Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

The Company is involved in various routine legal proceedings and claims incidental to the ordinary course of its business. There are no material legal proceedings pending against the Company, except as follows:

Government Investigations and Litigation Relating to the Audit Committee Investigation

On October 29, 2014, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K (the “October 29 8-K”) reporting the Audit Committee’s conclusion, based on the preliminary findings of its investigation, that certain previously issued consolidated financial statements of the Company, including those included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014, and related financial information should no longer be relied upon. Prior to that filing, the Audit Committee previewed for the SEC the information contained in the filing. Subsequent to that filing, the SEC provided notice that it had commenced a formal investigation and issued subpoenas calling for the production of various documents. In addition, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York contacted counsel for the Audit Committee and counsel for the Company with respect to this matter, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued a subpoena calling for the production of various documents. The Audit Committee and the Company are cooperating with these regulators in their investigations.

As discussed below, the Company and certain of its former officers and current and former directors have been named as defendants in a number of lawsuits filed following the October 29 8-K, including class actions, derivative actions, and individual actions seeking money damages and other relief under the federal securities laws and state laws in both federal and state courts in New York, Maryland and Arizona.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and certain of its former officers and current and former directors, among other individuals and entities, were named as defendants in ten securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court consolidated these actions under the caption In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the “SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action”). The plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint on December 11, 2015, which asserted claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Certain defendants, including the Company and the OP, filed motions to dismiss the second amended class action complaint (or portions thereof), which were granted in part and denied in part by the court at oral argument on June 1, 2016. The Company and the OP filed an answer to the second amended class action complaint on July 29, 2016. A case management conference is scheduled before the court on September 9, 2016.

The Company, certain of its former officers and current and former directors, and the OP, among others, have also been named as defendants in additional individual securities fraud actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: Jet Capital Master Fund, L.P. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-307 (the “Jet Capital Action”); Twin Securities, Inc. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-1291; HG Vora Special Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-4107; BlackRock ACS US Equity Tracker Fund, et al. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-08464; PIMCO Funds: PIMCO Diversified Income Fund, et al. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-08466; Clearline Capital Partners LP, et al. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-08467; Pentwater Equity Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., et al. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-08510; Archer Capital Master Fund, et al. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al, No. 16-cv-05471 (the “Archer Capital Action”); and Atlas Master Fund et al. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al., No. 16-cv-05475 (the “Atlas Action”) (collectively, the “Opt-Out Actions”). The Opt-Out Actions assert claims arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the purchase or sale of the Company’s securities. The Company filed an answer to the complaint in the Jet Capital Action on December 11, 2015. The Company and the OP filed answers to the complaints in all of the other Opt-Out Actions, except the Archer Capital Action and the Atlas Action, on July 29, 2016. The Company is not yet required to respond to the complaint in the Archer Capital Action or the Atlas Action. A case management conference is scheduled before the court on September 9, 2016.

On October 27, 2015, the Company and certain of its former officers, among others, were named as defendants in an individual securities fraud action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, captioned Vanguard Specialized Funds, et al. v. VEREIT, Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-02157 (the “Vanguard Action”). The Vanguard Action asserts claims arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the purchase or sale of the Company’s securities. On January 21, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Vanguard Action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motions are briefed and pending before the court.

The Company was also named as a nominal defendant, and certain of its former officers and current and former directors were named as defendants, in shareholder derivative actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: Witchko v. Schorsch, et al., No. 15-cv-06043 (the “Witchko Action”); and Serafin, et al. v. Schorsch, et al., No. 15-cv-08563 (the “Serafin Action”). The court consolidated the Witchko Action and the Serafin Action (together “the SDNY Derivative Action”) and the plaintiffs designated the complaint filed in the Witchko Action as the operative complaint in the SDNY Derivative Action. The SDNY Derivative Action seeks money damages and other relief on behalf of the Company for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, among other claims. On February 12, 2016, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SDNY Derivative Action due to plaintiffs’ failure to plead facts demonstrating that the Board’s decision to refuse plaintiffs’ pre-suit demands was wrongful and not a protected business judgment. Other defendants also filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On June 9, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s and other defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 30, 2016, and the Company and other defendants filed answers to the amended complaint on July 22, 2016. A case management conference is scheduled before the court on September 8, 2016.

On December 3, 2015, the Company was named as a nominal defendant and certain of its former officers and directors were named as defendants in a shareholder derivative action filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in Maryland, captioned Frampton v. Schorsch, et al., No. 24-C-15-006269 (the “Frampton Action”). The Frampton Action seeks money damages and other relief on behalf of the Company for, among other things, alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and contribution and indemnification. The Company filed a motion to stay the Frampton Action on March 7, 2016. That motion is fully briefed and pending before the court.

On June 10, 2016, the Company was named as a nominal defendant, and certain of its former officers and directors, among others, were named as defendants, in a shareholder derivative action filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, captioned Kosky v. Schorsch, et al., No. 653093/2016 (the “Kosky Action”). The Kosky Action seeks money damages and other relief on behalf of the Company for, among other things, alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract. The Company is not yet required to respond to the complaint in the Kosky Action.

The Company has not reserved amounts for any of the litigation or investigation matters above either because it has not concluded that a loss is probable in the matter or because it believes that any probable loss or reasonably possible range of loss is not reasonably estimable at this time. The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate a range of reasonably possible loss because these matters involve significant uncertainties, including the complexity of the facts and the legal theory and the nature of the claims.

CapLease Litigation Matters

Following the announcement of the merger agreement with CapLease in May 2013, a number of lawsuits were filed by CapLease stockholders, the following of which remain pending:

On June 25, 2013, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, the OP, CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of directors, among others, captioned Tarver v. CapLease, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-004176 (the “Tarver Action”). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the merger agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors because the transaction purportedly did not provide for full and fair value for the CapLease shareholders and was not the result of a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement allegedly contained coercive deal protection measures and the merger was purportedly 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 merger agreement.In August 2013, counsel in the Tarver Action filed a motion for a stay in the Baltimore Court, informing the court that the plaintiff had agreed to join and participate in the prosecution of other actions concerning the CapLease transaction then pending in a New York court (which were subsequently dismissed). The stay was granted by the Baltimore Court and the parties have engaged in no subsequent activity in the Tarver Action.

In October 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, the OP, CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of directors, among others, captioned Poling v. CapLease, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-006178 (the “Poling Action”). The complaint alleged that the merger agreement breached the terms of the CapLease 8.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (“Series B”) and the terms of the 7.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (“Series C”) and was in violation of the Series B Articles Supplementary and the Series C Articles Supplementary. The complaint alleged claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

In December 2013, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Poling Action, which was granted by the court in May 2015. Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, which affirmed the trial court’s order on May 3, 2016. Plaintiff has filed a petition seeking further appellate review by the Maryland Court of Appeals, which is pending.

Cole Litigation Matter

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, captioned Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., No. 654468/2013. Cole was later added as a defendant. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement (in connection with the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of Cole and Cole Holdings Corporation) and that Cole aided and abetted those breaches. In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class of the Company’s stockholders. The proposed settlement terms required the Company to make certain additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on January 17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to the Company’s stockholders, and provided that the defendants would not object to a payment of up to $625,000 for attorneys’ fees. If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has not occurred, 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.

Contractual Lease Obligations

The following table reflects the minimum base rent payments due from the Company over the next five years and thereafter for certain ground lease obligations, which are substantially reimbursable by our tenants, and office lease obligations (in thousands):



	Future Minimum Base Rent Payments
	Ground Leases		Office Leases
July 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016	$	7,145	$	2,482
2017	14,820		4,602
2018	14,410		4,704
2019	14,139		4,769
2020	13,386		4,798
Thereafter	224,648		14,089
Total	$	288,548	$	35,444

Purchase Commitments

Cole Capital enters into purchase and sale agreements and deposits funds into escrow towards the purchase of real estate assets, most of which are expected to be assigned to one of the Cole REITs at or prior to the closing of the respective acquisition. As of June 30, 2016, Cole Capital was a party to seven purchase and sale agreements with unaffiliated third-party sellers to purchase a 100% interest in 11 properties, subject to meeting certain criteria, for an aggregate purchase price of $141.1 million, exclusive of closing costs. As of June 30, 2016, Cole Capital had $2.8 million of property escrow deposits held by escrow agents in connection with these future property acquisitions, which may be forfeited if the transactions are not completed under certain circumstances. Cole Capital will be reimbursed by the assigned Cole REIT for amounts escrowed when the property is assigned to the respective Cole REIT.

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.