Commitments and Contingencies

Contractual Lease Obligations

The following table reflects the minimum base rental cash payments due from the Company over the next five years and thereafter for ground lease arrangements (amounts in thousands):



	Future Minimum Base Rent Payments
July 1, 2013 - December 31, 2013	$	174
2014	348
2015	349
2016	349
2017	353
Thereafter	2,477
Total	$	4,050

Litigation

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may become subject to litigation or claims. There are no material legal proceedings pending or known to be contemplated against the Company, except as follows:

Since the announcement of the CapLease Merger Agreement on May 28, 2013, the following lawsuits have been filed:

CapLease, its directors, and its affiliates, CapLease's operating partnership and the general partner of the operating partnership, as well as the Company, the OP and a CapLease Merger related subsidiary, have been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in connection with the proposed merger, styled Mizani v. CapLease, Inc., No. 651986/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the CapLease Merger Agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by CapLease’s directors because the CapLease Merger does not provide for full and fair value for the CapLease’s stockholders, the CapLease Merger was not the result of a competitive bidding process, the CapLease Merger Agreement contains coercive deal protection measures, and the CapLease Merger Agreement and the CapLease Merger were approved as a result of improper self-dealing by certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the CapLease Merger Agreement. The complaint also alleges that CapLease, the Company, the OP and a CapLease Merger related subsidiary, aided and abetted the directors’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin completion of the CapLease Merger. The Company believes that the allegations of the complaint are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint.

Separately, CapLease, its directors and its affiliates, the CapLease's operating partnership and the general partner of the CapLease's operating partnership, as well as the Company, the OP and a CapLease Merger related subsidiary, have been named as defendants in a putative class action and derivative lawsuit in connection with the proposed merger, styled Tarver v. CapLease, Inc., No. 24C13004176, in the Circuit Court of the State of Maryland, Baltimore City. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the CapLease Merger Agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by CapLease’s directors because the CapLease Merger does not provide for full and fair value for the CapLease’s stockholders, the CapLease Merger Agreement contains coercive deal protection measures, the CapLease Merger was not the result of a competitive bidding process, and the CapLease Merger Agreement and the CapLease Merger were approved as a result of improper self-dealing. The complaint also alleges that CapLease, CapLease's operating partnership, the general partner of the CapLease's operating partnership, the Company, the OP and a CapLease Merger related subsidiary aided and abetted the directors’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin completion of the CapLease Merger. The Company believes that the allegations of the complaint are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint.

Separately, CapLease, its directors and its affiliates, the CapLease's operating partnership and the general partner of the CapLease's operating partnership, as well as the Company, the OP and a CapLease Merger related subsidiary, have been named as defendants in a putative class action and derivative lawsuit in connection with the proposed CapLease Merger, styled Carach v. CapLease, Inc., No. 651986/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the CapLease Merger Agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease’s directors because the CapLease Merger does not provide for full and fair value for the CapLease’s stockholders, the CapLease directors failed to take steps to maximize the value of CapLease or properly value CapLease, failed to protect against various alleged conflicts of interest, and failed to fully disclose material information concerning the process that led to the CapLease Merger. The complaint also alleges that CapLease's operating partnership, the general partner of CapLease's operating partnership, the Company, the OP and a CapLease Merger related subsidiary aided and abetted the CapLease directors’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin completion of the CapLease Merger. The Company believes that the allegations of the complaint are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint.

Since the announcement of the ARCT III Merger Agreement on December 17, 2012, Randell Quaal filed a putative class action lawsuit filed on January 19, 2013 against the Company, the OP, ARCT III, ARCT III OP, the members of the board of directors of ARCT III and certain subsidiaries of the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the board of ARCT III breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions contemplated under the ARCT III Merger Agreement. In February 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class of ARCT III stockholders. In connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of understanding, the class action and all claims asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to court approval. The proposed settlement terms required ARCT III to make certain additional disclosures related to the ARCT III Merger, which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by ARCT III with the SEC on February 21, 2013. The memorandum of understanding also added that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to ARCT III’s stockholders. If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, therefore any losses that may be incurred to settle this matter are not determinable.

The Company maintains directors and officers liability insurance which the Company believes should provide coverage to the Company and its officers and directors for most or all of any costs, settlements or judgments resulting from the lawsuits.

Environmental Matters

In connection with the ownership and operation of real estate, the Company may potentially be liable for costs and damages related to environmental matters. The Company has not been notified by any governmental authority of any non-compliance, liability or other claim, and is not aware of any other environmental condition, in each case, that it believes will have a material adverse effect on the results of operations.