On January 14, 2020, FREIT Maryland and certain of its affiliates (collectively, the “Sellers”), entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (as subsequently amended, the “Purchase and Sale Agreement”) with Sinatra Properties LLC (the “Purchaser”), which provides for the sale by the Sellers to the Purchaser of 100% of the Sellers’ ownership interests in six real properties held by the Sellers in exchange for the purchase price described therein, subject to the terms and conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. On April 30, 2020, the Sellers delivered written notice to the Purchaser of the Sellers’ termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement in accordance with its terms due to the occurrence of a “Purchaser Default” thereunder, based on the Purchaser’s failure to perform its obligations under the Purchase and Sale Agreement and close the transactions contemplated therein.

Upon the execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Purchaser delivered into escrow a deposit in the amount of $15 million (the “Deposit”), in the form of an unconditional, irrevocable letter of credit in such amount (the “Letter of Credit”). The Purchase and Sale Agreement provides that the Sellers’ exclusive remedy, in the event of a “Purchaser Default” and the termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, is the forfeiture of the Deposit to the Sellers as liquidated damages. Accordingly, contemporaneously with the Sellers’ delivery of the termination notice to the Purchaser, the Sellers delivered written notice to the escrow agent requesting that the escrow agent release the Letter of Credit from escrow and deliver same to the Sellers.

On May 6, 2020, the Purchaser filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against the Sellers in the Superior Court of New Jersey, in which, among other things, the Purchaser alleged breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the Sellers in connection with the Sellers’ termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. The Purchaser sought (a) a judgment of specific performance compelling the Sellers to convey the properties under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to the Purchaser; (b) declaratory judgment from the court that (i) the Purchase and Sale Agreement was not terminated, (ii) the Purchaser was not in default under the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and (iii) the Sellers were in default under the Purchase and Sale Agreement, subject to a right to cure; (c) an order for injunctive relief compelling the Sellers to perform the Purchase and Sale Agreement; (d) in the event that the court did not order specific performance, a judgment directing that the Purchaser’s $15 million deposit under the Purchase and Sale Agreement be returned to the Purchaser, and compensatory, consequential and incidental damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and (e) attorneys’ fees and costs.

Termination of Purchase and Sale Agreement	3 Months Ended
Jan. 31, 2022
Business Combination, Consideration Transferred [Abstract]
Termination of Purchase and Sale Agreement	Note 6 – Termination of Purchase and Sale Agreement: On January 14, 2020, FREIT Maryland and certain of its affiliates (collectively, the “Sellers”), entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (as subsequently amended, the “Purchase and Sale Agreement”) with Sinatra Properties LLC (the “Purchaser”), which provides for the sale by the Sellers to the Purchaser of 100% of the Sellers’ ownership interests in six real properties held by the Sellers in exchange for the purchase price described therein, subject to the terms and conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. On April 30, 2020, the Sellers delivered written notice to the Purchaser of the Sellers’ termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement in accordance with its terms due to the occurrence of a “Purchaser Default” thereunder, based on the Purchaser’s failure to perform its obligations under the Purchase and Sale Agreement and close the transactions contemplated therein. Upon the execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Purchaser delivered into escrow a deposit in the amount of $15 million (the “Deposit”), in the form of an unconditional, irrevocable letter of credit in such amount (the “Letter of Credit”). The Purchase and Sale Agreement provides that the Sellers’ exclusive remedy, in the event of a “Purchaser Default” and the termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, is the forfeiture of the Deposit to the Sellers as liquidated damages. Accordingly, contemporaneously with the Sellers’ delivery of the termination notice to the Purchaser, the Sellers delivered written notice to the escrow agent requesting that the escrow agent release the Letter of Credit from escrow and deliver same to the Sellers. On May 6, 2020, the Purchaser filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against the Sellers in the Superior Court of New Jersey, in which, among other things, the Purchaser alleged breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the Sellers in connection with the Sellers’ termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. The Purchaser sought (a) a judgment of specific performance compelling the Sellers to convey the properties under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to the Purchaser; (b) declaratory judgment from the court that (i) the Purchase and Sale Agreement was not terminated, (ii) the Purchaser was not in default under the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and (iii) the Sellers were in default under the Purchase and Sale Agreement, subject to a right to cure; (c) an order for injunctive relief compelling the Sellers to perform the Purchase and Sale Agreement; (d) in the event that the court did not order specific performance, a judgment directing that the Purchaser’s $15 million deposit under the Purchase and Sale Agreement be returned to the Purchaser, and compensatory, consequential and incidental damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and (e) attorneys’ fees and costs. Index Page 12 The Purchaser filed lis pendens with respect to each of the six properties that were subject to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, providing notice to the public of the Complaint. The lis pendens have been dismissed by the Court pursuant to the Order entered on February 4, 2022 discussed below. Accordingly, subject to the Purchaser’s possible challenge of the Court’s Order, the future sale or financing of these properties is not affected by the lis pendens. On June 17, 2020, the Sellers filed their answer, separate defenses, and counterclaims (the “Answer”) in response to the Complaint, in which, among other things, the Sellers (a) denied the Purchaser’s claim that the Sellers’ termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement was wrongful, and asserted that there was no contractual basis in the Purchase and Sale Agreement to relieve the Purchaser from its obligation to perform thereunder, or to defer or postpone the Purchaser’s obligation to perform, (b) asserted certain defenses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint without admitting any liability, and (c) requested relief from the Court in the form of (i) judgment in the Sellers’ favor dismissing all of the Purchaser’s claims against them with prejudice and denying all of the Purchaser’s requests for relief, (ii) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and (iii) such other and further relief as the Court deemed just. In addition, the Answer asserted counterclaims by the Sellers against the Purchaser for breach of contract due to the Purchaser’s failure to close the Purchase and Sale Agreement in accordance with its terms, and the Sellers sought a declaratory judgment from the Court that the Sellers properly terminated the Purchase and Sale Agreement in accordance with its terms due to the Purchaser’s default and an order from the Court that the Purchaser authorized the escrow agent to release the $15 million deposit under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to the Sellers. On April 28, 2021, the Sellers amended the Answer to include (1) counterclaims against the Purchaser for breach of contract due to the Purchaser’s breach of confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations contained in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and (2) third-party claims against Purchaser’s affiliate Kushner Realty Acquisition LLC for breach of its confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations contained in the non-disclosure agreement entered into by the parties in connection with the negotiation of the transactions contemplated by the Purchase and Sale Agreement, based on the conduct of the Purchaser and its affiliates after the Sellers terminated the Purchase and Sale Agreement. In connection with these counterclaims and third-party claims, the Answer sought the following relief from the Court: (a) liquidated damages in the amount of $15 million, as provided in the Purchase and Sale Agreement; (b) in the alternative to the liquidated damages provided for in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, money damages in an amount to be determined at trial; (c) interest, attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the defense of the Purchaser’s claims and the prosecution of the Sellers’ counterclaims against the Purchaser, as provided for in the Purchase and Sale Agreement; (d) judgment declaring that the Sellers properly terminated the Purchase and Sale Agreement due to the Purchaser’s default thereunder; (e) judgment declaring that the Purchaser must authorize the escrow agent to release the $15 million deposit to the Sellers; (f) an order enjoining the Purchaser and its affiliates from engaging in further breaches of the Purchase and Sale Agreement and non-disclosure agreement, and compelling the Purchaser and its affiliates to return the Sellers’ confidential information and materials and to use best efforts to ensure the return of the Sellers’ confidential information and materials from third parties to whom the Purchaser and/or its affiliates provided such materials; and (g) such other relief as the Court deemed just and equitable. In the Answer filed by the Purchaser on September 15, 2020 and the Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed by the Purchaser and Kushner Realty Acquisition LLC on June 7, 2021, the Purchaser and Kushner Realty Acquisition LLC have generally denied the claims, counterclaims and allegations contained in the Sellers’ original and amended Answer, and asserted affirmative defenses to the Sellers’ claims and counterclaims. Each of the Sellers and the Purchaser filed motions for summary judgment (“Summary Judgment Motions”) with the Court in which the litigation is pending seeking, among other things, the dismissal of the other parties’ claims. On February 4, 2022, the Court entered an Order (the “Order”) with respect to the Summary Judgment Motions which provides as follows: (1) The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s have breached the subject contract and the Court dismisses all claims for relief filed by the Plaintiff in this suit. The Court dismissed the Complaint and dismisses the Lis Pendens. (2) The Court finds that the liquidated damage provision of the contract is not enforceable and the Court Orders that the $15 million held in escrow be returned to the Plaintiff. (3) The Court dismisses the Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint. All pleadings are dismissed. Index Page 13 The Sellers are evaluating the Order and their rights and remedies with respect thereto. The Sellers continue to believe that the allegations set forth in the Complaint and Answer filed by the Purchaser and in the Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed by the Purchaser and Kushner Realty Acquisition LLC are without merit. Through the quarter ended January 31, 2022, the $15 million deposit has not been included in income in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of income. Legal costs attributed to the legal proceeding between FREIT Maryland and certain of its affiliates and Sinatra Properties, LLC have been incurred in the amount of approximately $613,000 and $481,000 for the three months ended January 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, and are included in operating expenses on the condensed consolidated statements of income.

Page 12

The Purchaser filed lis pendens with respect to each of the six properties that were subject to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, providing notice to the public of the Complaint. The lis pendens have been dismissed by the Court pursuant to the Order entered on February 4, 2022 discussed below. Accordingly, subject to the Purchaser’s possible challenge of the Court’s Order, the future sale or financing of these properties is not affected by the lis pendens.

On June 17, 2020, the Sellers filed their answer, separate defenses, and counterclaims (the “Answer”) in response to the Complaint, in which, among other things, the Sellers (a) denied the Purchaser’s claim that the Sellers’ termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement was wrongful, and asserted that there was no contractual basis in the Purchase and Sale Agreement to relieve the Purchaser from its obligation to perform thereunder, or to defer or postpone the Purchaser’s obligation to perform, (b) asserted certain defenses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint without admitting any liability, and (c) requested relief from the Court in the form of (i) judgment in the Sellers’ favor dismissing all of the Purchaser’s claims against them with prejudice and denying all of the Purchaser’s requests for relief, (ii) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and (iii) such other and further relief as the Court deemed just.

In addition, the Answer asserted counterclaims by the Sellers against the Purchaser for breach of contract due to the Purchaser’s failure to close the Purchase and Sale Agreement in accordance with its terms, and the Sellers sought a declaratory judgment from the Court that the Sellers properly terminated the Purchase and Sale Agreement in accordance with its terms due to the Purchaser’s default and an order from the Court that the Purchaser authorized the escrow agent to release the $15 million deposit under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to the Sellers. On April 28, 2021, the Sellers amended the Answer to include (1) counterclaims against the Purchaser for breach of contract due to the Purchaser’s breach of confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations contained in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and (2) third-party claims against Purchaser’s affiliate Kushner Realty Acquisition LLC for breach of its confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations contained in the non-disclosure agreement entered into by the parties in connection with the negotiation of the transactions contemplated by the Purchase and Sale Agreement, based on the conduct of the Purchaser and its affiliates after the Sellers terminated the Purchase and Sale Agreement.

In connection with these counterclaims and third-party claims, the Answer sought the following relief from the Court: (a) liquidated damages in the amount of $15 million, as provided in the Purchase and Sale Agreement; (b) in the alternative to the liquidated damages provided for in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, money damages in an amount to be determined at trial; (c) interest, attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the defense of the Purchaser’s claims and the prosecution of the Sellers’ counterclaims against the Purchaser, as provided for in the Purchase and Sale Agreement; (d) judgment declaring that the Sellers properly terminated the Purchase and Sale Agreement due to the Purchaser’s default thereunder; (e) judgment declaring that the Purchaser must authorize the escrow agent to release the $15 million deposit to the Sellers; (f) an order enjoining the Purchaser and its affiliates from engaging in further breaches of the Purchase and Sale Agreement and non-disclosure agreement, and compelling the Purchaser and its affiliates to return the Sellers’ confidential information and materials and to use best efforts to ensure the return of the Sellers’ confidential information and materials from third parties to whom the Purchaser and/or its affiliates provided such materials; and (g) such other relief as the Court deemed just and equitable.

In the Answer filed by the Purchaser on September 15, 2020 and the Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed by the Purchaser and Kushner Realty Acquisition LLC on June 7, 2021, the Purchaser and Kushner Realty Acquisition LLC have generally denied the claims, counterclaims and allegations contained in the Sellers’ original and amended Answer, and asserted affirmative defenses to the Sellers’ claims and counterclaims.

Each of the Sellers and the Purchaser filed motions for summary judgment (“Summary Judgment Motions”) with the Court in which the litigation is pending seeking, among other things, the dismissal of the other parties’ claims.

On February 4, 2022, the Court entered an Order (the “Order”) with respect to the Summary Judgment Motions which provides as follows:

(1) The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s have breached the subject contract and the Court dismisses all claims for relief filed by the Plaintiff in this suit. The Court dismissed the Complaint and dismisses the Lis Pendens.

(2) The Court finds that the liquidated damage provision of the contract is not enforceable and the Court Orders that the $15 million held in escrow be returned to the Plaintiff.

(3) The Court dismisses the Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint. All pleadings are dismissed.

Index

Page 13

The Sellers are evaluating the Order and their rights and remedies with respect thereto. The Sellers continue to believe that the allegations set forth in the Complaint and Answer filed by the Purchaser and in the Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed by the Purchaser and Kushner Realty Acquisition LLC are without merit.

Through the quarter ended January 31, 2022, the $15 million deposit has not been included in income in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of income. Legal costs attributed to the legal proceeding between FREIT Maryland and certain of its affiliates and Sinatra Properties, LLC have been incurred in the amount of approximately $613,000 and $481,000 for the three months ended January 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, and are included in operating expenses on the condensed consolidated statements of income.