XML 39 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.19.2
Commitments and Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
Note 10 – 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
As previously reported, 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. The Company also reported that the Audit Committee had based its conclusion on the preliminary findings of its investigation into concerns regarding accounting practices and other matters that were first reported to the Audit Committee in early September 2014 and that the Audit Committee believed that an error in the calculation of adjusted funds from operations for the first quarter of 2014 had been identified but intentionally not corrected when the Company reported its financial results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014. Prior to the filing of the October 29 8-K, 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 Company has been cooperating with these regulators in their investigations.
In connection with these investigations, on September 8, 2016, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced the filing of criminal charges against the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Accounting Officer (the “Criminal Action”), as well as the fact that the former Chief Accounting Officer pleaded guilty to the charges filed. Also on September 8, 2016, the SEC announced the filing of a civil complaint against the same two individuals in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 30, 2017, following a jury trial, the former Chief Financial Officer was convicted of the charges filed. Both the former Chief Accounting Officer and the former Chief Financial Officer have entered into settlement agreements with the SEC resolving the charges brought against them.
The United States Attorney’s Office has indicated that it does not intend to bring criminal charges against the Company arising from its investigation. In addition, the Company has not been in contact with the Massachusetts regulator since June 2015 and believes the investigation is concluded. In March 2018, investigative staff of the SEC’s enforcement division inquired whether the Company wished to discuss a resolution of potential civil charges the SEC may bring with respect to certain matters investigated by the staff stemming from the announcement made on October 29, 2014. The Company has been cooperating with the SEC staff’s investigation since its inception and is engaged in such discussions with the staff. The timing and substance of the ultimate resolution of these discussions is unknown.
As discussed below, the Company and certain of its former officers and directors have been named as defendants in a number of lawsuits filed following the October 29 8-K, including class actions, individual actions and derivative 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 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. On September 8, 2016, the court issued an order directing plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint to reflect certain prior rulings by the court in connection with various motions to dismiss. The third amended complaint was filed on September 30, 2016 and the defendants were not required to file new answers. On August 31, 2017, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Defendants’ petitions seeking leave to appeal the court’s order granting class certification were denied on January 24, 2018. Fact depositions were concluded at the end of 2018. At a status conference in April 2019, the court denied the summary judgment motions filed by the defendants. The court also set a schedule for expert discovery, which was completed at the end of July 2019. Trial has been adjourned from September 9, 2019 to January 21, 2020 and the Court has scheduled conferences during the week of September 9, 2019 to address pre-trial motions. A final pre-trial conference was also scheduled for November 7, 2019.
The Company, certain of its former officers and directors, and the OP, among others, were also named as defendants in thirteen 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; Atlas Master Fund et al. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al., No. 16-cv-05475; Eton Park Fund, L.P. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-09393; Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, et al, v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al, No. 17-cv-02796; Fir Tree Capital Opportunity Master Fund, L.P. et al. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al., No. 17-cv-04975; and Cohen & Steers Institutional Realty Shares, Inc. et al v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-06770, (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 entered into a series of agreements dated September 30 through October 26, 2018, to settle twelve of the thirteen pending Opt-Out Actions (the “Opt Out Settlement Agreements”) brought by plaintiffs holding shares of common stock and swaps referencing common stock representing approximately 18% of VEREIT’s outstanding shares of common stock held at the end of the period covered by the litigations, for an aggregate payment of $127.5 million. The Opt Out Settlement Agreements contain mutual releases by both Plaintiffs and the Company, although the Company retains the right to pursue any and all claims against the other defendants in each Action and/or
third parties, including claims for contribution for amounts paid in the settlement. The Opt Out Settlement Agreements do not contain any admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties. The only remaining opt out action in the Southern District of New York is the Jet Capital Action, which is proceeding on the same schedule as the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action.
On October 27, 2015, the Company and certain of its former officers, among others, were also 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”, and such plaintiffs, “Plaintiffs”). The Vanguard Action asserted claims arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the purchase or sale of the Company’s securities. On June 7, 2018, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) to settle the Vanguard Action for a payment of $90 million. The Settlement Agreement contains mutual releases by Plaintiffs and the Company, although the Company retains the right to pursue any and all claims against the other defendants in the Action and/or third parties, including claims for contribution for amounts paid in the settlement. The Settlement Agreement does not contain any admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties. Vanguard’s holdings accounted for approximately 13% of the Company’s outstanding shares of common stock held at the end of the period covered by the various pending shareholder actions.
In addition to the settlement of the opt-out actions and the Vanguard Action discussed above, between February 5, 2019 and April 5, 2019, the Company entered into a series of agreements to settle claims with shareholders who decided not to participate as class members in the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreements, the shareholders released all claims that were the subject matter of the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action and the Company made payments totaling $27.9 million. In total, the Company has now settled claims of shareholders who held shares of common stock and swaps referencing common stock representing approximately 35.3% of VEREIT’s outstanding shares of common stock held at the end of the period covered by the various pending shareholder actions for payments totaling approximately $245.4 million. Of the $27.9 million in payments referenced above, $12.2 million is recorded in “Litigation and non-routine costs, net” in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the six months ended June 30, 2019, and the balance of $15.7 million was recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2018.
On June 24, 2019, the Company and certain of its former officers were named as defendants in an individual action filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York captioned Lakewood Capital Partners, L.P. v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., Index No. 653676/2019, alleging claims of common law fraud arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements similar to those that are the subject of the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action. The Company is not yet required to respond to the complaint.
The Company was also named as a nominal defendant, and certain of its former officers and 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. Fact discovery and summary judgment briefing in the Witchko Action was coordinated with the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action. At the April 2019 status conference, the court denied the summary judgement motions in the SDNY Derivative Action as premature, with leave to refile at a later date. The court has not yet set a trial date in the SDNY Derivative Action.
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, 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. By order dated November 4, 2016, the Frampton Action was stayed pending resolution of the SDNY Derivative Action.
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, 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. On October 6, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation staying the Kosky Action until resolution of the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action.
On October 6, 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 United States District Court for the District of Maryland, captioned Meloche v. Schorsch, et al., 16-cv-03366 (the “Meloche Action”). An amended complaint was filed on January 17, 2017. The Meloche Action seeks money damages and other relief on behalf of the Company for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and negligence. By order dated May 16, 2017, the Meloche Action was stayed until resolution of the SDNY Derivative Action.
There can be no assurance as to whether or how the completed settlements may affect any potential future resolution of any other pending lawsuit or claims, the timing of any such resolution, or the amount at which any other matter may be resolved. The Company has not reserved amounts for the SEC investigation, the on-going class action and the remaining opt out actions discussed above because it believes that any probable loss or reasonably possible range of loss is not reasonably estimable at this time. With respect to the class action specifically, which represents substantially all of the remaining shares with alleged claims, although the Company believes a loss is probable, it is currently unable to reasonably estimate a possible range of loss because the litigation involves significant uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the complexity of the facts, the legal theories and the nature of the claims, the resolution of significant pre-trial motions, the applicable methodology for determining any damages for each of the different types of claims, the extent to which members of the class would or would not file a claim, and the uncertainty inherent in a class action where the trading history and other relevant characteristics of the claimants are not currently known. The ultimate resolution of all of these matters, the timing and substance of which is unknown, may materially impact the Company’s business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
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. 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 Credit Property Trust III, Inc. and Cole Holdings Corporation) and that Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. 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 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.
Purchase and Build-to-Suit Commitments
In the normal course of business, the Company enters into various types of commitments to purchase real estate properties. These commitments are generally subject to the Company’s customary due diligence process and, accordingly, a number of specific conditions must be met before the Company is obligated to purchase the properties. As of June 30, 2019, the Company had one build-to-suit development project with an estimated remaining committed investment of $11.9 million.
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.