11.	Contingencies

Malkin Holdings and Peter L. Malkin, a member in Associates, were engaged in a proceeding with Lessee’s former managing agent, Helmsley-Spear, Inc. commenced in 1997, concerning the management, leasing, and supervision of the property that is subject to the Lease to Lessee. In this connection, certain costs for legal and professional fees and other expenses were paid by Malkin Holdings and Mr. Malkin. Malkin Holdings and Mr. Malkin have represented that such costs will be recovered only to the extent that (a) a competent tribunal authorizes payment or (b) an investor voluntarily agrees that his or her proportionate share be paid. On behalf of himself and Malkin Holdings, Mr. Malkin has requested, or intends to request, such voluntary agreement from all investors, which may include renewing such request in the future for any investor who previously received such request and failed to confirm agreement at that time. Because any related payment has been, or will be, made only by consenting investors, Associates has not provided for the expense and related liability with respect to such costs in these financial statements.

In March 2012, five putative class actions, or the Class Actions, were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County by Participants in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. (“ESBA”) and several other entities supervised by the Supervisor (on March 1, 2012, March 7, 2012, March 12, 2012, March 14, 2012 and March 19, 2012). The plaintiffs assert claims against Malkin Holdings LLC, Malkin Properties, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of New York, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of Connecticut, Inc., Malkin Construction Corp., Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the Helmsley estate, the operating partnership and the company for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. They allege, among other things, that the terms of the transaction and the process by which it was structured (including the valuation that was employed) are unfair to the participants, the consolidation provides excessive benefits to the Malkin Holdings group and the then-draft prospectus/consent solicitation filed with the SEC failed to make adequate disclosure to permit a fully informed decision about the proposed transaction. The complaints seek money damages and injunctive relief preventing the proposed transaction. The actions were consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel were appointed by the New York State Supreme Court by order dated June 26, 2012. Furthermore, an underlying premise of the Class Actions, as noted in discussions among plaintiffs’ counsel and defendants’ counsel, was that the consolidation had been structured in such a manner that would cause the subject LLC participants immediately to incur substantial tax liabilities.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated September 28, 2012, resolving the Class Actions. The Stipulation of Settlement recites that the consolidation was approved by overwhelming consent of the participants in the private entities. The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel for the plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have received adequate access to relevant information, including the independent valuer’s valuation process and methodology, that the disclosures in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, are appropriate, that the transaction presents potential benefits, including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation, that merit the participants’ serious consideration and that each of named class representatives intends to support the transaction as modified. The Stipulation of Settlement further states that counsel for the plaintiff class are satisfied that the claims regarding tax implications, enhanced disclosures, appraisals and exchange values of the properties that would be consolidated into the company, and the interests of the participants in the subject LLCs and the private entities, have been addressed adequately, and they have concluded that the settlement pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement and opportunity to consider the proposed transaction on the basis of revised consent solicitations are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the plaintiff class.

The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs.

The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) a payment of $55 million, with a minimum of 80% in cash and maximum of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common stock and/or freely-tradable operating partnership units (all of which will be paid by the Malkin Holdings group (provided that no member of the Malkin Holdings group that would become a direct or indirect subsidiary of the company in the consolidation will have any liability for such payment) and the Helmsley estate and certain participants in the private entities who agree to contribute) to be distributed, after reimbursement of plaintiffs’ counsel’s court-approved expenses and payment of plaintiffs’ counsel’s court-approved attorneys’ fees and, in the case of shares of common stock and/or operating partnership units, after the termination of specified lock-up periods, to participants in the subject LLCs and the private entities pursuant to a plan of allocation to be prepared by counsel for plaintiffs; (ii) defendants’ agreement that (a) the IPO will be on the basis of a firm commitment underwriting; (b) if, during the solicitation period, any of the three subject LLC’s percentage of total exchange value is lower than what is stated in the final prospectus/consent solicitation by 10% or more, such decrease will be promptly disclosed by defendants to investors in the subject LLCs; and (c) unless total gross proceeds of $600,000,000 are raised in the IPO, defendants will not proceed with the transaction without further approval of the subject LLCs; and (iii) defendants’ agreement to make additional disclosures in the prospectus/consent solicitation regarding certain matters (which are included therein). Defendants have also acknowledged the work of plaintiffs and their counsel was a material factor in defendants’ implementation of the change in the consolidation that, as originally proposed, would have required the exchange of participation interests for Class A common stock, which are taxable on receipt, and that now permits participants instead to elect to receive operating partnership units and Class B common stock, which permit tax deferral. Participants in the subject LLCs and private entities will not be required to bear any portion of the settlement payment. The payment in settlement of the Class Actions will be made by the Helmsley estate and the Malkin Holdings group (provided that no member of the Malkin Holdings group that would become a direct or indirect subsidiary of the company in the consolidation will have any liability for such payment) and certain participants in the private entities who agree to contribute. The company and the operating partnership will not bear any of the settlement payment.

The settlement further provides for the certification of a class of participants in the three subject LLCs and all of the private entities, other than defendants and other related persons and entities, and a release of any claims of the members of the class against defendants and related persons and entities, as well as underwriters and other advisors. The release in the settlement excludes certain claims, including but not limited to, claims arising from or related to any supplement to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that is declared effective to which the plaintiffs’ counsel objects in writing, which objection will not be unreasonably made or delayed, so long as plaintiffs’ counsel has had adequate opportunity to review such supplement. Members of the putative class have the right to opt out of the monetary portion of the settlement, but not the portion providing for equitable relief. The settlement is subject to court approval. It is not effective until such court approval is final, including the resolution of any appeal. Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the allegations in the Class Actions.

On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminary approval of such settlement, for permission to send notice of the settlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a final settlement hearing (collectively, “preliminary approval”).

On January 28, 2013, six participants in ESBA filed an objection to preliminary approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the action and for permission to file a separate complaint on behalf of ESBA participants. On February 21, 2013 the court denied the cross motion of such objecting participants, and the court denied permission for such objecting participants to file a separate complaint as part of the class action, other than permission to join the case by separate counsel solely for the purpose of supporting the allegation of the objecting participants that the buyout will deprive non-consenting participants in ESBA of “fair value” in violation of the New York Limited Liability Company Law. The court rejected the objecting participants’ assertion that preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

The court has scheduled a hearing on a motion for final approval of the settlement for May 2, 2013.