XML 54 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
Commitments and Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies [Text Block]

11.       Commitments and Contingencies

Insurance

We maintain general liability insurance with limits of $300,000,000 per occurrence and all-risk property and rental value insurance coverage with limits of $1.7 billion per occurrence, including coverage for acts of terrorism, with sub-limits for certain perils such as floods and earthquakes on each of our properties.

 

Fifty Ninth Street Insurance Company, LLC (“FNSIC”), our wholly owned consolidated subsidiary, acts as a direct insurer for coverage for acts of terrorism, including nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological (“NBCR”) acts, as defined by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, which expires in December 2014.  Coverage for acts of terrorism (including NBCR acts) is up to $1.7 billion per occurrence and in the aggregate.  Coverage for acts of terrorism (excluding NBCR acts) is fully reinsured by third party insurance companies with no exposure to FNSIC.  For NBCR acts, FNSIC is responsible for a $275,000 deductible and 15% of the balance of a covered loss and the Federal government is responsible for the remaining 85% of a covered loss.  We are ultimately responsible for any loss incurred by FNSIC.

 

We continue to monitor the state of the insurance market and the scope and costs of coverage for acts of terrorism. However, we cannot anticipate what coverage will be available on commercially reasonable terms in the future. We are responsible for deductibles and losses in excess of our insurance coverage, which could be material.

 

Our mortgage loans are non-recourse to us, except for $75,000,000 of the $320,000,000 mortgage on our 731 Lexington Avenue property, in the event of a substantial casualty, as defined.  Our mortgage loans contain customary covenants requiring us to maintain insurance. Although we believe that we have adequate insurance coverage for purposes of these agreements, we may not be able to obtain an equivalent amount of coverage at reasonable costs in the future. If lenders insist on greater coverage than we are able to obtain, it could adversely affect our ability to finance our properties.

Litigation

Rego Park I

On June 24, 2014, Sears Roebuck and Co. (“Sears”) filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Vornado and us (and certain of our subsidiaries) with regard to space that Sears leases at our Rego Park I property. Sears alleges that the defendants are liable for harm Sears has suffered as a result of (a) water intrusions into the premises Sears leases, (b) two fires in February 2014 that caused damages to those premises, and (c) alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in the premises' parking garage. Sears asserts various causes of actions for damages and seeks to compel compliance with landlord's obligations to repair the premises and to provide security, and to compel us to abate a nuisance that Sears claims was a cause of the water intrusions into its premises. In addition to injunctive relief, Sears seeks, among other things, damages of not less than $4 million and future damages it estimates will be not less than $25 million. We intend to defend the claims vigorously; the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated.

Flushing

In 2002, Flushing Expo, Inc. (“Expo”) agreed to purchase the stock of the entity which owns the Flushing property from us (“Purchase of the Property”) and gave us a non-refundable deposit of $1,875,000. Pursuant to a stipulation of settlement, we settled the action Expo brought against us regarding the Purchase of the Property and in June 2011, deposited the settlement amount with the Court, in exchange for which we received a stipulation of discontinuance, with prejudice, as well as general releases. In November 2011, Expo filed another action, this time against our tenant at the Flushing property asserting, among other things, that such tenant interfered with Expo's Purchase of the Property from us and sought $50,000,000 in damages from our tenant, who sought indemnification from us for such amount. In August 2012, the Court entered judgment denying Expo's claim for damages. Expo filed a motion to re-argue the decision, which the Court denied on December 7, 2012. Expo appealed the Court's August 2012 decision, which the Court denied on April 16, 2014.

Paramus

In 2001, we leased 30.3 acres of land located in Paramus, New Jersey to IKEA Property, Inc. The lease has a purchase option in 2021 for $75,000,000. The property is encumbered by a $68,000,000 interest-only mortgage loan with a fixed rate of 2.90%, which matures in October 2018. The annual triple-net rent is the sum of $700,000 plus the amount of debt service on the mortgage loan. If the purchase option is exercised, we will receive net cash proceeds of approximately $7,000,000 and recognize a gain on sale of land of approximately $60,000,000. If the purchase option is not exercised, the triple-net rent for the last 20 years would include debt service sufficient to fully amortize $68,000,000 over the remaining 20-year lease term.

Letters of Credit

Approximately $3,308,000 of standby letters of credit were outstanding as of September 30, 2014.

Other

There are various other legal actions against us in the ordinary course of business. In our opinion, the outcome of such matters in the aggregate will not have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.