COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

We are sometimes involved in lawsuits, warranty claims, and environmental matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Management makes assumptions and estimates concerning the likelihood and amount of any potential loss relating to these matters.

We are currently a party to various legal proceedings. We accrue a liability for litigation if an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. If an unfavorable outcome is probable and a reasonable estimate of the loss is a range, we accrue the best estimate within the range; however, if no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum within the range is accrued. Legal fees related to litigation are expensed as incurred. Other than as described below, we do not believe that the ultimate outcome of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or overall trends in results of operations; however, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties. Also under our leases, tenants are typically obligated to indemnify us from and against all liabilities, costs and expenses imposed upon or asserted against us (1) as owner of the properties due to certain matters relating to the operation of the properties by the tenant, and (2) where appropriate, due to certain matters relating to the ownership of the properties prior to their acquisition by us.

In May 2003, a breach of contract action was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, alleging that a one page document entitled “Final Proposal” constituted a ground lease of a parcel of property located adjacent to our Santana Row property and gave the plaintiff the option to require that we acquire the property at a price determined in accordance with a formula included in the “Final Proposal.” The “Final Proposal” explicitly stated that it was subject to approval of the terms and conditions of a formal agreement. A trial as to liability only was held in June 2006 and a jury rendered a verdict against us.

A trial on the issue of damages was held in April 2008, the court issued a final judgment awarding damages of $15.9 million plus costs of suit in June 2009, and in July 2009, we and the plaintiff both filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In December 2009, the plaintiff filed an “appellee’s principal and response brief” providing additional information regarding the issues the plaintiff is appealing; our accrual of $16.4 million at December 31, 2009 reflected our best estimate of the litigation liability. A final ruling on the appeal was issued in February 2011 rejecting both appeals and consequently, affirmed the final judgment against us. Therefore, in December 2010, we adjusted our accrual to $16.2 million which reflects the amount we paid in first quarter 2011. The net change in our accrual in 2010 as well as additional legal and other costs related to the lawsuit and appeal process are included in “litigation provision” in our consolidated statements of comprehensive income.

We reserve for estimated losses, if any, associated with warranties given to a buyer at the time real estate is sold or other potential liabilities relating to that sale, taking any insurance policies into account. These warranties may extend up to ten years and require significant judgment. If changes in facts and circumstances indicate that warranty reserves are understated, we will accrue additional reserves at such time a liability has been incurred and the costs can be reasonably estimated. Warranty reserves are released once the legal liability period has expired or all related work has been substantially completed. Any increases to our estimated warranty losses would usually result in a decrease in net income.

In 2005 and 2006, warranty reserves for condominium units sold at Santana Row were established to cover potential costs for materials, labor and other items associated with warranty-type claims that may arise within the ten-year statutorily mandated latent construction defect warranty period. In 2006 and 2007, we increased our warranty reserves related to defective work done by third party contractors while upgrades were made to certain units being prepared for sale. Due to the inherent uncertainty, these amounts did not reflect any recoveries from the contractors responsible for the defective work. However, in 2010, we reached a settlement with the contractors responsible for performing the defective work for approximately $1.0 million which is included in “Discontinued operations—gain on sale of real estate”.

We are self-insured for general liability costs up to predetermined retained amounts per claim, and we believe that we maintain adequate accruals to cover our retained liability. We currently do not maintain third party stop-loss insurance policies to cover liability costs in excess of predetermined retained amounts. Our accrual for self-insurance liability is determined by management and is based on claims filed and an estimate of claims incurred but not yet reported. Management considers a number of factors, including third-party actuarial analysis and future increases in costs of claims, when making these determinations. If our liability costs exceed these accruals, it will reduce our net income.

At December 31, 2012 and 2011, our reserves for warranties and general liability costs were $7.1 million for both periods and are included in “accounts payable and accrued expenses” in our consolidated balance sheets. Any potential losses which exceed our estimates would result in a decrease in our net income. During 2012 and 2011, we made payments from these reserves of $1.3 million and $0.9 million, respectively. Although we consider the reserve to be adequate, there can be no assurance that the reserve will prove to be adequate over-time to cover losses due to the difference between the assumptions used to estimate the reserve and actual losses.

At December 31, 2012, we had letters of credit outstanding of approximately $15.9 million which are collateral for existing indebtedness and other obligations of the Trust.

As of December 31, 2012 in connection with capital improvement, development, and redevelopment projects, the Trust has contractual obligations of approximately $233.0 million.

We are obligated under ground lease agreements on several shopping centers requiring minimum annual payments as follows, as of December 31, 2012:




	(In thousands)
Year ending December 31,
2013	$	1,488
2014	1,478
2015	1,428
2016	1,372
2017	1,088
Thereafter	50,207
	$	57,061

A master lease for Mercer Mall includes a fixed purchase price option for $55 million in 2023. If we fail to exercise our purchase option, the owner of Mercer Mall has a put option which would require us to purchase Mercer Mall for $60 million in 2025.

Under the terms of the Congressional Plaza partnership agreement, from and after January 1, 1986, an unaffiliated third party has the right to require us and the other minority partner to purchase its 29.47% interest in Congressional Plaza at the interest’s then-current fair market value. If the other minority partner defaults in their obligation, we must purchase the full interest. Based on management’s current estimate of fair market value as of December 31, 2012, our estimated maximum liability upon exercise of the put option would range from approximately $65 million to $71 million.

Under the terms of a partnership which owns a project in southern California, if certain leasing and revenue levels are obtained for the property owned by the partnership, the other partner may require us to purchase their 10% partnership interest at a formula price based upon property operating income. The purchase price for the partnership interest will be paid using our common shares or, subject to certain conditions, cash. If the other partner does not redeem their interest, we may choose to purchase the partnership interest upon the same terms.

A master lease for Melville Mall includes a fixed purchase price option in 2021 for $5 million and the assumption of the owner’s debt which is $21.5 million at December 31, 2012. If we fail to exercise our purchase option, the owner of Melville Mall has a put option which would require us to purchase Melville Mall in 2023 for $5 million and the assumption of the owner’s mortgage debt.

Effective December 27, 2013, the other member in Montrose Crossing has the right to require us to purchase all of its 10.1% interest in Montrose Crossing at the interest's then-current fair market value. If the other member fails to exercise its put option, we have the right to purchase its interest on or after December 27, 2021 at fair market value.

Effective December 30, 2013, two of the members have the right to require us to purchase their 10.0% and 11.8% ownership interests in Plaza El Segundo at the interests' then-current fair market value. If the members fail to exercise their put options, we have the right to purchase each of their interests on or after December 30, 2026 at fair market value. Also, between January 1, 2017 and February 1, 2017, we have an option to purchase the preferred interest of another member in Plaza El Segundo. The purchase price will be the lesser of fair value or the $4.9 million stated value of the preferred interest plus any accrued and unpaid preferred returns.

Under the terms of certain partnership agreements, the partners have the right to exchange their operating partnership units for cash or the same number of our common shares, at our option. A total of 320,646 operating partnership units are outstanding which have a total fair value of $33.4 million, based on our closing stock price on December 31, 2012.