Organization

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Organization [Abstract]

ORGANIZATION

NOTE 1 ORGANIZATION

The accompanying condensed consolidated and combined financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for interim financial statements and in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X as issued by the SEC. Such condensed consolidated and combined financial statements do not include all of the information and disclosures required by GAAP for complete financial statements. In addition, readers of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (“Quarterly Report”) should refer to the Company’s (as defined below) audited Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2010 which are included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Annual Report”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (Commission File No. 001-34856). Capitalized terms used, but not defined in this Quarterly Report have the same meanings as in the Annual Report.

In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) necessary for a fair presentation of the financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods have been included. The results for the interim periods ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full fiscal year. In addition, certain amounts in the 2010 Combined Financial Statements have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation. Finally, HHC management has evaluated all material events occurring subsequent to the date of the consolidated financial statements up to the date and time this Quarterly Report is filed.

General

The Howard Hughes Corporation (“HHC” or the “Company”) is a Delaware corporation that was formed on July 1, 2010 to hold, after receipt via a tax-free distribution, certain assets of General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Predecessors”) pursuant to their plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) under Chapter 11 of the United States Code (“Chapter 11”). We are a real estate company that specializes in the development and operation of master planned communities, operating rental properties and other strategic real estate opportunities across the United States. Pursuant to the Plan, certain of the assets and liabilities of the Predecessors (the “HHC Businesses”) were transferred to us and our common stock was distributed to the holders of GGP’s common stock and common units (the “Separation”) on a pro-rata basis (approximately 32.5 million shares of our common stock) on GGP’s date of emergence from bankruptcy, November 9, 2010 (the “Effective Date”). Also as part of the Plan, approximately 5.25 million shares of our common stock and 8.0 million warrants were purchased by certain of the investors sponsoring the Plan for $250 million. Unless the context otherwise requires, references to “we,” “us” and “our” refer to HHC and its subsidiaries.

The accompanying consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 reflect the consolidation of HHC and its subsidiaries, as of such date, with all intercompany balances and transactions eliminated. The accompanying combined financial statements for the periods prior to the Separation have been prepared in accordance with GAAP on a carve-out basis from the consolidated financial statements of GGP using the historical results of operations and the bases of the assets and liabilities of the transferred businesses and including allocations from GGP. This presentation incorporates the same principles used when preparing consolidated financial statements, including elimination of intercompany transactions. The presentation also includes the accounts of the HHC Businesses in which we have a controlling interest. The noncontrolling equity holders’ share of the assets, liabilities and operations are reflected in noncontrolling interests within permanent equity of the Company. The statement of equity and statement of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and the statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 are presented on a carve out basis. The statement of equity and statements of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and the statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 are presented on a consolidated basis.

As discussed above, we were formed for the purpose of receiving, via a tax-free distribution, certain assets and assuming certain liabilities of the Predecessors pursuant to the Plan. We conducted no business and had no separate material assets or liabilities until the Separation was consummated. No previous historical financial statements for the HHC Businesses have been prepared and, accordingly, our combined financial statements for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 are derived from the books and records of GGP and were carved-out from GGP at carrying values reflective of such historical cost in such GGP records. Our historical financial results reflect allocations for certain corporate expenses which include, but are not limited to, costs related to property management, human resources, security, payroll and benefits, legal, corporate communications, information services and restructuring and reorganizations. Costs of the services (approximately $2.9 million and $5.7 million, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, respectively) that were allocated or charged to us were based on either actual costs incurred or a proportion of costs estimated to be applicable to us based on a number of factors, most significantly the Company’s percentage of GGP’s adjusted revenue and assets and the number of properties. We believe these allocations are reasonable; however, these results do not reflect what our expenses would have been had the Company been operating as a separate, stand-alone public company for such period. In addition, the HHC Businesses were operated as subsidiaries of GGP, which operated as a real estate investment trust during such period. We operate as a taxable corporation. The historical combined statement of equity and statement of cash flows presented for the six months ended June 30, 2010, and the statement of operations and comprehensive income (loss) presented for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 therefore are not indicative of the results of operations, or cash flows that would have been obtained if we had been an independent, stand-alone entity during such period nor are they indicative of our future performance as an independent, stand-alone entity.

As of June 30, 2011, our assets consisted of the following:

• four master planned communities (“MPC“s);

• thirteen operating assets; and

• seventeen strategic developments.

Our ownership interests in properties in which we own a majority or controlling interest are combined for the period from January 1, 2010 through June 30, 2010 and consolidated for the period from January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2011 under GAAP, with the non-controlling interests in such consolidated or combined ventures reflected as components of equity. Our interests in TWCPC Holdings, L.P., (“The Woodlands Commercial”), the Woodlands Operating Company, L.P. (“The Woodlands Operating”) and the Woodlands Land Development Company, L.P. (“The Woodlands MPC”, and together with The Woodlands Commercial and the Woodlands Operating, “The Woodlands Partnerships”), all located in Houston, Texas, and our interests in Westlake Retail Associates, Ltd (“Circle T Ranch”) and 170 Retail Associates Ltd (“Circle T Power Center”, and together with Circle T Ranch, “Circle T”), located in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, are held through joint venture entities in which we own non-controlling interests and are unconsolidated and accounted for on the equity method. (See Note 3 for a description of our acquisition of our venture partner’s share of The Woodlands Partnerships on July 1, 2011.) The Woodlands Partnerships, Circle T and certain cost method investments (for example, our interest in the Summerlin Hospital Medical Center) are collectively referred to in this report as our “Real Estate Affiliates.”

Investment in Real Estate

Real estate assets are stated at cost, including acquisition cost, less any provisions for impairments. Construction and improvement costs incurred in connection with the development of new properties or the redevelopment of existing properties are capitalized. Real estate taxes and interest costs incurred during construction periods are also capitalized. Capitalized interest costs are based on qualified expenditures and interest rates in place during the construction period. As of June 30, 2011, we have approximately 14,000 remaining saleable acres within our master planned communities including The Woodlands.

Pre-development costs associated with specifically identified development properties, which generally include legal and professional fees and other directly-related third-party costs, are capitalized as part of the property being developed. In the event that management no longer has the ability or intent to complete a development, the costs previously capitalized are expensed (see also our impairment policies below).

With respect to the operating retail properties, tenant improvements, either paid directly or in the form of construction allowances paid to tenants, are capitalized and depreciated over the shorter of their economic lives or the lease term. Maintenance and repairs are charged to expense when incurred. Expenditures for significant improvements are capitalized.

Depreciation or amortization expense is computed using the straight-line method based upon the following estimated useful lives:

Asset Type	Years
Buildings and improvements		40-45
Equipment, tenant improvements and fixtures		5-10

Impairment

Generally accepted accounting principles related to accounting for the impairment or disposal of long-lived assets require that if impairment indicators exist and the undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by an asset over its anticipated holding period are less than its carrying amount, the fair value of such assets should be estimated and an impairment provision should be recorded to write down the carrying amount of such asset to its estimated fair value. The impairment analysis does not consider the timing of future cash flows and whether the asset is expected to earn an above or below market rate of return. We review our real estate assets as well as our investments in Real Estate Affiliates for potential impairment indicators whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable.

If an indicator of potential impairment exists, the asset is tested for recoverability by comparing its carrying amount to the estimated future undiscounted cash flow during our expected holding period. The cash flow estimates used both for determining recoverability and estimating fair value are inherently judgmental and reflect current and projected trends in rental, occupancy, pricing, development costs, sales pace and capitalization rates, and estimated holding periods for the applicable assets. Although the estimated fair value of certain assets may be exceeded by the carrying amount, a real estate asset is only considered to be impaired when its carrying amount is not expected to be recovered through estimated future undiscounted cash flows. To the extent an impairment provision is necessary, the excess of the carrying amount of the asset over its estimated fair value is expensed to operations. In addition, the impairment provision is allocated proportionately to adjust the carrying amount of the asset. The adjusted carrying amount, which represents the new cost basis of the asset, is depreciated over the remaining useful life of the asset or, for Master Planned Communities, is expensed as a cost of sales when the asset is sold. Assets that have been impaired will in the future have lower depreciation and cost of sale expenses, but the impairment will have no impact on cash flow.

No impairment provisions were recorded in the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and approximately $0.2 million and $0.5 million, respectively, of impairment provisions, on predevelopment costs at certain of our Strategic Developments properties, were recorded in the three and six months ended June 30, 2010. As of June 30, 2011, no additional impairments were taken because we believe that the carrying amounts are recoverable. Despite this conclusion, additional impairment charges in the future could result if our plans regarding our assets change and/or economic conditions deteriorate. We can provide no assurance that material impairment charges with respect to Master Planned Community assets, Operating Assets, Strategic Developments, Real Estate Affiliates or Developments in progress will not occur in future periods. Accordingly, we will continue to monitor circumstances and events in future periods to determine whether additional impairments are warranted.

Investments in Real Estate Affiliates

We account for investments in joint ventures where we own a non-controlling participating interest using the equity method and, investments in joint ventures where we have virtually no influence on the joint venture’s operating and financial policies, on the cost method. Under the equity method, the cost of our investment is adjusted for our share of the equity in earnings (losses) of such Real Estate Affiliates from the date of acquisition and reduced by distributions received. Generally, the operating agreements with respect to our Real Estate Affiliates provide that assets, liabilities and funding obligations are shared in accordance with our ownership percentages. We generally also share in the profit and losses, cash flows and other matters relating to our Real Estate Affiliates in accordance with our respective ownership percentages. Differences between the carrying amount of our investment in the Real Estate Affiliates and our share of the underlying equity of such Real Estate Affiliates, arising for example, from acquisition accounting or impairment provisions, are amortized over the related lives ranging from 5 to 45 years. For cost method investments, we recognize earnings when dividends are received from such investments, and along with equity method earnings, is included in Income from Real Estate Affiliates in our consolidated and combined statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss).

Warrants

As described above, on the Effective Date, we issued warrants to purchase 8.0 million shares of our common stock to certain of the sponsors of the Plan (the “Sponsors Warrants”) with an estimated initial value of approximately $69.5 million. The warrants have an initial exercise price of $50.00 per share and will be subject to adjustment for future stock dividends, splits or reverse splits of our common stock or certain other events. Approximately 6.1 million warrants are immediately exercisable and approximately 1.9 million warrants are exercisable upon 90 days prior notice for the first 6.5 years after issuance and exercisable without notice any time thereafter. Sponsors Warrants expire on November 9, 2017.

In addition, in 2010 and 2011, the Company entered into certain warrant agreements with David R. Weinreb, our Chief Executive Officer, Grant Herlitz, our President, and Andrew C. Richardson, our Chief Financial Officer (the “Management Warrants”), in each case prior to his appointment to such position. Warrants for an aggregate of 2,862,687 shares were issued pursuant to such agreements in exchange for approximately $19.0 million from such executives at the commencement of their respective employment, which was deemed to be the fair value of such warrants. Mr. Weinreb and Mr. Herlitz’s warrants have exercise prices of $42.23 per share and Mr. Richardson’s warrant has an exercise price of $54.50 per share. Generally, the Management Warrants become exercisable in November 2016 and expire by February 2018.

The aggregate estimated $298.5 million and $227.3 million fair values of the Sponsors Warrants and Management Warrants as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, have been recorded as a liability because the holders of the warrants could require HHC to settle such warrants in cash upon a change of control. Such fair values were estimated using an option pricing model and level 3 inputs due to the unavailability of comparable market data. Changes in fair value of the Sponsors Warrants and the Management Warrants have been and will continue to be recognized in earnings and, accordingly, the warrant liability gains reflecting a decrease in value of approximately $56.9 million and the warrant liability losses reflecting an increase in value of $69.1 million, were recognized for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, respectively.

Contingent Stock Agreement

In conjunction with GGP’s acquisition of The Rouse Company (“TRC”) in November 2004, GGP assumed TRC’s obligations under the Contingent Stock Agreement, (the “CSA”). TRC entered into the CSA in 1996 when it acquired The Hughes Corporation (“Hughes”). This acquisition included various assets, including Summerlin (the “CSA Assets”), a development in our Master Planned Communities segment. The CSA provided that the beneficiaries receive a share of the cash flow and income from the development or sale of the CSA assets and a final payment representing their share of the valuation of the CSA Assets as of December 31, 2009. The Plan provided that the final payment and settlement of all other claims under the CSA was an obligation of GGP and was $230 million (down from the $245 million estimate at December 31, 2009), and such amount was distributed by GGP after the Effective Date. Accordingly, during September 2010, we reduced our carrying value of the CSA assets, and the related GGP equity, by $15 million for this revised estimate.

Fair Value Measurements

The accounting principles for fair value measurements establish a three-tier fair value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value. These tiers include:

• Level 1 — defined as observable inputs such as quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets;

• Level 2 — defined as inputs other than quoted prices in active markets that are either directly or indirectly observable; and

• Level 3 — defined as unobservable inputs in which little or no market data exists, therefore requiring an entity to develop its own assumptions.

The asset or liability fair value measurement level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of any input that is significant to the fair value measurement. Valuation techniques used need to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. Any fair values utilized or disclosed in our financial statements were developed for the purpose of complying with the accounting principles established for fair value measurements.

The Company is required to estimate the fair value of its long-lived assets, such as its real estate investments, that it determines are impaired. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, no real estate assets were considered impaired and therefore no real estate assets were measured at fair value in such period. Those assets which were impaired in 2010 were recorded at their estimated fair value in the period in which the impairment occurred.

The only liabilities presented at fair value and measured on a recurring basis at June 30, 2011 are the Sponsors Warrants and Management Warrants for which we recognized approximately $56.9 million of income and $69.1 million, of expense, respectively, in the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 for the changes in the recorded valuation of such warrants and a swap entered into in May 2011 with a recorded fair value of $0.7 million (Note 4). As of December 31, 2010, we did not have any derivative financial instruments and our investments in marketable securities were immaterial.

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, non-recurring fair value measurements included approximately $0.2 million and $0.5 million, respectively, of impairment provisions, representing the full write-off of various pre-development costs that were determined to be non-recoverable due to the related projects being terminated. In addition, no debt was measured at fair value during the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 as no HHC Debtors emerged from bankruptcy during this time period.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The fair values of our financial instruments approximate their carrying amount in our financial statements except for debt. Management’s required estimates of fair value are presented below for our debt at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. This fair value was estimated solely for financial statement reporting purposes and should not be used for any other purposes, including estimating the value of any of the Company’s securities. We estimated the fair value of this debt based on quoted market prices for publicly-traded debt, recent financing transactions (which may not be comparable), estimates of the fair value of the property that serves as collateral for such debt, historical risk premiums for loans of comparable quality, the current London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), a widely quoted market interest rate which is frequently the index used to determine the rate at which we borrow funds, U.S. treasury obligation interest rates and on the discounted estimated future cash payments to be made on such debt. The discount rates estimated reflect our judgment as to what the approximate current lending rates for loans or groups of loans with similar maturities and credit quality would be if credit markets were operating efficiently and assume that the debt is outstanding through maturity. We have utilized available market information or present value techniques to estimate the amounts required to be disclosed. Since such amounts are estimates that are based on limited available market information for similar transactions and do not acknowledge transfer or other repayment restrictions that may exist in specific loans, it is unlikely that the estimated fair value of any of such debt could be realized by immediate settlement of the obligation.

	June 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
	Carrying		Estimated		Carrying		Estimated
(In thousands)	Amount		Fair Value		Amount		Fair Value
Fixed-rate debt	$	154,949	$	168,447	$	191,037	$	202,897
Variable-rate debt		93,902		94,378		65,518		65,629
SID bonds (*)		57,817		57,817		62,105		62,105
Total	$	306,668	$	320,642	$	318,660	$	330,631

(*) Due to the uncertain repayment terms of special improvement district (SID) bonds, the carrying value has been used as an approximation of fair value.

Revenue Recognition and Related Matters

Revenues from land sales are recognized using the full accrual method if various criteria provided by GAAP 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. In addition, we recognize revenue related to our right to participate in the ultimate home sale proceeds of the builders we sell our lots to as such amounts are collected.

Cost of land sales is determined as a specified percentage of land sales revenues recognized for each community development project. These cost ratios used are based on actual costs incurred and estimates of future development costs and sales revenues to 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. For certain parcels of land, however, the specific identification method is used to determine cost of sales including acquired parcels we do not intend to develop or for which development was complete at the date of acquisition.

Nouvelle at Natick is a 215 unit residential condominium project, located in Natick, Massachusetts. Pursuant to the Plan, only the unsold units at Nouvelle at Natick on the Effective Date were distributed to us and no deferred revenue or sales proceeds from unit closings prior to the Effective Date were allocated to us. As of June 30, 2011, 33 units were unsold at Nouvelle at Natick, of which eight were under contract for sale. Income related to unit sales subsequent to the Effective Date is accounted for on a unit-by-unit full accrual method.

Minimum rent revenues are recognized on a straight-line 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. 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.

Straight-line rent receivables, which represent the current net cumulative rents recognized prior to when billed and collectible as provided by the terms of the leases, of $2.7 million and $2.0 million as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, are included in Accounts receivable, net in our consolidated balance sheets.

Income Taxes

Deferred income taxes are accounted for using the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the expected future tax consequences of events that have been included in the financial statements or tax returns. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the differences between the financial reporting and tax bases of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. Deferred income taxes also reflect the impact of operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. A valuation allowance is provided if we believe it is more likely than not that all or some portion of the deferred tax asset will not be realized. There are events or circumstances that could occur in the future that could limit the benefit of deferred tax assets, such as an inability to generate taxable income in the future or a change in ownership. An increase or decrease in the valuation allowance that results from a change in circumstances, and which causes a change in our judgment about the realizability of the related deferred tax asset, is included in the current year deferred tax provision. In addition, we recognize and report interest and penalties, if necessary, related to uncertain tax positions within our provision for income tax expense.

In many of our Master Planned Communities, gains with respect to sales of land for commercial use are reported for tax purposes on the percentage of completion method. Under the percentage of completion method, gain is recognized for tax purposes as costs are incurred in satisfaction of contractual obligations. The method used for determining the percentage complete for income tax purposes is different than that used for financial statement purposes. In addition, gains with respect to sales of land for single family residences are reported for tax purposes under the completed contract method. Under the completed contract method, gain is recognized for tax purposes when 95% of the costs of our contractual obligations are incurred or the contractual obligation is transferred.

Earnings Per Share

Basic earnings per share (“EPS”) is computed by dividing net income available to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted EPS is computed after adjusting the numerator and denominator of the basic EPS computation for the effects of all potentially dilutive common shares. The dilutive effect of options and nonvested stock issued under stock-based compensation plans is computed using the “treasury stock” method. The dilutive effect of Sponsor Warrants and Management Warrants is computed using the if-converted method.

As defined and described in Note 6, certain HHC Replacement Options outstanding are required to be settled by GGP and therefore do not represent dilutive securities at any date presented. Of the HHC Replacement Options outstanding that are required to be settled by HHC, diluted EPS excludes options where the exercise price was higher than the average market price of our common stock and options for which vesting requirements were not satisfied. Such options totaled 2,522 shares as of June 30, 2011.

As discussed above, in connection with the Separation on November 9, 2010, GGP distributed to its stockholders 32.5 million shares of our common stock and approximately 5.25 million shares were purchased by certain investors sponsoring the Plan. This share amount is being used in the calculation of basic and diluted EPS for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 as our common stock was not traded prior to November 9, 2010 and there were no dilutive securities in the prior periods.

Information related to our EPS calculations is summarized as follows:

	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
Basic EPS:
Numerator:
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders	$	65,973		$	(28,042	)	$	(48,542	)	$	(48,571	)
Denominator:
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding — basic		37,897			37,716			37,897			37,716
Diluted EPS:
Numerator:
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders	$	65,973		$	(28,042	)	$	(48,542	)	$	(48,571	)
Warrant liability gain		(56,910	)		—			—			—
Adjusted net income available to common stockholders	$	9,063		$	(28,042	)	$	(48,542	)	$	(48,571	)
Denominator:
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding — basic		37,897			37,716			37,897			37,716
Diluted effect:
Restricted stock		3			—			—			—
Warrants		2,970			—			—			—
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding — diluted		40,870			37,716			37,897			37,716
Anti-dilutive securities not included above		669						9,335
Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share	$	1.74		$	(0.74	)	$	(1.28	)	$	(1.29	)
Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share	$	0.22		$	(0.74	)	$	(1.28	)	$	(1.29	)

Municipal Utility Districts

In Houston, Texas, certain development costs are reimbursable through the creation of Municipal Utility Districts (“MUD“s) and Water Control and Improvement Districts, which are separate political subdivisions authorized by Article 16, Section 59 of the Texas Constitution and governed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”). MUDs are formed to provide municipal water, waste water, drainage services, recreational facilities and roads to those areas where they are currently unavailable through the regular city services. Typically, the developer advances funds for the creation of the facilities, which must be designed, bid and constructed in accordance with the City of Houston’s and TCEQ requirements. The developer initiates the MUD process by filing the applications for the formation of the MUD, and once the applications have been approved, a board of directors is elected for the MUD and given the authority to issue ad valorem tax bonds and the authority to tax residents. The MUD board authorizes and approves all MUD development contracts and pay estimates. The Company estimates the costs it believes will be eligible for reimbursement and classifies them as MUD receivables. MUD bond sale proceeds are used to reimburse the developer for its construction costs, including interest. MUD taxes are used to pay the debt service on the bonds and the operating expenses of the MUD. The Company has not incurred any debt relating to the MUDs.

Reorganization and Other 2010 Bankruptcy-Related Items

As certain of the HHC Businesses had filed for bankruptcy protection in April 2009 (the “HHC Debtors”), these entities are required by GAAP to separately present as Reorganization items elements of expense or income that were incurred or realized as a result of the bankruptcy filings. These items include professional fees and similar types of expenses and gains and interest earned on cash accumulated by certain of our subsidiaries, all as a result of the bankruptcy. Reorganization items specific to the HHC Debtors have been allocated to us and have been reflected in our combined statement of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 and in the table presented below.

Reorganization items are as follows:

	Three Months Ended			Six Months Ended
Reorganization Items	June 30, 2010			June 30, 2010
(In thousands)
Gains on liabilities subject to compromise — vendors (a)	$	(36	)	$	(282	)
Losses on liabilities subject to compromise, net — mortgage debt (b)		365			365
Interest income (c)		(1	)		(1	)
U.S. Trustee fees		131			270
Restructuring costs (d)		9,560			26,262
Total reorganization items	$	10,019		$	26,614

(a)	This amount includes gains from repudiation, rejection or termination of contracts or guarantee of obligations. Such gains reflect agreements reached with certain critical vendors, which were authorized by the Bankruptcy Court, and for which payments on an installment basis began in July 2009.
(b)	Net losses include the Fair Value adjustments of mortgage debt relating to entities that emerged from bankruptcy.
(c)	Interest income primarily reflects amounts earned on cash accumulated as a result of our Chapter 11 cases.
(d)	Restructuring costs primarily include professional fees incurred related to the bankruptcy filings, our allocated share of the Key Employee Incentive Plan (KEIP) payment, finance costs incurred by debtors upon emergence from bankruptcy and any associated write-off of unamortized deferred finance costs related to emerged debtors.

Gains on liabilities subject to compromise — vendors represent the income effects of the settlement of certain liabilities of the HHC Debtors that were incurred prior to their bankruptcy filings in 2009. All liabilities incurred by the HHC Debtors prior to such bankruptcy filings were subject to compromise in 2010 as the amounts to be paid were subject to settlement, adjustment, or reinstatement as provided by Chapter 11. The amounts of the various categories of liabilities that were subject to compromise are set forth below and represented the then estimates of known or potential liabilities likely to be resolved in connection with the then planned 2010 emergence from bankruptcy of the HHC Debtors. As the plans of reorganization for the HHC Debtors ultimately approved subsequent to June 30, 2010 provided for, in general, full payment of allowed claims, substantially all recorded liabilities of the HHC Debtors that were subject to compromise at June 30, 2010 were settled, reinstated or retained by the Effective Date. In addition, GGP agreed that it would reimburse HHC up to $5.0 million for liability claims related to periods prior to the HHC Debtors’ bankruptcy filings, the majority of which has been paid as of June 30, 2011.

The amounts subject to compromise at June 30, 2010 consisted of the following items:

(In thousands)
Mortgages and secured notes	$	132,849
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities		100,774
Total liabilities subject to compromise	$	233,623

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP 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 periods. For example, estimates and assumptions have been made with respect to 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 intangibles, particularly with respect to acquisitions, impairment of long-lived assets and goodwill, fair value of warrants and debt and cost ratios and completion percentages used for land sales. Actual results could differ from these and other estimates.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In June 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued a new standard which changes the requirements for presenting comprehensive income in the financial statements. The new standard eliminates the option to present other comprehensive income (OCI) in the statement of stockholders’ equity and instead requires net income, components of OCI, and total comprehensive income to be presented in one continuous statement or two separate but consecutive statements. The standard will be effective for us beginning with our first quarter 2012 reporting and will be applied retrospectively. HHC had elected to present OCI in one continuous statement in all its previous filings and accordingly, the effective date of this standard will not have an effect on our results of operating, financial position, or cash flows in our consolidated financial statements.

In May 2011, the FASB issued “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs.” The standard revises guidance for fair value measurement and expands the disclosure requirements. It is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of this standard will have on our Consolidated Financial Statements.