Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

The Company is a party to various joint ventures with the Coventry II Fund, through which 11 existing or proposed retail properties, along with a portfolio of former Service Merchandise locations, were acquired at various times from 2003 through 2006. The properties were acquired by the joint ventures as value-add investments, with major renovation and/or ground-up development contemplated for many of the properties. The Company was generally responsible for day-to-day management of the properties through December 2011. On November 4, 2009, Coventry Real Estate Advisors L.L.C., Coventry Real Estate Fund II, L.L.C. and Coventry Fund II Parallel Fund, L.L.C. (collectively, “Coventry”) filed suit against the Company and certain of its affiliates and officers in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The complaint alleges that the Company: (i) breached contractual obligations under a co-investment agreement and various joint venture limited liability company agreements, project development agreements and management and leasing agreements; (ii) breached its fiduciary duties as a member of various limited liability companies; (iii) fraudulently induced the plaintiffs to enter into certain agreements; and (iv) made certain material misrepresentations. The complaint also requests that a general release made by Coventry in favor of the Company in connection with one of the joint venture properties be voided on the grounds of economic duress. The complaint seeks compensatory and consequential damages in an amount not less than $500 million, as well as punitive damages. In response, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to sever the plaintiffs’ claims. In June 2010, the court granted in part the Company’s motion, dismissing Coventry’s claim that the Company breached a fiduciary duty owed to Coventry (and denying the motion as to the other claims). Coventry filed a notice of appeal regarding that portion of the motion granted by the court. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s ruling regarding the dismissal of Coventry’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The Company filed an answer to the complaint, and has asserted various counterclaims against Coventry. On October 10, 2011, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all of Coventry’s remaining claims. The motion is currently pending before the court.

The Company believes that the allegations in the lawsuit are without merit and that it has strong defenses against this lawsuit. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself against the allegations contained in the complaint. This lawsuit is subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process and, therefore, no assurance can be given as to its ultimate outcome and no loss provision has been recorded in the accompanying financial statements because a loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable. However, based on the information presently available to the Company, the Company does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

On November 18, 2009, the Company filed a complaint against Coventry in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, seeking, among other things, a temporary restraining order enjoining Coventry from terminating “for cause” the management agreements between the Company and the various joint ventures because the Company believes that the requisite conduct in a “for-cause” termination (i.e., fraud or willful misconduct committed by an executive of the Company at the level of at least senior vice president) did not occur. The court heard testimony in support of the Company’s motion (and Coventry’s opposition) and, on December 4, 2009, issued a ruling in the Company’s favor. Specifically, the court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Coventry from terminating the Company as property manager “for cause.” The court found that the Company was likely to succeed on the merits, that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage would result to the Company in the absence of such restraint, and that the balance of equities favored injunctive relief in the Company’s favor. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling by the Court that there was no basis for Coventry’s “for cause” termination as a matter of law. On August 2, 2011, the court entered an order granting the Company’s motion for summary judgment in all respects, finding that, as a matter of law and fact, Coventry did not have the right to terminate the management agreements “for cause”. Coventry filed a notice of appeal, and on March 15, 2012, the Ohio Court of Appeals issued an opinion and order unanimously affirming the trial court’s ruling.

In addition to the litigation discussed above, the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to various legal proceedings, which, taken together, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company is also subject to a variety of legal actions for personal injury or property damage arising in the ordinary course of its business, most of which are covered by insurance. While the resolution of all matters cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes that the final outcome of such legal proceedings and claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, financial position or results of operations.