loans scheduled to
mature in the remainder of 2009. Finally, we have significant
accounts payable and liens on our assets, and the imposition of
additional liens may occur.
A total of $595 million of unsecured bonds issued by TRCLP
are scheduled to mature in March and April 2009. Failure to pay
these bonds at maturity, or a default under certain of our other
debt, would constitute a default under these and other unsecured
bonds issued by TRCLP having an aggregate outstanding balance of
$2.25 billion as of December 31, 2008.
Table of Contents
We do not have, and will not have, sufficient liquidity to make
the principal payments on maturing or accelerated loans or pay
our past due payables. We will not have sufficient liquidity to
repay any outstanding loans and other obligations unless we are
able to refinance, restructure, amend or otherwise replace the
Fashion Show/Palazzo Loans, 2006 Credit Facility, Secured
Portfolio Facility, other mortgage loans maturing in 2009 and
the unsecured bonds issued by TRCLP which are due in 2009.
Our liquidity is also dependent on cash flows from operations,
which are affected by the severe weakening of the economy. The
downturn in the domestic retail market has resulted in reduced
tenant sales and increased tenant bankruptcies, which in turn
affects our ability to generate rental revenue. In addition, the
rapid and deep deterioration of the housing market, with new
housing starts currently at a fifty year low, negatively affects
our ability to generate income through the sale of residential
land in our master planned communities. See Risk
Factors Business Risks for a further
discussion of how current economic conditions affect our
business.
We have undertaken a review of all strategic and financing
alternatives available to the Company. We have a continuing
dialogue with our syndicates of lenders for our 2006 Credit
Facility and Secured Portfolio Facility. We have also initiated
conversations with the holders of the TRLCP bonds. Our ability
to continue as a going concern is dependent upon our ability to
refinance, extend or otherwise restructure our debt, and there
can be no assurance that we will be able to do so. We have
retained legal and financial advisors to help us implement a
restructuring plan. Any such restructuring may be required to
occur under court supervision pursuant to a voluntary bankruptcy
filing under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
See Risk FactorBankruptcy Risks. Our
independent auditors have included an explanatory paragraph in
their report expressing substantial doubt as to our ability to
continue as a going concern.
The average closing price of our common stock has been less
than $1.00 over a consecutive 30
trading-day
period. As a result, we may be notified by the NYSE that we fail
to meet the criteria for continued listing on the exchange. We
must respond to the NYSE within ten business days of receipt of
any such notice to inform the exchange that we intend to cure
this deficiency, and generally would have six months from the
receipt of any such notice to bring our stock price and average
30
trading-day
average stock price above $1.00. See Risk Factors.
Based on the results of our evaluations for impairment
(Note 2), we recognized impairment charges of
$7.8 million in the third quarter of 2008 related to our
Century Plaza (Birmingham, Alabama) operating property and
$4.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2008 related to our
SouthShore Mall (Aberdeen, Washington) operating property. We
also recognized impairment charges of $31.7 million
throughout 2008 related to the write down of various
pre-development costs that were determined to be non-recoverable
due to the related projects being terminated. We recognized
similar impairment charges for pre-development projects in the
amount of $2.9 million in 2007 and $4.3 million in
2006. In addition, in the fourth quarter of 2008, Based on the
most current information available to us, we recognized an
impairment charge related to allocated goodwill of
$32.8 million. A 50 basis point increase in the
capitalization rates used to estimate fair value would have
resulted in a $53.6 million increase in the goodwill
impairment recognized.
In the fourth quarter of 2008 we suspended our cash dividend and
halted or slowed nearly all development and redevelopment
projects other than those that were substantially complete,
could not be deferred as a result of contractual commitments,
and joint venture projects. During 2008, we systematically
engaged in cost reduction or efficiency programs, and reduced
our workforce from 2007 levels by over 20%.
During 2008, in four separate transactions, we sold three office
buildings and two office parks consisting of eight office
buildings (Note 4) for an aggregate purchase price of
approximately $145 million, including debt assumed of
approximately $84 million, resulting in an aggregate gain
of $46.0 million.
Our primary business is owning, managing, leasing and developing
retail rental property, primarily shopping centers. The majority
of our properties are located in the United States, but we also
have retail rental property operations and property management
activities (through unconsolidated joint ventures) in Brazil and
Turkey.
We provide
on-site
management and other services to substantially all of our
properties, including properties which we own through joint
venture arrangements and which are unconsolidated for GAAP
purposes. Our management
Table of Contents
operating philosophies and strategies are generally the same
whether the properties are consolidated or unconsolidated. As a
result, we believe that financial information and operating
statistics with respect to all properties, both consolidated and
unconsolidated, provide important insights into our operating
results. Collectively, we refer to our Consolidated and
Unconsolidated Properties as our Company Portfolio
and the retail portion of the Company Portfolio as the
Retail Company Portfolio.
We seek to increase cash flow and real estate net operating
income of our retail and office rental properties through
proactive property management and leasing (including tenant
remerchandising) and operating cost reductions. Some of the
actions that we take to increase productivity include changing
the tenant mix, adding vendor carts or kiosks and, subject to
capital constraints, renovations of centers.
We believe that the most significant operating factor affecting
incremental cash flow and real estate net operating income is
increased rents earned from tenants at our properties. These
rental revenue increases are primarily achieved by:
The following table summarizes selected operating statistics.
Unless noted, all information is as of December 31, 2008.
Table of Contents
The expansion and renovation of a property may also result in
increased cash flows and operating income as a result of
increased customer traffic, trade area penetration and improved
competitive position of the property. As of December 31,
2008, we had the following five major approved redevelopment
projects underway that are expected to open in 2009 through 2011
(see also Item 7):
We also develop retail centers from the
ground-up.
In March 2008, we opened The Shoppes at River Crossing in Macon,
Georgia. This 750,600 square foot open-air center is
anchored by Dillards and Belk. In October 2008, we opened
Phase II of the Shops at La Cantera in
San Antonio, Texas, a 300,000 square foot open-air
shopping, dining and entertainment center. Also, during 2008 we
opened the Nordstrom expansion at Ala Moana Center in Honolulu,
Hawaii and Shopping Caxias in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
As of December 31, 2008, we had the following two major new
retail development projects currently under construction, both
of which are expected to open in 2009:
Total expenditures (including our share of the Unconsolidated
Real Estate Affiliates) for the projects listed above continuing
redevelopment and new development projects were
$478.7 million as of December 31, 2008. Completion of
these projects under construction is subject to the availability
of funds. See our further discussion in the Liquidity and
Capital Resources section below.
Our Master Planned Communities business consists of the
development and sale of residential and commercial land,
primarily in large-scale projects in and around Columbia,
Maryland; Houston, Texas; and Summerlin, Nevada. Residential
sales include standard, custom and high density (i.e.
condominium, town homes and apartments) parcels. Standard
residential lots are designated for detached and attached
single- and multi-family homes, ranging from entry-level to
luxury homes. At our Summerlin project, we have further
designated certain residential parcels as custom lots as their
premium price reflects their larger size and other
distinguishing features including gated communities, golf course
access and higher elevations. Commercial sales include parcels
designated for retail, office, services and other for-profit
activities, as well as those parcels designated for use by
government, schools and other not-for-profit entities.
Revenues are derived primarily from the sale of finished lots,
including infrastructure and amenities, and undeveloped property
to both residential and commercial developers. Additional
revenues are earned through participations with builders in
their sales of finished homes to homebuyers. Revenues and net
operating income are affected by such factors as the
availability to purchasers of construction and permanent
mortgage financing at acceptable interest rates, consumer and
business confidences, regional economic conditions in the areas
surrounding the projects, levels of homebuilder inventory, other
factors affecting the homebuilder business and sales of
residential properties generally, availability of saleable land
for particular uses and our decisions to sell, develop or retain
land.
Table of Contents
Our primary strategy in this segment is to develop and sell land
in a manner that increases the value of the remaining land to be
developed and sold and to provide current cash flows. Our Master
Planned Communities projects are owned by taxable REIT
subsidiaries and, as a result, are subject to income taxes. Cash
requirements to meet federal income tax requirements will
increase in future years as we exhaust certain net loss carry
forwards and as certain master planned community developments
are completed for tax purposes and, as a result, previously
deferred taxes must be paid. Such cash requirements could be
significant. Additionally, revenues from the sale of land at
Summerlin are subject to the Contingent Stock Agreement as more
fully described in Note 14.
The pace of land sales for standard residential lots has
declined in recent periods. We expect diminished demand for
residential land to continue.
As of December 31, 2008, there have been a cumulative
17 unit sales at our 215 unit Nouvelle at Natick
residential condominium project. As the threshold for profit
recognition on such sales has not yet been achieved, the
$13.1 million of sales revenue received to date has been
deferred and has been reflected within accounts payable, accrued
expenses and other liabilities (Note 11). When such
thresholds are achieved, the deferred revenue, and the related
costs of units sold, will be reflected on the percentage of
completion method within our master planned community segment.
Based on the results of our evaluations for impairment
(Note 2), we recognized an impairment charge of
$40.3 million in the third quarter of 2008 related to our
residential condominium project, Nouvelle at Natick
(Massachusetts). We also recorded an impairment charge of
$127.6 million in 2007 related to our Columbia and Fairwood
properties in our master planned communities segment.
On December 19, 2008, we entered into a settlement and
mutual release agreement related to the Glendale Matter
(Note 1) in exchange for a settlement payment of
$48.0 million, which was paid from the appellate bond cash
collateral amounts in January 2009.
During 2008, we recorded total compensation expense related to
certain officer loans (Note 2) by an affiliate of
certain Bucksbaum family trusts. We recorded the cumulative
correction of the compensation expense of approximately
$15 million in the fourth quarter of 2008.
In 2008, we reached final settlements with the remaining
insurance carriers related to our claim for incurred hurricane
and/or
vandalism damage in Louisiana. The settlement was for the third
and final layer of insurance coverage pursuant to which we
received an additional $38 million of insurance proceeds,
of which approximately $12 million was considered business
interruption revenue or recovery of previously incurred expenses
and approximately $26 million was considered recovery of
property damage costs.
Although we have a year-long temporary leasing program,
occupancies for short-term tenants and, therefore, rental income
recognized, are higher during the second half of the year. In
addition, the majority of our tenants have December or January
lease years for purposes of calculating annual overage rent
amounts. Accordingly, overage rent thresholds are most commonly
achieved in the fourth quarter. As a result, revenue production
is generally highest in the fourth quarter of each year.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America requires management to make
estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of
the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues
and expenses during the reporting period. For example,
significant estimates and assumptions have been made with
respect to: fair value of assets for measuring impairment of
operating properties, development properties, joint ventures and
goodwill; useful lives of assets; capitalization of development
and leasing costs; provision for income taxes; recoverable
amounts of receivables and deferred taxes; initial valuations
and related amortization periods of deferred costs and
Table of Contents
intangibles, particularly with respect to property acquisitions;
and cost ratios and completion percentages used for land sales.
Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Critical accounting policies are those that are both significant
to the overall presentation of our financial condition and
results of operations and require management to make difficult,
complex or subjective judgments. Our critical accounting
policies are those applicable to the following:
Impairment We review our real estate assets,
which include operating properties, developments in progress and
investment land and land held for development and sale, and
goodwill for potential impairment indicators, based on the
policies presented below, whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be
recoverable. Due to the tight credit markets, the recent and
continuing decline in our market capitalization and in the fair
value of our debt securities, the uncertain economic
environment, as well as other uncertainties, we can provide no
assurance that material impairment charges with respect to
operating properties, Unconsolidated Real Estate Affiliates,
construction in progress, property held for development and sale
or goodwill will not occur in future periods. Our test for
impairment at December 31, 2008 was based on the most
current information available to us, and if the conditions
mentioned above deteriorate, or if our plans regarding our
assets change, it could result in additional impairment charges
in the future. Certain of our properties had fair values less
than their carrying amounts. However, based on the
companys plans with respect to those properties, we
believe that the carrying amounts are recoverable and therefore
no additional impairments were taken. Accordingly, we will
continue to monitor circumstances and events in future periods
to determine whether additional impairments are warranted.
Operating properties and properties under
development We review our real estate assets,
including investment land, land held for development and sale
and developments in progress, for potential impairment
indicators whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate
that the carrying value may not be recoverable. Impairment
indicators for our retail and other segment are assessed
separately for each property and include, but are not limited
to, significant decreases in real estate property net operating
income and occupancy percentages. Impairment indicators for our
Master Planned Communities segment are assessed separately for
each community and include, but are not limited to, significant
decreases in sales pace or average selling prices, significant
increases in expected land development and construction costs or
cancellation rates, and projected losses on expected future
sales. Impairment indicators for pre-development costs, which
are typically costs incurred during the beginning stages of a
potential development, and developments in progress are assessed
by project and include, but are not limited to, significant
changes in projected completion dates, revenues or cash flows,
development costs, market factors and sustainability of
development projects. If an indicator of potential impairment
exists, the asset is tested for recoverability by comparing its
carrying value to the estimated future undiscounted operating
cash flow. A real estate asset is considered to be impaired when
its carrying value cannot be recovered through estimated future
undiscounted cash flows. To the extent an impairment has
occurred, the excess of the carrying value of the asset over its
estimated fair value is expensed to operations. Certain of our
properties had fair values less than their carrying amounts.
However, based on the Companys plans with respect to those
properties, we believe that the carrying amounts are
recoverable; and therefore under applicable GAAP guidance, no
impairments were taken.
Investment in Unconsolidated Real Estate
Affiliates We review our investment in the
Unconsolidated Real Estate Affiliates for a series of operating
losses of an investee or other factors may indicate that a
decrease in value of our investment in the Unconsolidated Real
Estate Affiliates has occurred which is other-than-temporary.
The investment in each of the Unconsolidated Real Estate
Affiliates is evaluated periodically and as deemed necessary for
recoverability and valuation declines that are other than
temporary. Accordingly, in addition to the property-specific
impairment analysis that we perform on the investment properties
owned by such joint ventures (as part of our operating
properties and properties under development impairment process
described above), we also consider the ownership and
distribution preferences and limitations and rights to sell and
repurchase of our ownership interests.
Goodwill We review our goodwill for impairment
annually or more frequently if events or changes in
circumstances indicate that the asset might be impaired. Since
each individual rental property or each operating property is an
operating segment and considered a reporting unit, we perform
this test by first comparing the estimated fair value of each
property with our book value of the property, including, if
applicable, its allocated portion of
Table of Contents
aggregate goodwill. We assess fair value based on estimated cash
flow projections that utilize appropriate discount and
capitalization rates and available market information. Estimates
of future cash flows are based on a number of factors including
the historical operating results, known trends, and
market/economic conditions. If the book value of a property,
including its goodwill, exceeds its estimated fair value, the
second step of the goodwill impairment test is performed to
measure the amount of impairment loss, if any. In this second
step, if the implied fair value of goodwill is less than the
book value of goodwill, then an impairment charge would be
recorded.
Recoverable amounts of receivables and deferred tax
assets We make periodic assessments of the
collectibility of receivables (including those resulting from
the difference between rental revenue recognized and rents
currently due from tenants) and the recoverability of deferred
taxes based on a specific review of the risk of loss on specific
accounts or amounts. The receivable analysis places particular
emphasis on past-due accounts and considers the nature and age
of the receivables, the payment history and financial condition
of the payee, the basis for any disputes or negotiations with
the payee and other information which may impact collectibility.
For straight-line rents receivable, the analysis considers the
probability of collection of the unbilled deferred rent
receivable given our experience regarding such amounts. For
deferred tax assets, an assessment of the recoverability of the
tax asset considers the current expiration periods of the prior
net operating loss carryforwards or other asset and the
estimated future taxable income of our taxable REIT
subsidiaries. At December 31, 2008, we also considered our
bankruptcy risks and liquidity risks described above in
assessing the recoverability of our deferred tax assets. The
resulting estimates of any allowance or reserve related to the
recovery of these items is subject to revision as these factors
change and is sensitive to the effects of economic and market
conditions on such payees and our taxable REIT subsidiaries.
Capitalization of development and leasing
costs We capitalize the costs of development and
leasing activities of our properties. These costs are incurred
both at the property location and at the regional and corporate
office levels. The amount of capitalization depends, in part, on
the identification and justifiable allocation of certain
activities to specific projects and leases. Differences in
methodologies of cost identification and documentation, as well
as differing assumptions as to the time incurred on projects,
can yield significant differences in the amounts capitalized
and, as a result, the amount of depreciation recognized.
Revenue recognition and related
matters Minimum rent revenues are recognized on a
straight-lined basis over the terms of the related leases.
Minimum rent revenues also include amounts collected from
tenants to allow the termination of their leases prior to their
scheduled termination dates and accretion related to above and
below-market tenant leases on acquired properties. Straight-line
rents receivable represents the current net cumulative rents
recognized prior to when billed and collectible as provided by
the terms of the leases. Overage rents are recognized on an
accrual basis once tenant sales exceed contractual tenant lease
thresholds. Recoveries from tenants are established in the
leases or computed based upon a formula related to real estate
taxes, insurance and other shopping center operating expenses
and are generally recognized as revenues in the period the
related costs are incurred.
Revenues from land sales are recognized using the full accrual
method provided that various criteria relating to the terms of
the transactions and our subsequent involvement with the land
sold are met. Revenues relating to transactions that do not meet
the established criteria are deferred and recognized when the
criteria are met or using the installment or cost recovery
methods, as appropriate in the circumstances. For land sale
transactions in which we are required to perform additional
services and incur significant costs after title has passed,
revenues and cost of sales are recognized on a percentage of
completion basis.
Cost ratios for land sales are determined as a specified
percentage of land sales revenues recognized for each master
planned community project. The cost ratios used are based on
actual costs incurred and estimates of development costs and
sales revenues for completion of each project. The ratios are
reviewed regularly and revised for changes in sales and cost
estimates or development plans. Significant changes in these
estimates or development plans, whether due to changes in market
conditions or other factors, could result in changes to the cost
ratio used for a specific project. The specific identification
method is used to determine cost of sales for certain parcels of
land, including acquired parcels we do not intend to develop or
for which development is complete at the date of acquisition.
Table of Contents
Our revenues are primarily received from tenants in the form of
fixed minimum rents, overage rents and recoveries of operating
expenses. We have presented the following discussion of our
results of operations on a segment basis under the proportionate
share method. Under the proportionate share method, our share of
the revenues and expenses of the Unconsolidated Properties are
combined with the revenues and expenses of the Consolidated
Properties. Other revenues are increased by the real estate net
operating income of discontinued operations and are reduced by
our consolidated minority interest venturers share of real
estate net operating income. See Note 16 for additional
information including reconciliations of our segment basis
results to GAAP basis results. The Homart I acquisition in July
2007 changes the consolidated revenue and expense items in our
consolidated financial statements, as the acquisition resulted
in the consolidation of the operations of the properties
acquired. Historically, the Companys share of such
operations was reflected as equity in income of Unconsolidated
Real Estate Affiliates. Under the proportionate share method,
segment operations also were significantly impacted by the
Homart I acquisition, as an additional 50% share of the
operations of the properties is included in the Retail and Other
segment results after the purchase date of July 2007.
Accordingly, discussion of the operational results below has
been limited to only those elements of operating trends that
were not a function of the Homart I acquisition.
Year
Ended December 31, 2008 and 2007
The following table compares major revenue and expense items:
Higher effective rents contributed to the increase in minimum
rents in 2008, as a result of significant increases at Ala Moana
Center, Otay Ranch Town Center, West Oaks Mall, Tysons Galleria
and The Grand Canal Shoppes. Minimum rents also increased as a
result of the acquisition of The Shoppes at The Palazzo and the
completion of the development at The Shops at Fallen Timbers and
the redevelopment at Natick Collection. In addition, termination
income increased, which was $41.8 million for 2008 compared
to $35.4 million for 2007. Additionally, the increase was
partially offset by the reduction in rent due to the sale of
three office buildings and two office parks in 2008.
Certain of our leases include both a base rent component and a
component which requires tenants to pay amounts related to all,
or substantially all, of their share of real estate taxes and
certain property operating expenses, including common area
maintenance and insurance. The portion of the tenant rent from
these leases attributable to real estate tax and operating
expense recoveries are recorded as tenant recoveries. The
increase in tenant recoveries in 2008 is primarily attributable
to the increased GLA in 2008 as a result of the acquisition of
The Shoppes at The
Table of Contents
Palazzo, the completion of the development at The Shops at
Fallen Timbers and the redevelopment at Natick Collection.
The decrease in overage rent is primarily due to a decrease in
comparable tenant sales as a result of the current challenging
economic environment impacting many of our tenants throughout
our portfolio of properties, including The Grand Canal Shoppes,
South Street Seaport, Oakbrook Mall and Tysons Galleria. These
decreases were partially offset by increases resulting from the
acquisition of The Shoppes at The Palazzo and the completion of
the redevelopment at Natick Collection.
Other revenues include all other property revenues including
vending, parking, sponsorship and advertising revenues, less NOI
of minority interests in consolidated joint ventures. The
decrease in other revenues is primarily attributable to The
Woodlands Partnership which sold various office buildings and
other properties during 2007 resulting in lower recorded amounts
of other revenues in 2008 compared to 2007.
Real estate taxes increased in 2008 partially due to increases
resulting from the acquisition of The Shoppes at The Palazzo and
the completion of the redevelopment at Natick Collection.
Repairs and maintenance increased in 2008 primarily due to
increased hurricane related repair expenses (a portion of which
were recoverable under the terms of our insurance policies) at
various properties as well as higher costs for contracted
cleaning services, resulting from higher costs of benefits. The
acquisition of The Shoppes at The Palazzo and the completion of
the development of The Shops at Fallen Timbers and the
completion of the redevelopment at Natick Collection also
contributed to the increase.
Marketing expenses decreased in 2008 across the Company
Portfolio as the result of continued company-wide efforts to
consolidate marketing functions and reduce advertising spending.
This decrease was partially offset by increased marketing
expenditures at The Shoppes at The Palazzo.
The increase in provision for doubtful accounts is primarily due
a reduction of the provision in 2007 related to the collection
of a portion of the hurricane insurance settlement for Oakwood
Center in 2007.
The decrease in land sales and land sales operations and NOI in
2008 was the result of a significant reduction in sales volume
and lower achieved margins at our Summerlin, Maryland,
Bridgeland and The Woodlands residential communities. In 2008,
we sold 272.5 residential acres compared to 409.1 acres in
2007. We sold 84.6 acres of commercial lots in 2008
compared to 163.2 acres in 2007. The provision for
impairment recorded at Nouvelle at Natick reflects the continued
weak demand and the likely extension of the period required to
complete all unit sales at this residential condominium project.
Sales of condominium units commenced in the fourth quarter 2008.
As of December 31, 2008, the master planned communities
have 18,040 remaining saleable acres.
Table of Contents
Changes in consolidated tenant rents (which includes minimum
rents, tenant recoveries and overage rents), land sales,
property operating expenses (which includes real estate taxes,
repairs and maintenance, marketing, other property operating
costs and provision for doubtful accounts) and land sales
operations were attributable to the same items discussed above
in our segment basis results, excluding those items related to
our Unconsolidated Properties.
Management and other fees, property management and other costs
and general and administrative in the aggregate represent our
costs of doing business and are generally not direct
property-related costs. The decrease in management and other
fees in 2008 were primarily due to lower development fees as
projects are completed and leasing commissions resulting from
current market conditions.
The decrease in property management and other costs in 2008 were
primarily due to lower leasing commissions and lower overall
management costs, including bonus expense, stock compensation
expense and travel expense primarily related to a reduction in
personnel and other cost reduction efforts.
The increase in general and administrative in 2008 is primarily
due to increased professional fees for restructuring and
advisory services and the $15.4 million of additional deemed,
non-cash executive compensation expense related to certain
senior officer loans (Note 2). These increases in general and
administrative were partially offset by the decrease in our
allocated share of legal fees related to the Homart
II Glendale Matter settlement (below and
Note 1).
Based on the results of our evaluations for impairment
(Note 2), we recognized impairment charges of
$7.8 million in the third quarter of 2008 related to our
Century Plaza (Birmingham, Alabama) operating property and
$4.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2008 related to our
Southshore Mall (Aberdeen, Washington) operating property. We
also recognized impairment charges of $31.7 million
throughout 2008 related to the write down of various
pre-development costs that were determined to be non-recoverable
due to the related projects being terminated which is the result
of the current depressed retail real estate market and our
liquidity situation. We recognized similar impairment charges
for pre-development projects in the amount of $2.9 million
in 2007. In addition, in the fourth quarter 2008, we recognized
an impairment charge related to allocated goodwill of
$32.8 million.
The decrease in litigation provision is due to the settlement
and mutual release agreement with Caruso Affiliated Holdings LLC
in December 2008 (Note 1) that released the defendants
from all past, present and future claims related to the Homart
II Glendale Matter in exchange for a settlement
payment of $48.0 million, which was paid from the appellate
bond cash collateral amounts in January 2009. GGP will not be
reimbursed for any portion of this
Table of Contents
payment by its 50% joint venture partner in GGP/Homart II, and
we will reimburse $5.5 million of costs to such joint
venture partner in connection with the settlement. Accordingly,
in December 2008, we adjusted our liability for the full
judgment amount of $89.4 million to $48 million and
reversed legal fees incurred by GGP/Homart II of
$14.2 million that were previously recorded at 100% by GGP
and post-judgment related interest expense of $7.0 million.
The net impact of these items related to the settlement is a
credit of $57.1 million reflected in litigation provision
in our consolidated financial statements.
The increase in depreciation and amortization is primarily due
to a cumulative adjustment to the useful lives of certain assets
in 2007.
The increase in interest expense is primarily due to higher debt
balances at of December 31, 2008 compared to
December 31, 2007, that was primarily the result of the new
multi property financing
and/or
re-financings in 2008. We also entered into extensions of the
loans at Fashion Show, The Shoppes at the Palazzo and Tucson in
the fourth quarter of 2008. The financing activity in the fourth
quarter of 2008 resulted in significant increases in interest
rates and loan fees. In addition, the financing of the Secured
Portfolio Facility also increased interest expense in 2008.
Lastly, the increase in interest expense was also due to a
decrease in the amount of capitalized interest as a result of
decreased development spending in 2008 compared to 2007. See
Liquidity and Capital Resources for information regarding 2008
financing activity and Item 7A, Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk, for additional
information regarding the potential impact of future internet
rate increases.
The increase in provision for (benefit from) income taxes in
2008 was primarily attributable to tax benefit received in 2007
related to an internal restructuring of certain of our operating
properties that were previously owned by TRS and the tax benefit
related to the provision for impairment at our master planned
communities in 2007.
The decrease in equity in income of unconsolidated real estate
affiliates is primarily due to a significant decrease in our
share of income related to GGP/Homart II in 2008, as a
result of the settlement of the Glendale matter as we reflect
our 50% share of legal costs ($7.1 million) that had
previously been recorded at 100% as general and administrative
in our consolidated financial statements. In addition, our share
of income related to The Woodlands joint ventures decreased due
to the gain on sale of the Marriott Hotel in 2007. Lastly, a
change in estimate of the useful life for certain intangible
assets resulted in lower depreciation expense across the TRCLP
joint ventures in 2007.
The discontinued operations, net of minority
interest gains on dispositions represents the gains
from the sale of three office buildings and two office parks, as
discussed above, in 2008.
Table of Contents
Year
Ended December 31, 2007 and 2006
The following table compares major revenue and expense items:
Higher effective rents, retail center occupancy and leased area
across the portfolio contributed to the increase in minimum
rents in 2007. Retail center occupancy, excluding international
properties and properties in redevelopment, was 93.8% at
December 31, 2007 as compared to 93.6% at December 31,
2006. Mall and freestanding GLA for the retail properties,
excluding international properties and properties in
redevelopment, increased to 62.8 million square feet at
December 31, 2007 compared to 61.9 million square feet
at December 31, 2006.
Our leases include both a base rent component and a component
which requires tenants to pay amounts related to all, or
substantially all, of their share of real estate taxes and
certain property operating expenses, including common area
maintenance and insurance. The portion of these leases
attributable to real estate tax and operating expense recoveries
are recorded as Tenant recoveries.
The increase in overage rents is primarily attributable to The
Grand Canal Shoppes as a result of increased tenant sales in
2007 compared to 2006. Increased tenant sales in 2007 across the
portfolio contributed to the remaining increase.
Other revenues include all other property revenues including
vending, parking, sponsorship and advertising revenues, less NOI
of minority interests in consolidated joint ventures. The
increase in 2007 is primarily due to an increase in advertising
revenue across the portfolio and lower allocations to minority
interests as a result of certain acquisitions of our venture
partners ownership shares since 2006.
Real estate taxes increased in 2007 as compared to 2006
partially due to a $1.6 million increase at Glenbrook
Square resulting from a higher tax assessment and a
$0.9 million increase at Stonestown Galleria as the result
of revised prior period assessments.
Other property operating costs increased in 2007 as compared to
2006 due to lower insurance costs in 2006. Other property
operating expenses also increased at Ala Moana Center, The Grand
Canal Shoppes, Oakwood Center and Riverwalk Marketplace. Lastly,
expenses increased at our Brazil joint venture primarily as a
result of acquisitions.
The provision for doubtful accounts decreased in 2007 primarily
due to the recognition of $13.4 million of business
interruption insurance recoveries at Oakwood Center and
Riverwalk Marketplace, which offset previously reserved tenant
rents.
Table of Contents
Land sales declined for 2007, predominantly due to significant
reductions at our Summerlin community.
Based on the results of our evaluations for impairment
(Note 2), we recognized a non-cash impairment charge of
$127.6 million in 2007 related to our Columbia and Fairwood
communities located in Maryland.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||