XML 85 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
IMPAIRMENT
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
IMPAIRMENT  
IMPAIRMENT

NOTE 6    IMPAIRMENT

General

There were no impairment charges for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011. Park West continues to suffer from a weak market, and its occupancy at December 31, 2012 and 2011 was 68.2% and 64.9%, respectively. During 2012, we leased approximately 18,500 square feet to a well-known restaurant/entertainment tenant who will take occupancy in 2013 and increase occupancy to 75.6%. We continue to focus on occupancy by attracting tenants who can drive increased traffic during the day and evening. If we are unsuccessful at increasing occupancy and traffic, many of our existing tenants may be unable to continue to occupy their leased spaces because their sales volume will likely be inadequate to support their operating costs, which could reduce our expected cash flows and result in a significant impairment. Our expected cash flows could also be reduced if we changed our plans and determined that we should realize the assets' value through sale, and the period we intend to hold the asset is reduced.

Impairment charges totaled $503.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. These charges are included in the Provisions for impairment in our Consolidated and Combined Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2010. At December 31, 2010, although an additional four regions or projects within our Master Planned Communities segment and four additional operating properties had carrying values in excess of estimated fair values based on current occupancy levels, cash flow and use of the property, no provisions for impairment were considered necessary for such projects and properties.

The following table presents a summary of all impairment provisions and the corresponding fair value measurements:

Impaired Asset
  Location   Method of Determining Fair Value   Total Fair Value
Measurement
Year Ended
December 31,
2010
  Total Loss
Year Ended
December 31,
2010
 
 
   
   
  (In thousands)
 

Master Planned Communities:

                       

Maryland – Gateway (e)

    Howard County, MD   Projected sales price analysis (a) (c)   $ 1,649   $ 2,613  

Maryland – Columbia (e)

    Columbia, MD   Projected sales price analysis (a) (c)     34,823     56,798  

Summerlin – South (e)

    Las Vegas, NV   Projected sales price analysis (a) (c)     203,325     345,920  
                     

 

              239,797     405,331  
                     

Operating Assets:

                       

Landmark (e)

    Alexandria, VA   Discounted cash flow analysis (a) (c)     23,750     24,434  

Riverwalk Marketplace (g)

    New Orleans, LA   Discounted cash flow analysis (c)     10,179     55,975  

Various pre-development costs

        (b)     —       514  
                     

 

              33,929     80,923  
                     

Strategic Developments:

                       

Century Plaza Mall (f)

    Birmingham, AL   Projected sales price analysis (a) (d)     4,500     12,899  

Nouvelle at Natick (e)

    Natick, MA   Discounted cash flow analysis (c)     13,413     4,135  

Various pre-development costs

        (b)     —       68  
                     

 

              17,913     17,102  
                     

Total

            $ 291,639   $ 503,356  
                     

(a)
Projected sales price analysis incorporates available market information and other management assumptions.
(b)
Related to the write-down of various pre-development costs that were determined to be non-recoverable due to the related projects being terminated.
(c)
These impairments were primarily driven by the carrying value of the assets, including costs expected to be incurred, not being recoverable by the projected sales price of such assets.
(d)
These impairments were primarily driven by management's changes in current plans with respect to the property and measured based on the value of the underlying land, which is based on comparable property market analysis or a projected sales price analysis that incorporates available market information and other management assumptions as these properties are either no longer operational or operating with no or nominal income.
(e)
The fair value was calculated on a discounted cash flow analysis using a discount rate of 20.0%.
(f)
The fair value is based on estimated sales value.
(g)
The fair value was calculated based on a discounted cash flow analysis using a property specific discount rate and a residual capitalization rate of 8.5% for both computations.

No provisions for impairment were recorded for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 related to our investments in Real Estate Affiliates.