UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
| (Mark One) | |
ý |
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the year ended December 31, 2002 |
|
o |
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
Commission file number 0-20449 |
|
PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
| Maryland | 33-0628740 | |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 300, San Diego, California 92128
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 858-675-9400
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Common Stock $.0001 Par Value
Securities
registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
83/4% Series A Cumulative Redeemable
Preferred Stock $.0001 Par Value
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 ý or 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 registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ý
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes ý No o
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by nonaffiliates of the registrant as of June 28, 2002 was $84,431,744 based on the last reported sale price of $3.85 per share on June 28, 2002.
The number of outstanding shares of the registrant's common stock as of March 14, 2003 was 36,982,415.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: Certain information called for by Part III of the Form 10-K will either be filed with the Commission under Regulation 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or by amendment to this Form 10-K, in either case on or before April 30, 2003.
PRICE LEGACY CORPORATION
Annual Report on Form 10-K
For the Year Ended December 31, 2002
| PART I | 4 | ||||||
| ITEM 1 | | BUSINESS | 4 | ||||
| ITEM 2 | | PROPERTIES | 16 | ||||
| ITEM 3 | | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | 21 | ||||
| ITEM 4 | | SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS | 22 | ||||
| PART II | 22 | ||||||
| ITEM 5 | | MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS | 22 | ||||
| ITEM 6 | | SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA | 23 | ||||
| ITEM 7 | | MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS | 24 | ||||
| ITEM 7A. | | QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK | 37 | ||||
| ITEM 8 | | FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA | 38 | ||||
| ITEM 9 | | CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE | 71 | ||||
| PART III | 71 | ||||||
| ITEM 10 | | DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT | 71 | ||||
| ITEM 11 | | EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION | 71 | ||||
| ITEM 12 | | SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS | 71 | ||||
| ITEM 13 | | CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS | 71 | ||||
| ITEM 14 | | CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES | 71 | ||||
| PART IV | 72 | ||||||
| ITEM 15 | | EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES, AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K | 72 | ||||
2
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains certain "forward-looking" statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 which provides a "safe harbor" for these types of statements. You can identify these forward-looking statements by forward-looking words such as "believe," "may," "could," "will," "estimate," "continue," "anticipate," "intend," "seek," "plan," "expect," "should," "would" and similar expressions in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions about Price Legacy Corporation, including, among other things:
The factors identified above are believed to be some, but not all, of the important factors that could cause actual events and results to be significantly different from those that may be expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statements should also be considered in light of the information provided in "Factors That May Affect Future Performance" located elsewhere in this Form 10-K. We assume no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
In this Form 10-K:
3
Formation of the Company and Subsequent Transactions
Price Legacy was formed in September 2001 from the merger of PEI and Excel Legacy (the Merger). In 1994, PEI spun off from Costco Companies, Inc., formerly Price/Costco, Inc. PEI became a self-administered, self-managed REIT in September 1997, which acquires, operates and develops open-air retail properties throughout the United States. In 1998, Excel Legacy spun off from Excel Realty Trust, Inc., a REIT, to pursue a wider variety of real estate opportunities including acquiring, developing and managing mixed-use and retail properties and real estate related operating companies throughout the United States and Canada. In connection with the Merger, Excel Legacy became a wholly owned subsidiary of PEI, and PEI changed its name to Price Legacy Corporation.
Price Legacy continues to operate as a REIT focused on open-air retail properties throughout the United States. Our current property portfolio mainly consists of open-air shopping centers leased to retail tenants. At December 31, 2002, we owned 42 commercial real estate properties, two of which were held through majority-owned joint ventures, and one property subject to a ground lease. We also owned three parcels of land under development and five parcels of land held for future development or sale. In addition to the above property portfolio, we held 50-55% ownership interests in three joint ventures. In total, we held an interest in 53 properties.
Concurrently with the Merger, Price Legacy issued to Warburg, Pincus Equity Partners, L.P. and certain of its affiliates (Warburg Pincus), for an aggregate purchase price of $100 million (the Warburg Investment):
In addition, Sol Price, a significant stockholder of PEI and Excel Legacy through various trusts, converted an existing Excel Legacy loan payable to a trust controlled by Sol Price of approximately $9.3 million into 1,681,142 shares of Series B Preferred Stock and a warrant to purchase 233,679 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $8.25 per share.
The Series B Preferred Stock is junior to our Series A Preferred Stock with respect to dividend, liquidation and other rights, and is convertible under certain conditions into Price Legacy common stock at a one-to-one ratio, which may be adjusted under certain circumstances, after 24 months from the date of issuance. The 9% coupon will be paid with additional shares of Series B Preferred Stock, at $5.56 per share for the first 45 months from issuance. The Warburg Investment closed concurrently with the Merger.
Holders of our Series A Preferred Stock have the right to elect four of the eight directors of our board of directors and Warburg Pincus has the right to elect two directors to our board. The remaining two directors of our board will be elected by the holders of our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock, voting together as a single class.
Our subsidiaries include Excel Legacy Holdings, Inc. which acquired certain assets of Excel Legacy after the Merger and elected to be treated as a Taxable REIT Subsidiary (TRS). Other than certain activities related to lodging and health care facilities, a TRS may generally engage in any business. As a regular C corporation, a TRS is subject to federal income tax and state and local income taxes, where applicable.
4
Overview of the Company's Business
Our current property portfolio consists primarily of open-air shopping centers leased to major retail tenants including Costco, The Home Depot, Kmart, The Sports Authority, Lowe's, AMC Theaters, Marshall's and Wal-Mart. We receive approximately 32% of annual minimum rents from tenants with investment grade credit ratings. National tenants, which we define as tenants located in at least three states, contribute approximately 78% of annual minimum rents.
For a description of our properties and of material developments during the year regarding these investments and our Company as a whole please refer to "Item 2Properties" and "Item 7Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" located elsewhere in this Form 10-K.
Our website address is www.PriceLegacy.com. We make available free of charge through our website our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after such material has been electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Our business strategy is to enhance the value and operating income of our portfolio by, among other things, leasing vacancies in our existing properties, acquiring new investment properties and completing the development of existing properties. In making new real estate investments, we emphasize acquiring well-located income-producing open-air shopping centers, principally occupied by national and credit rated tenants with attractive yields and potential for increases in income and capital appreciation. We will also, from time to time, consider disposing or exchanging existing investments in order to improve our investment portfolio or increase our funds from operations. We continuously evaluate our properties and review potential strategies of repositioning or redeveloping our properties in order to maximize FFO and enhance property values. Our investment and portfolio management goal is maximizing long-term FFO.
We generally provide property management for our properties. Self-management enables us to more closely control leasing and management of our property. Internal property management also provides opportunities for operating efficiencies by enabling us to acquire additional properties without proportionate increases in property management expenses. Our property management program is implemented by property management and leasing professionals located in offices in San Diego, CA, Fountain Valley, CA, Scottsdale, AZ, Sterling, VA, and Hollywood, FL. We also have an office in Salt Lake City, UT which coordinates the acquisition and disposition of our properties.
Our operating results are influenced by:
Our growth depends on:
5
Real estate industry cycles heavily influence our performance as a REIT. We discuss this further in "Factors That May Affect Future Performance" located elsewhere in this Form 10-K.
Competition
We compete with a wide variety of corporate and individual real estate developers and REITs which have similar investment objectives and may have greater financial resources, larger staffs or longer operating histories than us.
We also compete with other property owners to obtain tenants for our retail shopping center properties. Our competitive advantages are primarily based on significant customer traffic generated by our national and regional tenants, competitive lease terms, relatively high occupancy rates, and relatively low occupancy costs associated with open-air centers. The closing or relocation of any anchor tenant could have a material adverse effect on the operation of a shopping center. We discuss this further in "Factors That May Affect Future Performance" located elsewhere in this Form 10-K.
Significant Tenants
Our ten largest tenants accounted for approximately 35% of our total GLA and approximately 35% of our total annual minimum rent revenues in 2002. We show certain information about these tenants in the following table for the year ended December 31, 2002 (dollars in thousands):
| Tenant |
Number of Leases |
Area Under Lease (sq. ft) |
Percent of GLA Under Lease |
Annual Minimum Rent |
Percent of Total Annual Minimum Rent |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Costco | 4 | 618,192 | 7.0 | % | $ | 8,661.5 | 8.9 | % | ||||
| The Home Depot | 4 | 472,163 | 5.4 | % | 4,163.7 | 4.3 | % | |||||
| Kmart | 4 | 461,829 | 5.2 | % | 4,107.1 | 4.2 | % | |||||
| The Sports Authority | 6 | 266,472 | 3.0 | % | 3,478.0 | 3.6 | % | |||||
| Lowe's | 4 | 501,054 | 5.7 | % | 2,582.8 | 2.6 | % | |||||
| AMC Theaters | 2 | 122,557 | 1.4 | % | 2,566.9 | 2.6 | % | |||||
| Marshall's | 4 | 146,176 | 1.7 | % | 2,432.6 | 2.5 | % | |||||
| AT&T Wireless | 1 | 126,005 | 1.4 | % | 2,132.0 | 2.2 | % | |||||
| Linens 'N Things | 4 | 138,936 | 1.6 | % | 2,012.1 | 2.1 | % | |||||
| BJ's Wholesale Club | 2 | 218,505 | 2.5 | % | 1,921.5 | 2.0 | % | |||||
| 35 | 3,071,889 | 34.9 | % | $ | 34,058.2 | 35.0 | % | |||||
It is not uncommon for economic conditions, market surpluses of retail space, internet purchasing and competitive pressures to negatively impact a retail operator's financial results, especially smaller retail operators. When a tenant files for bankruptcy we assess our alternatives for the potentially available space. Kmart, our third largest tenant, filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U. S. Bankruptcy Code on January 22, 2002. In February 2002, Kmart rejected the lease on a vacant Builder's Square at one of our properties which we have subsequently released. On January 28, 2003, Kmart received permission from the Bankruptcy Court to close an additional 316 stores, including one at our Westbury, NY property. We are currently unable to determine the ultimate impact Kmart's bankruptcy will have on our operations. We discuss Kmart further in "Factors That May Affect Future Performance" located elsewhere in this Form 10-K.
6
Environmental Matters
Our properties are affected by federal, state and local environmental laws. These laws relate to the discharge of materials and protection of the environment. We have made, and intend to continue to make, necessary expenditures for compliance with applicable laws. The properties listed below have required remediation and clean-up of certain past industrial activity:
Expenses related to monitoring and cleaning up these properties have not been material to our operations. While we cannot predict with certainty the future costs of such clean up activities, or operating costs for environmental compliance, we do not believe they will have a material effect on our capital expenditures, earnings or competitive position.
Seasonality
Our real estate operations generally are less subject to seasonal fluctuations as our primary focus centers on tenants who offer basic goods.
Corporate Headquarters
Our headquarters are located at 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92128, and we believe that our current facilities meet our expected requirements over the next 12 months. Our telephone number is (858)675-9400. As of March 1, 2003, we and our consolidated subsidiaries had approximately 134 employees.
Factors That May Affect Future Performance
Real property investments are subject to varying degrees of risk that may affect the performance and value of our properties. Our revenue and the performance and value of our properties may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including:
In addition, some significant operating expenses associated with our properties, such as debt payments, maintenance, tenant improvement costs and taxes, generally are not reduced when gross income from properties is reduced. If our properties do not generate revenue sufficient to meet operating expenses, we may have to borrow additional amounts to cover costs, which could harm our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
7
Significant competition from developers, owners and operators of real estate properties may adversely affect the success of our business. We compete in the acquisition of real estate properties with over 200 publicly-traded REITs as well as other public and private real estate investment entities, including mortgage banks and pension funds, and other institutional investors, as well as individuals. Competition from these entities may impair our financial condition and materially harm our business by reducing the number of suitable investment opportunities offered to us and increasing the bargaining power of prospective sellers of property, which often increases the price necessary to purchase a property. Many of our competitors in the real estate sector are significantly larger than us and may have greater financial resources and more experienced managers. In addition, a large portion of our developed properties will be located in areas where competitors maintain similar properties. We will need to compete for tenants based on rental rates, attractiveness and location of properties, as well as quality of maintenance and management services. Competition from these and other properties may impair our financial condition and materially harm our business by:
Developments in the retail industry could adversely affect our ability to lease space in our shopping centers, which would harm our business. We derive a substantial portion of our income from tenants in the retail industry. The market for retail space and the general economic or local conditions of the retail industry can significantly affect our financial performance. A number of recent developments have heightened competitive pressures in the market for retail space, including:
As a result of these developments, many companies in the retail industry have encountered significant financial difficulties. Since we have no control over the occurrence of these developments, we cannot make any assurance that our business or financial results will not be adversely affected by these developments and the competitive pressures they create.
We rely on Costco for 8.9% of our annual minimum rent revenue, and any financial difficulties faced by this or any other significant tenant may harm our business and impair our stock price. Our financial position, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders may be adversely affected by financial difficulties experienced by any of our major tenants, including Costco, Home Depot, Kmart, and The Sports Authority. Although failure on the part of a tenant to materially comply with the terms of a lease, including failure to pay rent, would give us the right to terminate the lease, repossess the property and enforce the payment obligations under the lease, we could experience substantial delays and costs in doing so. We may not be able to enforce the payment obligations against the defaulting tenant, find another tenant or, if another tenant were found, enter into a new lease on favorable terms. Our largest tenant is Costco, which accounted for approximately 8.9% of our total annual minimum rent revenue in 2002. In addition to our four properties where Costco is the major tenant, Costco warehouses are adjacent to an additional 11 of our properties. If Costco or any other
8
major tenant chooses to terminate or not to renew its lease, our financial condition and business could be materially harmed.
The bankruptcy or insolvency of a major tenant or a number of smaller tenants may have an adverse impact on the properties affected and on the income produced by such properties. Kmart, our third largest tenant, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January 2002. We had four Kmart store leases that represented approximately 4.2% of our annualized base rental income at December 31, 2002.
Termination of a lease by Costco or other significant tenant may allow some tenants to reduce or terminate their leases. If Costco or other significant tenants were to terminate a lease with us or a lease for space adjacent to one or more of our properties, some of our other tenants at these properties would have rights to reduce their rent or terminate their leases. In addition, tenants at these properties, including those with termination rights, could elect not to extend or renew their lease at the end of the lease term. If any of these events occur, our financial condition and business could be materially harmed.
In January 2003 Kmart announced it may close the store at our Westbury, NY property. Minimum rents for 2002 related to this lease were $2.0 million. House 2 Home, a tenant at our Inglewood, CA property, also filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2001 and has closed its store. Under bankruptcy law, a tenant has the option of assuming (continuing) or rejecting (terminating) any unexpired lease. If a tenant in bankruptcy assumes its lease with us, such tenant must cure all defaults under the lease and provide us with the adequate assurance of its future performance under the lease. If a tenant in bankruptcy rejects the lease, our claim for breach of the lease would (absent collateral securing the claim) be treated as a general unsecured claim. We may not receive all amounts owed to us under terms of a lease if a tenant rejects a lease in bankruptcy due to certain limits imposed by bankruptcy laws.
Our financial performance depends on regional economic conditions since many of our properties and investments are located in California, Arizona, and Florida. Our properties and real estate related investments include 35 properties located in three states: 17 in California, nine in Arizona, and nine in Florida. With such a large number of properties and real estate related investments in these states, we may be exposed to greater economic risks than if they were located in several geographic regions. Our revenue from, and the value of, the properties and investments located in these states may be affected by a number of factors, including an oversupply of, or reduced demand for, real estate properties and downturns in the local economic climate caused by high unemployment, business downsizing, industry slowdowns, changing demographics and other factors. A general downturn in the economy or real estate conditions in California, Arizona, or Florida could impair our financial condition and materially harm our business. Further, due to the relatively high cost of real estate in these states, the real estate market in these regions may be more sensitive to fluctuations in interest rates and general economic conditions than other regions of the United States. We do not have any limitations or targets for the concentration of the geographic location of our properties and, accordingly, the risks associated with this geographic concentration will increase if we acquire additional properties in these states.
Our income depends on rental income from real property. The majority of our income is derived from rental income from real property. Accordingly, our income and funds available for distribution would be adversely affected if a significant number of our tenants were unable to meet their obligations to us or if we were unable to lease a significant amount of space in our properties on economically favorable lease terms. We cannot make any assurance that any tenant whose lease expires in the future will renew its lease or that we will be able to re-lease space on economically advantageous terms, if at all. In addition, our ability to lease or re-lease vacant space will be affected by many factors, including the existence of covenants typically found in shopping center tenant leases, such as those requiring the use of space at the shopping center not to be competitive with another tenant. Our ability to lease or
9
re-lease our properties may cause fluctuations in our cash flow, potentially affecting the cash available for distributions to stockholders.
Illiquidity of real estate investments may make it difficult for us to sell properties in response to market conditions. Equity real estate investments are relatively illiquid and therefore will tend to limit our ability to vary our portfolio promptly in response to changing economic or other conditions. To the extent the properties are not subject to triple net leases, some significant expenditures such as real estate taxes and maintenance costs are generally not reduced when circumstances cause a reduction in income from the investment. Should these events occur, our income and funds available for distribution could be adversely affected. In addition, REIT requirements may subject us to confiscatory taxes on gain recognized from the sale of property if the property is considered to be held primarily for sale in the ordinary course of our trade or business. To prevent these taxes, we may comply with safe harbor rules relating to the number of properties sold in a year, how long we owned the properties, their tax bases and the cost of improvements made to those properties. However, we cannot make any assurance that we will be able to successfully comply with these safe harbors and, in the event that compliance is possible, the safe harbor rules may restrict our ability to sell assets in the future.
Our substantial leverage may be difficult to service and could adversely affect our business. As of December 31, 2002, we had outstanding borrowings of approximately $548.1 million, requiring an estimated annual debt service of approximately $29.6 million. In addition, we have guaranteed $115.4 million in debt not on our balance sheet. We are exposed to the risks normally associated with debt financing, which may materially harm our business, including the following:
Our credit facility requires us to comply with specified financial covenants, the most restrictive of which relate to fixed charge coverage and leverage. Covenants in some of our construction loans are also tied to our credit facility. We were in compliance with all covenants in our credit facility at December 31, 2002, and are closely monitoring our operating results in 2003 as they relate to compliance with such covenants, in particular fixed charge coverage and leverage. If we are unable to satisfy any of these covenants, we would need to obtain waivers from our lenders. There can be no assurance that any such waivers would be forthcoming. Any violation that is not waived could result in an event of default, allowing the lenders to declare all amounts outstanding to be immediately due and payable, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
Rising interest rates may adversely affect our cash flow and business. We have $284.4 million in debt which bears interest at variable rates. Variable rate debt creates higher debt payments if market interest rates increase. We may incur additional debt in the future that also bears interest at variable rates. Higher debt payments as a result of an increase in interest rates could adversely affect our cash flows, cause us to default under some debt obligations or agreements, and materially harm our business.
We face risks associated with our equity investments in and with, or loans to, third parties because of our lack of control over the underlying real estate assets. As part of our growth strategy, we may invest in shares of REITs or other entities that invest in real estate assets. In these cases, we will be relying on the assets, investments and management of the REIT or other entity in which we invest. These entities and their properties will be exposed to the risks normally associated with the ownership and operation of real estate. We may partner or joint venture with or make loans to other parties developing real estate and related assets. In these cases, we will not be the only entity making decisions
10
relating to the property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. Risks associated with investments in, or loans to, partnerships, joint ventures or other entities include:
Any substantial loss or action of this nature could potentially harm our business or jeopardize our ability to qualify as a REIT. In addition, we may in some circumstances be liable for the actions of our third-party partners, co-venturers or borrowers.
We could incur significant costs and expenses related to environmental problems. Under various federal, state and local laws and regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of real property, and parties that generate or transport hazardous substances that are disposed of on real property, may be liable for the costs of investigating and remediating these substances on or under the property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator of the property was responsible for or even knew of the presence of the hazardous substances. The presence of or failure to properly remediate hazardous or toxic substances may impair our ability to rent, sell or borrow against a property. These laws and regulations also impose liability on persons who arrange for the disposal or treatment of hazardous or toxic substances at another location for the costs of removal or remediation of these hazardous substances at the disposal or treatment facility. These laws often impose liability regardless of whether the entity arranging for the disposal ever owned or operated the disposal facility. In addition, even if more than one person was responsible for the contamination, each person covered by the environmental laws may be held responsible for the clean-up costs incurred. Other environmental laws and regulations impose liability on owners or operators of property for injuries relating to the release of asbestos-containing materials into the air. As an owner and operator of property and as a potential arranger for hazardous substance disposal, we may be liable under these laws and regulations for removal or remediation costs, governmental penalties, property damage, personal injuries and related expenses. Payment of these costs and expenses, which can exceed the value of the subject property, could impair our financial condition, materially harm our business and have a material adverse effect on our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. In addition, environmental laws may impose restrictions on the manner in which we use our properties or operate our business, and these restrictions may require expenditures to achieve compliance.
11
The costs of compliance with regulatory requirements, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, could adversely affect our business. Our properties will be subject to various federal, state and local regulatory requirements, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which requires all public accommodations and commercial facilities to meet federal requirements relating to access and use by persons with disabilities. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements could involve removal of structural barriers from disabled persons' entrances on our properties. Other federal, state and local laws may require modifications to or restrict further renovations of our properties to provide this access. Noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act or related laws or regulations could result in the United States government imposing fines or private litigants being awarded damages against us, or could result in an order to correct any non-complying feature, which could result in substantial capital expenditures. If we incur these costs and expenses, our financial condition and ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be impaired. In addition, we cannot be assured that regulatory requirements will not be changed or that new regulatory requirements will not be imposed that would require significant unanticipated expenditures by us or our tenants. Unexpected expenditures could adversely affect our net income and cash available for distributions to our stockholders.
Terrorism and the Uncertainty of War May Adversely Affect the Company. Terrorist attacks, such as the attacks that occurred in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001 and other acts of violence or war may affect our operations and profitability, the market in which we operate, and the markets on which our stock trades. Further terrorist attacks against the United States or U.S. businesses may occur. The potential near-term and long-term effect these attacks may have on our customers, the market for our services, the market for our stock and the U.S. economy are uncertain. The consequences of any terrorist attacks, or any armed conflicts which may result, are unpredictable and could materially harm our business and impair the value of our stock. In addition, the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks has resulted in higher operating costs, including insurance premiums, for some of our properties due to heightened security measures. We are unable to predict whether these increased costs will abate over time, or whether we will be able to pass them through to our tenants. These and other long-term effects on our business of these attacks are unknown at the time, but could adversely affect our business and results of operations.
The success of our business depends on the services provided by our key personnel, the loss of whom could harm our business. The success of our business depends to a large extent on the contributions and performance of our senior management team for strategic business direction and real estate experience. In connection with the Merger, we assumed the current employment agreements that Excel Legacy maintained with some of its executives, which extend through 2003 with automatic one-year renewal periods unless terminated by their terms. We do not have key-man life insurance for any of our senior management. If we lose the services of any members of senior management, our business and future development could be materially harmed.
A small number of stockholders can exert significant influence over our company, which could make it difficult for us to complete some corporate transactions without their support, which could depress the price of our stock. Holders of our common stock, Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock may generally vote together on all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, other than the election of directors. Each share of common stock is entitled to one vote, each share of Series A Preferred Stock is entitled to one-tenth (1/10th) of one vote and each share of Series B Preferred Stock is entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of shares of common stock into which a share of Series B Preferred Stock is then convertible, currently one vote per share.
In the election of directors, (1) holders of Series A Preferred Stock, voting separately, have the right to elect four members of our board of directors, (2) holders of common stock and Series A Preferred Stock, voting together as a single class, have the right to elect two other members of our
12
board of directors, and (3) Warburg Pincus, for so long as Warburg Pincus continues to hold shares representing at least 10% of our common stock on an as-converted basis, has the right to elect the two remaining members of our board of directors. Holders of Series A Preferred Stock also have the right to vote separately on matters relating to the Series A Preferred Stock, such as the creation of any class of stock senior to the Series A Preferred Stock or the amendment of our charter to materially and adversely affect the rights of the Series A Preferred Stock. Holders of Series B Preferred Stock have the right to vote separately on similar matters relating to the Series B Preferred Stock, as well as the right to vote separately on other matters, including mergers, acquisitions, dispositions and the incurrence of indebtedness.
Sol Price, Robert E. Price and parties affiliated with them, including The Price Group, currently beneficially own an aggregate of approximately 11.9 million shares of Series A Preferred Stock, approximately 6.4 million shares of common stock, and approximately 1.7 million shares of Series B Preferred Stock. As of March 15, 2003, these shares represented approximately: (1) 43.2% of the voting power with respect to matters submitted solely to the holders of Series A Preferred Stock; (2) 8.5% of the voting power with respect to matters submitted solely to the holders of Series B Preferred Stock; (3) 18.9% of the voting power with respect to matters submitted to the holders of common stock and Series A Preferred Stock; and (4) 15.5% of the voting power with respect to matters submitted to the holders of common stock, Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock. In addition, The Price Group holds warrants to purchase an additional 233,679 shares of common stock and will be issued 666,080 additional shares of Series B Preferred Stock over the 45 months following the issuance date of the Series B Preferred Stock as distributions on the Series B Preferred Stock. As a result of their stock holdings, these parties could effectively control the outcome of matters submitted solely to the holders of Series A Preferred Stock, including the election of four members of our board, and significantly influence matters submitted to the holders of common stock, Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock.
Warburg Pincus currently beneficially owns an aggregate of approximately 5.0 million shares of common stock and approximately 18.0 million shares of Series B Preferred Stock. As of March 15, 2003, these shares represented approximately: (1) 91.5% of the voting power with respect to matters submitted solely to the holders of Series B Preferred Stock; and (2) 38.5% of the voting power with respect to matters submitted to the holders of common stock, Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock. In addition, Warburg Pincus holds a warrant to purchase an additional 2.5 million shares of common stock and may be issued approximately 7.1 million additional shares of Series B Preferred Stock (or more depending on the market price of the common stock) over the 45 months following the issuance date of the Series B Preferred Stock as distributions on the Series B Preferred Stock. As a result of its stock holdings, Warburg Pincus could effectively control the outcome of matters submitted solely to the holders of Series B Preferred Stock and significantly influence matters submitted to the holders of common stock, Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock. Warburg Pincus also has the right, mentioned above, to elect two members of our board.
In addition, we are restricted from, among other things, selling, leasing, transferring or disposing of assets greater than $50 million in any nine month period or incurring certain indebtedness greater than $25 million in any twelve month period without a majority approval of our board of directors, including both Warburg directors.
Together, these parties will have significant influence over matters brought before our board of directors and stockholders, and will have the ability to influence some corporate transactions, which may delay, discourage, deter or prevent a change of control and may make some transactions more difficult or impossible to complete without their support. The ability of these stockholders to assert this significant influence may depress the price of our stock.
13
Our charter contains anti-takeover provisions which may limit the ability of a third party to acquire control and may prevent stockholders from receiving a premium for our shares. Some of the provisions of our charter and bylaws could delay, discourage, deter or prevent an acquisition of our business at a premium price and could make removal of our management more difficult. These provisions could reduce the opportunities for our stockholders to participate in tender offers, including tender offers that are priced above the then-current market price of our stock. In particular, our charter permits our board of directors to issue shares of preferred stock in one or more series without stockholder approval, which could, depending on the terms of the preferred stock, delay, discourage, deter or prevent a change in control of our company. In addition, the Maryland General Corporation Law imposes restrictions on mergers and other business combinations between us and any holder of 10% or more of the voting power of our outstanding shares.
REIT rules limit the amount of cash we will have available for other business purposes, including amounts to fund future growth, and could require us to borrow funds or liquidate investments on a short-term basis in order to comply with the REIT distribution requirement. To qualify as a REIT, we must distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income to our stockholders (determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding capital gains), and are subject to tax to the extent we fail to distribute at least 100% of our REIT taxable income. This distribution requirement will limit our ability to accumulate capital for other business purposes, including amounts to fund future growth. While we expect our cash flow from operations to generally be sufficient in both the short and long term to fund our operations, this distribution requirement could cause us:
In addition, from time to time, we may not have sufficient cash or other liquid assets to meet this distribution requirement due to differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash.
Our charter contains restrictions on the ownership and transfer of our capital stock. Due to limitations on the concentration of ownership of stock of a REIT imposed by the Internal Revenue Code, our charter prohibits any stockholder from (1) actually or beneficially owning more than 5% of our issued and outstanding capital stock and (2) actually or constructively owning more than 9.8% of our issued and outstanding capital stock, except for stockholders who have received a waiver from these ownership limits from our board. These ownership limits also apply separately to each class of our preferred stock, including the Series A Preferred Stock and the Series B Preferred Stock. Our charter also prohibits anyone from buying shares if the purchase would result in losing our REIT status. This could happen if a share transaction results in
If a stockholder acquires shares in violation of the charter by way of transfer or otherwise, the shares which cause the owner to violate the ownership limitations will be automatically transferred to a trust for the benefit of a qualified charitable organization. Following such transfer, the stockholder will have no right to vote these shares or be entitled to dividends or other distributions with respect to these shares. Within 20 days after receiving notice from us of the transfer of shares to the trust, the
14
trustee of the trust will sell the excess shares and generally will distribute to such stockholder an amount equal to the lesser of the price paid by the stockholder for the excess shares (except in the case of a gift or similar transfer, in which case, an amount equal to the market price) or the sale proceeds received by the trust for the shares.
If we fail to qualify as a REIT under the Code, that failure could materially harm our business. We believe that we have been organized and have operated in a manner which allows us to qualify for taxation as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code commencing with our short taxable year ended December 31, 1997. Qualification as a REIT requires a company to satisfy numerous requirements, which are highly technical and complex. In addition, legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions may adversely affect, possibly retroactively, our ability to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. For example, one of the REIT requirements, the "five-fifty test," requires that no more than 50% of the value of a REIT's outstanding capital stock may be owned directly or indirectly, applying various constructive ownership rules, by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of a REIT's taxable year. Our charter provides for restrictions regarding ownership and transfer of shares that are intended to assist us in continuing to satisfy the five-fifty test. These restrictions, however, may not ensure that we will be able to satisfy, in all cases, the five-fifty test. If we fail to satisfy the five-fifty test, our status as a REIT may terminate. Other REIT requirements restrict the type of assets that a REIT may own and the type of income that a REIT may receive. These restrictions will apply to all of our assets and income. However, these asset and income requirements do not apply to assets we elect to hold in a Taxable REIT Subsidiary. We currently hold certain assets and derive income from certain of our businesses and assets which, if held or received by us directly, could jeopardize our status as a REIT. To maintain our status as a REIT, (1) we transferred these assets and businesses to Excel Legacy Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Excel Legacy, prior to the effective time of the Merger, and (2) Excel Legacy Holdings elected to be treated as a Taxable REIT Subsidiary of Price Legacy effective at the time of the Merger. If a company fails to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, including failing to comply with the REIT distribution requirements, it may, among other things:
As a result of these factors, our failure to qualify as a REIT also could impair our ability to expand our business and raise capital, could substantially reduce the funds available for distribution to our stockholders, could reduce the trading price of our stock and materially harm our business.
15
Overview
At December 31, 2002, we owned 42 commercial real estate properties including one property with a 24-year ground lease and one hospitality property. These properties encompass approximately 8.4 million square feet of GLA and were 93% leased. The five largest properties include 2.7 million square feet of GLA that generate annual minimum rent of $36.3 million, based on leases existing as of December 31, 2002. We also have a 50% interest in two joint ventures which own retail properties in Fresno, CA and Bend, OR, as well as a 55% interest in a company which owns a retail and office facility in Winnipeg, Canada. These properties generate annual minimum rent of $4.7 million and are 86% leased. We also own approximately 2,662 acres of land, either under development or held for future development or sale. In total we have an interest in 53 properties.
The table below presents the geographic concentration of our properties at December 31, 2002, including our unconsolidated joint ventures and land held for development or sale.
| Location |
Number of Properties |
Percent of Annual Minimum Rent |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northeastern States | ||||||
| Virginia | 3 | 15 | % | |||
| New York | 2 | 9 | % | |||
| New Jersey | 2 | 7 | % | |||
| Pennsylvania | 1 | 3 | % | |||
| Connecticut | 1 | | ||||
| Total Northeastern | 9 | 34 | % | |||
Southeastern States |
||||||
| Florida | 9 | 24 | % | |||
| South Carolina | 2 | 4 | % | |||
| Total Southeastern | 11 | 28 | % | |||
Midwestern States |
||||||
| Kentucky | 1 | 5 | % | |||
| Indiana | 2 | 2 | % | |||
| Ohio | 1 | 1 | % | |||
| Total Midwestern | 4 | 8 | % | |||
Western States |
||||||
| California | 17 | 19 | % | |||
| Arizona | 9 | 8 | % | |||
| Oregon | 1 | 2 | % | |||
| Utah | 1 | | ||||
| Total Western | 28 | 29 | % | |||
Outside US |
||||||
| Canada | 1 | 1 | % | |||
| Total Outside US | 1 | 1 | % | |||
| Total | 53 | 100 | % | |||
16
Property Table
Amounts shown for annual minimum rents are based on current leases as of December 31, 2002. Joint venture partnerships represent 100% of annual minimum rents for the property. We made no allowances for contractually-based delays to commencement of rental payments. Due to the nature of real estate investments, our actual rental income may differ from amounts shown in this schedule. The following table describes our portfolio of real estate properties as of December 31, 2002.
| |
Leases in Effect as of December 31, 2002 |
|
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Real Estate Portfolio |
Number Of Tenants |
Gross Leasable Area (sq ft) |
Percent Leased |
Annual Minimum Rent(1) |
Principal Tenants |
||||||
| |
|
(000's) |
|
($000's) |
|
||||||
| Commercial Properties | |||||||||||
| Hollywood/Oakwood Plaza, FL | 48 | 868.3 | 100 | % | $ | 9,066.5 | The Home Depot, K-Mart, BJ's Wholesale, Dave and Buster's, Regal Cinemas | ||||
| Westbury, NY | 8 | 398.6 | 100 | % | 7,859.4 | Costco, K-Mart, Marshall's, The Sports Authority, Borders Books | |||||
| Pentagon City, VA | 9 | 337.4 | 100 | % | 7,156.7 | Costco, Marshall's, Best Buy, Linens 'n Things, Borders Books | |||||
| Sterling, VA | 30 | 737.5 | 99 | % | 6,955.3 | Wal-Mart, Lowe's, Sam's Club, Best Buy, Nordstrom Rack | |||||
| Newport, KY(2) | 30 | 343.3 | 72 | % | 4,945.6 | AMC, Barnes & Noble, Empire Night Club, Gameworks | |||||
| Wayne, NJ | 5 | 348.1 | 95 | % | 4,627.7 | Costco, Lackland Storage, The Sports Authority | |||||
| West Palm Beach, FL | 26 | 357.5 | 97 | % | 3,876.9 | K-Mart, Winn-Dixie, Linens 'n Things, Ross Stores | |||||
| San Diego, CA | 4 | 443.2 | 98 | % | 3,211.5 | Costco, Price Self Storage, Charlotte Russe | |||||
| Philadelphia, PA | 22 | 307.8 | 97 | % | 3,197.4 | The Home Depot, Babies R Us, AMC Theaters | |||||
| Greenville, SC | 36 | 297.9 | 99 | % | 3,076.8 | Ingles, Goody's, TJ Max, Ross Stores, Old Navy | |||||
| Orlando, FL | 9 | 404.4 | 99 | % | 3,035.9 | Home Depot, BJ's Wholesale, Expo Design Center | |||||
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL | 22 | 229.0 | 93 | % | 2,943.9 | Regal Cinemas, Office Depot, Just for Feet | |||||
| Mesa, AZ | 25 | 307.7 | 80 | % | 2,940.4 | Sports Authority, Circuit City, Michael's | |||||
| Miami, FL | 25 | 404.6 | 72 | % | 2,601.5 | K-Mart Marshall's, Office Max | |||||
| Roseville, CA | 19 | 188.5 | 100 | % | 2,495.9 | The Sports Authority, Linens 'n Things, Ross Stores | |||||
| Tempe, AZ | 23 | 248.0 | 93 | % | 2,455.3 | J. C. Penney, Circuit City, Designer Shoe Warehouse, | |||||
| Signal Hill, CA | 14 | 154.8 | 100 | % | 2,434.2 | The Home Depot, PETsMART | |||||
| Sacramento/Bradshaw, CA | 1 | 126.0 | 100 | % | 2,132.0 | AT&T | |||||
| San Diego/Rancho Bernardo, CA | 13 | 82.2 | 100 | % | 1,952.4 | UBS Paine Webber, Medcell Biologics | |||||
| Greensburg, IN | 19 | 272.9 | 99 | % | 1,864.9 | Wal-Mart, Staples | |||||
| Hollywood/Oakwood Business, FL | 26 | 141.1 | 96 | % | 1,571.9 | Trader Publishing Co., KOS Pharmaceuticals | |||||
| Moorestown, NJ (leased land) | 4 | 201.4 | 100 | % | 1,559.5 | Lowe's, The Sports Authority | |||||
| San Diego/Rancho San Diego, CA | 21 | 98.4 | 100 | % | 1,299.5 | Rite Aid, Ross Stores, Petco | |||||
| Scottsdale/City Center, AZ | 20 | 66.1 | 88 | % | 1,183.7 | RAS Management, Greater Phoenix | |||||
| San Diego/Carmel Mountain, CA | 6 | 35.0 | 100 | % | 983.3 | Claim Jumper, McMillin Realty, Islands | |||||
| Phoenix, AZ | 18 | 70.4 | 98 | % | 950.9 | Safeway | |||||
| Columbia, SC | 12 | 66.5 | 98 | % | 798.9 | Publix | |||||
| Northridge, CA | 2 | 22.0 | 100 | % | 781.1 | Barnes & Noble, Fresh Choice | |||||
17
| Ocala, FL |