0000950123-01-506908.txt : 20011009
0000950123-01-506908.hdr.sgml : 20011009
ACCESSION NUMBER: 0000950123-01-506908
CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE: S-4
PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT: 10
FILED AS OF DATE: 20011002
FILER:
COMPANY DATA:
COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0000910108
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS [6798]
IRS NUMBER: 133717318
STATE OF INCORPORATION: MD
FISCAL YEAR END: 1231
FILING VALUES:
FORM TYPE: S-4
SEC ACT: 1933 Act
SEC FILE NUMBER: 333-70790
FILM NUMBER: 1751015
BUSINESS ADDRESS:
STREET 1: 355 LEXINGTON AVE
CITY: NEW YORK
STATE: NY
ZIP: 10017
BUSINESS PHONE: 2126927260
MAIL ADDRESS:
STREET 1: 355 LEXINGTON AVE
STREET 2: 14TH FLOOR
CITY: NEW YORK
STATE: NY
ZIP: 10017
FORMER COMPANY:
FORMER CONFORMED NAME: LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES INC
DATE OF NAME CHANGE: 19930816
S-4
1
y53433s-4.txt
FORM S-4
1
AS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 2, 2001
REGISTRATION NO. 333-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
---------------------
FORM S-4
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
MARYLAND 6798 133717318
(State or other (Primary North American (I.R.S. Employer
Jurisdiction of organization) Industry Classification Number) Identification No.)
355 LEXINGTON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10017
(212) 692-7260
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number,
including area code, of registrant's principal executive offices)
T. WILSON EGLIN
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
355 LEXINGTON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
(212) 692-7260
(Name, address, including zip code, and telephone number,
including area code, of agent for service)
WITH COPIES TO:
BARRY A. BROOKS, ESQ.
MARK SCHONBERGER, ESQ.
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP
399 PARK AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022
(212) 318-6000
Approximate date of commencement of the proposed sale to the public: As
soon as practicable after this Registration Statement becomes effective.
If the securities being registered on this Form are being offered in
connection with the formation of a holding company and there is compliance with
General Instruction G, check the following box. [ ]
If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering
pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, check the following box and
list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective
registration statement for the same offering. [ ]
If this Form is post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under
the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act
registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement
for the same offering. [ ]
---------------------
CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED MAXIMUM
AMOUNT TO BE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF
TITLE OF EACH CLASS OF SECURITY TO BE REGISTERED REGISTERED OFFERING PRICE(2) REGISTRATION FEE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common shares, par value $0.0001 per share............ $32,175,000(3) $8,043.75
8.5% senior subordinated debentures due 2009.......... (1) $20,000,000(4) $5,000.00
Total............................................. $52,175,000 $13,043.75(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Omitted pursuant to Rule 457(o) under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.
(2) Estimated solely for the purpose of calculating the registration fee
pursuant to Rule 457(o), promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.
(3) Represents the maximum number of common shares issuable upon consummation of
the transactions described herein. Fifty percent of the merger consideration
will be paid in common shares, and fifty percent of the merger consideration
will be paid in cash. The number of common shares issued will be determined
on the basis of the average closing price of common shares during the 20 day
period prior to, but not including, the closing date of the mergers. The
maximum number of common shares would be issued if the average closing price
is $14.00 per share.
(4) Represents the maximum principal amount of the 8.5% senior subordinated
debentures that may be issued in lieu of common shares and cash.
(5) Pursuant to Rule 457(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the
total registration fee of $13,043.75 (calculated by multiplying the proposed
maximum aggregate offering price by .00025) may be reduced by the amount of
any fee previously paid with respect to the same transaction pursuant to
Sections 13(e) and 14(g) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. Lexington paid a filing fee in the amount of $12,870.00 pursuant to
Section 14(g) and Rule 0-11 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the filing of its preliminary proxy materials with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2000, and therefore the
fee required to be paid at this time has been reduced to $173.75. The
transaction described herein initially contemplated 100% of the merger
consideration being comprised of securities, and the filing fee paid was
calculated on that basis.
---------------------
THE REGISTRANT HEREBY AMENDS THIS REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON SUCH DATE OR
DATES AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO DELAY ITS EFFECTIVE DATE UNTIL THE REGISTRANT SHALL
FILE A FURTHER AMENDMENT WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THIS REGISTRATION
STATEMENT SHALL THEREAFTER BECOME EFFECTIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 8(a) OF
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 OR UNTIL THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE ON SUCH DATE AS THE COMMISSION, ACTING PURSUANT TO SAID SECTION 8(a),
MAY DETERMINE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
PRELIMINARY COPY -- SUBJECT TO COMPLETION
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
355 LEXINGTON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS
TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 28, 2001
To the Shareholders of Lexington Corporate Properties Trust:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of shareholders of Lexington
Corporate Properties Trust, a Maryland statutory real estate investment trust,
will be held at on November 28, 2001, at 10 a.m., local time, for the
following purposes:
- APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF MERGER AGREEMENTS. To consider and vote upon a
proposal to approve and adopt the Agreement and Plan of Merger, as
amended, pursuant to which each of Net 1 L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership, and Net 2 L.P., a Delaware limited partnership,
respectively, will merge into Net 3 Acquisition L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership and a controlled subsidiary of Lexington, in exchange for a
specified number of Lexington common shares and a specified amount of
cash. A copy of each Agreement and Plan of Merger and the applicable
amendment, containing the terms and conditions of the respective merger,
is attached as Annex A-1 and Annex A-2, respectively, to the Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus enclosed with this
notice.
- APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT OF DECLARATION OF
TRUST. To consider and vote upon a proposal to approve and adopt the
Articles of Amendment pursuant to which Lexington's Declaration of Trust
will be amended to increase the number of common shares which Lexington
has authority to issue from 40,000,000 common shares to 80,000,000 common
shares. A copy of the Articles of Amendment is attached as Annex A-5 to
the Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus enclosed
with this notice.
- ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING. To consider and vote upon a proposal to adjourn
the special meeting to permit further solicitation of proxies if there
are not sufficient votes at the time of the special meeting to approve
the proposed mergers and the proposed amendment to the Declaration of
Trust.
- OTHER BUSINESS. To transact such other business as may properly come
before the special meeting or any adjournments of the special meeting.
Lexington's Board of Trustees has fixed the close of business on October
12, 2001 as the record date for the determination of Lexington shareholders
entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the special meeting and any adjournments
of the special meeting. Only shareholders of record on the record date are
entitled to notice of, and to vote on, the proposals. The proposals to approve
and adopt the merger agreements and the amendment to the Declaration of Trust
each require the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the
outstanding Lexington shares entitled to vote on the proposal. All other
proposals must be approved by the holders of a majority of the outstanding
Lexington shares as of the record date present in person or represented by a
properly executed proxy at the special meeting.
Regardless of whether you plan to attend the special meeting, please
complete, sign and date the enclosed proxy card and return it promptly in the
enclosed postage paid envelope. It is important that your interests be
represented at the special meeting.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
PAUL R. WOOD
Secretary
, 2001
New York, New York
3
PRELIMINARY COPY -- SUBJECT TO COMPLETION
NET 1 L.P. AND NET 2 L.P.
355 LEXINGTON AVENUE, 14TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
NOTICE OF CONSENT SOLICITATION TO LIMITED PARTNERS
To the Limited Partners of Net 1 L.P. and Net 2 L.P.:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the general partners of Net 1 L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership, and Net 2 L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, are
soliciting the consent of the holders of units of limited partnership interests
in Net 1 and Net 2, respectively, to the following proposals:
- APPROVAL OF TRANSACTION. To approve and adopt (i) the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, as amended, pursuant to which each of Net 1 and Net 2,
respectively, will merge into Net 3 Acquisition L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership and a controlled subsidiary of Lexington Corporate Properties
Trust, a Maryland statutory real estate investment trust, in exchange for
a specified number of Lexington common shares and a specified aggregate
amount of cash; and (ii) the amendment of the partnership agreements of
Net 1 and Net 2, respectively, to permit the transfer by the general
partners of their respective general partnership interests to Net 3. A
copy of each Agreement and Plan of Merger and the applicable amendment,
containing the terms and conditions of the respective merger, is attached
as Annex A-1 and Annex A-2, respectively, to the Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus enclosed with this notice.
- EXTENSION OF CONSENT SOLICITATION PERIOD. To extend the period for the
solicitation of consents, if either Net 1 or Net 2 has not received the
affirmative consent of the holders of a sufficient number of units to
approve its respective merger proposal.
Only the limited partners of Net 1 and Net 2 holding limited partnership
interests at the close of business on October 12, 2001 are entitled to notice
of, and to consent or deny consent to, the proposals. The proposal to approve
the transaction requires the affirmative consent of the holders of more than 50%
of the outstanding limited partnership interests. The proposal to approve an
extension of the consent solicitation period requires the affirmative consent of
a majority of the votes cast.
We invite you to consent or deny consent to the proposals using the
enclosed consent form because it is important that your interests in Net 1 or
Net 2, as applicable, be represented. Please sign, date and return the enclosed
consent card in the accompanying postage-paid envelope.
BY ORDER OF THE GENERAL PARTNERS
LEPERCQ NET 1 L.P.,
A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By: Lepercq Net 1 Inc., its general
partner
By:
-----------------------------------------
Name: E. Robert Roskind
Title: President
LEPERCQ NET 2 L.P.,
A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By: Lepercq Net 2 Inc., its general
partner
By:
-----------------------------------------
Name: E. Robert Roskind
Title: President
, 2001
New York, New York
4
The information in this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We may not sell these
securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission is effective. This joint consent and proxy solicitation
statement/prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and is not
soliciting an offer to buy these securities in any state where the offer or sale
is not permitted.
SUBJECT TO COMPLETION, DATED OCTOBER 2, 2001
JOINT CONSENT AND PROXY SOLICITATION STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
COMMON SHARES
8.5% SENIOR SUBORDINATED DEBENTURES, DUE 2009
IF YOU ARE A SHAREHOLDER OF LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST OR A LIMITED
PARTNER OF NET 1 OR NET 2, YOUR VOTE OR CONSENT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
Lexington Corporate Properties Trust, a Maryland statutory real estate
investment trust (NYSE: LXP), is seeking to acquire each of Net 1 L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership and Net 2 L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, in
a merger of each Net Partnership into Net 3 Acquisition L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership and a controlled subsidiary of Lexington. For purposes of this Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, we refer to Lexington
Corporate Properties Trust and its consolidated subsidiaries, including Net 3,
as Lexington, and we refer to the mergers and related transactions as the
Transaction.
The maximum aggregate dollar amount of consideration to be paid in the
Transaction is $65.0 million. Each limited partnership unit will be exchanged
for merger consideration equal to the agreed upon adjusted net asset value per
unit of Net 1 and Net 2, which is $820.38 and $81.96, respectively. The merger
consideration will be payable 50% in Lexington common shares and 50% in cash.
THERE ARE MATERIAL RISKS AND POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
TRANSACTION AS DESCRIBED IN "RISK FACTORS" BEGINNING ON PAGE 38. YOU SHOULD
CONSIDER:
- Although limited partners will receive 50% of their merger consideration
in Lexington common shares, the fair market value of those common shares
may not equal 50% of the agreed upon adjusted net asset value of the Net
Partnerships' units, and investors selling the common shares may realize
less than 50% of the agreed upon adjusted net asset value upon resale.
- The maximum and minimum number of Lexington common shares that may be
issued is fixed. Limited partners will not be entitled to receive any
more common shares if the average closing price is less than $14.00 per
share than they would if the average closing price were $14.00 per share,
and Lexington will not be entitled to issue any fewer common shares if
the average closing price is greater than $16.00 per share than they
would if the average closing price were $16.00 per share.
- Estimated liquidation costs of $6.0 million, which would be incurred upon
a liquidation, have been deducted from the agreed upon fair market value
of the Net Partnerships' properties in calculating the total merger
consideration being offered to limited partners.
- The senior subordinated debentures, which we refer to as the dissenter
debentures, are likely to sell for less than their face amount, and
therefore, if a limited partner elects to receive the dissenter
debentures, the fair market value of that limited partner's merger
consideration might not equal the agreed upon adjusted net asset value of
the Net Partnerships at such time. The dissenter debentures will not have
a public market and will be subordinated to aggregate mortgages and notes
payable of Lexington of approximately $447.4 million on a pro forma basis
as of June 30, 2001.
- The ownership and voting interests of limited partners and shareholders
will be diluted, meaning that they will have a smaller percentage
ownership and voting interest in Lexington than they currently have in
their respective Net Partnership or Lexington, as applicable. You will
not know the number of Lexington common shares to be exchanged in the
Transaction, and thus the magnitude of this dilutive effect, at the time
you make your voting decision.
- No independent representative was retained to negotiate on behalf of the
limited partners. The general partners are controlled by E. Robert
Roskind who is also the Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board of Trustees of Lexington. Mr. Roskind's affiliation with both the
general partners and Lexington creates a conflict of interest in
recommending the Transaction. Therefore, the terms of the Transaction,
including the merger consideration being offered, were not determined
through arm's length negotiations.
- An original limited partner will incur taxable gain of approximately
$40.76 and $4.87 per unit of Net 1 and Net 2, respectively.
NEITHER THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION NOR ANY STATE SECURITIES
COMMISSION HAS APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED OF THESE SECURITIES OR PASSED UPON THE
ACCURACY OR ADEQUACY OF THIS JOINT CONSENT AND PROXY SOLICITATION
STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
THE DATE OF THIS JOINT CONSENT AND PROXY SOLICITATION STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS IS
, 2001.
5
AVAILABLE INFORMATION
Lexington and the Net Partnerships are subject to the informational
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which require them to file
reports and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You
can inspect and copy reports, proxy statements and other information filed by
Lexington and the Net Partnerships at the SEC's Public Reference Room at 450
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549. You can obtain copies of this
material by mail from the Public Reference Room at 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20549, at prescribed rates. You can obtain information on the
operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. You
can also obtain such reports, proxy statements and other information from the
web site that the SEC maintains at http://www.sec.gov.
Reports, proxy statements and other information concerning Lexington may
also be obtained electronically at Lexington's website, http://www.lxp.com and
through a variety of databases, including, among others, the SEC's Electronic
Data Gathering and Retrieval ("EDGAR") program, Knight-Ridder Information Inc.,
Federal Filing/Dow Jones and Lexis/Nexis.
Lexington has filed with the SEC a registration statement on Form S-4 under
the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to the Lexington common shares and
dissenter debentures to be issued in connection with the mergers. This Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus does not contain all of the
information set forth in that registration statement, parts of which have been
omitted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SEC. For further
information, reference is hereby made to that registration statement. Any
statements contained herein concerning the provisions of any document filed as
an exhibit to that registration statement or otherwise filed with the SEC are
not necessarily complete, and in each instance reference is made to the copy of
that document so filed. Each of those statements is qualified in its entirety by
this reference.
If you have any questions about the mergers, limited partners should call
Morrow & Co., Inc. toll free at (877) 807-8896, and Lexington shareholders
should call Mellon Investor Services, LLC toll free at (800) 279-1247.
No person has been authorized to give any information or to make any
representation other than those contained in or incorporated by reference into
this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus in connection
with the solicitation of proxies or the offering of securities made hereby and,
if given or made, that information or representation must not be relied upon as
having been authorized by Lexington or the Net Partnerships. Neither the
delivery of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus nor
any distribution of the Lexington common shares, cash or dissenter debentures
offered hereby will under any circumstances create an implication that there has
been no change in the affairs of Lexington or either of the Net Partnerships
since the date hereof or that the information set forth or incorporated by
reference herein is correct as of any time subsequent to its date. This Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus does not constitute an offer
to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to purchase, any securities or the
solicitation of a proxy or consent, in any jurisdiction in which, or to any
person to whom, it is unlawful to make such offer or solicitation of an offer or
proxy solicitation.
i
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
----
SUMMARY..................................................... 1
Purpose of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus................................... 1
Information Concerning the Merger......................... 2
Description of the REIT Structure, Lexington and the Net
Partnerships........................................... 2
Lexington................................................. 2
The Net Partnerships...................................... 3
Risk Factors and Adverse Effects of the Transaction....... 8
Conflicts of Interest..................................... 9
The Transaction........................................... 9
Background of the Transaction and Alternatives to the
Transaction that the General Partners Considered....... 15
Fairness Opinions......................................... 18
Comparison of Valuation Analyses.......................... 20
Unaudited Comparative Per Share/Unit Data................. 25
Recommendation of the Board of Trustees of Lexington and
the General Partners of the Net Partnerships........... 26
Consequences if Mergers Not Consummated................... 28
Effective Time of the Mergers............................. 28
Transaction Expenses...................................... 29
Comparison of Rights of the Limited Partners and
Shareholders of Lexington.............................. 29
Federal Income Tax Considerations......................... 29
Information Concerning the Amendment to Lexington's
Declaration of Trust................................... 29
Approval of Merger and Proposed Amendment; Election of
Merger Consideration................................... 30
Summary Financial Information............................. 33
RISK FACTORS................................................ 38
THE MERGERS................................................. 49
Reasons for the Transaction -- Net Partnerships........... 49
Reasons for the Transaction -- Lexington.................. 50
Background of the Transaction............................. 50
The Board of Trustees' Reasons and Recommendations for the
Merger................................................. 55
The General Partners' Reasons and Recommendations for the
Merger................................................. 57
The Merger Consideration.................................. 60
Comparison of Common Shares and Cash versus Dissenter
Debentures............................................. 62
Methodology Used to Determine Merger Consideration........ 64
Calculation of Agreed Upon Adjusted Net Asset Value....... 64
Transaction Expenses...................................... 66
Anticipated Accounting Treatment.......................... 67
No Fractional Common Shares............................... 67
ALTERNATIVES TO THE TRANSACTIONS THAT THE GENERAL PARTNERS
CONSIDERED................................................ 67
Summary of Valuation Alternatives......................... 67
Continuation.............................................. 68
Liquidation............................................... 70
ii
7
PAGE
----
Conclusion................................................ 72
Consequences if Mergers Not Consummated................... 72
THE MERGER AGREEMENT........................................ 72
Conversion of Shares...................................... 72
Exchange of Certificates.................................. 72
Effective Time of the Mergers............................. 73
Representations and Warranties............................ 73
Conditions to Consummation of the Mergers................. 74
Conduct of Business Pending the Merger.................... 75
Alternative Proposals..................................... 76
Termination............................................... 76
Extension; Waiver......................................... 78
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST....................................... 78
Affiliated General Partners............................... 78
Related Party Transactions/Prior Dealings................. 79
The Independent Trustees.................................. 80
Lexington's Ownership of Units of Limited Partnership of
the Net Partnerships................................... 80
FAIRNESS OPINIONS........................................... 80
General................................................... 80
Prudential Securities Fairness Opinion.................... 81
Opinion of Cohen & Steers Capital Advisors LLC for Net 1
L.P.................................................... 89
Opinion of Cohen & Steers Capital Advisors LLC for Net 2
L.P.................................................... 96
APPRAISALS.................................................. 103
1999 Portfolio Appraisals................................. 104
2000 Portfolio Appraisal.................................. 105
COMPARISON OF OWNERSHIP OF UNITS, COMMON SHARES AND
DISSENTER DEBENTURES...................................... 109
OTHER PROPOSALS............................................. 121
Amendment to Lexington's Declaration of Trust............. 121
VOTING PROCEDURES........................................... 122
Voting Procedures for Lexington Shareholders.............. 122
Voting Procedures for Limited Partners.................... 122
Record Date; Votes Required............................... 124
Procedures for Limited Partners to Receive Dissenter
Debentures............................................. 124
Investor Lists............................................ 125
INFORMATION ABOUT LEXINGTON................................. 126
General................................................... 126
Recent Developments....................................... 126
Objectives and Strategy................................... 127
Internal Growth; Effectively Managing Assets.............. 127
External Growth; Strategies for Acquisitions and
Increasing Assets Under Management..................... 128
Strategic Joint Venture Co-Investments.................... 129
Revenue Enhancement from Advisory Services................ 130
Matching Indebtedness to Lease Expirations and Increasing
Access to Capital...................................... 130
iii
8
PAGE
----
Common Share Repurchase................................... 130
Competition............................................... 130
Investment Policies....................................... 131
Financing Policies........................................ 131
Miscellaneous Policies.................................... 131
Environmental Matters..................................... 132
Employees................................................. 132
Industry Segments......................................... 132
Price Range of the Lexington Common Shares and
Distribution History................................... 132
Management................................................ 134
Board of Trustees......................................... 136
Compensation of Trustees.................................. 138
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider
Participation.......................................... 138
Report of the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Trustees............................................... 139
Fiduciary Responsibility.................................. 139
Employment Agreements..................................... 140
Share Ownership of Principal Security Holders, Trustees
and Executive Officers................................. 140
Description of Capital Shares............................. 141
Transfer Agent............................................ 144
Real Estate Portfolio..................................... 144
Real Estate Holdings...................................... 144
Insurance................................................. 157
Legal Proceedings......................................... 157
INFORMATION ABOUT THE NET PARTNERSHIPS...................... 158
Business of Net 1......................................... 158
Business of Net 2......................................... 160
Competition............................................... 161
Investment Policies....................................... 161
Financing Policies........................................ 162
General Partners.......................................... 162
Compensation, Reimbursements and Distributions to the
General Partners....................................... 162
Directors and Executive Officers of the Net
Partnerships........................................... 163
Fiduciary Duty............................................ 164
Environmental Matters..................................... 165
Net Partnership Distributions............................. 166
Market Price of the Units................................. 166
Employees................................................. 167
Real Estate Portfolios.................................... 167
Real Estate Holdings...................................... 168
FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSIDERATIONS........................... 173
Certain Tax Differences between the Ownership of Units and
Common Shares.......................................... 173
Tax Consequences of the Mergers........................... 174
Treatment of Holders of Dissenter Debentures.............. 176
Taxation of Lexington..................................... 177
iv
9
PAGE
----
Taxation as a REIT........................................ 182
Failure to Qualify as a REIT.............................. 182
Taxation of Taxable U.S. Shareholders..................... 183
Backup Withholding........................................ 184
Taxation of Tax-Exempt Entities........................... 184
Taxation of Foreign Investors............................. 185
EXPERTS..................................................... 186
LEGAL MATTERS............................................... 186
INCORPORATION OF INFORMATION BY REFERENCE................... 186
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS.................................. 188
PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION............................. F-1
Lexington Corporate Properties Trust...................... F-1
Pro Forma Equivalent Calculations for the Net
Partnerships........................................... F-8
ANNEX A-1 MERGER AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT BETWEEN LEXINGTON, NET 3 AND
NET 1
ANNEX A-2 MERGER AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT BETWEEN LEXINGTON, NET 3 AND
NET 2
ANNEX A-3 CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT BETWEEN NET 3 AND NET 1
GP
ANNEX A-4 CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT BETWEEN NET 3 AND NET 2
GP
ANNEX A-5 ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO LEXINGTON'S DECLARATION OF TRUST
ANNEX B OPINION OF PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES INCORPORATED
ANNEX C OPINION OF COHEN & STEERS CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC
ANNEX D ROBERT A. STANGER & CO., INC. PORTFOLIO APPRAISAL AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 2000
v
10
SUMMARY
This Summary highlights selected information from this Joint Consent and
Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, and may not contain all of the
information regarding the Transaction that is important to you. To understand
the Transaction fully, and for a more complete description of the terms of and
risks related to the Transaction, you should carefully read this entire Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus. You should also read the
other documents which are referred to in this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus. See "AVAILABLE INFORMATION" on page i.
PURPOSE OF THIS JOINT CONSENT AND PROXY SOLICITATION STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS
GENERAL. This Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus
describes:
- the proposed mergers of Net 1 and Net 2, respectively, into Net 3, a
controlled subsidiary of Lexington; and
- the proposed amendment of Lexington's Declaration of Trust to increase
the total number of authorized common shares.
MERGERS. Through this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus, the general partners of each Net Partnership are
soliciting the consent of the limited partners of Net 1 and Net 2 to the mergers
and the amendment of their limited partnership agreement. Amendments to the
limited partnership agreements will permit the contribution of the general
partner's general partnership interest in the Net Partnerships to Net 3
immediately prior to consummation of the mergers in return for operating
partnership interests in Net 3.
Through this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus,
Lexington is soliciting the vote of its shareholders to approve the mergers of
Net 3 with each of the Net Partnerships.
Lexington will acquire the Net Partnerships if:
- limited partners holding greater than 50% of the outstanding units of
limited partnership of each of the Net Partnerships consent to the
applicable merger and to the amendment of its respective Net
Partnership's limited partnership agreement;
- shares representing greater than 50% of the voting shares of Lexington
approve the mergers; and
- all other conditions to the Transaction are met.
The affirmative vote of greater than 50% of a Net Partnership's units will
bind all partners of that Net Partnership. Lexington's obligation to acquire Net
1 is conditioned upon Lexington's concurrent acquisition of Net 2, and
Lexington's obligation to acquire Net 2 is conditioned upon Lexington's
concurrent acquisition of Net 1.
INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED SHARES. The Board of Trustees of Lexington has
approved, subject to shareholder approval, an amendment to the Declaration of
Trust which would increase the number of authorized shares which Lexington has
authority to issue from 40,000,000 common shares to 80,000,000 common shares. As
of September 18, 2001, which was the latest practicable date prior to the
printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus,
Lexington had approximately 4.8 million common shares authorized but unissued,
taking into account the number of common shares that (i) were issued and
outstanding as of that date, (ii) were issuable by Lexington upon exercise of
outstanding common share options or upon conversion of outstanding securities
convertible into common shares, including Lexington's preferred shares and units
of limited partnership of Lexington's operating partnership subsidiaries, (iii)
have been repurchased and retired by Lexington, and (iv) may be issued or
issuable in connection with the Transaction, assuming that the average closing
price of Lexington common shares is $15.00, which is the midpoint of the range
for determining the number of common shares to be issued, and that no limited
partners elect to receive their merger consideration in the form of dissenter
debentures.
1
11
The Board of Trustees unanimously recommends that the shareholders of
Lexington approve the proposal to amend the Declaration of Trust.
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE MERGER
DESCRIPTION OF THE REIT STRUCTURE, LEXINGTON AND THE NET PARTNERSHIPS
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS TRUSTS (REITS)
Real Estate Investment Trusts, or REITs, are companies, usually traded
publicly, that manage portfolios of real estate to earn profits for
shareholders. REITs make investments in a diverse array of real estate such as
office buildings, shopping centers, medical facilities, nursing homes,
industrial warehouses and hotels.
Some REITs, known as equity REITs, take equity positions in real estate;
shareholders receive income, in the form of dividends, from the rents received
from the properties and receive capital gains as properties are sold at a
profit. Others, known as mortgage REITs, specialize in lending money to building
developers and owners and pass interest income on to shareholders, while still
others combine these two approaches. Lexington operates as an equity REIT.
To avoid taxation at the corporate level, 75% or more of the REIT's income
must be from real property and 90% of its taxable income must be distributed to
shareholders annually. Since REITs must distribute most of their earnings, they
tend to pay higher dividend yields than other investments.
LEXINGTON AND THE NET PARTNERSHIPS
The business of each of the Net Partnerships and Lexington are
substantially identical. Each of the entities has a portfolio of net leased
office, industrial and retail properties. A net lease is a lease under which the
tenant is generally responsible for paying property operating costs.
LEXINGTON
GENERAL. Lexington is a self-managed and self-administered REIT listed on
the New York Stock Exchange and acquires, owns and manages a geographically
diverse portfolio of net leased office, industrial and retail properties. Of
Lexington's 73 properties, 71 are currently leased, and 68 are subject to triple
net leases, which are generally characterized as leases in which the tenant
bears all, or substantially all, of the costs and cost increases for real estate
taxes, insurance and ordinary maintenance. Lexington grows its portfolio
primarily by acquiring properties from corporations in sale-leaseback
transactions and from developers of newly constructed properties built to suit
the needs of a corporate tenant.
THE OPERATING PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE. Lexington has three controlled
operating partnership subsidiaries: Lepercq Corporate Income Fund L.P., Lepercq
Corporate Income Fund II L.P. and Net 3. Lexington is the sole shareholder of
Lex GP-1, Inc., a Delaware corporation which is the 1% general partner of each
of the operating partnership subsidiaries. The operating partnership structure
enables Lexington to acquire properties by issuing to a seller, as a form of
consideration, interests in Lexington's operating partnerships. Management
believes that this structure provides capital raising flexibility while
providing a tax benefit for the seller and preserving available cash for
Lexington.
Lexington is also the sole shareholder of Lex LP-1, Inc., a Delaware
corporation which holds, as of the date of this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, 75.1% and 67.7% limited partnership interest
in Lepercq Corporate Income Fund L.P. and Lepercq Corporate Income Fund II L.P.,
respectively; and a 99.0% limited partnership interest in Net 3.
OTHER SUBSIDIARIES. Lexington, through its affiliates, manages the Net
Partnerships' properties, for which it receives a fee in the amount of 1% of
gross annual rental receipts, and provides investment advisory and asset
management services to institutional investors in the net-lease area.
THE PROPERTIES. As of June 30, 2001, Lexington had ownership interests in
73 properties, located in 29 states and containing an aggregate of 13.1 million
net rentable square feet of space. Approximately 99.7% of the net rentable
square feet was leased.
2
12
The number of properties, historical revenues for the six months ended June
30, 2001, percentage of historical revenues, square footage and square footage
mix is as follows:
WHOLLY-OWNED PROPERTIES
HISTORICAL PERCENTAGE OF SQUARE
NUMBER OF REVENUES HISTORICAL FOOTAGE PERCENTAGE OF
TYPE OF PROPERTY PROPERTIES ($000) REVENUES (000'S) SQUARE FOOTAGE
---------------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ------- --------------
Office................................ 20 $21,141 55% 3,158 30%
Industrial............................ 21 12,280 32% 5,712 55%
Retail................................ 21 5,313 13% 1,536 15%
-- ------- --- ------ ---
Total............................ 62 $38,734 100% 10,406 100%
== ======= === ====== ===
NON-CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES
HISTORICAL PERCENTAGE OF SQUARE
NUMBER OF REVENUES HISTORICAL FOOTAGE PERCENTAGE OF
TYPE OF PROPERTY PROPERTIES ($000) REVENUES (000'S) SQUARE FOOTAGE
---------------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ------- --------------
Office................................ 8 $17,462 92% 2,028 75%
Industrial............................ 3 1,465 8% 688 25%
Retail................................ -- -- -- -- --
-- ------- --- ----- ---
Total............................ 11 $18,927 100% 2,716 100%
== ======= === ===== ===
Subsequent to June 30, 2001, Lexington's tenant in its Brownsville, Texas
property (Montgomery Ward), which was in bankruptcy, notified Lexington of its
election to disaffirm the lease, and accordingly is no longer paying rent. This
property represented 0.2% of revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2001. In
addition, Lexington entered into an agreement with the tenant in its Columbia,
Maryland property (MOR Dobbin LLC) to terminate its lease (including below
market renewals) and purchase option agreement, and to transfer to Lexington
title to all leasehold improvements in exchange for forgiveness of the balance
of unpaid rent, which approximated $272,000. This has enabled Lexington to
immediately begin marketing this property to new tenants. This property
represented 0.8% of revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2001.
THE NET PARTNERSHIPS
GENERAL. The Net Partnerships are Delaware limited partnerships formed for
the purpose of investing primarily in existing commercial properties that are
net-leased to corporations or other entities. The Net Partnerships invest in
net-leased real properties in the United States which offer the potential for:
- preservation and protection of capital;
- providing cash distributions partially sheltered from current taxation;
and
- appreciation in value.
The Net Partnerships commenced their original offerings in November 1987
(Net 1) and January 1989 (Net 2). As set forth in the original offering
documents, the Net Partnerships originally intended to sell their properties
within seven to ten years after the final closing of their offerings. However,
in 1994, the limited partners of each of the Net Partnerships approved an
amendment to the limited partnership agreement of their respective Net
Partnership which permitted the Net Partnerships to invest in new properties,
reinvest cash from operations and sale and refinancing proceeds, and use
additional leverage to finance its operations. Since the date of the amendments,
Net 1 has acquired six properties, including three properties that it acquired
from Lexington or its affiliates. Since the date of the amendments, Net 2 has
acquired 13 properties, including three properties that it acquired from
Lexington or its affiliates, and has sold two properties to Lexington. Neither
Net 1 or Net 2 has ever made any distributions to limited partners representing
a return of capital.
3
13
THE GENERAL PARTNERS OF THE NET PARTNERSHIPS. The general partner of Net 1
is Lepercq Net 1 L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, whose general partner is
Lepercq Net 1, Inc. The general partner of Net 2 is Lepercq Net 2 L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership, whose general partner is Lepercq Net 2, Inc. The
LCP Group, L.P. is the sole shareholder of Lepercq Net 1, Inc. and Lepercq Net
2, Inc. E. Robert Roskind, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Co-Chief
Executive Officer of Lexington, controls the general partners of the Net
Partnerships as the sole shareholder of Third Lero Corp., which, in turn, is the
general partner of The LCP Group, L.P.
THE PROPERTIES. As of June 30, 2001:
- Net 1 owned nine properties, 100% of the space of which is leased,
located in 7 states and containing an aggregate of 740,525 net rentable
square feet of space.
- Net 2 owned fifteen properties, 100% of the space of which is leased,
located in 10 states and containing an aggregate of 1,759,471 net
rentable square feet of space.
The number of properties, historical revenues for the six months ended June
30, 2001, percentage of historical revenues, square footage and square footage
mix is as follows:
NET 1
HISTORICAL PERCENTAGE OF
NUMBER OF REVENUES HISTORICAL SQUARE PERCENTAGE OF
TYPE OF PROPERTY PROPERTIES ($000) REVENUES FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE
---------------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ------- --------------
Office............................... 2 $ 961 34% 202,813 27%
Industrial........................... 1 400 14% 196,946 27%
Retail............................... 6 1,502 52% 340,766 46%
-- ------ --- ------- ---
Total........................... 9 $2,863 100% 740,525 100%
== ====== === ======= ===
NET 2
HISTORICAL PERCENTAGE OF
NUMBER OF REVENUES HISTORICAL SQUARE PERCENTAGE OF
TYPE OF PROPERTY PROPERTIES ($000) REVENUES FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE
---------------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------- --------------
Office............................. 5 $2,084 38% 374,093 21%
Industrial......................... 5 1,975 36% 1,058,106 60%
Retail............................. 5 1,467 26% 327,272 19%
-- ------ --- --------- ---
Total......................... 15 $5,526 100% 1,759,471 100%
== ====== === ========= ===
4
14
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
The following diagrams show the organizational structure of Lexington and
the Net Partnerships both before and after the Transaction.
[LEXINGTON BEFORE THE MERGER ORGANIZATIONAL CHART]
5
15
[NET PARTNERSHIPS ORGANIZATIONAL CHART]
6
16
[AFTER THE MERGER ORGANIZATIONAL CHART]
7
17
RISK FACTORS AND ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE TRANSACTION
There are risks involved in the Transaction. These risks include:
- Although limited partners will receive 50% of their merger consideration
in Lexington common shares, the fair market value of those common shares
may not equal 50% of the agreed upon adjusted net asset value of the Net
Partnerships' units, and investors selling the common shares may realize
less than 50% of the agreed upon adjusted net asset value upon resale.
- The maximum and minimum number of Lexington common shares that may be
issued is fixed. Limited partners will not be entitled to receive any
more common shares if the average closing price is less than $14.00 per
share than they would if the average closing price were $14.00 per share,
and Lexington will not be entitled to issue any fewer common shares if
the average closing price is greater than $16.00 per share than they
would if the average closing price were $16.00 per share.
- Estimated liquidation costs of $6.0 million, which would be incurred upon
a liquidation, have been deducted from the agreed upon fair market value
of the Net Partnerships' properties in calculating the total merger
consideration being offered to limited partners.
- The senior subordinated debentures, which we refer to as the dissenter
debentures, are likely to sell for less than their face amount, and
therefore, if a limited partner elects to receive dissenter debentures,
the fair market value of that limited partner's merger consideration
might not equal the agreed upon adjusted net asset value of the Net
Partnerships at such time. The dissenter debentures will not have a
public market and will be subordinated to aggregate liabilities of
Lexington of approximately $447.4 million on a pro forma basis as of June
30, 2001.
- The ownership and voting interests of limited partners and shareholders
will be diluted, meaning that they will have a smaller percentage
ownership and voting interest in Lexington than they currently have in
their respective Net Partnership or Lexington, as applicable. You will
not know the number of Lexington common shares to be exchanged in the
Transaction, and thus the magnitude of this dilutive effect, at the time
you make your voting decision.
- No independent representative was retained to negotiate on behalf of the
limited partners. The general partners are controlled by E. Robert
Roskind who is also the Co-Chief Executive Officer and the Chairman of
the Board of Trustees of Lexington. Mr. Roskind's affiliation with both
the general partners and Lexington creates a conflict of interest in
recommending the Transaction. The terms of the Transaction, including the
merger consideration being offered, were not determined through arm's
length negotiations between two independent parties which may have
resulted in more favorable terms being obtained for the limited partners
of Net 1 and Net 2 or for Lexington.
- The fairness opinions of Prudential Securities and Cohen & Steers, and
the appraisals of Stanger & Co., were prepared in reliance on information
which was provided by Lexington's management and the general partners,
without independent verification.
- An original limited partner will incur taxable gain of approximately
$40.76 and $4.87 per unit of Net 1 and Net 2, respectively.
- The anticipated benefits of the Transaction to the limited partners,
which include greater liquidity, risk diversification and cost savings,
might not be realized. This could have a negative impact on the market
price of Lexington common shares.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE FACTORS, LIMITED PARTNERS WHO ELECT TO RECEIVE
DISSENTER DEBENTURES IN LIEU OF COMMON SHARES AND CASH SHOULD CONSIDER THE
FOLLOWING FACTORS:
- No Recommendation. The general partners are not making any
recommendation as to whether limited partners should elect to receive
dissenter debentures. No investment bank or other financial advisor has
rendered an opinion as to the fairness of the dissenter debentures.
8
18
- No Shareholder Rights. Limited partners receiving dissenter debentures
will own debt instruments of Lexington and will not have the right to
elect trustees or to vote with the holders of common shares on any
matters.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
There are conflicts of interest that arise in the Transaction. These
conflicts include:
- Mr. Roskind, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Co-Chief Executive
Officer of Lexington, controls the general partners of the Net
Partnerships. As a result, the terms of the mergers were not determined
through arm's length negotiations between two independent parties.
- Following the Transaction, Mr. Roskind will continue as Chairman of the
Board of Trustees and Co-Chief Executive of Lexington. As such, Mr.
Roskind will continue to be entitled to receive common share options
under Lexington's share option plan. These share options may appreciate
in value if the benefits of the Transaction are realized.
- If the Transaction is consummated, the general partners of the Net
Partnerships will receive operating partnership units in Net 3 in return
for contributing their general partnership interest in the Net
Partnerships in a tax-deferred transaction. The receipt of these
operating partnership units is tax-deferred to the general partners,
whereas the consideration offered to the limited partners is a taxable
event.
- No independent representative has been retained to act on behalf of the
limited partners for purposes of negotiating or structuring the terms of
the Transaction. It is possible that, if the general partners had not
been affiliated with Lexington, the terms of the Transaction, including
the number of common shares issued to the limited partners in the
Transaction, would have been more advantageous to the limited partners.
- Lexington held, as of September 18, 2001, which was the latest
practicable date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, approximately 540 limited partnership
units of Net 1, (representing approximately 1.8% of the outstanding
units) and 15,782 limited partnership units of Net 2 (representing
approximately 3.3% of the outstanding units). Lexington intends to
consent to the Transaction with respect to these units.
THE TRANSACTION
If the Transaction is consummated, Net 1 and Net 2 will merge into Net 3, a
controlled subsidiary of Lexington.
MERGER CONSIDERATION PAYABLE TO LIMITED PARTNERS
Overview. If the Transaction is completed, each unit of Net 1 and Net 2
will be exchanged for merger consideration equal to the agreed upon adjusted net
asset value per unit. As calculated below, the agreed upon adjusted net asset
value per unit is $820.38 for Net 1 and $81.96 for Net 2. In the aggregate,
assuming that the average closing price of Lexington common shares during the 20
day period prior to, but not including, the closing date of the mergers is
between $14.00 and $16.00 per share:
- limited partners of Net 1 will receive merger consideration of
$25,245,000 in exchange for their 99.0% interests in Net 1;
- limited partners of Net 2 will receive merger consideration of
$39,105,000 in exchange for their 99.0% interests in Net 2; and
- limited partners who do not elect to receive their merger consideration
in the form of dissenter debentures will receive for each unit they own:
- an amount of Lexington common shares having an aggregate value equal to
50% of the agreed upon adjusted net value per unit of their respective
Net Partnership; and
9
19
- cash in an amount equal to 50% of the agreed upon adjusted net asset
value per unit of their respective Net Partnership.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, limited partners may elect to receive
dissenter debentures in lieu of the merger consideration described above, if
they deny consent to the Transaction.
Common Shares. The common shares are listed on the New York Stock
Exchange. The number of common shares will be based upon the average closing
price of the common shares during the 20 day period prior to, but not including,
the closing date of the mergers. However, if the average closing price is
outside of the "collar" of $14.00 and $16.00, the number of common shares will
not fluctuate. This means that if the average closing price is less than $14.00
per share or greater than $16.00 per share, limited partners will receive the
same number of shares as they would receive if the average closing price were
$14.00 or $16.00, respectively. In this regard, limited partners in Net 1 and
Net 2 will be entitled to receive:
- no less than 25.6 shares or 2.6 shares, respectively, which is the amount
to which they will be entitled if the average closing price is $16.00 per
share; or
- no more than 29.3 shares or 2.9 shares, respectively, which is the amount
to which they will be entitled if the average closing price is $14.00 per
share.
Assuming that the average closing price is between the "collar" of $14.00
per share and $16.00 per share:
- holders of units of Net 1 would receive, for each unit they own, common
shares based upon an aggregate adjusted net asset value of $410.19, and
collectively, common shares having an aggregate value of $12,622,500; and
- holders of units of Net 2 would receive, for each unit they own, common
shares based upon an aggregate adjusted net asset value of $40.98, and
collectively, common shares having an aggregate value of $19,552,500.
The following table sets forth, for purposes of illustration, the number of
shares that limited partners would receive, assuming that no limited partners
elect to receive their merger consideration in the form of dissenter debentures,
at various hypothetical average closing prices for Lexington common shares:
EFFECT OF FLUCTUATIONS IN THE 20 DAY AVERAGE CLOSING PRICE OF LEXINGTON COMMON
SHARES(1)
Assumed Average Closing
Price(2).................... $13.00 $14.00 $14.28(3) $15.00 $16.00 $17.00
NET 1
Number of Common Shares to be
Exchanged Per Unit of Net
1........................... 29.3(4) 29.3 28.7 27.3 25.6 25.6(5)
Aggregate Number of Common
Shares to be Exchanged for
Net 1 Units(6).............. 901,607 901,607 883,929 841,500 788,906 788,906
Aggregate Value of Common
Shares to be Exchanged for
Net 1 Units(7).............. $11,720,891 $12,622,500 $12,622,500 $12,622,500 $12,622,500 $13,411,402
Total Merger Consideration
Being Offered for Net 1
Units(8).................... $24,343,391 $25,245,000 $25,245,000 $25,245,000 $25,245,000 $26,033,902
10
20
NET 2
Number of Common Shares to be
Exchanged Per Unit of Net
2........................... 2.9(4) 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.6(5)
Aggregate Number of Common
Shares to be Exchanged for
Net 2 Units(6).............. 1,396,607 1,396,607 1,369,223 1,303,500 1,222,031 1,222,031
Aggregate Value of Common
Shares to be Exchanged for
Net 2 Units(7).............. $18,155,891 $19,552,500 $19,552,500 $19,552,500 $19,552,500 $20,774,527
Total Merger Consideration
Being Offered for Net 2
Units(8).................... $37,708,391 $39,105,000 $39,105,000 $39,105,000 $39,105,000 $40,327,027
---------------
(1) Assumes that no limited partners elect to receive their merger consideration
in the form of dissenter debentures.
(2) The prices and amounts included in this table are presented solely for the
purpose of illustrating the effect of fluctuations in the average closing
price of Lexington common shares during the 20 day period prior to, but not
including, the closing date of the mergers, and their use for that purpose
is not intended to express or imply any expectation or opinion of Lexington
or its management or Trustees, or of the Net Partnerships or their general
partners as to what the average closing price will actually be if the
Transaction is completed.
(3) Closing price of Lexington common shares as of September 18, 2001, which was
the latest practicable date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and
Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus.
(4) If the average closing price of Lexington common shares is less than $14.00
per share, each unit will be exchanged for the maximum number of common
shares being offered per unit (29.3 shares for each unit of Net 1, 2.9
shares for each unit of Net 2).
(5) If the average closing price of Lexington common shares is greater than
$16.00 per share, each unit will be exchanged for the minimum number of
common shares being offered per unit (25.6 shares for each unit of Net 1,
2.6 shares for each unit of Net 2).
(6) Calculated by multiplying the number of common shares to be exchanged per
unit by the number of units of Net 1 (30,772) or Net 2 (477,167), as
applicable.
(7) Calculated by multiplying the aggregate number of common shares to be
exchanged by the average closing price.
(8) Calculated by adding the aggregate value of common shares to be exchanged to
the aggregate amount of cash to be paid ($12,622,500 for Net 1 and
$19,552,500 for Net 2).
Cash. Limited partners who do not elect to receive their merger
consideration in the form of dissenter debentures will receive, in addition to
the common shares described above, $410.19 in cash for each unit of Net 1 and
$40.98 in cash for each unit of Net 2.
Dissenter Debentures. If a limited partner denies consent to the
Transaction, but its Net Partnership is nevertheless merged with Net 3, that
limited partner may elect to receive, at its option, either:
- the same merger consideration that limited partners who consent to the
Transaction will receive; or
- dissenter debentures.
The maximum aggregate amount of the dissenter debentures will be $20.0
million, subject to waiver by Lexington. The exact amount of dissenter
debentures will be determined at the closing of the Transaction based upon the
number of units held by dissenting limited partners who elect to receive
dissenter debentures.
The dissenter debentures will rank expressly subordinated in right and
priority of payment to all institutional indebtedness of Lexington outstanding
on the closing date and any other indebtedness of Lexington issued in the future
which is not, by its terms, expressly subordinated to the dissenter debentures.
11
21
This means that, in the event of the bankruptcy or liquidation of Lexington, its
assets will be available to pay obligations on the dissenter debentures only
after all of Lexington's obligations that rank senior to the dissenter
debentures have been paid in full.
Significant characteristics of the dissenter debentures include the
following:
- they are not redeemable by Lexington or convertible by the holders;
- Lexington must use a minimum of 80.0% of the net proceeds from any
taxable sale or refinancing of the Net Partnerships' properties to prepay
the dissenter debentures; and
- unless the restriction is waived, Lexington is only obligated to issue up
to $20.0 million of dissenter debentures.
Dissenters will not have a right to receive cash based on an appraisal of
their units. As of June 30, 2001, on a pro forma basis, Lexington would have had
aggregate liabilities to which the dissenter debentures were effectively
subordinated, of approximately $447.4 million.
MERGER CONSIDERATION PAYABLE TO GENERAL PARTNERS. The general partner of
each Net Partnership owns a 1.0% capital interest in its Net Partnership. If the
Transaction is approved, the general partner of each Net Partnerships will
receive, in return for contributing their general partnership interests,
operating partnership units in Net 3 with an aggregate value equal to 1.0% of
the agreed upon adjusted net asset value of their respective Net Partnership
which will entitle the general partners to receive the same distributions as
holders of the common shares. The general partners will receive their operating
partnership units in a tax-deferred transaction, whereas the merger
consideration to be received by the limited partners is taxable. The operating
partnership units may not be redeemed for Lexington common shares for a period
of five years from the date of the mergers. Neither the general partners nor
their respective affiliates will receive any special compensation in connection
with the Transaction.
METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE MERGER CONSIDERATION. In order to determine
the merger consideration, Lexington and the Net Partnerships considered
utilizing a number of different methodologies, each of which involved a
comparison of Lexington, on the one hand, and the Net Partnerships, on the
other, with respect to the following:
- net asset value;
- historical market value and trading activity of their equity securities;
- distribution levels; and
- liquidation and going concern values.
After reviewing these different methodologies, Lexington and the Net
Partnerships agreed to calculate the merger consideration based on the agreed
upon adjusted net asset value of the Net Partnerships for the following reasons:
- the general partners believed that net asset value was a fair method of
valuing the Net Partnerships because it is based primarily on objective
balance sheet data;
- while the fair market value of the Net Partnerships' properties, which
was one of the factors used to determine adjusted net asset value, was
derived without taking into account third party appraisals, it was,
nonetheless, supported by those appraisals;
- net asset value has been reported to the limited partners on an annual
basis since the inception of each Net Partnership, and although other
methods could have been used to establish the merger consideration, the
general partners believed it was important to present the Transaction to
the limited partners utilizing a valuation measure with which they were
familiar; and
- Lexington's management believed it was important that the Transaction be
accretive to Lexington's funds from operations per share, and utilizing
agreed upon adjusted net asset value as the basis for calculating the
merger consideration has that effect.
12
22
CALCULATION OF AGREED UPON ADJUSTED NET ASSET VALUE. The agreed upon
adjusted net asset value of each Net Partnership was determined as of June 30,
2000 by:
- subtracting
- an estimate of the Net Partnership's mortgage notes payable at June 30,
2001 (which was the originally anticipated closing date of the
Transaction) based primarily upon the scheduled amortization of all
mortgages outstanding at June 30, 2000, estimated mortgage assumption
fees and repayment fees and all other liabilities outstanding at June
30, 2000; and
- estimated costs associated with liquidating such Net Partnership's
properties;
- from
- the agreed upon fair market value of the Net Partnership's properties as
of June 30, 2000.
Lexington derived a fair market value for each of the Net Partnerships'
properties by capitalizing projected rental revenue at a 10.2% blended rate,
consistent with the implied going-in capitalization rates in Stanger & Co.'s
1999 appraisals. Projected rental revenue is estimated rental revenue for the
year 2001 under the leases currently in place, assuming 100% occupancy without
any allowance for vacancy or reserves. Where, as in the case of the Net
Partnerships, rental revenue is generated under net leases, rental revenue is
synonymous with net operating income. Lexington's management determined that
this capitalization rate was appropriate and adequate based on its review of the
following factors:
- tenant creditworthiness;
- comparable market rents;
- length and quality of leases;
- strategic importance of each property to the tenant; and
- local economic conditions.
The capitalization rate utilized by Lexington is consistent with the
implied going-in capitalization rates in Stanger & Co.'s 1999 appraisals. The
implied going-in capitalization rate for a portfolio is determined by dividing
the portfolio's estimated net operating income for the coming year, the
so-called "going-in net operating income", by the estimated value of the
portfolio. This capitalization rate can be interpreted as the current yield
generated by a portfolio based on the valuation ascribed to the portfolio.
Based on the foregoing formula, the calculation of the agreed upon adjusted
net asset value for each of the Net Partnerships is summarized below (in $000):
NET 1 NET 2
------- --------
Agreed upon fair market value of the Net Partnership's
properties as of June 30, 2000............................ $46,750 $101,562
Less:
Projected Liabilities(1).................................. 19,435 57,846
Estimated liquidation costs............................... 1,815 4,216
------- --------
Agreed upon adjusted net asset value........................ $25,500 $ 39,500
======= ========
---------------
(1) Projected liabilities were calculated based upon an estimate of mortgage
notes payable at June 30, 2001 (which was the originally anticipated closing
date of the Transaction) based primarily upon the scheduled amortization of
all mortgages outstanding at June 30, 2000, estimated mortgage assumption
13
23
fees and repayment fees, and all other liabilities outstanding at June 30,
2000. The following table details the assumptions used in calculating
projected liabilities (000's):
NET 1 NET 2
------- -------
Estimated mortgages payable............................... $18,477 $56,406
Estimated mortgage assumption and repayment fees.......... 355 887
Accrued interest payable.................................. 165 213
Other liabilities......................................... 438 340
------- -------
$19,435 $57,846
======= =======
The adjusted net asset values derived by Lexington were agreed to by the
general partners, based, in part, on the fact that the fair market property
values were supported by the conclusions reached by Stanger & Co. in its 1999
appraisals, even though the general partners did not use the appraisals in their
determination of such fair market property values. However, the parties
recognized that the 1999 appraisals did not include all of the properties then
owned by the Net Partnerships. Therefore, each merger agreement required the
respective Net Partnership to obtain an updated appraisal as of December 31,
2000, and provided that, if the conclusions reached in the 2000 appraisals
varied from the agreed upon fair market property values by more than 5%, either
Lexington or the respective Net Partnership would have the right to terminate
the merger agreement. The 2000 appraisals of Stanger & Co. were within 1.5% and
0.8% of the agreed upon fair market property values for Net 1 and Net 2,
respectively.
AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION PAID TO NET PARTNERSHIPS AND CUMULATIVE
DISTRIBUTIONS
Assuming that no limited partners elect to receive their merger
consideration in the form of dissenter debentures, the following table sets
forth for each Net Partnership:
- the aggregate amount of original limited partner investments in each Net
Partnership;
- the original amount of limited partner investments in each Net
Partnership;
- the portion of the merger consideration payable in common shares to
limited partners of the Net Partnerships, per $1,000 original investment;
- the portion of the merger consideration payable in cash to limited
partners of the Net Partnerships, per $1,000 original investment;
- the total merger consideration, per $1,000 original investment;
- the cumulative distributions to limited partners per $1,000 original
investment; and
- the total distributions and merger consideration per $1,000 original
investment.
MERGER CONSIDERATION PER $1,000 CUMULATIVE
ORIGINAL ORIGINAL INVESTMENT PAYABLE TO LIMITED DISTRIBUTIONS TO
LIMITED PARTNER PARTNERS OF THE NET PARTNERSHIPS: LIMITED
ORIGINAL INVESTMENTS PER ----------------------------------------- PARTNERS PER
NET LIMITED PARTNER $1,000 ORIGINAL COMMON TOTAL MERGER $1,000 ORIGINAL
PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENTS(1) INVESTMENT(1) SHARES(2) CASH CONSIDERATION(2)(3) INVESTMENTS(4)
----------- --------------- --------------- --------- ------- ------------------- ----------------
Net 1................ $30,772,000 $1,000 $410.19 $410.19 $820.38 $816.06
Net 2................ $47,716,700 $1,000 $409.76 $409.76 $819.52 $632.54
TOTAL
DISTRIBUTIONS
AND MERGER
CONSIDERATION
PER $1,000
NET ORIGINAL
PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENT
----------- -------------
Net 1................ $1,636.44
Net 2................ $1,452.06
---------------
(1) Each original Net 1 unit was $1,000. Each original Net 2 unit was $100. No
distributions of net sales proceeds have been made.
(2) The number of Lexington common shares which will be received by limited
partners will be based upon the average closing price of common shares
during the 20 day period prior to, but not including, the closing date of
the Transaction. If the average closing price is between the "collar" of
$14.00 and $16.00, as is assumed for purposes of this table, the aggregate
value of the common shares to be exchanged per
14
24
limited partnership unit, and thus the total merger consideration, will not
be impacted by a fluctuation in the average closing price. However, if the
average closing price falls below $14.00 per share or rises above $16.00 per
share, the aggregate value of the common shares to be exchanged, and thus
the total merger consideration, will fluctuate accordingly. See the table on
pages 10 and 11 entitled "Effect of Fluctuations in 20 Day Average Closing
Price of Lexington Common Shares" for an explanation of how these values
would fluctuate if the average closing price is not between $14.00 and
$16.00 per share.
(3) The total merger consideration per $1,000 original limited partner
investment is calculated by dividing the total merger consideration
attributable to limited partners ($25,245,000 for Net 1 and $39,105,000 for
Net 2) by the total number of limited partnership units outstanding (30,772
for Net 1 and 477,167 for Net 2). See "THE MERGERS -- The Merger
Consideration" on page 60 for an explanation of how the merger consideration
was calculated.
(4) Assumes that the limited partner was admitted as of the date of the first
closing of the offering of units of limited partnership.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. The general partners believe that the Transaction
has been structured so as to be procedurally fair to the limited partners.
Although no independent representative was retained to negotiate on behalf of
the limited partners, and the limited partners were not given the opportunity to
participate in the structuring or negotiation of the terms of the Transaction,
the general partners believe that the limited partners' interests are protected
because:
- the general partners thoroughly analyzed the Transaction and its
alternatives;
- the general partners had available to them the 1999 appraisal report of
Robert A. Stanger & Co., Inc. with respect to 22 of the 25 properties of
the Net Partnerships and the 2000 portfolio appraisals of Stanger & Co.
were within 1.5% and 0.8% of the agreed upon fair market property values
for Net 1 and Net 2, respectively;
- the general partners retained Cohen & Steers to render a fairness opinion
to each of the Net Partnerships;
- the Transaction requires approval of a majority in interest of the
limited partners in both Net Partnerships; and
- limited partners who deny consent to the Transaction have the option of
electing to receive their merger consideration in the form of dissenter
debentures in lieu of common shares and cash.
BACKGROUND OF THE TRANSACTION AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE TRANSACTION THAT THE
GENERAL PARTNERS CONSIDERED
Prior to negotiating the terms of this Transaction, the general partners
evaluated three possible strategic alternatives for better achieving the Net
Partnership's original investment objectives:
- continuation of the Net Partnerships;
- liquidation of the Net Partnerships; and
- a combination of the Net Partnerships with a publicly traded REIT
specializing in net-lease investments.
Between 1996 and November 1998, the general partners, represented by E.
Robert Roskind, engaged in informal discussions with Lexington, represented by
T. Wilson Eglin, regarding a potential transaction. These discussions were
terminated when the parties concluded that they were unable to agree on a
structure for the transaction that made economic sense for both parties.
In September 1999, Lexington re-initiated negotiations with the general
partners and suggested transaction structures that could address the general
partners' criteria for fair consideration, greater dividends and safety of
principal in an entity that would continue to have a net-lease-oriented
investment strategy. A non-binding term sheet was entered into on July 11, 2000.
15
25
Following execution of the term sheet, both the general partners and
Lexington conducted additional due diligence and began drafting merger
agreements and this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/ Prospectus.
In October and November 2000, Lexington and the general partners agreed in
principal on the terms of the Transaction. Following receipt by Lexington and
the Net Partnerships of fairness opinions from Prudential Securities
Incorporated and Cohen & Steers Capital Advisors LLC, respectively, Lexington
and the Net Partnerships entered into the merger agreements, and Net 3 and the
general partners entered into the contribution agreements with respect to the
contribution of the general partnership interests of the Net Partnerships to Net
3.
In June and July 2001:
- Lexington and the general partners agreed to re-negotiate the terms of
the Transaction based on:
- favorable conditions in the capital markets;
- an increase in Lexington's common share price; and
- the desire to provide greater liquidity to the limited partners;
- Lexington and the general partners agreed to the amended terms of the
Transaction, which are reflected in this Joint Proxy and Consent
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus;
- the general partners, based in part on the fairness opinions they
received from Cohen & Steers and the appraisals received from Stanger &
Co., determined that they had negotiated a transaction that would be
fair, from a financial point of view, to the limited partners, and
approved the Transaction;
- the Board of Trustees of Lexington, based in part on the fairness opinion
it received from Prudential Securities Incorporated, approved the
Transaction; and
- Lexington and the Net Partnerships entered into the amendments to the
merger agreements and Net 3 and the general partners entered into the
amendments to the contribution agreements.
The general partners, based upon their own analysis, came to the conclusion
that the value of the consideration the limited partners will receive in the
Transaction will exceed the going concern value and the liquidation value of the
Net Partnerships.
The following table compares the merger consideration to the results of the
general partners' comparative analysis of the alternatives based on a per $1,000
original investment:
PER $1,000 ORIGINAL INVESTMENT
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL MERGER ESTIMATED GOING- ESTIMATED
NET PARTNERSHIP CONSIDERATION(1) CONCERN VALUE(2) LIQUIDATION VALUE(3)
--------------- ---------------- ----------------- --------------------
Net 1............................. $820.38 $637.96 - $706.24 $751.17
Net 2............................. $819.52 $723.35 - $801.18 $762.77
---------------
(1) Based upon the agreed upon adjusted net asset value, which is the estimated
value of each Net Partnership's properties at June 30, 2000 less estimated
liquidation costs, an estimate of mortgage notes payable at June 30, 2001
(which was the originally anticipated closing date of the Transaction) based
primarily upon the scheduled amortization of all mortgages outstanding at
June 30, 2000, estimated mortgage assumption fees and repayment fees, and
all other liabilities outstanding at June 30, 2000.
(2) Based upon a discounted cash flow approach utilizing a range of discount
rates from 13.5% to 15%.
(3) Based upon estimated value of each Net Partnership's properties less
estimated liquidation costs, mortgage assumption fees and repayment fees, if
any, and stated liabilities at June 30, 2000.
16
26
ROBERT A. STANGER & CO. APPRAISAL
Since 1990 for Net 1 and 1991 for Net 2, the partnership agreements of each
of the Net Partnerships have required the general partners to obtain an annual
independent appraisal of the Net Partnership's properties and to prepare an
appraisal of the net asset value of each unit. The purpose of the appraisals is
to assist limited partners subject to ERISA with the fulfillment of their
reporting requirements under ERISA.
In compliance with this requirement, the general partners engaged an
independent appraiser, Robert A. Stanger & Co., Inc., to appraise the portfolios
of real properties owned by Net 1 and Net 2 as of December 31, 1999. The 1999
appraisals:
- were not obtained in connection with the Transaction;
- were conducted on a limited scope basis;
- involved site visits and concurrent local market research for only a
sample of the properties; and
- did not include the three properties acquired by the Net Partnerships in
2000.
Stanger & Co. was again engaged by the Net Partnerships to appraise the
portfolios of real properties owned by Net 1 and Net 2 as of December 31, 2000.
Due to the type of real estate assets held by the Net Partnerships and the
nature of the lease terms, Stanger & Co. was engaged to value the portfolios of
properties based solely on the income approach, utilizing a discounted cash flow
analysis as encumbered by current lease contracts. The same method was used for
each Net Partnership. In performing the appraisals, Stanger & Co. conducted such
investigations and inquiries as it deemed appropriate in establishing its
estimates of value. Stanger & Co. also made such assumptions and identified such
qualifications and limitations as it deemed necessary. The appraisals included
individual inspections of a sample of the properties for the 1999 portfolio
appraisal and all of the properties for the 2000 portfolio appraisal. The
portfolio appraisals represents Stanger & Co.'s opinion of the estimated value
of the portfolios of properties owned by the Net Partnerships as of the date
specified. They do not necessarily reflect the true worth or value of the
portfolios that would be realized in actual sales. These values could be higher
or lower than the appraised values of the portfolios.
Based on its appraisal, Stanger & Co. estimated the value of the portfolio
of properties owned by each Net Partnership as of December 31, 1999 as follows:
REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO
PARTNERSHIP VALUE CONCLUSION
----------- ---------------------
Net 1....................................................... $39,000,000(1)
Net 2....................................................... $81,460,000(2)
---------------
(1) Does not include one property, which was acquired in 2000 and therefore not
appraised, at a purchase price, including transaction costs, of $7,750,000.
(2) Does not include two properties, which were acquired in 2000 and therefore
not appraised, at a purchase price, including transaction costs, of
$20,102,000.
Based on its appraisal, Stanger & Co. estimated the value of the portfolio
of properties owned by each Net Partnership as of December 31, 2000 as follows:
REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO
PARTNERSHIP VALUE CONCLUSION
----------- ---------------------
Net 1....................................................... $ 47,470,000
Net 2....................................................... $102,375,000(1)
---------------
(1) Includes one property, which was sold in 2001 at a sale price, before
transaction costs, of $4,175,000.
Stanger & Co. did not render a fairness opinion in the Transaction, nor was
the merger consideration in the Transaction determined as a result of Stanger &
Co.'s appraisals alone. Rather, Stanger & Co.'s appraisals
17
27
related to one of the components of value of the Net Partnerships and were one
among a number of factors reviewed by the parties. The merger consideration was
based upon the valuation of the Net Partnerships and not just their portfolios,
which valuation included other assets and the liabilities of each of the Net
Partnerships. Further, the merger consideration was arrived at through the
general partners' and Lexington's financial analysis of the properties and the
Net Partnerships and through negotiation. The resulting negotiated price was
confirmed as fair to each party to the Transaction by their respective financial
advisors.
FAIRNESS OPINIONS
The general partners and Lexington received fairness opinions with respect
to the fairness of the merger consideration from a financial point of view
pursuant to both the merger agreements and the subsequent amendments. Set forth
below are summaries of each of the fairness opinions delivered in connection
with the Transaction as reflected in the amended merger agreements.
COHEN & STEERS CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC
Cohen & Steers Capital Advisors LLC was engaged by the Net Partnerships to
render opinions to the general partners as to the fairness of the merger
consideration, from a financial point of view, to the limited partners. Because
Cohen & Steers was engaged by, and its fairness opinions were delivered to, the
general partners of the Net Partnerships, the purpose of Cohen & Sterns'
analysis was to determine whether the consideration being paid by Lexington for
the Net Partnerships was fair, from a financial point of view from the
perspective of the limited partners, rather than from the perspective of
Lexington or its shareholders. Copies of the written Cohen & Steers fairness
opinions, which set forth the procedures followed, assumptions made, matters
considered and limitations on the scope of review undertaken by Cohen & Steers
and the level of reliance which may be placed on the Cohen & Steers fairness
opinions, are attached as Annex C to this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus and should be read in their entirety.
In connection with its review and analysis of the fairness of their merger
consideration, and in arriving at its fairness opinion, Cohen & Steers conducted
the following analyses, and reached the following conclusions:
- Summary of Analyses -- Cohen & Steers calculated the estimated market
value of the merger consideration by combining the market value of
Lexington common shares to be received with the cash consideration to be
received. Based upon the analyses summarized below -- and described in
detail in Cohen & Steers' full description of its fairness opinion
analyses -- Cohen & Steers determined that:
- The total estimated market value of the merger consideration would be
$820.38 per Net 1 limited partnership unit; and
- The total estimated market value of the merger consideration would be
$81.95 per Net 2 limited partnership unit.
- Analysis of Selected Comparable Publicly Traded Companies -- Cohen &
Steers compared selected financial information about the Net Partnerships
with that of several other companies engaged in the same or similar lines
of business, and concluded that:
- the estimated market value of the merger consideration to be paid to Net
1 was within the range of limited partnership unit values implied by
this analysis; and
- the estimated market value of the merger consideration to be paid to Net
2 was within the range of limited partnership unit values implied by
this analysis.
- Discounted Cash Flow Analysis -- Cohen & Steers calculated the present
value, as of June 30, 2001, of the projected unleveraged cash flows for
each Net Partnership for the period from July 1, 2001 to December 31,
2005, and concluded that;
- the estimated market value of the merger consideration to be paid to Net
1 was within the range of limited partnership unit values implied by
this analysis and was greater than the mean of that range; and
18
28
- the estimated market value of the merger consideration to be paid to Net
2 was within the range of limited partnership unit values implied by
this analysis, and was greater than the mean of that range.
- Net Asset Value Analysis -- Cohen & Steers calculated the net asset value
of each Net Partnership based on projections provided by each of the
general partners, and concluded that:
- the estimated market value of the merger consideration to be paid to Net
1 was greater than the high of the range of limited partnership unit
values implied by this analysis; and
- the estimated market value of the merger consideration to be paid to Net
2 was within the range of limited partnership unit values implied by
this analysis.
- Share Trading History -- Cohen & Steers reviewed the average trading
prices for Lexington common shares for the 20, 30, 60, 90, 120 and
180-day trading periods ending July 13, 2001 and observed that the latest
trading price was greater than the 20, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 180-day
average for each other period. Cohen & Steers also observed that the 20
and 30-day averages were greater than $14.00 per share, the low end of
the fixed price range of the merger consideration.
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES INCORPORATED
Prudential Securities Incorporated was engaged by Lexington to render an
opinion to the Board of Trustees of Lexington as to the fairness of the merger
consideration, from a financial point of view, to the shareholders of Lexington.
On July 30, 2001, Prudential Securities delivered its written opinion, to the
Board of Trustees of Lexington to the effect that, as of such date, and based on
and subject to the assumptions, limitations and qualifications set forth in its
written opinion, the merger consideration was fair to the shareholders of
Lexington from a financial point of view. Because Prudential Securities was
engaged by, and its fairness opinion was delivered to, the Board of Trustees of
Lexington, the purpose of Prudential Securities' analysis was to determine
whether the consideration being paid by Lexington for the Net Partnerships was
fair from a financial point of view from the perspective of Lexington's
shareholders, rather than from the perspective of the Net Partnerships. The full
text of the Prudential Securities fairness opinion, which contains a description
of the assumptions made, matters considered and limitations on the review and
analysis, is attached as Annex B to this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus and should be read in its entirety.
In connection with its review of the fairness of their merger
consideration, and in arriving at its fairness opinion, Prudential Securities
conducted several different financial analyses, as more fully described under
"FAIRNESS OPINIONS -- Prudential Securities Fairness Opinion" beginning on page
81. The results of these analyses were as follows:
- Comparable Company Analysis -- Prudential Securities compared selected
financial information about the Net Partnerships with that of several
other companies engaged in the acquisition, operation and management of
triple net lease properties which Prudential Securities considered to be
reasonably comparable to the Net Partnerships for purposes of its
analysis. Based on this analysis, Prudential Securities observed that the
merger consideration was less than the range of consideration implied by
this analysis. However, none of these comparable companies is identical
to the Net Partnerships.
- Precedent Transactions Analysis -- Prudential Securities compared the
consideration to be paid in the mergers with the consideration paid in
several recent real estate portfolio transactions considered by
Prudential Securities to be reasonably similar to the mergers, and noted
that the merger consideration was within the range of consideration
implied by this analysis, and was less than the mean of that range.
However, none of the precedent transactions was identical to the mergers.
- Asset Value Analysis -- Prudential Securities analyzed the gross real
estate asset value of the Net Partnerships, adjusted for non-real estate
assets and liabilities, in relation to the merger consideration and noted
that the adjusted asset value resulting from this analysis was greater
than the merger consideration.
19
29
- Liquidation Value Analysis -- Prudential Securities analyzed the
liquidation present value of the Net Partnerships in relation to the
merger consideration, and observed that the merger consideration was
greater than the range of discounted liquidation values resulting from
this liquidation value analysis.
In connection with its fairness opinion, Prudential Securities made
numerous assumptions, many of which relate to matters beyond the control of
management of Lexington and the general partners of the Net Partnerships.
Accordingly, the results of these analyses are inherently subject to substantial
uncertainty. For additional information about these assumptions and the
important limitations on the Prudential Securities fairness opinion and the
analyses performed by Prudential Securities, see "FAIRNESS OPINIONS --
Prudential Securities Fairness Opinion" beginning on page 81.
COMPARISON OF VALUATION ANALYSES
GENERAL
In order for you to better understand how the amount of merger
consideration being offered in the Transaction compares to other analyses of the
value of the Net Partnerships, you should review the tables set forth below,
each of which was prepared on the basis of $1,000 of original investment in the
Net Partnerships. For your convenience, the amount of merger consideration is
repeated in each table and is indicated by a box.
Prudential Securities, Cohen & Steers and the general partners have, in
some cases, used different assumptions for purposes of their respective analyses
and therefore may have reached different conclusions with respect to aspects of
their analyses even though each of them ultimately concluded that the merger
consideration is fair from a financial point of view.
HISTORICAL DATA AND AGREED UPON MERGER CONSIDERATION
The following table sets forth the book value of a $1,000 original
investment in the Net Partnerships as of June 30, 2000, the portion of the
agreed upon adjusted net asset value of the Net Partnerships attributable to
such an investment and the portion of the total merger consideration
attributable to such an investment, based upon the low, high and mean average
trading price of Lexington common shares during the 20 day period prior to, but
not including, September 18, 2001, which was the latest practicable date prior
to the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus.
PER $1,000 ORIGINAL INVESTMENT OF
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST
NET VALUATION ---------------------------------
PARTNERSHIP METHODOLOGY LOW HIGH MEAN*
----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------
Lexington Common Share Price(1)...................... $ 13.60 $ 14.85 $ 14.24
Net 1 Book Value as of June 30, 2000....................... -- -- $785.06
Agreed Upon Adjusted Net Asset Value as of June 30,
2000(2)............................................ -- -- $820.38
TOTAL MERGER CONSIDERATION(3)(4)..................... $808.67 $820.38 $820.38
Net 2 Book Value as of June 30, 2000....................... -- -- $807.75
Agreed Upon Adjusted Net Asset Value as of June 30,
2000(2)............................................ -- -- $819.52
TOTAL MERGER CONSIDERATION(3)(4)..................... $807.82 $819.52 $819.52
---------------
* If there is no amount listed under the "Low" and/or "High" column, then the
amount under the "Mean" column represents the single conclusion reached.
(1) The table assumes that the closing date was September 18, 2001, which was
the latest practicable date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and
Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, and represents the low, high and
mean average closing prices of Lexington common shares during the 20 days
prior to, but not including, that date.
20
30
(2) Based upon estimated value of each Net Partnership's properties less
estimated liquidation costs and mortgage notes payable at June 30, 2001,
which was the originally anticipated closing date of the Transaction,
including estimated mortgage assumption fees and repayment fees, if any,
based primarily upon the scheduled amortization of all mortgages outstanding
at June 30, 2000.
(3) The value of the total merger consideration is based on the sum of the
market value of the common shares and the amount of cash being offered to
limited partners. The number of common shares which will be received by
limited partners will be based upon the average closing price. As indicated
by the table, if the average closing price is between $14.00 and $16.00 per
share, the value of the merger consideration will not be impacted by a
fluctuation in the average closing price. The low price in this table is
less than $14.00 per share, and accordingly, the value of the total merger
consideration per $1,000 of original investment decreases. See the table on
pages 10 and 11 entitled "Effect of Fluctuations in 20 Day Average Closing
Price of Lexington Common Shares" for an explanation of how the amount of
total merger consideration fluctuates if the average closing price is not
between $14.00 and $16.00 per share.
(4) See "THE MERGERS -- The Merger Consideration" on page 60 for an explanation
of how the merger consideration was calculated.
VALUATION ANALYSES PREPARED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE NET PARTNERSHIPS
The following tables set forth the conclusions of each of Cohen & Steers
and the general partners as to the fairness of the merger consideration, from a
financial point of view, to the limited partners under the various valuation
methodologies used by each of them. These tables are included so that you can
more easily compare the results of the analyses of Cohen & Steers and the
general partners to the merger consideration. These tables did not serve as the
basis for the general partners' belief that the merger consideration is fair.
CONCLUSIONS OF COHEN & STEERS
PER $1,000 ORIGINAL INVESTMENT OF
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST
NET VALUATION -----------------------------------
PARTNERSHIP METHODOLOGY LOW HIGH MEAN*
----------- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------
Net 1 Comparable Publicly Traded Companies(1)............. $620.73 $1,081.76 $835.65
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis(2).................... $655.41 $ 849.74 $750.03
Net Asset Value Analysis(3)......................... $580.77 $ 720.72 $650.74
Net Liquidation Value Analysis(4)................... $532.79 $ 669.25 $601.02
Market Value of Net 1 Merger Consideration(5)....... -- -- $820.38
TOTAL NET 1 MERGER CONSIDERATION(6)(7).............. $808.67 $ 820.38 $820.38
Net 2 Comparable Publicly Traded Companies(1)............. $663.50 $1,205.90 $919.60
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis(2).................... $645.80 $ 901.50 $770.40
Net Asset Value Analysis(3)......................... $735.00 $ 928.20 $831.60
Net Liquidation Value Analysis(4)................... $657.30 $ 845.70 $751.50
Market Value of Net 2 Merger Consideration(5)....... -- -- $819.52
TOTAL NET 2 MERGER CONSIDERATION(6)(7).............. $807.82 $ 819.52 $819.52
---------------
* If there is no amount listed under the "Low" and/or "High" column, then the
amount under the "Mean" column represents the single conclusion reached.
(1) Based upon the overall mean value calculated from a range of trading
multiples of comparable publicly traded companies as a function of actual
2000 and projected 2001 funds from operations and earnings before interest,
taxes, depreciation and amortization.
(2) Based upon a range of discount rates from 11.0% - 13.0%, with a mean of
12.0%, and a range of terminal multiples of EBITDA from 9.25x - 10.25x, with
a mean of 9.75x for Net 1 and 9.75x - 10.75x, with a mean of 10.25x for Net
2. The Discounted Cash Flow Analysis was computed utilizing a methodology
similar to that used by the general partners in calculating their Estimated
Going Concern Value, but
21
31
reflects different assumptions with respect to several factors, including
measurement period and range of discount rates as determined by Cohen &
Steers.
(3) Based upon a range of capitalization rates from 9.8% - 10.8%, with a mean of
10.3% for Net 1 and 9.3% - 10.3%, with a mean of 9.8% for Net 2, applied to
projected net operating income for the twelve months ending June 30, 2002,
and adjustments to the June 30, 2001 balance sheet to reflect the subsequent
cash dividend distribution to the general and limited partners and the
anticipated final distribution of cash outstanding to the general and
limited partners at the closing of the transaction.
(4) Based upon a range of capitalization rates from 9.8% - 10.8%, with a mean of
10.3% for Net 1 and 9.3% - 10.3% , with a mean of 9.8% for Net 2, applied to
projected net operating income for the twelve months ending June 30, 2002,
and adjustments to the June 30, 2001 balance sheet to reflect the subsequent
cash dividend distribution to the general and limited partners and the
anticipated final distribution of cash outstanding to the general and
limited partners at the closing of the transaction. The resulting value was
then reduced by ordinary liquidation costs.
(5) Based upon an estimated market valuation of 100% of face value of the common
shares and cash consideration to be received. The common shares were valued
using the then prevailing market price of $15.00 as of the close of business
on July 13, 2001.
(6) The value of the total merger consideration is based on the sum of the
market value of the common shares and the amount of cash being offered to
limited partners. The number of common shares which will be received by
limited partners will be based upon the average closing price. The table
assumes that the closing date was September 18, 2001, which was the latest
practicable date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, and represents the low, high and mean
average closing prices of Lexington common shares during the 20 day period
prior to, but not including, that date. As indicated by the table, if the
average closing price is between $14.00 and $16.00 per share, the value of
the merger consideration will not be impacted by a fluctuation in the
average closing price. The low price in this table is less than $14.00 per
share, and accordingly, the value of the total merger consideration per
$1,000 of original investment decreases. See the table on pages 10 and 11
entitled "Effect of Fluctuations in 20 Day Average Closing Price of
Lexington Common Shares" for an explanation of how the amount of total
merger consideration fluctuates if the average closing price is not between
$14.00 and $16.00 per share.
(7) See "THE MERGERS -- The Merger Consideration" on page 60 for an explanation
of how the merger consideration was calculated.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE GENERAL PARTNERS
PER $1,000 ORIGINAL INVESTMENT OF
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST
NET VALUATION ------------------------------------
PARTNERSHIP METHODOLOGY LOW HIGH MEAN*
----------- ----------- ------- ------- ----------------
Net 1 Agreed Upon Adjusted Net Asset Value(1)....... $ -- $ -- $820.38
Estimated Going Concern Value(2).............. $637.96 $706.24 $671.60(2)
Estimated Liquidation Value(3)................ $ -- $ -- $751.17
Range of Secondary Market Prices(4)........... $ -- $ -- $510.00 - 665.00
TOTAL MERGER CONSIDERATION(5)(6).............. $808.67 $820.38 $820.38
Net 2 Agreed Upon Adjusted Net Asset Value(1)....... $ -- $ -- $819.52
Estimated Going Concern Value(2).............. $723.35 $801.18 $761.70
Estimated Liquidation Value(3)................ $ -- $ -- $762.77
Range of Secondary Market Prices(4)........... $ -- $ -- $560.00 - 693.50
TOTAL MERGER CONSIDERATION(5)(6).............. $807.82 $819.52 $819.52
---------------
* If there is no amount listed under the "Low" and/or "High" column, then the
amount under the "Mean" column represents the single conclusion reached.
22
32
(1) Based upon estimated value of each Net Partnership's properties less
estimated liquidation costs, an estimate of mortgage notes payable at June
30, 2001, which was the originally anticipated closing date of the
Transaction, including estimated mortgage assumption fees and repayment
fees, if any, based primarily upon the scheduled amortization of all
mortgages outstanding at June 30, 2000 and all other liabilities outstanding
at June 30, 2000.
(2) Overall mean value based upon a range of discount rates from 13% - 15%.
(3) Based upon estimated value of each Net Partnership's properties less
estimated liquidation costs, mortgage assumption/repayment fees and stated
liabilities at June 30, 2000.
(4) Based on reported sales of units from January 1, 1999 to September 30, 2000,
as reported by Stanger & Co.
(5) The value of the total merger consideration is based on the sum of the
market value of the common shares and the amount of cash being offered to
limited partners. The number of common shares which will be received by
limited partners will be based upon the average closing price. The table
assumes that the closing date was September 18, 2001, which was the latest
practicable date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, and represents the low, high and mean
average closing prices of Lexington common shares during the 20 day period
prior to, but not including, that date. As indicated by the table, if the
average closing price is between $14.00 and $16.00 per share, the value of
the merger consideration will not be impacted by a fluctuation in the
average closing price. The low price in this table is less than $14.00 per
share, and accordingly, the value of the total merger consideration per
$1,000 of original investment decreases. See the table on pages 10 and 11
entitled "Effect of Fluctuations in 20 Day Average Closing Price of
Lexington Common Shares" for an explanation of how the amount of total
merger consideration fluctuates if the average closing price is not between
$14.00 and $16.00 per share.
(6) See "THE MERGERS -- The Merger Consideration" on page 60 for an explanation
of how the merger consideration was calculated.
VALUATION ANALYSES PREPARED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LEXINGTON
The following table sets forth the conclusions of Prudential Securities as
to the fairness of the merger consideration, from a financial point of view, to
Lexington's shareholders, under the various valuation methodologies used by
Prudential Securities, each of which assumes that no limited partners elect to
receive their merger consideration in the form of dissenter debentures. The
amounts shown in the table represent the combined value of the Net Partnerships
under the relevant valuation methodology based upon an original investment of
$1,000 in the Net Partnerships, although Prudential Securities did not analyze
the value of the Net Partnerships in relation to an original investment in them.
Because Prudential Securities served as a financial advisor to Lexington, and
because Lexington's acquisition of each of the Net Partnerships is conditioned
upon the concurrent acquisition of both Net 1 and Net 2, Prudential Securities
viewed Net 1 and Net 2 as a single asset and did not prepare separate valuations
for each of them.
23
33
CONCLUSIONS OF PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES
PER $1,000 ORIGINAL INVESTMENT OF
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST
NET VALUATION ----------------------------------
PARTNERSHIP METHODOLOGY(1) LOW HIGH MEAN*
----------- -------------- -------- ---------- ----------
Net 1 & COMBINED NET 1 AND NET 2
Net 2 TOTAL MERGER CONSIDERATION(2)(3).................. $808.14 $ 819.85 $ 819.85
Comparable Company(4)
2000 Actual Combined Net 1 and Net 2 FFO.......... $827.08 $1,130.06 $ 959.90
2001 Projected Combined Net 1 and Net 2 FFO....... $958.18 $1,534.61 $1,171.52
2002 Projected Combined Net 1 and Net 2 FFO....... $896.19 $1,227.26 $1,039.12
Precedent Transaction (Combined Net 1 and Net 2
LTM NOI)(5)..................................... $707.59 $1,705.29 $1,107.43
Asset Value(6).................................... $ -- $ -- $ 951.03
Liquidation Present Value(7)...................... $787.06 $ 802.19 $ 794.62
---------------
* If there is no amount listed under the "Low" and/or "High" column, then the
amount under the "Mean" column represents the single conclusion reached.
(1) Because Prudential Securities served as financial advisor to Lexington, and
because Lexington's acquisition of each of the Net Partnerships was
conditioned upon the concurrent acquisitions of both Net 1 and Net 2,
Prudential Securities viewed Net 1 and Net 2 as a single asset and did not
prepare separate valuations for each of the Net Partnerships. All of the
amounts set forth in this table reflect the conclusions of Prudential
Securities under each valuation methodology divided by the sum of the
original investments in Net 1 and Net 2 combined, multiplied by 1,000.
(2) The value of the total merger consideration is based on the sum of the
market value of the common shares and the amount of cash being offered to
limited partners. The number of common shares which will be received by
limited partners will be based upon the average closing price. The table
assumes that the closing date was September 18, 2001, which was the latest
practicable date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, and represents the low, high and mean
average closing prices of Lexington common shares during the 20 day period
prior to, but not including, that date. As indicated by the table, if the
average closing price is between $14.00 and $16.00 per share, the value of
the merger consideration will not be impacted by a fluctuation in the
average closing price. The low price in this table is less than $14.00 per
share, and accordingly, the value of the total merger consideration per
$1,000 of original investment decreases. See the table on pages 10 and 11
entitled "Effect of Fluctuations in 20 Day Average Closing Price of
Lexington Common Shares" for an explanation of how the amount of total
merger consideration fluctuates if the average closing price is not between
$14.00 and $16.00 per share.
(3) See "THE MERGERS -- The Merger Consideration" on page 60 for an explanation
of how the merger consideration was calculated.
(4) Gross value based upon the overall mean value calculated from a range of
trading multiples of comparable publicly traded companies as a function of
actual 2000 and projected 2001 and 2002 funds from operations.
(5) Gross value based upon a range of capitalization rates of comparable real
estate portfolio transactions from 7.1% - 11.4%, with a mean of 9.2%,
applied to the Net Partnerships' net operating income for the twelve months
ended March 31, 2001.
(6) Gross value based upon the appraisals performed by Stanger & Co. for
properties owned as of December 31, 2000, and the estimated value of
non-real estate assets and liabilities as of March 31, 2001 adjusted for the
subsequent sale of property.
(7) Gross value based upon the appraisals performed by Stanger & Co. for
properties owned as of December 31, 2000 and the estimated value of non-real
estate assets and liabilities as of March 31, 2001
24
34
adjusted for the subsequent sale of property. The resulting gross value was
adjusted for disposition costs, resulting in estimated sales proceeds of $146.8
million. This amount was then discounted to take account of the fact that such
sales proceeds would not be available immediately but instead would be
realized as real estate assets were sold. An orderly liquidation over a
twelve month period was assumed with sale proceeds discounted at a range of
discount rates from 11.0% to 13.0%, with a mean of 12.0%.
UNAUDITED COMPARATIVE PER SHARE/UNIT DATA
The following table sets forth Lexington's, Net 1's and Net 2's historical
per share/unit data, unaudited pro forma per share data after giving effect to
the mergers, and the equivalent pro forma combined per share amounts of Net 1
and Net 2. The Net 1 and Net 2 pro forma equivalent data are not necessarily
indicative of actual financial position or future operating results or that
which would have occurred or will occur upon consummation of the mergers.
UNAUDITED HISTORICAL AND PRO FORMA COMPARATIVE PER SHARE/UNIT DATA
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
NET 1 NET 2 NET 1 NET 2
LEXINGTON PRO FORMA PRO FORMA LEXINGTON PRO FORMA PRO FORMA
HISTORICAL PRO FORMA EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT PRO FORMA EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT
(A) (B)(C) (C)(D)(E) (C)(D)(E) HISTORICAL (B)(C) (C)(D)(E) (C)(D)(E)
------------ --------- ---------- ---------- ------------ --------- ---------- ----------
Income before
extraordinary item
Lexington
Basic............ $ 1.15 $1.03 -- -- $ 0.50 $ 0.55 -- --
Diluted.......... $ 1.10 $1.01 -- -- $ 0.48 $ 0.53 -- --
Net 1
Basic............ $46.97-50.47 -- $28.17 -- $40.77-43.72 -- $ 15.04 --
Diluted.......... $46.97-50.47 -- $27.62 -- $40.77-43.72 -- $ 14.50 --
Net 2
Basic............ $ 3.77-4.48 -- -- $2.81 $ 4.11-4.85 -- -- $ 1.50
Diluted.......... $ 3.77-4.48 -- -- $2.76 $ 4.11-4.85 -- -- $ 1.45
Cash
Dividends/Distribution
Lexington.......... $ 1.22 $1.22 -- -- $ 0.63 $ 0.63 -- --
Net 1.............. $ 50.04 -- $33.37 -- $ 25.02 -- $ 17.23 --
Net 2.............. $ 5.00 -- -- $3.33 $ 2.50 -- -- $ 1.72
Book Value Per Common
Share/ Unit
Lexington.......... $ 10.37 -- -- -- $ 10.23 $11.20 -- --
Net 1.............. $ 770.80 -- -- -- $ 788.35 -- $716.51 --
Net 2.............. $ 79.31 -- -- -- $ 81.36 -- -- $71.56
---------------
(A) A range of earnings per share is provided for both Net 1 and Net 2 because
amounts allocated to individual partners depends on the date their
respective units were originally issued.
(B) The unaudited pro forma per share data was prepared using the purchase
method of accounting.
(C) The pro forma combined per share data has been prepared assuming that no
limited partners elect to receive their merger consideration in the form of
dissenter debentures.
(D) The equivalent pro forma combined per share amounts of Net 1 and Net 2 are
calculated by multiplying pro forma Net Income per share of Lexington and
pro forma cash dividends/distributions per share of Lexington by the
exchange ratio of Net 1 and Net 2 so that the per share amounts are equated
to the comparative values for each such Net 1 and Net 2 limited partnership
interest. The pro forma Book
25
35
Value per share is similarly computed, but also includes the cash component
of the merger consideration. See pages F-7 through F-8 for a detailed
analysis of the calculation of the exchange ratio and the pro forma amounts
reflected in this table.
(E) See page F-7 for calculation of pro forma earnings per share.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LEXINGTON AND THE GENERAL PARTNERS OF
THE NET PARTNERSHIPS
LEXINGTON. The Board of Trustees of Lexington, including the independent
trustees but excluding E. Robert Roskind, who abstained from voting because of
his affiliation with the Net Partnerships, has unanimously approved the
Transaction and believes that the terms of the merger agreements are fair to the
shareholders of Lexington. The Board of Trustees unanimously recommends that
shareholders vote for approval of the merger agreements and the issuance of the
merger consideration. Lexington has specifically adopted the conclusions in the
fairness opinion delivered by Prudential Securities. The determinations of the
Board of Trustees are directed only to the shareholders of Lexington and not to
the limited partners of the Net Partnerships.
NET PARTNERSHIPS. Each general partner believes that both the individual
merger of its Net Partnership with and into Net 3, as well as the Transaction
taken as a whole, are fair to and in the best interests of the limited partners
of its Net Partnership. The general partners also believe that the Transaction
is the best means to maximize the value of the limited partners' investments in
the Net Partnerships. The general partners based these beliefs and made their
determinations on the basis of their own extensive due diligence of the
properties owned by each of Lexington and the Net Partnerships. The general
partners used, as part of their determinations, the appraisals provided by
Stanger & Co. and the analyses, in the form of fairness opinions, solicited from
Cohen & Steers as to the fairness, from a financial point of view, of the
consideration to be received by the limited partners of the Net Partnerships.
Each of the Net 1 and Net 2 general partners has specifically adopted both the
conclusions in the fairness opinions delivered by Cohen & Steers and the
appraisals delivered by Stanger & Co. The general partners have approved the
merger agreements and unanimously recommend that the limited partners consent to
approval of their respective merger agreement and the amendment of their
respective agreement of limited partnership. The determinations of the general
partners are directed only to the limited partners of the Net Partnerships and
not to Lexington's shareholders.
BENEFITS OF THE TRANSACTION. Lexington and the general partners believe
that the following are the benefits associated with the proposed Transaction:
- Greater Liquidity for Limited Partners. The mergers provide limited
partners with greater liquidity of investment, because they will receive
50% of their merger consideration in cash and 50% in common shares which
will trade on the New York Stock Exchange. Currently, the limited
partners' ability to sell their units is limited because the units are
not listed on an exchange. In addition, because the units are not listed
on an exchange, no market exists to reliably establish the value of the
units.
- Growth in Funds from Operations. As a result of the Transaction, the
Board of Trustees believes that Lexington should have greater funds from
operations, commonly referred to as FFO. Lexington believes that an FFO
measurement enhances an investors' understanding of the company's
financial condition, results from operations and cash flows. Lexington
believes that it is an appropriate measure of the performance of an
equity REIT, and that it can be one measure of a REITs ability to make
cash distributions. FFO is defined in the October 1999 "White Paper,"
issued by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts,
Inc., or NAREIT, as "net income (or loss) computed in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") excluding gains (or
losses) from sales of property, plus real estate depreciation and
amortization and after adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and
joint ventures." Lexington's method of calculating FFO may be different
from methods used by other REITs and accordingly is not comparable to
such other REITS. FFO should not be considered an alternative to net
income as an indicator of operating performance or to cash flow from
operating activities as determined in accordance with GAAP, or as a
measure of liquidity to other income or cash flow data as determined in
accordance with GAAP.
26
36
- Risk Diversification for both Limited Partners and Shareholders. The
combination of the properties owned by the Net Partnerships with
Lexington's properties will diversify the investors' investment over a
larger number of properties. This diversification will reduce the current
dependence of the limited partners' and Lexington shareholders'
investment upon the performance of, and the exposure to the risks
associated with, the particular group of properties currently owned by
the Net Partnerships and Lexington, respectively.
- Greater Access to Capital. Following the Transaction, Lexington believes
it should have improved access to capital markets for future growth as a
result of the larger total equity market capitalization of the combined
entity.
- Greater Potential for Appreciation in Value. The general partners
believe that the limited partners will have a greater potential to
realize appreciation in the value of common shares than they would in
units.
- Cost Savings. The combination of the Net Partnerships with Lexington
will result in administrative cost savings. For example, because
Lexington and the Net Partnerships are public entities subject to the
reporting requirements of the SEC, their combination into a single public
company would reduce SEC compliance costs.
- No Schedule K-1. If the Net Partnerships are acquired, each limited
partner will no longer receive a Schedule K-1 for its tax reporting.
Limited partners who become holders of common shares will instead receive
a Form 1099-DIV, a much simpler reporting form, each January.
DETRIMENTS OF THE TRANSACTION
Lexington. Lexington believes that the following are the detriments to the
shareholders of Lexington associated with the proposed Transaction:
- Failure to Realize Benefits. The anticipated benefits of the Transaction
might not be fully realized.
- Increase in Leverage. If the Transaction is consummated, Lexington may
issue and assume substantial indebtedness in the form of the dissenter
debentures and mortgages payable encumbering the Net Partnership
properties. This increased debt service may increase the risk of
Lexington's default. This increased leverage could adversely affect
Lexington's financial condition and results of operations, the market
price of its common shares and its ability to make distributions.
- Fixed Minimum Number of Common Shares. The minimum number of common
shares to be exchanged as merger consideration is fixed. If the average
closing price is more than $16.00 per share, Lexington will nevertheless
be obligated to issue to the limited partners of the Net Partnerships the
same number of common shares per unit as it would have been obligated had
the average closing price been $16.00 per share.
- Transaction Costs. Lexington will bear significant costs, estimated to
be approximately $2.01 million, in connection with the consummation of
the Transaction.
- Smaller Percentage Ownership Interest. Shareholders will have a smaller
percentage ownership and voting interest in Lexington after the
Transaction.
- Dilution of Ownership Interest. There is a risk of dilution of
Lexington's current shareholders in the event the merger consideration
exceeds the fair market value of the Net Partnerships. As a result of
this possible dilution there may be a corresponding negative effect on
net income per share.
Net Partnerships. The general partners of the Net Partnerships believe
that the following are the detriments to the limited partners of the Net
Partnerships associated with the Transaction:
- Taxable Transaction. The limited partners will realize taxable gain or
loss in the mergers. Limited partners receiving common shares will be
able to liquidate their common shares and use the cash
27
37
proceeds and the cash received as 50% of their merger consideration
towards the payment of any taxes due on any taxable gain.
- Transaction Costs. The Net Partnerships will bear significant costs,
estimated to be approximately $0.63 million each, in connection with
consummating the Transaction.
- Failure to Realize Benefits. The anticipated benefits of the mergers may
not be realized.
- Increase in Leverage. If the Transaction is consummated, Lexington may
issue and assume substantial indebtedness in the form of the dissenter
debentures and mortgages payable encumbering the Net Partnership
properties. This increased debt service may increase the risk of
Lexington's default. This increased leverage could also adversely affect
Lexington's financial condition and results of operations, the market
price of its common shares and its ability to make distributions or
payments on the dissenter debentures.
- Fluctuations in the Value of the Merger Consideration. The prices at
which the common shares trade will fluctuate following the mergers, and
may not correspond to 50% of the fair market value of the Net
Partnerships.
- Fixed Maximum Number of Common Shares. The maximum number of common
shares to be exchanged as merger consideration is fixed. If the average
closing price is less than $14.00 per share, limited partners will not be
entitled to receive any more common shares per unit than they would have
received had the average closing price been $14.00 per share.
- Smaller Percentage Ownership Interest. Limited partners will have a
smaller percentage ownership and voting interest in Lexington after the
Transaction than they have in their Net Partnership.
- Dilution to Net Income and Book Value. On a pro forma per unit
equivalent basis, the mergers are immediately dilutive to both per unit
net income and book value of the Net Partnerships. Specifically, the
diluted pro forma net income per unit for the year ended December 31,
2000 is reduced for Net 1 by $19.35 - $22.85 to $27.62 per unit, and for
Net 2 is reduced by $1.01 - $1.72 to $2.76 per unit, and the diluted pro
forma net income per unit for the six months ended June 30, 2001 is
reduced for Net 1 by $26.27 - $29.22 to $14.50 per unit, and for Net 2 is
reduced by $2.66 - $3.40 to $1.45 per unit. The immediate dilution of
book value as of June 30, 2001 for Net 1 is $71.84 per unit and for Net 2
is $9.80 per unit.
- No Independent Representation. The general partners did not retain an
unaffiliated representative to negotiate on behalf of the Net
Partnerships, either individually or together, or on behalf of the
limited partners, in the mergers.
CONSEQUENCES IF MERGERS NOT CONSUMMATED
If the mergers are not consummated, each Net Partnership will continue to
operate as a separate legal entity, with its own assets and liabilities, and
with no change in its investment objectives, policies and restrictions.
EFFECTIVE TIME OF THE MERGERS
As soon as practicable after satisfaction of all conditions to consummation
of the mergers, Lexington and the Net Partnerships will file certificates of
merger with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware in order to effect
the mergers. The mergers will become effective upon the filing of the
certificates of merger, or at a later time which Lexington and the general
partners will have agreed upon and designated in their filings in accordance
with applicable law. Lexington and each of the Net Partnerships have the right,
acting unilaterally, so long as they have not willfully and materially breached
the relevant merger agreement, to terminate the relevant merger agreement should
the relevant merger not be consummated by the close of business on December 31,
2001. It is expected that the mergers will be consummated in the fourth quarter
of 2001.
28
38
TRANSACTION EXPENSES
Net 1, Net 2 and Lexington will each be responsible for and bear the
aggregate costs and expenses incurred by each of them at any time in connection
with pursuing, negotiating or consummating the Transaction. Net 1 and Net 2 will
each bear 50% of the fees and expenses of Cohen & Steers. Lexington will enter
into an indemnification agreement with each of the general partners that will
provide indemnification protection to each of the general partners and their
respective affiliates with respect to claims which could arise in connection
with the proposed Transaction, whether or not the Transaction is consummated.
COMPARISON OF RIGHTS OF THE LIMITED PARTNERS AND SHAREHOLDERS OF LEXINGTON
The rights of limited partners are currently governed by Delaware law and
by the terms and conditions of the respective limited partnership agreement. If
the mergers are approved, the rights of the limited partners receiving common
shares will be governed by Maryland law, the Lexington Declaration of Trust and
the Lexington By-Laws, all of which differ from the partnership agreements.
FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSIDERATIONS
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP has given an opinion to Lexington to
the effect that the material federal income tax consequences of the mergers to
the limited partners are as discussed in the section entitled "FEDERAL INCOME
TAX CONSIDERATIONS" beginning on page 173.
- As discussed in that section, the limited partners will realize taxable
gain or loss in the mergers, whether they receive common shares and cash
or dissenter debentures. The general partners have determined that an
original limited partner's estimated taxable gain for each Net 1 unit and
each Net 2 unit would be approximately $40.76 and $4.87, respectively.
Gain or loss will be recognized in the year the mergers are consummated.
- The amount of taxable gain per unit described above is only an estimate
and will ultimately vary by limited partner. The amount of a limited
partner's taxable gain or loss will depend on whether the limited partner
receives common shares and cash or elects to receive dissenter
debentures. Based on Treasury regulations, a consenting limited partner
that receives common shares and cash will be treated as selling its
units. It would realize taxable gain or loss based on the consideration
it receives and its share of partnership liabilities assumed, less its
adjusted tax basis in its units. A limited partner that does not consent
to sale treatment and elects to receive dissenter debentures will be
allocated its share of gain or loss from its respective Net Partnership.
To the extent a Net Partnership's limited partners elect to receive
dissenter debentures, such Net Partnership will be treated as
transferring its assets and liabilities to Net 3 in exchange for the
dissenter debentures. The transfer will be a taxable sale to the Net
Partnership and will result in the allocation of taxable gain or loss to
each dissenting limited partner. Each dissenting limited partner will
then be treated as receiving its share of dissenter debentures in
liquidation of its Net Partnership.
Tax matters are very complicated, and the tax consequences of the mergers
to limited partners will depend on the facts of each individual situation. You
should consult your tax advisor for a full understanding of the Transaction's
tax consequences to you.
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE AMENDMENT TO LEXINGTON'S DECLARATION OF TRUST
In addition to the proposals relating to the Transaction, Lexington's
shareholders are being asked to approve and adopt the Articles of Amendment
pursuant to which Lexington's Declaration of Trust will be amended to increase
the number of common shares that Lexington has authority to issue from
40,000,000 common shares to 80,000,000 common shares. A copy of the Articles of
Amendment is attached to this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus as Annex A-5. Following consummation of the Transaction,
the number of common shares which would be available for issuance from time to
time for various business purposes that the Board of Trustees may in the future
deem advisable would be diminished.
29
39
The Board of Trustees believes that an increase in the number of authorized
common shares will provide additional common shares for issuance, without the
delay and expense of further shareholder approval, for various business purposes
as the Board of Trustees may in the future deem advisable, including, but not
limited to, as consideration in connection with acquisitions and to raise
additional capital for Lexington. However, the Board of Trustees is not
presently contemplating any specific transactions that would require the
approval of this proposed increase.
APPROVAL OF MERGER AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT; ELECTION OF MERGER CONSIDERATION
VOTING PROCEDURES FOR LEXINGTON SHAREHOLDERS
Shareholders may vote at the special meeting of the shareholders of
Lexington, to be held at 10 a.m. on November 28, 2001, at , by attending
the meeting and voting in person, by completing the enclosed proxy card and
returning it in the enclosed postage paid envelope or by faxing it to the
transfer agent as directed below. Proxies will be received, tabulated and
certified as to time of receipt and vote by Mellon Investor Services LLC,
Lexington's transfer agent. Proxies should be returned to Mellon at 44 Wall
Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10005, Attention: Lexington Proxies, or faxed to
Mellon at (917) 320-6295. Faxed proxies will be accepted until the polls close
on the date of the special meeting.
Shareholders of Lexington should indicate on the enclosed proxy how they
vote in respect of each of the proposals, then sign and mail it in the enclosed
return envelope as soon as possible so that their shares may be voted "For" or
"Against" the proposals. If shareholders sign and send in their proxy but do not
indicate how they want to vote, their proxy will be counted as a vote "For" the
mergers and the amendment. If the shareholders do not return a proxy or indicate
on their proxy that they abstain, it will count as a vote "Against" the mergers.
Shareholders of Lexington may revoke their proxy by either:
- delivering to the Secretary of Lexington, prior to the taking of the vote
at the special meeting, a written notice of revocation bearing a date
later than the date of the proxy or a later-dated proxy relating to the
same shares; or
- attending the meeting and voting in person.
If the shareholders have any questions regarding the Transaction, they
should call Mellon toll free at (800) 279-1247.
CONSENT PROCEDURES FOR NET PARTNERSHIPS
Each limited partner is requested to:
- indicate on the enclosed consent form whether they consent or deny
consent to the Transaction;
- complete all other applicable sections of the consent form;
- sign and date the consent form; and
- return the consent form for receipt, in original or by facsimile, to the
Net Partnerships' solicitation agent before the end of the solicitation
period.
Morrow & Co., Inc. has been designated as the Net Partnerships'
solicitation agent for purposes of the Transaction. Limited partners should
return their consent form to Morrow at 445 Park Avenue, New York, New York
10022, Attention: William P. Smith, or fax it to Morrow at (212) 754-8300. Faxed
consents will be accepted until 12:00 midnight, New York time, on November 27,
2001. Limited partners should return their consent forms as soon as possible to
ensure that their units are counted in determining whether their Net Partnership
approves the Transaction.
30
40
The consent solicitation period will continue until 12:00 midnight on
November 27, 2001 unless the requisite vote is received prior to that date or
the general partners extend the consent solicitation period with requisite
limited partner consent.
A consent by a limited partner to a Net Partnership's participation in the
Transaction will constitute a consent by that limited partner to all actions by
that Net Partnership necessary to consummate the Transaction, including any
required amendments to the Net Partnership's partnership agreements.
If a limited partner signs and sends in its consent form and does not
indicate whether it gives or denies consent, the consent form will be counted as
having consented to the Transaction. If a limited partner does not return its
consent form or the limited partner indicates on its consent form that it
abstains, the consent form will count as having denied consent to the
Transaction.
A limited partner that receives common shares and cash will be deemed to
consent to treatment of the merger of its respective Net Partnership as a sale
of its units for tax purposes. A limited partner that does not consent to this
treatment may not receive common shares and cash and must elect to receive
dissenter debentures.
Limited partners may revoke their consent by delivering a written notice of
revocation bearing a later date than the consent or a later-dated consent
relating to the same units to Morrow or by calling Morrow toll free at (877)
807-8896. Limited partners may withdraw or revoke their consent at any time
before the earlier of November 27, 2001 or the date on which consents from
limited partners equal to more than 50% of the limited partnership interests are
received by their Net Partnership.
If the limited partners have any questions regarding the Transaction, they
should call Morrow toll free at (877) 807-8896. Limited partners can obtain
additional information about the Transaction, including information regarding
the exchange rate and the number of consents received, by calling Morrow toll
free at (877) 807-8896.
RECORD DATE; VOTES REQUIRED
Lexington. Only holders of shares of record at the close of business on
October 12, 2001 will be entitled to notice of and to vote at the Lexington
meeting of shareholders. The merger agreements and the amendment to Lexington's
Declaration of Trust will be approved if Lexington receives the affirmative
vote, in person or by proxy, of a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to
vote at the Lexington meeting. As of the record date for the meeting, there were
common shares and 2,000,000 preferred shares outstanding and entitled
to vote. The members of the Board of Trustees and executive officers of
Lexington and their affiliates beneficially owned, as of the record date
common shares and 2,000,000 preferred shares, which represented
approximately % of the outstanding voting shares. Abstentions and broker
non-votes have the same effect as a vote against the proposals.
The Net Partnerships. Only limited partners of record at the close of
business on October 12, 2001 will be entitled to consent or deny consent to the
Transaction. Limited partners of record on the record date are entitled to
consent or deny consent with respect to each unit held. As of June 30, 2001, the
number of units held by limited partners of Net 1 and Net 2 was 30,772 and
477,167, respectively, and the number of those units which must consent in order
to approve the Transaction was 15,387 and 238,584, respectively. The consent of
the holders of a majority of the outstanding units of each Net Partnership, is
required to approve the relevant merger and the amendment to the relevant
partnership agreement. Abstentions and broker non-votes will have the same
effect as denying consent to the relevant merger and the amendments to the
relevant partnership agreements.
Lexington held, as of September 18, 2001, which was the latest practicable
date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus, approximately 540 limited partnership units of Net 1,
(representing approximately 1.8% of the outstanding units) and 15,782 limited
partnership units of Net 2 (representing approximately 3.3% of the outstanding
units). Lexington intends to consent to the Transaction with respect to these
units.
31
41
PROCEDURE FOR LIMITED PARTNERS TO RECEIVE DISSENTER DEBENTURES
Limited partners will have the option of electing to receive their merger
consideration in the form of dissenter debentures in lieu of common shares and
cash. In order to receive dissenter debentures, a limited partner must:
- deny consent to the applicable merger on a consent form returned to the
solicitation agent no later than the expiration of the solicitation
period; and
- affirmatively elect to receive dissenter debentures on that consent form,
indicating its specific agreement and consent to receive their merger
consideration in the form of dissenter debentures in lieu of common
shares and cash.
The failure of a limited partner to comply with the procedures described
above will have the effect of, and will be equivalent to, affirmatively waiving
such limited partner's option to receive their merger consideration in the form
of dissenter debentures. Limited partners who consent to the Transaction,
abstain from consenting to the Transaction or fail to return a properly
completed and signed consent form will not be eligible to receive dissenter
debentures.
A limited partner who denies consent to the Transaction is not required to
elect to receive its merger consideration in the form of dissenter debentures.
An election to receive dissenter debentures should only be made by a limited
partner who wishes to receive its merger consideration in the form of dissenter
debentures in lieu of common shares and cash.
VOTING SHARES OR UNITS HELD IN "STREET NAME"
Only a shareholder's or limited partner's broker may vote shares or units
held in "street name." A broker may not vote a shareholder's shares or a limited
partner's units without instructions from the shareholder or limited partner, as
the case may be. Shareholders and limited partners should instruct their broker
to vote their shares or units by following the directions they provide to their
broker. If shareholders or limited partners do not provide their broker with
instructions as to how to vote their shares or units, their broker will not be
permitted to vote their shares or units, and the effect will be a vote against
the Transaction.
DISSENTERS' RIGHTS
Lexington Shareholders. Lexington shareholders will not have dissenters'
appraisal rights as a result of the mergers or the amendment of Lexington's
Declaration of Trust.
Limited Partners. Limited partners will not have dissenters' appraisal
rights as a result of the mergers, but may elect to receive dissenter debentures
as described above.
NO RIGHTS TO INDEPENDENT APPRAISAL
If you are a limited partner and your Net Partnership approves the
Transaction, you will have no right to an independent valuation of your Net
Partnership paid for by Lexington or by your general partners, even if you
denied consent to the Transaction.
32
42
SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
The following summaries set forth financial information for Lexington and
each of the Net Partnerships on a historical basis and, for Lexington, on a pro
forma basis assuming the Transaction occurred on January 1, 2000 for income
statement purposes and June 30, 2001 for balance sheet purposes. These summaries
should be read in conjunction with, and are qualified in their entirety by, the
historical financial statements and accompanying notes of Lexington and each of
the Net Partnerships. These financial statements are included or incorporated by
reference in this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus.
The historical financial information of Lexington and each of the Net
Partnerships at December 31, 2000 and 1999 and for each of the years in the
three year period ended December 31, 2000 has been derived from the historical
financial statements of Lexington and each of the Net Partnerships audited by
KPMG LLP, independent auditors. The reports of KPMG LLP with respect to the
financial statements of Lexington and each of the Net Partnerships as of
December 31, 2000 and 1999 and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2000 are incorporated by reference in this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus. The financial information as of June 30, 2001
and 2000 and for the six month periods then ended has been derived from the
unaudited financial statements of Lexington and each of the Net Partnerships. In
the opinion of the management of Lexington and the general partners of each of
the Net Partnerships, the financial statements include all adjustments, which
are all of a normal recurring nature, necessary to fairly present the
information set forth in the statements. The results for the six month periods
may not be indicative of the results to be expected for the full year. The
financial statements of Lexington and each of the Net Partnerships as of
December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 and for each of the years in the two year
period ended December 31, 1997 were derived from Lexington's and each of the Net
Partnership's audited financial statements.
33
43
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
SUMMARY HISTORICAL AND PRO FORMA CONSOLIDATED OPERATING DATA
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRO FORMA
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2000
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
(DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
OPERATING DATA:
REVENUES:
Rental...................... $ 31,244 $ 42,493 $ 62,846 $ 75,760 $ 76,824 $ 92,874
Equity in earnings of non-
consolidated entities..... -- -- -- -- 1,851 2,900
Interest and other.......... 431 1,076 2,271 1,540 1,330 1,640
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total revenues.............. 31,675 43,569 65,117 77,300 80,005 97,414
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
EXPENSES:
Interest.................... 12,818 16,644 23,055 29,099 29,581 34,560
Depreciation and
amortization of real
estate.................... 7,627 10,608 15,083 18,000 17,513 20,842
Amortization of deferred
expenses.................. 619 876 987 991 1,497 1,887
General and
administrative............ 3,125 3,644 4,518 4,687 4,902 6,026
Property operating.......... 1,330 922 857 1,865 1,504 1,504
Transactional expenses...... -- -- 559 -- -- --
Property arbitration
litigation expense........ -- 168 -- -- -- --
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Total expenses.............. 25,519 32,862 45,059 54,642 54,997 64,819
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Income before gain (loss) on
sale of properties,
minority interests and
extraordinary items....... 6,156 10,707 20,058 22,658 25,008 32,595
Gain (loss) on sale of
properties................ -- 3,517 (388) 5,127 2,959 --
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Income before minority
interests and
extraordinary items....... 6,156 14,224 19,670 27,785 27,967 32,595
Minority interests.......... 690 2,442 3,933 6,438 6,015 5,870
Extraordinary items......... -- (3,189) -- -- -- --
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Net income.................. $ 5,466 $ 8,593 $ 15,737 $ 21,347 $ 21,952 $ 26,725
========== ========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
Income Per Common
Share -- Basic
Before extraordinary
items...................... $ 0.58 $ 0.61 $ 0.79 $ 1.11 $ 1.15 $ 1.03
Extraordinary item.......... -- $ (0.28) -- -- -- --
Net income.................. $ 0.58 $ 0.33 $ 0.79 $ 1.11 $ 1.15 $ 1.03
Weighted average common
shares outstanding........ 9,392,727 11,444,589 16,835,414 16,979,925 16,900,039 23,445,039
Income Per Common
Share -- Diluted
Before extraordinary
items...................... $ 0.56 $ 0.59 $ 0.78 $ 1.08 $ 1.10 $ 1.01
Extraordinary items......... -- $ (0.27) -- -- -- --
Net income.................. $ 0.56 $ 0.32 $ 0.78 $ 1.08 $ 1.10 $ 1.01
Weighted average common
shares outstanding........ 10,897,011 11,639,683 21,983,876 24,945,267 24,714,219 29,379,475
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
------------------------------------
PRO FORMA
2000 2001 2001
---------- ---------- ----------
(DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
OPERATING DATA:
REVENUES:
Rental...................... $ 38,318 $ 38,734 $ 47,030
Equity in earnings of non-
consolidated entities..... 633 1,416 1,832
Interest and other.......... 692 531 580
---------- ---------- ----------
Total revenues.............. 39,643 40,681 49,442
---------- ---------- ----------
EXPENSES:
Interest.................... 14,655 15,344 17,223
Depreciation and
amortization of real
estate.................... 8,793 8,718 10,351
Amortization of deferred
expenses.................. 673 756 903
General and
administrative............ 2,598 2,457 3,173
Property operating.......... 768 714 714
Transactional expenses...... -- -- --
Property arbitration
litigation expense........ -- -- --
---------- ---------- ----------
Total expenses.............. 27,487 27,989 32,364
---------- ---------- ----------
Income before gain (loss) on
sale of properties,
minority interests and
extraordinary items....... 12,156 12,692 17,078
Gain (loss) on sale of
properties................ 2,662 -- --
---------- ---------- ----------
Income before minority
interests and
extraordinary items....... 14,818 12,692 17,078
Minority interests.......... 3,001 2,754 2,789
Extraordinary items......... -- (270) --
---------- ---------- ----------
Net income.................. $ 11,817 $ 9,668 $ 14,289
========== ========== ==========
Income Per Common
Share -- Basic
Before extraordinary
items...................... $ 0.63 $ 0.50 $ 0.55
Extraordinary item.......... -- $ (0.02) --
Net income.................. $ 0.63 $ 0.48 $ 0.55
Weighted average common
shares outstanding........ 16,881,301 17,219,900 23,764,900
Income Per Common
Share -- Diluted
Before extraordinary
items...................... $ 0.59 $ 0.48 $ 0.53
Extraordinary items......... -- $ (0.01) --
Net income.................. $ 0.59 $ 0.47 $ 0.53
Weighted average common
shares outstanding........ 24,604,990 23,039,062 29,627,395
NOTE: CALCULATION OF PRO FORMA EARNINGS PER SHARE CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE F-7.
HISTORICAL EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATIONS CAN BE FOUND IN ALL FORM 10-K
AND 10-Q FILINGS.
34
44
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
SUMMARY HISTORICAL AND PRO FORMA CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND OTHER DATA
DECEMBER 31, JUNE 30,
---------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
PRO FORMA
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------
(DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
BALANCE SHEET DATA:
Real estate, at cost, net.......... $289,326 $441,114 $609,717 $606,592 $584,198 $592,880 $577,040 $719,488
Investment in non-consolidated
entities......................... -- -- -- 11,523 40,836 20,210 46,193 46,193
Cash and cash equivalents.......... 2,468 3,640 11,084 8,837 4,792 3,128 10,935 13,949
Restricted cash.................... 3,750 5,499 3,545 2,470 1,598 2,231 1,819 1,819
Other assets, net.................. 14,840 18,120 22,661 27,059 36,953 36,828 40,581 37,430
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
$310,384 $468,373 $647,007 $656,481 $668,377 $655,277 $676,568 $818,879
======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ========
Mortgages and notes payable........ $187,740 $220,934 $354,281 $372,254 $387,326 $372,525 $398,569 $447,411
Origination fees payable, including
accrued interest................. 5,636 5,885 5,849 6,781 6,703 6,701 6,671 6,671
Accounts payable and other
liabilities...................... 1,816 6,479 7,352 6,168 6,473 6,475 5,041 7,821
Minority interests................. 22,533 28,240 74,381 66,303 64,812 65,890 58,834 59,144
Preferred shares................... -- 24,369 24,369 24,369 24,369 24,369 24,369 24,369
Common shares, with put options.... -- -- -- 3,809 3,809 3,809 3,809 3,809
Shareholders' equity............... 92,659 182,466 180,775 176,797 174,885 175,508 179,275 269,654
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
$310,384 $468,373 $647,007 $656,481 $668,377 $655,277 $676,568 $818,879
======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ========
OTHER DATA:
Net cash flows from operating
activities....................... $ 14,975 $ 23,823 $ 32,008 $ 39,411 $ 40,803 $ 19,869 $ 21,172 $ 26,247
Net cash flows from investing
activities....................... (16,955) (110,767) (111,080) (64,942) (38,549) (22,294) (9,558) (9,558)
Net cash flows from financing
activities....................... 1,859 88,116 86,516 23,284 (6,299) (3,284) (5,471) (8,714)
Funds From Operations(A)........... $ 13,783 $ 21,315 $ 35,141 $ 40,652 $ 46,316 $ 22,450 $ 24,571 $ 29,631
Ratio of earnings to combined fixed
charges and preferred
dividends........................ 1.41 1.59 1.51 1.58 1.55 1.63 1.53 1.69
Cash dividends per common share.... $ 1.10 $ 1.16 $ 1.17 $ 1.20 $ 1.22 $ 0.60 $ 0.63 $ 0.63
CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS:
EARNINGS:
Income before extraordinary
items............................ $ 5,466 $ 11,782 $ 15,737 $ 21,347 $ 21,952 $ 11,817 $ 9,938 $ 14,289
Add: Interest
expense -- mortgage........... 12,818 16,644 23,055 29,099 29,581 14,655 15,344 17,223
Amortization debt cost........ 566 823 933 971 1,067 521 431 431
Less: Equity in earnings of less
than 50% owned entities...... (13) (36) (52) (61) (1,428) (530) (1,496) (1,912)
Add: Cash distributions from less
than 50% owned entities....... 3 3 3 -- 810 495 2,156 2,156
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Total.............................. $ 18,840 $ 29,216 $ 39,676 $ 51,356 $ 51,982 $ 26,958 $ 26,373 $ 32,187
======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ========
FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense -- mortgage....... $ 12,818 $ 16,644 $ 23,055 $ 29,099 $ 29,581 $ 14,655 $ 15,344 $ 17,223
Capitalized interest expense....... -- -- -- -- 241 71 99 99
Preferred stock dividend........... -- 916 2,254 2,520 2,562 1,260 1,323 1,323
Amortization debt cost............. 566 823 933 971 1,067 521 431 431
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Combined fixed charges............. $ 13,384 $ 18,383 $ 26,242 $ 32,590 $ 33,451 $ 16,507 $ 17,197 $ 19,076
======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed
charges.......................... 1.41 1.59 1.51 1.58 1.55 1.63 1.53 1.69
======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ========
---------------
(A) Lexington believes that funds from operations ("FFO") enhances an investor's
understanding of Lexington's financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows. Lexington believes that FFO is an appropriate measure of the
performance of an equity REIT, and that it can be one measure of a REIT's
ability to make cash distributions. FFO is defined in the October 1999
"White Paper", issued by the National Association of Real Estate Investment
Trusts, Inc. ("NAREIT") as "net income (or loss) computed in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"), excluding gains (or
losses) from sales of property, plus real estate depreciation and
amortization and after adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint
ventures." Lexington's method of calculating FFO may be different from
methods used by other REITs and accordingly is not comparable to such other
REITs. FFO should not be considered an alternative to net income as an
indicator of operating performance or to cash flows from operating
activities as determined in accordance with GAAP, or as a measure of
liquidity to other consolidated income or cash flow statement data as
determined in accordance with GAAP.
35
45
NET 1 L.P.
SUMMARY HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
SIX MONTHS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, ENDED JUNE 30,
------------------------------------------------ -----------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2000 2001
------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- -------
(DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER UNIT AMOUNTS)
INCOME STATEMENT DATA:
Rental revenues..................... $ 2,707 $ 2,992 $ 3,265 $ 3,375 $ 4,774 $ 2,462 $ 2,863
Interest and other income........... 117 88 82 169 163 102 37
Interest expense.................... 388 469 510 764 1,605 750 810
Depreciation........................ 393 439 476 510 941 424 506
General and administrative.......... 496 317 474 455 447 183 247
Transaction costs................... -- -- 74 -- 400 -- --
Gain on sale of properties, net..... -- -- -- 3,371 -- -- --
------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- -------
Net income.......................... $ 1,547 $ 1,855 $ 1,813 $ 5,186 $ 1,544 $ 1,207 $ 1,337
======= ======= ======= ======== ======= ======= =======
Net income per unit(A).............. $46.39- $55.85- $54.82- $157.34- $46.97- $36.67- $40.77-
$51.03 $61.00 $59.50 $169.87 $50.47 $39.49 $43.72
BALANCE SHEET DATA:
Real estate, net.................... $20,575 $23,705 $23,229 $ 36,228 $43,852 $43,687 $43,349
Cash and cash equivalents........... 2,123 1,312 1,688 1,951 782 2,121 1,045
Restricted cash..................... -- -- -- 1,710 -- 1,644 --
Mortgage notes payable.............. 3,552 5,676 5,344 16,272 20,386 23,696 20,039
Partners' capital................... 19,508 19,792 20,034 23,649 23,622 24,070 24,173
Total assets........................ 23,179 25,663 25,534 40,921 46,355 48,369 45,915
Total liabilities................... 3,671 5,871 5,500 17,272 22,733 24,299 21,742
OTHER DATA:
Net cash flows from operating
activities........................ $ 2,013 $ 2,206 $ 2,279 $ 2,602 $ 2,656 $ 1,464 $ 1,450
Net cash flows from investing
activities........................ -- (1,205) -- (336) (1,509) (137) --
Net cash flows from financing
activities........................ (1,706) (1,812) (1,903) (2,003) (2,316) (1,157) (1,187)
Change in cash and cash
equivalents....................... 307 (811) 376 263 (1,169) 170 263
Distributions -- limited partners... 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 770 770
Distributions per unit -- limited
partners.......................... 50.04 50.04 50.04 50.04 50.04 25.02 25.02
Book value per unit -- limited
partners.......................... 639.80 648.84 656.54 771.64 770.80 785.06 788.35
CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
FIXED CHARGES:
Income before extraordinary items... $ 1,547 $ 1,855 $ 1,813 $ 5,186 $ 1,544 $ 1,207 $ 1,337
Add:
Interest expense.................. 388 469 510 764 1,605 750 810
------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- -------
Total............................... $ 1,935 $ 2,324 $ 2,323 $ 5,950 $ 3,149 $ 1,957 $ 2,147
======= ======= ======= ======== ======= ======= =======
Fixed Charges:
Interest on indebtedness including
capitalized interest............ $ 388 $ 469 $ 510 $ 764 $ 1,605 $ 750 $ 810
======= ======= ======= ======== ======= ======= =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed
charges........................... 4.99 4.96 4.55 7.79 1.96 2.61 2.65
---------------
(A) Amounts vary depending upon the date on which a limited partner was admitted
to the partnership.
36
46
NET 2 L.P.
SUMMARY HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
SIX MONTHS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, ENDED JUNE 30,
------------------------------------------------- -----------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2000 2001
------- ------- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------
(DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER UNIT AMOUNTS)
INCOME STATEMENT DATA:
Rental revenues...................... $ 5,442 $ 5,934 $ 6,871 $ 10,086 $10,126 $ 4,990 $ 5,526
Interest and other income............ 471 149 92 248 541 274 140
Interest expense..................... 1,568 1,875 2,277 4,696 4,785 2,267 2,198
Depreciation......................... 994 1,074 1,238 2,049 2,049 968 1,037
Amortization of deferred expenses.... 143 136 154 187 383 102 147
General and administrative........... 900 634 744 775 1,011 394 549
Transaction costs.................... -- -- 74 -- 400 -- --
Gain on sale of properties, net...... -- -- 4,516 784 -- -- 480
------- ------- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------
Net income........................... $ 2,308 $ 2,364 $ 6,992 $ 3,411 $ 2,039 $ 1,533 $ 2,215
======= ======= ======== ======== ======= ======= =======
Net income per unit(A)............... $4.02- $4.20- $12.62- $6.24- $3.77- $2.82- $4.11-
$5.23 $5.30 $15.55 $7.53 $4.48 $3.38 $4.85
BALANCE SHEET DATA:
Real estate, net..................... $43,418 $49,722 $ 61,512 $ 75,957 $94,281 $95,352 $90,051
Cash and cash equivalents............ 4,125 2,181 518 566 777 1,192 1,519
Restricted cash...................... 100 -- 9,861 12,508 -- -- --
Mortgage notes payable............... 17,181 22,106 41,519 51,927 59,254 59,663 55,183
Partners' capital.................... 32,518 32,447 37,004 37,980 37,584 38,296 38,582
Total assets......................... 50,002 55,001 78,918 90,433 97,607 98,512 94,618
Total liabilities.................... 17,484 22,554 41,914 52,453 60,023 60,216 56,036
OTHER DATA:
Net cash flows from operating
activities......................... $ 3,444 $ 3,370 $ 3,452 $ 4,638 $ 3,929 $ 2,333 $ 2,625
Net cash flows from investing
activities......................... -- (2,319) (21,887) (21,438) (7,865) (7,855) 3,673
Net cash flows from financing
activities......................... (52) (2,995) 16,772 16,848 4,147 6,148 (5,556)
Change in cash and cash
equivalents........................ 3,392 (1,944) (1,663) 48 211 626 742
Distributions -- limited partners.... 2,386 2,386 2,386 2,386 2,386 1,193 1,193
Distributions per unit -- limited
partners........................... 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50
Book value per unit -- limited
partners........................... 68.91 68.76 78.12 80.13 79.31 80.77 81.36
CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
FIXED CHARGES:
Income before extraordinary items.... $ 2,308 $ 2,364 $ 6,992 $ 3,411 $ 2,039 $ 1,533 $ 2,215
Add:
Interest expense................... 1,568 1,875 2,277 4,696 4,785 2,267 2,198
Amortization of debt costs......... 143 136 154 187 383 102 147
------- ------- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------
Income before gain on sale of real
estate, net as adjusted............ $ 4,019 $ 4,375 $ 9,423 $ 8,294 $ 7,207 $ 3,902 $ 4,560
======= ======= ======== ======== ======= ======= =======
Fixed Charges:
Interest on indebtedness including
capitalization interest.......... $ 1,568 $ 1,875 $ 2,277 $ 4,696 $ 4,785 $ 2,267 $ 2,198
Amortization of debt costs......... 143 136 154 187 383 102 147
------- ------- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------
Combined fixed charges............... $ 1,711 $ 2,011 $ 2,431 $ 4,883 $ 5,168 $ 2,369 $ 2,345
======= ======= ======== ======== ======= ======= =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges... 2.35 2.18 3.88 1.70 1.39 1.65 1.94
---------------
(A) Amounts vary depending upon the date on which a limited partner was admitted
to the partnership.
37
47
RISK FACTORS
Before you decide how to vote on the Transaction proposals, you should be
aware that there are various risks involved in the Transaction. In addition to
the other information included in this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus, you should carefully consider the following list that
summarizes the material risks related to the mergers.
THE LIMITED PARTNERS' INVESTMENT, AFTER THE CLOSING DATE OF THE MERGERS, WILL BE
SUBJECT TO PRICE FLUCTUATIONS. AS A RESULT OF THESE FLUCTUATIONS, THE FAIR
MARKET VALUE OF THE MERGER CONSIDERATION AFTER THE TRANSACTION MAY NOT
CORRESPOND TO THE ADJUSTED NET ASSET VALUE OF THE NET PARTNERSHIPS.
The prices of the common shares will fluctuate after the Transaction with
changes in market and economic conditions, the financial condition of Lexington
and other factors that generally influence the market prices of securities,
including the market perception of REITs in general. Also, it is possible that,
within a short period of time after consummation of the Transaction or at other
times, a significant number of shareholders, including former limited partners
who receive common shares in the Transaction and the holders of any of
Lexington's convertible securities, may seek to sell a relatively large number
of such common shares with a potentially consequent adverse effect on the
trading price. Such fluctuations may depress the market price of Lexington
common shares independent of the financial performance of Lexington. For
example, REIT stocks underperformed in the broader equity market in 1998 and
1999. The market conditions for REIT stocks generally could affect the market
price of the Lexington common shares. The closing price of Lexington common
shares on the New York Stock Exchange on September 18, 2001, which was the
latest practicable date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, was $14.28 per share.
As a result of these fluctuations, the fair market value of the merger
consideration received by the limited partners in exchange for the Net
Partnership investments may not correspond to the agreed upon adjusted net value
of the Net Partnerships.
THE NUMBER OF LEXINGTON COMMON SHARES WHICH WILL BE EXCHANGED FOR NET 1 UNITS
AND NET 2 UNITS WILL BE DETERMINED BASED UPON THE AVERAGE CLOSING PRICE OF THOSE
SHARES, SUBJECT TO A FIXED MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM. AS A RESULT, THE FAIR MARKET
VALUE OF THE MERGER CONSIDERATION WHICH THE LIMITED PARTNERS WILL RECEIVE PER
UNIT IN THE FORM OF LEXINGTON COMMON SHARES IS UNCERTAIN, AND MIGHT NOT EQUAL
50% OF THE ADJUSTED NET ASSET VALUE PER UNIT OF NET 1 AND NET 2, RESPECTIVELY.
The minimum and maximum number of common shares offered as merger
consideration is fixed. The number of common shares issuable in exchange for
each Net 1 unit will be limited to a maximum of 29.3 shares (corresponding to an
average closing price of $14.00 per common share) and a minimum of 25.6 common
shares (corresponding to an average closing price of $16.00 per common share).
The number of common shares issuable in exchange for each Net 2 unit will be
limited to a maximum of 2.9 common shares (corresponding to an average closing
price of $14.00 per common share) and a minimum of 2.6 common shares
(corresponding to an average price of $16.00 per common share). If the average
closing price for the common shares is less than $14.00 per share, limited
partners of Net 1 will not be entitled to receive more than 29.3 common shares
per unit and limited partners of Net 2 will not be entitled to receive more than
2.9 common shares per unit. As a result, the fair market value of the common
shares offered to the limited partners might be less than 50% of the agreed upon
adjusted net asset value of the Net Partnerships. Conversely, if the average
closing price for the common shares is more than $16.00 per share, Lexington
will nevertheless be required to issue no fewer than 25.6 common shares per unit
to limited partners of Net 1 and 2.6 common shares per unit to limited partners
of Net 2. As a result, the fair market value of the common shares offered by
Lexington to the Net Partnerships might be more than 50% of the agreed upon
adjusted net asset value of the Net Partnerships. As of September 18, 2001,
which was the latest practicable date prior to the printing of this Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, the closing price of common
shares was $14.28 per share. At that price, each unit of Net 1 and Net 2 would
be exchangeable for 28.7 and 2.9 common shares, respectively.
38
48
IN CALCULATING THE TOTAL MERGER CONSIDERATION BEING OFFERED TO LIMITED PARTNERS,
THE PARTIES AGREED TO DEDUCT AN ESTIMATE OF THE COSTS WHICH WOULD BE INCURRED BY
THE NET PARTNERSHIPS IF THEY WERE TO LIQUIDATE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THESE
COSTS WILL NOT ACTUALLY BE INCURRED.
The amount of the merger consideration being offered to each of the Net
Partnerships is based upon the agreed upon adjusted net asset value of each of
the Net Partnerships. In calculating the adjusted net asset value, the parties
agreed to deduct from the agreed upon fair market value of the properties an
amount equal to the assumed liquidation costs which would be incurred if the
properties were being sold even though those costs will not actually be incurred
as part of the Transaction. These costs were estimated to be $6 million.
THE ASSESSMENTS AS TO THE VALUE OF THE NET PARTNERSHIPS' PROPERTY PORTFOLIOS
WHICH FORMED THE BASIS ON WHICH THE MERGER CONSIDERATION WAS DETERMINED WERE
BASED UPON A NUMBER OF ASSUMPTIONS THAT MAY OR NOT PROVE TO BE ACCURATE.
The agreed upon merger consideration to be received by the limited partners
was reached in part by a valuation process which considered a number of factors
for the Net Partnerships' properties, which included tenant creditworthiness,
comparable market rents, length and quality of leases, strategic importance of
property to tenants, local economic conditions and estimated capitalization
rates. This valuation process may not represent the true worth or realizable
value of the Net Partnerships' properties.
THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE MERGER CONSIDERATION AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE MERGERS MAY NOT EQUAL THE AGREED UPON ADJUSTED NET ASSET VALUE OF THE NET
PARTNERSHIPS.
The calculation of the merger consideration will be based on the agreed
upon adjusted net asset value of the Net Partnerships. It is likely that the
dissenter debentures, if sold, would be at a discount to par. Therefore, the
fair market value of the dissenter debentures is likely to be less than their
principal amount. As a result of these factors, the fair market value of the
merger consideration, as of the effective date of the mergers, might be less
than the agreed upon adjusted net asset value of the Net Partnerships at such
time.
THE LIMITED PARTNERS MAY HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFICULTY RESELLING THE DISSENTER
DEBENTURES.
Following the Transaction, there will be no public market for the dissenter
debentures, and no market for the dissenter debentures is expected to develop,
making it difficult for the holders of the dissenter debentures to sell them,
with or without a substantial discount.
THE DISSENTER DEBENTURES WILL BE SUBORDINATED TO CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS OF
LEXINGTON'S CREDITORS.
The dissenter debentures will represent senior subordinated indebtedness of
Lexington, expressly subordinated, in right and priority of payment, to all
senior indebtedness of Lexington, and will be effectively subordinated to the
claims of creditors of Lexington's subsidiaries. As of June 30, 2001, on a pro
forma basis, Lexington would have had aggregate liabilities to which the
dissenter debentures were effectively subordinated, of approximately $447.4
million. In addition, payments on any dissenter debentures issued by Lexington
in connection with the Transaction would be subordinated to any secured debt
incurred by Lexington. Lexington may increase its level of secured or unsecured
senior debt after the closing of the Transaction, further increasing the amount
of indebtedness to which the dissenter debentures will be subordinated.
FAILURE TO REALIZE THE ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF THE TRANSACTION COULD HAVE A
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE MARKET PRICE OF LEXINGTON COMMON SHARES.
The general partners of the Net Partnerships believe that the Transaction
will result in greater liquidity of investment for the limited partners,
diversification of risk and cost savings. The Board of Trustees of Lexington
believe that the Transaction will result in diversification of the shareholders'
risk, increase the distributions to shareholders and improve Lexington's access
to capital markets. While the general partners and the Board of Trustees believe
the Transaction will produce these benefits, it is possible that the anticipated
benefits of the Transaction might not be realized. The failure of the mergers to
be accretive to Lexington's funds from
39
49
operations and cash flow may result in lower financial returns and reduced
distributions to shareholders of Lexington. This could reduce the market price
of the common shares of Lexington.
AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSACTION, LIMITED PARTNERS AND LEXINGTON'S SHAREHOLDERS
WILL BOTH HAVE THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERSHIP AND VOTING INTERESTS DILUTED.
Prior to the Transaction, the limited partners of each Net Partnership have
99% of the ownership and voting interest in their respective Net Partnerships,
and Lexington's existing shareholders have 100% of the ownership and voting
interest in Lexington. Upon consummation of the Transaction, the Net 1 and Net 2
limited partners are expected to have 3.4% and 5.3%, respectively, of the
ownership and voting interest in Lexington, and Lexington's existing
shareholders are expected to hold 91.3% of the ownership and voting interest in
Lexington. Lexington is authorized to issue additional equity securities, and
the sale of such securities following the Transaction may have the effect of
diluting the earnings, cash flow and book value per common share. Additional
common shares may also be issued by Lexington under its Dividend Reinvestment
Plan. Any future issuance of common shares could adversely affect the market
price of the common shares and further dilute the ownership interest of
shareholders of Lexington.
THE LIMITED PARTNERS OF THE NET PARTNERSHIPS AND THE EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS OF
LEXINGTON ARE BEING ASKED TO GIVE THEIR CONSENT TO THE TRANSACTION WITHOUT
KNOWING THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF LEXINGTON AFTER THE TRANSACTION.
Lexington's shareholders and the limited partners are being asked for their
consent to the Transaction without knowing the percentage of limited partners
that will elect to receive dissenter debentures in lieu of the other merger
consideration offered in the Transaction or the number of common shares the
limited partners will receive in the Transaction, since the number of common
shares that may be issued will be determined based on the average closing price.
As a result, Lexington's shareholders and limited partners of the Net
Partnerships will not know the dilution of their investment nor the debt level
of the entity in which they have their investment prior to consenting to the
Transaction.
NO INDEPENDENT REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN RETAINED TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE LIMITED
PARTNERS OR LEXINGTON'S SHAREHOLDERS FOR PURPOSES OF NEGOTIATING OR STRUCTURING
THE TERMS OF THE TRANSACTION. IF AN INDEPENDENT REPRESENTATIVE HAD BEEN
RETAINED, THE TERMS OF THE TRANSACTION MAY HAVE BEEN MORE FAVORABLE TO THE
LIMITED PARTNERS OR LEXINGTON'S SHAREHOLDERS.
Neither the general partners nor Lexington's Board of Trustees retained an
independent representative to act on behalf of the limited partners or
Lexington's shareholders, respectively, in structuring and negotiating the terms
and conditions of the Transaction. The Net Partnerships did not give any group
of limited partners the power to negotiate the terms and conditions of the
Transaction or to determine what procedures to use to protect the rights and
interests of the limited partners. In addition, no investment banker, attorney,
financial consultant or expert was engaged to represent the interests of the
limited partners or Lexington's shareholders. The management of Lexington and
the general partners of the Net Partnerships negotiated and structured all the
terms and conditions of the Transaction. The general partners are controlled by
Mr. Roskind. Mr. Roskind is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Co-Chief
Executive Officer and a shareholder of Lexington. Independent representation may
have resulted in more favorable merger terms to the limited partners or
Lexington's shareholders.
THE MERGERS ARE TAXABLE EVENTS FOR THE LIMITED PARTNERS. THE LIMITED PARTNERS
MAY INCUR TAXES UPON CONSUMMATION OF THE MERGERS.
The limited partners will realize taxable gain or loss in the mergers. The
general partners have determined that a limited partner's estimated taxable gain
for each Net 1 unit and each Net 2 unit would be approximately $40.76 and $4.87,
respectively. This estimate assumes that the limited partner has held one Net 1
unit or one Net 2 unit since the inception of its Net Partnership and that the
average closing price of Lexington common shares is $15.00, which is the
midpoint of the range for determining the number of common shares to be issued.
This estimate may or may not prove accurate and the underlying assumptions may
or may not apply to
40
50
a limited partner. The limited partners will not receive cash, other than cash
received as 50% of their merger consideration or in lieu of fractional shares,
to pay any taxes due on any taxable gain.
A limited partner's taxable gain per unit as described above is only an
estimate and will vary by partner. The amount of a limited partner's taxable
gain or loss will depend on whether the limited partner receives common shares
and cash or elects to receive dissenter debentures. Based on recently issued,
final Treasury regulations, a consenting limited partner that receives common
shares and cash will be treated as selling its Net units. A limited partner that
does not consent to sale treatment and elects to receive dissenter debentures
will be allocated its share of taxable gain or loss from its respective Net
Partnership, which will be deemed to sell its assets to Net 3 in a taxable
transaction in exchange for all dissenter debentures elected by its limited
partners. A limited partner that receives dissenter debentures should not
recognize further gain or loss upon the liquidation of its respective Net
Partnership.
As discussed below, consenting and dissenting limited partners will be
treated differently based on the recently issued, final Treasury regulations
regarding partnership mergers. However, due to their recent and complex nature,
there can be no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service will apply the
regulations as described above. Limited partners should consult their own tax
advisors concerning the tax consequences of the mergers to them.
LIMITED PARTNERS MAY SELL SOME OR ALL OF THEIR COMMON SHARES TO PAY THE TAXES
INCURRED BECAUSE OF THE TRANSACTION, POTENTIALLY LEADING TO A DECLINE IN THE
MARKET PRICE OF THE COMMON SHARES.
Even though limited partners are expected to receive cash which they may
use to pay any tax liability for taxable gains resulting from the Transaction,
the incurrence of such tax liability may induce limited partners to sell some or
all of their common shares received in the Transaction and use the cash proceeds
towards the payment of tax liability due to federal, state and local
authorities. As a result, it is possible that a substantial number of common
shares may be resold immediately after the Transaction, leading to a decline in
the market price of the common shares.
THE GENERAL PARTNERS OF THE NET PARTNERSHIPS ARE CONTROLLED BY E. ROBERT
ROSKIND, WHO IS ALSO THE CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND A TRUSTEE OF LEXINGTON,
AND THEREFORE HAVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN RECOMMENDING THE TRANSACTION.
The conflicts of interest involved in the Transaction include the
following:
- Mr. Roskind, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Co-Chief Executive
Officer of Lexington, controls the general partners of the Net
Partnerships. As a member of the Board of Trustees, an officer of
Lexington and a controlling owner of the general partners, Mr. Roskind
may have a different interest in the completion of the Transaction than
the interests of the limited partners or those shareholders of Lexington
that are not affiliated with the Net Partnerships. No independent
representative has been retained to act on behalf of the limited partners
for purposes of negotiating or structuring the terms of the Transaction.
As a result, the terms of the mergers were not determined as a result of
arm's length negotiations between two independent parties.
- If the Transaction is consummated, the general partners of the Net
Partnerships will receive operating partnership units in Net 3 in return
for their contribution of general partnership interest in the Net
Partnerships in a tax-deferred transaction. The receipt of these
operating partnership units is tax-deferred to the general partners,
whereas the Transaction is a taxable event for the limited partners. It
is possible that, if the general partners had not been affiliated with
Lexington, the terms of the Transaction, including the number of common
shares that may be issued to the limited partners in the Transaction,
might have been more advantageous to the limited partners.
- Following the Transaction, Mr. Roskind will continue as Chairman of the
Board of Trustees and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Lexington. As such,
Mr. Roskind will be entitled to receive share options under Lexington's
share option plan which may be in a greater amount than if the
Transaction had not occurred. These share options may appreciate in value
if the benefits of the Transaction are realized.
41
51
- Lexington will enter into an indemnification agreement with each of the
general partners, which will provide indemnification protection to each
of the general partners and their respective affiliates with respect to
claims which could arise in connection with the proposed Transaction,
whether or not the Transaction is consummated.
When you consider the recommendation of the general partners, keep in mind
that their interests may differ significantly from your interests with respect
to the Transaction.
THE FAIRNESS OPINIONS OF PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES AND COHEN & STEERS, AND THE
APPRAISALS OF STANGER & CO., WERE PREPARED IN RELIANCE ON INFORMATION WHICH WAS
PROVIDED BY LEXINGTON'S MANAGEMENT AND THE GENERAL PARTNERS, WITHOUT INDEPENDENT
VERIFICATION.
Prudential Securities' opinion as to the fairness of the merger
consideration to Lexington's shareholders from a financial point of view, Cohen
& Steers' opinions as to the fairness of the merger consideration to the limited
partners from a financial point of view, and Stanger & Co.'s appraisals of the
properties of the Net Partnerships each were prepared in reliance on financial
and other information provided by Lexington's management and the general
partners. This information was not independently verified by Prudential
Securities or Cohen & Steers or Stanger & Co. Furthermore, Lexington's
management has a conflict of interest in connection with the information it
provided, because, as discussed above, Mr. Roskind is the Chairman of the Board
of Trustees and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Lexington and also controls the
general partners of the Net Partnerships, and the general partners have a
conflict of interest in connection with the information they provided, because
it affects the value of the consideration which they will receive in exchange
for their general partnership interests.
LEXINGTON COULD INCREASE ITS LEVERAGE, RESULTING IN INCREASED DEBT SERVICE
REQUIREMENTS AND GREATER RISK OF DEFAULT ON ITS OBLIGATIONS.
If the Transaction is consummated, and assuming that no limited partners
elect to receive their merger consideration in the form of dissenter debentures,
Lexington will incur additional indebtedness, substantially in the form of the
mortgages payable of the Net Partnerships, of approximately $75.0 million as a
result of this Transaction. Lexington's Declaration of Trust does not contain
any limitation on the amount or percentage of indebtedness that Lexington may
incur in the future. Accordingly, Lexington could become more highly leveraged,
resulting in an increase in debt service requirements and an increased risk of
default on its obligations which could adversely affect its financial condition
and results of operations and its ability to pay distributions on the common
shares and interest and principal on the dissenter debentures. Additionally,
increases in Lexington's leverage may adversely affect the market price of
Lexington common shares. The ratio of mortgages and notes payable to total
assets of Lexington as of December 31, 1996 to December 31, 2000 and as of June
30, 2001 was 60.9%, 47.6%, 54.8%, 56.7%, 58.0% and 58.9%, respectively. While
management does not anticipate substantially increasing the ratio of debt to
total assets for Lexington in the future, management's plans and expectations
may change with changes in market conditions and on account of other
unanticipated events or factors.
LEXINGTON'S ABILITY TO SERVICE THE DISSENTER DEBENTURES WILL DEPEND ON VARIOUS
FACTORS, SOME OF WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF LEXINGTON.
Lexington's ability to make interest and principal payments under the
dissenter debentures will depend upon revenue received from properties, the
operating expenses of Lexington, the interest expense incurred in its other
borrowings, capital expenditures, general economic conditions and a number of
other factors and circumstances. Some of these factors are beyond Lexington's
control.
INTEREST RATE FLUCTUATIONS WILL IMPACT THE PRICE OF LEXINGTON COMMON SHARES.
It is likely that the public valuation of Lexington common shares will be
based primarily on the earnings derived by Lexington from rental income with
respect to the properties and not from the underlying appraised value of the
properties themselves. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and capital
market conditions can
42
52
affect the value of Lexington common shares. For instance, if interest rates
rise, it is likely that the price of Lexington common shares will decrease
because potential investors may require a higher dividend yield on Lexington
common shares as market rates on interest-bearing securities, such as bonds,
rise.
LEXINGTON HAS INTEREST EXPOSURE FROM VARIABLE RATE INDEBTEDNESS WHICH MAY AFFECT
LEXINGTON'S NET INCOME.
Lexington has exposure to market risks relating to increases in interest
rates due to its variable rate debt. An increase in interest rates may increase
Lexington's costs of borrowing on existing variable rate indebtedness leading to
a reduction in Lexington's net income. Specifically, Lexington maintains an
unsecured credit facility and three mortgage notes encumbering three properties
for which interest accrues at a variable rate.
As of June 30, 2001, Lexington's variable rate indebtedness represented
9.5% of total mortgages and notes payable and had a weighted average interest
rate of 7.0%. Had the weighted average interest rate been 100 basis points
higher, Lexington's net income for the six months ended June 30, 2001 would have
been reduced by $240,000. The level of Lexington's variable rate indebtedness,
along with the interest rate associates with such variable rate indebtedness,
may change in the future and materially affect Lexington's interest costs and
net income.
LEXINGTON MAY HAVE TO RAISE CASH ON UNATTRACTIVE TERMS TO SATISFY ONGOING
INTEREST PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISSENTER DEBENTURE
OBLIGATIONS.
Lexington believes that it can satisfy its obligations to pay interest
under the dissenter debentures from available resources, including cash reserves
and operating revenues. However, if Lexington lacks sufficient funds to satisfy
these obligations, it would need to access funds from other sources and could be
required to sell one or more of its properties on unattractive terms.
THE DISSENTER DEBENTURES WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO A SINKING FUND.
Lexington will not be required to set aside funds for a sinking fund, which
is a device which could be used for the retirement or repayment of the dissenter
debentures at any time prior to maturity. Lexington may not be able to provide
for repayment of the dissenter debentures out of existing cash resources upon
maturity, nor be able to refinance such indebtedness either on favorable terms
or at all. Accordingly, the default risk with respect to the dissenter
debentures may be greater.
LEXINGTON'S GROWTH STRATEGY INVOLVES THE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES. IF LEXINGTON IS UNABLE TO CARRY OUT ITS STRATEGY, ITS
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS COULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED AND
DISTRIBUTIONS MAY BE REDUCED.
Lexington's growth strategy is based on the acquisition and development of
additional properties, including the properties to be acquired in the mergers
and other acquisitions through co-investment programs. In the context of
Lexington's business plan, "development" generally means an expansion or
renovation of an existing property or the acquisition of a newly constructed
property. Lexington typically provides a developer with a commitment to acquire
a property upon completion of construction. In this manner, Lexington invests in
newly developed properties but is insulated from any of the risks associated
with development. Lexington's plan to grow through the acquisition and
development of new properties could be adversely affected by trends in the real
estate and financing businesses. Lexington cannot be sure that it will be able
to implement its strategy because Lexington may have difficulty finding new
properties, negotiating with new or existing tenants or securing acceptable
financing. If Lexington is unable to carry out its strategy, its financial
condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.
Acquisitions of additional properties entail the risk that investments will
fail to perform in accordance with expectations, including operating and leasing
expectations. Redevelopment and new project development are subject to numerous
risks, including risks of construction delays, cost overruns or force majeure
that may increase project costs, new project commencement risks such as the
receipt of zoning, occupancy and other
43
53
required governmental approvals and permits, and the incurrence of development
costs in connection with projects that are not pursued to completion.
Lexington anticipates that some of its acquisitions and developments will
be financed using the proceeds of periodic equity or debt offerings, lines of
credit or other forms of secured or unsecured financing that will result in a
risk that permanent financing for newly acquired projects might not be available
or would be available only on disadvantageous terms. If permanent debt or equity
financing is not available on acceptable terms to refinance acquisitions
undertaken without permanent financing, further acquisitions may be curtailed or
cash available for distribution may be adversely affected.
LIMITED PARTNERS WHO RECEIVE LEXINGTON COMMON SHARES OR DISSENTER DEBENTURES
WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THEIR INVESTMENT SUBJECT TO THE BUSINESS RISKS WHICH
EQUITY PARTICIPANTS FACE IN THE BUSINESS OF OWNING AND DEVELOPING REAL ESTATE
PROPERTIES.
Like the limited partners' investments in the Net Partnerships, an
investment in Lexington common shares or dissenter debentures is subject to the
ongoing risks of investing in real property. In general, a downturn in the
national or local economy, changes in the zoning or tax laws or the availability
of financing could affect the performance and value of the properties. Also,
because real estate is relatively illiquid, Lexington may not be able to respond
promptly to adverse economic or other conditions by varying its real estate
holdings.
Also, properties currently held by Lexington or acquired by Lexington in
the Transaction or subsequent to the Transaction:
- may not operate at a profit;
- may not perform to Lexington's expectations;
- may not appreciate in value;
- may depreciate in value;
- may not ever be sold at a profit;
- may result in the loss of a portion of the investment of Lexington's
shareholders; and
- may not result in dividends.
The marketability and value of any properties will depend upon many factors
beyond Lexington's control. Any of these factors, individually or in the
aggregate, could have an adverse effect on the financial condition and results
of operations of Lexington.
UPON EXPIRATION OF CURRENT LEASES, LEXINGTON MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RENEW OR
OTHERWISE ENTER INTO NEW LEASES ON FAVORABLE TERMS.
The leases of Lexington's existing properties expire on dates ranging from
2002 to 2021. For example, approximately 0.9% of the leases (based on annualized
rental rent) will expire in the year 2002, while 2.1% of the leases will expire
in 2003 and 6.8% in 2005. Upon the expiration of a lease, Lexington may not
enter into new leases at comparable lease rates, or without incurring additional
expenses. The inability to renew or enter into new leases will reduce
Lexington's cash available for distribution.
LEXINGTON WILL ASSUME UNDISCLOSED PARTNERSHIP LIABILITIES WHICH MAY RESULT IN
MATERIAL ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES TO ITS FINANCIAL POSITION.
At the closing of the Transaction, Lexington effectively will assume each
Net Partnerships' liabilities, including those that are (1) undisclosed and (2)
disclosed but contingent liabilities for which the Net Partnership failed to
provide adequate reserves. Undisclosed and/or contingent liabilities might
include, among others, claims for cleanup or remediation of unknown
environmental conditions, tenant or vendor claims for pre-merger activities,
unpaid liabilities unintentionally omitted from the closing balance sheets,
44
54
claims for indemnification by the general partners and other indemnified parties
for premerger events, and claims for undisclosed title defects. The satisfaction
of any such liability could decrease Lexington's profits or decrease the value
of the properties and therefore, decrease the value of Lexington's assets after
the mergers. While the general partners have established reserves for contingent
liabilities, such contingent liabilities are often difficult to accurately
estimate and may be, along with undisclosed contingent liability, inherently
impossible to estimate or quantify. The existence of any of such contingent
liabilities could result in material adverse consequences to Lexington's
financial position and decrease cash available for distribution.
PERCEPTIONS IN THE MARKETPLACE THAT THE MERGERS ARE DILUTIVE TO THE SHAREHOLDERS
OF LEXINGTON COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PRICE OF COMMON SHARES.
Limited partners who receive Lexington common shares, as well as current
Lexington shareholders, will have their investment subject to the risk that the
price of the common shares could be adversely affected if the mergers are
perceived in the marketplace as dilutive or otherwise negative to the
shareholders of Lexington. Although the Board of Trustees does not believe the
Transaction to be dilutive, should investors perceive, for example, that the
merger consideration paid in the Transaction is too high relative to the value
of the Net Partnerships, demand for Lexington common shares could decrease,
causing the market price of the common shares to fall.
ON A PRO FORMA PER UNIT EQUIVALENT BASIS, THE MERGERS ARE IMMEDIATELY DILUTIVE
TO BOTH NET INCOME AND BOOK VALUE OF THE NET PARTNERSHIPS.
On a pro forma per unit equivalent basis, the mergers are immediately
dilutive to both per unit net income and book value of the Net Partnerships.
Specifically, the diluted pro forma net income per unit for the year ended
December 31, 2000 is reduced for Net 1 by $19.35 - $22.85 to $27.62 per unit,
and for Net 2 is reduced by $1.01 - $1.72 to $2.76 per unit, and the diluted pro
forma net income per unit for the six months ended June 30, 2001 is reduced for
Net 1 by $26.27 - $29.22 to $14.50 per unit, and for Net 2 is reduced by
$2.66 - $3.40 to $1.45 per unit. The immediate dilution of book value as of June
30, 2001 for Net 1 is $71.84 per unit and for Net 2 is $9.80 per unit.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE TRANSACTION COULD HAVE RESULTED IN HIGHER PROCEEDS THAN THE
MERGER CONSIDERATION.
If a Net Partnership approves its respective merger, its limited partners
will forego alternatives to the merger, including continuing each Net
Partnership pursuant to its existing partnership agreement or liquidating its
portfolio of properties, allowing its limited partners to receive proceeds from
the sale of the Net Partnerships' properties. Although the general partners
believe the limited partners will receive greater consideration as a result of
the Transaction than if the Net Partnerships were continued in their present
form or liquidated, it is possible that a limited partner's share of liquidation
proceeds could be higher than the amount realized from the consideration
received in the mergers.
FOLLOWING THE MERGERS, THE INVESTMENT OF THE LIMITED PARTNERS WILL NO LONGER
HAVE PASS-THROUGH ENTITY TAX STATUS.
Limited partners who become shareholders in Lexington will have changed
their investment from a limited partnership interest in a pass-through entity
for federal income tax purposes to an investment in the common shares or the
dissenter debentures of a REIT. Limited partners who become shareholders of
Lexington will be unable to deduct any losses realized by Lexington on their
federal income tax returns.
LIMITED PARTNERS WHO RECEIVE COMMON SHARES WILL BY SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANTLY
GREATER DISCRETION AFFORDED THE MANAGEMENT OF LEXINGTON.
Lexington is a Maryland statutory real estate investment trust, and its
Declaration of Trust does not restrict the types of investments it can make. As
a result, Lexington may elect at any time to invest in properties that are
different from those in which the Net Partnerships invested.
45
55
At present, Lexington's investment criteria are substantially the same as
those of the Net Partnerships. However, Lexington's investment and financing
policies and its policies with respect to all other activities, including its
growth, debt, capitalization, distribution and operating policies, may be
amended or revised at any time and from time to time at the discretion of
Lexington's Board of Trustees. Lexington may change its investment strategy
without the consent of its shareholders. Although Lexington has no present
intention to change its current investment strategy, Lexington may, if it
chooses, pursue a different investment strategy that may be riskier than
ownership of triple-net lease properties. Lexington's financing policies and its
policies with respect to all other activities, including its growth, debt,
capitalization, distribution and operating policies, may be amended or revised
at any time and from time to time at the discretion of Lexington's Board of
Trustees. Any operating policy changes could adversely affect Lexington's
financial condition or results of operations, or the market price of Lexington
common shares.
LEXINGTON'S FAILURE TO QUALIFY AS A REIT FOR TAX PURPOSES WOULD RESULT IN
LEXINGTON'S TAXATION AS A CORPORATION AND THE REDUCTION OF FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR
SHAREHOLDER DISTRIBUTION.
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP has given an opinion that Lexington
operates in a manner that enables Lexington to meet the requirements for
qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and to continue to
operate in this manner. A REIT generally is not subject to federal taxes at the
corporate level on income it distributes to its shareholders, as long as it
distributes at least 90% of its taxable income to its shareholders annually. In
addition, the REIT must meet asset tests at the end of each calendar quarter.
Lexington has not requested, and does not plan to request, a ruling from the
Internal Revenue Service that it qualifies as a REIT.
Limited partners should be aware, however, that Lexington's continued
qualification as a REIT will depend on Lexington's management meeting various
requirements that are discussed in more detail under the heading "FEDERAL INCOME
TAX CONSIDERATIONS -- Taxation of Lexington" beginning on page 177.
If Lexington fails to qualify as a REIT, it would be subject to federal
income tax at regular corporate rates. In addition to these taxes, Lexington is
subject to the federal alternative minimum tax and various state income taxes.
Unless Lexington is entitled to relief under specific statutory provisions, it
could not elect to be taxed as a REIT for four taxable years following the year
during which it was disqualified. Therefore, if Lexington loses its REIT status,
the funds available for distribution to Lexington shareholders would be reduced
substantially for each of the years involved.
IF LEXINGTON CANNOT MEET ITS REIT DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS, IT MAY HAVE TO
BORROW FUNDS OR LIQUIDATE ASSETS TO MAINTAIN ITS REIT STATUS.
As a REIT, Lexington generally must distribute 90% of its taxable income to
its shareholders annually. For the purposes of determining taxable income,
Lexington may be required to include interest payments, rent and other items it
has not yet received and exclude payments attributable to expenses that are
deductible in a different taxable year. As a result, Lexington could have
taxable income in excess of cash available for distribution. If this occurred,
Lexington would have to borrow funds or liquidate some of its assets in order to
maintain its REIT status.
CHANGES IN THE TAX LAW COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT LEXINGTON'S REIT STATUS.
Lexington's treatment as a REIT for federal income tax purposes is based on
the tax laws that are currently in effect. Lexington is unable to predict any
future changes in the tax laws that could adversely affect Lexington's status as
a REIT. In the event that there is a change in the tax laws that prevents
Lexington from qualifying as a REIT or that requires REITs generally to pay
corporate level federal income taxes, Lexington may not be able to make the same
level of distributions to its shareholders.
46
56
LEXINGTON MAY BE LIABLE FOR PROHIBITED TRANSACTION TAXES AND/OR PENALTIES.
A violation of the REIT provisions, even where it does not cause failure to
qualify as a REIT, may result in the imposition on Lexington of substantial
taxes, such as the 100% tax that applies to net income from a prohibited
transaction as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Because the question of
whether that type of violation occurs may depend on the facts and circumstances
underlying a given transaction, these violations could inadvertently occur. To
reduce the possibility of an inadvertent violation, the trustees intend to rely
on the advice of legal counsel in situations where they perceive REIT provisions
to be inconclusive or ambiguous. Nevertheless, Lexington could be subject to
liabilities for violations of REIT provisions.
THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP OF LEXINGTON'S SHARES AMONG CERTAIN
INVESTORS. SIGNIFICANT CONCENTRATIONS OF OWNERSHIP BY CERTAIN INVESTORS MAY
ALLOW SUCH INVESTORS TO EXERT A GREATER INFLUENCE OVER LEXINGTON'S MANAGEMENT
AND AFFAIRS.
As of September 18, 2001, which was the latest practicable date prior to
the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus,
Lexington had outstanding 2,000,000 Class A Senior Cumulative Convertible
Preferred Shares of Beneficial Interest to Five Arrows Realty, L.L.C.,
representing 8.2% of Lexington's total outstanding voting securities, or 7.6% on
a pro forma basis following the Transaction, assuming that the average closing
price of Lexington common shares is $15.00, which is the midpoint of the range
for determining the number of common shares to be issued. The convertible
preferred shares are convertible at any time into common shares on a one-to-one
basis. As of September 18, 2001, which was the latest practicable date prior to
the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus,
E. Robert Roskind owned or controlled 327,078 common shares of Lexington and
1,408,590 operating partnership units which are currently convertible into
common shares, as well as 253,750 options to purchase common shares representing
7.7% of all voting securities, or 7.1% on a pro forma basis following the
Transaction, assuming that the average closing price of Lexington common shares
is $15.00, which is the midpoint of the range for determining the number of
common shares to be issued. Significant concentrations of ownership may allow
such investors to exert a greater influence over Lexington's management and
affairs. However, the only influence that Five Arrows Realty has, in addition to
its voting power, is that it has the ability to name a trustee to the Board of
Trustees of Lexington.
DISTRIBUTIONS ARE SUBORDINATE TO DEBT PAYMENTS.
Distributions to shareholders of Lexington will be subordinate to the
scheduled payment of Lexington's indebtedness, including payments on the
dissenter debentures. If Lexington has insufficient funds to pay its
indebtedness, future distributions to shareholders will be suspended pending the
payment of such debts and obligations.
LEXINGTON AND THE NET PARTNERSHIPS WILL INCUR SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTION EXPENSES
IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION.
Lexington and each Net Partnership will bear substantial costs and expenses
incurred in connection with negotiating and consummating the Transaction,
including the preparation and negotiation of definitive documents, which are
expected to total approximately $3.3 million in the aggregate. The transactional
expenses may constitute a significant burden and may diminish the value which is
realized by the parties to the Transaction.
INVESTMENT IN LEXINGTON MAY NOT BE SUITABLE UNDER ERISA AND INDIVIDUAL
RETIREMENT ACCOUNT REQUIREMENTS.
Fiduciaries of a pension, profit sharing or other employee benefit plan
subject to ERISA should consider whether the investment in Lexington securities
satisfies the diversification requirements of ERISA, whether the investment is
prudent in light of possible limitations on the marketability, whether the
investment would be an improper delegation of responsibility for plan assets and
whether such fiduciaries have authority to acquire such securities under the
appropriate governing instrument and Title I of ERISA. Also, fiduciaries of
47
57
an individual retirement account should consider that an IRA may only make
investments that are authorized by the appropriate governing instrument.
LEXINGTON, NET 1 OR NET 2 MAY BE LIABLE FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IF THEY TERMINATE
THE MERGER AGREEMENTS.
In the event the merger agreements between Net 1 or Net 2 and Lexington are
terminated, subject to certain exceptions described in the merger agreements,
the terminating party may be required to pay a termination fee to the
non-terminating party equal to 4.0% of the value of the consideration to be
received by the holders of the Net 1 units (in the case of termination of the
Net 1 merger agreement) or holders of the Net 2 units (in the case of
termination of the Net 2 merger agreement), respectively, under the following
circumstances:
- the general partner of either Net Partnership or the Board of Trustees of
Lexington accepts a proposal for an alternative acquisition transaction;
- the general partner of either Net Partnership or the Board of Trustees of
Lexington withdraws or adversely modifies their recommendation of the
mergers;
- the general partner of either Net Partnership or the Board of Trustees of
Lexington makes any positive or neutral recommendation regarding any
proposal for an alternative acquisition transaction;
- the terminating party enters into any agreement which would result in an
alternative acquisition transaction occurring; or
- the general partner of either Net Partnership or the Board of Trustees of
Lexington authorizes any of the actions specified above.
The liquidated damages amounts for which the terminating party would be
liable total $1.02 million (in the case of termination of the Net 1 merger
agreement) or $1.58 million (in the case of termination of the Net 2 merger
agreement).
MARYLAND REIT LAW INCLUDES PROVISIONS WHICH MAY DISCOURAGE A CHANGE IN CONTROL
OF MANAGEMENT OF LEXINGTON AND/OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE MARKET PRICE OF LEXINGTON
COMMON SHARES.
Anti-takeover provisions of Maryland law could make it more difficult for a
third party to acquire control of Lexington, even if a change in control would
be beneficial to shareholders. These provisions could have the effect of
delaying, deterring or preventing a change in the control of Lexington, could
deprive the shareholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common
shares as part of a sale of Lexington or may otherwise discourage a potential
acquirer from attempting to obtain control of Lexington, which in turn could
materially adversely affect the market price of the common shares.
48
58
THE MERGERS
The following discussion describes the material aspects of the mergers and
the terms of the merger agreements. Please note, however, that even though the
following information describes all material provisions, the description
provided below is a summary and does not set forth all the provisions of the
merger agreements. For a complete description of the Transaction, you are
encouraged to read the terms of the merger agreement applicable to your
respective Net Partnership, which is attached as either Annex A-1 or Annex A-2
to this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus.
REASONS FOR THE TRANSACTION -- NET PARTNERSHIPS
The primary objectives of each of the Net Partnerships are to:
- protect the capital of the limited partners;
- provide the limited partners with distributions from operating cash flow;
- provide the limited partners with capital appreciation resulting from
rising real property values over projected ten-year holding periods; and
- provide tax benefits so that a portion of the cash distributions is
sheltered from current income taxation.
The general partners believe that the Net Partnerships have assembled
portfolios of real properties that have been net-leased to a diverse and
generally creditworthy tenant base. The Net Partnerships have also provided
limited partners with quarterly distributions from operating cash flow. However,
distributions have not increased over the terms of the Net Partnerships, as
expected, but rather have declined since the peak in distribution levels during
calendar years 1989 (Net 1) and 1990 (Net 2). The decline in distributions by
both Net Partnerships can primarily be attributed to bankruptcy and other tenant
credit problems which resulted in properties being re-leased at lower rent
levels. The general partners also decided to establish larger reserves out of
operating cash flow so that each Net Partnership would have sufficient liquidity
to make capital improvements and fund re-tenanting costs if necessary.
Each Net Partnership suffered a substantial decrease in net asset value
from inception to December 31, 1993. In the case of Net 1, net asset value per
unit declined to $712.48 per unit as of December 31, 1993 compared to an
original unit cost of $1,000. In the case of Net 2, net asset value per unit
declined to $65.58, per unit as of December 31, 1993 compared to an original
unit cost of $100. In order to address these declines, in 1994, the general
partners solicited the consent of limited partners to implement a limited growth
plan for the Net Partnerships. This plan, which was approved by the limited
partners, allowed the Net Partnerships to become more active real estate
investors by increasing mortgage indebtedness, reinvesting sales proceeds and
extending the anticipated life of the Net Partnerships.
In spite of the recovery in the real estate markets and the general
partners' attempts to establish a growth plan for the Net Partnerships, as a
result of the Net Partnerships' limited financial flexibility, the general
partners do not believe that the Net Partnerships in their current form will be
able to achieve two of their primary objectives of protecting the capital
invested by limited partners or delivering capital appreciation to limited
partners.
While the general partners expect that the Net Partnerships will have
sufficient capital resources to satisfy their capital needs to operate the Net
Partnerships, the general partners also believe that both Net Partnerships would
benefit from a larger asset base and enhanced access to, and flexibility in,
obtaining outside capital. Additional capital would provide the Net Partnerships
with enhanced flexibility in refinancing balloon mortgages currently encumbering
a number of the Net Partnerships' properties. Enhanced access to capital could
also enable the Net Partnerships to become active real estate investors and
acquire additional real property investments.
Both Net Partnerships are currently restricted in their ability to borrow
additional funds or raise equity to acquire additional properties. Neither Net
Partnership has a line of credit or other borrowing source available to it from
which funds can be drawn to facilitate balloon mortgage refinancings or to
acquire additional real
49
59
property investments, and the general partners do not believe that obtaining a
significant line of credit is practicable for either Net Partnership. In
addition, both Net Partnerships are currently prohibited under the terms of
their partnership agreements from raising additional capital through the sale of
equity securities. Even if the Net Partnerships were to amend their partnership
agreements to allow them to raise additional equity capital, the general
partners do not believe that additional equity capital could be raised by either
Net Partnership on favorable terms within their current organizational
structure.
Moreover, the general partners believe that the structure of the Net
Partnerships is not responsive to the needs of limited partners, many of whom
currently desire liquidity in their investments in the Net Partnerships, and
that limited partners are burdened by cumbersome federal and state income tax
rules and reporting obligations. Furthermore, many limited partners have been
frustrated by the lack of capital appreciation and distribution growth from the
Net Partnerships.
REASONS FOR THE TRANSACTION -- LEXINGTON
Lexington became a NYSE-listed REIT in October 1993. Since that time it has
successfully grown its portfolio from $216 million of assets to $668 million in
assets at December 31, 2000. More importantly, funds from operations have grown
from $1.12 per share in 1993 to $1.76 in 2000, a compound annual growth rate of
6.7% and the average annual total return to shareholders has been approximately
16.4% through December 31, 2000. The Transaction will allow Lexington to
continue to grow in a way that management believes is beneficial to
shareholders.
Lexington believes that the Transaction will have a positive impact on the
factors that affect the market price of its common shares. These factors
include, but are not limited to:
- portfolio quality and diversification;
- market capitalization
- long term growth rate of funds from operations and cash available for
dividends; and
- reduction of perceived conflicts of interest.
Lexington believes that the Transaction will improve its portfolio
diversification and overall quality, grow its market capitalization and enhance
growth in funds from operations and dividends. Moreover, the Transaction will
complete the consolidation of entities controlled by E. Robert Roskind and The
LCP Group, L.P. into Lexington, thereby reducing perceived conflicts of
interest. In addition, Lexington believes that the Transaction provides a
substantial growth opportunity for Lexington that will not be dilutive to
shareholders. Further, Lexington already manages the Net Partnerships. As a
result, Lexington believes that it is better positioned to underwrite the
acquisition than it would be if it did not manage the properties owned by the
Net Partnerships.
BACKGROUND OF THE TRANSACTION
In 1996, the general partners began to consider alternatives for the Net
Partnerships that would build on the 1994 growth plan and enhance their capital
raising capacity and investment flexibility to better position the Net
Partnerships to achieve their original investment objectives.
The general partners evaluated three possible strategic alternatives:
- continuation of the Net Partnerships;
- liquidation of the Net Partnerships; and
- a combination of the Net Partnerships with a publicly traded REIT
specializing in net-lease investments.
The general partners believed that a continuation or liquidation of the Net
Partnerships was less desirable than a combination with a publicly traded REIT
specializing in net-lease investments and would subject the limited partners to
greater risk.
50
60
The general partners believed that in a liquidation there would be
uncertainty regarding the prices certain properties could be sold for and
whether they could be sold at all. Accordingly, there would be a risk that a
significant portion of rental payments on the unsold properties would be used to
pay ongoing partnership operating expenses, thereby reducing distributions to
limited partners as a percentage of rental revenue. The general partners also
believed that the combination with another entity would be superior because it
would provide the Limited Partners not only with liquidity but with the ability
to choose when to sell their investment.
A combination with an existing larger company was deemed more advantageous
for the limited partners than a continuation of the Net Partnerships due to such
larger entity's (i) greater flexibility in accessing capital for growth, (ii)
greater portfolio diversification available in a larger company, (iii) greater
liquidity in their investment; (iv) greater financial strength, and (v)
likelihood of greater distributions.
The general partners believed that a combination of the Net Partnerships
with a publicly traded net-lease investment company would, if structured in an
equitable and efficient manner, be most beneficial to the limited partners by
providing them both an opportunity to invest in a larger, more diversified
net-lease portfolio and an opportunity for liquidity. A net-lease investment
company is a real estate company that focuses on acquiring net-leased
properties. A net lease is a lease under which the tenant is generally
responsible for paying property operating costs. To this end, the general
partners began informal discussions with Lexington regarding a potential
transaction. E. Robert Roskind and affiliates are the stockholders of the
general partners of the Net Partnerships. Although Mr. Roskind is also Chairman
of Lexington's Board of Trustees and its Co-Chief Executive Officer, he did not
represent Lexington in any aspect of negotiations or discussions between the
parties. T. Wilson Eglin, President and Chief Operating Officer of Lexington,
represented Lexington with the approval of the Board of Trustees. Mr. Roskind
represented the Net Partnerships. Lexington and the general partners are
different parties.
Mr. Roskind and Mr. Eglin evaluated a transaction in which the limited
partners would have received Lexington common shares in exchange for their
limited partnership interests and reviewed the merits of such a transaction as
they related to the limited partners and Lexington's shareholders. Mr. Eglin
discontinued the talks upon determining that the transaction would likely be
dilutive to Lexington's shareholders, subsequent to which the general partners
continued implementing their investment strategy for the Net Partnerships.
Following the discontinuation of the merger discussions with Lexington in
1996, the general partners studied the financial statements and portfolios of
publicly traded net-lease companies including Trinet Corporate Realty Trust,
Realty Income Corporation, Captec Net Lease Realty, Inc. and Commercial Net
Lease Realty, Inc. This review was undertaken with a view toward understanding
the investment strategies, tenant credit quality, portfolio composition, funds
from operations and dividend growth, and management strength of these companies.
The general partners continued to believe that a combination with Lexington
would be beneficial because Lexington had the most similar investment strategy
and portfolio composition compared to the Net Partnerships, superior tenant
credit quality and general purpose real estate compared to the other companies,
and an established record of growth in funds from operations and dividends.
In early 1998, Mr. Roskind recommenced discussions with Mr. Eglin
concerning a potential combination. At the time, Lexington common shares were
trading at a premium to its net asset value. As a result, both Mr. Roskind and
Mr. Eglin believed that a transaction could be structured using Lexington common
shares as the merger consideration, which would meet the general partner's
criteria and not be dilutive to Lexington's shareholders. However, in July 1998,
the market price of Lexington common shares and that of other publicly traded
real estate companies began to decline. Mr. Eglin discontinued discussion when
it was determined that the potential transaction would be dilutive to
Lexington's shareholders.
On November 11, 1998, Mr. Roskind met with Mr. Eglin to discuss the terms
under which Lexington would be prepared to make an all cash offer for the Net
Partnerships. Because of the diverse property types in their portfolios,
including convenience stores and gas stations, Mr. Roskind believed that an
offer to purchase the portfolios by Lexington or another party would likely be
at a discount to net asset value. On November 17, 1998, Mr. Eglin met with Mr.
Roskind and verbally proposed that Lexington acquire the limited and general
partnership interests for $64.2 million, subject to raising the required capital
by selling 4.76 million Lexington
51
61
common shares at a price of $13.50 per share. Mr. Roskind advised Mr. Eglin that
the general partners would not consider an offer subject to such a financing
contingency.
In September 1999, Mr. Eglin again approached Mr. Roskind and suggested
transaction structures that could address the general partners' criteria for
fair consideration, greater dividends and safety of principal in an entity that
would continue to have a net-lease-oriented investment strategy. On September 7,
1999, Lexington retained Prudential Securities Incorporated to assist it in
analyzing the Net Partnerships and structuring the Transaction and to provide an
opinion as to the fairness of the Transaction to Lexington.
Lexington and the Net Partnerships had, from time to time in the past,
bought and sold properties from and to each other. See "CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST -- Related Party Transactions/Prior Dealings" on page 79. In September
1999, Lexington sold two properties to Net 1, despite the ongoing discussions
between them regarding the potential merger transaction. These sales were
consummated, despite the possibility that Lexington would reacquire those
properties in the potential merger transaction because Net 1 had previously sold
other properties and needed to acquire properties in order to defer its taxable
gain under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code. The properties purchased
from Lexington met the Section 1031 requirements, and the general partner
believed that aborting the acquisitions would have had negative tax consequences
for the limited partners of Net 1.
On November 10, 1999, Mr. Eglin met with Mr. Roskind in order to discuss
whether a transaction involving common shares would be possible. With Lexington
shares trading at a discount to net asset value, this proposal would have valued
the Net Partnerships at a corresponding discount to their net asset value.
Although this transaction would have provided liquidity, portfolio
diversification and greater distributions to the limited and general partners,
the general partners were not willing to consider a transaction that was based
on a discounted net asset value.
On February 9, 2000, Mr. Eglin met with Mr. Roskind in order to discuss a
transaction in which Lexington would have acquired the limited and general
partnership interests in exchange for a new class of common or preferred shares.
This transaction would have provided the benefits of portfolio diversification
and greater distributions but without the liquidity available from Lexington
common shares. Mr. Roskind advised Mr. Eglin that any proposal would have to
include 50% common shares or cash so that limited partners could have the
benefit of liquidity. On May 24, 2000, Lexington's Board of Trustees discussed
the possibility of a transaction involving the Net Partnerships and the
advantages and disadvantages of a potential merger and generally concluded that
such a transaction would be beneficial. On May 27, 2000, Mr. Eglin made a
proposal to Mr. Roskind and after further negotiations, the parties agreed in
principle to the idea of structuring a transaction involving common shares and
convertible subordinated debentures and began negotiating a non-binding term
sheet setting forth the general outlines of the Transaction. As part of this
decision to move forward with the Transaction, the general partners and
Lexington agreed that any transaction involving Lexington acquiring the Net
Partnerships would have to be based upon the net asset value of the Net
Partnerships and be accretive to Lexington's funds from operations per share.
The term sheet was entered into on July 11, 2000.
Under the terms of the term sheet agreed to by the parties on July 11,
2000, it was contemplated that Lexington would issue merger consideration
totaling $64.2 million, with $24.0 million issued to Net 1 and $40.2 million
issued to Net 2. In valuing the properties and arriving at the merger
consideration of $64.2 million, Lexington considered numerous factors relating
to the properties owned by the Net Partnerships and the proposed transaction
including, but not limited to, (i) the terms of the leases of the Net
Partnerships' properties, (ii) projected and current cash flows, (iii) tenant
credit quality, (iv) rents per square foot compared to Lexington's estimate of
market; (v) the potential impact of the proposed transaction on Lexington's
balance sheet, funds from operations and dividend coverage, (vi) the terms of
the underlying mortgage debt, and (vii) the information contained in the
appraisals by Robert A. Stanger & Co., Inc.
Based on its review of the foregoing factors, Lexington reached the
following conclusions. The properties owned by the Net Partnerships had a
weighted average lease term of approximately nine years, compared to a weighted
average lease term of eight years in Lexington's portfolio. Lexington projected
that the current cash flows of the Net Partnerships would exceed dividends and
interest payments payable on the merger
52
62
consideration by approximately $500,000. In addition, Lexington believed that
the average tenant credit strength in the Net Partnerships' portfolio was
comparable to Lexington's. In its analysis, Lexington believed that the net
rents per square foot in the Net Partnerships' portfolio were on average 5%
above market and that the Net Partnership's mortgage debt, which bears interest
at approximately 8% per annum, on average, represented a market rate. Moreover,
Lexington considered the potential negative impact of significantly increasing
its indebtedness as a result of the transaction. As of June 30, 2000,
Lexington's total debt was $372.5 million, or 56.9% of gross assets. In
connection with the Transaction, Lexington estimated that it would be adding
debt of between $109.8 million and $141.6 million, or 77% to 99% of the total
transaction value, raising Lexington's leverage ratio to between 61.6% and 65.5%
of gross assets on a pro forma basis.
The merger consideration would consist of:
(a) $642,000 of operating partnership units issued to the general
partners;
(b) up to $63.5 million (but not less than $31.78 million) of
Lexington's 8% convertible subordinated debentures due 2012; and
(c) the balance of the merger consideration in the form of Lexington
common shares.
The number of Lexington common shares issuable would be determined based
upon an average twenty day trading price, subject to a lower pricing limit of
$11.00 per share and an upper pricing limit of $13.00 per share. The convertible
subordinated debentures were to be convertible by the holder into common shares
at $14.50 per share after five years. Lexington could have redeemed these
securities with cash or common shares after five years, subject to the common
shares trading above $14.50 per share.
On July 6, 2000, the general partners retained Cohen & Steers to render to
the general partners of each Net Partnership an opinion as to the fairness, from
a financial point of view, of the consideration to be received by the partners
of the Net Partnerships.
Following execution of the term sheet, both the general partners and
Lexington conducted extensive due diligence of the properties owned by each of
Lexington, Net 1 and Net 2, and began drafting merger agreements and this Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus. Upon being retained by the
general partners, Cohen & Steers was provided with a summary of the proposed
transaction. Beginning on July 6, 2000, Cohen & Steers reviewed the proposed
transaction and projected operating results of the Net Partnerships and
Lexington, conducted due diligence on Lexington's properties, leases and
financial statements, studied the liquidation and going concern alternatives for
the Net Partnerships and performed a series of valuations, including a
theoretical valuation of the convertible debt securities that constituted half
of the proposed merger consideration. On October 10, 2000, Cohen & Steers
informed the general partners that, based on the terms of the convertible
subordinated debentures provided for in the July 11, 2000 term sheet, the
theoretical value of the convertible subordinated debentures was significantly
below their principal value due to terms, including conversion price, conversion
features, coupon rate and maturity, which when taken as a whole, were less
favorable than the terms of other comparable securities. Moreover, Cohen &
Steers suggested that the allocation of the merger consideration between the Net
Partnerships was not consistent with the relative values of each Net
Partnership. The general partners inquired of Cohen & Steers as to potential
modifications that could be made to the originally proposed terms of the
convertible subordinated debentures in order to increase their theoretical value
and thereby bring the aggregate value of the merger consideration in line with
the general partners' expectations. In response to that inquiry, Cohen & Steers
explained to the general partners that the theoretical value of the convertible
subordinated debentures could be increased by, for example, decreasing the
conversion price, increasing the coupon rate, decreasing maturity, decreasing
the non-convertibility period, or any combination of those changes.
Following these discussions with Cohen & Steers, the general partners
informed Lexington that the Net Partnerships would not enter into the merger
agreements unless Lexington improved its offer in order to address the concerns
raised by Cohen & Steers. During its due diligence of the Net Partnerships,
Lexington received financial information from the general partners regarding the
properties and the Net Partnerships, and Lexington independently researched
market rents and reviewed each property to determine the probability of renewal
at the expiration of the base term of the lease. Based on this information,
Lexington determined
53
63
that long-term cash flows and capital appreciation prospects for the Net
Partnerships' properties were marginally greater than previously projected and
that, therefore, it would be able to improve its offer. The primary reasons
Lexington agreed to increase its offer were (i) its determination, based on its
due diligence, that rents per square foot in the Net Partnerships' portfolio
were, on average, at market rate levels, (ii) its belief that the average
interest rates on the Net Partnerships' mortgages could be refinanced at
maturity at interest rates twenty-five points lower than existing rates, and
(iii) its belief that the sublease of the Rancho Bernardo, California property
owned by Net 1 by Cymer, Inc. improved tenant credit quality and increased the
probability of a lease renewal on that property.
During October 2000, Mr. Roskind and Mr. Eglin negotiated revisions to the
terms of the proposed transaction which would address the concerns raised by
Cohen & Steers regarding coupon, conversion price and timing, and maturity. As a
result of these negotiations, Lexington improved its original offer by
increasing in equal measure the value of the common shares to be issued and the
principal amount of the convertible subordinated debentures to be issued. In
addition, the terms of the convertible subordinated debentures were changed as
follows: (i) the interest rate was increased from 8% per annum to 8.5% per
annum, (ii) the conversion price was lowered from $14.50 to $14.00, (iii) the
maturity date was reduced from twelve years to eight years, and (iv) the
conversion date was reduced from five years to four years. The general partners
informed Cohen & Steers of these changes, and, upon considering these revisions,
Cohen & Steers determined that, when taken as a whole, these changes had the
effect of increasing the theoretical value of the convertible securities and the
overall merger consideration, and therefore adequately addressed their earlier
concerns. The resulting merger consideration agreed to by the parties was as
follows:
(a) $650,000 of operating partnership units issued to the general
partners;
(b) up to $64.35 million (but not less than $32.175 million) of
Lexington's 8.5% convertible subordinated debentures due 2009; and
(c) the balance of the merger consideration in the form of common
shares.
On October 24, 2000, Mr. Eglin and Mr. Roskind agreed in principle on these
revisions, and the revised terms are the terms of the Transaction as reflected
in this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/ Prospectus.
On October 30, 2000, the general partners met with Cohen & Steers to review
their analysis of the Transaction. The general partners determined that they had
negotiated a transaction that would be fair from a financial point of view.
On October 31, 2000, a special meeting of the Board of Trustees of
Lexington was held to consider the proposed transaction. At this meeting, senior
management of Lexington and Prudential Securities made detailed presentations to
the Board of Trustees concerning all material aspects of the proposed
transaction, including the financial terms. Mr. Roskind recused himself from the
proceedings.
On November 9, 2000 Cohen & Steers met with the general partners and
rendered its fairness opinion to the Net Partnerships.
On November 10, 2000, another special meeting of the Board of Trustees of
Lexington was held to consider the terms of the proposed merger agreement and to
further evaluate the financial terms of the Transaction. At this meeting, senior
management and Lexington's legal advisors, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
LLP, provided the trustees with additional information concerning the terms of
the merger agreement, this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus and the financial terms of the proposed merger, and
Prudential Securities rendered its fairness opinion. At this meeting, the Board
of Trustees of Lexington, excluding Mr. Roskind, who recused himself from the
proceedings, approved the Transaction.
On November 13, 2000, Lexington and the Net Partnerships entered into the
merger agreements, and Net 3 and the general partners entered into the
contribution agreements with respect to the contribution of their general
partnership interests to Net 3.
54
64
On June 30, 2001, Mr. Roskind contacted Mr. Eglin to discuss revising the
merger consideration in order to provide greater liquidity to the limited
partners. Based on conversations with several limited partners of the Net
Partnerships, Mr. Roskind believed that a transaction involving cash and common
shares would be viewed more favorably by the limited partners than the
previously agreed upon transaction. Due to favorable conditions in the capital
markets and an increase in Lexington's common share price, Mr. Eglin believed
that Lexington could pay a portion of the merger consideration in cash without
diluting Lexington's shareholders. As a result, Mr. Eglin agreed to ask
Lexington's Board of Trustees to revise Lexington's offer to provide for cash
instead of the convertible subordinated debentures.
On July 9, 2001, Mr. Eglin, on behalf of Lexington, offered to revise the
terms of the transaction. Under the new proposal limited partners would receive
cash of $32,175,000 instead of convertible subordinated debentures, with the
balance continuing to be paid in Lexington common shares. The number of common
shares issuable would be determined based upon an average twenty-day trading
price, subject to a lower pricing limit of $14.00 per share and an upper pricing
limit of $16.00 per share. The general partner would receive its pro rata 1%
share, valued at $650,000, in operating partnership units subject to the same
share pricing limits. Mr. Eglin believed that the revised transaction would be
favorable to Lexington because it would involve issuing fewer shares and add
less debt to Lexington's balance sheet.
On July 13, 2001, Mr. Eglin and Mr. Roskind agreed in principle on these
revisions, and the revised terms are the terms of the transaction as reflected
in this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/ Prospectus.
On July 16, 2001, a meeting of the Board of Trustees of Lexington was held
and the revised terms of the transaction were reviewed and approved. On the same
day, the general partners met with Cohen & Steers to review their analysis of
the revised transaction terms, and on July 19, 2001, Cohen & Steers rendered its
fairness opinions to the general partners based on the forms of the amendments
to the previously executed merger agreements. The general partners determined
that they had negotiated a transaction that would be fair from a financial point
of view.
On July 19, 2001, Lexington and the Net Partnerships entered into
amendments to the merger agreements, and Net 3 and the general partners of the
Net Partnerships entered into amendments to the contribution agreements with
respect to the contribution of their general partnership interests to Net 3.
On July 30, 2001, Prudential Securities delivered its fairness opinion to
the Board of Trustees, stating that, as of that date, the merger consideration
was fair to the shareholders of Lexington from a financial point of view.
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES' REASONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MERGER
The Board of Trustees of Lexington, including the independent trustees,
believe that the terms of the merger agreements are fair from a financial point
of view to Lexington's shareholders and are in the best interests of Lexington
and its shareholders. Accordingly, the entire Board of Trustees, other than E.
Robert Roskind who did not vote because of his affiliation with the Net
Partnerships, has unanimously approved the merger agreements and the issuance of
the merger consideration, and recommends that Lexington's shareholders vote for
approval of the merger agreements and the issuance of the merger consideration.
In negotiating and agreeing to the terms and conditions of the mergers, the
Board of Trustees has acted solely on behalf of Lexington. In conducting its
negotiations in connection with the mergers, the Board of Trustees owed a
fiduciary duty only to the shareholders of Lexington, whose interests in
connection with the mergers conflict with those of the limited partners.
The Board of Trustees' determination as to the fairness of the mergers are
directed only to the Lexington shareholders and not to the limited partners. In
reaching its decision, the Board of Trustees consulted with Lexington's
management and considered many factors. In addition, the Board of Trustees
consulted with Prudential Securities, which was engaged by Lexington to render
an opinion to Lexington as to the fairness of the merger consideration, from a
financial point of view, to be paid by Lexington.
55
65
The following are the principal reasons why and how the Board of Trustees
made their determinations. The Board of Trustees did not assign any relative
weight to these reasons.
- Analysis of Net Partnerships. The Board of Trustees received and
reviewed presentations from, and had discussions with, executive officers
of Lexington and Prudential Securities regarding the business, real
estate assets, financial, accounting and due diligence with respect to
the Net Partnerships, as well as the terms and conditions of the merger
agreements. These presentations and discussions all supported the
mergers.
- Fairness of Merger Consideration. The Board of Trustees has concluded
that the merger consideration is a fair price from the viewpoint of
Lexington and its shareholders. The Board of Trustees received and
approved the Prudential Securities fairness opinion that the
consideration to be paid by Lexington in the mergers is fair, from a
financial point of view, to Lexington as of the date of such opinion,
based upon and subject to matters stated in that opinion.
- Increase in Cash Flow and Funds From Operations. Based on its analysis
of the pro forma financial statements included in this Joint Consent and
Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, forecasts and projections
prepared by Lexington's management and their analysis of the operating
history and potential of Lexington and the Net Partnerships, the Board of
Trustees believes that the mergers should help increase Lexington's cash
flow and funds from operations. As a result, the Board of Trustees
believes there is greater potential for increased distributions to
Lexington shareholders and for appreciation in the price of the Lexington
common shares than there would be without the mergers. Based on its
analysis, the Board of Trustees believes the mergers will be accretive to
Lexington's funds from operations and cash flow primarily because of the
operational advantages Lexington has over each of the Net Partnerships.
- Risk Diversification. The combination of the portfolio of properties
owned by the Net Partnerships with Lexington's existing portfolio of
properties would diversify the shareholders' investment over a larger
number of properties. This diversification will reduce the dependence of
the shareholders' investment upon the performance of, and the exposure to
the risks associated with, the portfolio of properties currently owned by
Lexington. Moreover, the Board of Trustees believes that Lexington's
administrative costs, as a percentage of total assets, should decrease in
the future because of efficiencies of scale realized as its investment
portfolio increases in size.
- Greater Access to Capital. As of June 30, 2001, on a pro forma basis,
the mergers will substantially increase Lexington's total capitalization
and increase its assets from approximately $677 million to approximately
$819 million. The Board of Trustees believes Lexington's increased size
will increase the attractiveness of Lexington to potential investors. The
Board of Trustees believe that, following the Transaction, Lexington will
have improved access to capital markets for future growth as a result of
the larger total equity market capitalization of the combined entity.
- Knowledge of Properties. Lexington previously owned six of the
properties currently owned by the Net Partnerships and manages the Net
Partnership's portfolio of properties. As a result of Lexington's
knowledge of, and familiarity with, the Net Partnerships' assets, the
Board of Trustees of Lexington believes that Lexington will be able to
quickly and effectively assimilate the Net Partnerships' properties into
its portfolio of properties.
IN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MERGERS, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
LEXINGTON ALSO CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE TRANSACTION,
AMONG OTHERS:
- Failure to Realize Benefits. The anticipated benefits of the Transaction
might not be fully realized.
- The Value of the Properties Held by the Net Partnerships May Be Less Than
the Merger Consideration. The amount of the merger consideration is based
upon the agreed upon adjusted net asset value of the Net Partnerships.
Lexington and the general partners reached this agreed upon adjusted net
asset value after an evaluation of all the available information as to
the assets, liabilities, costs and other factors
56
66
which impact the valuation of the Net Partnerships. If any of these
factors are not accurate, the agreed upon adjusted net asset value of the
Net Partnerships may not reflect their actual value.
- Increase in Leverage. If the Transaction is consummated, Lexington will
assume and incur substantial indebtedness in the form of the mortgages
payable of the Net Partnerships and the dissenter debentures. This
increased leverage could adversely affect Lexington's financial condition
and results of operations, the market price of its common shares and its
ability to make distributions.
- Fixed Minimum Number of Common Shares. The minimum number of common
shares to be exchanged as merger consideration is fixed. If the average
price for the common shares during the 20 day period prior to, but not
including, the closing date of the mergers is more than $16.00 per share,
Lexington will nevertheless be obligated to issue to the limited partners
of the Net Partnerships the same number of common shares per unit as it
would have been obligated had the average price been $16.00 per share.
- Transaction Costs. Lexington will bear significant costs, estimated to
be approximately $2.01 million, in connection with consummating the
Transaction.
- Smaller Percentage Ownership Interest. Shareholders will have a smaller
percentage ownership and voting interest in Lexington. The current
shareholders voting percentage will be reduced to 91.3% following
consummation of the Transaction.
- Dilution of Ownership Interest. There is a risk of dilution of
Lexington's current shareholders in the event the merger consideration
exceeds the fair market value of the Net Partnerships.
The Board of Trustees believes that the benefits and advantages of the
mergers outweigh the negative factors and risks.
THE GENERAL PARTNERS' REASONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MERGER
The general partners believe that the terms and conditions of the mergers
are fair to and in the best interests of the respective limited partners. The
general partners approved the merger agreements and recommend that the limited
partners consent to the approval and adoption of their respective merger
agreement and amendment of their agreement of limited partnership.
The determinations of the general partners are directed only to the limited
partners of the Net Partnerships and not to Lexington's shareholders. The
following are the principal reasons why and how the general partners made their
determination as to which no relative weight was assigned.
- Analysis of Lexington and the Merger Agreements. The general partners
analyzed the business, real estate assets and financial condition of
Lexington, as well as the terms and conditions of the merger agreements.
These analyses and discussions supported the mergers. The general
partners believed, based on their analyses and methodology, that the
merger consideration represents a fair estimate of the value of the Net
Partnerships. The general partners concluded that an investment in
Lexington will be accretive to Lexington common shares, including common
shares issued to the limited partners in the mergers.
- Comparison of Alternative Transactions. The general partners reviewed
the value of the consideration to be received by limited partners if
their respective Net Partnership was acquired by Lexington, and the
general partners compared it to the consideration that limited partners
might have received if they continued their investment in that Net
Partnership without change or if that Net Partnership had been
liquidated. The general partners concluded that the likely value of the
merger consideration would be higher than the value of the consideration
limited partners would have received if the general partners had elected
either of those other alternatives.
- Cohen & Steers Fairness Opinions. The general partners retained Cohen &
Steers to render a fairness opinion regarding the fairness, from a
financial point of view, of the merger consideration. Cohen &
57
67
Steers rendered fairness opinions to the effect that, as of the date of
such opinions, the merger consideration is fair, from a financial point
of view, to the limited partners.
- Greater Liquidity for Limited Partners. The general partners believe
that following the Transaction the limited partners will have greater
liquidity of investment, since the common shares will trade on the New
York Stock Exchange. Currently, the limited partners' ability to sell
their units is limited because the units are not listed on an exchange.
- Risk Diversification. By combining the Net Partnerships with Lexington,
the mergers will create an investment portfolio substantially larger and
more diversified than the portfolio of the individual Net Partnerships,
thus reducing the limited partners' exposure to economic downturns in any
particular region or type of property. The general partners determined
that the combination of the properties owned by the Net Partnerships with
Lexington's existing properties result in a reduction of the limited
partners' current dependence upon the performance of, and the exposure to
the risks associated with, the particular group of properties currently
owned by the Net Partnerships. As of June 30, 2001, Net 1, Net 2 and
Lexington have ownership interests in 9, 15, and 73 properties,
respectively.
- Greater Access to Capital. The general partners believe that, following
the Transaction, Lexington will have improved access to capital markets
for future growth as a result of the larger total equity market
capitalization of the combined entity. If the Transaction is consummated,
Lexington will control assets having a historical value of approximately
$819 million. The general partners believe that Lexington's capital base
makes it a more attractive candidate for the services of investment
banking firms, financial institutions, institutional lenders and others
interested in placing large amounts of capital.
- Cost Savings. The combination of the Net Partnerships under the
ownership of Lexington will result in administrative cost savings. As
separate legal entities with different investors, each of the Net
Partnerships must segregate its assets and liabilities to avoid
commingling, conduct operations independently and maintain separate books
and records for the preparation of financial statements, tax returns,
investor information and, as required, reports and filings to be made to
various governmental regulatory agencies. The general partners,
therefore, believe that, by combining the Net Partnerships into a single
ownership entity, the mergers should eliminate much of the duplication in
reporting, filing and other administrative services, simplifying
administration of the consolidated entities.
- Dissenters' Option. The general partners considered that limited
partners have the opportunity to vote for or against the merger of their
respective Net Partnership. If they vote against the Transaction, they
will have the right to elect to receive their merger consideration in the
form of dissenter debentures in lieu of common shares and cash.
- No Further Schedule K-1s. The general partners believe that the mergers
will result in simplified tax administration for most limited partners.
Shareholders will receive Form 1099-DIV to report their distributions
from Lexington. Form 1099-DIV is substantially easier to understand than
the more complicated Schedule K-1 prepared for the reporting of the
financial results of the Net Partnerships.
In recommending the mergers, the general partners also considered the
following negative aspects of the Transaction, among others:
- Taxable Transaction. The limited partners will realize taxable gain or
loss in the mergers. Limited partners receiving common shares and cash
will be able to liquidate their common shares and use the cash proceeds
towards the payment of any taxes due on any taxable gain.
- Transaction Costs. The Net Partnerships will bear significant costs,
estimated to be approximately $0.63 million each, in connection with
consummating the Transaction.
- Failure to Realize Benefits. The anticipated benefits of the mergers
might not be fully realized.
- Increase in Leverage. If the Transaction is consummated, Lexington will
incur substantial indebtedness. This increased leverage could adversely
affect Lexington's financial condition and results of
58
68
operations, the market price of its common shares and its ability to make
distributions or payments on the dissenter debentures.
- Fluctuations in the Value of the Merger Consideration. The prices at
which the common shares may trade, upon resale, will fluctuate following
the mergers, and may not correspond to 50% of the fair market value of
the Net Partnerships.
- Fixed Maximum Number of Common Shares. The maximum number of common
shares to be exchanged as merger consideration is fixed. If the average
closing price is less than $14.00 per share, limited partners will not be
entitled to receive any more common shares per unit than they would have
received had the average price been $14.00 per share.
- Smaller Percentage Ownership Interest. Limited partners will have a
smaller percentage ownership and voting interest in Lexington following
consummation of the Transaction than they currently have in their
respective Net Partnership. The voting interests of holders of Net 1
units and Net 2 units in Lexington following consummation of the
Transaction will be 3.4% and 5.3%, respectively.
- Dilution to Net Income and Book Value. On a pro forma per unit
equivalent basis, the mergers are immediately dilutive to both per unit
net income and book value of the Net Partnerships. Specifically, the
diluted pro forma net income per unit for the year ended December 31,
2000 is reduced for Net 1 by $19.35 - $22.85 to $27.62 per unit, and for
Net 2 is reduced by $1.01 - $1.72 to $2.76 per unit, and the diluted pro
forma net income per unit for the six months ended June 30, 2001 is
reduced for Net 1 by $26.27 - $29.22 to $14.50 per unit, and for Net 2 is
reduced by $2.66 - $3.40 to $1.45 per unit. The immediate dilution of
book value as of June 30, 2001 for Net 1 is $71.84 per unit and for Net 2
is $9.80 per unit.
- No Independent Representation. The general partners considered the fact
that they did not retain an unaffiliated representative to negotiate on
behalf of the Net Partnerships, either individually or together, or on
behalf of the limited partners, in the mergers.
In light of the wide variety of factors, both positive and negative,
considered by the general partners, the general partners were not able to
quantify or otherwise assign relative weights to the specific factors considered
in making their determination. The general partners believe the negative factors
considered were not sufficient, either individually or collectively, to outweigh
the possible benefits considered by the general partners in their deliberations
relating to the mergers.
The general partners also believe that the Transaction has been structured
so as to be procedurally fair to the limited partners. The limited partners have
not had independent representation during the course of the merger discussions.
In determining not to engage an independent representative for the limited
partners, the general partners were faced with the conflicts of interest with
respect to the Net Partnerships and limited partners discussed elsewhere in this
Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus. See "CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST" beginning on page 78 and "RISK FACTORS" beginning on page 38. The
general partners believe that the absence of independent representation of the
Net Partnerships is mitigated by the Net Partnerships similarity to Lexington
regarding their investments and financial condition and their longstanding
relationship with Lexington. The Net Partnerships have the same investment
objectives as Lexington, their properties are generally located in the same
markets and are of similar size and quality.
The general partners were responsible for acquiring each Net Partnership's
properties and are familiar with each property, its condition and its local
market. The properties of each Net Partnership are under triple net leases to
the same type of tenants with similar credit risks as those of Lexington. As of
June 30, 2001, Net 1, Net 2 and Lexington derived 27%, 40% and 63% of their
revenue from investment grade tenants, respectively.
59
69
The general partners also believe that limited partners interests are
protected because:
- the general partners thoroughly analyzed the Transaction and its
alternatives;
- the general partners had available to them the appraisal report of
Stanger & Co. with respect to 22 of the 25 properties owned by the Net
Partnerships, and the 2000 appraisal reports of Stanger & Co. were within
1.5% and 0.8% of the agreed upon fair market property values for Net 1
and Net 2, respectively;
- the general partners retained Cohen & Steers to render a fairness opinion
to each of the Net Partnerships;
- the Transaction requires approval of a majority in interest of the
limited partners in both Net Partnerships; and
- limited partners who deny consent to the Transaction have the option of
electing to receive their merger consideration in the form of dissenter
debentures in lieu of common shares and cash.
The general partners, therefore, believe that all of these factors have
enabled them to adequately evaluate, negotiate and determine a fair value for
their respective Net Partnership in a manner consistent with their fiduciary
duty to the limited partners.
THE MERGER CONSIDERATION
LIMITED PARTNERS. Holders of Net 1 units and Net 2 units will be entitled
to receive, per unit, 50% of the agreed upon adjusted net asset value of their
respective Net Partnership in the form of Lexington common shares, with the
remaining 50% of the agreed upon adjusted net asset value payable in the form of
cash.
Assuming that no limited partners elect to receive their merger
consideration in the form of dissenter debentures, and assuming further that the
average closing price of Lexington common shares is $15.00, which is the
midpoint of the range for determining the number of common shares to be issued:
- holders of units in Net 1 would receive for each unit they own 27.3
common shares representing a value of $410.19 based on the average
closing price plus $410.19 in cash. In the aggregate, the limited
partners of Net 1 would receive a total of 841,500 common shares
representing a value of $12,622,500 based on the average closing price
plus $12,622,500 in cash, in exchange for their 99.0% interests in Net 1;
and
- holders of units in Net 2 would receive for each unit they own 2.7 common
shares representing a value of $40.98 based on the average closing price
plus $40.98 in cash. In the aggregate, the limited partners of Net 2
would receive a total of 1,303,500 common shares representing a value of
$19,552,500 based on the average closing price plus $19,552,500 in cash,
in exchange for their 99.0% interests in Net 2.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, limited partners who deny consent to the
Transaction may elect to receive dissenter debentures in lieu of the merger
consideration described above.
GENERAL PARTNERS. The general partner of each Net Partnership owns a 1%
capital interest in its Net Partnership. If the Transaction is approved, the
general partner of each Net Partnership will receive, in return for contributing
its general partnership interest, operating partnership units in Net 3 with an
aggregate value equal to 1% of the agreed upon adjusted net asset value of its
respective Net Partnership, which will entitle the general partners to receive
the same distributions which limited partners will be entitled to receive as
holders of common shares. However, the general partners may not redeem their
units for Lexington common shares prior to the fifth anniversary of their
issuance. The number of units to be issued to the general partners will be
determined based upon the number of common shares for which those units would be
redeemable at the same average closing price that will be used to determine the
number of common shares to be issued to the limited partners. The general
partners will receive their operating partnership units in a tax-deferred
transaction while the merger consideration to be received by the limited
partners will be taxable. Neither the general partners nor their respective
affiliates will receive any special compensation in connection with the
Transaction.
60
70
The contribution of the general partnership interest of the general partner
of each Net Partnership requires the approval of a majority of the units of the
respective Net Partnership. As part of their consent to the Transaction, the
limited partners are being asked to approve the transfer of the general
partnership interests of Net 1 and Net 2 to Net 3.
The common shares for which the general partners may redeem their units may
not be sold upon or after such redemption except pursuant to a valid
registration statement or an exemption from registration under the Securities
Act of 1933. By contrast, the common shares to be received by the limited
partners will be freely tradable immediately upon issuance. Lexington has agreed
to provide registration rights to the general partners as holders of units, upon
request, in order to facilitate sales of common shares received in redemption.
TERMS OF THE COMMON SHARES
Amount........................ The number of common shares will be based upon
an average of their closing prices during a 20
day period prior to, but not including, the
closing date of the mergers as follows:
- for the limited partners of Net 1, the number
of common shares to be exchanged for each
unit will be limited to a maximum of 29.3
shares and a minimum of 25.6 shares. At the
closing price of common shares as of
September 18, 2001, which was the latest
practicable date prior to the printing of
this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/ Prospectus, was $14.28, the number
of common shares to be exchanged for each
unit would be 28.7 shares.
- for the limited partners of Net 2, the number
of common shares to be exchanged for each
unit will be limited to a maximum of 2.9
shares and a minimum of 2.6 shares. At the
closing price of common shares as of
September 18, 2001, which was the latest
practicable date prior to the printing of
this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus, was $14.28, the number
of common shares to be exchanged for each
unit would be 2.9 shares.
The maximum limits above correspond to an
average price of $14.00 per share of the common
shares and the minimum to an average price of
$16.00 per share of the common shares.
Terms......................... Holders of common shares are entitled to
receive dividends on their common shares to be
distributed at the discretion of the Board of
Trustees of Lexington. Such dividends payments
will be made out of assets legally available
for distribution. Holders will also be entitled
to share ratably in the assets of Lexington
legally available for distribution to its
shareholders in the event of its liquidation,
dissolution and winding-up after payment of, or
adequate provision for, all known debts and
liabilities of Lexington. Each outstanding
common share entitles the holder to one vote on
all matters submitted to a vote of
shareholders, including voting in the election
of trustees. Holders of common shares have no
conversion, sinking fund or redemption rights,
or preemptive rights to subscribe for any
securities of Lexington.
Listing....................... The common shares trade on the New York Stock
Exchange.
61
71
Information................... Lexington furnishes its shareholders with
annual reports containing consolidated
financial statements and an opinion on these
financial statements expressed by an
independent public accounting firm.
TERMS OF THE DISSENTER DEBENTURES
Principal Amount.............. Up to $20.0 million, subject to waiver by
Lexington. The exact principal amount of the
dissenter debentures will be determined at the
closing of the Transaction based upon the
number of units held by limited partners who
elect to receive dissenter debentures and will
be subject to the waiver by Lexington of the
limit on the amount of dissenter debentures to
be issued.
Interest...................... 8.5% per annum, on a day-to-day basis, based
upon a 365-day year and actual days elapsed,
from the closing of the Transaction. Interest
will be paid semi-annually in cash in arrears.
Repayment of Principal........ Principal on the dissenter debentures is due in
one installment on the eighth anniversary of
the closing of the Transaction; provided,
however, that 80% of the net proceeds of any
taxable sale or refinancing of the assets
previously owned by either Net Partnership, as
applicable, will be used to prepay the
dissenter debentures.
Prepayment.................... Prepayable in whole or in part at any time.
Seniority..................... Expressly subordinated in right and priority of
payment to all institutional indebtedness of
Lexington outstanding on the closing of the
Transaction and any other indebtedness of
Lexington issued in the future which is not, by
its terms, expressly subordinated to the
dissenter debentures. The dissenter debentures
are also senior in right and priority of
payment to Lexington's existing Class A Senior
Cumulative Convertible Preferred Shares and to
all other classes of Lexington's capital shares
currently authorized or authorized in the
future.
Remedies...................... If an event of default occurs and is
continuing, holders of dissenter debentures
will have the following remedies:
- the rate of interest on the dissenter
debentures will increase to 10.0%, provided
that if such event of default is cured or
waived, the rate of interest will be reduced,
from the date of such cure or waiver, to
8.5%;
- automatic acceleration with respect to
bankruptcy defaults; and
- acceleration upon vote by majority of holders
upon non-bankruptcy defaults.
COMPARISON OF COMMON SHARES AND CASH VERSUS DISSENTER DEBENTURES
In order to assist the limited partners in deciding whether to approve the
merger of their respective Net Partnership with Lexington and whether to elect
to receive common shares and cash or dissenter debentures, summarized below are
the material advantages and disadvantages of owning common shares versus
receiving and holding dissenter debentures and the material advantages and
disadvantages of receiving cash versus owning dissenter debentures.
The summary below first compares the advantages of owning the common shares
versus the dissenter debentures and then compares the advantages of receiving
cash versus owning the dissenter debentures.
62
72
THE ADVANTAGES OF OWNING THE COMMON SHARES VERSUS DISSENTER DEBENTURES
INCLUDE:
- The common shares will be freely transferable and listed on the New York
Stock Exchange. Limited partners who receive common shares will have the
opportunity to liquidate, at their convenience, all or any portion of the
common shares that they hold. There will be no public market for the
dissenter debentures, and it is unlikely that an active market will
develop.
- Lexington shareholders may take advantage of growth opportunities,
including those resulting from Lexington's ability to raise additional
funds through equity or debt financing. Holders of dissenter debentures
will not participate in benefits of growth opportunities, including
increased dividends and equity value.
- Shareholders will be entitled to participate in the dividends and
distributions made by Lexington on its common shares. This means that
holders of common shares will be entitled to receive dividends and
distributions based on their percentage ownership interest of the
outstanding common shares. Holders of dissenter debentures will only be
entitled to receive interest on, and, at maturity, principal of, the
dissenter debentures.
- Unlike a holder of dissenter debentures, shareholders will be entitled to
vote on matters presented at shareholder meetings and will be entitled to
other customary shareholders' rights.
- Lexington may redeem the dissenter debentures at any time, in whole or in
part, at the face amount of the dissenter debentures, with no prepayment
penalty or premium.
THE ADVANTAGES OF OWNING DISSENTER DEBENTURES VERSUS COMMON SHARES INCLUDE:
- The dissenter debentures have a fixed interest rate and the holders of
the dissenter debentures can expect to receive the entire amount of their
principal at maturity. The return on a shareholder's investment will
depend on the performance of Lexington and the market for the common
shares.
- The market price for the common shares may fluctuate with changes in
market and economic conditions, the financial condition of Lexington and
other factors that generally influence the market prices of equity
securities. These fluctuations may significantly affect liquidity and
market prices independent of the financial performance of Lexington. The
dissenter debentures evidence a contractual obligation of Lexington to
pay the entire principal amount to the holder. The principal amount of
the dissenter debentures and the interest payable to each dissenter will
be fixed at the closing of the Transaction and will not fluctuate based
on Lexington's financial performance.
- A shareholder's right to receive distributions is subordinated to the
principal and interest payments payable with respect to all debt
obligations of Lexington. This means that prior to making any
distribution to holders of common shares, Lexington must pay the interest
and, at maturity, the principal owed with respect to the dissenter
debentures and its other debt obligations. Thus, to the extent that
Lexington does not have sufficient cash to make a distribution after it
makes the required principal and interest payments on the dissenter
debentures and payments on other debt obligations, holders of common
shares will not receive a distribution.
- In the event Lexington is liquidated or dissolved, holders of the
dissenter debentures will have superior rights to the holders of the
common shares upon the distribution of Lexington's assets. The funds from
liquidation will be applied to the payment of all the outstanding
principal and accrued interest on the dissenter debentures before any
distributions may be made to the holders of the common shares. As a
result, after all required payments are made to the holders of the
dissenter debentures, there may be insufficient funds to make any
distributions to the holders of common shares.
- Shareholders' percentage ownership interest in Lexington may be diluted
at any time. Dilution could occur upon the issuance of additional equity
securities, including securities that have priority to cash flow
generated from Lexington's operations and to liquidation proceeds derived
from the sale of Lexington's assets. The interests of the dissenter
debentures will not be diluted by the issuance of additional equity
securities.
63
73
- The dissenter debentures provide that 80% of the taxable net proceeds of
any sale or refinancing of the assets previously owned by Net 1 or Net 2,
as applicable, will be used to prepay the dissenter debentures. However,
Lexington historically has disposed of its properties in non-taxable
exchange transactions which limits the potential benefits of this
requirement.
THE ADVANTAGES OF RECEIVING CASH VERSUS OWNING DISSENTER DEBENTURES
INCLUDE:
- Limited partners who receive cash may be able to obtain a return on that
cash that is greater than the fixed 8.5% return on the dissenter
debentures.
THE ADVANTAGES OF OWNING DISSENTER DEBENTURES VERSUS RECEIVING CASH
INCLUDE:
- Limited partners who receive cash may be unable to obtain a return on
that cash equal to the fixed 8.5% return on the dissenter debentures.
METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE MERGER CONSIDERATION
In order to determine the merger consideration, Lexington and the Net
Partnerships considered utilizing a number of different methodologies, each of
which involved a comparison of Lexington and the Net Partnerships with respect
to the following:
- net asset value;
- historical market value and trading activity;
- distribution levels; and
- liquidation and going concern values.
After reviewing these factors, Lexington and the Net Partnerships agreed to
calculate the merger consideration based on their agreed upon estimate of the
net asset value of the Net Partnership less estimated liquidation costs. The
general partners believed that net asset value was a fair method of valuing the
Net Partnerships because it is primarily based on objective balance sheet data.
While the fair market value of the Net Partnerships' properties, which was one
of the factors used to determine adjusted net asset value, was derived without
taking into account third party appraisals, it was, nonetheless, supported by
those appraisals. Moreover, net asset value has been reported to the limited
partners on an annual basis since the inception of each Net Partnership.
Although other methods could have been used to establish the merger
consideration, the general partners believed it was important to present the
Transaction to the limited partners utilizing a valuation measure they are
familiar with. Lexington and the general partners agreed that any transaction
involving Lexington acquiring the Net Partnerships would have to be based upon
the net asset value of the Net Partnerships and be accretive to Lexington's
funds from operations per share.
CALCULATION OF AGREED UPON ADJUSTED NET ASSET VALUE
The agreed upon adjusted net asset value of each Net Partnership was
determined by subtracting (1) the Net Partnership's mortgage notes payable that
are estimated to be outstanding at June 30, 2001, which was the originally
anticipated closing date of the Transaction, including estimated mortgage
assumption fees and repayment fees, if any, based primarily upon the scheduled
amortization through June 30, 2001 of all mortgages outstanding as of June 30,
2000, all other liabilities at June 30, 2000, estimated mortgage assumption fees
and estimated costs associated with liquidating such Net Partnership's
properties from (2) the agreed upon fair market value of the Net Partnership's
properties as of June 30, 2000. Lexington derived a fair market value for each
of the Net Partnership's properties as described below.
64
74
Based on the foregoing formula, the calculation of the agreed upon adjusted
net asset value, as of June 30, 2000, for each of the Net Partnerships is
summarized below ($000's):
NET 1 NET 2
------- --------
Agreed upon fair market value of the Net Partnerships'
properties as of June 30, 2000............................ $46,750 $101,562
LESS:
Projected liabilities....................................... 19,435 57,846
Estimated liquidation costs................................. 1,815 4,216
Agreed upon adjusted net asset value
Units and general partnership interest.................... 25,500 39,500
Units only................................................ 25,245 39,105
The adjusted net asset values derived by Lexington were agreed to by the
general partners, based, in part, on the fact that the fair market property
values were supported by the conclusions reached by Robert A. Stanger & Co.,
Inc. in its 1999 appraisals, even though the general partners did not use the
appraisals in their determination of such fair market property values. However,
the parties recognized that the 1999 appraisal did not include all of the
properties owned by the Net Partnerships at the time the parties entered into
the merger agreement. Therefore, each merger agreement required the respective
Net Partnership to obtain updated appraisals as of December 31, 2000, and
provided that, if the conclusions reached in the 2000 appraisals varied from the
agreed upon fair market property values by more than 5%, either Lexington or the
respective Net Partnership would have the right to terminate the merger
agreement. The 2000 appraisals of Stanger & Co. were within 1.5% and 0.8% of the
agreed upon fair market property value for Net 1 and Net 2, respectively. The
parties have agreed that the sale by Net 2 of the Earth City, MO property, which
was the only change in either Net 1 or Net 2's property portfolio after June 30,
2000, did not require any modification to Net 2's adjusted net asset value
because the net proceeds from the sale were used by Net 2 to repay debt, and
therefore Net 2's corresponding agreed upon fair market property value and
projected liabilities were reduced by identical amounts.
Each component of the agreed upon adjusted net asset value was determined
as follows:
PROPERTY VALUE. Based upon Lexington's estimate as to the value of each of
the Net Partnerships portfolios which were subsequently agreed to by the general
partners, Lexington derived its value in accordance with the underwriting
criteria Lexington typically uses in establishing purchase prices when it makes
new property investments.
Lexington analyzed each property owned by the Net Partnerships and
reviewed:
- each property's location within their respective submarkets;
- each lease with respect to its term, rental rate increases, corporate
guarantees and property maintenance provisions;
- the present and anticipated conditions in the markets where the Net
Partnership's properties are located; and
- the prospects for selling or releasing the properties on favorable terms
in the event of a vacancy.
Lexington also evaluated each tenant's financial strength, growth prospects
and competitive position within its respective industry and each property's
strategic importance and function within each tenant's operations or
distribution systems. In addition, Lexington considered the potential effect of
the Transaction on its funds from operations, cash flows and long-term capital
appreciation. After giving weight to these factors, the anticipated closing date
and reviewing the characteristics of the Net Partnership's properties compared
to other properties acquired by Lexington, Lexington valued the properties at
$148.3 million. This value was derived by capitalizing projected rental revenue
at a 10.2% blended rate, consistent with the implied going-in capitalization
rates in Stanger & Co.'s 1999 appraisals. Projected rental revenue is estimated
rental revenue for the year 2001 under the leases currently in place, assuming
100% occupancy without any allowance for
65
75
vacancy or reserves. Where, as in the case of the Net Partnerships, rental
revenue is generated under net leases, rental revenue is synonymous with net
operating income.
PROJECTED LIABILITIES. Projected liabilities are the estimated mortgages
payable outstanding at June 30, 2001 (which was the originally anticipated
closing date of the Transaction) based upon the scheduled amortization of all
mortgage notes payable outstanding at June 30, 2000 ($74.9 million) plus all
other liabilities (primarily accrued interest) as shown on respective balance
sheets of the Net Partnerships as of June 30, 2000 ($1.2 million) and estimated
mortgage assumption costs ($1.2 million). Unlike the mortgages and other
liabilities that are deducted for purposes of determining liquidation value and
are calculated as of June 30, 2000, the "projected liabilities" estimated for
purposes of determining the adjusted net asset value reflect the reduced amount
of mortgages and other liabilities that are anticipated to be outstanding as of
the originally anticipated closing date of the Transaction.
The following table details the assumptions used in calculating projected
liabilities ($000's):
NET 1 NET 2
------- -------
Estimated mortgages payable................................. $18,477 $56,406
Estimated mortgage assumption and repayment fees............ 355 887
Accrued interest payable.................................... 165 213
Other liabilities........................................... 438 340
------- -------
$19,435 $57,846
======= =======
ESTIMATED LIQUIDATION COSTS. Liquidation costs are estimated costs that
the Net Partnerships would incur if they were to sell their properties. These
differ from transaction expenses, which are estimated costs arising from the
transaction, such as legal, accounting and advisory fees, printing expenses, and
solicitation costs. Estimated liquidation costs include brokerage commissions,
legal fees, transfer taxes, title insurance and due diligence costs. They are
good faith estimates made by the general partners based upon their experience in
buying and selling net-leased properties. These seller-borne costs are not
reflected in the appraised values provided by Stanger & Co. Liquidation costs
are subtracted from net asset value in order to approximate the amount which the
Net Partnerships would have received had they liquidated as of June 30, 2000.
The parties agreed that it would be fair to adjust the agreed upon fair market
property value in this manner. The liquidation costs estimated for purposes of
determining the adjusted net asset value are the same as the liquidation costs
used to determine liquidation value.
TRANSACTION EXPENSES
Net 1, Net 2 and Lexington will each be responsible for and bear one-third
of the aggregate costs and expenses incurred by all of them at any time in
connection with pursuing, negotiating or consummating the Transaction other than
the fees and expenses of Prudential Securities and Cohen & Steers. Lexington
will bear 100% of the fees and expenses of Prudential Securities and Net 1 and
Net 2 will each bear 50% of the fees and expenses of Cohen & Steers. Lexington
will enter into an indemnification agreement with each of the general partners
that will provide indemnification protection to each of the general partners and
their respective affiliates with respect to claims which could arise in
connection with the proposed Transaction, whether or not the Transaction is
consummated.
66
76
Lexington and the general partners estimate that the expenses of the
Transaction applicable to each of the Net Partnerships and Lexington will total
approximately $3.3 million as follows ($000):
LEXINGTON NET 1 NET 2
--------- ----- -----
Legal Expenses.............................................. $ 300 $275 $275
Accounting Expenses......................................... 80 60 60
Fairness Opinions and Valuations............................ 1,225 183 183
Proxy Solicitation.......................................... 50 35 35
Printing.................................................... 50 50 50
Listing Fees................................................ 40 -- --
Miscellaneous............................................... 265 25 25
------ ---- ----
TOTAL....................................................... $2,010 $628 $628
====== ==== ====
ANTICIPATED ACCOUNTING TREATMENT
Lexington will account for the mergers as a purchase in accordance with
Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 16 "Business Combinations." The
financial statements of Lexington will reflect the combined operations of
Lexington and the Net Partnerships from the effective time of the mergers.
NO FRACTIONAL COMMON SHARES
No fractional common shares will be issued by Lexington in the Transaction.
Each limited partner who would otherwise be entitled to fractional common shares
will receive cash having an amount equal to the value of such fractional shares,
based on the average closing price of the common shares during the 20 day period
prior to, but not including, the closing date of the mergers.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE TRANSACTIONS THAT
THE GENERAL PARTNERS CONSIDERED
In determining whether to accept and recommend the Transaction, the general
partners considered the following two principal alternatives to the Transaction
that could have been pursued by each Net Partnership:
(1) continuation of each Net Partnership pursuant to its existing
limited partnership agreement; and
(2) liquidation of each Net Partnership.
In analyzing these alternatives, the general partners:
(1) reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative;
and
(2) compared the amount of the merger consideration with the value of
the continuation and liquidation alternatives.
SUMMARY OF VALUATION ALTERNATIVES
The valuation estimates described below were prepared by the general
partners based upon the information available to the general partners at the
time the estimates were computed. Subsequent to preparing these estimates, and
in connection with their recommendation that the limited partners approve the
Transaction, the general partners also considered the fairness opinions given by
Prudential Securities to Lexington and by Cohen & Steers to the Net
Partnerships. The analysis performed by Prudential Securities and Cohen & Steers
are summarized below under the heading "FAIRNESS OPINIONS" beginning on page 80.
However, neither Prudential Securities nor Cohen & Steers gave any opinion with
respect to the alternatives considered by the general partners. Furthermore, the
general partners considered the appraisals provided by Stanger & Co., but only
with respect to the valuation of the Net Partnerships' properties. The
67
77
appraisals of Stanger & Co. are summarized below under the heading "APPRAISALS"
beginning on page 103.
The estimated values assigned to each Net Partnership under the various
alternatives are subject to significant uncertainties. These uncertainties exist
because the comparative estimated values are based upon a number of estimates,
variables and assumptions made by the general partners. In addition, varying
market conditions affect these valuation estimates. Therefore, no assurance can
be given that the estimated values will be realized. Actual realized values,
moreover, may be higher or lower than the estimates of such values. While each
of the general partners believes it has a reasonable basis for the assumptions
made, it is unlikely that all of the assumptions employed by the general
partners will prove to be accurate in all material respects. Some assumptions
used by the general partners as to future events have been selected to simplify
the analysis and may not approximate the actual experience of each of the Net
Partnerships.
The following table summarizes the results of the general partners'
comparative analysis of the alternatives based on a per $1,000 original
investment:
PER $1,000 ORIGINAL INVESTMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL MERGER ESTIMATED GOING- ESTIMATED
NET PARTNERSHIP CONSIDERATION(1) CONCERN VALUE(2) LIQUIDATION VALUE(3)
--------------- ---------------- ----------------- --------------------
Net 1........................... $820.38 $637.96 - $706.24 $751.17
Net 2........................... $819.52 $723.35 - $801.18 $762.77
---------------
(1) Based upon the agreed upon adjusted net asset value, which is the estimated
value of each Net Partnership's properties at June 30, 2000 less estimated
liquidation costs, an estimate of mortgage notes payable at June 30, 2001
(which was the originally anticipated closing date of the Transaction) based
primarily upon the scheduled amortization of all mortgages outstanding at
June 30, 2000, estimated mortgage assumption fees and repayment fees, and
all other liabilities outstanding at June 30, 2000.
(2) Based upon a discounted cash flow approach utilizing a range of discount
rates from 13.5% to 15%.
(3) Based upon estimated value of each Net Partnership's properties less
estimated liquidation costs, mortgage assumption fees and repayment fees, if
any, and stated liabilities at June 30, 2000.
The general partners assumptions, utilized in connection with both the
"Continuation" and "Liquidation" alternatives described in the sections that
follow, relate, among other things, to:
- projections as to each Net Partnership's future income, expenses, cash
flow and other significant financial matters;
- the capitalization rates that would likely be used by prospective buyers
if each Net Partnership's assets were liquidated;
- appropriate discount rates applied to expected cash flows in computing
the present value of the cash flows that may be received with respect to
each Net Partnership; and
- selling costs and other expenses, costs, offsets and contingencies
attributable to the sale of assets and liquidation of each of the Net
Partnerships.
CONTINUATION
BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF CONTINUATION ALTERNATIVE
Continuing each Net Partnership without change would have the following
effects, some of which the limited partners might perceive as benefits:
- Continue Original Investment. The limited partners would not be subject
to the risks associated with the ongoing operations of Lexington and its
investment strategy. Instead, each of the Net Partnerships would remain a
separate entity, with its own assets and liabilities, and would pursue
its current investment objectives consistent with the guidelines,
restrictions and safeguards contained in its limited partnership
agreement.
68
78
- Not Dependent on Lexington's Performance. Each Net Partnership's
performance would not be affected by the performance of Lexington and the
other Net Partnership.
- Liquidation. Eventually, each Net Partnership would liquidate its
holdings and distribute the proceeds received in liquidation in
accordance with the terms of the Net Partnership's limited partnership
agreement.
- No Change in Voting Rights or Operating Policies. There would be no
change in the nature of the limited partners' voting rights and no change
in the Net Partnerships' operating policies.
- No Transaction Expenses. The Net Partnerships would not incur their
respective share of the expenses of the Transaction.
- Continuance of Passive Activity Losses. The limited partners would
continue to have the ability to offset income from their investment in
the Net Partnerships with passive activity losses from the limited
partners' other investments.
- No Immediate Federal Income Taxation. A limited partner would not be
subject to any immediate federal income taxation that will otherwise be
incurred by it as a consequence of the Transaction if it is a tax paying
individual or entity.
However, the general partners believe that maintaining the Net Partnerships
as separate entities would have the following disadvantages:
- Inability to Protect Capital Investment and Realize Capital
Appreciation. As a result of the Net Partnerships' dependence on a
limited number of tenants, the Net Partnerships are susceptible to
significant revenue declines if tenants experience credit difficulties.
Moreover, the Net Partnerships have limited financial flexibility to take
advantage of growth opportunities. Accordingly, the general partners do
not believe that the Net Partnerships would be able to achieve two of
their primary objectives: protecting the capital invested by limited
partners and delivering capital appreciation to limited partners.
- Smaller Distributions. As a smaller entity with limited capital
resources, the general partners believe that, over time, distributions
from the Net Partnerships will be lower as a percentage of rental
revenues than distributions made by Lexington. This is because the
general partners set aside reserves out of operating cash flow.
Lexington's reserve requirements are much lower as a result of its
greater financial flexibility and portfolio diversification. Moreover,
the cash flow disruption resulting from a vacancy is more material to the
Net Partnerships than it would be to a larger company with broader
portfolio diversification.
- Limited Liquidity. The limited partners' ability to sell their units
would continue to be limited, since the units are not listed on an
exchange and there is no established public trading market or public
market valuation for the units. The common shares issued in the
Transaction will be listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
- Less Diversification. Each Net Partnership's portfolio of properties
would be less diversified and therefore the loss of a major tenant or an
economic downturn in the region where a property is located would have a
greater impact on each Net Partnership's ability to make distributions
than it would on Lexington following the Transaction.
- No Cost Savings. Each Net Partnership will continue to incur
administrative expenses which could be reduced by the Transaction. For
example, because each Net Partnership is subject to SEC reporting
requirements, they will continue to be obligated to comply with SEC
filing requirements.
- Management Fee. Each Net Partnership would continue to be managed
externally and, as a result, would continue to pay a management fee.
69
79
VALUATION OF CONTINUATION ALTERNATIVE
An examination of the continuation option entails an analysis of the
going-concern value for each of the Net Partnerships, assuming that each such
Net Partnership continues as currently constituted and limited partners continue
to receive quarterly distributions from operations as determined by the general
partners. In deriving the going concern valuations, the general partner used a
discounted cash flow analysis on each individual property. The analyses involved
many assumptions, which the general partners made based upon their in-depth
knowledge of the properties, their tenants and the individual markets in which
each is located. The most significant of the assumptions are detailed below. In
calculating the per unit valuations the general partner calculated the amount,
per $1,000 of original investment, that each limited partner would receive as
provided for in the limited partnership agreement:
- Leases with inflation adjustments -- An annual inflation rate of 2% is
assumed.
- Leases with percentage rent provisions -- Tenant sales figures grow at a
range of 2% to 3% annually. The Net 1 property in Sumter, SC leased to
Wal-Mart is assumed to be vacant in 2001, with the tenant still obligated
for base rent; however, percentage rents will no longer be realized.
- Leases that expire prior to 2011 -- All tenants are expected to renew at
estimated market rents at renewal date.
- Vacant Property in Earth City, Missouri -- Released April 1, 2001 at
$3.00 per square foot compared to $2.50 for previous lease.
- Reserves -- An annual reserve of $0.20 per square foot is provided for
tenant improvements and leasing commissions.
- Debt maturities -- All maturing mortgages are assumed to be refinanced at
an 8.5% interest rate, 20-year amortization schedule, 10-year maturity
with a 1% refinancing cost.
- Operating costs -- Increase at 2.75% per annum.
- Liquidation -- Assumes all properties are sold in 2011, utilizing a 10%
capitalization rate on projected or contract rents, a 3% cost of sale and
1% mortgage assumption fees. This capitalization rate is based upon the
general partners' experience and detailed knowledge of the properties.
Based on their experience in valuing and acquiring net-lease properties,
the general partners believed that a 10% capitalization rate was
reasonable.
- Discount rates -- The general partners applied to projected cash flows
and projected residual values discount rates which ranged from 13.50% to
15.00%. These discount rates are based upon the general partners'
experience and detailed knowledge of the properties. Based on their
experience in valuing and acquiring net-lease properties, the general
partners believed that a range of discount rates from 13.50% to 15.00%
was reasonable.
Based upon these assumptions the general partners derived a going concern
value for each Net Partnership, per $1,000 of original investment, based upon a
range of discount rates as follows:
DISCOUNT RATE NET 1 NET 2
------------- ------- -------
13.50% $706.24 $801.18
14.00% $682.48 $774.10
14.50% $659.73 $748.17
15.00% $637.96 $723.35
LIQUIDATION
BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF LIQUIDATION ALTERNATIVE
Another alternative to the Transaction is for each Net Partnership to
dissolve and liquidate by selling its properties and other assets, repaying its
existing liabilities not assumed by the buyer, including prepayment
70
80
and yield maintenance penalties or mortgage assumption fees and distributing the
net sales proceeds to the limited partners as well as to the general partners in
accordance with the distribution provisions of its limited partnership
agreement. The primary advantage of this alternative would be to provide
liquidity to limited partners as properties are sold, based upon the net
liquidation proceeds received from the sale of each Net Partnership's assets.
The general partners do not believe that liquidation would be as beneficial
to the limited partners as the Transaction, for the following reasons:
- Less Favorable Price. The general partners believe that an aggressive
liquidation of individual properties could result in significant
discounts from appraised values, while a gradual disposition would likely
involve higher administrative costs and greater uncertainty, either of
which would reduce the portion of net sales proceeds available for
distribution to the limited partners. The Net Partnerships might not be
able to liquidate all of their assets for an extended period of time.
This could result in the Net Partnerships continuing to have fixed costs
but fewer assets from which to satisfy such costs.
- Inability to Return Entire Investment. The general partners believe they
could not return the limited partners' entire investment if they were to
currently implement the liquidation alternative.
VALUATION OF LIQUIDATION ALTERNATIVE
The general partners estimated the liquidation value of each Net
Partnership as described below:
NET 1 NET 2
---------- ----------
($000'S EXCEPT ON UNIT
DATA AND FOOTNOTES)
Appraised value(a).......................................... $ 46,750 $101,562
Brokerage fees(b)........................................... (1,403) (3,047)
Legal fees(c)............................................... (315) (560)
Reports -- due diligence(d)................................. (45) (80)
Transfer taxes(e)........................................... (52) (529)
-------- --------
Subtotal.................................................... 44,935 97,346
Mortgages and interest payable(f)........................... (20,794) (59,354)
Other Liabilities(g)........................................ (438) (340)
Loan assumption fees(h)..................................... (355) (887)
-------- --------
Estimated liquidation proceeds.............................. $ 23,348 $ 36,765
-------- --------
Limited partners proceeds................................... $ 23,115 36,397
Limited partnerships units outstanding...................... 30,772 477,167
Liquidation value per $1,000 of original investment......... $ 751.17 $ 762.77
======== ========
---------------
(a) The appraised value is based upon property appraisals performed by Stanger
& Co. for 22 of the 25 properties owned by the Net Partnerships as of
December 31, 1999. The purchase prices (including transaction costs) of the
remaining 3 properties, all of which were purchased in 2000, were used.
(b) The assumed brokerage fee is 3.0% of the sales price.
(c) Legal fees assumed to be $35,000 per property.
(d) Estimated at $5,000 per property.
(e) Estimated based upon the rates in effect at June 30, 2000 for each state in
which a property is located.
(f) As stated in the June 30, 2000 Form 10-Q for each Net Partnership, less
mortgage balloon payments made in July 2000.
(g) As stated in the June 30, 2000 Form 10-Q for each Net Partnership.
71
81
(h) Assumed to be 1.5% of mortgage notes payable. In the event mortgages would
be pre-paid, the resulting yield maintenance penalties would be greater.
CONCLUSION
The general partners reached the conclusions as to the superiority of the
Transaction over the continuation alternative and the liquidation alternative,
noting that some elements of their analysis were subject to uncertainty. In
comparing the estimated potential value of the merger consideration with the
estimated potential values of the alternatives to the mergers, the general
partners have noted that:
- it is not possible to assign a specific value to the units of each Net
Partnership or to predict accurately the prices at which the Lexington
common shares will trade in the market following the Transaction;
- there are similar difficulties in establishing the value to limited
partners of the alternatives to the Transaction, with such values also
dependent upon a number of market conditions not susceptible to precise
determination and
- the assumptions used by the general partners in establishing values for
the alternatives to the Transaction may not prove to be accurate, and
such consideration may have a value higher or lower than the values
estimated by the general partners.
Notwithstanding the uncertainties in estimating the value of each of the
Net Partnerships and the Lexington common shares, the general partners believe
the available information suggests that the approval of the Transaction is the
more attractive alternative for limited partners.
CONSEQUENCES IF MERGERS NOT CONSUMMATED
If the mergers are not consummated, each Net Partnership will continue to
operate as a separate legal entity, with its own assets and liabilities, and
with no change in its investment objectives, policies and restrictions.
THE MERGER AGREEMENT
The following is a summary of the material terms and provisions of the
merger agreements. To understand the merger agreements fully, you should read
carefully read the merger agreements, which are attached as Annex A-1 and Annex
A-2, respectively, to this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/
Prospectus.
CONVERSION OF SHARES
Under the merger agreements, at the time of the mergers, the units will be
converted to the right to receive the merger consideration described in "THE
MERGERS -- The Merger Consideration" beginning on page 60.
EXCHANGE OF CERTIFICATES
Mellon Investor Services LLC will act as transfer agent in the mergers and
will exchange the units in the Net Partnerships for the merger consideration.
Promptly following the mergers, Lexington will cause Mellon to mail to each
Net Partnership limited partner who requested and possesses a certificate or
certificates which before the mergers represented outstanding units, materials
which will specify that Mellon will only deliver merger consideration upon the
delivery of the unit certificates to Mellon. Instructions for use in
surrendering the unit certificates in exchange for the merger consideration will
also be included. After the mergers, each limited partner holding unit
certificates must surrender their certificates to Mellon in order to receive the
merger consideration in the mergers. The unit certificate surrendered must be
transferable as Mellon may reasonably require. Neither
72
82
Lexington nor Mellon will be liable to any former limited partner for any amount
properly delivered to a public official under applicable abandoned property,
escheat or similar laws.
Most limited partners never requested certificates representing their
units. Limited partners that never requested a certificate and do not possess a
unit certificate do not have to surrender any certificate to obtain the merger
consideration.
Until unit certificates are surrendered after the mergers, holders of unit
certificates will earn but will not be paid dividends or other distributions
declared after the mergers on common shares or interest on the dissenter
debentures for which their units have been transferred. When the unit
certificates are surrendered, any unpaid dividends or other distributions will
be paid, without interest, and any accrued but unpaid interest will be paid,
without any additional interest. After the mergers, there will be no transfers
on the unit registry of the units. If unit certificates are presented after the
mergers, they will be canceled and exchanged for merger consideration.
If a unit certificate has been lost, stolen or destroyed, Mellon will issue
merger consideration to the owner of the lost, stolen or destroyed unit
certificate after it has received appropriate evidence as to its loss, theft or
destruction and appropriate evidence as to its ownership by the claimant. Mellon
may require a limited partner who lost his or her unit certificate to post bond
as insurance against any claim that may be made against Lexington with respect
to the certificate.
EFFECTIVE TIME OF THE MERGERS
The mergers will become effective upon the filing of a certificate of
merger with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware or at a later time
which Lexington and the general partners will have agreed upon and designated in
their filings in accordance with applicable law. Lexington and each of the Net
Partnerships have the right, acting unilaterally, so long as they have not
willfully and materially breached the merger agreement, to terminate the merger
agreement should the mergers not be consummated by the close of business on
December 31, 2001.
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
The merger agreements contain representations and warranties of Lexington
and Net 3 and the Net Partnerships to each other as to:
- the organization, standing and power of each party and its subsidiaries
to carry on their business as now being conducted;
- the authority to enter into and consummate the merger agreements and all
other related documents;
- the due execution and delivery of the merger agreements and that they
constitute the valid and binding agreement and obligations of each party;
- absence of any conflicts that may arise as a result of the execution and
delivery of the agreements with any charter documents, other agreements
or transactions of the parties;
- the filings, consents, approvals, and authorizations needed to consummate
the Transaction;
- the capitalization of each party;
- the ownership of their subsidiaries and any other interests in any
corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, business trust or any other
entities;
- availability of SEC documents filed in connection with public offerings
of their securities since 1995 prior to the closing of the Transaction
and that to the best of each parties knowledge they are true in all
material respects, and that the financial statements contained in those
filings have been prepared according to generally accepted accounting
principle;
- each parties actual knowledge that there are no material litigations
pending against them;
73
83
- the absence any material changes in how each party has conducted its
business prior to the date of the merger agreements;
- each party and its subsidiaries compliance with all federal and state tax
laws;
- the validity and accuracy of the books of account and other financial
records of each party and their subsidiaries;
- the ownership interest of each of the respective parties properties;
- environmental matters;
- labor matters;
- the absence of any obligation of each party to pay any finder's fee,
brokerage or agent's commissions or other like payments in connection
with the negotiations leading to the merger agreements;
- each party having no convertible securities the terms of which require
any anti-dilution adjustments by reason of the consummation of the
Transaction; and
- other contracts, commitments and developmental rights of each party.
The merger agreements also contain additional representations and
warranties by Lexington to the Net Partnerships as to the validity of the
issuance and delivery by Lexington of the common shares and the dissenter
debentures.
The merger agreements further contain additional representations and
warranties by each of the Net Partnerships to Lexington as to any related party
transactions of the Net Partnerships and their affiliates.
CONDITIONS TO CONSUMMATION OF THE MERGERS
The respective obligations of Lexington and the Net Partnerships to effect
the mergers are subject to the satisfaction of specific conditions, including
the following:
- the listing of the common shares on the New York Stock Exchange prior to
or concurrently with the consummation of the Transaction;
- the approval of (1) the merger of Net 1 into Net 3 by the holders of a
majority of the Net 1 units and (2) the merger of Net 2 into Net 3 by the
holders of a majority of the Net 2 units;
- the approval of the issuance of the common shares by the holders of a
majority of the common shares and the Lexington convertible preferred
shares voting on an as-converted basis, voting as a single class;
- the receipt, from any advisor who had previously given a fairness opinion
to either of the Net Partnerships or Lexington, of a bring-down fairness
opinion, which is an opinion that a fairness opinion given at an earlier
date remains valid, taking into account any changed circumstances, if
requested by whichever party received the original opinion;
- the absence of any legal restraints or prohibitions preventing completion
of the Transaction;
- the receipt by each of Lexington and the Net Partnerships of an opinion
of counsel to each of Net 1 and Net 2, on the one hand, and to Lexington,
on the other hand, as to various tax and REIT matters including the
continuing status of Lexington as a REIT following completion of the
Transaction;
- the receipt of any requisite third-party approvals;
- the receipt of all necessary state securities laws or "Blue Sky" permits
or approvals required to carry out the Transactions and no stop order
with respect to any of the foregoing shall be in effect;
- subject to waiver by Lexington, the absence of limited partners electing
to receive dissenter debentures with an aggregate principal amount in
excess of $20 million; and
74
84
- the closing of the mergers of each Net Partnership concurrently with the
closing of the merger of the other Net Partnership.
Consummation of the mergers is also subject to the satisfaction or waiver
of other customary conditions specified in the merger agreements.
The parties may waive one or more of the foregoing conditions to the
mergers except that if that waiver involves a material change to the terms of
the mergers, the parties must resolicit proxies or consents from the waiving
party's shareholders or limited partners, as applicable.
CONDUCT OF BUSINESS PENDING THE MERGER
During the period from the date of each merger agreement to its effective
date, the parties have agreed to carry on their respective business in the
usual, regular and ordinary course in substantially the same manner as
previously conducted. In addition, the parties have agreed to use commercially
reasonable efforts to preserve intact their respective current business
organizations, goodwill and ongoing business. The parties also agreed, except as
disclosed to the other party or in limited circumstances specified in the merger
agreement, that they shall:
- use their reasonable efforts, and shall cause each of their respective
subsidiaries to use their reasonable efforts, to preserve intact their
business organizations and goodwill and keep available the services of
their respective officers and employees;
- confer on a regular basis with one or more representatives of the other
to report material operational matters and any proposals to engage in
material transactions;
- promptly deliver to the other true and correct copies of any report,
statement or schedule filed with the SEC; and
- promptly notify the other of any material emergency or other material
change in the condition, financial or otherwise, of the business,
properties, assets or liabilities, or any material governmental
complaints, investigations or hearings or communications indicating that
the same may be contemplated, or the breach in any material respect of
any representation, warranty, covenant or agreement contained in the
merger agreement.
Prior to the effective time of the mergers and except as otherwise
disclosed in the merger agreements, each Net Partnership, respectively, has
agreed that, unless Lexington has consented in writing, it would conduct its
operations according to its usual, regular and ordinary course in substantially
the same manner as previously conducted, and it would not
- amend its respective limited partnership agreement;
- issue any units or other interests in such Net Partnership, make any
distribution other than in accordance with past practice, effect any
recapitalization or other similar transaction, except pursuant to the
exercise of options, warrants, conversion rights and other contractual
rights existing on the date of the merger agreement and disclosed
pursuant to such merger agreement;
- grant, confer or award any option, warrant, conversion right or other
right not existing on the date hereof to acquire any units;
- sell or otherwise dispose of:
(A) any properties of such Net Partnership; or
(B) any other assets which are material, individually or in the
aggregate, other than in the ordinary course of business, except that
each Net Partnership may distribute out any excess cash prior to
consummation of its respective merger; or
- make any loans, advances or capital contributions to, or investments in,
any other person.
75
85
Prior to the effective time of the mergers and except as otherwise
disclosed in the merger agreements, Lexington agreed that, unless the respective
Net Partnership consents in writing, Lexington would conduct its operations
according to its usual, regular and ordinary course in substantially the same
manner as previously conducted, and it would not
- amend its Declaration of Trust except as contemplated by the merger
agreements;
- issue any of its capital shares, share dividend, recapitalization or
other similar transaction, except pursuant to the exercise of options,
warrants, conversion rights and other contractual rights existing on the
date of the merger agreements and disclosed pursuant to such merger
agreements;
- grant, confer or award any option, warrant, conversion right to or other
right not existing on the date hereof to acquire any of its capital
shares;
- sell or otherwise dispose of any of its properties or any of its capital
stock of or interests in any of its subsidiaries, except in the ordinary
course of business; or
- make any loans, advances or capital contributions to, or investments in,
any other person other than in connection with the sale of properties,
except in the ordinary course of business.
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
Prior to the effective time, each Net Partnership has agreed that it will:
- immediately cease and terminate any existing discussions or negotiations
with any other parties with respect to any alternative transaction; and
- notify Lexington immediately if any inquiries or proposals are received
by a party with respect to an alternative transaction. However, nothing
contained in the merger agreements prohibits the general partners from
furnishing information to, or entering into discussions with or
negotiations with, any person or entity that makes an unsolicited bona
fide acquisition proposal, if, and only to the extent that:
(A) the general partners determine in good faith that action is required
for it to comply with fiduciary duties to limited partners,
respectively, imposed by law as advised by counsel;
(B) prior to furnishing any information to or entering into discussions
or negotiations with, such person or entity, that party provides
written notice to the other party to the effect that it is furnishing
information to, or entering into discussions with, that person or
entity; and
(C) subject to any confidentiality agreement with that person or entity,
that party keeps the other party to the respective merger agreement
informed of the terms of any such discussions, proposals or
negotiations.
TERMINATION
TERMINATION BY MUTUAL CONSENT. Each merger agreement may be terminated and
the respective merger may be abandoned at any time prior to the effective time,
before or after the approval of the agreement by the limited partners of a Net
Partnership or the shareholders of Lexington by the mutual written consent of
Lexington and the Net Partnership.
TERMINATION BY EITHER LEXINGTON OR A NET PARTNERSHIP. Each merger
agreement may be terminated and the respective merger may be abandoned:
- By either Lexington or the respective Net Partnership, if the respective
merger is not consummated by December 31, 2001;
- By Lexington or the respective Net Partnership, if the approval of the
limited partners of that Net Partnership is not obtained as required
under the relevant merger agreement;
- By Lexington or the respective Net Partnership, if the approval of the
shareholders of Lexington is not obtained as required under the relevant
merger agreement;
76
86
- By either Lexington or the respective Net Partnership, upon any event
which has a material adverse effect, as defined in the merger agreement,
on either party's ability to perform its obligation under the relevant
merger agreement;
- By either Lexington or the respective Net Partnership, if there has been
a breach by the other of any representation or warranty contained in the
relevant merger agreement, which is not cured within 30 days after
written notice of that breach is given to the breaching party by the
non-breaching party;
- By either Lexington or the respective Net Partnership, if there has been
a material breach of any of the covenants or agreements set forth in the
relevant merger agreement by the other, which is not curable or, if
curable, is not cured within 30 days after written notice of that breach
is given to the breaching party by the non-breaching party;
- By the respective Net Partnership, if the respective general partner
determines that termination is required by reason of a superior proposal
being made;
- By Lexington, if the independent trustees determine that termination is
required by reason of an alternative acquisition proposal being made; or
- By Lexington or the respective Net Partnership, if the 2000 appraisals of
Stanger & Co. are greater than 105% or less than 95% of the deemed value
of the properties as previously agreed upon by the parties.
- By either Lexington or the respective Net Partnership, if a governmental,
regulatory or administrative agency or commission shall have issued an
order or decree to terminate.
TERMINATION FEES PAYABLE BY THE NET PARTNERSHIPS. Each of the Net
Partnerships must pay a termination fee to Lexington equal to 4% of the value of
the merger consideration to be received by the general partners and limited
partners of that Net Partnership if its respective merger agreement is
terminated in any of the following circumstances:
- the respective Net Partnership accepts, selects or recommends a superior
proposal for an alternative proposal, pursuant to its fiduciary
obligations;
- the respective Net Partnership withdraws or adversely modifies its
recommendation of its respective merger;
- the respective Net Partnership makes any positive or neutral
recommendation regarding any proposal for any superior proposal, pursuant
to its fiduciary obligations;
- the respective Net Partnership enters into any agreement which would
result in the consummation such a superior proposal; or
- the general partner of the respective Net Partnership authorizes any of
the above.
TERMINATION FEES PAYABLE BY LEXINGTON. Lexington must pay a termination
fee to each of the Net Partnerships equal to 4% of the value of the merger
consideration to be received by the general partners and limited partners of the
Net Partnerships if the merger agreements are terminated in any of the following
circumstances:
- Lexington accepts a proposal for an alternative acquisition transaction
including merger, sale or similar transaction which would preclude the
Transaction from occurring;
- the Board of Trustees withdraws or adversely modifies its recommendation;
- the Board of Trustees makes any positive or neutral recommendation
regarding any proposal for an alternative acquisition transaction;
- Lexington enters into any agreement which would result in an alternative
acquisition transaction occurring; or
- the Board of Trustees of Lexington authorizes any of the above.
77
87
EXTENSION; WAIVER
At any time prior to the effective time, either party, by action taken by
the Lexington's Board of Trustees or the general partners, as applicable, may,
to the extent legally allowed:
- extend the time for the performance of any of the obligations or other
acts of the other party to the merger agreement;
- waive any inaccuracies in the representations and warranties made to the
other party in the merger agreement or in any document delivered pursuant
to the merger agreement; and
- waive compliance with any of the agreements or conditions for the benefit
of the other party contained in the merger agreement.
Any agreement on the part of a party hereto to any extension or waiver
shall be valid only if set forth in an instrument in writing signed on behalf of
that party.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
A number of conflicts of interest are inherent in the relationships among
the general partners, the Net Partnerships and Lexington.
AFFILIATED GENERAL PARTNERS
The general partner of each Net Partnership has an independent obligation
to assess whether the terms of the Transaction are fair and equitable to the
limited partners of its Net Partnership without regard to whether the
Transaction is fair and equitable to any of the other participants. The general
partners of the Net Partnerships are affiliates of Lexington. While the general
partners have sought faithfully to discharge their obligations to their Net
Partnership, there is an inherent conflict of interest in serving in a similar
capacity with respect to the Net Partnerships.
Mr. Roskind controls the general partners of the Net Partnerships. He is
also the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Co-Chief Executive Officer and a
significant shareholder of Lexington. If the Transaction is consummated, the
general partners of the Net Partnerships will receive operating partnership
units in Net 3 in return for contributing their general partnership interest in
the Net Partnerships in a tax-deferred transaction. Upon consummation of the
mergers, based on his ownership position as of September 18, 2001, which was the
latest practicable date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, and assuming that the average closing price
of Lexington common shares is $15.00, which is the midpoint of the range for
determining the number of common shares to be issued, and that no limited
partners elect to receive their merger consideration in the form of dissenter
debentures, Mr. Roskind will beneficially own approximately 7.1% of the current
voting securities on a fully-diluted basis, consisting of approximately:
- 327,078 common shares of Lexington;
- 1,535,323 operating partnership units, 1,408,590 of which currently are
convertible into common shares; and
- 253,750 options to purchase common shares.
In determining the terms and conditions of the mergers on behalf of the Net
Partnerships, these relationships caused Mr. Roskind and each general partner to
have conflicts of interest.
Mr. Roskind has an inherent financial interest in consummating the mergers.
The terms and conditions of the mergers might have been structured differently
by persons not having a financial interest in the mergers, or the mergers may
not have proceeded at all. Following the Transaction, Mr. Roskind will continue
as Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Co-Chief Executive of Lexington. As
such, Mr. Roskind will be entitled to receive stock options under Lexington's
stock option plan which may appreciate in value if the benefits of the
Transaction are realized.
78
88
As an officer and shareholder of Lexington, Mr. Roskind would benefit,
along with the other Lexington shareholders, to the extent that Lexington issues
a lesser number of common shares in the Transaction. In the event a Net
Partnership rejects the merger proposal, Mr. Roskind would also expect to
benefit from the continuation of Lexington's management of that Net Partnership
and from administrative fees and reimbursements that would continue to be paid
to Lexington. In addition, Mr. Roskind's proportionate interest in Lexington on
a fully-diluted basis will be diluted by an amount proportionately related to
the number of common shares issued in the Transaction. Mr. Roskind's
proportionate ownership of the current voting securities on a fully-diluted
basis of Lexington will be reduced from 7.7% before the mergers to 7.1% after
the mergers, assuming that the average closing price of Lexington common shares
is $15.00, which is the midpoint of the range for determining the number of
common shares to be issued, and that no limited partners elect to receive their
merger consideration in the form of dissenter debentures.
While the Net Partnerships engaged Cohen & Steers to render their fairness
opinions and Stanger & Co., an independent real estate appraisal firm, to
appraise the Net Partnerships' properties, no formal procedures were put in
place to minimize the potential conflicts of interest between Mr. Roskind and
the Net Partnerships or as between individual Net Partnerships. No independent
representative has been retained to act on behalf of the limited partners for
purposes of negotiating or structuring the terms of the Transaction. It is
possible that, if the general partners had not been affiliated with Lexington,
the terms of the Transaction, including the number of common shares issued to
the limited partners in the Transaction, would have been more advantageous to
the limited partners.
Limited partners should consider these conflicting interests of Mr. Roskind
and Lexington.
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS/PRIOR DEALINGS
Lexington and the Net Partnerships have, from time to time in the past,
bought and sold properties from and to each other. Of the nine properties owned
by Net 1, three, which are located in Phoenix, AZ, San Diego, CA and Henderson,
NC, were purchased from Lexington. Of the fifteen properties owned by Net 2,
three, which are located in Plymouth, MI, Columbia, SC and Jacksonville, AL,
were purchased from Lexington. If the Transaction is consummated, Lexington will
reacquire these properties, and the acquisition price may effectively be at a
discount to the original acquisition price paid by the Net Partnerships.
In September 1999, Lexington sold two properties to Net 1. These sales were
consummated, despite the ongoing discussions between the parties at that time
regarding a potential merger transaction, because Net 1 had previously sold
other properties and needed to acquire properties in order to defer its taxable
gain under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code. The properties purchased
from Lexington met the Section 1031 requirements, and the general partners
believed that aborting the acquisitions would have had negative tax consequences
for the limited partners of Net 1.
The table below summarizes all transactions between Lexington and, as
applicable, Net 1 or Net 2 for the six months ended June 30, 2001 and the years
ended December 31, 2000 and 1999.
PURCHASES FROM AND SALES TO LEXINGTON
------------------------------------------------------------
ENTITY PROPERTY AMOUNT TRANSACTION DATE
------ ---------------- ----------- ----------- -----
Net 1 San Diego, CA $ 8,605,000 Purchased 09/99
Net 1 Phoenix, AZ 11,390,000 Purchased 09/99
Net 1 Henderson, NC 7,750,000 Purchased 05/00
Net 2 Bristol, PA 8,610,000 Sold 12/99
Net 2 Jacksonville, AL 2,135,000 Purchased 06/99
Net 2 Columbia, SC 4,750,000 Purchased 08/99
Net 2 Plymouth, MI 7,815,000 Purchased 05/00
79
89
BROKERAGE FEES PAID TO LEXINGTON
--------------------------------------------
ENTITY PROPERTY AMOUNT DATE
------ ----------------- -------- -----
Net 1 Various $ 87,500 06/99
(Autozone)
Net 2 Ocala, FL 195,000 01/99
Net 2 Various, TX (NCS) 54,250 01/99
Net 2 Bristol, PA 87,750 03/99
Net 2 Hampton, VA 119,600 03/00
MANAGEMENT FEES/OVERHEAD REIMBURSEMENT PAID TO LEXINGTON
---------------------------------------------------------
ENTITY AMOUNT DATE
------ ------------------- ----------------
Net 1 $197,522 1999
Net 2 308,946 1999
Net 1 199,726 2000
Net 2 250,628 2000
Net 1 148,312 06/01
Net 2 206,294 06/01
THE INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES
Four of the seven members of Lexington's Board of Trustees are independent
trustees. See "INFORMATION ABOUT LEXINGTON -- Board of Trustees -- Independent
Trustees" on page 136. The independent trustees of Lexington have sought to
honor faithfully their fiduciary duties to Lexington and its shareholders. None
of the independent trustees has any financial interest in any Net Partnership or
the general partners of any Net Partnership, and the independent trustees owe no
fiduciary duties to the limited partners.
The general partners and the independent trustees have endeavored to
ameliorate conflicts of interest between Mr. Roskind and Lexington through the
engagement of Prudential Securities to render a fairness opinion regarding the
merger consideration with respect to Lexington. However, because no independent
trustee devotes a major portion of his time to Lexington's affairs, the
independent trustees have had to rely on the management and staff of Lexington
for information, data and analysis regarding Lexington and the Net Partnerships.
Because the management and staff of Lexington are under the control of Mr.
Roskind, in his capacity as Lexington's Co-Chief Executive Officer, the views
and considerations of Mr. Roskind could have, to some extent, influenced the
information and analysis of Lexington's management and staff, and thus the
independent trustees.
LEXINGTON'S OWNERSHIP OF UNITS OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF THE NET PARTNERSHIPS
Lexington held, as of September 18, 2001, which was the latest practicable
date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus, approximately 540 limited partnership units of Net 1,
(representing approximately 1.8% of the outstanding units) and 15,782 limited
partnership units of Net 2 (representing approximately 3.3% of the outstanding
units). Lexington intends to consent to the Transaction with respect to these
units.
FAIRNESS OPINIONS
GENERAL
Set forth below is a summary description of the fairness opinions which
were delivered in connection with the Transaction. Also included is a discussion
of the various financial analyses each of the fairness opinion-givers used in
rendering their opinions.
80
90
The general partners and Lexington received fairness opinions with respect
to both the merger agreements and the subsequent amendments. Set forth below are
summaries of each of the fairness opinions delivered in connection with the
Transaction as reflected in the amended merger agreements.
Prudential Securities and Cohen & Steers have, in some cases, used
different assumptions for purposes of their respective analyses and therefore
may have reached different conclusions with respect to aspects of their analyses
even though each of them ultimately concluded that the merger consideration is
fair from a financial point of view.
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES FAIRNESS OPINION
On July 30, 2001, Prudential Securities delivered its written opinion to
the Board of Trustees of Lexington, stating that, as of that date, the merger
consideration was fair to the shareholders of Lexington from a financial point
of view. This opinion is subject to all of the assumptions, limitations and
qualifications described in Prudential Securities' opinion.
The Board of Trustees did not give any special instructions to or impose
any limitations on Prudential Securities in connection with its analysis of the
fairness of the merger consideration or the preparation of its fairness opinion.
A copy of the Prudential Securities fairness opinion, which sets forth the
assumptions made, matters considered and limits on the review undertaken, is
attached to this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus as
Annex B and is incorporated herein by reference. The summary below is qualified
in its entirety by reference to the full text of the Prudential Securities
fairness opinion. Lexington shareholders are urged to read the Prudential
Securities fairness opinion in its entirety.
Because Prudential Securities was engaged by, and its fairness opinion was
delivered to, the Board of Trustees of Lexington, the purpose of Prudential
Securities' analysis was to determine whether the consideration being paid by
Lexington for the Net Partnerships was fair from a financial point of view from
the perspective of Lexington's shareholders, rather than from the perspective of
the Net Partnerships. For purposes of its fairness opinion, Prudential
Securities considered the merger consideration to be paid by Lexington for the
Net Partnerships to represent the sum of the common shares and cash to be paid
to the limited partners, and the total indebtedness of the Net Partnerships as
of March 31, 2001 adjusted for the subsequent sale of property.
THE PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES FAIRNESS OPINION IS DIRECTED ONLY TO THE FAIRNESS
OF THE MERGER CONSIDERATION TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF LEXINGTON FROM A FINANCIAL
POINT OF VIEW. THE PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES FAIRNESS OPINION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A
RECOMMENDATION TO ANY SHAREHOLDER AS TO HOW SUCH SHAREHOLDER SHOULD VOTE AT THE
MEETING OR AS TO ANY OTHER ACTION SUCH SHAREHOLDER SHOULD TAKE REGARDING THE
MERGERS.
In conducting its analysis and arriving at its written fairness opinion
dated July 30, 2001, Prudential Securities reviewed all information and
considered all financial data and other factors that it deemed relevant under
the circumstances, including, among others, the following:
- the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated November 13, 2000, and the
Amendment to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated July 19, 2001;
- historical financial and operating data of Lexington that was publicly
available, including, but not limited to:
- Lexington's annual reports on Form 10-K for the three fiscal years ended
December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998;
- Lexington's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2001; and
- Lexington's proxy statement for the annual meeting of shareholders held
on May 23, 2001;
- historical financial and operating data of the Net Partnerships that was
publicly available, including, but not limited to:
81
91
- the Net Partnerships' annual reports on Form 10-K for the three fiscal
years ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998; and
- the Net Partnerships' quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2001;
- other information relating to the Net Partnerships, including, but not
limited to, forecasts of the future financial performance of the Net
Partnerships for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2001, 2002, 2003,
2004, and 2005 prepared by the general partners of the Net Partnerships;
- other information relating to Lexington, including, but not limited to:
- forecasts of the future financial performance of Lexington for the
fiscal years ending December 31, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 prepared by
the management of Lexington; and
- a schedule of future investment projects, acquisitions and dispositions;
- publicly available financial, operating and stock market data concerning
companies engaged in businesses that Prudential Securities deemed
comparable to Lexington or the Net Partnerships, or otherwise relevant to
Prudential Securities' inquiry;
- the financial terms of recent comparable transactions that Prudential
Securities deemed relevant;
- the historical stock prices and trading volumes of Lexington common
shares; and
- other financial studies, analyses and investigations as Prudential
Securities deemed appropriate.
The financial forecasts provided to Prudential Securities included, among
other things, projected funds from operations, or FFO, figures for 2001 and
2002. The FFO projections for those years, as described below in the discussion
of Prudential Securities' Comparable Company analysis, were taken into account
by Prudential Securities in performing its analyses. However, Prudential
Securities did not give any significant weight to the other financial
projections provided to it by the general partners of the Net Partnerships and
by the management of Lexington.
Prudential Securities assumed, with Lexington's consent, that the mergers
will be effected in accordance with the terms set forth in the Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated as of November 13, 2000, as amended on July 19, 2001.
Prudential Securities met with the senior management of Lexington and the
general partners of the Net Partnerships to discuss the following:
- their respective operations and historical financial statements;
- the prospects for their respective businesses;
- their estimates of their respective businesses' future financial
performance;
- the financial impact of the mergers on Lexington and the Net
Partnerships, respectively; and
- other matters that Prudential Securities deemed relevant.
Lexington's management and the Net Partnerships' general partners provided
Prudential Securities with financial and other information, as well as forecasts
of the future financial performance of Lexington and the Net Partnerships. In
connection with its review and analysis, and in arriving at its fairness
opinion, Prudential Securities:
- relied on the accuracy and completeness of the financial and other
information provided by Lexington's management and the Net Partnerships'
general partners, without independent verification;
- did not perform or obtain any independent valuation or appraisal of any
of the assets or liabilities of Lexington or the Net Partnerships;
- assumed that the forecasts of the future financial performance of
Lexington and the Net Partnerships provided by Lexington's management and
the Net Partnerships' general partners, and the assumptions
82
92
and bases of these forecasts, represented the best currently available
estimates and judgments of Lexington's management and the Net
Partnerships' general partners;
- assumed that the mergers qualified as tax-free reorganizations within the
meaning of Section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code;
- based its fairness opinion on the economic, financial and market
conditions as they existed and could be evaluated on July 30, 2001; and
- did not address:
- the relative merits of the mergers or alternative business strategies
which may have been available to Lexington;
- the prices at which Lexington common shares will actually trade
following consummation of the mergers; or
- the fairness of the consideration to be paid to any limited partners
electing to receive the dissenter debentures.
The Prudential Securities fairness opinion and its presentation to the
Board of Trustees of Lexington were among the many factors considered by the
Board of Trustees in determining to recommend approval of the merger agreement
and the mergers. Consequently, the analyses of Prudential Securities described
below should not be viewed as determinative of the opinion of the Board of
Trustees with respect to the merger consideration. The merger consideration was
not determined on the basis of any recommendation by Prudential Securities.
In arriving at its fairness opinion, Prudential Securities performed a
variety of financial analyses. The summary below is not and is not intended to
be a complete description of the analyses performed by Prudential Securities.
The preparation of a fairness opinion is a complex process involving the
determination of the most appropriate and relevant methods of financial analyses
and the application of those methods to the particular circumstances. Therefore,
a fairness opinion is not necessarily susceptible to partial analysis or summary
description.
Prudential Securities believes that its analyses must be considered as a
whole and that selecting portions of its fairness opinion or certain factors
considered by Prudential Securities, without consideration of all analyses and
factors, could create an incomplete view of the evaluation process underlying
the preparation of the fairness opinion.
In addition, Prudential Securities made numerous assumptions with respect
to industry performance, general business, economic, market and financial
conditions and other matters, many of which are beyond the control of Lexington
and the Net Partnerships. Any estimates contained in Prudential Securities'
analyses are not necessarily indicative of actual values or future results.
Actual values or future results may be significantly more or less favorable than
these analyses suggest. Additionally, estimates of the values of businesses and
securities are not and are not intended to be appraisals, and may not
necessarily reflect the prices at which such businesses or securities may be
sold. Accordingly, these analyses and estimates are inherently subject to
substantial uncertainty.
Subject to the foregoing, the following is a summary of the material
financial analyses presented by Prudential Securities to the Board of Trustees
in connection with its fairness opinion.
COMPARABLE COMPANY ANALYSIS
Prudential Securities compared selected financial ratios for the Net
Partnerships with the corresponding financial ratios for the companies listed
below. Each of these companies is engaged in the acquisition, operation and
management of triple net lease properties and Prudential Securities considered
each of them to be reasonably comparable to the Net Partnerships for purposes of
its analysis.
83
93
COMPANY NAME EXCHANGE TICKER
------------ -------- ------
- Commercial Net Lease Realty............................... NYSE NNN
- Franchise Finance Corp. of America........................ NYSE FFA
- Lexington Corporate Properties Trust...................... NYSE LXP
- Realty Income Corporation................................. NYSE O
- US Restaurant Properties, Inc............................. NYSE USV
For each comparable company, Prudential Securities considered market
trading multiples as a function of both historical and projected funds from
operations. The projected funds from operations, or FFO, per share for the
comparable companies were obtained from reports of First Call, a data service
that monitors and publishes a compilation of earnings estimates produced by
selected research analysts regarding companies of interest to institutional
investors, as of July 27, 2001. The estimates published by First Call were not
prepared in connection with the mergers or at Prudential Securities' request and
may or may not prove to be accurate. The trading multiples of the comparable
companies were based on closing stock prices on July 27, 2001. Prudential
Securities' calculations resulted in the following relevant ranges for the
comparable companies:
- a range of equity market value as a multiple of actual 2000 FFO per share
of 8.5x to 11.6x, with a mean of 9.8x;
- a range of equity market value as a multiple of projected 2001 FFO per
share of 8.1x to 13.0x, with a mean of 9.9x; and
- a range of equity market value as a multiple of projected 2002 FFO per
share of 7.6x to 10.4x, with a mean of 8.8x.
Prudential Securities applied these multiples to the Net Partnerships'
actual 2000 FFO, and to the projected 2001 and 2002 FFO provided by the general
partners of the Net Partnerships. Using these FFO amounts, and after adding the
indebtedness of the Net Partnerships as of March 31, 2001, adjusted for the
subsequent sale of property, Prudential Securities arrived at:
- a range of implied consideration of $141.3 million to $165.3 million,
with a mean of $151.8 million, based on the Net Partnerships' actual 2000
FFO;
- a range of implied consideration of $151.7 million to $197.4 million,
with a mean of $168.6 million, based on the Net Partnerships' projected
2001 FFO; and
- a range of implied consideration of $146.8 million to $173.0 million,
with a mean of $158.1 million, based on the Net Partnerships' projected
2002 FFO.
The following table summarizes the results of this comparable company
analysis performed by Prudential Securities:
COMPARABLE COMPANY ANALYSIS(1)
IMPLIED VALUATION
COMPARABLE MULTIPLES OF NET PARTNERSHIPS
---------------------- ------------------------
REVENUES(2) FFO(2) HIGH LOW MEAN DEBT HIGH LOW MEAN
----------- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ------ ------
($ IN MILLIONS)
2000 ACTUAL.......... $15.6 $7.8 11.6x 8.5x 9.8x $75.7 $165.3 $141.3 $151.8
2001 PROJECTED....... $15.9 $9.4 13.0x 8.1x 9.9x $75.7 $197.4 $151.7 $168.6
2002 PROJECTED....... $15.8 $9.4 10.4x 7.6x 8.8x $75.7 $173.0 $146.8 $158.1
---------------
(1) Comparable companies analyzed included Commercial Net Lease Realty,
Franchise Finance Corp. of America, Lexington Corporate Properties Trust,
Realty Income Corporation and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc.
(2) Financial projections provided by the general partners of the Net
Partnerships.
84
94
Reviewing the results of the comparable company analysis, Prudential
Securities observed that the agreed upon merger consideration is less than the
ranges of consideration implied by each of these comparable company analyses.
None of the comparable companies is identical to the Net Partnerships.
Accordingly, a complete analysis of the results of the comparable company
analysis cannot be limited to a quantitative review of such results. Rather,
such a complete analysis would involve complex judgments concerning differences
in financial and operating characteristics of the comparable companies and other
factors that could affect the public valuations of the comparable companies and
the Net Partnerships.
PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS ANALYSIS
Prudential Securities analyzed the consideration paid in several recent
real estate portfolio transactions considered by Prudential Securities to be
reasonably similar to the mergers. Prudential Securities computed the
capitalization rates from these transactions, as determined by the target
portfolio's net operating income, or NOI, for the latest twelve months, and the
purchase price paid, based upon publicly available information for these
transactions.
In its analysis, Prudential Securities considered the following recent
office and industrial portfolio transactions:
DATE TOTAL
ACQUIROR TARGET COMPLETED PURCHASE PRICE
-------- ------ --------- ---------------
($ IN MILLIONS)
Lend Lease Real Estate American Industrial 5/14/01 $292.2
Investments Properties Portfolio
Long Island Industrial First Industrial Realty Trust 12/05/00 $169.6
Investors, Inc. Portfolio
CalWest Industrial Pacific Gulf Properties Ind. 11/22/00 $852.9
Properties, LLC Portfolio
SL Green Realty Corporation Reckson NYC Office Portfolio 5/24/99 $ 84.5
Prentiss Properties Trust Newport National Corporation 2/5/98 $ 90.4
Properties
Equity Office Properties Wright Runstad Properties 12/17/97 $625.0
Trust
Kilroy Realty Corporation Allen Group Portfolio 11/7/97 $ 87.1
Glenborough Realty Trust Inc. Advance Properties 9/15/97 $103.0
Glenborough Realty Trust Inc. T. Rowe Price Properties 9/15/97 $146.8
85
95
In addition, the following recent retail portfolio transactions were
considered by Prudential Securities:
DATE TOTAL
ACQUIROR TARGET COMPLETED PURCHASE PRICE
-------- ------ --------- ---------------
($ IN MILLIONS)
Weingarten Realty Investors Burham Pacific Properties, 4/02/01 $ 289.1
Inc.
Kimco Realty Corp. Center Trust, Inc. 11/27/00 $ 160.6
BPP Retail, LLC AMB Property Corp. Portfolio 12/1/99 $ 560.3
Regency Realty Corporation Pacific Retail Trust 2/28/99 $1,156.9
Properties
Kranzco Realty Trust German Investors Properties 10/1/98 $ 89.1
Konover Property Trust Konover & Associates South 9/16/98 $ 79.9
Properties
Kimco Realty Corp. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 7/1/98 $ 167.5
Portfolio
Excel Realty Trust AIG Baker Shopping Portfolio 7/1/98 $ 168.5
Malan Realty Investors, Inc. Sandor Development Co. 6/13/98 $ 33.7
Properties
Konover Property Trust Rodwell/Kane Properties 3/23/98 $ 57.1
Regency Realty Corporation Midland Group Portfolio 5/18/98 $ 172.3
Prudential Securities' calculations resulted in a range of capitalization
rates (latest twelve months NOI to purchase price) of 7.1% to 11.4%, with a mean
of 9.2%.
Applying these capitalization rates to the Net Partnerships' latest twelve
months NOI resulted in a range of implied consideration of $132.2 million to
$211.4 million, with a mean of $163.9 million, based on the Net Partnerships'
latest twelve months NOI. The results of the precedent transactions analysis may
be summarized as follows:
PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS ANALYSIS
IMPLIED VALUATION OF
CAPITALIZATION RATES NET PARTNERSHIPS
-------------------- ------------------------
NOI HIGH LOW MEAN HIGH LOW MEAN
----- ----- ---- ----- ------ ------ ------
($ IN MILLIONS)
Latest Twelve Months............ $15.0 11.4% 7.1% 9.2% $211.4 $132.2 $163.9
Prudential Securities observed that the merger consideration is within the
range implied by its analysis of the precedent transactions and was less than
the mean of the consideration implied by that analysis.
None of the target portfolios in any of these precedent transactions was
directly comparable to the portfolios of the Net Partnerships, and none of these
transactions was directly comparable to the mergers. Most notably, in none of
the precedent transactions was the portfolio comprised of 100% triple net lease
properties. Furthermore, it was impossible to determine the percentage of each
portfolio comprised of triple net leases, if any, from publicly available
information about the precedent transactions. Due to these factors, the range of
valuations resulting from the precedent transactions analysis was relatively
large. Accordingly, undue weight should not be placed on the results of this
analysis. A complete analysis of the results of this analysis cannot be limited
to a quantitative review of such results. Rather, such a complete analysis would
involve complex judgments concerning differences in financial and operating
characteristics of the target portfolios and applicable transactions, as well as
other factors that might affect the consideration paid for each of the target
portfolios and for the Net Partnerships.
ASSET VALUE ANALYSIS
Prudential Securities analyzed the Net Partnerships' combined asset value
in relation to the merger consideration. The gross real estate asset value was
determined on the basis of information provided by the
86
96
general partners of the Net Partnerships, including the appraisals performed by
Stanger & Co. for properties owned by the Net Partnerships as of December 31,
2000.
The appraisals performed by Stanger & Co. were not prepared in connection
with the mergers or at Prudential Securities' request. Prudential Securities did
not perform or obtain any independent valuation of any of the Net Partnerships'
assets. In conducting its asset value analysis, Prudential Securities adjusted
the real estate valuation that resulted from these appraisals by its own
estimate of the current values of the non-real estate assets and liabilities of
the Net Partnerships as of March 31, 2001. This analysis indicated an asset
value of $151.1 million for the Net Partnerships. The results of the asset value
analysis may be summarized as follows:
($ IN MILLIONS)
Stanger & Co. Appraised Properties.......................... $145.7
Net Working Capital......................................... $ 5.4
------
ADJUSTED ASSET VALUE........................................ $151.1
Prudential Securities noted that the adjusted asset value resulting from
this analysis was greater than the merger consideration.
LIQUIDATION VALUE ANALYSIS
Prudential Securities analyzed the Net Partnerships' combined liquidation
value in relation to the merger consideration. The liquidation value was based
on the adjusted asset value as set forth above adjusted for disposition costs
related to the sale of the real estate assets.
Reflecting the fact that the adjusted real estate value generally assumes
the assets are not sold under distress, Prudential Securities assumed an orderly
liquidation of the Net Partnerships' assets would occur over a one-year period.
Because the sales proceeds would not be available immediately but rather as real
estate assets were sold over this one-year period, sales proceeds were
discounted using a range of discount rates from 11.0% to 13.0% to determine the
net present value of the estimated proceeds. This range of discount rates was
determined after examining an estimated weighted average cost of capital to
Lexington and market conditions.
This analysis indicated a range of liquidation values from $138.1 million
to $139.3 million for the Net Partnerships. The following table summarizes the
results of Prudential Securities' liquidation analysis:
DISCOUNT RATE
------------------------
11.0% 12.0% 13.0%
------ ------ ------
($ IN MILLIONS)
Adjusted Asset Value....................................... $151.1 $151.1 $151.1
Less: Sales Cost........................................... $ (4.4) $ (4.4) $ (4.4)
------ ------ ------
Sale Proceeds.............................................. $146.8 $146.8 $146.8
Liquidation Present Value.................................. $139.3 $138.7 $138.1
Prudential Securities observed that the merger consideration was greater
than the range of discounted liquidation values resulting from its liquidation
analysis.
87
97
CONCLUSION
The following table summarizes the results of the various analyses
performed by Prudential Securities in arriving at its fairness opinion:
SUMMARY INFORMATION
IMPLIED VALUATION ANALYSIS HIGH LOW MEAN
-------------------------- ------ ------ ------
($ IN MILLIONS)
Comparable Company
2000 Actual FFO.......................................... $165.3 $141.3 $151.8
2001 Estimated FFO....................................... $197.4 $151.7 $168.6
2002 Estimated FFO....................................... $173.0 $146.8 $158.1
Precedent Transaction (LTM NOI)............................ $211.4 $132.2 $163.9
Asset Value................................................ NA NA $151.1
Liquidation Present Value.................................. $139.3 $138.1 $138.7
TOTAL MERGER CONSIDERATION(1).............................. $140.7
---------------
(1) The total merger consideration as of the date on which Prudential Securities
delivered its fairness opinion to the Board of Trustees of Lexington based
on March 31, 2000 financial statements adjusted for the subsequent sale of
property.
QUALIFICATIONS, RELATIONSHIPS AND COMPENSATION OF PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES
Lexington selected Prudential Securities to provide a fairness opinion
because:
- it is a nationally recognized investment banking firm engaged in the
valuation of businesses and their securities in connection with mergers
and acquisitions and for other purposes;
- it has substantial experience in transactions similar to the mergers; and
- it was already familiar with Lexington.
Lexington and Prudential Securities entered into an engagement letter,
pursuant to which Lexington:
- paid a retainer fee of $300,000 to Prudential Securities upon execution
of the engagement letter;
- paid an advisory fee of $400,000 to Prudential Securities upon delivery
of an earlier Prudential Securities fairness opinion in connection with
the original terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated November 1,
2000;
- paid an advisory fee of $400,000 to Prudential Securities upon delivery
of the Prudential Securities fairness opinion in connection with the
amended merger agreement;
- will pay an additional fee of $75,000 to Prudential Securities upon
completion of the mergers;
- will reimburse Prudential Securities for its reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses arising in connection with the mergers or the engagement; and
- will indemnify Prudential Securities and related persons of Prudential
Securities against specific liabilities, including liabilities under
securities laws, arising in connection with the mergers or the
engagement.
This arrangement was recommended by Prudential Securities and agreed to by
Lexington.
Prudential Securities will update its fairness opinion if Lexington
requests that it does so. There have not been, and are not expected to be, any
significant events which would or could alter the fairness determination of
Prudential Securities at this time. However, if the Board of Trustees of
Lexington believes that there have been any event or events which individually
or cumulatively may have altered the basis for Prudential
88
98
Securities' fairness determination, Lexington would have the ability to cause
Prudential Securities to update its fairness opinion and either confirm or
disaffirm its prior determination as to the fairness of the merger
consideration, from a financial point of view, to the shareholders of Lexington.
In the past two years, Prudential Securities has not received any other
compensation from Lexington, its affiliates or the Net Partnerships.
Prudential Securities has in the past, however, provided investment banking
and other financial advisory services to Lexington and may continue to do so.
Prudential Securities has received, and may receive, customary fees for the
rendering of these services.
In the ordinary course of business, Prudential Securities may actively
trade the Lexington common shares for its own account and for the accounts of
customers, and accordingly, may at any time hold a long or short position in
such securities.
OPINION OF COHEN & STEERS CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC FOR NET 1 L.P.
On July 19, 2001, Cohen & Steers Capital Advisors LLC delivered to the
general partner of Net 1 L.P. its written opinion that, as of the date of that
opinion, the merger consideration was fair, from a financial point of view, to
the limited partners of Net 1. Because Cohen & Steers was engaged by, and its
fairness opinion was delivered to the general partners of the Net Partnerships,
the purpose of Cohen & Steers' analysis was to determine whether the
consideration being paid by Lexington for the Net Partnerships was fair, from a
financial point of view from the perspective of the limited partners, rather
than from the perspective of Lexington or its shareholders. For purposes of this
fairness opinion, Cohen & Steers assumed that the merger consideration to be
paid to the limited partners of Net 1 would be:
- 27.346 Lexington common shares, with a market value of $410.19 per
limited partnership unit; and
- $410.19 in cash.
Cohen & Steers' opinion is based on the closing price of Lexington common
shares of $15.00 per share as of July 13, 2001, the last business day prior to
the oral presentation of the opinion made to the general partner of Net 1 on
July 16, 2001. The closing price of Lexington common shares on July 18, 2001,
the day prior to the delivery of the written opinion to the general partner of
Net 1 on July 19, 2001, was $15.11. The number of Lexington common shares to be
issued will be recalculated based upon the average closing price during the 20
day period prior to, but not including, the closing date of the mergers. The
number of shares issuable in exchange for each limited partnership interest will
be limited to a maximum of 29.30 shares and a minimum of 25.64 shares. The
maximum and minimum shares issued correspond to an average price of $14.00 and
$16.00 per Lexington common share, respectively. Net 1 did not retain Cohen &
Steers to act as a financial advisor, nor did Cohen & Steers advise Net 1 in
connection with the merger.
The preparation of a fairness opinion is a complex process involving
various determinations as to the most appropriate and relevant quantitative and
qualitative methods of financial analysis, and the application of those methods
to the particular circumstances. Therefore, a fairness opinion is not readily
susceptible to partial analysis or summary description. In arriving at its
opinion, Cohen & Steers considered the results of all its analyses as a whole
and did not attribute any particular weight to any analysis or factor considered
by it. Subject to the matters summarized in its opinion, the judgments made by
Cohen & Steers as to its analysis and the factors considered by it caused Cohen
& Steers to be of the opinion that, as of the date of its opinion, the merger
consideration to be received in exchange for each partnership unit was fair,
from a financial point of view. Cohen & Steers' analysis must be considered as a
whole and considering any portion of such analyses or of the factors considered,
without considering all analyses and factors, could create a misleading or
incomplete view of the process underlying Cohen & Steers' opinion.
The full text of Cohen & Steers' written opinion, which describes the
assumptions made, valuation techniques used, matters considered and limitations
on the scope of review undertaken by Cohen & Steers is attached as Annex C to
this document. The following is only a summary of Cohen & Steers' opinion and is
not a substitute for the full text of the opinion. We urge the Net 1 limited
partners to read Cohen & Steers'
89
99
opinion carefully and in its entirety. Cohen & Steers has consented to the
references to Cohen & Steers and its opinion in this document and to the
attachment of Cohen & Steers' opinion as an annex to this document.
Cohen & Steers' opinion is directed to the general partner and relates only
to the fairness, as of the date of its opinion, of the Net 1 merger
consideration to the limited partners from a financial point of view. Cohen &
Steers' opinion is directed only to the limited partners as a class and does not
address:
- the fairness of the merger consideration to any individual limited
partner;
- the fairness of any alternative consideration involved in the merger;
- the consideration to be received in the merger by limited partners who
elect to receive dissenter debentures;
- whether the value of the merger consideration, as per the form of the
amendment to the executed merger agreement, is the same as, more, or less
than the merger consideration contemplated by the executed merger
agreement; or
- the merits of the underlying decision by the Net 1 general partner to
engage in the merger.
Cohen & Steers' opinion was provided at the request of and for the
information of Net 1's general partner, for the purpose of evaluating the Net 1
merger consideration. This opinion does not constitute a recommendation to any
limited partners to vote in favor of the merger, and should not be relied upon
for such purpose.
In arriving at its opinion, Cohen & Steers, among other things:
- reviewed publicly available financial statements and other business and
financial information of both Net 1 and Lexington;
- reviewed internal financial and operating data, including financial
forecasts prepared by the general partner of Net 1 for Net 1 and by the
management of Lexington for Lexington;
- discussed the past and current operations and financial condition and the
prospects of both Net 1 and Lexington, with the general partner of Net 1
and senior management of Lexington;
- reviewed the form of the amendment to the merger agreement and assumed
that the amendment to the merger agreement which Cohen & Steers reviewed
would conform in all material respects to the amendment to the merger
agreement as executed and delivered;
- performed various financial analyses, as Cohen & Steers deemed
appropriate, using valuation techniques, including:
- the application of the public trading multiples of triple-net REITs
reasonably comparable to Net 1, to the financial results of Net 1;
- a discounted cash flow analysis of Net 1's projected future free cash
flows;
- an analysis of the net asset value of Net 1;
- an analysis with respect to the liquidation of Net 1's portfolio assets;
- a review of the reported prices and trading activity of Lexington common
shares; and
- conducted such other financial studies, analyses and financial
investigations as Cohen & Steers deemed appropriate.
In its review and analysis and in formulating its opinion, Cohen & Steers:
- assumed and relied upon the accuracy and completeness of all information
furnished or otherwise communicated to Cohen & Steers, without
independent verification;
- relied upon the assurance of Net 1 that it was not aware of any
information or facts that would make the information provided to it
materially incomplete or misleading;
90
100
- assumed, at the direction of Net 1's general partner, that at the closing
of the merger, Lexington will have duly registered the common shares to
be received by the Net 1 limited partners with the Securities and
Exchange Commission;
- assumed that Lexington will have duly listed the common shares to be
received by the Net 1 limited partners for trading on the New York Stock
Exchange, and that all other material conditions to the closing of the
merger will have been satisfied;
- was not requested to, and therefore did not, independently verify the
accuracy or completeness of any information furnished by Net 1 or
Lexington or any publicly available information which it reviewed in
arriving at its opinion;
- did not undertake a physical inspection of any properties or make an
independent valuation or appraisal of any assets or liabilities,
contingent or otherwise, of Net 1;
- expressed no opinion about the estimated value of Net 1, as indicated by
the historical appraisals of Net 1's properties furnished by Net 1,
although Cohen & Steers did review and consider these appraisals;
- was not engaged to, and therefore did not, review any legal, accounting
or tax aspects of the merger;
- assumed, at the direction of Net 1's general partner and Lexington's
management, that the financial and operating forecasts reviewed by Cohen
& Steers were reasonably prepared on a basis reflecting the best current
estimates and good faith judgments of the general partner of Net 1 and
the management of Lexington as to their anticipated future financial
condition and operating results; and
- expressed no opinion with respect to those forecasts.
The financial and operational projections of Net 1's general partner are as
follows:
FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31,
--------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
($ IN MILLIONS)
Revenues............................................ $5.0 $4.9 $4.7 $3.9 $5.6
EBITDA(1)........................................... 4.6 4.5 4.3 3.4 5.1
Funds from Operations (FFO)(2)...................... 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.1 3.8
Funds Available for Distribution (FAD)(3)........... 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.8 3.1
---------------
(1) EBITDA is defined as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization.
(2) Funds from operations are defined as net income, computed in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles, excluding gains or losses from the
sale of property, plus depreciation and amortization and any pro rata funds
from operations from unconsolidated joint ventures.
(3) Funds available for distribution are derived by subtracting non-cash rent
and maintenance capital expenditures/replacement reserves from funds from
operations.
Cohen & Steers' opinion was necessarily based upon financial, economic,
monetary, market, regulatory and other conditions, including the financial
condition of Lexington, as they existed and could be assessed by Cohen & Steers
as of the date of its fairness opinion. Cohen & Steers did not express any
opinion as to:
- the value of Lexington common shares after being issued to the limited
partners of Net 1 pursuant to the merger; or
- the price at which Lexington common shares will trade following the
merger.
Cohen & Steers disclaimed any undertaking or obligation to advise any
person of any change in any fact or matter affecting Cohen & Steers' opinion
which may come or be brought to its attention after the date of the Cohen &
Steers opinion unless specifically requested by Net 1 to do so.
91
101
In requesting the Cohen & Steers fairness opinion, the general partner of
Net 1 did not give any special instructions to Cohen & Steers or impose any
restrictions or limitations on the scope of the investigations that Cohen &
Steers deemed necessary to render its fairness opinion. Cohen & Steers' opinion
does not constitute a recommendation as to any action any limited partner of Net
1 should take in connection with the merger agreement, the merger or any aspect
of the merger. The limited partners should not rely on the Cohen & Steers'
opinion in deciding whether to vote in favor of the merger or to take, or
refrain from taking, any other action. Cohen & Steers expressed no opinion or
recommendation with respect to the desirability of pursuing any alternative to
the merger. Cohen and Steers expressed no opinion as to whether the value of the
merger consideration, as contemplated by the form of the amendment to the
executed merger agreement, is the same as, more, or less than the merger
consideration contemplated by the executed merger agreement.
In rendering its opinion, Cohen & Steers was not engaged as an agent or
fiduciary of the general partner or the limited partners, or of any other third
party. Cohen & Steers' opinion related solely to the fairness, from a financial
point of view, of the Net 1 merger consideration to be received by the Net 1
limited partners. Cohen & Steers expressed no opinion as to the structure, terms
or effects of any other aspect of the transactions contemplated by the merger
agreement or any of the agreements or instruments delivered in executing the
merger.
The following is a summary of the material financial analyses performed by
Cohen & Steers in arriving at its opinion. No company or business used in such
analyses as a comparison is identical to Net 1 or Lexington, nor is any
evaluation of the results of such analyses entirely mathematical. Rather, those
analyses involve complex considerations and judgments concerning financial and
operating characteristics and other factors that could affect the acquisition,
public trading or other values of the companies or businesses being analyzed.
Any estimates contained in Cohen & Steers' analyses are not necessarily
indicative of actual values or predictive of future results or values. Actual
values, and future results and values, may be significantly more or less
favorable than those contained in the analyses. In addition, analyses relating
to the value of businesses or securities are not appraisals and do not reflect
the prices at which businesses or companies may actually be sold in the future.
Accordingly, such analyses and estimates are inherently subject to substantial
uncertainty.
ANALYSES OF SELECTED COMPARABLE PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES
Cohen & Steers compared selected financial ratios for Net 1 with the
corresponding financial ratios of publicly traded companies that are engaged
primarily in the ownership, management, operations and acquisition of triple-net
leased properties and that are reasonably comparable to Net 1. In determining
the appropriate comparable companies, Cohen & Steers considered a variety of
factors, including business focus, property portfolio composition and market
capitalization. These companies included:
COMPANY NAME EXCHANGE TICKER
------------ -------- ------
- Captec Net Lease Realty................................... NASDAQ CRRR
- Commercial Net Lease Realty............................... NYSE NNN
- W.P. Carey & Co. LLC...................................... NYSE WPC
- Franchise Finance Corporation............................. NYSE FFA
- HRPT Properties Trust..................................... NYSE HRP
- Lexington Corporate Properties Trust...................... NYSE LXP
- Realty Income Corporation................................. NYSE O
- US Restaurant Properties.................................. NYSE USV
For each of the comparable companies, Cohen & Steers calculated trading
multiples as a function of projected funds from operations and earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, as provided by the
general partner of Net 1. Funds from operations are defined as net income,
computed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, excluding
gains or losses from the sale of property, plus depreciation and amortization
and any pro rata funds from operations from unconsolidated joint ventures.
92
102
Projected funds from operations per share estimates for the comparable
companies were obtained from First Call, an on-line data service that compiles
earnings estimates developed by research analysts. Net 1's projected EBITDA and
funds from operations were derived from projections provided to Cohen & Steers
by the general partner of Net 1.
The trading multiples were based on closing stock prices on July 13, 2001.
Applying the comparable company multiples described above to Net 1's latest
quarter annualized EBITDA and funds from operations, and to Net 1's actual 2000
and projected 2001 and 2002 funds from operations results in a range of per unit
values for Net 1 that are summarized in the following table.
COMPARABLE MULTIPLES IMPLIED PER LP UNIT VALUES
ENTERPRISE VALUE/MARKET -------------------- -----------------------------
VALUE OF EQUITY MULTIPLES LOW HIGH MEAN LOW HIGH MEAN
------------------------- ---- ----- ----- ------- --------- -------
Latest Quarter Annualized
EBITDA(1)................................ 8.6x 12.0x 10.4x $592.25 $1,055.33 $844.09
Funds from Operation(2).................. 6.3x 11.3x 8.7x $580.35 $1,050.45 $808.64
Projected Funds from Operations
CY 2001(2)............................... 6.9x 12.6x 9.0x $672.31 $1,227.40 $877.65
CY 2002(2)............................... 6.6x 10.2x 8.4x $638.01 $ 993.87 $812.23
------- --------- -------
OVERALL MEAN............................... $620.73 $1,081.76 $835.65
------- --------- -------
---------------
(1) Based on multiple of Enterprise Value less net debt
(2) Based on multiple of Market Value of Equity
Cohen & Steers noted that the estimated market value of the Net 1 merger
consideration fell within the range of high and low implied per limited
partnership unit values.
DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
Cohen & Steers performed a discounted cash flow analysis of Net 1 by
calculating the present value, as of June 30, 2001, of the projected unleveraged
cash flows of Net 1 for the period from July 1, 2001 to December 31, 2005, based
upon projections provided by Net 1's general partner. Free cash flows are
defined as EBITDA net of non-cash rent and estimated maintenance capital
expenditures and replacement reserves.
The discounted cash flow analysis of Net 1 was determined by adding:
- the present value of the projected free cash flows of Net 1 for its
portfolio of properties over the period from July 2001 to December 2005,
and
- the present value of the estimated future value of the portfolio at the
end of 2005;
and then subtracting:
- the net debt outstanding of Net 1, as of June 30, 2001; and
- at the direction of the general partner, subsequent material changes to
the balance sheet, including:
- the cash dividend distribution made on July 31, 2001 to the general and
limited partners of Net 1, and
- the final distribution of cash outstanding to the general and limited
partners anticipated at closing of the Transaction as contemplated under
the merger agreement.
The range of estimated future portfolio values at the end of the projection
period was calculated by applying terminal multiples to the projected calendar
year 2005 EBITDA. Estimated free cash flows and future portfolio values were
discounted to present value using a range of discount rates. This discount rate
range is representative of Net 1 and its comparable peer group's weighted
average cost of capital. The present value of Net 1's projected cash flows and
future portfolio value was then multiplied by the limited partners' 99.0% share
of Net 1's discounted present value and divided by the number of limited
partnership units
93
103
outstanding at June 30, 2001, in order to derive the discounted cash flow value
per limited partnership unit. The relevant ranges are summarized in the
following table.
DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS LOW HIGH MEAN
----------------------------- ------- ------- -------
Range of Discount Rates................................. 11.0% 13.0% 12.0%
Range of Terminal Multiples of EBITDA................... 9.25x 10.25x 9.75x
Range of Implied per LP Unit Values..................... $655.41 $849.74 $750.03
Cohen & Steers noted that the estimated market value of the Net 1 merger
consideration was above the high, low and mean per limited partnership unit
values.
NET ASSET VALUE ANALYSIS
Cohen & Steers calculated the net asset value of Net 1 using projections
provided by Net 1's general partner. In doing so, Cohen & Steers applied a range
of capitalization rates to Net 1's projected property net operating income for
the twelve months ended June 30, 2002. Net operating income is defined as
property revenues less property expenses. The resulting gross real estate value
was added to the gross value of Net 1's other assets, including cash, and
reduced by Net 1's mortgage notes payable and other liabilities.
At the direction of the general partner, Cohen & Steers further adjusted
the Net 1 asset value to reflect subsequent material changes to the June 30,
2001 balance sheet, including:
- the cash dividend distribution made on July 31, 2001 to the general and
limited partners of Net 1; and
- the final distribution of cash outstanding to the general and limited
partners anticipated at closing of the Transaction as contemplated under
the merger agreement.
The resulting net asset value was then multiplied by the limited partners'
99.0% share of the net assets and divided by the number of limited partnership
units outstanding at June 30, 2001 to derive the net asset value per limited
partnership unit. The relevant ranges are summarized in the following table.
NET ASSET VALUE ANALYSIS LOW HIGH MEAN
------------------------ ------- ------- -------
Range of Capitalization Rates........................... 9.8% 10.8% 10.3%
Range of Implied per LP Unit Values..................... $580.77 $720.72 $650.74
Cohen & Steers noted that the estimated market value of the Net 1 merger
consideration fell within the range of high and low per limited partnership unit
values and exceeded the mean per limited partnership unit value.
NET LIQUIDATION VALUATION ANALYSIS
Cohen & Steers calculated the liquidation value of Net 1 using projections
provided by Net 1's general partner. In doing so, Cohen & Steers applied a range
of capitalization rates to Net 1's projected property net operating income for
the twelve months ended June 30, 2002. Net operating income is defined as
property level revenues less property level expenses. The resulting gross real
estate value was added to the gross value of Net 1's other assets, including
cash, and reduced by Net 1's mortgage notes payable, other liabilities and
estimated ordinary portfolio liquidation costs. Ordinary portfolio liquidation
costs, including typical brokerage fees, legal fees, the cost of due diligence
reports, property transfer taxes and loan assumption fees, were provided to
Cohen & Steers by Net 1's general partner.
At the direction of the general partner, Cohen & Steers further adjusted
the Net 1 asset value to reflect subsequent material changes to the June 30,
2001 balance sheet, including:
- the cash dividend distribution made on July 31, 2001 to the general and
limited partners of Net 1; and
- the final distribution of cash outstanding to the general and limited
partners anticipated at closing of the Transaction as contemplated under
the merger agreement.
94
104
The resulting net liquidation value was then multiplied by the limited
partners' 99.0% share of the net liquidated assets and divided by the number of
limited partnership units outstanding at June 30, 2001 to derive the net
liquidation value per limited partnership unit. The relevant ranges are
summarized in the following table.
LIQUIDATION VALUE ANALYSIS LOW HIGH MEAN
-------------------------- ------- -------- -------
Range of Capitalization Rates.......................... 9.8% 10.8% 10.3%
Range of Implied per LP Unit Values.................... $532.79 $669.250 $601.02
Cohen & Steers noted that the estimated market value of the Net 1 merger
consideration fell within the range of high and low per limited partnership unit
values and exceeded the mean per limited partnership unit value.
SUMMARY OF VALUATION ANALYSES
The results of the various valuation analyses performed by Cohen & Steers
in rendering its fairness opinion are summarized in the following table.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS LOW HIGH MEAN
------------------- ------- --------- -------
Comparable Publicly Traded Companies................... $580.35 $1,227.40 $835.65
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis.......................... $655.41 $ 849.74 $750.03
Net Asset Value Analysis............................... $580.77 $ 720.72 $650.74
Net Liquidation Value Analysis......................... $532.79 $ 669.25 $601.02
Market Value of Net 1 Merger Consideration(1).......... $820.38
TOTAL NET 1 MERGER CONSIDERATION(2).................... $820.38
---------------
(1) Based upon an estimated market valuation of 100% of face value of the common
shares and cash consideration being offered to the limited partners. The
common shares were valued using the then prevailing market price of $15.00
as of the close of business on July 13, 2001.
(2) Assumes that the average closing price of common shares during the 20 day
period prior to, but not including, the closing date of the mergers is
within the "collar" of $14.00 and $16.00 per share. The total merger
consideration is based on the sum of the market value of the common shares
and the cash consideration being offered to the limited partners. The number
of common shares which will actually be received by limited partners will be
based upon the average closing price.
SHARE TRADING HISTORY
Based upon publicly available information, Cohen & Steers reviewed the
average trading prices for Lexington common shares for the each of the prior 20,
30, 60, 90, 120 and 180-day periods ending July 13, 2001. The following table
sets forth these average trading prices.
PERIOD ENDING JULY 13, 2001
---------------------------
20-day...................................................... $14.74
30-day...................................................... $14.51
60-day...................................................... $13.90
90-day...................................................... $13.58
120-day..................................................... $13.40
180-day..................................................... $12.79
Cohen & Steers observed that the latest closing price for Lexington common
shares, which was $15.00 per share, was above the average trading price during
the 20, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 180-day periods. In addition, Cohen & Steers
observed that the 20 and 30-day average trading ranges were at or above $14.00
per share, which is the low end of the of the fixed price range of the merger
consideration.
95
105
QUALIFICATIONS, RELATIONSHIPS AND COMPENSATION OF COHEN & STEERS
Cohen & Steers is an investment banking firm regularly engaged in the
valuation of businesses and their securities in connection with mergers,
acquisitions, public and private capital raising and valuations for corporate
and other purposes. Cohen & Steers did not perform any financial advisory
services in connection with its engagement or the merger. To date, Net 1 has
paid Cohen & Steers aggregate fees of $100,000 related to fairness opinions
rendered by Cohen & Steers to the Net 1 general partner on November 9, 2000 and
$62,500 related to fairness opinions rendered by Cohen & Steers to the Net 1
general partner on July 19, 2001. Net 1 has agreed to reimburse Cohen & Steers
for certain expenses and liabilities in connection with its engagement. Net 1
has also agreed to indemnify Cohen & Steers, its directors, officers, employees
and affiliates against certain liabilities, including liabilities under federal
securities laws.
The fees for Cohen & Steers' opinion was not conditioned upon the
conclusion reached by Cohen & Steers as to the fairness of the merger
consideration, or upon the ultimate consummation of the merger. Except as
expressly set forth above, Net 1 imposed no limitation on the nature and scope
of, or methodologies and procedures used in, Cohen & Steers' financial analyses.
This arrangement was recommended by Cohen & Steers and agreed to by the general
partner of Net 1. In the past two years, Cohen & Steers has performed no other
work for, or received any other fees from, Net 1, Lexington or any of its
affiliates.
There have not been, and are not expected to be, any significant events
which would or could alter the fairness determination of Cohen & Steers at this
time.
However, if the general partner believes that there have been any event or
events which individually or cumulatively may have altered the basis for Cohen &
Steers' fairness determination, Net 2 would have the ability to cause Cohen &
Steers to update its fairness opinion and either confirm or disaffirm its prior
determination as to the fairness of the Transaction to Net 1.
OPINION OF COHEN & STEERS CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC FOR NET 2 L.P.
On July 19, 2001, Cohen & Steers Capital Advisors LLC delivered to the
general partner of Net 2 L.P. its written opinion that, as of the date of that
opinion, the merger consideration was fair, from a financial point of view, to
the limited partners of Net 2. Because Cohen & Steers was engaged by, and its
fairness opinion was delivered to the general partners of the Net Partnerships,
the purpose of Cohen & Sterns' analysis was to determine whether the
consideration being paid by Lexington for the Net Partnerships was fair, from a
financial point of view from the perspective of the limited partners, rather
than from the perspective of Lexington or its shareholders. For purposes of this
fairness opinion, Cohen & Steers assumed that the merger consideration to be
paid to the limited partners of Net 2 would be:
- 2.732 Lexington common shares, with a market value of $40.98 per limited
partnership unit; and
- $40.98 in cash.
Cohen & Steers' opinion is based on the closing price of Lexington common
shares of $15.00 per share as of July 13, 2001, the last business day prior to
the oral presentation of the opinion made to the general partner of Net 2 on
July 16, 2001. The closing price of Lexington common shares on July 18, 2001,
the day prior to the delivery of the written opinion to the general partner of
Net 2 on July 19, 2001, was $15.11. The number of Lexington common shares to be
issued will be recalculated based upon the average closing price during the 20
day period preceding, but not including, the closing date of the merger. The
number of shares issuable in exchange for each limited partnership interest will
be limited to a maximum of 2.93 shares and a minimum of 2.56 shares. The maximum
and minimum shares issued correspond to an average price of $14.00 and $16.00
per Lexington common share, respectively. Net 2 did not retain Cohen & Steers to
act as a financial advisor, nor did Cohen & Steers advise Net 2 in connection
with the merger.
The preparation of a fairness opinion is a complex process involving
various determinations as to the most appropriate and relevant quantitative and
qualitative methods of financial analysis, and the application of those methods
to the particular circumstances. Therefore, a fairness opinion is not readily
susceptible to partial analysis or summary description. In arriving at its
opinion, Cohen & Steers considered the results of all its
96
106
analyses as a whole and did not attribute any particular weight to any analysis
or factor considered by it. Subject to the matters summarized in its opinion,
the judgments made by Cohen & Steers as to its analysis and the factors
considered by it caused Cohen & Steers to be of the opinion that, as of the date
of its opinion, the merger consideration to be received in exchange for each
partnership unit was fair, from a financial point of view. Cohen & Steers'
analysis must be considered as a whole and considering any portion of such
analyses or of the factors considered, without considering all analyses and
factors, could create a misleading or incomplete view of the process underlying
Cohen & Steers' opinion.
The full text of Cohen & Steers' written opinion, which describes the
assumptions made, valuation techniques used, matters considered and limitations
on the scope of review undertaken by Cohen & Steers is attached as Annex C to
this document. The following is only a summary of Cohen & Steers' opinion and is
not a substitute for the full text of the opinion. We urge the Net 2 limited
partners to read Cohen & Steers' opinion carefully and in its entirety. Cohen &
Steers has consented to the references to Cohen & Steers and its opinion in this
document and to the attachment of Cohen & Steers' opinion as an annex to this
document.
Cohen & Steers' opinion is directed to the general partner and relates only
to the fairness, as of the date of its opinion, of the Net 2 merger
consideration to the limited partners from a financial point of view. Cohen &
Steers' opinion is directed only to the limited partners as a class and does not
address:
- the fairness of the merger consideration to any individual limited
partner;
- the fairness of any alternative consideration involved in the merger;
- the consideration to be received in the merger by limited partners who
elect to receive dissenter debentures;
- whether the value of the merger consideration, as per the form of the
amendment to the executed merger agreement, is the same as, more, or less
than the merger consideration contemplated by the executed merger
agreement; or
- the merits of the underlying decision by the Net 2 general partner to
engage in the merger.
Cohen & Steers' opinion was provided at the request of and for the
information of Net 2's general partner, for the purpose of evaluating the Net 2
merger consideration. This opinion does not constitute a recommendation to any
limited partners to vote in favor of the merger, and should not be relied upon
for such purpose.
In arriving at its opinion, Cohen & Steers, among other things:
- reviewed publicly available financial statements and other business and
financial information of both Net 2 and Lexington;
- reviewed internal financial and operating data, including financial
forecasts prepared by the general partner of Net 2 for Net 2 and by the
management of Lexington for Lexington;
- discussed the past and current operations and financial condition and the
prospects of both Net 2 and Lexington, with the general partner of Net 2
and senior management of Lexington;
- reviewed the form of the amendment to the merger agreement and assumed
that the amendment to the merger agreement which Cohen & Steers reviewed
would conform in all material respects to the amendment to the merger
agreement as executed and delivered;
- performed various financial analyses, as Cohen & Steers deemed
appropriate, using valuation techniques, including:
- the application of the public trading multiples of triple-net REITs
reasonably comparable to Net 2, to the financial results of Net 2;
- a discounted cash flow analysis of Net 2's projected future free cash
flows;
- an analysis of the net asset value of Net 2;
97
107
- an analysis with respect to the liquidation of Net 2's portfolio assets;
- a review of the reported prices and trading activity of Lexington common
shares;
- conducted such other financial studies, analyses and financial
investigations as Cohen & Steers deemed appropriate.
In its review and analysis and in formulating its opinion, Cohen & Steers:
- assumed and relied upon the accuracy and completeness of all information
furnished or otherwise communicated to Cohen & Steers, without
independent verification;
- relied upon the assurance of Net 2 that it was not aware of any
information or facts that would make the information provided to it
materially incomplete or misleading;
- assumed, at the direction of Net 2's general partner, that at the closing
of the merger, Lexington will have duly registered the common shares to
be received by the Net 2 limited partners with the Securities and
Exchange Commission;
- assumed that Lexington will have duly listed the common shares to be
received by the Net 2 limited partners for trading on the New York Stock
Exchange, and that all other material conditions to the closing of the
merger will have been satisfied;
- was not requested to, and therefore did not, independently verify the
accuracy or completeness of any information furnished by Net 2 or
Lexington or any publicly available information which it reviewed in
arriving at its opinion;
- did not undertake a physical inspection of any properties or make an
independent valuation or appraisal of any assets or liabilities,
contingent or otherwise, of Net 2;
- expressed no opinion about the estimated value of Net 2, as indicated by
the historical appraisals of Net 2's properties furnished by Net 2, even
although Cohen & Steers did review and consider these appraisals;
- was not engaged to, and therefore did not, review any legal, accounting
or tax aspects of the merger;
- assumed, at the direction of Net 2's general partner and Lexington's
management, that the financial and operating forecasts reviewed by Cohen
& Steers were reasonably prepared on a basis reflecting the best current
estimates and good faith judgments of the general partner of Net 2 and
the management of Lexington as to their anticipated future financial
condition and operating results; and
- expressed no opinion with respect to those forecasts.
The financial and operational projections of Net 2's general partner are as
follows:
FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31,
-----------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
($ IN MILLIONS)
Revenues................................... $10.2 $10.9 $10.7 $10.8 $10.8
EBITDA(1).................................. 9.4 10.0 9.9 10.0 10.0
Funds from Operations (FFO)(2)............. 5.0 5.8 5.8 6.0 6.1
Funds Available for Distribution
(FAD)(3)................................. 3.9 4.9 4.8 5.3 5.5
---------------
(1) EBITDA is defined as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization.
(2) Funds from operations are defined as net income, computed in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles, excluding gains or losses from the
sale of property, plus depreciation and amortization and any pro rata funds
from operations from unconsolidated joint ventures.
(3) Funds available for distribution are derived by subtracting non-cash rent
and maintenance capital expenditures/replacement reserves from funds from
operations.
98
108
Cohen & Steers' opinion was necessarily based upon financial, economic,
monetary, market, regulatory and other conditions, including the financial
condition of Lexington, as they existed and could be assessed by Cohen & Steers
as of the date of its fairness opinion. Cohen & Steers did not express any
opinion as to:
- the value of Lexington common shares after being issued to the limited
partners of Net 2 pursuant to the merger; or
- the prices at which Lexington common shares will trade following the
merger.
Cohen & Steers disclaimed any undertaking or obligation to advise any
person of any change in any fact or matter affecting Cohen & Steers' opinion
which may come or be brought to its attention after the date of the Cohen &
Steers opinion unless specifically requested by Net 2 to do so.
In requesting the Cohen & Steers fairness opinion, the general partner of
Net 2 did not give any special instructions to Cohen & Steers or impose any
restrictions or limitations on the scope of the investigations that Cohen &
Steers deemed necessary to render its fairness opinion. Cohen & Steers' opinion
does not constitute a recommendation as to any action any limited partner of Net
2 should take in connection with the merger agreement, the merger or any aspect
of the merger. The limited partners should not rely on the Cohen & Steers'
opinion in deciding whether to vote in favor of the merger or to take, or
refrain from taking, any other action. Cohen & Steers expressed no opinion or
recommendation with respect to the desirability of pursuing any alternative to
the merger. Cohen and Steers expressed no opinion as to whether the value of the
merger consideration, as contemplated by the form of the amendment to the
executed merger agreement, is the same as, more, or less than the merger
consideration contemplated by the executed merger agreement.
In rendering its opinion, Cohen & Steers was not engaged as an agent or
fiduciary of the general partner or the limited partners, or of any other third
party. Cohen & Steers' opinion related solely to the fairness, from a financial
point of view, of the Net 2 merger consideration to be received by the Net 2
limited partners. Cohen & Steers expressed no opinion as to the structure, terms
or effects of any other aspect of the transactions contemplated by the merger
agreement or any of the agreements or instruments delivered in executing the
merger.
The following is a summary of the material financial analyses performed by
Cohen & Steers in arriving at its opinion. No company or business used in such
analyses as a comparison is identical to Net 2 or Lexington, nor is any
evaluation of the results of such analyses entirely mathematical. Rather, those
analyses involve complex considerations and judgments concerning financial and
operating characteristics and other factors that could affect the acquisition,
public trading or other values of the companies or businesses being analyzed.
Any estimates contained in Cohen & Steers' analyses are not necessarily
indicative of actual values or predictive of future results or values. Actual
values, and future results and values, may be significantly more or less
favorable than those contained in the analyses. In addition, analyses relating
to the value of businesses or securities are not appraisals and do not reflect
the prices at which businesses or companies may actually be sold in the future.
Accordingly, such analyses and estimates are inherently subject to substantial
uncertainty.
ANALYSES OF SELECTED COMPARABLE PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES
Cohen & Steers compared selected financial ratios for Net 2 with the
corresponding financial ratios of publicly traded companies that are engaged
primarily in the ownership, management, operations and acquisition of triple-net
leased properties and that are reasonably comparable to Net 2. In determining
the appropriate comparable companies, Cohen & Steers considered a variety of
factors, including business focus, property portfolio composition and market
capitalization. These companies included:
COMPANY NAME EXCHANGE TICKER
------------ -------- ------
- Captec Net Lease Realty................................... NASDAQ CRRR
- Commercial Net Lease Realty............................... NYSE NNN
- W.P. Carey & Co., LLC..................................... NYSE WPC
- Franchise Finance Corporation............................. NYSE FFA
99
109
COMPANY NAME EXCHANGE TICKER
------------ -------- ------
- HRPT Properties Trust..................................... NYSE HRP
- Lexington Corporate Properties Trust...................... NYSE LXP
- Realty Income Corporation................................. NYSE O
- US Restaurant Properties.................................. NYSE USV
For each of the comparable companies, Cohen & Steers calculated trading
multiples as a function of projected funds from operations and earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, as provided by the
general partner of Net 2. Funds from operations are defined as net income,
computed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, excluding
gains or losses from the sale of property, plus depreciation and amortization
and any pro rata funds from operations from unconsolidated joint ventures.
Projected funds from operations per share estimates for the comparable
companies were obtained from First Call, an on-line data service that compiles
earnings estimates developed by research analysts. Net 2's projected EBITDA and
funds from operations were derived from projections provided to Cohen & Steers
by the general partner of Net 2.
The trading multiples were based on closing stock prices on July 13, 2001.
Applying the comparable company multiples described above to Net 2's latest
quarter annualized EBITDA and funds from operations, and to Net 2's actual 2000
and projected 2001 and 2002 funds from operations results in a range of per unit
values for Net 2 that are summarized in the following table.
COMPARABLE MULTIPLES IMPLIED PER LP UNIT VALUES
ENTERPRISE VALUE/MARKET ---------------------- ---------------------------
VALUE OF EQUITY MULTIPLES LOW HIGH MEAN LOW HIGH MEAN
------------------------- ---- ----- ----- ------ ------- ------
Latest Quarter Annualized
EBITDA(1)....................... 8.6x 12.0x 10.4x $57.93 $123.81 $93.76
Funds from Operation(2)......... 6.3x 11.3x 8.7x $63.19 $114.38 $88.05
Projected Funds from Operations
CY 2001(2)...................... 6.9x 12.6x 9.0x $72.45 $132.26 $94.58
CY 2002(2)...................... 6.6x 10.2x 8.4x $71.84 $111.91 $91.46
------ ------- ------
OVERALL MEAN...................... $57.93 $132.26 $91.96
------ ------- ------
---------------
(1) Based on multiple of Enterprise Value less net debt
(2) Based on multiple of Market Value of Equity
Cohen & Steers noted that the estimated market value of the Net 2 merger
consideration fell within the range of high and low implied per limited
partnership unit values.
DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
Cohen & Steers performed a discounted cash flow analysis of Net 2 by
calculating the present value, as of June 30, 2001, of the projected unleveraged
cash flows of Net 2 for the period from July 1, 2001 to December 31, 2005, based
upon projections provided by Net 2's general partner. Free cash flows are
defined as EBITDA net of non-cash rent and estimated maintenance capital
expenditures and replacement reserves.
The discounted cash flow analysis of Net 2 was determined by adding:
- the present value of the projected free cash flows of Net 2 for its
portfolio of properties over the period from July 2001 to December 2005,
and
- the present value of the estimated future value of the portfolio at the
end of 2005; and then subtracting:
- the net debt outstanding of Net 2, as of June 30, 2001; and
100
110
- at the direction of the general partner, subsequent material changes to
the balance sheet, including:
-- the cash dividend distribution made on July 31, 2001 to the general and
limited partners of Net 2, and
-- the final distribution of cash outstanding to the general and limited
partners anticipated at closing of the Transaction as contemplated
under the merger agreement.
The range of estimated future portfolio values at the end of the projection
period was calculated by applying terminal multiples to the projected calendar
year 2005 EBITDA. Estimated free cash flows and future portfolio values were
discounted to present value using a range of discount rates. This discount rate
range is representative of Net 2 and its comparable peer group's weighted
average cost of capital. The present value of Net 2's projected cash flows and
future portfolio value was then multiplied by the limited partners' 99.0% share
of Net 2's discounted present value and divided by the number of limited
partnership units outstanding at June 30, 2001, in order to derive the
discounted cash flow value per limited partnership unit. The relevant ranges are
summarized in the following table.
DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS LOW HIGH MEAN
----------------------------- ------ ------ ------
Range of Discount Rates.................................... 11.0% 13.0% 12.0%
Range of Terminal Multiples of EBITDA...................... 9.75x 10.75x 10.25x
Range of Implied per LP Unit Values........................ $64.58 $90.15 $77.04
Cohen & Steers noted that the estimated market value of the Net 2 merger
consideration fell within the range of high and low implied per limited
partnership unit values and exceeded the overall mean implied per limited
partnership unit value.
NET ASSET VALUE ANALYSIS
Cohen & Steers calculated the net asset value of Net 2 using projections
provided by Net 2's general partner. In doing so, Cohen & Steers applied a range
of capitalization rates to Net 2's projected property net operating income for
the twelve months ended June 30, 2002. Net operating income is defined as
property revenues less property expenses. The resulting gross real estate value
was added to the gross value of Net 2's other assets, including cash, and
reduced by Net 2's mortgage notes payable and other liabilities.
At the direction of the general partner, Cohen & Steers further adjusted
the Net 2 asset value to reflect subsequent material changes to the June 30,
2001 balance sheet, including:
- the cash dividend distribution made on July 31, 2001 to the general and
limited partners of Net 2; and
- the final distribution of cash outstanding to the general and limited
partners anticipated at closing of the Transaction as contemplated under
the merger agreement.
The resulting net asset value was then multiplied by the limited partners'
99.0% share of the net assets and divided by the number of limited partnership
units outstanding at June 30, 2001 to derive the net asset value per limited
partnership unit. The relevant ranges are summarized in the following table.
NET ASSET VALUE ANALYSIS LOW HIGH MEAN
------------------------ ------ ------ ------
Range of Capitalization Rates.............................. 9.3% 10.3% 9.8%
Range of Implied per LP Unit Values........................ $73.50 $92.82 $83.16
Cohen & Steers noted that the estimated market value of the Net 2 merger
consideration fell within the range of high and low per limited partnership unit
values.
NET LIQUIDATION VALUATION ANALYSIS
Cohen & Steers calculated the liquidation value of Net 2 using projections
provided by Net 2's general partner. In doing so, Cohen & Steers applied a range
of capitalization rates to Net 2's projected property net operating income for
the twelve months ended June 30, 2002. Net operating income is defined as
property
101
111
level revenues less property level expenses. The resulting gross real estate
value was added to the gross value of Net 2's other assets, including cash, and
reduced by Net 2's mortgage notes payable, other liabilities and estimated
ordinary portfolio liquidation costs. Ordinary portfolio liquidation costs,
including typical brokerage fees, legal fees, the cost of due diligence reports,
property transfer taxes and loan assumption fees, were provided to Cohen &
Steers by Net 2's general partner.
At the direction of the general partner, Cohen & Steers further adjusted
the Net 2 asset value to reflect subsequent material changes to the June 30,
2000 balance sheet, including:
- the cash dividend distribution made on July 31, 2001 to the general and
limited partners of Net 2; and
- the final distribution of cash outstanding to the general and limited
partners anticipated at closing of the Transaction as contemplated under
the merger agreement.
The resulting net liquidation value was then multiplied by the limited
partners' 99.0% share of the net liquidated assets and divided by the number of
limited partnership units outstanding at June 30, 2001 to derive the net
liquidation value per limited partnership unit. The relevant ranges are
summarized in the following table.
LIQUIDATION VALUE ANALYSIS LOW HIGH MEAN
-------------------------- ------ ------ ------
Range of Capitalization Rates.............................. 9.3% 10.3% 9.8%
Range of Implied per LP Unit Values........................ $65.73 $84.57 $75.15
Cohen & Steers noted that the estimated market value of the Net 2 merger
consideration fell within the range of high and low per limited partnership unit
values and exceeded the mean per limited partnership unit value.
SUMMARY OF VALUATION ANALYSES
The results of the various valuation analyses performed by Cohen & Steers
in rendering its fairness opinion are summarized in the following table.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS LOW HIGH MEAN
------------------- ------ ------ ------
Comparable Publicly Traded Companies....................... $57.93 $132.26 $91.96
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis.............................. $64.58 $90.15 $77.04
Net Asset Value Analysis................................... $73.50 $92.82 $83.16
Net Liquidation Value Analysis............................. $65.73 $84.57 $75.15
Market Value of Net 2 Merger Consideration(1).............. $81.95
TOTAL NET 2 MERGER CONSIDERATION(2)........................ $81.95
---------------
(1) Based upon an estimated market valuation of 100% of face value of the common
shares and cash consideration being offered to the limited partners. The
common shares were valued using the then prevailing market price of $15.00
as of the close of business on July 13, 2001.
(2) Assumes that the average closing price of common shares during the 20 day
period prior to, but not including, the closing date of the mergers is
within the "collar" of $14.00 and $16.00 per share. The total merger
consideration is based on the sum of the market value of the common shares
and the cash consideration being offered to the limited partners. The number
of common shares which will actually be received by limited partners will be
based upon the average closing price.
102
112
SHARE TRADING HISTORY
Based upon publicly available information, Cohen & Steers reviewed the
average trading prices for Lexington common stock for the each of the prior 20,
30, 60, 90, 120 and 180-day periods ending July 13, 2001. The following table
sets forth these average trading prices.
PERIOD ENDING JULY 13, 2001
---------------------------
20-day...................................................... $14.74
30-day...................................................... $14.51
60-day...................................................... $13.90
90-day...................................................... $13.58
120-day..................................................... $13.40
180-day..................................................... $12.79
Cohen & Steers observed that the latest closing price for Lexington common
shares, which was $15.00 per share, was above the average trading price during
the 20, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 180-day periods. In addition, Cohen & Steers
observed that the 20 and 30-day average trading ranges were at or above $14.00
per share, which is the low end of the of the fixed price range of the merger
consideration.
QUALIFICATIONS, RELATIONSHIPS AND COMPENSATION OF COHEN & STEERS
Cohen & Steers is an investment banking firm regularly engaged in the
valuation of businesses and their securities in connection with mergers,
acquisitions, public and private capital raising and valuations for corporate
and other purposes. Cohen & Steers did not perform any financial advisory
services in connection with its engagement or the merger. To date, Net 2 has
paid Cohen & Steers aggregate fees of $100,000 related to fairness opinions
rendered by Cohen & Steers to the Net 2 general partner on November 9, 2000 and
$62,500 related to fairness opinions rendered by Cohen & Steers to the Net 2
general partner on July 19, 2001. Net 2 has agreed to reimburse Cohen & Steers
for certain expenses and liabilities in connection with its engagement. Net 2
has also agreed to indemnify Cohen & Steers, its directors, officers, employees
and affiliates against certain liabilities, including liabilities under federal
securities laws.
The fees for Cohen & Steers' opinion was not conditioned upon the
conclusion reached by Cohen & Steers as to the fairness of the merger
consideration, or upon the ultimate consummation of the merger. Except as
expressly set forth above, Net 2 imposed no limitation on the nature and scope
of, or methodologies and procedures used in, Cohen & Steers' financial analyses.
This arrangement was recommended by Cohen & Steers and agreed to by the general
partner of Net 2. In the past two years, Cohen & Steers has performed no other
work for, or received any other fees from, Net 2, Lexington or any of its
affiliates.
There have not been, and are not expected to be, any significant events
which would or could alter the fairness determination of Cohen & Steers at this
time.
However, if the general partner believes that there have been any event or
events which individually or cumulatively may have altered the basis for Cohen &
Steers' fairness determination, Net 2 would have the ability to cause Cohen &
Steers to update its fairness opinion and either confirm or disaffirm its prior
determination as to the fairness of the Transaction to Net 2.
APPRAISALS
Since 1990 for Net 1 and 1991 for Net 2, the Partnership Agreements of each
of the Net Partnerships have required the general partners to obtain an annual
independent appraisal of the Net Partnership's properties and to prepare an
appraisal of the net asset value of a unit. The purpose of the appraisals is to
assist limited partners who are subject to ERISA to fulfill their reporting
requirements under ERISA.
103
113
In connection with this annual requirement, the general partner engaged an
independent appraiser, Robert A. Stanger & Co., Inc., to appraise the portfolios
of real properties owned by Net 1 and Net 2 as of December 31, 1999. Those 1999
appraisals:
- were not obtained in connection with the Transaction;
- were conducted on a limited scope basis;
- involved site visits and concurrent local market research for only a
sample of the properties; and
- did not include the three properties acquired by the Net Partnerships in
2000.
Stanger & Co. was again engaged by the Net Partnerships to appraise the
portfolios of real properties owned by Net 1 and Net 2 as of December 31, 2000.
This appraisal is referred to as the 2000 Portfolio Appraisal. The 2000
Portfolio Appraisal, which contains a description of the assumptions and
qualifications made, matters considered and limitations on the review and
analysis, is set forth in Annex D and should be read in its entirety. The
material assumptions, qualifications and limitations to the 2000 Portfolio
Appraisal are described below.
Stanger & Co. has previously appraised the portfolios of Net 1 and Net 2
for the purpose of annual reporting by the Net Partnerships in each year from
1995 through 1999.
Experience of Stanger & Co. Since its founding in 1978, Stanger & Co. has
provided information, research, appraisal, investment banking and consulting
services to clients throughout the United States, including major New York Stock
Exchange firms and insurance companies and over seventy companies engaged in the
management and operation of partnerships and real estate investment trusts. The
investment banking activities of Stanger & Co. include financial advisory
services, asset and securities valuations, industry and company research and
analysis, litigation support and expert witness services, and due diligence
investigations in connection with both publicly registered and privately placed
securities transactions.
Stanger & Co., as part of its investment banking business, is regularly
engaged in the valuation of businesses, their securities and/or their assets in
connection with mergers, acquisitions, reorganizations and for estate, tax,
corporate and other purposes. Stanger & Co.'s valuation practice principally
involves partnerships and real estate investment trusts, their securities, and
the assets typically held through partnerships, such as real estate, oil and gas
reserves, cable television systems and equipment leasing assets. The Net
Partnerships selected Stanger & Co. to provide the 2000 Portfolio Appraisal
because of its experience and reputation in connection with real estate
partnerships, real estate investment trusts, real estate assets, mergers and
acquisitions, and its familiarity with the properties.
1999 PORTFOLIO APPRAISALS
Based on the valuation methodology described below, Stanger & Co. estimated
the value of the portfolio of properties owned by each Net Partnership as of
December 31, 1999 as follows:
REAL ESTATE
PORTFOLIO VALUE
PARTNERSHIP CONCLUSION
----------- ---------------
Net 1....................................................... $39,000,000(1)
Net 2....................................................... $81,460,000(2)
---------------
(1) Does not include one property, which was acquired in 2000 and therefore not
appraised, at a purchase price, including transaction costs, of $7,750,000.
(2) Does not include two properties, which were acquired in 2000 and therefore
not appraised, at an aggregate purchase price, including transaction costs,
of $20,102,000.
As described more fully under "Income Approach", the value of each
portfolio was determined utilizing the income approach to valuation. The net
operating income from the portfolio properties was discounted to present value
utilizing the operating cash flow discount rate. The reversion value of the
portfolio properties was
104
114
estimated by dividing the net operating income at the end of the holding period
by the reversion capitalization rate. This reversion value was then discounted
to present value utilizing the reversion value discount rate and was added to
the discounted present value of net operating income to arrive at a final
estimate of the value of the portfolio properties.
The following table contains the valuation parameters used by Stanger & Co.
in connection with its determination of the total estimated portfolio values for
Net 1 and Net 2. The reader should note that dividing the portfolio's estimated
net operating income, the so-called "going-in net operating income", by the
going-in capitalization rate shown in the table below produces the appraised
portfolio values, which have been rounded.
SUMMARY OF APPRAISAL VALUATION PARAMETERS
(1999 PORTFOLIO APPRAISALS)
NET 1 NET 2
PORTFOLIO(1) PORTFOLIO(2)
------------ ------------
Going-In Net Operating Income.............................. $ 4,040,809 $ 8,284,303
Operating Cash Flow Discount Rate.......................... 11.1% 10.6%
Reversion Value Discount Rate.............................. 11.7% 11.7%
Reversion Capitalization Rate.............................. 10.5% 11.0%
Reversion Value............................................ $44,606,018 $98,846,019
Holding Period............................................. 8 years 14 years
Going-In Capitalization Rate............................... 10.4% 10.2%
---------------
(1) Does not include one property, which was acquired in 2000 and therefore not
appraised in 1999.
(2) Does not include two properties, which were acquired in 2000 and therefore
not appraised in 1999.
2000 PORTFOLIO APPRAISAL
SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY. At the request of the Net Partnerships, Stanger &
Co. evaluated each Net Partnership's portfolio of real estate on a limited scope
basis utilizing the income approach to valuation. Appraisers typically use up to
three approaches in valuing real property:
- the cost approach;
- the income approach; and
- the sales comparison approach.
The type and age of a property, lease terms, market conditions and the
quantity and quality of data affect the applicability of each approach in a
specific appraisal situation.
The value estimated by the cost approach incorporates separate estimates of
the value of the unimproved site and the value of improvements, less observed
physical wear and tear and functional or economic obsolescence. The income
approach estimates a property's capacity to produce income through an analysis
of the rental stream, operating expenses, net income and estimated residual
value. Net income may then be processed into a value through either direct
capitalization or discounted cash flow analysis, or a combination of these two
methods. The sales comparison approach involves a comparative analysis of the
subject property with other similar properties that have sold recently or that
are currently offered for sale in the market.
Due to the type of real estate assets held by the Net Partnerships and the
nature of lease terms, Stanger & Co. was engaged to value the portfolios of
properties based solely on the income approach, utilizing a discounted cash flow
analysis as encumbered by current lease contracts. The cost and sales comparison
approaches were considered to be less reliable than the income approach given
the primary criteria used by buyers of the type of property appraised in the
2000 Portfolio Appraisal.
105
115
In conducting the 2000 Portfolio Appraisal, representatives of Stanger &
Co. reviewed and relied upon, without independent verification, information
supplied by the property managers, general partners and the Net Partnerships,
including, but not limited to:
- lease abstracts and information relating to the creditworthiness of
tenants;
- financial schedules of current lease rates, income, expenses, capital
expenditures, reserve requirements, cash flow and related financial
information;
- property descriptive information and rentable square footage, information
relating to the condition of each property, including any deferred
maintenance, capital budgets, status of ongoing or newly planned property
additions, reconfigurations, improvements and other factors affecting the
physical condition of the property improvements; and
- information relating to renewal and purchase options.
Representatives of Stanger & Co. also performed site inspections of all of
the properties owned by Net 1 and Net 2 during October through December 2000. In
the course of these site visits, those representatives inspected the physical
facilities of the properties and gathered information on the local market, the
subject property and the tenant. Where necessary, information gathered during
the site visits was supplemented by information provided by management,
telephonic surveys and reviews of published information.
In addition, Stanger & Co. discussed with management of the properties
and/or the Net Partnerships:
- the condition of each property, including any deferred maintenance,
renovations, reconfigurations and other factors affecting the physical
condition of the improvements;
- competitive conditions in net lease property markets;
- tenant credit trends affecting the properties;
- certain lease terms; and
- historical and anticipated lease revenues and expenses.
Stanger & Co. also reviewed:
- historical operating statements and year 2000 and 2001 operating budgets
for the Net Partnerships and/or the properties; and
- the acquisition criteria and parameters used by real estate investors,
utilizing published information and information derived from interviews
with buyers, owners and managers of net lease properties.
INCOME APPROACH. Stanger & Co. estimated the value of each portfolio of
properties based on the income approach to valuation. Specifically, the
discounted cash flow method was used to determine the value of the properties
based upon the leases that encumber the properties. The value indicated by the
income approach represents the amount an investor would probably pay for the
expectation of receiving the net cash flow from the property during the subject
lease term and the proceeds from the ultimate sale of the property.
In applying the discounted cash flow method, pro forma statements of
operations for each property reflecting the leases which currently encumber the
properties were utilized. Rental revenues were developed for each property based
on the terms of existing leases and, in the case of the one vacant property,
market conditions. Where lease terms included percentage rent provisions,
available sales data were reviewed and sales levels were estimated based on
escalation factors reflecting current anticipated inflation and criteria used by
property buyers. Percentage rents were then calculated based on lease provisions
relating to sales break points and percentage participations. Property
management fees equal to 1% were factored into the analysis. Where unreimbursed
costs, a capital expense reserve, deferred maintenance or extraordinary capital
expenditures were required, the cash flows (and value) were adjusted
accordingly. Expenses relating solely to investor reporting and accounting were
excluded from the analysis.
106
116
Lease renewal options were analyzed based on escalated current market
rental rates. Where estimated market rental rates at the time of a renewal
option materially exceeded the contractual lease renewal rate, the renewal
option was assumed to be exercised and a renewal-probability weighted value was
determined.
The reversion value of the property to be realized upon sale was estimated
based on the current economic rental rate which would be reasonable for the
subject property, escalated until lease termination at a rate indicative of
current expectations in the marketplace. Reversion value is the estimated real
estate value at the end of the assumed holding periods averaging 8 years for the
Net 1 portfolio and 12 years for the Net 2 portfolio. By contrast, liquidation
value is an estimate of the value that could be realized upon an immediate or
near-term sale of real estate. The market rate net income of the property in the
twelve months following the sale was then capitalized using a reversion
capitalization rate averaging 10.3% for the Net 1 portfolio and 10.8% for the
Net 2 portfolio to determine the reversion value of the property. Where a
property was deemed to have reached the limit of functional utility and useful
life at the time of final lease expiration, the reversion value was determined
based on escalated land value. Net proceeds of the sale were determined by
deducting costs of sale, including brokerage commissions, legal and other
closing costs, estimated at 5%. For properties on which the tenant holds a
contractual purchase option, the terms of the option were reviewed and reversion
values were adjusted if appropriate. In the case of the Net 1 and Net 2
portfolios, no adjustments for purchase options were deemed appropriate.
Two different discount rates, an operating cash flow discount rate and a
reversion value discount rate, were then applied to the operating cash flow
projections and the reversion values, respectively, as set forth below. The
selection of the appropriate operating cash flow discount rate for determining
the present value of future operating cash flow streams from each net leased
property was based on such factors as the creditworthiness of the tenant, the
length of the lease term, the general interest rate environment and, to a lesser
extent, the condition and location of the property.
Specifically, Stanger & Co. reviewed the corporate debt ratings of each
tenant/guarantor, if any, issued by such nationally recognized statistical
ratings organizations as Standard & Poor's Corporation and/or Moody's Investors
Service, Inc. For tenants or guarantors without a credit rating by a rating
agency, Stanger & Co. conducted an analytical review of the financial statements
of the tenants/guarantors under the subject leases, focusing primarily on the
balance sheet, profit and loss statement, cash flow statement and management's
discussion of capital resources and liquidity. Each tenant's or guarantor's
financial strength was evaluated in determining the tenant's ability to fulfill
the lease obligation.
Stanger & Co. then reviewed the interest rate environment as of the date of
the 2000 Portfolio Appraisal, including yields-to-maturity among corporate bonds
based on various maturities and credit ratings. This analysis was conducted to
arrive at a base discount rate, determined by the marketplace, to reflect the
risk of holding corporate debt with credit quality commensurate with the
tenant's or guarantor's creditworthiness and a term approximately equal to the
remaining lease term for each property. Premiums were then added to the base
discount rate to reflect real estate and, where appropriate, above-market lease
rate risk to arrive at the operating cash flow discount rate utilized. The
resulting operating cash flow discount rate averaged 10.8% for the Net 1
portfolio and 10.5% for the Net 2 portfolio.
Reversion value discount rates applied to the reversion value of the real
estate upon sale were based on acquisition criteria and parameters for various
property types, such as industrial property, retail property, and office
property, in use in the marketplace by real estate investors, after adjusting
for individual property related factors. The resulting reversion value discount
rate averaged 11.6% for the Net 1 portfolio and 11.8% for the Net 2 portfolio.
Finally, the discounted present value of the cash flow stream from
operations and the discounted present value of net proceeds from property sale
were aggregated for each property to arrive at the appraised value of the
properties. The resulting property values were then summed to determine a total
estimated portfolio value.
The following table contains the valuation parameters used by Stanger & Co.
in connection with its determination of the total estimated portfolio values for
Net 1 and Net 2. The reader should note that dividing
107
117
the portfolio's estimated net operating income, the so-called "going-in net
operating income", by the going-in capitalization rate shown in the table below
produces the appraised portfolio values, which have been rounded.
SUMMARY OF APPRAISAL VALUATION PARAMETERS
(2000 PORTFOLIO APPRAISALS)
NET 1 NET 2
PORTFOLIO PORTFOLIO
----------- ------------
Going-In Net Operating Income............................. $ 4,916,980 $ 10,493,599
Operating Cash Flow Discount Rate......................... 10.8% 10.5%
Reversion Value Discount Rate............................. 11.6% 11.8%
Reversion Capitalization Rate............................. 10.3% 10.8%
Reversion Value........................................... $55,771,795 $125,832,323
Holding Period............................................ 8 years 12 years
Going-In Capitalization Rate.............................. 10.4% 10.3%
CONCLUSION AS TO VALUE. Based on the valuation methodology described
above, Stanger & Co. estimated the value of the portfolio of properties owned by
each Net Partnership as follows:
REAL ESTATE
PORTFOLIO VALUE
PARTNERSHIP CONCLUSION
----------- ---------------
Net 1....................................................... $ 47,470,000
Net 2....................................................... $102,375,000(1)
---------------
(1) Includes one property, which was sold in 2001, at a sale price, before
transaction costs, of $4,175,000.
ASSUMPTIONS, LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE 2000 PORTFOLIO
APPRAISAL. The appraisal report has been prepared on a limited scope, summary
basis in conformity with the departure provisions of the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice. As such, the report differs from a
self-contained appraisal report in that:
- the data is limited to the summary data and conclusions presented; and
- the cost and market approaches were excluded and the conclusions are
based upon the income approach.
Stanger & Co. utilized certain assumptions to determine the appraised value
of the portfolios. See Annex D for a complete description of the assumptions,
limiting conditions and qualifications applicable to the 2000 Portfolio
Appraisal.
The 2000 Portfolio Appraisal represents Stanger & Co.'s opinion of the
value of the portfolios of properties owned by Net 1 and Net 2 as of December
31, 2000 in the context of the information available on such date. Events
occurring after the valuation date and before the closing of the Transaction
could affect the properties or the assumptions used in preparing the 2000
Portfolio Appraisal. Stanger & Co. has no obligation to update the 2000
Portfolio Appraisal on the basis of subsequent events. In connection with the
preparation of the 2000 Portfolio Appraisal, Stanger & Co. was not engaged to,
and consequently did not, prepare a written report or compendium of its analysis
for internal or external use by the Net Partnerships beyond the analysis set
forth in Annex D.
COMPENSATION AND MATERIAL RELATIONSHIPS. The Net Partnerships paid Stanger
& Co. an aggregate fee of $150,000 for preparing the 2000 Portfolio Appraisal.
In addition, Stanger & Co. is entitled to reimbursement for reasonable legal,
travel and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in making site visits and preparing
the 2000 Portfolio Appraisal, subject to an aggregate maximum of $21,000 and is
entitled to indemnification against certain liabilities, including certain
liabilities under federal securities laws. The fee was negotiated
108
118
between the Net Partnerships and Stanger & Co. and payment thereof is not
dependent upon completion of the Transaction.
The Net Partnerships previously engaged Stanger & Co. to appraise the
portfolios of the Net Partnerships annually from 1995 through 1999. During the
past two years the Net Partnerships have paid Stanger & Co. aggregate fees of
approximately $224,000.
COMPARISON OF OWNERSHIP OF UNITS,
COMMON SHARES AND DISSENTER DEBENTURES
The information below highlights a number of the significant differences
between the Net Partnerships and Lexington relating to, among other things:
- form of organization;
- investment objectives;
- policies and restrictions;
- asset diversification;
- capitalization;
- management structure;
- compensation;
- fees; and
- investor rights.
Following the above is a comparison of a number of legal rights associated
with the ownership of units, common shares and dissenter debentures. Lexington
has included these comparisons to assist the limited partners in understanding
how their investment will be changed if, as a result of the Transaction, their
units are exchanged for common shares and cash or dissenter debentures. This
discussion is only a summary and does not constitute a complete discussion of
these matters, and Lexington strongly encourages the limited partners to
carefully review the balance of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus and their limited partnership agreements for additional
important information.
109
119
FORM OF ORGANIZATION
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
Net 1 is a limited partnership formed on Lexington is a Maryland statutory real estate
August 25, 1987 under the Delaware Revised investment trust formed under the Maryland
Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State REIT Law. Lexington is a self-managed and
of Delaware for the purpose of investing self-administered real estate investment
primarily in existing commercial properties trust that acquires, owns and manages a
that are triple net leased to corporations or geographically diverse portfolio of net
other entities. The partnership agreement was leased office, industrial and retail
amended and restated on September 30, 1994 to properties. Lexington's predecessor was
enable Net 1 to make additional real estate organized in October 1993 and merged into
investments. Net 1's term expires on December Lexington on December 31, 1997.
31, 2027.
Net 2 L.P. is a limited partnership formed on
November 9, 1988 under the Delaware Revised
Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State
of Delaware for the purpose of investing
primarily in existing commercial properties
that are triple net leased to corporations or
other entities. The partnership agreement was
amended and restated on June 13, 1994 to
enable Net 2 to make additional real estate
investments. Net 2's term expires on December
31, 2028.
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVERSIFICATION
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
NET 1 -- The investment portfolio of Net 1 Assuming the Net Partnerships are acquired by
consists of 9 properties as of June 30, 2001. Lexington, Lexington will own an interest
through its operating partnerships, in a
NET 2 -- The investment portfolio of Net 2 portfolio of 97 properties.
consists of 15 properties as of June 30,
2001.
As a result of the Transaction, and through additional investments that may
be made by Lexington from time to time, Lexington intends to maintain an
investment portfolio substantially larger and more diversified than the assets
of either Net Partnership individually. The larger portfolio will diversify the
limited partners' investment over a broader group of properties in multiple
market segments and will reduce the dependence of the limited partners'
investment upon the performance of, and the exposure to the risks associated
with, any particular group of properties currently owned by either Net
Partnership.
BORROWING POLICIES
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
The Net Partnerships are restricted in the Lexington's principal source of capital for
amount and nature of borrowings. growth has been the public and private equity
markets, selective secured indebtedness, its
NET 1 unsecured credit facility and issuance of
operating partnership units. Lexington's
The general partner may, for the purpose of By-Laws contain no restrictions on the level
acquiring additional properties, obtain of indebtedness.
purchase money financing, and mortgage the
additional property purchased with such Lexington's current $35 million unsecured
financing up to a maximum amount of 75% of credit facility, which is scheduled to expire
the purchase price of each additional in March 2004, has made available funds to
property. finance acquisitions and meet short-term
working capital requirements. As of June 30,
NET 2 2001, there were no borrowings outstanding.
The general partner may, at any time, incur
indebtedness to refinance loans entered into
on behalf of Net 2 to refinance fees paid and
expenses paid for services rendered in
connection with the organization
110
120
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
of Net 2. The general partner may also cause
Net 2 to incur indebtedness or mortgage
properties of Net 2 in order to finance the
acquisition of additional properties. In
connection with such acquisitions, the
general partner may obtain purchase money
financing up to a maximum of 75% of the
purchase price of each additional property.
Lexington should have broader business opportunities than the Net
Partnerships and will have access to financing opportunities that are currently
not accessible to the Net Partnerships. Inherent in several of the additional
financing opportunities are certain risks which do not exist for the Net
Partnerships, and we encourage the limited partners to review "RISK FACTORS"
beginning on page 38, for a detailed description of such risks.
OTHER INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
The limited partnership agreements of the Net Neither Lexington's Declaration of Trust nor
Partnerships each contain restrictions on the its By- Laws impose any restrictions upon the
reinvestment in the Net Partnership of cash types of investments that may be made by
available for distribution from operations Lexington, except that under the Declaration
(although they permit reinvestment of cash of Trust, the Board of Trustees is prohibited
available for distribution from capital from taking any action that would terminate
transactions). In addition, the purchase or Lexington's status as a REIT unless a
lease of any real property must be supported majority of the members of the Board of
by an appraisal report of an independent Trustees vote to terminate such status.
appraiser of properties, and the transfer of
partnership interests in exchange for Lexington's Declaration of Trust and By-Laws
property or the securities of other issuers do not impose any restrictions upon the vote
is prohibited. to terminate such status. Lexington's
Declaration of Trust and By- Laws do not
The Net Partnerships are generally not impose any restrictions on dealings between
authorized to raise additional equity capital Lexington and its trustees, officers and
for new investments, absent amendments to affiliates. Maryland REIT Law, however,
their partnership agreements. provides that if the fact of the common
trusteeship or interest is disclosed or
known:
- to the Board of Trustees, and the Board of
Trustees approves the contract or transaction
by the affirmative vote of a majority of
disinterested trustees, even if the
disinterested trustees constitute less than
a quorum; or
- to shareholders entitled to vote, and the
contract or transaction is approved by a
majority of the votes cast by the
shareholders entitled to vote, other than
the votes of shares owned of record by the
interested director or corporation, firm,
or other entity,
then a contract between Lexington and any of
its trustees or affiliates will not be
voidable solely because of these
relationships.
In addition, a contract between Lexington and
any of its trustees or affiliates will not be
void or voidable if they are fair and
reasonable to the trust. In addition,
Lexington has adopted a policy that requires
that all contracts and transactions between
Lexington and
111
121
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
trustees, officers or affiliates thereof must
be approved by the affirmative unanimous vote
of the disinterested trustees.
MANAGEMENT CONTROL
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
The general partners of the Net Partnerships The Board of Trustees directs the management
are, subject to policies and restrictions set of Lexington's business and affairs, subject
forth in the limited partnership agreements, to restrictions contained in Lexington's
generally vested with the exclusive right and Declaration of Trust and By-Laws and
power to conduct the business and affairs of applicable law. The Board of Trustees are
the Net Partnerships and may appoint, elected at each annual meeting of the
contract or otherwise deal with any person, shareholders. The policies adopted by the
including employees of the Net Partnerships' Board of Trustees may be altered or
affiliates, to perform any acts or services eliminated without a vote of the
for the Net Partnerships necessary or shareholders. Accordingly, except for their
appropriate for the conduct of the business vote in the elections of trustees, in
and affairs of the Net Partnerships. Limited establishing stock option plans and approving
partners have no right to participate in the mergers, shareholders have no control over
management and control of the Net the ordinary business policies of Lexington.
Partnerships except on limited matters that
may be submitted to a vote of the limited
partners under the terms of the partnership
agreement. Under each Net Partnership's part-
nership agreement, limited partners have the
right to remove the respective general
partners by a majority vote in interest, with
or without cause.
FIDUCIARY DUTIES
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
The Net Partnerships are limited partnerships Under the Maryland REIT Law, the trustees
organized under the laws of Delaware. Under must perform their duties in good faith, in a
Delaware law, the general partners are manner that they reasonably believe to be in
accountable as fiduciaries to the Net the best interests of Lexington and with the
Partnerships and owe the Net Partnerships and care of an ordinarily prudent person under
their respective limited partners a duty of similar circumstances. Trustees of Lex-
loyalty and a duty of care, and are required ington who act in such a manner generally
to exercise good faith and fair dealing in will not be liable by reason of being or
conducting the affairs of the Net having been a trustee of Lexington.
Partnerships. The duty of care requires that
the Net Partnerships' general partners deal
fairly and with complete candor toward the
limited partners. The duty of loyalty
generally requires that the general partners
not have any business or other interests that
are adverse to the interests of the Net
Partnerships. The duty of loyalty also re-
quires that all transactions between the
general partners and the Net Partnerships be
fair in the manner in which the transactions
are effected and in the amount of the
consideration received by the general
partners.
112
122
MANAGEMENT'S LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
Under Delaware law, the general partners are Lexington's Declaration of Trust provides
liable for the repayment of Net Partnership that the liability of Lexington's trustees
obligations and debts, unless limitations and officers to Lexington and its
upon such liability are expressly stated in shareholders for money damages is limited to
the document or instrument evidencing the the fullest extent permitted under the
obligation. For example, a loan structured as Maryland REIT Law. The Declaration of Trust
a non-recourse obligation. Each Net and the Maryland REIT Law provide broad
Partnership's partnership agreement generally indemnification to trustees and officers,
provides that the general partners will not whether serving Lexington or, at its request,
be held liable for any costs arising out of any other entity. Under the Maryland REIT
their action or inaction that the general Law, however, Lexington may not indemnify for
partners reasonably believed to be in the an adverse judgment in a suit brought by or
best interests of their respective Net in the right of Lexington. Lexington's
Partnership, except that they will be liable By-Laws require, as a condition to advancing
for any costs which arise from their own indemnification expenses, that Lexington
fraud, negligence, misconduct or other breach obtain:
of fiduciary duty. In cases in which the
general partners are indemnified, any - a written affirmation by the trustee or
indemnity is payable only from the assets of officer of his good faith belief that he has
the respective Net Partnership. met the standard of conduct necessary for
indemnification by Lexington as authorized
by the By-Laws; and
- a written statement by or on his behalf to
repay the amount paid or reimbursed by
Lexington if it shall ultimately be
determined that the standard of conduct was
not met.
ANTI-TAKEOVER PROVISIONS
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
For each Net Partnership, a change in Lexington's Declaration of Trust and By-Laws
management may be effected only by the contain a number of provisions that may have
removal of its general partner. See the effect of delaying or discouraging a
"Management Control" above for a discussion change in control of Lexington, even if the
regarding the removal of the general part- change in control might be in the best
ners of a Net Partnership. In addition, the interests of shareholders. These provisions
partnership agreements of the Net include, among others,
Partnerships restrict transfers of the
limited partners' units. An assignee of units - authorized capital stock that may be
may not become a substitute limited partner, classified and issued as a variety of equity
unless the general partners consent to such securities in the discretion of the Board
substitution. of Trustees, including securities having
superior voting rights to the common
shares,
- restrictions on transfer of common shares
to persons who have acquired more than 9.8%
of common shares,
- a requirement that trustees be removed only
for cause and only by a vote of shareholders
holding at least 80% of all of the shares
entitled to be cast for the election of
trustees, and
- ownership limitations designed to protect
Lexington's status as a REIT under the
Internal Revenue Code. See "FEDERAL INCOME
TAX CONSEQUENCES -- Taxation of Lexington"
beginning on page 177.
113
123
SALE
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
Each Net Partnership's partnership agreement Under Lexington's Declaration of Trust, a
allows the sale of all, or substantially all, sale of assets may be effected by Board of
of the assets of the respective Net Trustees subject to any applicable provisions
Partnership with the consent of the limited of Maryland REIT Law, which can include
partners holding a majority of the varying levels of shareholder consent.
outstanding units.
MERGER
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
Under the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Under the Maryland REIT Law, the Board of
Partnership Act, a merger must be approved by Trustees is required to obtain approval of
limited partners owning more than 50% of the the shareholders by the affirmative vote of
outstanding units, as well as the general 50% of all the votes entitled to be cast on
partner. the matter in order to merge or consolidate
Lexington with another entity not at least
90% controlled by it.
DISSOLUTION
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
Each Net Partnership may be dissolved with Under the Maryland REIT Law, the Board of
the consent of the limited partners holding a Trustees is required to obtain approval of
majority of the outstanding units. the shareholders by the affirmative vote of
two-thirds of all votes entitled to be cast
in order to dissolve Lexington.
AMENDMENTS
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
Each Net Partnership's partnership agreement Generally, amendments to Lexington's
permits amendment of most of its provisions Declaration of Trust must be approved by the
with the consent of limited partners holding Board of Trustees and by holders of a
a majority of the outstanding units. majority of the outstanding common shares
entitled to be voted.
The general partner may amend a partnership
agreement without the consent of the limited
partners:
- to effect changes of a ministerial nature
that do not materially and adversely affect
the rights of the limited partners;
- to give effect to the admission of
substituted limited partners;
- to add to the representations, duties, or
obligations of the general partner or
surrender any right or power granted to the
general partner, in either case, for the
benefit of the limited partners;
- to cure any ambiguity or to correct or
supplement any provision of the partnership
agreement;
- to conform the terms of the partnership
agreement with any regulations issued under
section 704(b) of the Internal Revenue
Code;
- to preserve the respective Net
Partnership's status
114
124
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
as a limited partnership;
- to comply with requirements of the SEC or
state securities commissioners;
- to change the name of the Net Partnership;
and
- to prevent the Net Partnership's assets
from being treated as "plan assets" within
the meaning of ERISA or to prevent the Net
Partnership from being treated as a
publicly traded limited partnership under
the Internal Revenue Code.
COMPENSATION AND FEES
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
Under the partnership agreements, the general Lexington will pay all management expenses,
partners of the Net Partnerships and their including salaries and other compensation
affiliates are entitled to receive fees in payable to employees of Lexington, but as an
connection with managing the affairs of each internally-advised REIT, Lexington will not
Net Partnership. The partnership agreements otherwise pay a portion of net cash flow or
also provide that the general partners are to allocations to management, except to the
be reimbursed for their expenses for services extent they are entitled to such as a result
performed for each Net Partnership, such as of owning common shares. Management expenses
legal, accounting, transfer agent, data will reduce the funds available for
processing and duplicating services. The distribution by Lexington.
general partners are also entitled to receive
a percentage of the net cash available for
distribution to the partners of the Net
Partnership.
As holders of operating partnership units in
Net 3, the general partners will receive
distributions based upon their ownership of
the operating partnership units.
During the years ended December 31, 1998,
1999 and 2000, the aggregate amounts accrued
or actually paid by the Net Partnerships to
the general partners are shown below under
"Historical" and the estimated amounts of
compensation that would have been paid had
the Transaction been in effect for the years
presented are shown below under "Pro Forma":
COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE GENERAL PARTNERS OF THE NET PARTNERSHIPS
SIX MONTHS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, ENDED
------------------------------ JUNE 30,
1998 1999 2000 2001
-------- -------- -------- ----------
HISTORICAL:
General Partner Distributions..................... $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 40,000
Asset Management Fees............................. $ 98,000 $129,000 $ 71,000 --
-------- -------- -------- --------
Total Historical.................................. $178,000 $209,000 $151,000 $ 40,000
PRO FORMA:
Cash Distributions on Units(1)(2)................. $148,278 $152,080 $154,614 $ 79,842
115
125
---------------
(1) Pro forma cash distributions are calculated as follows:
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, SIX MONTHS
------------------------------ ENDED JUNE
1998 1999 2000 30, 2001
-------- -------- -------- ----------
Class A units -- $650,000 at $15 per unit
equals 43,333 units..................... $ 50,700 $ 52,000 $ 52,866 $27,300
Operating partnership units issued to
affiliates of Mr. Roskind for their
interest in management contract of Net
Partnership -- 83,400 units............. $ 97,578 $100,080 $101,748 $52,542
-------- -------- -------- -------
$148,278 $152,080 $154,614 $79,842
Distributions per unit in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 were $1.17, $1.20,
$1.22 and $0.63, respectively
(2) As an officer of Lexington, Mr. Roskind received a salary of $250,000,
$300,000 and $300,000 in 1998, 1999 and 2000, respectively, bonuses of
$133,000, $158,000 and $302,297 in 1998, 1999 and 2000, respectively,
options to purchase 100,000, 75,000 and 280,000 common shares in 1998, 1999
and 2000, respectively, and a restricted share award of $242,500 and
$180,000 in 1999 and 2000, respectively.
MANAGEMENT FEES
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
Each Net Partnership is authorized to enter The officers and trustees of Lexington will
into a management agreement governing its receive compensation for their services as
management. Management fees must not exceed described in "INFORMATION ABOUT
the lesser of LEXINGTON -- Management" beginning on page
134.
1. market rates in the same geographic area,
or
2. in the case of:
(a) each net lease, each lease of
property with an existing occupant
and each extension or renewal of any
of such leases, an annual fee of 1%
of the gross annual rent payable in
respect of such leases;
(b) all other leases, an annual fee of 3%
of the gross annual rent payable; or
(c) each lease of property which is
obtained by the property manager, an
initial leasing fee equal to 3% of
the gross annual rent payable by the
lessee under such lease over the
first five years of the term of such
lease, such fee to be payable to the
property manager in equal
installments over the first five full
years of such lease.
For purposes of computation of the management
fee only, a net lease is any lease which both
has an original term equal to ten years or
longer and which provides that the tenant pay
all costs and cost increases for real estate
taxes, insurance and maintenance.
116
126
REAL ESTATE DISPOSITION FEE
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
None. None.
DISTRIBUTIONS OF CASH FROM CAPITAL TRANSACTIONS
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
Each partnership agreement provides for the None. Distributions made by Lexington to its
payment to the general partners of a portion shareholders will be based solely on the
of distributable net sales proceeds following profitability of Lexington and will not be
the payments to the limited partners of based on asset dispositions.
preferred returns and returns of capital
required by the partnership agreements. Each
partnership agreement provides a formula by
which net sales proceeds are to be
distributed among the partners prior to
dissolution. Both Net 1 and Net 2 have only
made distributions to limited partners from
operating cash flows and not from capital
transactions.
REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
Each Net Partnership's partnership agreement Lexington's expenses will be paid from its
provides that operating expenses (which, in revenues as expenses are incurred.
general, are those expenses relating to the
administration of the Net Partnership) will
be reimbursed to the general partners as
follows:
1. an allowance for the non-accountable
expense for all organization and offering
expenses of the Net Partnership as
defined in the partnership agreement;
2. the actual cost to the general partner or
its affiliates of goods and materials
used for or by the Net Partnership and
obtained from unaffiliated parties; and
3. the actual cost to the general partner or
its affiliates in performing
administrative services necessary to the
prudent operation of the Net Partnership,
such as legal, accounting, and data
processing; provided, however, that the
amounts charged by the Net Partnership
for services performed shall not exceed
the lesser of:
(a) the actual cost of such services; or
(b) 90% of the amount which the Net
Partnership would be required to pay
to independent parties for
comparable services in the same
geographic location.
117
127
REVIEW OF INVESTOR LISTS
NET PARTNERSHIP LEXINGTON
--------------- ---------
Under the Net Partnerships' partnership Under the Maryland REIT Law, a shareholder
agreements, a limited partner, at its own must hold at least 5% of the outstanding
expense and upon reasonable request, is common shares, and have done so for at least
entitled to obtain a list of the other six months, before it has the right to
limited partners in the limited partner's Net request a list of shareholders. A share-
Partnership. holder of Lexington meeting this requirement
may, upon written request and during normal
business hours, inspect and, at Lexington's
expense, copy the list of Lexington's
shareholders.
The following discussion describes the investment attributes and legal
rights associated with the limited partners' ownership of units, dissenter
debentures and common shares.
NATURE OF INVESTMENT
UNITS COMMON SHARES DISSENTER DEBENTURES
----- ------------- --------------------
The units entitle limited The common shares constitute The dissenter debentures are
partners to their pro rata equity interests in subordinated to all other
share of cash distributions Lexington. Shareholders are institutional indebtedness of
made to the limited partners. entitled to a pro rata share Lexington outstanding on the
The partnership agreement for of any dividends or dis- closing date and any other
each Net Partnership tributions paid, if, when and indebtedness of Lexington
specifies how cash available as declared by the Board of issued in the future which is
for distribution is to be Trustees. As a REIT, not, by its terms, expressly
shared among the general Lexington must distribute at subordinated to the dissenter
partner and the limited least 90% of its taxable debentures. Final maturity is
partners. The distributions income excluding capital 8 years from the date of
payable by a Net Partnership gains. Any taxable income issuance. Interest accrues
to its partners are not fixed including capital gains not 8.5% per annum based upon a
in amount and depend upon the distributed will be subject 365 day year and actual days
operating results and net to corporate income tax. elapsed and will be paid
sales or proceeds available semi-annually in arrears.
from the disposition of
assets.
ADDITIONAL EQUITY/POTENTIAL DILUTION
UNITS COMMON SHARES DISSENTER DEBENTURES
----- ------------- --------------------
Since the Net Partnerships At the discretion of the There are no restrictions on
are not authorized to issue Board of Trustees, Lexington Lexington's authority to
additional equity, there can may issue additional equity grant secured debt
be no dilution of securities, including common obligations, such as mort-
distributions to the limited shares and shares which may gages, liens or other
partners. be classified as one or more security interests in
classes or series of common Lexington's real and personal
or preferred shares and may property. Such security
contain preferences su- interests, if granted, would
perior to the common shares. permit the holders thereof to
The issuance of additional have a priority claim against
equity securities by such collateral in the event
Lexington will result in the of Lexington's default under
dilution of the shareholders' the secured obligations.
percentage ownership interest Also, such secured
in Lexington. obligations would have
payment priority over the
dissenter debentures and
other unsecured indebtedness
of Lexington.
118
128
LIABILITY OF INVESTORS
UNITS COMMON SHARES DISSENTER DEBENTURES
----- ------------- --------------------
Under the partnership Under Maryland REIT Law, Investors will have no
agreement and Delaware law, shareholders will not be personal liability for the
the limited partners' personally liable for the debts and obligations of
liability for the Net debts or obligations of Lexington.
Partnerships' debts is Lexington.
generally limited to the
amount of the limited
partners' investment in the
Net Partnership, together
with an interest in
undistributed income, if any.
VOTING RIGHTS
UNITS COMMON SHARES DISSENTER DEBENTURES
----- ------------- --------------------
Generally, the limited Lexington is managed and con- None.
partners of the Net trolled by a Board of
Partnerships have voting Trustees elected by the
rights only on significant shareholders at the annual
Net Partnership transactions. meeting of Lexington. The
Such voting rights relate to Maryland REIT Law requires
the Net Partnership's that major transactions,
dissolution, selling all or including most amendments to
substantially all of its Lexington's Declaration of
assets, certain types of Trust, may not be consummated
amendments to the partnership without the approval of
agreement and the general shareholders. Shareholders
partners' removal. have one vote for each common
share.
LIQUIDITY
UNITS COMMON SHARES DISSENTER DEBENTURES
----- ------------- --------------------
The units are relatively The common shares will be While the dissenter
illiquid. The trading volume freely transferable and debentures will be freely
of the units in the resale listed on the New York Stock transferable, Lexington will
market is limited and the Exchange. The common shares not list them on any ex-
prices at which they trade currently trade on the New change, there will be no
are generally not equal to York Stock Exchange. public market for them, and
their net book value. it is unlikely that an active
market for them will develop.
Holders should be prepared to
hold the dissenter de-
bentures until maturity.
119
129
EXPECTED DISTRIBUTIONS AND PAYMENTS
UNITS COMMON SHARES DISSENTER DEBENTURES
----- ------------- --------------------
The Net Partnerships make Lexington intends to make Holders of dissenter
discretionary quarterly quarterly dividend and debentures will be entitled
distributions. Amounts distribution payments to its to receive only the principal
distributed to limited shareholders. The amount of and interest payments.
partners are derived from such dividends and Holders will not participate
their respective pro rata distributions will be in any profits derived from
share of cash flow from established by the Board of operations of any of
operations or cash flow from Trustees, taking into account Lexington's assets, includ-
sales or financings as deter- the cash needs of Lexington, ing properties acquired as
mined by the general partner. funds from operations, the part of the Transaction.
market price for the common
shares and the requirements
of the Internal Revenue Code
for qualification as a REIT.
Under the Internal Revenue
Code, Lexington is required
to distribute at least 90% of
REIT taxable income. See
"FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSE-
QUENCES -- Taxation of Lex-
ington" beginning on page
177.
TAXATION OF TAXABLE INVESTORS
UNITS COMMON SHARES DISSENTER DEBENTURES
----- ------------- --------------------
The Net Partnerships, as As a REIT, Lexington Interest payments made on the
partnerships for federal generally is permitted to dissenter debentures will
income tax purposes, are not deduct distributions to its constitute portfolio income
subject to tax, but limited shareholders, which effec- that cannot be offset by
partners must report the tively eliminates the "passive losses" from other
limited partners' allocable corporate level of taxation. investments. During January
share of partnership income Dividends received by of each year, holders of dis-
and loss on the limited Lexington shareholders senter debentures will
partners' tax return, whether constitute portfolio income, receive from Lexington IRS
or not cash distributions are which cannot be offset by Form 1099-INT to show the
made to limited partners. In- "passive losses" from other interest payments made by
come from the limited investments. Shareholders Lexington during the prior
partners' Net Partnership will receive from Lexington calendar year.
generally constitutes Form 1099-DIV to show
"passive income" to limited dividend payments made by
partners, which can generally Lexington during the calendar
be offset by "passive losses" year.
from the limited partners'
other investments. Generally,
by February 15th of each
year, limited partners
receive an annual Schedule
K-1 with respect to informa-
tion about the Net
Partnership for inclusion on
the limited partners' federal
income tax returns.
Limited partners must file
state income tax returns and
incur state income tax in
most states in which the
limited partners' Net
Partnership has properties.
120
130
TAXATION OF TAX-EXEMPT INVESTORS
UNITS COMMON SHARES DISSENTER DEBENTURES
----- ------------- --------------------
Tax-exempt investors will be Dividends received by Interest income received by
taxable on any unrelated tax-exempt investors will not tax- exempt investors will
business taxable income be characterized as unrelated not be characterized as
allocated to them from the business taxable income so unrelated business taxable
Net Partnerships. Tax-exempt long as the tax-exempt income so long as the tax-
investors should consult investor does not hold its exempt investor does not hold
their own tax advisors as to common shares subject to its dissenter debentures
the types of income that may acquisition indebtedness. subject to acquisition
be characterized as unrelated indebtedness.
business taxable income to
them.
OTHER PROPOSALS
AMENDMENT TO LEXINGTON'S DECLARATION OF TRUST
The Board of Trustees unanimously recommends that Lexington's shareholders
approve the proposal to amend Lexington's Declaration of Trust to increase the
number of common shares which Lexington has authority to issue from 40,000,000
common shares to 80,000,000 common shares. For a complete description of the
proposed amendment, you are encouraged to read the complete text of the Articles
of Amendment, a copy of which is attached as Annex A-5 to this Joint Consent and
Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus.
As of September 18, 2001, which was the latest practicable date prior to
the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus,
Lexington had approximately 4.8 million common shares authorized but unissued,
taking into account the number of common shares that (i) were issued and
outstanding as of that date, (ii) were issuable by Lexington upon exercise of
outstanding common share options or upon conversion of outstanding securities
convertible into common shares, including Lexington's preferred shares and units
of limited partnership of Lexington's operating partnership subsidiaries, (iii)
have been repurchased and retired by Lexington, and (iv) may be issued or
issuable in connection with the Transaction, assuming that the average closing
price of Lexington common shares is $15.00, which is the midpoint of the range
for determining the number of common shares to be issued, and that no limited
partners elect to receive their merger consideration in the form of dissenter
debentures.
The Board of Trustees believes that it is important to have a sufficient
number of authorized but unissued common shares available to provide for the
future raising of capital, for use in connection with acquisitions and for other
general business purposes. Raising the number of authorized common shares to
80,000,000 will provide Lexington with the flexibility to provide for such
circumstances. The terms of any such shares, including dividends or
distributions, conversion prices, voting rights, redemption prices, maturity
dates and similar matters will be determined by the Board of Trustees. Further
issuance of common shares could have a dilutive effect on shareholders' voting
and economic interests in Lexington. Furthermore, issuance of newly authorized
common shares could be used by the Board of Trustees to delay or hinder a
hostile acquisition proposal.
The submission of this proposal is not part of any plan by Lexington's
Board of Trustees or management to engage in any transaction which would require
the approval of this proposed increase.
Approval of this amendment to the Declaration of Trust requires approval by
the holders of a majority of common shares entitled to vote thereon by person or
by proxy at the Meeting. As a result, any common shares not affirmatively voted
(whether by abstention, non-vote or otherwise) will have the same effect as a
vote against the proposal.
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES RECOMMENDS THAT SHAREHOLDERS VOTE FOR THE PROPOSAL TO
APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT.
121
131
VOTING PROCEDURES
VOTING PROCEDURES FOR LEXINGTON SHAREHOLDERS
A special meeting of Lexington's shareholders will be held on November 28,
2001 at 10 a.m., New York time at . The purpose of this meeting is
to consider and vote upon:
- the proposal to approve and adopt the mergers of Net 1 and Net 2,
respectively, into Net 3, a controlled subsidiary of Lexington; and
- the proposal to approve and adopt the amendment of Lexington Declaration
of Trust to increase the total number of authorized shares.
Shareholders may vote at the meeting by attending the meeting and voting in
person, by completing the enclosed proxy card and returning it in the enclosed
envelope or by faxing it to the transfer agent as directed below. Proxies will
be received, tabulated and certified as to time of receipt and vote by Mellon
Investor Services LLC, which has been designated as Lexington's transfer agent.
Proxies should be returned to Mellon at 44 Wall Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY
10005, Attention: Lexington Proxies, or faxed to Mellon at (917) 320-6295. Faxed
proxies will be accepted until the polls close on the date of the special
meeting.
The period during which proxies will be solicited pursuant to this Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus will commence on the date
this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/ Prospectus and other
solicitation materials are first distributed to the shareholders of Lexington
and will continue until the polls close on the date of the special meeting or
any subsequent date to which the meeting may be adjourned. Lexington's Board of
Trustees reserves the right, with requisite shareholder vote, to extend the
proxy solicitation period for Lexington, even if a quorum has been obtained
under Lexington's By-Laws.
Each Lexington shareholder not attending the special meeting of
shareholders of Lexington is requested to complete, date and sign the
accompanying proxy and return it to Mellon for receipt, in original or by
facsimile, before the expiration of the solicitation period. Each shareholder is
asked to approve or disapprove each of the mergers and the amendment of
Lexington's Declaration of Trust with respect to all common shares held by such
shareholder in Lexington.
Abstentions are shares that abstain from voting on the Transaction, and
will have the same effect as votes against the Transaction. Only a shareholder's
broker may vote shares held in "street name." A broker may not vote a
shareholder's shares without instructions from the shareholder. Shareholders
should instruct their broker how to vote their shares. If a shareholder does not
provide its broker with such instructions, the broker will not be permitted to
vote their shares. Such broker non-votes will have the same effect as votes
against the Transaction.
Shareholders may revoke their proxy by:
- delivering to the Secretary of Lexington, before the taking of the vote
at the shareholder meeting, a written notice of revocation bearing a
later date than the date of the proxy or a later-dated proxy relating to
the same shares; or
- attending the meeting and voting in person.
Shareholders will not have any dissenters' appraisal rights by reason of
the mergers.
If the shareholders have any questions regarding the Transaction, they
should call Mellon toll free at (800) 279-1247.
CONSENT PROCEDURES FOR LIMITED PARTNERS
This Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, together
with the accompanying transmittal letter, dissenters election form and limited
partner consent form constitute the solicitation materials being distributed to
the limited partners for the purpose of obtaining their consent to the
Transaction.
122
132
Each limited partner is requested to complete, date and sign the
accompanying consent form and return it, before the expiration of the
solicitation period to Morrow & Co., Inc., which has been designated as the Net
Partnership's solicitation agent, at 445 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022,
Attn: William P. Smith, or by fax to Morrow at (212) 754-8300. Each limited
partner must consent, deny consent, or abstain from consenting to the
Transaction with respect to all units held by such limited partner in a Net
Partnership.
The consent solicitation period will commence upon delivery of the
solicitation materials to limited partners, and will continue until the later of
12:00 midnight, New York time, on November 27, 2001, unless the general partners
extend the consent solicitation period. The general partners reserve the right,
with requisite limited partner consent, to extend the consent solicitation
period for a particular Net Partnership if sufficient consents have not been
received by that date. However, under no circumstances will the consent
solicitation period be extended beyond December 31, 2001. Any consent form
received by Morrow prior to 12:00 midnight, New York time, on the last day of
the consent solicitation period will be effective provided that such consent
form has been properly completed and signed.
Limited partners who have invested in more than one Net Partnership will
receive two copies of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus and two consent forms, one for each Net Partnership.
Because each Net Partnership will separately consider whether or not to consent
to the Transaction, limited partners must complete one consent form for each Net
Partnership in which they hold units.
If the Net Partnerships approve the Transaction, limited partners will
receive common shares and cash if they:
- consented to the Transaction;
- abstained from consenting to the Transaction;
- did not return a properly completed and signed consent form by the end of
the consent solicitation period; or
- denied consent to the Transaction but did not affirmatively elect to
receive dissenter debentures.
If the Net Partnerships approve the Transaction, limited partners will
receive dissenter debentures only if they denied consent to the Transaction and
affirmatively elected to receive dissenter debentures in the manner described
below.
A limited partner that abstains from consenting or does not submit a
consent form before the end of the consent solicitation period will be deemed to
have denied consent to the Transaction, but may not elect to receive dissenter
debentures. A limited partner that submits a properly signed consent form before
the end of the consent solicitation period but does not indicate whether or not
it consents to the Transaction will be deemed to have consented to the
Transaction. Limited partners may withdraw or revoke their consent form at any
time before the earlier of either November 27, 2001 or the date on which
consents representing more than 50% of the outstanding units are received by
their Net Partnership. Consents may be revoked by delivering to the solicitation
agent a written notice of revocation or by calling the solicitation agent toll
free at (877) 807-8896.
Only a limited partner's broker may consent or deny consent for units held
in "street name." A broker may not consent or deny consent for a limited
partner's units without instructions from that limited partner. Limited partners
should instruct their broker whether to consent or deny consent. If a limited
partner does not provide its broker with such instructions, the broker will not
be permitted to consent or deny consent on behalf of that limited partner's
units, and the effect will be the same as denying consent to the Transaction.
A consent by a limited partner to a Net Partnership's participation in the
Transaction will constitute a consent by that limited partner to all actions by
its respective Net Partnership necessary to consummate the Transaction,
including any required amendments to the partnership agreements. Any limited
partner that consents to the Transaction and any limited partner that denies
consent to the Transaction but receives common shares and cash will be deemed to
have consented to the treatment of the merger of its respective Net Partnership
as a direct sale of its units to Net 3 for tax purposes. Limited partners that
deny consent and
123
133
affirmatively elect to receive dissenter debentures will not be deemed to
consent to treatment of, and may not treat, the merger of its respective Net
Partnership as a direct sale of its units to Net 3 for tax purposes.
If the Transaction is approved by the Net Partnerships, limited partners
that deny consent to the Transaction will not have any:
- dissenters' appraisal rights by reason of the mergers, but may receive
dissenter debentures if they properly elect to receive dissenter
debentures, as described above, or
- right to an independent valuation of their respective Net Partnership at
the expense of Lexington or the general partners.
If the limited partners have any questions regarding the Transaction,
including questions about the exchange rate or the number of consents received,
they should call Morrow toll free at (877) 807-8896.
RECORD DATE; VOTES REQUIRED
LEXINGTON. Only holders of shares of record at the close of business on
October 12, 2001 will be entitled to notice of and to vote at the Lexington
meeting of shareholders. Each of the mergers and the amendment of Lexington's
Declaration of Trust will be approved if Lexington receives the affirmative
vote, in person or by proxy, of a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to
vote at the Lexington meeting. The holders of a majority of the shares entitled
to vote, present in person or by proxy, will constitute a quorum for purposes of
the Lexington meeting of shareholders. As of the record date for the meeting,
there were common shares and 2,000,000 preferred shares outstanding and
entitled to vote. The members of the Board of Trustees and executive officers of
Lexington and their affiliates beneficially owned, as of the record date
common shares and 2,000,000 preferred shares, which represented approximately
% of the outstanding shares.
THE NET PARTNERSHIPS. Only limited partners of record at the close of
business on October 12, 2001 will be entitled to consent or deny consent to the
Transaction. The Transaction will only be approved upon:
- the affirmative consent of the holders of a majority of the outstanding
units of each Net Partnership, and
- the approval of the general partners.
The general partners have approved the Transaction. As of June 30, 2001,
the following number of units were held of record by the number of limited
partners indicated below:
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF UNITS
LIMITED UNITS HELD FOR APPROVAL OF
NET PARTNERSHIP PARTNERS OF RECORD TRANSACTION
--------------- --------- ---------- ---------------
Net 1.......................................... 1,341 30,772 15,387
Net 2.......................................... 1,881 477,167 238,584
Lexington held, as of September 18, 2001, which was the latest practicable
date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus, approximately 540 limited partnership units of Net 1
(representing approximately 1.8% of the outstanding units) and 15,782 limited
partnership units of Net 2 (representing approximately 3.3% of the outstanding
units). Lexington intends to consent to the Transaction with respect to these
units.
Limited partners are entitled to consent or deny consent for each unit
held. Accordingly, the number of units entitled to consent or deny consent with
respect to the Transaction is equivalent to the number of units held of record
at the record date.
PROCEDURES FOR LIMITED PARTNERS TO RECEIVE DISSENTER DEBENTURES
In order to receive dissenter debentures, a limited partner must:
- deny consent to the applicable merger on a consent form returned to
Morrow & Co. by the end of the consent solicitation period; and
124
134
- affirmatively elect to receive dissenter debentures on that consent by
indicating form its specific agreement and consent to receive dissenter
debentures in lieu of common shares and cash in the Transaction.
The failure of a limited partner to comply with these procedures will have
the effect of, and will be equivalent to an affirmative waiver of that limited
partner's option to receive dissenter debentures. Limited partners who consent
to the Transaction or fail to return a completed and signed consent form will
not be eligible to receive dissenter debentures.
A limited partner that denies consent to the Transaction will not be
required to elect to receive dissenter debentures. An election to receive
dissenter debentures should only be made by limited partners who wish to receive
dissenter debentures in lieu of common shares and cash.
INVESTOR LISTS
Under Rule 14a-7 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the
Net Partnerships are required, upon a limited partner's written request, to
provide:
- a statement of the approximate number of limited partners in the limited
partner's Net Partnership, and
- the estimated cost of mailing a proxy statement, form of proxy or other
similar communication to the Net Partnership's limited partners.
In addition, the limited partner has the right, at the general partner's
option, to have its Net Partnership either:
- mail copies of any consent statement, consent form or other soliciting
materials to be furnished to the limited partners at the limited
partner's expense; or
- deliver to limited partners, within five business days of the receipt of
the request, a reasonably current list of the names, addresses and units
held by the limited partners of its Net Partnership.
The right to receive the list of limited partners is subject to the limited
partner's obligation to reimburse the reasonable expenses incurred by its
respective Net Partnership in performing any of the acts described above.
125
135
INFORMATION ABOUT LEXINGTON
GENERAL
Lexington is a self-managed and self-administered REIT that acquires, owns
and manages a geographically diverse portfolio of net leased office, industrial
and retail properties. Lexington's predecessor was organized in October 1993 and
merged into Lexington on December 31, 1997. A REIT is an entity which has
elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code and generally owns
or provides financing for real estate, offers the benefits of a diversified
portfolio under professional management and pays quarterly distributions to
investors of at least 90% of its taxable income. Lexington also provides
investment advisory and asset management services to third parties, including
the Net Partnerships. As of June 30, 2001, Lexington's real property portfolio
consisted of interests in 73 properties, located in 29 states, including
warehousing, distribution and manufacturing facilities, office buildings and
retail properties, consisting of an aggregate 13.1 million net rentable square
feet of space. Of these 73 properties, 71 are currently leased, and 68 are
subject to triple net leases, which are generally characterized as leases in
which the tenant bears all, or substantially all, of the costs and cost
increases for real estate taxes, insurance and ordinary maintenance. The leases
on two of the remaining properties provide for operating expense stops which
limit the increase in operating expenses to Lexington.
Lexington manages its real estate and credit risk through geographic,
industry, tenant and lease maturity diversification. As June 30, 2001 the ten
largest tenants/guarantors, which occupy 17 properties, represented 56.0% of
rental revenues for the past twelve months:
% OF
NUMBER OF RENTAL
TENANT/GUARANTOR PROPERTIES REVENUES PROPERTY TYPE
---------------- ---------- -------- -------------------
Kmart Corporation............................ 1 11.6 Industrial
Northwest Pipeline Corp...................... 1 11.4 Office
Exel Logistics, Inc (NFL plc)................ 4 6.3 Industrial
Honeywell, Inc............................... 3 5.3 Office
Vartec Telecom, Inc.......................... 1 4.5 Office
Circuit City Stores.......................... 3 4.5 Office(1)/Retail(2)
Boeing North America Services, Inc. ......... 1 3.3 Office
Artesyn North America, Inc. ................. 1 3.3 Office
Avnet, Inc................................... 1 3.2 Office
Hartford Fire Insurance Company.............. 1 2.6 Office
-- ----
Totals.................................. 17 56.0%
== ====
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
PUBLIC OFFERING. In July 2001, Lexington conducted an underwritten public
offering of 4,000,000 common shares under the terms and conditions of an
underwriting agreement entered into on July 26, 2001 between Lexington, on the
one hand, and First Union Securities, Inc., CIBC World Market Corp., A.G.
Edwards & Sons, Inc., and Raymond James & Associates, Inc. In addition, under
the underwriting agreement, Lexington granted the underwriters a 30 day option
to purchase up to an additional 600,000 common shares to cover overallotments.
On August 17, 2001, the underwriters exercised this option with respect to
400,000 common shares, and the sale of these common shares closed on August 22,
2001.
Lexington received net proceeds from this offering of $57,720,000, and an
additional $5,644,000 from the underwriters exercise of their overallotment
option. Lexington intends to use up to $32,175,000 of the net proceeds to fund
the cash portion of the merger consideration being offered in the Transaction,
if it is completed, and approximately $13.0 million to fund the balance of its
capital commitment to its joint venture investment with the Comptroller of the
State of New York as trustee for the Common Retirement Fund. The
126
136
balance of the net proceeds, if any, will be used for general business purposes,
including additional investments and repayment of debt. See "-- Redemption of
Debt" below.
REDEMPTION OF DEBT. On August 3, 2001, Lexington redeemed an outstanding
$25 million 8% Exchangeable Redeemable Secured Note held by Merrill Lynch Global
Allocation Fund, Inc. for an aggregate payoff amount, including a prepayment
premium and accrued interest, of approximately $28.6 million.
OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY
Lexington's primary objectives are to increase funds from operations, cash
available for distribution per share to its shareholders, and net asset value
per share. In an effort to achieve these objectives, Lexington's management
focuses on:
- effectively managing assets through lease extensions, revenue enhancing
property expansions, opportunistic property sales and redeployment of
assets, when advisable;
- acquiring portfolios and individual net lease properties from third
parties, completing sale/leaseback transactions, acquiring build-to-suit
properties and opportunistically using its operating partnership units to
effect acquisitions;
- entering into strategic co-investment programs which generate higher
equity returns than direct investments due to acquisition and asset
management fees and, in some cases, increased leverage levels;
- providing management and advisory services to institutional investors in
order to generate advisory fee revenue; and
- matching debt maturities to lease expirations and increasing Lexington's
access to capital to finance property acquisitions and expansions.
INTERNAL GROWTH; EFFECTIVELY MANAGING ASSETS
TENANT RELATIONS AND LEASE COMPLIANCE. Lexington maintains close contact
with its tenants in order to understand their future real estate needs.
Lexington monitors the financial, property maintenance and other lease
obligations of its tenants through a variety of means, including periodic
reviews of financial statements and physical inspections of the properties.
Lexington performs annual inspections of those properties where it has an
ongoing obligation with respect to the maintenance of the property and for all
properties during each of the last three years immediately prior to a scheduled
lease expiration. Bi-annual physical inspections are undertaken for all other
properties.
EXTENDING LEASE MATURITIES. Lexington seeks to extend its leases in
advance of their expiration in order to maintain a balanced lease rollover
schedule and high occupancy levels. Since February 1994, Lexington has entered
into lease extensions of three years or more on 18 of its properties.
As of the date of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus, the scheduled lease maturities for the remainder of 2001
and each of the next four years are as follows:
CURRENT % OF
NUMBER OF ANNUAL RENT ANNUALIZED
LEASES ($000'S) RENT
--------- ----------- ----------
2001................................................ 0 $ -- --
2002................................................ 2 777 0.9
2003................................................ 1 1,900 2.1
2004................................................ 0 -- --
2005................................................ 5 6,119 6.8
--- ------ ---
8 $8,796 9.8
=== ====== ===
127
137
REVENUE ENHANCING PROPERTY EXPANSIONS. Lexington undertakes selective
expansions of its properties based on tenant requirements. Lexington believes
that selective property expansions can provide it with attractive rates of
return and actively seeks such opportunities. As of June 30, 2001, Lexington has
committed to fund 40% of a $10.5 million expansion of an existing property that
is owned with a partner. The expansion, which is estimated to be completed by
October 2001, will be leased by the tenant for eight years at a weighted average
rental rate of 18.5% of expected construction costs.
PROPERTY SALES AND REDEPLOYMENT OF ASSETS. Lexington may determine to sell
a property if it deems such disposition to be in Lexington's best interest.
During the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999, Lexington sold three and
seven properties, respectively for $19.6 million and $63.9 million,
respectively, resulting in $3.0 million and $5.1 million in gains, respectively.
EXTERNAL GROWTH; STRATEGIES FOR ACQUISITIONS AND INCREASING ASSETS UNDER
MANAGEMENT
FOCUSED ACQUISITION PARAMETERS. Lexington seeks to enhance its net lease
property portfolio through acquisitions of general purpose, efficient,
well-located properties in growing markets. Management has diversified
Lexington's portfolio by geographic location, tenant industry segment, lease
term expiration and property type with the intention of providing steady
internal growth with low volatility. Management believes that such
diversification should help insulate Lexington from regional recession, industry
specific downturns and price fluctuations by property type. Prior to effecting
any acquisitions, management analyzes the:
- property's design, construction quality, efficiency, functionality and
location with respect to the immediate sub-market, city and region;
- lease integrity with respect to term, rental rate increases, corporate
guarantees and property maintenance provisions;
- present and anticipated conditions in the local real estate market; and
- prospects for selling or releasing the property on favorable terms in the
event of a vacancy.
Management also evaluates each potential tenant's financial strength,
growth prospects, competitive position within its respective industry and a
property's strategic location and function within a tenant's operations or
distribution systems. Management believes that its comprehensive underwriting
process is critical to the assessment of long-term profitability of any
investment by Lexington.
OPERATING PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE. Lexington has three operating partnership
subsidiaries, Lepercq Corporate Income Fund L.P., Lepercq Corporate Income Fund
II L.P. and Net 3. Lexington is the sole shareholder of Lex GP-1, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, which is the 1% general partner of the operating
partnership subsidiaries. Lexington is also the sole shareholder of Lex LP-1,
Inc., a Delaware corporation. As of September 18, 2001, which was the latest
practicable date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, Lex LP-1, Inc. held an approximately 75.1%
and 67.7% limited partnership interest in Lepercq Corporate Income Fund L.P. and
Lepercq Corporate Income Fund II L.P., respectively and a 99.0% limited
partnership interest in Net 3.
128
138
The operating partnership structure enables Lexington to acquire properties
by issuing to a seller, as a form of consideration, operating partnership units.
As of June 30, 2001, the operating partnership units are redeemable as follows:
YEAR NO. OF UNITS
---- ------------
At any time................................................. 4,864,595
2002........................................................ 83,400
2003........................................................ 17,901
2004........................................................ 87,796
2005........................................................ 29,384
2006........................................................ 208,766
---------
Total....................................................... 5,291,842
=========
Management believes that this structure facilitates Lexington's ability to
raise capital and to acquire portfolio and individual properties by enabling
Lexington to structure transactions which may defer tax gains for a contributor
of property while preserving Lexington's available cash for other purposes,
including the payment of dividends and distributions. As of June 30, 2001,
Lexington has used operating partnership units as a form of consideration in
connection with the acquisition of 22 properties.
ACQUISITIONS OF PORTFOLIO AND INDIVIDUAL NET LEASE PROPERTIES. Lexington
seeks to acquire portfolio and individual properties that are leased to
creditworthy tenants under long-term net leases. Management believes there is
significantly less competition for the acquisition of property portfolios
containing a number of net leased properties located in more than one geographic
region. Management also believes that Lexington's geographic diversification,
acquisition experience and access to capital will allow it to compete
effectively for the acquisition of such net leased properties.
SALE/LEASEBACK TRANSACTIONS. Lexington seeks to acquire portfolio and
individual net lease properties in sale/leaseback transactions. Lexington
selectively pursues sale/leaseback transactions with creditworthy
sellers/tenants with respect to properties that are integral to the
sellers'/tenants' ongoing operations.
BUILD-TO-SUIT PROPERTIES. Lexington may also acquire, after construction
has been completed, "build-to-suit" properties that are entirely pre-leased to
their intended corporate users before construction. As a result, Lexington does
not assume the risk associated with the construction phase of a project.
STRATEGIC JOINT VENTURE CO-INVESTMENTS
In 1999, Lexington entered into a joint venture agreement with The
Comptroller of the State of New York as trustee of the Common Retirement Fund,
or "CRF." The joint venture entity, Lexington Acquiport Company, LLC, or "LAC,"
acquires high quality office and industrial real estate properties that are net
leased to investment and non-investment grade single tenant users. Lexington and
CRF have committed to make equity contributions to LAC of up to $50 million and
$100 million, respectively, of which Lexington and CRF have funded approximately
$37 million and $76 million, respectively, as of June 30, 2001. Property
acquisitions will be additionally funded through the use of up to $278 million
in non-recourse mortgages. Through June 30, 2001, LAC has made investments in
eight properties for $284 million.
In 1999, Lexington also formed a joint venture for the purpose of owning a
property that is net leased to Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South Carolina.
Lexington has a 40% interest in the joint venture and as of June 30, 2001,
Lexington has committed to fund 40% of a $10.5 million expansion of an existing
property that is owned with a partner. The expansion, which is estimated to be
completed by October 2001, will be leased by the tenant for eight years at a
weighted average rental rate of 18.5% of expected construction costs.
In 2000, Lexington Realty Advisors, Inc. entered into an advisory and asset
management agreement to invest and manage $50 million of equity on behalf of a
private investment fund. The investment program could, depending on leverage
utilized, acquire up to $150 million in single tenant, net-leased office,
industrial and retail properties in the United States. Lexington Realty
Advisors, Inc. will earn acquisition fees (90 basis
129
139
points of total acquisition costs), annual asset management fees (30 basis
points of gross asset value) and a promoted interest of 16% of the return in
excess of an internal rate of return of 10% earned by the private investment
fund.
REVENUE ENHANCEMENT FROM ADVISORY SERVICES
In connection with the joint venture with CRF, Lexington's affiliate,
Lexington Realty Advisors, Inc. has entered into a management agreement with LAC
whereby Lexington Realty Advisors, Inc. will perform services, for a fee,
relating to the acquisition and management of the LAC investments. Lexington
Realty Advisors will receive a fee of 75 basis points of cost for acquisition
services and 2% of rent collected annually for management services of the LAC
investments. Lexington Realty Advisors, Inc. has also entered into a management
agreement with respect to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield joint venture with terms
similar to the management agreement with LAC.
MATCHING INDEBTEDNESS TO LEASE EXPIRATIONS AND INCREASING ACCESS TO CAPITAL
MATCHING INDEBTEDNESS TO LEASE EXPIRATIONS. Lexington seeks to enter into
mortgage loans with maturities that generally match the terms of the
corresponding leases. This allows Lexington to reduce the risk associated with
refinancing its indebtedness.
INCREASING ACCESS TO CAPITAL. Management is constantly pursuing
opportunities to increase Lexington's access to public and private capital in
order to achieve maximum operating flexibility. As of June 30, 2001, balloon
payments through 2005, are scheduled as follows:
WEIGHTED
BALLOON AVERAGE
AMOUNT INTEREST RATE
-------- -------------
($000'S)
2001........................................................ $ 1,000 9.50%
2002........................................................ 10,624 7.46%
2003........................................................ -- --
2004........................................................ 42,360 7.57%
2005........................................................ 67,711 7.88%
-------- ----
$121,695 7.75%
======== ====
Lexington's variable rate unsecured credit facility bears interest at
150-250 basis points over Lexington's option of 1, 3 or 6 month LIBOR, depending
upon the level of Lexington's indebtedness, and is scheduled to mature in March
2004. As of June 30, 2001, there were no outstanding borrowings under this
facility.
As a result of Lexington's financing activities, the weighted average
interest rate on Lexington's outstanding indebtedness has been reduced from
approximately 8.17% as of December 31, 1997 to approximately 7.67% as of June
30, 2001.
COMMON SHARE REPURCHASE
Lexington's Board of Trustees authorized the repurchase of up to 2.0
million common shares and/or operating partnership units. As of June 30, 2001,
Lexington has repurchased 1.43 million common shares/units at an average price
of $10.53, all of which have been retired.
COMPETITION
There are numerous commercial developers, real estate companies, financial
institutions and other investors with greater financial resources than Lexington
has that compete with Lexington in seeking properties for acquisition and
tenants who will lease space in its properties. Due to its focus on net-lease
properties located throughout the United States, and because most competitors
are locally and/or regionally focused, Lexington does not encounter the same
competitors in each region of the United States. Lexington's
130
140
competitors include other REITs, financial institutions, insurance companies,
pension funds, private companies and individuals. This competition may result in
Lexington paying higher prices for properties it wishes to purchase or leasing
its properties to tenants under terms and conditions less favorable to Lexington
than anticipated or desired.
INVESTMENT POLICIES
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS. Lexington seeks to acquire and manage a
diversified portfolio of real estate and other assets and may reinvest proceeds
from its sale of properties or other capital transactions.
SECURITIES OF OR INTERESTS IN PERSONS PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN REAL ESTATE
ACTIVITIES AND OTHER ISSUERS. Lexington may, in the future, invest in securities
of entities engaged in real estate activities or securities of other issuers, in
certain instances, for the purpose of exercising control over such entities.
Lexington may acquire all or substantially all of the securities or assets of
REITs or similar entities where such investments would be consistent with its
investment policies. In any event, Lexington does not intend that its
investments in such securities will require it to register as an "investment
company" under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and Lexington
would divest itself of such securities before any such registration would be
required.
JOINT VENTURES AND WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES. Lexington may, in, the
future, enter into additional joint ventures, general partnerships or other
participations with real estate developers, owners and others for the purpose of
obtaining an equity interest in a particular property or properties in
accordance with Lexington's investment policies. Such investments would permit
Lexington to own interests in large properties without unduly restricting
diversification, thereby increasing flexibility in the structuring of
Lexington's portfolio.
OFFERING SECURITIES IN EXCHANGE FOR PROPERTY. Lexington may offer common
shares, operating partnership units or other Lexington securities in exchange
for a property.
REPURCHASING OR REACQUIRING ITS OWN SHARES. Lexington may purchase or
repurchase common shares from any person for such consideration as the Board of
Trustees may determine in its reasonable discretion, whether more or less than
either the original issuance price of such common shares or the then current
trading price of such common shares.
FINANCING POLICIES
ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL SECURITIES. Lexington's Board of Trustees may, in
its discretion, issue additional equity securities. The issuance of additional
equity interests may result in the dilution of the interests of the Lexington
shareholders at the time of such issuance.
ISSUANCE OF SENIOR SECURITIES. Lexington may, at any time, issue
securities senior to the common shares, upon such terms and conditions as may be
determined by the Board of Trustees.
BORROWING POLICY. Lexington may, at any time, borrow, on a secured or
unsecured basis, funds to finance its business, and in connection therewith
execute, issue and deliver promissory notes, commercial paper, notes,
debentures, bonds and other debt obligations which may be either convertible
into common shares or other equity interests, or issued together with warrants,
in order to acquire common shares or other equity interests.
MISCELLANEOUS POLICIES
OWNERSHIP RESTRICTIONS. Lexington's Declaration of Trust, unless
specifically waived, prohibits any one shareholder from owning greater than 9.8%
of any class of its outstanding shares.
COMPANY CONTROL. The Board of Trustees has exclusive control over
Lexington's business and affairs subject only to the restrictions in Lexington's
Declaration of Trust and By-Laws. Shareholders have the right to elect members
of the Board of Trustees. The trustees are accountable to Lexington as
fiduciaries and are required to exercise good faith and integrity in conducting
Lexington's affairs.
131
141
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, statutes,
ordinances, rules and regulations, an owner of real property may be liable for
the costs of removal or redemption of certain hazardous or toxic substances at,
on, in or under such property, as well as certain other potential costs relating
to hazardous or toxic substances. These liabilities may include government fines
and penalties and damages for injuries to persons and adjacent property. Such
laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner knew of, or was
responsible for, the presence or disposal of such substances. Although
Lexington's tenants are primarily responsible for any environmental damage and
claims related to the leased premises, in the event of the bankruptcy or
inability of the tenant of such premises to satisfy any obligations with respect
to such environmental liability, Lexington may be required to satisfy such
obligations. In addition, Lexington, as the owner of such properties, may be
held liable for any such damages or claims irrespective of the provisions of any
lease.
From time to time, in connection with the conduct of Lexington's business,
and prior to the acquisition of any property from a third party or as required
by Lexington's financing sources, Lexington authorizes the preparation of Phase
I environmental reports with respect to its properties. Based upon such
environmental reports and management's ongoing review of its properties, as of
September 18, 2001, which was the latest practicable date prior to the printing
of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, Lexington's
management is not aware of any environmental condition with respect to any of
Lexington's properties which management believes would be reasonably likely to
have a material adverse effect on Lexington. Lexington cannot be certain,
however, that it will not be exposed to material liability in the future
resulting from;
- the discovery of environmental conditions, the existence or severity of
which were previously unknown;
- changes in law;
- the conduct of tenants; or
- activities relating to properties in the vicinity of Lexington's
properties.
Changes in laws increasing the potential liability for environmental
conditions existing on properties or increasing the restrictions on discharges
or other conditions may result in significant unanticipated expenditures or may
otherwise adversely affect the operations of Lexington's tenants, which would
adversely affect Lexington's financial condition and results of operations,
including funds from operations.
EMPLOYEES
As of June 30, 2001, Lexington had 27 employees.
INDUSTRY SEGMENTS
Lexington operates in one industry segment, investment in single tenant,
net leased real property throughout the United States.
PRICE RANGE OF THE LEXINGTON COMMON SHARES AND DISTRIBUTION HISTORY
The common shares have been traded on the NYSE under the symbol "LXP" since
October 1993. On November 11, 2000, the last full trading day prior to the
execution and delivery of the merger agreements and the public announcement
thereof, the closing price of the Lexington common shares on the NYSE was
$10.8125 per share. On July 19, 2001, the last full trading day prior to the
execution and delivery of the amendments to the merger agreements and the public
announcement thereof, the closing price was $15.19 per share. As of September
18, 2001, which was the latest practicable date prior to the printing of this
Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, the closing price was
$14.28 per share. The following
132
142
table sets forth the quarterly high and low sales prices per share reported on
the NYSE and the distributions paid by Lexington with respect to the periods
indicated.
PRICE
-----------------
QUARTER ENDED HIGH LOW DISTRIBUTION
------------- ------- ------- ------------
1995
First Quarter....................................... $ 9.500 $ 8.625 $0.27
Second Quarter...................................... 11.000 9.125 0.27
Third Quarter....................................... 11.375 10.000 0.27
Fourth Quarter...................................... 11.250 9.625 0.27
1996
First Quarter....................................... $12.125 $10.500 $0.27
Second Quarter...................................... 12.375 11.125 0.27
Third Quarter....................................... 13.375 11.500 0.28
Fourth Quarter...................................... 15.000 12.125 0.28
1997
First Quarter....................................... $15.000 $12.125 $0.29
Second Quarter...................................... 14.500 12.125 0.29
Third Quarter....................................... 15.750 13.813 0.29
Fourth Quarter...................................... 16.813 13.750 0.29
1998
First Quarter....................................... $16.375 $14.250 $0.29
Second Quarter...................................... 15.250 13.750 0.29
Third Quarter....................................... 14.625 10.813 0.29
Fourth Quarter...................................... 13.250 11.000 0.30
1999
First Quarter....................................... $12.875 $ 9.875 $0.30
Second Quarter...................................... 12.000 10.500 0.30
Third Quarter....................................... 12.875 10.875 0.30
Fourth Quarter...................................... 11.250 8.813 0.30
2000
First Quarter....................................... $11.625 $ 9.000 $0.30
Second Quarter...................................... 11.313 9.938 0.30
Third Quarter....................................... 12.250 11.063 0.31
Fourth Quarter...................................... 11.938 10.688 0.31
2001
First Quarter....................................... $13.438 $11.813 $0.31
Second Quarter...................................... 15.550 12.750 0.32
Third Quarter....................................... 15.480(1) 13.150(1) 0.32
---------------
(1) Through September 18, 2001, which was the latest practicable date prior to
the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus.
133
143
MANAGEMENT
TRUSTEES AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF LEXINGTON
The following sets forth information relating to the executive officers and
trustees of Lexington, each of whom is elected annually, holding office until
the next annual meeting of shareholders or until his successor has been duly
elected and qualified:
E. Robert Roskind
Age 56 Mr. Roskind has served as Chairman of the
Board of Trustees and Co-Chief Executive
Officer of Lexington since October 1993. He
founded The LCP Group, L.P., a real estate
advisory firm, in 1973 and has been its
Chairman since 1976. The LCP Group, L.P. has
been the general partner of various limited
partnerships with which Lexington has had
prior dealings. He is also the general partner
of a variety of entities that are general
partners of various partnerships that hold net
leased real properties or interests in real
property. Mr. Roskind received his B.S. in
1966 from the University of Pennsylvania and
is a 1969 Harlan Fiske Stone Graduate of the
Columbia Law School. He has been a member of
the Bar of the State of New York since 1970.
He is on the Board of Directors of Clarion
CMBS Value Fund, Inc.
Richard J. Rouse
Age 55 Mr. Rouse has served as Co-Chief Executive
Officer and as a trustee of Lexington since
October 1993. He served as President of
Lexington from October 1993 to April 1996, and
since April 1996 has served as Vice Chairman
of the Board of Trustees. Mr. Rouse graduated
from Michigan State University in 1968 and
received his M.B.A. in 1970 from the Wharton
School of Finance and Commerce of the
University of Pennsylvania.
T. Wilson Eglin
Age 37 Mr. Eglin has served as Chief Operating
Officer of Lexington since October 1993 and as
a trustee since May 1994. He served as
Executive Vice President from October 1993 to
April 1996, and since April 1996 has served as
the President. Mr. Eglin received his B.A.
from Connecticut College in 1986.
Patrick Carroll
Age 37 Mr. Carroll has served as Chief Financial
Officer of Lexington since May 1998 and as
Treasurer since January 1999. Prior to joining
Lexington, Mr. Carroll was, from 1993 to 1998,
a Senior Manager in the real estate unit of
Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P., a public accounting
firm, serving both publicly and privately held
real estate entities with a focus on due
diligence and public equity/ debt offerings.
Mr. Carroll received his B.B.A. from Hofstra
University in 1986 and his M.S. in Taxation
from C.W. Post in 1991, and is a Certified
Public Accountant.
Stephen C. Hagen
Age 59 Mr. Hagen has served as Senior Vice President
of Lexington since October 1996. Mr. Hagen had
been associated with The LCP Group, L.P. from
1995 to 1996. Mr. Hagen received his B.S. from
the University of Kansas in 1965 and his
M.B.A. in 1968 from the Wharton School of
Finance and Commerce of the University of
Pennsylvania.
Paul R. Wood
Age 41 Mr. Wood has served as Vice President, Chief
Accounting Officer and Secretary of Lexington
since October 1993. Mr. Wood received his
B.B.A. from Adelphi University in 1982 and is
a Certified Public Accountant.
134
144
Janet M. Kaz
Age 37 Ms. Kaz has served as Vice President of
Lexington since May 1995 and as an Asset
Manager since October 1993. Ms. Kaz received
her B.A. from Muhlenberg College in 1985.
Philip L. Kianka
Age 44 Mr. Kianka has served as Vice President of
Asset Management of Lexington since 1997.
Prior to joining Lexington, Mr. Kianka served
as a Vice President and Senior Asset Manager
at Merrill Lynch Hubbard, Inc., a real estate
division of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., from
1985 through 1997. In connection with his
responsibilities with Merrill Lynch Hubbard,
Inc., Mr. Kianka was involved in real estate
acquisitions, development and asset management
for a national portfolio of diversified
properties. Mr. Kianka received his B.A. from
Clemson University in 1978 and his M.A. from
Clemson University in 1981.
George Wilson
Age 40 Mr. Wilson has served as Vice President of
Lexington since December 2000 and as an Asset
Manager since May 1999. Prior to joining
Lexington, Mr. Wilson was the Asset Manager
for American Real Estate Partners, L.P., a
publicly traded net lease real estate
partnership, from 1994 to 1999. He received
his B.A. from Columbia College in 1983 and his
M.S. in Real Estate Development from Columbia
University in 1986.
Natasha Roberts
Age 34 Ms. Roberts has served as Vice President of
Acquisitions of Lexington since 1997. Prior to
joining Lexington, Ms. Roberts worked for Net
Lease Partners Realty Advisors, a real estate
advisory firm and an affiliate of Mr. Roskind,
from January 1995 to January 1997 and as a
licensed real estate broker from February 1992
to January 1995.
Brendan P. Mullinix
Age 27 Mr. Mullinix has served as a Vice President of
Lexington since February 2000 and as a member
of the acquisitions department since October
1996. He received his B.A. from Columbia
University in 1996.
Carl D. Glickman
Age 75 Mr. Glickman has served as a trustee since May
1994. He has been President of The Glickman
Organization, a real estate development and
management firm, since 1953. He is on the
Board of Directors of Alliance Tire & Rubber
Co., Ltd., Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.,
Jerusalem Economic Corporation Ltd. and
OfficeMax Inc., as well as numerous private
companies.
Geoffrey Dohrmann
Age 50 Mr. Dohrmann has served as a trustee since
August 2000. Mr. Dohrmann is Co-Founder,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Institutional Real Estate, Inc., a real
estate-oriented publishing and consulting
company. Mr. Dohrmann also belongs to the
advisory boards for the National Real Estate
Index, The Journal of Real Estate Portfolio
Management and Center for Real Estate
Enterprise Management. He is also a fellow of
the Homer Hoyt Institute and holds the
Certified Financial Planner (CFP) and
Counselors of Real Estate (CRE) designations.
John D. McGurk
Age 58 Mr. McGurk has served as a trustee since
January 1997, as the designee of Five Arrows
Realty Securities, L.L.C. As of September 18,
2001, which was the latest practicable date
prior to the printing of this prospectus, Five
Arrows was the holder of 8.2% of
135
145
the voting shares of Lexington. He is the
founder and President of Rothschild Realty,
Inc., the advisor to Five Arrows. Prior to
starting Rothschild Realty, Inc. in 1981, Mr.
McGurk served as a Regional Vice President for
The Prudential Insurance Company of America,
where he oversaw its New York City real estate
loan portfolio, equity holdings, joint
ventures and projects under development. Mr.
McGurk is a member of the Urban Land
Institute, Pension Real Estate Association,
Real Estate Board of New York and the National
Real Estate Association, and is a member of
the Trustee Committee of the Caedmon School.
Seth M. Zachary
Age 49 Mr. Zachary has served as a trustee since
November 1993. Since 1987, he has been a
partner in the law firm of Paul, Hastings,
Janofsky & Walker LLP, counsel to Lexington.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
GENERAL. Lexington operates under the direction of its Board of Trustees,
the members of which are accountable to Lexington as fiduciaries.
Lexington currently has seven trustees. It may have no fewer than three
trustees. Trustees are elected annually, and each trustee holds office until the
next annual meeting of shareholders or until his successor has been duly elected
and qualified. Trustees annually appoint the officers of Lexington to serve
until the next annual meeting of shareholders. There is no limit on the number
of times that a trustee may be elected to office. Although the number of
trustees may be increased or decreased as discussed above, a decrease shall not
have the effect of shortening the term of any incumbent director.
Any trustee may resign at any time and may be removed for cause only by the
shareholders upon the affirmative vote of at least 80% of all the shares of
common shares outstanding and entitled to vote in the election of the trustees.
The notice of a shareholders' meeting at which such vote will be taken shall
indicate that the purpose, or one of the purposes, of such meeting is to
determine if a director shall be removed.
INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES. Four of Lexington's current trustees are not
employees of Lexington and qualify as "independent" under the rules of the New
York Stock Exchange. The independent trustees are Messrs. Glickman, Dohrmann,
McGurk and Zachary. Lexington has no obligation under its Declaration of Trust
or any applicable law to have or to continue to have any independent trustees.
COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. Pursuant to Lexington's Declaration
of Trust, the Board of Trustees may establish committees as it deems
appropriate. Currently, Lexington has an Audit Committee which consists of
Messrs. Glickman, McGurk and Dohrmann. The Audit Committee makes recommendations
concerning the engagement of independent public accountants, reviews the plans
and results of the audit engagement, with the independent public accountants,
approves professional services provided by the independent public accountants,
reviews the independence of the independent public accountants, considers the
range of audit and non-audit fees and reviews the adequacy of Lexington's
internal accounting controls.
In addition to the Audit Committee, Lexington has a Compensation Committee
which consists of Messrs. McGurk, Zachary and Dohrmann. The Compensation
Committee advises the Board of Trustees on all matters pertaining to
compensation programs and policies, establishes guidelines for employee
incentive and benefits programs, reviews such programs on a continuous basis and
makes specific recommendations to the Board of Trustees relating to officers'
salaries and all incentive awards.
Lexington also has an Executive Committee, which consists of Messrs.
Roskind, Glickman and McGurk, two of whom are independent. The Executive
Committee has the authority to acquire, dispose of and finance investments for
Lexington, execute contracts and agreements, including those related to the
borrowing of money by Lexington, and generally exercise all other powers of the
Board of Trustees, except for those which require action by all the trustees or
the independent trustees, under the Declaration of Trust or the By-Laws of
Lexington, or under applicable law.
136
146
The Board of Trustees may, from time to time, establish other committees in
order to facilitate Lexington's management. The Board of Trustees does not have
a nominating committee, and the entire Board of Trustees performs the function
of such committee.
SUMMARY OF CASH AND OTHER COMPENSATION. The following table sets forth the
summary compensation paid to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Co-Chief
Executive Officer and the other four highest paid executive officers of
Lexington for the calendar years 2000, 1999 and 1998.
SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE
LONG-TERM COMPENSATION AWARDS
-------------------------------------
NUMBER OF
ANNUAL COMPENSATION SECURITIES LONG TERM
-------------------------------- RESTRICTED UNDERLYING INCENTIVE
OTHER ANNUAL SHARE OPTIONS PLAN ALL OTHER
FISCAL YEAR SALARY BONUS COMPENSATION AWARDS GRANTED LIMITED COMPENSATION
NAME AND PRINCIPAL POSITION ENDED ($) ($)(1) ($) ($)(2) ($)(3) PARTNERS($) ($)(4)
--------------------------- ----------- ------- ------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ----------- ------------
E. Robert Roskind......... 12/31/00 300,000 309,297 -- 180,000 280,000 -- 835
Chairman of the Board of 12/31/99 300,000 158,000 -- 242,500 75,000 -- 720
Trustees and Co-Chief 12/31/98 250,000 133,000 -- -- 100,000 -- 720
Executive Officer
Richard J. Rouse.......... 12/31/00 225,000 233,915 -- 126,000 190,000 -- 835
Vice Chairman and Co- 12/31/99 200,000 108,000 -- 169,750 45,000 -- 720
Chief Executive Officer 12/31/98 175,000 95,500 -- -- 34,500 -- 720
T. Wilson Eglin........... 12/31/00 240,000 249,200 -- 126,000 161,250 -- 835
President and Chief 12/31/99 225,000 120,500 -- 169,750 45,000 -- 720
Operating Officer 12/31/98 200,000 108,000 -- -- 34,500 -- 720
Patrick Carroll........... 12/31/00 190,000 198,700 -- 72,000 65,000 -- 835
Chief Financial Officer
and 12/31/99 175,000 78,000 -- 97,000 30,000 -- 720
Treasurer(5) 12/31/98 112,727 72,000 -- -- 50,000 -- 720
Stephen C. Hagen.......... 12/31/00 165,000 107,182 -- 36,000 50,000 -- 835
Senior Vice President 12/31/99 150,000 68,000 -- 48,500 15,000 -- 720
12/31/98 120,000 54,000 -- -- 25,000 -- 720
---------------
(1) Bonus amounts include amounts contributed at the election of Lexington
pursuant to Lexington's plan established under Section 401(k) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and year-end awards at the
discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Trustees.
(2) Restricted share awards vest ratably over 5 years and were valued at the
fair market value of the common shares on the date of grant.
(3) Options to acquire common shares at exercise prices equal to the fair market
value on the grant dates.
(4) Amount represents the dollar value of life insurance premiums paid by
Lexington during the applicable fiscal year with respect to the life of the
named executive officer.
(5) Mr. Carroll became Chief Financial Officer of Lexington on May 4, 1998 and
Treasurer effective January 1999.
137
147
SHARE OPTIONS. The following table sets forth information concerning share
options granted during the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999 to each of the
executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table. Since its inception,
Lexington has not granted any share appreciation or dividend equivalent rights.
OPTION GRANTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2000
INDIVIDUAL GRANTS POTENTIAL REALIZABLE
----------------------------------------------------------------- VALUE AT ASSUMED
PERCENTAGE {ANNUAL RATES OF
NUMBER OF (%) OF TOTAL SHARE {PRICE
SECURITIES OPTIONS APPRECIATION FOR
UNDERLYING GRANTED TO EXERCISE OR OPTION TERM
OPTIONS EMPLOYEES IN BASE PRICE EXPIRATION ---------------------
NAME GRANTED FISCAL 2000 ($/SHARE) DATE 5%($) 10%($)
---- ---------- ------------- ----------- ---------------------- -------- ----------
E. Robert Roskind............. 280,000 33.67% 10.37% 01/03/05; 05/25/05 803,600 1,772,400
Richard J. Rouse.............. 190,000 22.85% 10.01% 01/03/05; 05/25/05 526,300 1,160,900
T. Wilson Eglin............... 161,250 19.39% 9.81% 01/03/05; 05/25/05 436,988 965,888
Patrick Carroll............... 65,000 7.82% 9.06% 01/03/05 161,850 356,850
Stephen C. Hagen.............. 50,000 6.01% 9.06% 01/03/05 124,500 274,500
Option Exercises/Value of Unexercised Options. The following table sets
forth information concerning the exercise of share options during the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2000 by each of the executive officers named in the
Summary Compensation Table, and the year-end value of unexercised options held
by such persons.
SHARE OPTION EXERCISES IN FISCAL YEAR 2000
AND FISCAL YEAR-END OPTION VALUES
NUMBER OF UNEXERCISED OPTIONS AT VALUE OF UNEXERCISED IN-THE-MONEY
SHARES FISCAL YEAR-END OPTIONS AT FISCAL YEAR-END
ACQUIRED ON VALUE --------------------------------- ---------------------------------
NAME EXERCISE(#) REALIZED($) EXERCISABLE(#) UNEXERCISABLE(#) EXERCISABLE($) UNEXERCISABLE($)
---- ----------- ----------- -------------- ---------------- -------------- ----------------
E. Robert Roskind..... -- -- 379,210 212,500 212,513 210,938
Richard J. Rouse...... -- -- 248,652 132,000 150,638 210,938
T. Wilson Eglin....... -- -- 301,216 132,000 138,297 210,938
Patrick Carroll....... -- -- 31,250 113,750 45,703 137,109
Stephen C. Hagen...... -- -- 55,000 45,000 35,156 105,469
COMPENSATION OF TRUSTEES
Each non-employee trustee, with the exception of Mr. McGurk, receives an
annual fee of $20,000 for service as a trustee. In addition, such trustees
receive $1,000 for each meeting of the Board of Trustees or any committee
thereof attended by the trustee and reimbursement for expenses incurred in
attending such meetings. Pursuant to the 1994 Outside Director Stock Plan, as
amended, each non-employee trustee was required to receive not less than 50% of
such trustee's fees in common shares at an amount per share equal to 95% of the
fair market value of one common share as of the date of purchase. Pursuant to
Lexington's 1998 Share Option Plan, non-employee trustees, with the exception of
Mr. McGurk, automatically are granted each year, on January 1, non-qualified
share options to purchase, after a one-year holding period, 5,000 common shares
at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the common shares on the
date of the grant.
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION
The Compensation Committee consisted of Messrs. Dohrmann, McGurk and
Zachary. None of such persons are or have been executive officers of Lexington.
Mr. Zachary is a partner of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, which is the
general counsel to Lexington.
138
148
REPORT OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000, all matters concerning
executive compensation for the Co-Chief Executive Officers and other executive
officers were considered and acted upon by the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Trustees.
COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY. Lexington's compensation program for executive
officers is based upon a desire to achieve both its short- and long-term
business goals and strategies with a view to enhancing shareholder value. To
achieve its goals, Lexington recognizes that its compensation program must
attract, retain and motivate qualified and experienced executive officers and
that its compensation program should align the financial interests of its
executive officers with those of its shareholders. In 2000, Lexington retained
an independent third party to assist in determining the reasonableness and
competitiveness of its compensation program for its executive officers.
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OTHER THAN THE CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS. In approving the annual salary for Messrs. Eglin, Carroll and Hagen,
the Board of Trustees considered several factors, including the scope of the
individual's responsibilities, cost of living, the historical financial results
of Lexington and the anticipated financial performance of Lexington. The
compensation determination for each individual was largely subjective and no
specific weight was given to any particular factor. In addition to their base
salaries, these executive officers of Lexington receive discretionary bonuses
tied to their individual performances and the overall performance of Lexington.
The Board of Trustees has established specific performance goals for the payment
of discretionary bonuses based on the per share growth in funds from operations,
cash available for distributions and funds available for distributions coupled
with total annual shareholder return.
COMPENSATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS. As with the other executive
officers, the Board of Trustees determined the annual salaries for the Co-Chief
Executive Officers based upon a number of factors and criteria, including the
historical financial results of Lexington, the anticipated financial performance
of Lexington and the requirements of such Co-Chief Executive Officers. The
compensation determination for each of the Co-Chief Executive Officers was
largely subjective, and no specific weight was given to any particular factor.
The Co-Chief Executive Officers of Lexington are also eligible to receive
discretionary bonuses tied to their individual and overall performances. The
Board of Trustees has established specific performance goals for the payment of
discretionary bonuses which are the same as those for the other executive
officers.
2000 SHARE OPTION PLAN. Lexington believes that providing executive
officers with opportunities to acquire significant equity stakes in its growth
and prosperity through the grant of share options will enable Lexington to
attract and retain qualified and experienced executive officers. Share options
represent a valuable portion of the compensation program for Lexington's
executive officers. Share options may be awarded to executive officers at the
time they join Lexington and periodically after that. The exercise price of
share options has been tied to the fair market value of Lexington common shares
on the date of the grant and the options will only have value as the value of
Lexington common shares increases. Grants of share options to executive officers
generally are made by the Compensation Committee upon the recommendation of
senior management and are based upon the level of each executive officer's
position with Lexington, an evaluation of the executive officer's past and
expected future performance and the number of outstanding and previously granted
options.
FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY
The trustees are accountable to Lexington and its shareholders as
fiduciaries and must perform their duties in good faith, in a manner believed to
be in the best interests of Lexington and its shareholders and with the level of
care, including reasonable inquiry, that an ordinarily prudent person in a like
position would use under similar circumstances. Lexington's Declaration of Trust
provides that, to the fullest extent permitted by Maryland law, no trustee or
officer of Lexington shall be personally liable to Lexington or its shareholders
for monetary damages. The Declaration of Trust provides that Lexington will
indemnify its trustees and officers, whether serving Lexington or, at its
request, any other entity, to the full extent permitted by Maryland law,
including the advance of expenses and Lexington will also indemnify other
employees and agents, whether
139
149
serving Lexington or at its request any other entity, to such extent as shall be
authorized by the Board of Trustees, Lexington's By-Laws, or permitted by law.
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS
Lexington has entered into severance agreements with Messrs. Roskind,
Rouse, Eglin, Carroll, Hagen and Wood. The Transaction, however, will not
trigger the change of control provisions of the agreements which provide the
officers with payments based upon a multiple of annual compensation upon a
change of control of Lexington.
SHARE OWNERSHIP OF PRINCIPAL SECURITY HOLDERS, TRUSTEES AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
The following table indicates, as of September 18, 2001, which was the
latest practicable date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus:
- the number of common shares and preferred shares beneficially owned by:
- each person known by Lexington to own in excess of five percent of the
outstanding common shares or preferred shares,
- each trustee and each executive officer named in the Summary
Compensation Table above; and
- all trustees and officers as a group; and
- the percentage such shares represent of the total outstanding common
shares, preferred shares, operating partnership units convertible into
common shares and voting shares. As of September 18, 2001, which was the
latest practicable date prior to the printing of this Joint Consent and
Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, the total shares outstanding
22,288,984 common shares and 2,000,000 preferred shares. All shares were
owned on such date with sole voting and investment power unless otherwise
indicated.
BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP
OF SHARES(1)
---------------------- PERCENT OF CLASS
COMMON PREFERRED ----------------------------------
NAME OF BENEFICIAL OWNER SHARES SHARES COMMON PREFERRED VOTING SHARES
------------------------ --------- --------- ------ --------- -------------
Five Arrows Realty Securities L.L.C...... -- 2,000,000(2) -- 100.00% 8.23%
c/o Rothschild Realty, Inc.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020.
E. Robert Roskind........................ 1,989,418(3) -- 8.31% -- 7.67%
c/o Lexington Corporate Properties
Trust
355 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Richard J. Rouse......................... 408,146(4) -- 1.81% -- 1.66%
T. Wilson Eglin.......................... 355,451(5) -- 1.58% -- 1.45%
Patrick Carroll.......................... 113,647(6) -- * -- *
Stephen C. Hagen......................... 99,468(7) -- * -- *
Carl D. Glickman......................... 171,056(8) -- * -- *
Geoffrey Dohrmann........................ 1,982 -- * -- *
John D. McGurk........................... -- 2,000,000(9) -- 100.00% 8.23%
c/o Rothschild Realty, Inc.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Seth M. Zachary.......................... 47,089(10) -- * -- *
All trustees and executive officers as a
group (10 persons)(11)................. 3,216,751 2,000,000 13.08% 100.000% 19.62%
140
150
---------------
* Represents beneficial ownership of less than 1.0%
(1) For purposes of this table, a person is deemed to have "beneficial
ownership" of any shares as of a given date which such person has the right
to acquire within 60 days after such date. For purposes of computing the
percentage of outstanding shares held by each person named above on a given
date, any security which such person or persons has the right to acquire
within 60 days after such date is deemed to be outstanding, but is not
deemed to be outstanding for the purpose of computing the percentage
ownership of any other person.
(2) These shares are convertible into 2,000,000 common shares, subject to
adjustment, at any time.
(3) Includes:
- 1,408,590 limited partnership units held by Mr. Roskind and entities
controlled by Mr. Roskind in Lepercq Corporate Income Fund L.P. and
Lepercq Corporate Income Fund II L.P., each of which is a subsidiary of
Lexington, which are currently convertible, on a one-for-one basis, for
common shares;
- 9,000 common shares owned of record by The LCP Group, L.P.;
- options to purchase 253,750 common shares.
(4) Includes:
- 86,702 limited partnership units held by Mr. Rouse in Lepercq Corporate
Income Fund L.P. and Lepercq Corporate Income Fund II L.P., which are
exchangeable, on a one-for-one basis, for common shares;
- options to purchase 148,750 common shares; and
- 65,500 common shares which secure a note issued by Mr. Rouse.
(5) Includes:
- options to purchase 187,338 common shares; and
- 65,500 common shares which secure a note issued by Mr. Eglin.
(6) Includes options to purchase 73,611 common shares.
(7) Includes options to purchase 83,750 common shares.
(8) Includes options to purchase 22,500 common shares.
(9) Includes 2,000,000 Preferred Shares owned beneficially and of record by
Five Arrows Realty Securities L.L.C. Mr. McGurk, among others, has been
appointed by Rothschild Investors as a manager of Five Arrows. Mr. McGurk
is also the designee of Five Arrows to Lexington's Board of Trustees. Mr.
McGurk disclaims beneficial ownership of all such Preferred Shares.
(10) Includes options to purchase 22,500 common shares.
(11) Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires
Lexington's trustees and executive officers to file initial reports of
ownership and reports of changes in ownership of common shares and other
equity securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New
York Stock Exchange. Trustees and executive officers are required to
furnish Lexington with copies of all Section 16 (a) forms they file. Based
on a review of the copies of such reports furnished to Lexington and
written representations from Lexington's trustees and executive officers
that no other reports were required, Lexington believes that during the
1999 fiscal year Lexington's trustees and executive officers complied with
all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to them.
DESCRIPTION OF CAPITAL SHARES
The description of Lexington's capital shares set forth below does not
purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
Lexington's Declaration of Trust and By-Laws, copies of which are incorporated
by reference as exhibits to this Registration Statement. See "AVAILABLE
INFORMATION" on page i.
141
151
AUTHORIZED CAPITAL
Lexington has an aggregate of 40,000,000 authorized common shares,
40,000,000 excess shares and 10,000,000 preferred shares available for issuance
under its Declaration of Trust. If the amendment to Lexington's Declaration of
Trust is approved by its shareholders, the number of authorized common shares
will be increased to 80,000,000. See "OTHER PROPOSALS" on page 121. Two million
of the preferred shares have been designated Class A Senior Cumulative Preferred
Shares. Such shares may be issued from time to time by Lexington in the
discretion of the Board of Trustees in order to raise additional capital,
acquire assets, redeem or retire debt or for any other business purpose. In
addition, the undesignated preferred shares may be issued in one or more
additional classes with such designations, preferences and relative
participating, optional or other special rights, including, without limitation,
preferential dividend or voting rights and rights upon liquidation, as shall be
fixed by the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is also authorized to
classify and reclassify any unissued capital shares by setting or changing, in
any one or more respects, the preferences, conversion or other rights, voting
powers, restrictions, limitations as to dividends, qualifications or terms or
conditions of redemption of such capital shares. Such authority includes,
subject only to the provisions of the Declaration of Trust, authority to
classify or reclassify any unissued capital shares into a class or classes of
preferred shares, preferences shares, special shares or other shares, and to
divide and reclassify shares of any class into one or more series of such class.
The issuance of Preferred Shares, or the exercise by the Board of Trustees of
such rights to classify or reclassify shares, could have the effect of deterring
individuals or entities from making tender offers for the common shares or
seeking to change incumbent management.
DESCRIPTION OF COMMON SHARES
Under the Declaration of Trust, Lexington has authority to issue 40,000,000
common shares. Under the Maryland REIT Law, shareholders generally are not
responsible for the trust's debts or obligations.
As of September 18, 2001, which was the latest practicable date prior to
the printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus,
Lexington had issued and outstanding 22,288,984 common shares and had reserved
for possible issuance upon redemption of operating partnership units an
aggregate of 5,268,299 common shares. Unless held by affiliates of Lexington,
all of the common shares and any common shares issued upon redemption of
operating partnership units are tradable without restriction under the
Securities Act either pursuant to this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus, pursuant to registration rights granted by Lexington or
otherwise.
No prediction can be made as to the effect, if any, that future sales of
common shares, or the availability of shares for future sale, will have on the
market price prevailing from time to time. Sales of substantial amounts of
common shares, or the perception that such sales could occur, could adversely
affect the prevailing market price of the shares.
DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED SHARES
Under the Declaration of Trust, Lexington has authority to issue 10,000,000
preferred shares, 2,000,000 of which, designated as Class A Senior Cumulative
Convertible Preferred Shares, are outstanding as of the date of this Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, as described below.
Preferred shares may be issued from time to time, in one or more series, as
authorized by the Board of Trustees of Lexington. Prior to the issuance of
shares of each series, the Board of Trustees is required by the Maryland REIT
Law and the Declaration of Trust to fix for each series, subject to the
provisions of the Declaration of Trust regarding excess shares, the terms,
preferences, conversion or other rights, voting powers, restrictions,
limitations as to dividends or other distributions, qualifications and terms or
conditions of redemption, as are permitted by Maryland REIT Law. The Board of
Trustees could authorize the issuance of preferred shares with terms and
conditions that could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other
transaction that holders of common shares might believe to be in their best
interests or in which holders of some, or a majority, of the common shares might
receive a premium for their shares over the then current market price of such
common shares.
142
152
TERMS OF CLASS A SENIOR CUMULATIVE CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED SHARES
The convertible preferred shares, which are convertible at any time at the
option of the holder into common shares on a one-for-one basis at $12.50 per
share, subject to adjustment, are entitled to quarterly distributions equal to
the greater of:
(a) $0.295 per share; or
(b) the product of 1.05 multiplied by the per share quarterly
distribution on common shares.
The convertible preferred shares may be redeemed by Lexington after
December 31, 2001 at a 6% premium over the liquidation preference of $12.50 per
share, plus accrued and unpaid dividends, with such premium declining to zero on
or after December 31, 2011. Each convertible preferred share is entitled to one
vote and holders are entitled to vote on all matters submitted to a vote of
holders of outstanding common shares. Lexington additionally has entered into
agreements with Five Arrows, providing, among other things, for demand and
piggyback registration rights with respect to such shares and the right to
designate a member or members of the Board of Trustees of Lexington. Five
Arrows' designee, John D. McGurk, is currently serving as a member of
Lexington's Board of Trustees.
ANTI-TAKEOVER PROVISIONS OF MARYLAND LAW
The Maryland REIT Law contains provisions that may be deemed to have an
anti-takeover effect and that may delay, defer or prevent a change in control of
Lexington or other transaction that a Lexington shareholder might consider in
its best interest, including a transaction that might result in a premium over
the market price for the common shares. Maryland law provides that a Maryland
corporation may not engage in any "business combination" with any "interested
shareholder." An "interested shareholder" is defined, in essence, as any person
owning beneficially more than 10% of the outstanding voting stock of a Maryland
corporation. Unless an exemption applies, Lexington may not engage in any
business combination with an interested shareholder for a period of five years
after the interested shareholder became an interested shareholder, and after
that may not engage in a business combination unless it is recommended by the
Board of Trustees and approved by the affirmative vote of at least (1) 80% of
the votes entitled to be cast by the holders of all outstanding voting stock of
Lexington, and (2) 66 2/3% of the votes entitled to be cast by all holders of
outstanding shares of voting stock other than voting stock held by the
interested shareholder. The voting requirements do not apply at any time to
business combinations with an interested shareholder or its affiliates if
approved by the Board of Trustees of Lexington prior to the time the interested
shareholder first became an interested shareholder. Additionally, if the
business combination involves the receipt of consideration by the shareholders
in exchange for Lexington common shares, the voting requirements do not apply if
certain "fair price" conditions are met.
Maryland law also provides for the elimination of the voting rights of any
person who makes a control share acquisition except to the extent that the
acquisition is exempt or is approved by at least 66 2/3% of all votes entitled
to be cast on the matter, excluding shares of capital stock owned by the
acquirer or by officers or trustees who are employees of the acquirer. A control
share acquisition is the direct or indirect acquisition by any person of
ownership of, or the power to direct the exercise of voting power with respect
to, shares of voting stock that would, if aggregated with all other voting stock
owned by a person, entitle that person to exercise voting power in electing
trustees within one of the following ranges of voting power: (1) 10% or more but
less than 33 1/3%; (2) 33 1/3% or more but less than a majority; or (3) a
majority of voting power. A person who has made or proposes to make a control
share acquisition, upon satisfaction of specific conditions including an
undertaking to pay expenses, may compel the Board of Trustees to call a special
meeting of shareholders to be held within 50 days of demand to consider the
voting rights of the shares. If no request for a meeting is made, Lexington may
itself present the question at any shareholders meeting. If voting rights are
not approved at the meeting or if the acquiring person does not deliver an
acquiring person statement as permitted by the statute, then, subject to certain
conditions and limitations, Lexington may redeem any or all of the control
shares, except those for which voting rights have previously been approved, for
fair value determined, without regard to voting rights, as of the date of the
last control share acquisition or of any meeting of shareholders at which the
voting rights of these shares are considered and not approved. If voting rights
for control shares are
143
153
approved at a shareholders meeting and the acquirer becomes entitled to vote a
majority of the shares entitled to vote, all other shareholders may exercise
appraisal rights. The fair value of the stock as determined for purposes of
appraisal rights may not be less than the highest price per share paid in the
control share acquisition, and certain limitations and restrictions otherwise
applicable to the exercise of dissenters' rights do not apply in the context of
a control share acquisition. The control share acquisition statute does not
apply to stock acquired in a merger, consolidation or share exchange if
Lexington is a party to the transaction, or to acquisitions approved or exempted
by the Declaration of Trust of Lexington. These provisions could adversely
affect the market price of the common shares.
TRANSFER AGENT
The transfer agent and registrar for the common shares is Mellon Investor
Services LLC.
REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO
As of June 30, 2001, Lexington owned or had interests in approximately 13.1
million square feet of rentable space in 73 office, industrial and retail
properties. Lexington's properties were, as of June 30, 2001, 100% leased. The
number of properties, historical revenues, percentage of rental revenues for the
past twelve months, square footage and square footage mix of Lexington's
portfolio is as follows:
HISTORICAL PERCENTAGE OF SQUARE
NUMBER OF REVENUES HISTORICAL FOOTAGE PERCENT OF
TYPE OF PROPERTY PROPERTIES ($000'S) REVENUE(1) (000'S) SQUARE FOOTAGE
---------------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ------- --------------
Office........................ 28 $52,095 59% 5,186 40%
Industrial.................... 24 25,643 29% 6,400 49%
Retail........................ 21 10,539 12% 1,536 11%
-- ------- --- ------ ---
Total....................... 73 $88,277 100% 13,122 100%
== ======= === ====== ===
---------------
(1) Reflects Lexington's proportionate ownership interest in its joint venture
investments.
Lexington's properties are generally subject to triple net leases. In
situations in which Lexington is responsible for roof and structural repairs,
Lexington performs annual inspections of the properties. Lexington's properties
in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, Lake Mary, Florida and Fishers, Indiana are
subject to leases in which Lexington is responsible for a portion of the real
estate taxes, utilities and general maintenance.
Lexington's tenants are diversified across a variety of industries,
including banking, computer and software services, health and fitness, general
purpose retailing, manufacturing, insurance and warehousing, and have a weighted
average credit strength of investment grade quality.
A substantial portion of Lexington's income consists of base rent under
long-term leases. As of June 30, 2001, the average remaining term under
Lexington's leases was approximately 7.8 years with 50 leases containing
scheduled rent increases, 5 leases containing an increase based upon the
Consumer Price Index and one lease containing a percentage rent clause. The
remaining leases contain no rent increase provisions.
Lexington has 11 properties accounting for $15.6 million of annualized
rental revenue that are subject to long term ground leases where a third party
owns and has leased the underlying land to Lexington. In each of these
situations, the rental payments made by Lexington to the landowner are passed on
to Lexington's tenant as a portion of the Tenant's rental payments to Lexington.
At the end of these long-term ground leases, unless extended, the land, together
with all improvements on the land, revert to the landowner. These ground leases,
including renewal options, expire at various dates from 2028 through 2074.
REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS
The tables on the following pages sets forth certain information relating
to Lexington's real property portfolio, including joint venture properties, as
of September 18, 2001, which was the latest practicable date prior to the
printing of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus
($000's except per
144
154
share data). All of the properties listed have been fully leased by tenants for
the last five years, or since the date of purchase by Lexington or its joint
venture entities if purchased within the last five years, with the exception of
the Memphis, Tennessee property, which was not leased from February 1998 to
October 1999, and the rental properties in Columbia, Maryland and Brownsville,
Texas, which are currently vacant.
145
155
146
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
PROPERTY CHART
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAND NET
TENANT YEAR CONSTRUCTED/ AREA RENTABLE
PROPERTY LOCATION (GUARANTOR) REDEVELOPED (ACRES) SQUARE FEET
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE
------------------------------
3615 North 27th Avenue Bank One, Arizona, N.A. 1960 & 1979 10.26 179,280
Phoenix, AZ
1301 California Circle Stevens-Arnold, Inc. 1985 6.34 100,026
Milpitas, CA (BICC Public Ltd. Co.)
200 Southington Hartford Fire Insurance Co. 1983 12.40 153,364
Executive Boulevard South
Southington, CT
19019 No. 59th Avenue Honeywell, Inc. 1985 51.79 252,300
Glendale, AZ
401 Elm Street Lockheed Martin Corp. 1960 & 1988 36.94 126,000
Marlborough, MA (Honeywell, Inc.)
12000 Tech Center Drive Kelsey-Hayes Company (Tech I) 1987 & 1988 5.72 80,230
Livonia, MI
2300 Litton Lane Fidelity Corporate 1987 24.00 81,744
Hebron, KY Real Estate, LLC(2)
2211 South 47th Street Avnet, Inc. 1997 11.33 176,402
Phoenix, AZ
160 Clairemont Avenue Allied Holdings, Inc. 1983 2.98 112,248
Decatur, GA
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
BASE LEASE TERM
AND ANNUAL RENTS
PER NET RENTABLE RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
OFFICE
------------------------------
3615 North 27th Avenue 11/30/88-11/30/03 5 year(1)
Phoenix, AZ 12/01/98-11/30/03: $10.60
1301 California Circle 12/10/85-12/10/05 5 year(9)
Milpitas, CA 12/01/00-05/31/03: $25.56
06/01/03-12/10/05: $28.92
200 Southington 09/01/91-12/31/05 5 year(1)
Executive Boulevard South 01/01/95-12/31/05: $14.12
Southington, CT
19019 No. 59th Avenue 07/16/86-07/15/06 5 year(2)
Glendale, AZ 07/16/96-07/15/01: $7.50
07/16/01-07/15/06: $8.00
401 Elm Street 07/22/97-12/17/06 5 year(6)
Marlborough, MA 07/22/97-12/17/01: $13.26
12/18/01-12/17/06:
75% of cumulative
increase in CPI
12000 Tech Center Drive 05/01/97-04/30/07 5 year(2)
Livonia, MI 05/01/99-04/30/02: $7.91
05/01/02-04/30/05: $8.75
05/01/05-04/30/07: $9.25
2300 Litton Lane 05/01/97-04/30/07 5 year(2)
Hebron, KY 05/01/97-04/30/02: $9.50
05/01/02-04/30/07: $11.00
2211 South 47th Street 05/11/00-11/14/07 5 year(2)
Phoenix, AZ 05/11/00-10/31/00: $12.11
11/01/00-10/31/03: $13.24
11/01/01-10/31/06: $14.47
11/01/06-11/14/07: $15.81
160 Clairemont Avenue 01/01/98-12/31/07 5 year(2)
Decatur, GA 01/01/00-12/31/07: $13.05
Rent increases
2.75% annually
156
147
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAND NET
TENANT YEAR CONSTRUCTED/ AREA RENTABLE
PROPERTY LOCATION (GUARANTOR) REDEVELOPED (ACRES) SQUARE FEET
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13651 McLearen Road Boeing North American 1987 10.39 159,664
Herndon, VA Services, Inc.
2210 Enterprise Drive Fleet Mortgage Group, Inc. 1998 16.53 177,747
Florence, SC
295 Chipeta Way Northwest Pipeline Corp.(1) 1982 19.79 295,000
Salt Lake City, UT
421 Butler Farm Road Nextel Communications of the 2000 7.81 56,515
Hampton, VA Mid-Atlantic, Inc.
9950 Mayland Drive Circuit City Stores, Inc.(1) 1990 19.71 288,562
Richmond, VA
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
BASE LEASE TERM
AND ANNUAL RENTS
PER NET RENTABLE RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
13651 McLearen Road 05/31/99-05/30/08 5 year(2)
Herndon, VA 05/31/00-05/30/01: $13.74
05/31/01-05/30/02: $15.50
05/31/02-05/30/03: $15.89
05/31/03-05/30/04: $16.28
05/31/04-05/30/05: $16.69
05/31/05-05/30/06: $17.11
05/31/06-05/30/07: $17.54
05/31/07-05/30/08: $17.98
2210 Enterprise Drive 06/10/98-06/30/08 5 year(2)
Florence, SC 06/10/98-06/30/03: $8.55
07/01/03-06/30/08: $9.84
295 Chipeta Way 10/01/82-09/30/09 9 year(1)
Salt Lake City, UT 10/01/97-09/30/09: $29.06 10 year(1)
subject to a CPI
adjustment on a
portion of the
rent.
421 Butler Farm Road 01/15/00-01/14/10 5 year(2)
Hampton, VA 01/15/00-01/14/01: $11.60
01/15/01-01/14/02: $11.83
01/15/02-01/14/03: $12.07
01/15/03-01/14/04: $12.31
01/15/04-01/14/05: $12.56
01/15/05-01/14/06: $12.81
01/15/06-01/14/07: $13.07
01/15/07-01/14/08: $13.33
01/15/08-01/14/09: $13.60
01/15/09-01/14/10: $13.87
9950 Mayland Drive 02/28/90-02/28/10 10 year(4)
Richmond, VA 03/01/00-02/28/10: $9.91 5 year(1)
157
148
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAND NET
TENANT YEAR CONSTRUCTED/ AREA RENTABLE
PROPERTY LOCATION (GUARANTOR) REDEVELOPED (ACRES) SQUARE FEET
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10419 North 30th Street Time Customer Service, Inc. 1986 14.38 132,981
Tampa, FL (Time, Inc.)
4200 RCA Boulevard The Wackenhut Corp.(5) 1996 7.70 127,855
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
250 Rittenhouse Circle Jones Apparel Group, Inc.(4) 1982 15.63 255,019
Bristol, PA
180 Rittenhouse Circle Jones Apparel Group, Inc. 1998 4.73 96,000
Bristol, PA
250 Turnpike Road Honeywell Consumer Products 1984 9.83 57,698
Southborough, MA
1600 Viceroy Drive VarTec Telecom, Inc. 1986 8.17 249,452
Dallas, TX
------ ----------
OFFICE SUBTOTAL 296.43 3,158,087
------ ----------
INDUSTRIAL
------------------------------
6950 Greenwood Parkway Allegiance Healthcare Corp.(1) 1990 10.15 123,924
Bessemer, AL (Baxter International, Inc.)
567 South Riverside Drive Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. 1970 & 1976 5.80 146,000
Modesto, CA
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
BASE LEASE TERM
AND ANNUAL RENTS
PER NET RENTABLE RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
10419 North 30th Street 04/01/87-07/31/10 5 year(2)
Tampa, FL 08/01/00-07/31/01: $9.67
08/01/01-07/31/02: $9.94
08/01/02-07/31/03: $10.21
08/01/03-07/31/04: $10.49
08/01/04-07/31/05: $10.78
08/01/05-07/31/06: $11.07
08/01/06-07/31/07: $11.38
08/01/07-07/31/08: $11.69
08/01/08-07/31/09: $12.01
08/01/09-07/31/10: $12.34
4200 RCA Boulevard 02/15/96-02/28/11 5 year(3)
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 12/01/97-02/28/11: $17.80
250 Rittenhouse Circle 03/26/98-03/25/13 5 year(2)
Bristol, PA 03/26/98-03/26/03: $4.51
03/27/03-03/26/08: $4.96
03/27/08-03/25/13: $5.46
180 Rittenhouse Circle 08/01/98-07/31/13 None
Bristol, PA 08/01/00-07/31/01: $8.49
08/01/01-07/31/13:
Rent increases
3% per year
250 Turnpike Road 10/01/95-09/30/15 5 year(4)
Southborough, MA 10/01/00-09/30/05: $7.49
Increase based
upon
CPI every five
years
1600 Viceroy Drive 09/04/97-09/30/15 5 year(2)
Dallas, TX 09/01/00-08/31/03: $12.81
09/01/03-08/31/07: $13.81
09/01/07-09/30/15: $14.81
INDUSTRIAL
------------------------------
6950 Greenwood Parkway 09/01/91-09/01/01 5 year(2)
Bessemer, AL 09/01/91-09/01/01: $3.81
567 South Riverside Drive 09/26/86-09/25/01 5 year(1)
Modesto, CA 09/26/96-09/25/01: $2.04
158
149
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAND NET
TENANT YEAR CONSTRUCTED/ AREA RENTABLE
PROPERTY LOCATION (GUARANTOR) REDEVELOPED (ACRES) SQUARE FEET
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
109 Stevens Street Unisource Worldwide, Inc. 1958 & 1969 6.97 168,800
Jacksonville, FL
222 Tappan Drive North The Gerstenslager Company 1970 26.57 296,720
Mansfield, OH (Worthington Industries)
904 Industrial Road Tenneco Automotive Operating 1968 & 1972 20.00 195,640
Marshall, MI Company, Inc.
1601 Pratt Avenue Tenneco Automotive Operating 1979 8.26 53,600
Marshall, MI Company, Inc.
4425 Purks Road Lear Technologies, LLC 1989 & 1998 12.00 183,717
Auburn Hills, MI (Lear Corporation)
(General Motors Corp.)
245 Salem Church Road Exel Logistics Inc. 1985 12.52 252,000
Mechanicsburg, PA (NFC plc)
6 Doughton Road Exel Logistics Inc. 1989 24.38 330,000
New Kingstown, PA (NFC plc)
34 East Main Street Exel Logistics Inc. 1981 9.66 179,200
New Kingstown, PA (NFC plc)
450 Stern Street Johnson Controls, Inc. 1996 20.10 111,160
Oberlin, OH
12025 Tech Center Drive Kelsey-Hayes Company 1987 & 1988 9.18 100,000
Livonia, MI (Tech II)
One Spicer Drive Dana Corp. 1983 & 1985 20.95 148,000
Gordonsville, TN
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
BASE LEASE TERM
AND ANNUAL RENTS
PER NET RENTABLE RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
109 Stevens Street 10/01/87-09/30/02 None
Jacksonville, FL 10/01/97-09/30/02: $2.25
222 Tappan Drive North 10/01/99-05/31/05 5 year(3)
Mansfield, OH 10/01/99-05/31/05: $2.27
904 Industrial Road 08/18/87-08/17/05 None
Marshall, MI 08/18/00-08/17/03: $3.00
08/18/03-08/17/05: $3.10
1601 Pratt Avenue 08/18/87-08/17/05 None
Marshall, MI 08/18/00-08/17/03: $3.00
08/18/03-08/17/05: $3.10
4425 Purks Road 07/23/98-07/22/06 None
Auburn Hills, MI 07/23/98-07/22/02: $7.21
07/23/02-07/22/06: $7.63
245 Salem Church Road 11/15/91-11/30/06 5 year(2)
Mechanicsburg, PA 12/01/00-11/30/03: $4.01
12/01/03-11/30/06: $4.38
6 Doughton Road 11/15/91-11/30/06 5 year(2)
New Kingstown, PA 12/01/00-11/30/03: $4.12
12/01/03-11/30/06:
34 East Main Street 11/15/91-11/30/06 5 year(2)
New Kingstown, PA 12/01/00-11/30/03: $3.68
12/01/03-11/30/06: $4.02
450 Stern Street 12/23/96-12/22/06 5 year(2)
Oberlin, OH 12/23/00-12/22/01: $5.27
Annual increase of
3x CPI, but not
more than 4.5%
12025 Tech Center Drive 05/01/97-04/30/07 5 year(2)
Livonia, MI 05/01/99-04/30/02: $9.16
05/01/02-04/30/05: $9.75
05/01/05-04/30/07: $10.25
One Spicer Drive 01/01/84-08/31/07 5 year(2)
Gordonsville, TN 08/01/99-07/31/02: $2.26 4 year,
08/01/02-07/31/05: $2.33 11 months(1)
08/01/05-08/31/07: $2.40
159
150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAND NET
TENANT YEAR CONSTRUCTED/ AREA RENTABLE
PROPERTY LOCATION (GUARANTOR) REDEVELOPED (ACRES) SQUARE FEET
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
541 Perkins Jones Road Kmart Corp. 1982 103.00 1,700,000
Warren, OH
3350 Miac Cove Road Mimeo.com, Inc.(3) 1987 10.92 141,359
Memphis, TN
3102 Queen Palm Drive Time Customer Service, Inc. 1986 15.02 229,605
Tampa, FL (Time, Inc.)
6345 Brackbill Boulevard Exel Logistics, Inc. 1985 & 1991 29.01 507,000
Mechanicsburg, PA (NFC plc)
2280 Northeast Drive Ryder Integrated Logistics, 1996 & 1997 25.70 276,480
Waterloo, IA Inc.
(Ryder Systems, Inc.)
3501 West Avenue H Michaels Stores, Inc. 1998 37.18 431,250
Lancaster, CA
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
BASE LEASE TERM
AND ANNUAL RENTS
PER NET RENTABLE RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
541 Perkins Jones Road 10/01/82-09/30/07 5 year(10)
Warren, OH 10/01/98-09/30/02: $4.95
10/01/02-09/30/07: $5.51
3350 Miac Cove Road 11/01/99-10/31/09 None
Memphis, TN 11/01/99-10/31/02: $5.00
11/01/02-10/31/04: $5.00
11/01/04-10/31/09: $5.50
3102 Queen Palm Drive 08/01/87-07/31/10 5 year(2)
Tampa, FL 08/01/00-07/31/01: $3.90
08/01/01-07/31/02: $4.01
08/01/02-07/31/03: $4.12
08/01/03-07/31/04: $4.23
08/01/04-07/31/05: $4.35
08/01/05-07/31/06: $4.47
08/01/06-07/31/07: $4.59
08/01/07-07/31/08: $4.72
08/01/08-07/31/09: $4.85
08/01/09-07/31/10: $4.98
6345 Brackbill Boulevard 10/29/90-03/19/12 10 year(2)
Mechanicsburg, PA 3/20/97-03/19/02: $3.49
3/20/02-03/19/07: $4.02
3/20/07-03/19/12:
greater of $4.62
or fair market
rent as specified
in lease
2280 Northeast Drive 08/01/97-07/31/12 5 year(3)
Waterloo, IA 08/01/97-07/31/02: $3.22
08/01/02-07/31/07: $3.61
08/01/07-07/31/12: $4.04
3501 West Avenue H 06/19/98-06/18/13 5 year(3)
Lancaster, CA 06/19/98-06/18/03: $3.24
06/19/03-06/18/08: $3.31
06/19/08-06/18/13: $3.39
160
151
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAND NET
TENANT YEAR CONSTRUCTED/ AREA RENTABLE
PROPERTY LOCATION (GUARANTOR) REDEVELOPED (ACRES) SQUARE FEET
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7150 Exchequer Drive Corporate Express Office 1998 5.23 65,043
Baton Rouge, LA Products, Inc.
(CEX Holdings, Inc.)
324 Industrial Park Road SKF USA, Inc. 1996 21.13 72,868
Franklin, NC
------ ----------
INDUSTRIAL SUBTOTAL 433.73 5,712,366
------ ----------
RETAIL
------------------------------
4450 California Street Mervyn's 1976 11.00 122,000
Bakersfield, CA (Dayton Hudson Corp.)
24100 Laguna Hills Mall Federated Department Stores, 1974 11.00 160,000
Laguna Hills, CA Inc.(1)
7111 Westlake Terrace The Home Depot USA, Inc.(1) 1980 7.61 95,000
Bethesda, MD
6910 S. Memorial Highway Toys "R" Us, Inc.(1) 1981 4.44 43,123
Tulsa, OK
12535 SE 82nd Avenue Toys "R" Us, Inc.(1) 1981 5.85 42,842
Clackamas, OR
18601 Alderwood Mall Blvd. Toys "R" Us, Inc.(1) 1981 3.64 43,105
Lynnwood, WA
5917 S. La Grange Road Bally Total Fitness Corp. 1987 2.73 25,250
Countryside, IL
1160 White Horse Road Physical Fitness Centers of 1987 2.87 31,750
Voorhees, NJ Philadelphia, Inc.
(Bally Total Fitness Corp.)
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
BASE LEASE TERM
AND ANNUAL RENTS
PER NET RENTABLE RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
7150 Exchequer Drive 11/01/98-10/31/13 5 year(3)
Baton Rouge, LA 11/01/98-10/31/01: $5.02
11/01/01-10/31/04: $5.32
11/01/04-10/31/07: $5.64
11/01/07-10/31/10: $5.98
11/01/10-10/31/13: $6.34
324 Industrial Park Road 12/23/96-12/31/14 10 year(3)
Franklin, NC 01/01/00-12/31/02: $4.67
01/01/03-12/31/14:
CPI every 3 years
RETAIL
------------------------------
4450 California Street 02/23/77-12/31/02 5 year(5)
Bakersfield, CA 01/01/78-12/31/02: $3.34
24100 Laguna Hills Mall 02/01/76-01/31/06 8 year(1)
Laguna Hills, CA 02/01/80-01/31/06: $4.23 15 year(2)
6 year(1)
7111 Westlake Terrace 05/01/81-04/30/06 10 year(1)
Bethesda, MD 05/01/96-04/30/06: $8.13 5 year(3)
6910 S. Memorial Highway 06/01/81-05/31/06 5 year(5)
Tulsa, OK 02/01/98-05/31/01: $8.26
06/01/01-05/31/06: $8.40
12535 SE 82nd Avenue 06/01/81-05/31/06 5 year(5)
Clackamas, OR 02/01/98-05/31/01: $9.74
06/01/01-05/31/06: $9.91
18601 Alderwood Mall Blvd. 06/01/81-05/31/06 5 year(5)
Lynnwood, WA 02/01/98-05/31/01: $9.03
06/01/01-05/31/06: $9.18
5917 S. La Grange Road 07/13/87-07/12/07 5 year(2)
Countryside, IL 07/13/97-07/12/02: $22.73
07/13/02-07/12/07: $26.14
1160 White Horse Road 07/14/87-07/13/07 5 year(2)
Voorhees, NJ 07/14/97-07/13/02: $22.45
07/14/02-07/13/07: $25.82
161
152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAND NET
TENANT YEAR CONSTRUCTED/ AREA RENTABLE
PROPERTY LOCATION (GUARANTOR) REDEVELOPED (ACRES) SQUARE FEET
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5801 Bridge Street Champion Fitness IV, Inc. 1977 & 1987 3.66 24,990
DeWitt, NY (Bally Total Fitness Corp.)
2655 Shasta Way Fred Meyer, Inc. 1986 13.90 178,204
Klamath Falls, OR
7272 55th Street Circuit City Stores, Inc. 1988 3.93 45,308
Sacramento, CA
6405 South Virginia St. Comp USA, Inc. 1988 2.72 31,400
Reno, NV
5055 West Sahara Avenue Circuit City Stores, Inc. 1988 2.57 36,053
Las Vegas, NV
4733 Hills & Dales Road Scandinavian Health Spa, Inc. 1987 3.32 37,214
Canton, OH (Bally Total Fitness Holding
Corp.)
Fort Street Mall Liberty House, Inc.(1) 1980 1.22 85,610
King St.
Honolulu, HI
7055 Highway 85 South Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 1985 8.61 81,911
Riverdale, GA
Highway 101 Fred Meyer, Inc. 1986 8.81 118,179
Newport, OR
9580 Livingston Road GFS Realty, Inc. 1976 10.60 107,337
Oxon Hill, MD (Giant Food, Inc.)
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
BASE LEASE TERM
AND ANNUAL RENTS
PER NET RENTABLE RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
5801 Bridge Street 08/19/87-08/18/07 5 year(2)
DeWitt, NY 08/19/97-08/18/02: $17.78
08/19/02-08/18/07: $20.45
2655 Shasta Way 03/10/88-03/31/08 10 year(3)
Klamath Falls, OR 03/10/88-03/31/08: $5.66
7272 55th Street 10/28/88-10/27/08 10 year(3)
Sacramento, CA 10/28/98-10/27/03: $8.54
10/28/03-10/27/08: $9.30
6405 South Virginia St. 12/16/88-12/15/08 10 year(3)
Reno, NV 12/16/98-12/15/03: $10.65
12/16/03-12/15/08: $11.60
5055 West Sahara Avenue 12/16/88-12/15/08 10 year(3)
Las Vegas, NV 12/16/98-12/15/03: $7.93
12/16/03-12/15/08: $8.64
4733 Hills & Dales Road 01/01/89-12/31/08 5 year(2)
Canton, OH 01/01/01-12/31/01: $17.97
01/01/02-12/31/08:
Rent increases
2.2% annually
Fort Street Mall 10/01/80-09/30/09 9 year,
King St. 10/01/95-09/30/05: $11.25 7 months(1)
Honolulu, HI 10/01/05-09/30/09: $11.56 2 year(1)
5 year(3)
7055 Highway 85 South 12/04/85-01/31/11 5 year(5)
Riverdale, GA 12/04/85-01/31/11: $3.29
Highway 101 06/01/86-05/31/11 5 year(3)
Newport, OR 06/01/86-05/31/11: $6.99
plus .5% of gross
sales over $20
million
9580 Livingston Road 01/03/77-02/28/14 5 year(4)
Oxon Hill, MD 03/01/77-02/29/04: $3.80
03/01/04-02/28/14: $1.91
162
153
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAND NET
TENANT YEAR CONSTRUCTED/ AREA RENTABLE
PROPERTY LOCATION (GUARANTOR) REDEVELOPED (ACRES) SQUARE FEET
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockshire Village Center GFS Realty, Inc.(1) 1977 7.32 51,682
West Ritchie Parkway (Giant Food, Inc.)
Rockville, MD
6475 Dobbin Road VACANT 1983 2.50 60,000
Columbia, MD
Amigoland Shopping Center VACANT(1) 1973 7.61 115,000
Mexico St. & Palm Blvd.
Brownsville, TX
------ ----------
RETAIL SUBTOTAL 125.91 1,535,958
------ ----------
TOTAL 856.07 10,406,411
====== ==========
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
BASE LEASE TERM
AND ANNUAL RENTS
PER NET RENTABLE RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
Rockshire Village Center 01/01/78-04/30/17 10 year(2)
West Ritchie Parkway 01/01/78-02/28/05: $4.33
Rockville, MD 03/01/05-04/30/17: $2.23
6475 Dobbin Road
Columbia, MD
Amigoland Shopping Center
Mexico St. & Palm Blvd.
Brownsville, TX
---------------
(1) Lexington holds leasehold interest in the land. The leases, including
renewal options, expire at various dates through 2074.
(2) Tenant can cancel lease on April 30, 2004 with 270 days notice and a payment
of $899.
(3) The tenant leases 35,000 square feet.
(4) Tenant can cancel lease on March 26, 2008 with 12 months notice and a
payment of $1,392.
(5) The property contains three buildings with four additional tenants that
occupy 31,737 square feet out of the total of 127,855.
163
154
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
JOINT VENTURE PROPERTY CHART
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAND NET
TENANT PROPERTY TYPE/ AREA RENTABLE
PROPERTY LOCATION (GUARANTOR) YEAR CONSTRUCTED (ACRES) SQUARE FEET
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE
-------------------------------
14040 Park Center Road NEC America, Inc.(1) 1987 13.30 108,000
Herndon, VA
15375 Memorial Drive Vastar Resources, Inc.(1) 1985 21.77 327,325
Houston, TX
550 International Parkway First USA Management Services, 1999 12.80 125,920
Lake Mary, FL Inc.(1)(4)(6)
600 International Parkway First USA Management Services, 1997 13.30 125,155
Lake Mary, FL Inc.(1)(4)(6)
------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
BASE LEASE TERM
AND ANNUAL RENTS
PER NET RENTABLE RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
OFFICE
-------------------------------
14040 Park Center Road 08/01/99-07/31/09 5 year(2)
Herndon, VA 08/01/00-07/31/01: $16.32
08/01/01-07/31/09
Rent increases
2.0% annually and
by $216,000 in
year six
15375 Memorial Drive 09/16/99-09/15/09 5 year(4)
Houston, TX 09/16/99-09/15/02: $10.00
09/16/02-09/15/06: $10.50
09/16/06-09/15/09: $11.00
550 International Parkway 10/01/99-09/30/09 5 year(2)
Lake Mary, FL 10/01/00-09/30/01: $20.60
10/01/01-09/30/02: $21.05
10/01/02-09/30/03: $21.50
10/01/03-09/30/04: $21.95
10/01/04-09/30/05: $22.40
10/01/05-09/30/06: $22.85
10/01/06-09/30/07: $23.30
10/01/07-09/30/08: $23.75
10/01/08-09/30/09: $24.20
600 International Parkway 10/1/99-09/30/09 5 year(2)
Lake Mary, FL 10/01/00-09/30/01: $21.55
10/01/01-09/30/02: $22.00
10/01/02-09/30/03: $22.45
10/01/03-09/30/04: $22.90
10/01/04-09/30/05: $23.35
10/01/05-09/30/06: $23.80
10/01/06-09/30/07: $24.25
10/01/07-09/30/08: $24.70
10/01/08-09/30/09: $25.15
164
155
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAND NET
TENANT PROPERTY TYPE/ AREA RENTABLE
PROPERTY LOCATION (GUARANTOR) YEAR CONSTRUCTED (ACRES) SQUARE FEET
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 Technology Circle Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South 1999 42.46 348,410
Columbia, SC Carolina(2)
10300 Kincaid Drive Bank One Indiana, N.A.(1)(5) 1999 13.30 193,000
Fishers, IN
6555 Sierra Drive True North Communications, 1999 9.98 247,254
Irving, TX Inc.(1)
389-399 Interpace Highway Avantis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2000 14.00 340,240
Morris Corporate Center IV (Pharma Holdings GmbH)(1)
Parsippany, NJ
2000 Eastman Drive Structural Dynamic Research 1991 12.36 212,836
Milford, OH Corp.(1)
------ ---------
OFFICE SUBTOTAL 153.27 2,028,140
------ ---------
------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
BASE LEASE TERM
AND ANNUAL RENTS
PER NET RENTABLE RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
17 Technology Circle 10/01/99-09/30/09 5 year(2)
Columbia, SC 10/01/99-09/30/04: $13.10
10/01/04-09/30/09: $15.07
10300 Kincaid Drive 03/29/00-10/31/09 5 year(2)
Fishers, IN 03/29/00-10/31/04: $16.50
11/01/04-10/31/09: $17.52
6555 Sierra Drive 02/01/00-01/31/10 5 year(2)
Irving, TX 02/01/00-01/31/05: $16.21
02/01/05-01/31/10: $18.05
389-399 Interpace Highway 06/01/00-01/31/10 5 years(2)
Morris Corporate Center IV 06/01/00-01/31/05: $23.06
Parsippany, NJ 02/01/05-01/31/10: $26.49
2000 Eastman Drive 05/01/91-04/30/11 5 year(3)
Milford, OH 05/01/00-04/30/01: $11.80
05/01/01-04/30/02: $12.05
05/01/02-04/30/03: $12.31
05/01/03-04/30/04: $12.57
05/01/04-04/30/05: $12.84
05/01/05-04/30/06: $13.11
05/01/06-04/30/07: $13.39
05/01/07-04/30/08: $13.73
05/01/08-04/30/09: $13.97
05/01/09-04/30/10: $14.27
05/01/10-04/30/11: $14.57
165
156
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAND NET
TENANT PROPERTY TYPE/ AREA RENTABLE
PROPERTY LOCATION (GUARANTOR) YEAR CONSTRUCTED (ACRES) SQUARE FEET
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDUSTRIAL
-------------------------------
3600 Southgate Drive Sygma Network, Inc.(3) 2000 19.00 149,500
Danville, IL (Sysco Corporation)
291 Park Center Drive Kraft Foods North America, 2001 25.50 344,700
Winchester, VA Inc.(1)
590 Ecology Lane Owens Corning(3) 2001 39.52 193,891
Chester, SC
------ ---------
INDUSTRIAL SUBTOTAL 84.02 688,091
------ ---------
TOTAL 237.29 2,716,231
====== =========
------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
BASE LEASE TERM
AND ANNUAL RENTS
PER NET RENTABLE RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
INDUSTRIAL
-------------------------------
3600 Southgate Drive 10/15/00-10/31/15: $6.24 5 years(2)
Danville, IL
291 Park Center Drive 06/01/01-05/31/11 5 years(2)
Winchester, VA 06/01/01-05/31/06: $4.12
06/01/06-05/31/11: $4.67
590 Ecology Lane 01/01/01-01/01/21: $7.76 5 years(2)
Chester, SC
---------------
(1) Lexington has a 33% ownership interest in this property.
(2) Lexington has a 40% ownership interest in this property.
(3) Lexington has a 99% ownership interest in this property.
(4) The joint venture has an operating expense stop at $1,264.
(5) The joint venture has an operating expense stop at $768.
(6) The joint venture operates this investment as a single property.
166
INSURANCE
Lexington requires each of its tenants to carry, and may supplement that
coverage with additional insurance if deemed necessary, comprehensive liability,
fire, extended coverage and business interruption insurance on its properties,
with policy specifications and insured limits customarily carried for similar
properties. However, with respect to the properties where the leases do not
provide for abatement of rent under any circumstances, we generally do not
maintain rent loss insurance. In addition, there are certain types of losses,
such as losses due to wars, earthquakes or acts of God, that generally are not
insured because they are either uninsurable or not economically feasible to
insure. Should an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of insured limits occur,
Lexington could lose capital invested in a property, as well as the anticipated
future revenues from such property, while remaining obligated for any mortgage
indebtedness or other financial obligations related to such property. Any such
loss would adversely affect Lexington's financial condition. Lexington believes
that its properties are adequately insured in accordance with industry
standards.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Lexington is not presently involved in any litigation nor to its knowledge
is any litigation threatened against Lexington or its subsidiaries that, in
management's opinion, would result in any material adverse effect on Lexington's
ownership, financial condition, management, or the operation of Lexington's
properties.
157
167
INFORMATION ABOUT THE NET PARTNERSHIPS
BUSINESS OF NET 1
Net 1 is a limited partnership formed on August 25, 1987 under the Revised
Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Delaware for the purpose of
investing primarily in existing commercial properties that are triple net leased
to corporations or other entities. The partnership agreement was amended and
restated on September 30, 1994 to enable Net 1 to make additional real estate
investments.
The general partner of Net 1 is Lepercq Net 1 L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership whose general partner is Lepercq Net 1, Inc. The LCP Group, L.P. is
the sole shareholder of Lepercq Net 1, Inc. E. Robert Roskind, the chairman of
the Board of Trustees and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Lexington, is the sole
shareholder of the Third Lero Corp, which, in turn, is the general partner of
the LCP Group, L.P.
Net 1 commenced an offering to the public of 50,000 limited partnership
units at $1,000 per unit on November 20, 1987. On January 17, 1989, Net 1 held
the final admission of limited partners, and the offering was terminated after a
total of 31,001 units had been sold, equaling $31.001 million in capital
contributions. On September 30, 1990, Net 1 repurchased 229 units for an
aggregate purchase price of $169,930. No units have been repurchased since 1990.
Net 1 has invested all of the proceeds from the original offering. Net 1 has
only made distributions to limited partners from operating cash flows and not
from capital transactions.
In 1994, the limited partners of Net 1 approved an amendment to its
partnership agreement which permitted Net 1 to invest in new properties,
reinvest cash from operations and sale and refinancing proceeds, and use
additional leverage to finance its operations. Since the date of the amendment,
Net 1 has acquired six properties, including three properties that it acquired
from Lexington or its affiliates.
Net 1 invests in net leased real properties (or interests therein) located
throughout the United States, which offer the potential for:
- preservation and protection of the capital of the limited partners of Net
1;
- providing increasing cash available for distributions;
- providing tax benefits so that a portion of the cash distributions is
sheltered from current income taxation; and
- appreciation in value of Net 1's investments.
For the six months ended June 30, 2001, Net 1's properties generated
aggregate gross revenues of approximately $2.9 million.
Net 1 makes investments in various types of commercial real properties and
interests therein. These investments include office buildings, retail stores,
warehouses, distribution centers and fitness centers. Investments are not
restricted as to specific geographic areas, although all of Net 1's investments
are made within the United States.
Net 1 attempts to negotiate provisions in its leases which will provide
that all the risks of such matters as fitness for use or purpose, design or
condition, quality of material or workmanship, latent or patent defects, Net 1's
title, value, compliance with specifications, location, use, merchantability,
quality, description, durability or operation are borne by the lessees. However,
competitive conditions may require that Net 1 accept certain risks, in which
case it will attempt to arrange adequate insurance, if available, at a
reasonable cost.
158
168
Each of the following tenants/guarantors account for greater than 10% of
revenues as of June 30, 2001:
PERCENT OF
TENANT REVENUES
------ ----------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc........................................ 34%
Bull HN Information Systems, Inc............................ 18%
Cymer, Inc.................................................. 15%
Corporate Express Office Products, Inc...................... 14%
Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp............................ 13%
Each of the above tenants, with the exception of Corporate Express Office
Products, Inc. and Bull HN Information Systems, Inc., is a publicly registered
company subject to the informational requirements of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 which require them to file reports and other information with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. You can inspect and copy reports, proxy
statements and financial and other information filed by these tenants at the
public reference facilities maintained by the SEC at 450 Fifth Street, N.W. You
can obtain copies of this material by mail from the Public Reference Section of
the SEC at 450 West Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, at prescribed
rates. You can also obtain such reports, proxy statements and financial and
other information from the web site that the SEC maintains at
http://www.sec.gov.
Reports, proxy statements and financial and other information concerning
these tenants may also be obtained electronically through a variety of
databases, including, among others, the SEC's Electronic Data Gathering and
Retrieval ("EDGAR") program, Knight-Ridder Information Inc., Federal Filing/Dow
Jones and Lexis/Nexis.
The most recent summarized financial information for each of the
non-publicly registered tenants as of and for the periods indicated is as
follows ($000):
BULL HN INFORMATION CORPORATE EXPRESS OFFICE
SYSTEMS INC. PRODUCTS INC.
(WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY (WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF
OF BULL) BUHRMANNNV OF AMSTERDAM)
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001
---------------------------- ------------------------------
Current assets..................... $1,359,852 $2,823,838
Non-current assets................. 539,994 3,538,292
Current liabilities................ 1,227,096 1,699,060
Non-current liabilities............ 589,329 2,390,577
Redeemable preferred stock......... -- --
Minority interest.................. 6,279 28,884
Net sales.......................... 2,910,000 4,347,895
Gross profit....................... 684,000 998,198
Income (loss) -- continuing
operations....................... (92,000) 36,530
Net income (loss).................. (218,000) 11,044
Net 1 attempts to maintain a working capital cash reserve in an amount
equal to 3% of the gross proceeds of its initial offering, which is anticipated
to be sufficient to satisfy liquidity requirements. Liquidity of Net 1 could be
adversely affected by a number of unanticipated factors, such as costs relating
to the vacancy of properties, the unanticipated inability of tenants to meet
their obligations to Net 1 and greater than anticipated capital expenditures. To
the extent that such working capital reserves are insufficient to satisfy the
cash requirements of Net 1, additional funds may be obtained either through
short-term or permanent loans or by reducing distributions to limited partners.
Net 1 operates in one industry segment, investment in net leased real
property throughout the United States.
159
169
BUSINESS OF NET 2
Net 2 is a limited partnership formed on November 9, 1988 under the Revised
Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Delaware for the purpose of
investing primarily in existing commercial properties that are triple net leased
to corporations or other entities. The partnership agreement was restated and
amended on June 13, 1994 to enable Net 2 to make additional real estate
investments.
The general partner of Net 2 is Lepercq Net 2 L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership whose general partner is Lepercq Net 2, Inc. The LCP Group, L.P. is
the sole shareholder of Lepercq Net 2 Inc. E. Robert Roskind, the chairman of
the Board of Trustees and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Lexington, is the sole
shareholder of the Third Lero Corp, which, in turn, is the general partner of
the LCP Group, L.P.
Net 2 commenced an offering to the public of 500,000 limited partnership
units at $100 per unit on January 10, 1989. On July 19, 1990, Net 2 held the
final admission of limited partners, and the offering was terminated after a
total of 477,417 units had been sold, equaling $47,741,700 in capital
contributions. Net 2 returned a capital contribution of $25,000 (250 units) to a
limited partner admitted in December 1989. No additional units have been
returned or repurchased since 1990. Net 2 has invested all of the net proceeds
from the original offering. Net 2 has only made distributions to limited
partners from operating cash flows and not from capital transactions.
In 1994, the limited partners of Net 2 approved an amendment to the
partnership agreement which permitted Net 2 to invest in new properties,
reinvest cash from operations and sale and refinancing proceeds, and use
additional leverage to finance its operations. Since the date of the amendment,
Net 2 has acquired 13 properties, including three properties that it acquired
from Lexington or its affiliates, and sold two of those properties to Lexington.
Net 2 invests in net leased real properties (or interests therein) located
throughout the United States, which offer the potential for:
- preservation and protection of the capital of the limited partners of Net
2;
- providing increasing cash available for distributions;
- providing tax benefits so that a portion of the cash distributions is
sheltered from current income taxation; and
- appreciation in value of Net 2's investments.
For the six months ended June 30, 2001, Net 2's properties generated
aggregate gross revenues of approximately $5.5 million.
Net 2 makes investments in various types of commercial real properties or
interests therein. These investments include office buildings, retail stores,
warehouses, distribution centers and fitness centers. Investments are not
restricted as to specific geographic areas, although all of the Net 2's
investments are made within the United States.
Net 2 attempts to negotiate provisions in its leases which will provide
that all the risks of such matters as fitness for use or purpose, design or
condition, quality of material or workmanship, latent or patent defects, Net 2's
title, value, compliance with specifications, location, use, merchantability,
quality, description, durability or operation are borne by the lessees. However,
competitive conditions may require that Net 2 accept certain risks, in which
case it will attempt to arrange adequate insurance, if available, at a
reasonable cost.
160
170
Each of the following tenants/guarantors account for greater than 10% of
revenues as of June 30, 2001:
PERCENT OF
TENANT REVENUES
------ ----------
Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc.......................... 20%
Hollywood Entertainment Corporation......................... 13%
Nextel Communications, Inc.................................. 12%
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc........................................ 15%
Each of the above tenants, with the exception of Associated Grocers of
Florida, Inc., is a publicly registered company subject to the informational
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which require them to file
reports and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You
can inspect and copy reports, proxy statements and financial and other
information filed by these tenants at the public reference facilities maintained
by the SEC at 450 Fifth Street, N.W. You can obtain copies of this material by
mail from the Public Reference Section of the SEC at 450 West Fifth Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, at prescribed rates. You can also obtain such
reports, proxy statements and financial and other information from the web site
that the SEC maintains at http://www.sec.gov.
Reports, proxy statements and financial and other information concerning
these tenants may also be obtained electronically through a variety of
databases, including, among others, the SEC's Electronic Data Gathering and
Retrieval ("EDGAR") program, Knight-Ridder Information Inc., Federal Filing/Dow
Jones and Lexis/Nexis.
Net 2 attempts to maintain a working capital cash reserve in an amount
equal to 1.5% of the gross proceeds of the offering, which is anticipated to be
sufficient to satisfy liquidity requirements. Liquidity of Net 2 could be
adversely affected by a number of unanticipated factors, such as costs relating
to the vacancy of properties, the unanticipated inability of tenants to meet
their obligations to Net 2 and greater than anticipated capital expenditures. To
the extent that such working capital reserves are insufficient to satisfy the
cash requirements of Net 2, additional funds may be obtained through short-term
or permanent loans or by reducing distributions to limited partners.
Net 2 operates in one industry segment, investment in net leased real
property throughout the United States.
COMPETITION
Net 1 and Net 2 have been in the net lease business since 1988, have
established close relationships with a large number of major corporate tenants
and maintain a broad network of contacts, including developers, brokers and
lenders. Notwithstanding these relationships, there are numerous commercial
developers, real estate companies, financial institutions and other investors
with greater financial resources that compete with Net 1 and Net 2 in seeking
properties for acquisition and tenants who will lease space in these properties.
The Net Partnerships' competitors include other partnerships, pension funds,
private companies, REITs and individuals. In addition, competition may also come
from other partnerships which have been or may be formed by Lepercq Net 1 L.P.,
Lepercq Net 2 L.P., or their respective affiliates.
INVESTMENT POLICIES
The Net Partnerships' principal investment activity is the acquisition of a
diversified portfolio of real estate assets. While the Net Partnerships
generally hold their properties for long-term investment, a Net Partnership may
dispose of a property if the general partners deem such disposition to be in its
best interests.
161
171
FINANCING POLICIES
The Net Partnerships are restricted in the amount and nature of borrowings
as follows:
Net 1 -- The general partner may, for the purpose of acquiring additional
properties, obtain purchase money financing, and mortgage the additional
property purchased with such financing up to a maximum amount of 75% of the
purchase price of each additional property.
Net 2 -- The general partner may, at any time, incur indebtedness to
refinance loans entered into on behalf of the Net Partnership to refinance
fees paid and expenses paid for services rendered in connection with the
organization of the Net Partnership. The general partner may also cause the
Net Partnership to incur indebtedness or mortgage properties of the Net
Partnership in order to finance the acquisition of additional properties.
In connection with such acquisitions, the general partner may obtain
purchase money financing up to a maximum of 75% of the purchase price of
each additional property.
GENERAL PARTNERS
The general partners of the Net Partnerships are entitled to receive:
- a share of cash distributions when and as cash distributions are made to
the limited partners; and
- a share of taxable income or loss.
For the six months ended June 30, 2001, cash distributions of $15,712 and
$24,346 were made to the general partners of Net 1 and Net 2, respectively.
The directors and executive officers of Lepercq Net 1, Inc. and Lepercq Net
2, Inc. receive no remuneration from the Net Partnerships.
No person is known to the Net Partnerships to be the beneficial owner of
more than 5% of the units of either Net Partnership.
COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENTS AND DISTRIBUTIONS TO THE GENERAL PARTNERS
The following information has been prepared to compare (a) the amounts of
compensation paid and cash distributions made by the Net Partnerships to the
general partners and their affiliates to (b) the amounts that would have been
paid if the compensation and distribution structure which will be in effect
after the Transaction had been in effect during the years presented below.
Under the partnership agreements, the general partners of the Net
Partnerships and their affiliates are entitled to receive fees in connection
with managing the affairs of each Net Partnership. The partnership agreements
also provide that the general partners are to be reimbursed for their expenses
for services performed for each Net Partnership, such as legal, accounting,
transfer agent, data processing and duplicating services.
As holders of operating partnership units in Net 3, the general partners
will receive distributions based upon their ownership of the operating
partnership units.
During the years ended December 31, 1998, 1999 and 2000 and the six months
ended June 30, 2001, the aggregate amounts accrued or actually paid by the Net
Partnerships to the general partners are shown below
162
172
under "Historical" and the estimated amounts of compensation that would have
been paid had the Transaction been in effect for the years presented are shown
below under "Pro Forma":
SIX MONTHS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, ENDED
------------------------------ JUNE 30,
1998 1999 2000 2001
-------- -------- -------- ----------
HISTORICAL:
General Partner Distributions............. $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $40,000
Asset Management Fees..................... $ 98,000 $129,000 $ 71,000 -
-------- -------- -------- -------
Total Historical.......................... $178,000 $209,000 $151,000 $40,000
PRO FORMA:
Cash Distributions on Units(1)(2)......... $148,278 $152,080 $154,614 $79,842
---------------
(1) Pro forma cash distributions are calculated as follows:
SIX MONTHS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, ENDED
------------------------------ JUNE 30,
1998 1999 2000 2001
-------- -------- -------- ----------
Class A units -- $650,000 at $15
per unit equals 43,333 units.... $ 50,700 $ 52,000 $ 52,866 $27,300
Operating partnership units issued
to affiliates of Mr. Roskind for
their interest in Lease
Properties Management -- 83,400
units........................... $ 97,578 $100,080 $101,748 $52,542
-------- -------- -------- -------
$148,278 $152,080 $154,614 $79,842
Distributions per unit in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 were $1.17, $1.20,
$1.22 and $0.63, respectively.
(2) As an officer of Lexington, Mr. Roskind received a salary of $250,000,
$300,000 and $300,000 in 1998, 1999 and 2000, respectively, bonuses of
$133,000, $158,000 and $302,297 in 1998, 1999 and 2000, respectively,
options to purchase 100,000, 75,000 and 280,000 common shares in 1998, 1999
and 2000, respectively, and a restricted share award of $242,500 and
$180,000 in 1999 and 2000, respectively.
DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE NET PARTNERSHIPS
The Net Partnerships are limited partnerships and have no directors or
officers.
The general partner of Net 1 is Lepercq Net 1 L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership. Lepercq Net 1, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is the general partner
of Lepercq Net 1 L.P. The directors and executive officers of Lepercq Net 1,
Inc. are discussed below.
The general partner of Net 2 is Lepercq Net 2 L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership. Lepercq Net 2, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is the general partner
of Lepercq Net 2 L.P. The directors and executive officers of Lepercq Net 2,
Inc. are discussed below.
The directors and executive officers of Lepercq Net 1, Inc. and Lepercq Net
2, Inc. are responsible for the management of each of the Net Partnership's
businesses including, but not limited to, the acquisition, sale, financing or
refinancing, or leasing of, or making major capital improvements to, the Net
Partnership properties.
163
173
The same individuals hold the same director and executive officer positions
for each of Lepercq Net 1, Inc. and Lepercq Net 2, Inc., and are as follows:
E. Robert Roskind
Age 56 E. Robert Roskind, the President and
Secretary, has been associated with The LCP
Group, L.P., a real estate advisory firm,
since 1973 and has been Chairman of The LCP
Group, L.P. since September 1976. He also
serves as Chairman of the Board and Co-Chief
Executive Officer of Lexington. Mr. Roskind is
a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania
and Columbia Law School, and has been a member
of the New York Bar since 1970. Mr. Roskind is
a director of Clarion CMBS Value Fund, Inc.
Robert N. Albert
Age 51 Robert N. Albert, Vice President and
Treasurer, has been employed by The LCP Group,
L.P. since 1997. He owned a retail furniture
and antiques business for twenty-five years
prior to joining The LCP Group, L.P. He is a
graduate of the University of Louisville,
where he received his bachelor's degree in
Business Management.
Denise E. DeBaun
Age 50 Denise E. DeBaun, Vice President and Assistant
Secretary, was associated with The LCP Group,
L.P. from 1981 to 1997. She was a member of
the marketing department from 1986 to 1990.
Since 1997, she has served as an Executive
Assistant of Lexington. Ms. DeBaun is a
graduate of Hunter College of the City
University of New York.
Dianne R. Smith
Age 54 Dianne R. Smith, Vice President and Assistant
Secretary, has been associated with The LCP
Group, L.P. since 1988 as its paralegal. Ms.
Smith also serves as the paralegal to
Lexington. Ms. Smith is a graduate of New York
University where she received her Paralegal
degree.
Lisette Almedina
Age 32 Lisette Almedina, Assistant Secretary, has
been associated with The LCP Group, L.P. since
1997 as its office manager. Ms. Almedina
worked as an office manager in a retail
furniture and antiques business for three
years prior to joining The LCP Group, L.P. Ms.
Almedina is a graduate of Pace University.
Lepercq Net 1 L.P. and Lepercq Net 2 L.P. have each granted Lexington,
whose chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Roskind, is an officer and a
shareholder of each of Lepercq Net 1, Inc. and Lepercq Net 2, Inc., an option
exercisable at any time, to acquire the general partnership interests in each of
Lepercq Net 1 L.P. and Lepercq Net 2 L.P. Under the terms of the option, any
such transaction is subject to review by the independent members of Lexington's
Board of Trustees. Lexington may acquire the general partnership interests of
Lepercq Net 1 L.P. and Lepercq Net 2 L.P. at their respective fair market value
based upon a formula relating to partnership cash flows, with Lexington
retaining the option of paying such fair market value in securities of
Lexington, limited partnership units in controlled subsidiaries, cash or a
combination thereof. Lexington provides the Net Partnerships with various
administrative services.
FIDUCIARY DUTY
Under Delaware limited partnership law, the general partners are
accountable to the Net Partnerships as fiduciaries and are required to exercise
good faith and integrity in all their dealings in the Net Partnership's affairs.
The limited partnership agreement of each of the Net Partnerships generally
provides that neither the general partner nor any of its affiliates, acting
within the scope of the general partner's authority, will be liable to the Net
Partnership or any of the limited partners for any act or omission by any such
person performed in good faith pursuant to authority granted to such person by
such agreements, or in accordance with their
164
174
provisions. As a result, limited partners have a more limited right of action
than they would have in the absence of that provision in the limited partnership
agreements.
The limited partnership agreements also generally provide that the general
partners and their affiliates are indemnified, to the extent permitted by law,
from losses relating to acts or omissions in connection with the business of the
Net Partnerships, provided that those persons determined in good faith that the
course of conduct did not constitute fraud, negligence or misconduct.
The Net Partnerships may also advance funds to a person indemnified under
the limited partnership agreements for legal expenses incurred as a result of
legal action brought against that person by anyone other than a limited partner,
if that person undertakes to repay the advanced funds to the Net Partnership if
it is subsequently determined that the person is not entitled to
indemnification. The Net Partnerships do not pay for any insurance covering
liability of the general partners or any other indemnified person for acts or
omissions for which indemnification is not permitted by the limited partnership
agreements. As part of its assumption of liabilities in the mergers, Lexington
will indemnify the general partners and their affiliates for periods prior to
and following the mergers to the extent of the existing indemnity under the
terms of the limited partnership agreements and applicable law.
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, statutes,
ordinances, rules and regulations, an owner of real property may be liable for
the costs of removal or redemption of certain hazardous or toxic substances at,
on, in or under such property as well as certain other potential costs relating
to hazardous or toxic substances. These liabilities may include government fines
and penalties and damages for injuries to persons and adjacent property. Such
laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner knew of, or was
responsible for, the presence or disposal of such substances. Although the Net
Partnerships' tenants are primarily responsible for any environmental damage and
claims related to the leased premises, in the event of the bankruptcy or
inability of the tenant of such premises to satisfy any obligations with respect
to such environmental liability, the Net Partnerships may be required to satisfy
such obligations. In addition, under certain environmental laws, the Net
Partnerships, as the respective owners of such properties, may be held liable
for any such damages or claims irrespective of the provisions of any lease.
From time to time, in connection with the conduct of the Net Partnerships'
business, and prior to the acquisition of any property from a third party or as
required by the Net Partnerships' financing sources, the Net Partnerships
authorize the preparation of Phase I environmental reports with respect to its
properties. Based upon such environmental reports and the ongoing review of the
management of each of Net Partnership of their respective properties, as of the
date of this report, management of neither Net Partnership was aware of any
environmental condition with respect to any of the Net Partnerships' properties
which their respective management believed would be reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on the Net Partnerships. The general partners cannot be
certain, however, that the Net Partnerships will not be exposed to material
liability in the future resulting from:
- the discovery of environmental conditions, the existence or severity of
which were previously unknown,
- changes in law,
- the conduct of tenants or
- activities relating to properties in the vicinity of the Net
Partnerships' properties.
Changes in laws increasing the potential liability for environmental
conditions existing on properties, or increasing the restrictions on discharges
or other conditions may result in significant unanticipated expenditures or may
otherwise adversely affect the operations of the Net Partnerships' tenants,
which would adversely affect the Net Partnerships' financial condition and
results of operations, including funds from operations.
165
175
NET PARTNERSHIP DISTRIBUTIONS
The following table sets forth the amount of the distributions per unit
made by each of the Net Partnerships each year from 1989 through June 30, 2001.
NET 1 NET 2
------ -----
1989........................................................ $99.23 $3.82
1990........................................................ 94.95 8.06
1991........................................................ 82.31 5.55
1992........................................................ 70.88 5.40
1993........................................................ 60.46 5.20
1994........................................................ 50.04 5.00
1995........................................................ 50.04 5.00
1996........................................................ 50.04 5.00
1997........................................................ 50.04 5.00
1998........................................................ 50.04 5.00
1999........................................................ 50.04 5.00
2000........................................................ 50.04 5.00
Through 6/30/01............................................. 25.02 2.50
Both Net 1 and Net 2 have only made distributions to limited partners from
operating cash flows and not from capital transactions. Following the changes
made to the Net Partnerships in 1994, excess cash flow above the distribution
amounts have been used to establish reserves or make additional investments. The
general partners implemented this distribution policy in order to preserve
capital and provide an opportunity for capital appreciation from new
investments.
MARKET PRICE OF THE UNITS
The units are not listed on any national or regional securities exchange or
quoted on any over the counter market, and there is no established public
trading market for the units. Secondary sales activity for the Net 1 and Net 2
units has been limited and sporadic. The general partners monitor transfers of
the units because the admission of the transferee as a substitute investor
requires the consent of the general partners under each of the partnership
agreements and in order to track compliance with safe harbor provisions to avoid
treatment of the Net Partnerships as "publicly traded partnerships" for federal
income tax purposes.
Set forth in the following table is information regarding sales
transactions in the units of the Net Partnerships, as reported by Stanger & Co.,
which tracks such transactions on a continuous basis. While the general partners
receive some information regarding the prices of secondary transactions in the
units, the general partners do not receive or maintain comprehensive information
regarding all activities of all broker/ dealers and others known to facilitate
secondary sales of the units. Therefore, the transactions reflected in the
tables below represent only some of the transactions in the units. There have
been other secondary transactions in the units, including the purchase by
Lexington, on June 29, 2001, of 390.6 units of Net 1 at a price of $779.36 per
unit and 10,088.5 units of Net 2 at a price of $77.86 per unit. Specific
information regarding any other such transactions is not readily available to
the general partners. Because the information regarding transactions in the
units included in the tables below is provided without verification by the
general partners and because the information provided does not reflect
sufficient activity to cause the prices shown to be representative of the values
of the units, such information should not be relied upon as indicative of the
ability of holders of unit to sell their units in secondary market transactions
or as to the prices at which such units
166
176
may be sold. Therefore, the information presented should not necessarily be
relied upon by holders of units in determining whether or not to consent to the
Transaction.
SECONDARY MARKET TRANSACTIONS(1)
NET 1
WEIGHTED NUMBER OF
AVERAGE UNIT UNITS
PERIOD SALES PRICE HIGH LOW TRADED
------ ------------ ------- ------- ---------
1999 -- 1st Quarter $627.75 $652.47 $625.00 120
-- 2nd Quarter $620.82 $665.00 $565.00 395
-- 3rd Quarter $642.56 $652.50 $510.00 197
-- 4th Quarter $597.34 $628.00 $588.00 64
2000 -- 1st Quarter $615.77 $620.00 $600.00 142
-- 2nd Quarter $655.12 $663.00 $540.00 163
-- 3rd Quarter $645.00 $645.00 $645.00 25
-- 4th Quarter $632.33 $655.00 $540.00 94
2001 -- 1st Quarter $597.14 $600.00 $590.00 35
-- 2nd Quarter $664.70 $675.11 $590.00 730
NET 2
WEIGHTED NUMBER
AVERAGE UNIT OF UNITS
PERIOD SALES PRICE HIGH LOW TRADED
------ ------------ ------ ------ --------
1999 -- 1st Quarter $63.61 $64.25 $61.50 702
-- 2nd Quarter $64.20 $66.88 $62.00 1,347
-- 3rd Quarter $65.19 $66.15 $56.00 2,060
-- 4th Quarter $62.07 $66.30 $59.00 1,730
2000 -- 1st Quarter $65.85 $68.10 $61.00 1,040
-- 2nd Quarter $66.43 $69.35 $56.00 5,463
-- 3rd Quarter $67.37 $68.00 $66.50 565
-- 4th Quarter $65.55 $73.50 $53.00 2,050
2001 -- 1st Quarter $64.67 $69.00 $58.00 1,255
-- 2nd Quarter $66.96 $68.12 $66.00 10,270
---------------
(1) Secondary market transactions are as reported by Stanger & Co., which tracks
such transactions on a continuous basis.
EMPLOYEES
Net 1 and Net 2 have no employees. All necessary personnel are provided,
respectively, by Lepercq Net 1 L.P. and Lepercq Net 2 L.P. or its affiliates or
agents.
REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIOS
As of June 30, 2001, Net 1 owned nine properties located in 7 states
containing an aggregate of 740,525 net rentable square feet of space, and Net 2
owned fifteen properties located in 10 states containing an aggregate of
1,759,471 net rentable square feet of space.
167
177
The number of properties, annualized revenues, percentage of annualized
revenues, square footage and square footage mix of Net 1's and Net 2's
respective property portfolios are as follows:
NET 1
ANNUALIZED PERCENTAGE OF
NUMBER OF REVENUES ANNUALIZED SQUARE PERCENTAGE OF
TYPE OF PROPERTY PROPERTIES ($000) REVENUES FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE
---------------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ------- --------------
Office.............................. 2 $1,922 42% 202,813 27%
Industrial.......................... 1 799 17% 196,946 27%
Retail.............................. 6 1,907 41% 340,766 46%
-- ------ --- ------- ---
Total.......................... 9 $4,628 100% 740,525 100%
== ====== === ======= ===
NET 2
ANNUALIZED PERCENTAGE OF
NUMBER OF REVENUES ANNUALIZED SQUARE PERCENTAGE OF
TYPE OF PROPERTY PROPERTIES ($000) REVENUES FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE
---------------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------- --------------
Office............................ 5 $ 4,168 40% 374,093 21%
Industrial........................ 5 3,950 38% 1,058,106 60%
Retail............................ 5 2,211 22% 327,272 19%
-- ------- --- --------- ---
Total........................ 15 $10,329 100% 1,759,471 100%
== ======= === ========= ===
On April 20, 2001, Net 2 sold its property in Earth City, MO, which was
vacant. This property was sold for net proceeds of approximately $3.7 million,
which was used to repay balances outstanding on Net 2's line of credit.
REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS
The tables on the following pages sets forth certain information relating
to the real property portfolios of each of Net 1 and Net 2. As of September 18,
2001, which was the latest practicable date prior to the printing of this Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus ($000's except per share
data). All of the properties listed for Net 1 and all of the properties listed
for Net 2 were 100% leased as of that date.
168
178
169
NET 1. The following is a detailed schedule of Net 1's real estate and
lease terms as of June 30, 2001:
NET
LAND RENTABLE
YEAR AREA SQUARE
PROPERTY LOCATION TENANT (GUARANTOR) CONSTRUCTED (ACRES) FEET
----------------- ------------------ ----------- ------- --------
OFFICE
--------------------
Phoenix, AZ Bull HN Information Systems, Inc. 1985 & 1994 13.37 137,058
San Diego, CA Cymer, Inc. 1989 2.73 65,755
INDUSTRIAL
--------------------
Henderson, NC Corporate Express Office Products, Inc. 1998 19.09 196,946
RETAIL
--------------------
Phoenix, AZ Bally's Health & Tennis Corp. 1988 3.00 36,556
Sumter, SC Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 1983 7.40 103,377
Brownsville, TX Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 1985 7.90 85,334
Gainesville, GA Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 1984 8.10 89,199
BASE LEASE TERM & ANNUAL RENT RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION PER NET RENTABLE SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
----------------- ----------------------------- -------
OFFICE
--------------------
Phoenix, AZ 09/29/99 - 10/10/05 None
10/11/00 - 10/10/01: $7.70
10/11/01 - 10/10/02: $7.90
10/11/02 - 10/10/03: $8.10
10/11/03 - 10/10/04: $8.30
10/11/04 - 10/10/05: $8.50
San Diego, CA 09/27/99 - 01/01/10 None
09/27/99 - 05/31/01: $11.82
06/01/01 - 05/31/03: $12.42
06/01/03 - 05/31/05: $13.04
06/01/05 - 05/31/07: $13.69
06/01/07 - 01/01/10: $14.37
INDUSTRIAL
--------------------
Henderson, NC 05/31/00 - 01/31/14 5 year(3)
05/31/00 - 01/31/02: $3.61
02/01/02 - 01/31/05: $3.83
02/01/05 - 01/31/08: $4.01
02/01/08 - 01/31/11: $4.19
02/01/11 - 01/31/14: $4.45
RETAIL
--------------------
Phoenix, AZ 07/19/88 - 06/30/08 5 year(2)
07/01/98 - 06/30/03: $20.65
07/01/03 - 06/30/08: $23.03
Sumter, SC 11/27/95 - 01/31/08: $3.17 5 year(5)
plus 1% of gross
sales as defined
Brownsville, TX 05/30/97 - 01/31/08: $3.76 5 year(5)
plus 1% of gross
sales as defined
Gainesville, GA 12/28/95 - 01/31/09: $2.45 None
plus percentage rent
as defined
179
170
NET
LAND RENTABLE
YEAR AREA SQUARE
PROPERTY LOCATION TENANT (GUARANTOR) CONSTRUCTED (ACRES) FEET
----------------- ------------------ ----------- ------- --------
Stockton, CA Greyhound Lines, Inc. 1968 1.67 17,000
Lynchburg, VA Circuit City Stores, Inc. 1986 0.84 9,300
------ ---------
64.10 740,525
====== =========
BASE LEASE TERM & ANNUAL RENT RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION PER NET RENTABLE SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
----------------- ----------------------------- -------
Stockton, CA 02/28/89 - 12/31/09 10 year(2)
01/01/01 - 12/31/01: $11.38
Annual CPI increases
not to exceed 2.75%
Lynchburg, VA 08/22/94 - 11/20/06 10 year(2)
11/21/96 - 11/20/01: $9.23
11/21/01 - 11/20/06: $10.85
NET 2. The following is a detailed schedule of Net 2's real estate and
lease terms as of June 30, 2001:
NET
LAND RENTABLE
YEAR AREA SQUARE
PROPERTY LOCATION TENANT (GUARANTOR) CONSTRUCTED (ACRES) FEET
----------------- ------------------ ----------- ------- --------
OFFICE
--------------------
Wilsonville, OR Hollywood Entertainment Corporation 1980/1998 8.72 122,853
Hampton, VA Nextel Communications of Mid-Atlantic, Inc. 1999 14.34 100,632
Highland Heights, OH The Tranzonic Companies 1968/1989 5.23 94,657
BASE LEASE TERM & ANNUAL RENT RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION PER NET RENTABLE SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
----------------- ----------------------------- -------
OFFICE
--------------------
Wilsonville, OR 09/29/98 - 11/30/08 5 year(1)
09/29/98 - 01/31/02: $10.95
02/01/02 - 12/31/05: $11.95
01/01/06 - 11/30/08: $13.25
Hampton, VA 03/20/00 - 12/31/09 5 year(4)
01/01/01 - 12/31/01: $11.83
01/01/02 - 12/31/02: $12.07
01/01/03 - 12/31/03: $12.31
01/01/04 - 12/31/04: $12.56
01/01/05 - 12/31/05: $12.81
01/01/06 - 12/31/06: $13.07
01/01/07 - 12/31/07: $13.33
01/01/08 - 12/31/08: $13.60
01/01/09 - 12/31/09: $13.87
Highland Heights, OH 02/28/89 - 02/28/09 10 year(2)
03/01/99 - 08/31/01: $7.47
09/01/01 - 02/28/09
Adjusted by CPI
factor not to exceed
4.5% per annum
180
171
NET
LAND RENTABLE
YEAR AREA SQUARE
PROPERTY LOCATION TENANT (GUARANTOR) CONSTRUCTED (ACRES) FEET
----------------- ------------------ ----------- ------- --------
Tucson, AZ Cox Communications, Inc. 1988 3.58 28,591
Milford, CT IKON Office Solutions 1994 3.01 27,360
INDUSTRIAL
--------------------
Ocala, FL Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc. 1976 75.00 668,034
Plymouth, MI Johnson Controls, Inc. 1996 24.00 134,160
Columbia, SC Stone Container Corporation 1968/1998 10.76 185,961
Columbus, OH Ameritech Services, Inc. 1990 10.12 20,000
Tempe, AZ The Tranzonic Companies 1981 2.81 49,951
BASE LEASE TERM & ANNUAL RENT RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION PER NET RENTABLE SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
----------------- ----------------------------- -------
Tucson, AZ 09/28/90 - 09/30/10 None
10/01/98 - 09/30/10: $12.48
Adjusted by 3x CPI
not to exceed rent,
as defined
Milford, CT 12/23/94 - 12/31/04 5 year(4)
01/01/00 - 12/31/04: $12.31
INDUSTRIAL
--------------------
Ocala, FL 01/08/99 - 12/31/18 10 year(2)
01/08/99 - 12/31/03: $2.80
01/01/04 - 12/31/08: $3.09
01/01/09 - 12/31/13: $3.42
01/01/14 - 12/31/18: $3.77
Plymouth, MI 05/19/00 - 12/22/06: $4.84 5 year(2)
Annual escalations
equal to 3x the
percentage increase
in CPI, not to exceed
4.5% per annum
Columbia, SC 08/04/99 - 08/31/12 None
09/01/00 - 08/31/03: $2.71
09/01/03 - 08/31/06: $2.91
09/01/06 - 08/31/08: $3.12
09/01/08 - 08/31/12: $3.32
Columbus, OH 09/14/90 - 05/31/05 None
06/01/00 - 05/31/05: $12.75
Tempe, AZ 02/28/89 - 02/28/09 10 year(2)
03/01/99 - 08/31/01: $3.76
09/01/01 - 02/28/09
Adjusted by CPI factor
not to exceed 4.5%
per annum
181
172
NET
LAND RENTABLE
YEAR AREA SQUARE
PROPERTY LOCATION TENANT (GUARANTOR) CONSTRUCTED (ACRES) FEET
----------------- ------------------ ----------- ------- --------
RETAIL
--------------------
Westland, MI Sam's Real Estate Business Trust 1987 9.70 102,826
Canton, OH Best Buy Co., Inc. 1995 6.59 46,350
Eau Claire, WI Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. 1994 6.24 76,164
Spartanburg, SC Best Buy Co., Inc. 1996 7.49 45,800
Jacksonville, AL Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust 1982 5.21 56,132
------ ---------
192.80 1,759,471
====== =========
BASE LEASE TERM & ANNUAL RENT RENEWAL
PROPERTY LOCATION PER NET RENTABLE SQUARE FOOT OPTIONS
----------------- ----------------------------- -------
RETAIL
--------------------
Westland, MI 06/06/97 - 01/31/09: $7.32 None
plus 1% of gross
sales as defined
Canton, OH 07/24/98 - 02/26/18: $10.03 5 year(3)
Eau Claire, WI 06/22/94 - 01/25/15 5 year(4)
06/22/94 - 03/31/04: $5.71
04/01/04 - 01/25/15: $6.15
Spartanburg, SC 07/24/98 - 02/26/18: $8.62 5 year(3)
Jacksonville, AL 06/29/99 - 01/31/09: $2.60 5 year(5)
plus 1% of gross
sales as defined
182
FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSIDERATIONS
The following is a general discussion of the material federal income tax
considerations associated with the Transaction.
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP has given an opinion to the effect
that this discussion, to the extent that it contains descriptions of applicable
federal income tax law or legal conclusions with respect thereto, is a fair and
accurate summary under current law of the material United States federal income
tax consequences to the limited partners of the mergers described herein.
Although Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker has not made an independent
investigation of the facts set forth herein, no facts have come to our attention
that would cause us to believe that this discussion contains an untrue statement
of material fact or omits to state a material fact required to be stated or
necessary to make the statements herein not misleading in light of the
circumstances in which they are made.
This discussion is based on the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
which is referred to as the Code, existing regulations under the Code and
current rulings and court decisions in effect as of the date of this Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, all of which are subject to
change, retroactively or prospectively, and to possibly differing
interpretations. The following discussion is not intended to be and should not
be construed as tax advice. An opinion of counsel merely represents counsel's
best judgment with respect to the probable outcome on the merits and is not
binding on the Internal Revenue Service or the courts. Accordingly, there can be
no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service will not take a contrary
position, that the applicable law will not change, or that any such change will
not have retroactive effect. In addition, this discussion only applies to
prospective holders of common shares and dissenter debentures. It does not
discuss all of the aspects of federal income taxation that may be relevant to a
prospective holder in light of its particular circumstances or to certain types
of holders who are subject to special rules such as insurance companies,
tax-exempt entities, financial institutions or broker-dealers, foreign
corporations and persons who are not citizens or residents of the United States.
This summary does not give a detailed discussion of any state, local or
foreign tax considerations. No ruling on the federal, state or local tax
considerations relevant to the operations of Lexington, the Transaction, the
ownership or disposition of common shares or dissenter debentures is being
requested from the Internal Revenue Service or from any other tax authority.
Limited partners of the Net Partnerships should consult their own tax
advisors in determining the federal, state, local, foreign and other tax
consequences to them of the receipt, ownership, and disposition of common shares
and cash, or dissenter debentures, the tax treatment of a REIT, and potential
changes in applicable tax laws.
CERTAIN TAX DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE OWNERSHIP OF UNITS AND COMMON SHARES
If the Transaction is consummated, each limited partner of a Net
Partnership, other than limited partners who dissent and elect to receive
dissenter debentures, will receive common shares and cash.
The character and amount of income reportable by owners of common shares in
the future could differ from the character and amount of income reportable by
owners of units. Each Net Partnership is a partnership for federal income tax
purposes, and therefore is not subject to taxation. Currently, limited partners,
as owners of units, must take into account their distributive share of all
income, loss and separately stated partnership items, regardless of the amount
of any distributions of cash to them. Each Net Partnership supplies that
information to their limited partners annually on a Schedule K-1. The character
of the income that limited partners recognize depends upon the assets and
activities of their Net Partnership and may, in some circumstances, be treated
as income which may be offset by any losses that limited partners may have from
passive activities.
In contrast to the tax treatment of limited partners described above,
shareholders, as owners of common shares, are taxed based on the amount of
distributions they receive from Lexington. Each year Lexington sends to each
shareholder a Form 1099-DIV reporting the amount of taxable and nontaxable
distributions paid to such shareholder during the preceding year. The taxable
portion of these distributions depends on the
173
183
amount of Lexington's earnings and profits. The portion of distributions made to
shareholders by Lexington that constitutes taxable income to shareholders could
differ from the portion of distributions made to limited partners by their
respective Net Partnerships that constitutes taxable income to limited partners.
In addition, the character of this income to a shareholder does not depend on
its character to Lexington. The income will generally be ordinary dividend
income to shareholders and will be classified as portfolio income under the
passive loss rules, except with respect to capital gains dividends, discussed
below. Furthermore, if Lexington incurs a taxable loss, the loss will not be
passed through to shareholders.
For other differences attributable to Lexington's status as a REIT, see
"-- Taxation of Lexington" and "-- Taxation of Taxable U.S. Shareholders --"
below.
TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE MERGERS
GENERAL. On January 4, 2001, the Treasury Department issued final
regulations regarding the tax treatment of a merger of two or more partnerships.
The provisions of the final regulations are highly technical and complex.
Limited partners are urged to consult their own tax advisors, as the following
is only a summary of the material tax consequences of the transaction. Because
of the recent and complex nature of these final regulations, there can be no
assurance that they will be applied in the manner described herein.
If the Transaction is consummated, each Net Partnership will be merged with
and into Net 3. The federal income tax treatment of a limited partner will
depend on whether the limited partner receives common shares and cash or elects
to receive dissenter debentures. A limited partner that receives common shares
and cash will be deemed to consent to treat the transaction for tax purposes as
a sale of its Net Partnership units to Net 3. A limited partner that does not
consent to this tax treatment and elects to receive dissenter debentures will be
allocated gain or loss realized by its Net Partnership as a result of the
merger. Regardless of whether a limited partner consents or does not consent,
the Transaction will result in taxable gain or loss to all limited partners.
CONSEQUENCES TO THE NET PARTNERSHIPS. Under the final regulations, the
merger of each Net Partnership into Net 3 would be treated as if each Net
Partnership transferred its assets and liabilities to Net 3 in exchange for
common shares, cash and dissenter debentures, if any. Each Net Partnership would
then be treated as though it liquidated and distributed the shares, cash and
debentures to the respective limited partners. This tax treatment is generally
referred to as an asset-over merger. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the final
regulations permit the parties to a partnership merger to apply special
treatment to exiting partners. Under this special provision, the parties may
treat any transfers of cash or other property, made by the acquiring partnership
to a partner in the merging partnership for the partner's interest in the
merging partnership, as a direct sale of that interest to the acquiring
partnership, rather than as part of the asset-over merger. This direct sale
treatment is available if the selling partner consents to treat the transaction
as a direct sale. Such direct sale is deemed to occur immediately before the
asset-over merger. In addition, the preamble to the final regulations indicates
that the Internal Revenue Service will apply the technical termination rules of
the Code to a merging partnership if 50% or more of the total interests in the
merging partnership are sold. Under the technical termination rules, a
partnership is treated as if it reorganized itself into a new partnership. Its
"new" partners are the partners to whom the 50% or more interests in the merging
partnership were sold and any remaining partners that did not sell. The preamble
to the final regulations provides that this technical termination occurs
immediately before the asset-over merger.
Under the final regulations, each Net Partnership merger with Net 3 will be
treated as an asset-over merger for federal income tax purposes. However, since
the limited partners of each Net Partnership that receive common shares and cash
will have consented to direct sale treatment, these limited partners will be
treated as selling their Net Partnership units to Net 3. In addition, because
each merger will be consummated only if more than 50% of the limited partners of
each Net Partnership approve the transaction, thereby accepting common shares
and cash, and therefore, more than 50% of the limited partners would be treated
as selling their respective units, each Net Partnership will be treated as
reorganizing under the technical termination rules. Under those rules,
consenting limited partners will be treated as selling their Net Partnership
units as part of the technical termination. After the termination, the remaining
limited partners of
174
184
the Net Partnerships will be (1) the new partner that purchased the consenting
limited partners' interests, i.e., Net 3, and (2) the dissenting limited
partners that receive dissenter debentures. As a result, the consenting limited
partners should not be treated as participating in the asset-over merger of each
Net Partnership into Net 3. In addition, because the common shares and the cash
would be deemed transferred to the consenting limited partners as part of the
technical termination, that consideration should not be treated as part of the
asset-over merger.
In the asset-over merger, each Net Partnership should be treated as
transferring all of its assets and liabilities to Net 3 in exchange for any
dissenter debentures. Each Net Partnership should then be treated as liquidating
and distributing the dissenter debentures it received from Net 3 to its
respective dissenting limited partners.
TAX CONSEQUENCES TO THE CONSENTING LIMITED PARTNERS. A limited partner
that receives common shares and cash, and thereby consents to direct sale
treatment, will recognize taxable gain or loss equal to the difference between
(1) the consideration it receives and its share of the Net Partnership's
liabilities assumed by Net 3 and (2) its adjusted tax basis in its units. The
consideration a consenting limited partner receives will be the limited
partner's share of that number of common shares and amount of cash equal to the
agreed upon adjusted net asset value of the units of the limited partner's Net
Partnership. The limited partner's share of common shares and cash will be equal
to that value attributable to the units held by the limited partner. The limited
partner will receive 50% of such value in Lexington common shares and 50% of
such value in cash. See the section above entitled "THE MERGERS -- The Merger
Consideration." The consideration a consenting limited partner receives will be
valued at the fair market value of the common shares and the amount of cash.
TAX CONSEQUENCES TO THE DISSENTING LIMITED PARTNERS. A limited partner
that elects to receive dissenter debentures and does not consent to direct sale
treatment will recognize taxable gain or loss as part of the asset-over merger.
The amount of gain or loss realized by each Net Partnership in the asset-over
merger should be based on the difference between (1) the sum of the principal
amount of the dissenter debentures received by the Net Partnership and the
limited partners' share of the Net Partnership's liabilities assumed by Net 3
and (2) the Net Partnership's adjusted tax basis in its assets. This amount of
gain or loss realized by each Net Partnership will be allocated to their
respective dissenting limited partners in accordance with the Net Partnership's
partnership agreement. Each dissenting limited partner must report its allocable
share of such gain or loss pursuant to these terms.
Gains or losses realized by each Net Partnership from transfers of
non-dealer real estate in the mergers are likely to be treated as realized from
the sale of a "Section 1231 asset" (i.e., real property and depreciable assets
used in a trade or business and held for more than one year). Each limited
partner's share of gains or losses from the sale of Section 1231 assets of its
Net Partnership would be combined with any other Section 1231 gains and losses
that such limited partner recognizes in that year. If the result is a net loss,
such Section 1231 gains and losses will be characterized as ordinary. If the
result is a net gain, Section 1231 gains and losses will be characterized as
capital, except that the gain will be treated as ordinary income to the extent
of any "non-recaptured Section 1231 losses." For these purposes, the term
"non-recaptured Section 1231 losses" means aggregate net Section 1231 losses for
the five most recent prior years that have not been previously recaptured. Gain
recognized on the sale of personal property will be taxed as ordinary income to
the extent of all prior depreciation deductions taken by the respective Net
Partnership prior to sale. In general, limited partners who are individuals may
only use up to $3,000 of capital losses in excess of capital gains to offset
ordinary income in any taxable year. Any excess loss is carried forward to
future years subject to the same limitations.
A limited partner that receives dissenter debentures in the transaction
should not recognize further gain or loss upon the liquidation of its Net
Partnership, aside from the gain or loss allocated to each dissenting limited
partner as described above. A dissenting limited partner's basis in the
dissenter debentures received will be equal to its adjusted basis in its units,
as adjusted by the partner's distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction
and credit for the final taxable year of the Net Partnership. Such distributive
share will include any items recognized by the partnership as a result of the
Transaction. Adjustments to be made before calculating the basis to the
dissenter debentures will also include adjustments for any distributions the
175
185
dissenting limited partner receives, including any deemed distributions relating
to liabilities, in the final taxable year, but will not include the distribution
of the dissenter debentures. The dissenting limited partner's holding period for
the dissenter debentures for purposes of capital gain or loss will begin on the
closing date of the Transaction.
TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE TRANSACTION TO LEXINGTON. Lexington should not
recognize gain or loss as a result of the Transaction. The aggregate basis of
Lexington's assets will be allocated among such assets in accordance with their
relative fair market values as described in Section 1060 of the Code.
TAX CONSEQUENCES TO TAX-EXEMPT PARTNERS. The Transaction may result in the
recognition by tax-exempt partners of material unrelated business taxable
income.
TAX ISSUES RELATING TO FOREIGN LIMITED PARTNERS. The Foreign Investment in
Real Property Tax Act of 1980 ("FIRPTA") subjects foreign investors to United
States taxation at regular United States rates on gain from the sale of United
States real property interests such as United States real estate and interests
in partnerships holding United States real estate. FIRPTA also imposes
withholding on such sales.
Lexington believes that substantially all of the assets in the Net
Partnerships consist of United States real property interests. Accordingly,
foreign limited partners will be subject to tax upon the consummation of the
Transaction.
Section 1446 of the Code requires partnerships to withhold at a 39.6
percent rate with respect to noncorporate foreign partners and at a 35 percent
rate with respect to corporate foreign partners on "effectively connected
taxable income" allocable to foreign partners. A foreign partner's distributive
share of the income from a disposition of a United States real property interest
is subject to withholding under Section 1446 because FIRPTA characterizes such
gain as effectively connected taxable income. Any amounts withheld with respect
to the distributive share of a foreign partner are treated as a credit against
the United States tax liability of such partner for the taxable year to which
the withholding relates. Withheld amounts are treated as a distribution on the
last day of the partnership taxable year for which the withheld amount was paid
or, if earlier, on the last day on which the partner owned an interest in the
partnership.
To satisfy the above withholding obligation with respect to the
Transaction, either or both of the Net Partnerships may retain and place in an
escrow account, or similar arrangement, the common shares and cash or dissenter
debentures to be received by any foreign limited partner, pending a sale of a
portion of the common shares sufficient to satisfy the withholding requirement
or, alternatively, the receipt of an amount of cash from such foreign limited
partner sufficient to satisfy the withholding requirement.
TREATMENT OF HOLDERS OF DISSENTER DEBENTURES
STATED INTEREST. Limited partners that receive dissenter debentures must
include stated interest in income in accordance with their method of tax
accounting. Accordingly, limited partners that use the accrual method of tax
accounting must include stated interest in income as it accrues and, limited
partners that use the cash method of tax accounting must include stated interest
in income as it is actually or constructively received.
Interest income will constitute portfolio income, not passive activity
income, for purposes of Section 469 of the Code. Accordingly, such income will
not be subject to reduction by losses from passive activities, i.e., any trade
or business held as a limited partner with no material participation, for
limited partners that are subject to the passive activity loss rules. Income
attributable to interest payments may be offset by investment expense
deductions, however, subject to the limitation that individual investors may
only deduct miscellaneous itemized deductions (including investment expenses) to
the extent such deductions exceed two percent of their adjusted gross income.
RECEIPT OF PRINCIPAL. Holders of dissenter debentures will recognize gain
or loss when Lexington pays principal under the dissenter debentures. The amount
of gain or loss recognized at the time the principal payments are made will be
equal to the difference between the amount of the principal payments and the
holder's basis in the dissenter debenture. If, however, the dissenter debentures
are redeemed in part prior to
176
186
their maturity date, the amount of gain or loss recognized at the time the
principal payments are made will be equal to the difference between the amount
of the principal payments made and a proportionate amount of the holder's basis
in the dissenter debentures. To the extent a holder's adjusted tax basis in its
dissenter debentures is greater than the face amount of the dissenter
debentures, the excess should be treated as a capital loss upon the retirement
or maturity of the dissenter debentures.
DISPOSITION OF DEBENTURES. In general, holders of dissenter debentures
will recognize gain or loss upon the sale, exchange, redemption or other taxable
disposition of such dissenter debentures measured by the difference between (1)
the amount of cash and the fair market value of property received (except, for
accrual method taxpayers, to the extent attributable to the payment of accrued
interest) and (2) such holder's tax basis in the dissenter debenture. Any such
gain or loss will generally be long-term capital gain or loss, provided the
dissenter debenture was a capital asset of such holder and was held for more
than one year.
FRACTIONAL SHARES. Cash received in lieu of a fractional share interest in
common shares will be treated as a payment in exchange for such fractional share
interest. Accordingly, the receipt of cash in lieu of a fractional share
interest in common shares will generally result in capital gain or loss,
measured by the difference between the cash received for the fractional share
and the holder's basis in the fractional share.
TAXATION OF LEXINGTON
GENERAL. Lexington has elected to be taxed as a REIT under Sections 856
through 860 of the Code commencing with its taxable year ended December 31,
1993. In the opinion of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, based on the
factual representations that are described in this discussion and in the
officer's certificates, commencing with its taxable year ended December 31,
1993, Lexington has been organized and has operated in conformity with the
requirements for qualification as a REIT under the Code and Lexington's current
and proposed method of operation, taking into account the anticipated mergers of
the Net Partnerships with and into Net 3, will enable it to continue to meet the
requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT. Lexington intends to
conduct its operations so as to continue to qualify for taxation as a REIT. No
assurance, however, can be given that such requirements will be met in the
future. Qualification and taxation as a REIT depend on Lexington's ability to
satisfy on a continuing basis, through actual annual operating results, the
required distribution levels, diversity of share ownership and various
qualification tests imposed under the Code, as discussed below, the results of
which will not be reviewed by counsel. Given the highly complex nature of the
rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, and the
possibility of future changes in circumstances of Lexington, no assurance can be
given that the actual results of Lexington's operations for any one taxable year
have satisfied or will continue to satisfy such requirements.
The following is a general summary of the federal income tax treatment of a
REIT and its shareholders and is qualified in its entirety by any applicable
Code and other tax provisions.
REIT QUALIFICATION. Lexington must be organized as an entity that would,
if it does not maintain its REIT status, be taxable as a regular corporation.
Lexington cannot be a financial institution or an insurance company. Lexington
must be managed by one or more trustees or directors. Lexington's taxable year
must be the calendar year. Lexington's beneficial ownership must be evidenced by
transferable shares. Lexington's capital stock must be beneficially owned by at
least 100 persons during at least 335 days of a taxable year of 12 months or
during a proportionate part of a taxable year of less than 12 months. Not more
than 50% of the value of the outstanding shares of Lexington's capital stock may
be held, applying the applicable constructive ownership rules of the Code, by
five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of each of
Lexington's taxable years. Lexington must also meet other tests, described
below, regarding the nature of its income and assets and the amount of its
distributions.
Lexington's outstanding common shares are owned by a sufficient number of
investors and in appropriate proportions to permit it to satisfy these stock
ownership requirements. To protect against violations of these stock ownership
requirements, Lexington's Declaration of Trust provides that no person is
permitted to own, applying constructive ownership tests set forth in the Code,
more than 9.8% of the outstanding common shares, unless the trustees are
provided evidence satisfactory to them in their sole discretion that Lexington's
177
187
qualification as a REIT will not be jeopardized. In addition, Lexington's
Declaration of Trust contains restrictions on transfers of capital stock, as
well as provisions that automatically convert shares into excess securities to
the extent that the ownership otherwise might jeopardize Lexington's REIT
status. These restrictions, however, may not ensure that Lexington will, in all
cases, be able to satisfy the stock ownership requirements. If Lexington fails
to satisfy these stock ownership requirements, except as provided in the next
sentence, its status as a REIT will terminate. However, if Lexington complies
with the rules contained in applicable Treasury regulations that require
Lexington to ascertain the actual ownership of shares and Lexington does not
know, or would not have known through the exercise of reasonable diligence, that
it failed to meet the 50% ownership requirement described above, it will be
treated as having met this requirement. See the section below entitled
"-- Failure to Qualify as a REIT."
To monitor Lexington's compliance with the share ownership requirements, it
is required to and does maintain records disclosing the actual ownership of
common shares. To do so, Lexington will demand written statements each year from
the record holders of certain percentages of shares, disclosing the actual
owners of the shares who are required to include in gross income the REIT
dividends. A list of those persons failing or refusing to comply with this
demand will be maintained as part of Lexington's records. Shareholders who fail
or refuse to comply with the demand must submit a statement with their tax
returns disclosing the actual ownership of the shares and other information.
The Code allows a REIT to own wholly-owned subsidiaries which are
"qualified REIT subsidiaries." The Code provides that a qualified REIT
subsidiary is not treated as a separate corporation, and all of its assets,
liabilities and items of income, deduction and credit are treated as assets,
liabilities and items of income, deduction and credit of the REIT. Thus, in
applying the requirements described herein, Lexington's qualified REIT
subsidiaries will be ignored, and all assets, liabilities and items of income,
deduction and credit of such subsidiaries will be treated as Lexington's assets,
liabilities and items of income, deduction and credit.
For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2001, a REIT may also
hold any direct or indirect interest in a corporation that qualifies as a
"taxable REIT subsidiary", as long as the REIT's aggregate holdings of taxable
REIT subsidiary securities do not exceed 20% of the value of the REIT's total
assets. A taxable REIT subsidiary is a fully taxable corporation that generally
is permitted to engage in businesses, own assets, and earn income that, if
engaged in, owned, or earned by the REIT, might jeopardize REIT status or result
in the imposition of penalty taxes on the REIT. To qualify as a taxable REIT
subsidiary, the subsidiary and the REIT must make a joint election to treat the
subsidiary as a taxable REIT subsidiary. A taxable REIT subsidiary also includes
any corporation (other than a REIT or a qualified REIT subsidiary) in which a
taxable REIT subsidiary directly or indirectly owns more than 35% of the total
voting power or value. A taxable REIT subsidiary will pay tax at regular
corporate income rates on any taxable income it earns. Moreover, the Code
contains rules, including rules requiring the imposition of taxes on a REIT at
the rate of 100% on certain reallocated income and expenses, to ensure that
contractual arrangements between a taxable REIT subsidiary and its parent REIT
are at arm's-length.
In the case of a REIT which is a partner in a partnership or any other
entity, such as a limited liability company, that is treated as a partnership
for federal income tax purposes, Treasury regulations provide that the REIT will
be deemed to own its proportionate share of the assets of the partnership. Also,
the REIT will be deemed to be entitled to its proportionate share of the income
of the partnership. The character of the assets and gross income of the
partnership retains the same character in the hands of the REIT for purposes of
satisfying the gross income tests and the asset tests described below. Thus,
Lexington's proportionate share of the assets and items of income of any
partnership in which it owns an interest are treated as its assets and items of
income for purposes of applying the requirements described in this discussion.
Lexington currently satisfies, and expects to continue to satisfy, each of
these requirements discussed above. Lexington also currently satisfies, and
expects to continue to satisfy, the requirements that are separately described
below concerning the nature and amounts of its income and assets and the levels
of required annual distributions.
178
188
SOURCES OF GROSS INCOME. In order to qualify as a REIT for a particular
year, Lexington also must meet two tests governing the sources of its income --
a 75% gross income test and a 95% gross income test. These tests are designed to
ensure that a REIT derives its income principally from passive real estate
investments.
75% GROSS INCOME TEST. At least 75% of a REIT's gross income for each
taxable year must be derived from specified classes of income that are
principally real estate related. The permitted categories of principal
importance to Lexington are:
(1) rents from real property;
(2) interest on loans secured by real property;
(3) gain from the sale of real property or loans secured by real
property;
(4) income from the operation and gain from the sale of property
acquired in a foreclosure of a mortgage securing that property
("foreclosure property");
(5) distributions on, or gain from the sale of, shares of other
qualifying REITs;
(6) abatements and refunds of real property taxes;
(7) amounts received as consideration for entering into agreements to
make loans secured by real property or to purchase or lease real property;
and
(8) "qualified temporary investment income," which is income from
qualified temporary investment property (described below).
Gross income under the 75% income test, as well as the 95% income test
described below, does not include gross income from "prohibited transactions." A
prohibited transaction is a sale of property held primarily for sale to
customers in the ordinary course of business ("dealer property"), not including
foreclosure property and not including dealer property that Lexington has held
for at least four years.
Lexington expects that substantially all of its operating gross income will
be considered rent from real property and interest income. Rent from real
property is qualifying income for purposes of the gross income tests only if
certain conditions are satisfied. Rent from real property includes charges for
services customarily rendered to tenants, and rent attributable to personal
property leased together with the real property so long as the personal property
rent is not more than 15% of the total rent received or accrued under the lease
for the taxable year. Lexington does not expect to earn material amounts in
these categories. Rent from real property generally does not include rent based
on the income or profits derived from the property. However, rent based on a
percentage of gross receipts or sales is permitted as rent from real property.
Also excluded from "rents from real property" is rent received from a person or
corporation in which Lexington or any of its 10% or greater owners owns a 10% or
greater interest. A third exclusion from qualifying rent income covers amounts
received with respect to real property if Lexington furnishes services to the
tenants or manages or operates the property, other than through an "independent
contractor" from whom Lexington does not derive any income or through a taxable
REIT subsidiary.
95% GROSS INCOME TEST. In addition to earning at least 75% of its gross
income from the types listed above, 95% of Lexington's gross income for each
taxable year must generally consist of the same types permitted under the 75%
income test, dividends, interest or gains from the sale or other disposition of
stock or other securities that do not constitute dealer property. This test
permits a REIT to earn a significant portion of its income from traditional
"passive" investment sources that are not necessarily real estate related. The
term "interest" (under both the 75% and 95% income tests) does not include
amounts that are based on the income or profits of any person, unless the
computation is based only on a fixed percentage of receipts or sales.
Lexington believes that substantially all of its rental income will be
qualifying income under the gross income tests, and that its provision of
services will not cause the rental income to fail to be qualifying income under
that test. Upon the ultimate sale of Lexington's properties, any gains realized
also are expected to constitute qualifying income, as gain from the sale of real
property not involving a prohibited transaction.
179
189
FAILING THE 75% OR 95% GROSS INCOME TESTS; REASONABLE CAUSE. As a result
of the 75% and 95% income tests, REITs generally are not permitted to earn more
than 5% of their gross income from active sources, including brokerage
commissions or other fees for services rendered. Lexington may receive certain
types of that income. This type of income will not qualify for the 75% or 95%
income tests but is not expected to be significant and, together with other
nonqualifying income, is expected to be at all times less than 5% of Lexington's
annual gross income. While Lexington does not anticipate that it will earn
substantial amounts of nonqualifying income, if nonqualifying income exceeds 5%
of its gross income in any taxable year, it could lose its status as a REIT.
If Lexington fails to meet either the 75% or 95% income tests during a
taxable year, it may still qualify as a REIT for that year if (1) it reports the
source and nature of each item of its gross income in its federal income tax
return for that year; (2) the inclusion of any incorrect information in its
return is not due to fraud with intent to evade tax; and (3) the failure to meet
the tests is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. It is not
possible, however, to state whether in all circumstances Lexington would be
entitled to the benefit of this relief provision. For example, if Lexington
fails to satisfy the gross income tests because nonqualifying income that it
intentionally accrues or receives causes it to exceed the limits on
nonqualifying income, the IRS could conclude that its failure to satisfy the
tests was not due to reasonable cause. If these relief provisions do not apply
to a particular set of circumstances, Lexington will not qualify as a REIT. As
discussed below, even if these relief provisions apply, and Lexington retains
its status as a REIT, a tax would be imposed with respect to its non-qualifying
income. Lexington would be subject to a 100% tax based on the greater of the
amount by which it fails either the 75% or 95% income tests for that year.
PROHIBITED TRANSACTION INCOME. Any gain that Lexington realizes on the
sale of any property held as inventory or other dealer property, including
Lexington's share of any such gain realized by any subsidiary partnerships, will
be treated as income from a prohibited transaction that is subject to a 100%
penalty tax. This prohibited transaction income may also adversely affect
Lexington's ability to satisfy the income tests for qualification as a REIT.
Whether property is held as inventory or is dealer property depends on all the
facts and circumstances surrounding the particular transaction. Lexington
intends to hold its properties, and its subsidiary partnerships intend to hold
their properties, for investment with a view to long-term appreciation, to
engage in the business of acquiring, developing and owning properties, and to
make occasional sales of the properties as are consistent with their investment
objectives. The IRS may contend, however, that one or more of these sales is
subject to the 100% penalty tax.
CHARACTER OF ASSETS OWNED. At the close of each calendar quarter of
Lexington's taxable year, Lexington also must satisfy the following tests
concerning the nature of its investments. At least 75% of the value of its total
assets generally must consist of real estate assets, cash, cash items (including
receivables) and government securities. For this purpose, "real estate assets"
include interests in real property, interests in loans secured by mortgages on
real property or by certain interests in real property, shares in other REITs
and certain options, but excluding mineral, oil or gas royalty interests.
Qualified temporary investment property, which is stock or debt instruments
attributable to the temporary investment of new capital, also qualifies under
this 75% asset test, but only for the one-year period beginning on the date
Lexington receives the new capital. In addition, not more than 25% of
Lexington's total assets may be represented by securities other than those in
the 75% asset class. Not more than 20% of the value of Lexington's total assets
may be represented by securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries (as
defined above under "REIT Qualification"). Except for investments included in
the 75% asset class, securities in a taxable REIT subsidiary or qualified REIT
subsidiary and certain partnership interests and debt obligations, (1) not more
than 5% of the value of Lexington's total assets may be represented by
securities of any one issuer, (2) Lexington may not hold securities that possess
more than 10% of the total voting power of the outstanding securities of a
single issuer and (3) Lexington may not hold securities that have a value of
more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one
issuer.
Lexington believes that substantially all of its assets consist and, after
the Transaction, will consist of (1) real properties, (2) stock or debt
investments that earn qualified temporary investment income, (3) other qualified
real estate assets, and (4) cash, cash items and government securities.
Lexington may also invest in
180
190
securities of other entities, provided that such investments will not prevent it
from satisfying the asset and income tests for REIT qualification set forth
above.
After initially meeting the asset tests at the close of any quarter,
Lexington will not lose its status as a REIT for failure to satisfy the asset
tests at the end of a later quarter solely by reason of changes in asset values.
If Lexington fails to satisfy the asset tests because it acquires securities or
other property during a quarter, it can cure this failure by disposing of
sufficient nonqualifying assets within 30 days after the close of that quarter.
Lexington intends to take such action within the 30 days after the close of any
quarter as may be required to cure any noncompliance. If Lexington fails to cure
noncompliance with the asset tests within this time period, Lexington would
cease to qualify as a REIT.
ANNUAL DISTRIBUTIONS TO SHAREHOLDERS. To maintain its REIT status,
Lexington generally must distribute as a dividend to its shareholders in each
taxable year at least 90% (95% with respect to taxable years ended prior to
January 1, 2001) of its net ordinary income. Capital gain is not required to be
distributed. More precisely, Lexington must distribute an amount equal to (1)
90% of the sum of (a) its "REIT Taxable Income" before deduction of dividends
paid and excluding any net capital gain and (b) any net income from foreclosure
property less the tax on such income, minus (2) "excess noncash income," such as
income attributable to leveled stepped rents, cancellation of indebtedness and
original issue discount. REIT Taxable Income is the taxable income of the REIT,
computed as if it were an ordinary corporation, with certain modifications. For
example, the deduction for dividends paid is allowed, but neither net income
from foreclosure property, nor net income from prohibited transactions, is
included. In addition, the REIT may carry over, but not carry back, a net
operating loss for 20 years following the year in which it was incurred.
A REIT may satisfy the distribution test with dividends paid during the
taxable year and with certain dividends paid after the end of the taxable year.
Dividends paid in January that were declared during the last calendar quarter of
the prior year and were payable to shareholders of record on a date during the
last calendar quarter of that prior year are treated as paid on December 31 of
the prior year. Other dividends declared before the due date of Lexington's tax
return for the taxable year, including extensions, also will be treated as paid
in the prior year if they are paid (1) within 12 months of the end of that
taxable year and (2) no later than Lexington's next regular distribution
payment. Dividends that are paid after the close of a taxable year that do not
qualify under the rule governing payments made in January (described above) will
be taxable to the shareholders in the year paid, even though Lexington may take
them into account in a prior year.
Lexington will be taxed at regular corporate rates to the extent that it
retains any portion of its taxable income. For example, if Lexington distributes
only the required 90% of its taxable income for 2001, it would be taxed on the
retained 10%. A nondeductible excise tax equal to 4% will be imposed for each
calendar year to the extent that dividends declared and distributed or deemed
distributed before December 31 are less than the sum of (a) 85% of Lexington's
"ordinary income" plus (b) 95% of Lexington's capital gain net income plus (c)
any undistributed income from prior periods.
Lexington believes that it has distributed and intends to continue to
distribute to its shareholders in a timely manner such amounts sufficient to
satisfy the annual distribution requirements. However, Lexington may not have
sufficient cash or other liquid assets to meet the distribution requirement.
This could arise because of competing demands for its funds, or because income
may have to be reported for tax purposes before cash is received, or expenses
may have to be paid before a tax deduction is allowed. Although Lexington does
not anticipate any difficulty in meeting this requirement, no assurance can be
given that necessary funds will be available. In the event these circumstances
do occur, then in order to meet the distribution requirement, Lexington may
cause its operating partnership to arrange for short-term, or possibly
long-term, borrowings to permit the payment of required dividends.
If Lexington fails to meet the distribution requirement because of an
adjustment to its taxable income by the IRS, it may be able to cure the failure
retroactively by paying a "deficiency dividend," as well as applicable interest
and penalties, within a specified period.
181
191
TAXATION AS A REIT
As a REIT, Lexington generally will not be subject to corporate income tax
to the extent it currently distributes its REIT Taxable Income to its
shareholders. This treatment effectively eliminates the "double taxation"
imposed on investments in most corporations. Double taxation refers to taxation
that occurs once at the corporate level when income is earned and once again at
the shareholder level when such income is distributed. Lexington generally will
be taxed only on the portion of its taxable income that it retains, which will
include any undistributed net capital gain, because it will be entitled to a
deduction for dividends paid to shareholders during the taxable year. A
dividends paid deduction is not available for dividends that are considered
preferential within any given class of shares or as between classes except to
the extent that class is entitled to a preference. Because excess stock will
represent a separate class of outstanding shares, the fact that those shares
will not be entitled to dividends should not adversely affect Lexington's
ability to deduct its dividend payments.
Even as a REIT, Lexington will be subject to tax in certain circumstances
as follows:
(1) a tax at the highest corporate rate (currently 35%) on any income
or gain from foreclosure property;
(2) a confiscatory tax of 100% on any net income from prohibited
transactions;
(3) if Lexington fails to meet either the 75% or 95% income tests
described above, but still qualifies for REIT status under the reasonable
cause exception to those tests, a 100% tax on the greater of the amount, if
any, by which it failed either the 75% income test or the 95% income test,
times a fraction intended to reflect its profitability;
(4) the alternative minimum tax on items of tax preference, excluding
items specifically allocable to its shareholders;
(5) if Lexington fails to distribute with respect to each calendar
year at least the sum of (a) 85% of its REIT ordinary income for that year,
(b) 95% of its REIT capital gain net income for that year, and (c) any
undistributed taxable income from prior years, a 4% excise tax on the
excess of the required distribution over the amounts actually distributed;
(6) under temporary regulations, a tax at the highest regular
corporate tax rate may apply on any appreciation in the assets that it
acquires in tax-free corporate transactions, to the extent the gain is
recognized during the first ten years after it acquires those assets
assuming that Lexington will make the appropriate election;
(7) a tax at regular corporate rates on any undistributed REIT
taxable income, including undistributed net capital gains; and
(8) an excise tax of 100% on transactions with a taxable REIT
subsidiary that are not conducted on an arm's-length basis.
FAILURE TO QUALIFY AS A REIT
For any taxable year in which Lexington fails to qualify as a REIT and no
relief provisions apply, Lexington would be taxed at regular corporate rates,
including alternative minimum tax rates, on all of its taxable income.
Distributions to Lexington's shareholders would not be deductible in computing
that taxable income, and distributions would no longer be required to be made.
Any corporate level taxes generally would reduce the amount of cash available
for distribution to Lexington's shareholders and, because the shareholders would
continue to be taxed on the distributions they receive, the net after tax yield
to the shareholders from their investment likely would be reduced substantially.
As a result, failure to qualify as a REIT during any taxable year could have a
material adverse effect on an investment in Lexington common shares. In
addition, it would not be eligible to elect REIT status again until the fifth
taxable year which begins after the taxable year during which its election was
terminated. It is not possible to state whether in all circumstances Lexington
would be entitled to any statutory relief.
182
192
TAXATION OF TAXABLE U.S. SHAREHOLDERS
Distributions generally will be taxable to taxable U.S. shareholders as
ordinary income to the extent of Lexington's current or accumulated earnings and
profits. However, Lexington may generate cash in excess of its net earnings. If
it distributes cash to shareholders in excess of its current and accumulated
capital earnings and profits (other than as a capital gain dividend), the excess
cash will be deemed to be a return of capital to each shareholder to the extent
of the adjusted tax basis of the shareholder's shares. Distributions in excess
of the adjusted tax basis will be treated as gain from the sale or exchange of
the shares of stock. A shareholder who has received a distribution in excess of
Lexington's current and accumulated earnings and profits may, upon the sale of
the shares, realize a higher taxable gain or a smaller loss because the basis of
the shares as reduced will be used for purposes of computing the amount of the
gain or loss. Distributions that Lexington makes, whether characterized as
ordinary income or as capital gains, are not eligible for the dividends received
deduction for corporations. For purposes of determining whether distributions to
holders of common shares are out of current or accumulated earnings and profits,
Lexington's earnings and profits will be allocated first to the outstanding
preferred shares, if any, and then to the common shares.
Dividends that Lexington declares in October, November, or December of any
year and payable to a shareholder of record on a specified date in any of these
months shall be treated as both paid by Lexington and received by the
shareholder on December 31 of that year, provided Lexington actually pays the
dividend on or before January 31 of the following calendar year. Shareholders
may not include in their own income tax returns any of Lexington's net operating
losses or capital losses.
Distributions that Lexington properly designates as capital gain dividends
will be taxable to U.S. shareholders as gains from the sale or disposition of a
capital asset to the extent that they do not exceed Lexington's actual net
capital gain for the taxable year. Depending on the period of time the assets
are held, the tax characteristics of the assets which produced these gains, and
on designations, if any, which Lexington may make, these gains may be taxable to
non-corporate U.S. shareholders at a 20% or 25% rate.
Lexington may elect to retain, rather than distribute as a capital gain
dividend, its net long-term capital gains. If Lexington makes this election, it
would pay tax on its retained net long-term capital gains. In addition, to the
extent Lexington designates, a U.S. shareholder generally would:
- include its proportionate share of Lexington's undistributed long-term
capital gains in computing its long-term capital gains in its return for
its taxable year in which the last day of Lexington's taxable year falls;
- be deemed to have paid the capital gains tax imposed on Lexington on the
designated amounts included in the U.S. shareholder's long-term capital
gains;
- receive a credit or refund for the amount of tax deemed paid by it,
increase the adjusted basis of its common share by the difference between
the amount of includable gains and the tax deemed to have been paid by
it; and
- in the case of a U.S. shareholder that is a corporation, appropriately
adjust its earnings and profits for the retained capital gains in
accordance with Treasury regulations to be prescribed by the IRS.
Distributions that Lexington makes and gains arising from the sale or
exchange by a U.S. shareholder of Lexington's shares will not be treated as
income from a passive activity, since income from a passive activity generally
does not include dividends and gain attributable to the disposition of property
that produces dividends. As a result, U.S. shareholders subject to the passive
activity rules will generally be unable to apply any "passive losses" against
this income or gain. Distributions that Lexington makes, to the extent they do
not constitute a return of capital, generally will be treated as investment
income for purposes of computing the investment interest limitation. Gain
arising from the sale or other disposition of Lexington's shares, however, may
not always be treated as investment income.
Generally, gain or loss realized by a shareholder upon the sale of common
shares will be reportable as capital gain or loss. If a shareholder receives a
long-term capital gain dividend from Lexington and has held
183
193
the shares for six months or less, any loss incurred on the sale or exchange of
the shares is treated as a long-term capital loss to the extent of the
corresponding long-term capital gain dividend received.
In any year in which Lexington fails to qualify as a REIT, the shareholders
generally will continue to be treated in the same fashion described above.
However, none of Lexington's dividends will be eligible for treatment as capital
gains dividends, corporate shareholders will qualify for the dividends received
deduction and the shareholders will not be required to report any share of
Lexington's tax preference items.
BACKUP WITHHOLDING
Lexington will report to its shareholders and the IRS the amount of
dividends paid during each calendar year and the amount of tax withheld, if any.
If a shareholder is subject to backup withholding, Lexington will be required to
deduct and withhold from any dividends payable to that shareholder a tax of 31%.
These rules may apply (1) when a shareholder fails to supply a correct taxpayer
identification number, (2) when the IRS notifies Lexington that the shareholder
is subject to the rules or has furnished an incorrect taxpayer identification
number, or (3) in the case of corporations or others within exempt categories,
when they fail to demonstrate that fact when required. A shareholder that does
not provide a correct taxpayer identification number may also be subject to
penalties imposed by the IRS. Any amount withheld as backup withholding may be
credited against the shareholder's federal income tax liability. Lexington also
may be required to withhold a portion of capital gain distributions made to
shareholders who fail to certify their non-foreign status. Recent final
regulations regarding withholding and information reporting also unify
certification procedures and clarify reliance standards. Limited partners of the
Net Partnerships and shareholders of Lexington should consult their own tax
advisors concerning any additional requirements under the final regulations.
TAXATION OF TAX-EXEMPT ENTITIES
In general, a tax-exempt entity that is a shareholder will not be subject
to tax on distributions or gain realized on the sale of shares. In Revenue
Ruling 66-106, the IRS confirmed that a REIT's distributions to a tax-exempt
employees' pension trust did not constitute unrelated business taxable income
(UBTI). However, distributions from Lexington may be taxable as UBTI to the
extent that a tax-exempt entity has financed the acquisition of its shares with
"acquisition indebtedness."
Tax-exempt employees' pension and profit sharing trusts which qualify under
Section 401(a) of the Code and are exempt from tax under Section 501(a) of the
Code ("qualified trusts") owning more than 10% of a REIT may be required to
treat a percentage of dividends from a REIT as UBTI. The percentage is
determined by dividing the REIT's gross income (less direct expenses related
thereto) derived from an unrelated trade or business for the year (determined as
if the REIT were a qualified trust) by the gross income of the REIT for the year
in which the dividends are paid. However, if this percentage is less than 5%,
dividends are not treated as UBTI. These UBTI rules apply only if the REIT
qualifies as a REIT because the REIT was permitted to count the tax-exempt
shareholder's beneficiaries as direct, proportionate REIT shareholders under a
special rule applicable to qualified trusts and if the REIT is "predominantly
held" by qualified trusts. A REIT is predominantly held by qualified trusts if
at least one pension trust owns more than 25% of the value or if the REIT or a
group of pension trusts each owning more than 10% of the value of the REIT
collectively own more than 50% of the value of the REIT. Lexington does not
currently meet either of these requirements.
For social clubs, voluntary employees' beneficiary associations,
supplemental unemployment compensation benefits trusts, and qualified group
legal services plans exempt from federal income taxation under Sections
501(c)(7), (c)(9), (c)(17) and (c)(20) of the Code, respectively, income from an
investment in Lexington common shares will constitute UBTI unless the
organization is able to deduct an amount properly set aside or placed in reserve
for specified purposes so as to offset the UBTI generated by the investment in
Lexington's capital shares. These prospective holders of Lexington common shares
should consult their own tax advisors concerning the applicable tax consequences
of an investment in common shares.
184
194
TAXATION OF FOREIGN INVESTORS
The rules governing federal income taxation of nonresident alien
individuals, foreign corporations, foreign partnerships and other foreign
shareholders are complex. This is only a brief summary. Prospective foreign
shareholders should consult with their own tax advisors to determine the impact
of federal, state and local income tax laws with regard to an investment in
common shares, including any reporting requirements, as well as the tax
treatment of such an investment under the laws of their home country.
Dividends that are not attributable to gain from any sales or exchanges
that Lexington makes of United States real property interests and which
Lexington does not designate as capital gain dividends will be treated as
dividends of ordinary income to the extent that they are made out of Lexington's
current or accumulated earnings and profits. Those dividends ordinarily will be
subject to a withholding tax equal to 30% of the gross amount of the dividend
unless an applicable tax treaty reduces or eliminates that tax. However, if
income from the investment in the common shares is treated as effectively
connected with the foreign shareholder's conduct of a United States trade or
business, the foreign shareholder generally will be subject to a tax at
graduated rates, in the same manner as U.S. shareholders are taxed with respect
to those dividends, and may also be subject to the 30% branch profits tax in the
case of a shareholder that is a foreign corporation. For withholding tax
purposes, Lexington intends to withhold at the rate of 30%, or a reduced treaty
rate if applicable, on the amount of any distribution (other than distributions
designated as capital gain dividends) made to a foreign shareholder unless (1)
the foreign shareholder files on IRS Form W8BEN claiming that a lower treaty
rate applies or (2) the foreign shareholder files an IRS Form W8ECI claiming
that the dividend is effectively connected income.
However, Lexington is generally not required to withhold at the 30% rate on
distributions that Lexington reasonably estimates to be in excess of its current
and accumulated earnings and profits. Dividends in excess of Lexington's current
and accumulated earnings and profits will not be taxable to a shareholder to the
extent that they do not exceed the adjusted basis of the shareholder's shares,
but rather will reduce the adjusted basis of those shares. To the extent that
those dividends exceed the adjusted basis of a foreign shareholder's shares,
they will give rise to tax liability if the foreign shareholder would otherwise
be subject to tax on any gain from the sale or disposition of his shares, as
described below. If it cannot be determined at the time a dividend is paid
whether or not a dividend will be in excess of current and accumulated earnings
and profits, the dividend will be subject to such withholding. Lexington does
not intend to make quarterly estimates of that portion of dividends that are in
excess of earnings and profits, and, as a result, all dividends will be subject
to such withholding. However, the foreign shareholder may seek a refund of those
amounts from the IRS.
For any year in which Lexington qualifies as a REIT, distributions that are
attributable to gain from its sales or exchanges of United States real property
interests will be taxed to a foreign shareholder under the provisions of FIRPTA.
Under FIRPTA, those dividends are taxed to a foreign shareholder as if the gain
were effectively connected with a United States business. Foreign shareholders
would thus be taxed at the normal capital gain rates applicable to U.S.
shareholders subject to applicable alternative minimum tax and a special
alternative minimum tax in the case of nonresident alien individuals. Also,
dividends subject to FIRPTA may be subject to a 30% branch profits tax in the
hands of a corporate foreign shareholder not entitled to treaty exemption.
Lexington is required by the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations to
withhold 35% of any dividend that could be designated as a capital gain
dividend. This amount is creditable against the foreign shareholder's FIRPTA tax
liability.
Gain recognized by a foreign shareholder upon a sale of shares generally
will not be taxed under FIRPTA if Lexington is a "domestically controlled REIT,"
defined generally as a REIT in which at all times during a specified testing
period less than 50% in value of the shares was held by foreign persons. It is
currently anticipated that Lexington will be a domestically controlled REIT, and
therefore the sale of shares will not be subject to taxation under FIRPTA.
Because the common shares will be publicly traded, however, no assurance can be
given that Lexington will remain a domestically controlled REIT. However, gain
not subject to FIRPTA will be taxable to a foreign shareholder if
(1) investment in common shares is effectively connected with the
foreign shareholder's United States trade or business, in which case the
foreign shareholder will be subject to the same treatment as
185
195
U.S. shareholders with respect to that gain, and may also be subject to the
30% branch profits tax in the case of a corporate foreign shareholder, or
(2) the foreign shareholder is a nonresident alien individual who was
present in the United States for 183 days or more during the taxable year
and has a "tax home" in the United States, in which case the nonresident
alien individual will be subject to a 30% withholding tax on the
individual's capital gains.
If Lexington was not a domestically controlled REIT, whether or not a
foreign shareholder's sale of common shares would be subject to tax under FIRPTA
would depend on whether or not the shares of common shares were regularly traded
on an established securities market (such as the NYSE) and on the size of the
selling foreign shareholder's interest in Lexington's capital shares. If the
gain on the sale of shares were to be subject to taxation under FIRPTA, the
foreign shareholder will be subject to the same treatment as U.S. shareholders
with respect to that gain and the purchaser of common shares may be required to
withhold 10% of the gross purchase price.
EXPERTS
The consolidated financial statements and related financial statement
schedule included in Lexington Corporate Properties Trust's Annual Report on
Form 10-K as of and for the year ended December 31, 2000 and incorporated by
reference into this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus
have been incorporated herein by reference in reliance on the report, also
incorporated herein by reference, of KPMG LLP, independent certified public
accountants, and upon the authority of KPMG LLP as experts in accounting and
auditing.
The consolidated financial statements and related financial statement
schedule included in Net 1 L.P.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-1 as of and for
the year ended December 31, 2000 and incorporated by reference into this Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus have been incorporated
herein by reference in reliance on the report, also incorporated herein by
reference, of KPMG LLP, and upon the authority of KPMG LLP as experts in
accounting and auditing.
The consolidated financial statements and related financial statement
schedule included in Net 2 L.P.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-1 as of and for
the year ended December 31, 2000 and incorporated by reference into this Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus have been incorporated
herein by reference in reliance on the report, also incorporated herein by
reference, of KPMG LLP, and upon the authority of KPMG LLP as experts in
accounting and auditing.
LEGAL MATTERS
Certain legal matters will be passed upon for Lexington by Paul, Hastings,
Janofsky & Walker LLP, New York, New York. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
will rely as to all matters of Maryland law, including the legality of the
common shares offered hereby, on the opinion of Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe
LLP, Baltimore, Maryland.
INCORPORATION OF INFORMATION BY REFERENCE
The Securities and Exchange Commission allows Lexington, Net 1 and Net 2 to
incorporate information into this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus by reference. This means that Lexington, Net 1 and Net 2
can disclose important information to you by referring you to other documents
previously, and separately from into this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
information incorporated by reference is considered to be a part of this Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, except for any information
that is superseded by information that is included in this document.
186
196
This Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus incorporates
by reference the documents listed below. They contain important information
about Lexington, Net 1 and Net 2 and their financial condition.
The following documents previously filed by Lexington with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (File No. 1-12386) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 are incorporated by reference into this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus:
LEXINGTON SEC FILINGS PERIOD/FILING DATE
--------------------- ------------------
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q Quarter ended June 30, 2001, filed on
August 14, 2001
Current Report on Form 8-K Filed on July 25, 2001
Current Report on Form 8-K/A Filed on July 25, 2001
Current Report on Form 8-K Filed on July 23, 2001
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q Quarter ended March 31, 2001 filed on
May 9, 2001
Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A Filed on April 12, 2001
Annual Report on Form 10-K Year ended December 31, 2000, filed on
April 2, 2001
The following documents previously filed by Net 1 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (File No. 000-22596) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 are incorporated by reference into this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus:
NET 1 SEC FILINGS PERIOD/FILING DATE
----------------- ------------------
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q Quarter ended June 30, 2001, filed on
August 14, 2001
Current Report on Form 8-K Filed on July 23, 2001
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q Quarter ended March 31, 2001, filed on
May 14, 2001
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-1 Year ended December 31, 2000, filed on
April 2, 2001 and amended on June 15,
2001
The following documents previously filed by Net 2 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (File No. 000-22566) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 are incorporated by reference into this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus:
NET 2 SEC FILINGS PERIOD/FILING DATE
----------------- ------------------
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q Quarter ended June 30, 2001, filed on
August 14, 2001
Current Report on form 8-K Filed on July 23, 2001
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q Quarter ended March 31, 2001, filed on
May 14, 2001
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-1 Year ended December 31, 2000, filed on
April 2, 2001 and amended on June 15,
2001
In addition, all documents filed by Lexington, Net 1 or Net 2 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 after the date of this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus, and before the deadline for returning proxies
and consent forms, will be deemed to be incorporated by reference into, and to
be a part of, this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus as
of the date of filing of such documents. These documents include periodic
reports, such as Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and
Current Reports on Form 8-K, as well as proxy statements.
Any statement contained in a document that is or is deemed to be
incorporated by reference will be deemed to be modified or superseded for
purposes of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/
187
197
Prospectus to the extent that a statement contained in this Joint Consent and
Proxy Solicitation Statement/ Prospectus or any other subsequently filed
document that is or is deemed to be incorporated by reference in this Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus modifies or supersedes such
previous statement. Any statement so modified or superseded will not be deemed
to constitute a part of this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation
Statement/Prospectus except as so modified or superseded.
All information contained or incorporated by reference in this Joint
Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/Prospectus relating to Lexington and
its subsidiaries, has been supplied by Lexington, all such information relating
to Net 1 and its subsidiaries has been supplied by Net 1 and all such
information relating to Net 2 and its subsidiaries has been supplied by Net 2.
You can obtain any of the documents incorporated by reference in this
document through Lexington, Net 1 or Net 2, as the case may be, or from the
Securities and Exchange Commission through the Securities and Exchange
Commission's web site at http://www.sec.gov. Documents incorporated by reference
are available from the companies without charge, excluding any exhibits to those
documents unless the exhibit is specifically incorporated by reference as an
exhibit in this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/ Prospectus. You
can obtain documents incorporated by reference in this Joint Consent and Proxy
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus by requesting them in writing or by telephone
from the appropriate company at the following addresses:
Lexington Corporate Net 1 L.P. Net 2 L.P.
Properties Trust c/o Lexington Corporate c/o Lexington Corporate
355 Lexington Avenue Properties Trust Properties Trust
New York, New York 10017 355 Lexington Avenue 355 Lexington Avenue
(212) 692-7260 New York, New York 10017 New York, New York 10017
(212) 692-7200 (212) 692-7200
Lexington, Net 1 or Net 2, as the case may be, will mail to you any
document incorporated by reference which you request by first class mail or
another equally prompt means, within one business day after your request is
received.
Lexington, Net 1 and Net 2 have not authorized anyone to give any
information or make any representation about the mergers that is different from,
or in addition to, that contained in this consent statement-prospectus or in any
of the materials that have been incorporated into this document. Therefore, if
anyone does give you information of this sort, you should not rely on it. If you
are in a jurisdiction where offers or solicitations of offers to exchange or
purchase the securities offered by this document, or the solicitation of
proxies, is unlawful, or if you are a person to whom it is unlawful to direct
these types of activities, then the offer presented in this document does not
extend to you. The information contained in this document speaks only as of the
date of this document unless the information specifically indicates that another
date applies.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
When used in this Joint Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement/
Prospectus, the words "believes," "expects," "estimates" and similar expressions
are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject
to certain risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ
materially. In particular, among the factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially are continued qualification as a real estate investment trust,
general business and economic conditions, competition, increases in real estate
construction costs, interest rates, accessibility of debt and equity capital
markets and other risks inherent in the real estate business including tenant
defaults or financial difficulties, potential liability relating to
environmental matters and illiquidity of real estate investments. Readers are
cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which
speak only as of the date hereof. Lexington, Net 1 and Net 2 undertake no
obligation to publicly release the results of any revisions to these
forward-looking statements which may be made to reflect events or circumstances
after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
188
198
PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
The accompanying unaudited pro forma consolidated balance sheet of
Lexington as of June 30, 2001 has been prepared from the historical consolidated
financial statements of Lexington, Net 1 and Net 2, as adjusted to give effect
to (i) Lexington's acquisition of Net 1 and Net 2 assuming that no limited
partners elect to receive their merger consideration in the form of dissenter
debentures and (ii) the sale of 4,400,000 common shares in an underwritten
registered public offering completed in July and August 2001.
The accompanying unaudited pro forma statements of income of Lexington for
the year ended December 31, 2000 and the six months ended June 30, 2001 have
been prepared as if (a) Lexington's acquisition of Net 1 and Net 2 had been
consummated as of January 1, 2000 and (b) all 2001 and 2000 property purchases
and sales, and the above-referenced sale of common shares, had been consummated
as of January 1, 2000. The unaudited pro forma financial data does not purport
to be indicative of what the results of operations or financial position of
Lexington would have been had the mergers, all other property purchases and
sales, and the above-referenced sale of common shares, been completed on the
date assumed, nor is such unaudited financial data necessarily indicative of the
results of operations of Lexington that may exist in the future. The unaudited
pro forma financial data must be read in conjunction with the Notes thereto and
with the historical Consolidated Financial Statements and the related Notes
included/incorporated by reference.
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001
ALL OTHER COMMON PROFORMA PROFORMA
LEXINGTON NET 1 NET 2 TRANSACTIONS(I) SHARE OFFERING ADJUSTMENTS ADJUSTED
---------- ------ ------ --------------- -------------- ----------- ----------
(DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
Revenues
Rental............................. $ 38,734 $2,863 $5,526 $(141) $ -- $ 48(a) $ 47,030
Equity in earnings of
non-consolidated entities........ 1,416 -- -- 416 -- -- 1,832
Interest and other................. 531 37 140 -- -- (128)(b) 580
---------- ------ ------ ----- ------- ----- ----------
40,681 2,900 5,666 275 -- (80) 49,442
---------- ------ ------ ----- ------- ----- ----------
Expenses
Interest expense................... 15,344 810 2,198 (81) (1,000)(j) (48)(c) 17,223
Depreciation and amortization of
real estate...................... 8,718 506 1,037 -- 90(d) 10,351
Amortization of deferred
expenses......................... 756 -- 147 -- -- 903
General and administrative
expenses......................... 2,457 247 549 -- (80)(e) 3,173
Property operating expenses........ 714 -- -- -- -- 714
---------- ------ ------ ----- ------- ----- ----------
27,989 1,563 3,931 (81) (1,000) (38) 32,364
---------- ------ ------ ----- ------- ----- ----------
Income before gains on sale of
property, minority interests and
extraordinary item................. 12,692 1,337 1,735 356 1,000 (42) 17,078
Gains on sale of properties.......... -- -- 480 (480) -- -- --
---------- ------ ------ ----- ------- ----- ----------
Income before minority interest and
extraordinary item................. 12,692 1,337 2,215 (124) 1,000 (42) 17,078
Minority interests................... 2,754 -- -- -- -- 35(h) 2,789
---------- ------ ------ ----- ------- ----- ----------
Income before extraordinary item..... 9,938 1,337 2,215 (124) 1,000 (77) 14,289
Extraordinary item................... (270) -- -- 270 -- -- --
---------- ------ ------ ----- ------- ----- ----------
Net income........................... $ 9,668 $1,337 $2,215 $ 146 $ 1,000 $ (77) $ 14,289
========== ====== ====== ===== ======= ===== ==========
Income per common share -- basic:
Income before extraordinary item... $ 0.50 $ 0.55
Extraordinary item................. (0.02) --
---------- ----------
Net income......................... $ 0.48 $ 0.55
========== ==========
Weighted average common shares
outstanding...................... 17,219,900 23,764,900
========== ==========
Income per common share -- diluted:
Income before extraordinary item... $ 0.48 $ 0.53
Extraordinary item................. (0.01) --
---------- ----------
Net income......................... $ 0.47 $ 0.53
========== ==========
Weighted average common shares
outstanding...................... 23,039,062 29,627,395
========== ==========
Note: If limited partners elect to receive up to $20,000 in dissenter
debentures, then net income would decrease by $850.
F-1
199
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000
ALL OTHER COMMON PROFORMA PROFORMA
LEXINGTON NET 1 NET 2 TRANSACTIONS(I) SHARE OFFERING ADJUSTMENTS ADJUSTED
---------- ------ ------- --------------- -------------- ----------- ----------
(DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
Revenues
Rental............................ $ 76,824 $4,774 $10,126 $1,054 $ -- $ 96(a) $ 92,874
Equity in earnings of
non-consolidated entities....... 1,851 -- -- 1,049 -- -- 2,900
Interest and other................ 1,330 163 541 -- -- (394)(b) 1,640
---------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------- ----------
80,005 4,937 10,667 2,103 -- (298) 97,414
---------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------- ----------
Expenses
Interest expense.................. 29,581 1,605 4,785 772 (2,000)(j) (183)(c) 34,560
Depreciation and amortization of
real estate..................... 17,513 941 2,049 158 -- 181(d) 20,842
Amortization of deferred
expenses........................ 1,497 -- 383 7 -- -- 1,887
General and administrative
expenses........................ 4,902 447 1,011 (243) -- (91)(e) 6,026
Property operating expenses....... 1,504 -- -- -- -- -- 1,504
Transaction costs................. -- 400 400 -- -- (800)(f) --
---------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------- ----------
54,997 3,393 8,628 694 (2,000) (893) 64,819
---------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------- ----------
Income before gain on sale of
properties and minority
interests......................... 25,008 1,544 2,039 1,409 2,000 595 32,595
Gain on sale of properties.......... 2,959 -- -- (695) -- (2,264)(g) --
---------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------- ----------
Income before minority interests.... 27,967 1,544 2,039 714 2,000 (1,669) 32,595
Minority interests.................. 6,015 -- -- (184) -- 39(h) 5,870
---------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------- ----------
Net income.......................... $ 21,952 $1,544 $ 2,039 $ 898 $ 2,000 $(1,708) $ 26,725
========== ====== ======= ====== ======= ======= ==========
Income per common share -- basic:
Net income........................ $ 1.15 $ 1.03
========== ==========
Weighted average common shares
outstanding..................... 16,900,039 23,445,039
========== ==========
Income per common share -- diluted:
Net income........................ $ 1.10 $ 1.01
========== ==========
Weighted average common shares
outstanding..................... 24,714,219 29,379,475
========== ==========
Note: If limited partners elect to receive up to $20,000 in dissenter
debentures, then net income would decrease by $1,700.
F-2
200
NOTES TO UNAUDITED PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT
(DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
FOR THE YEAR
ENDED FOR THE SIX MONTHS
12/31/00 ENDED 6/30/01
-------------- ------------------
(a) Reflects straight line revenues relating to new
measurement date for the Net 1 and Net 2 property
leases................................................. $ 96 $ 48
======= =======
(b) Reflects the following:
Elimination of acquisition fees earned by Lexington on
third party acquisitions made by Net 1 and Net 2....... $ (120) $ --
Elimination of asset management fees earned by
Lexington.............................................. (91) (80)
Elimination of interest earned in inter-entity notes
payable/receivable..................................... (183) (48)
------- -------
$ (394) $ (128)
======= =======
(c) Reflects the following:
Elimination of interest expense on inter-entity notes
payable/receivable..................................... $ (183) $ (48)
======= =======
(d) Depreciation expense on the merger consideration
allocated to the real estate assets of Net 1 and Net 2.
The allocation of the purchase price for pro forma
purposes is based upon Lexington management's best
estimate of the relative fair value of each asset
acquired and liability assumed. This estimate was
determined based upon the familiarity with the Net
Partnerships and industry experience. Accordingly, for
such pro forma purposes 80% of the purchase price, in
excess of other identifiable assets, has been allocated
to real estate with a 40 year life and 20% to land.
Upon consummation of the merger allocations may vary... $ 181 $ 90
======= =======
(e) Elimination of asset management fees paid by Net 1 &
Net 2..................................................... $ (91) $ (80)
======= =======
(f) Elimination of merger costs incurred by Net 1 and Net
2......................................................... $ (800) $ --
======= =======
(g) Elimination of gains on sale of real estate for
transactions between Lexington and Net 1 and Net 2..... $(2,264) $ --
======= =======
(h) Impact on minority interest relating to the pro forma
adjustments............................................... $ 39 $ 35
======= =======
(i) Represents the pro forma impact on each respective
income statement item for all 2001 and 2000 Lexington,
Net 1 and Net 2 purchases and sales of real estate.....
(j) Elimination of interest expense associated with the
repayment of $25,000, 8% Exchangeable Redeemable
Secured Notes.......................................... $(2,000) $(1,000)
======= =======
F-3
201
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA
BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 2001
COMMON PROFORMA PROFORMA
LEXINGTON NET 1 NET 2 SHARE OFFERING ADJUSTMENTS ADJUSTED
--------- ------- ------- -------------- ----------- --------
(DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
Real estate, net.................................. $577,040 $43,349 $90,051 $ -- $ 9,048(a) $719,488
Cash and cash equivalents......................... 10,935 1,045 1,519 34,573(i) (34,123)(b) 13,949
Restricted cash................................... 1,819 -- -- -- -- 1,819
Investment in non-consolidated entities........... 46,193 -- -- -- -- 46,193
Other assets...................................... 40,581 1,521 3,048 -- (7,720)(c) 37,430
-------- ------- ------- -------- -------- --------
Total assets.................................. $676,568 $45,915 $94,618 $ 34,573 $(32,795) $818,879
======== ======= ======= ======== ======== ========
Mortgages and notes payable....................... $398,569 $20,039 $55,183 $(25,000)(j) $ (1,380)(d) $447,411
Deferred installment obligations.................. 6,671 -- -- -- -- 6,671
Other liabilities................................. 5,041 1,703 853 (641)(k) 865(e) 7,821
-------- ------- ------- -------- -------- --------
410,281 21,742 56,036 (25,641) (515) 461,903
-------- ------- ------- -------- -------- --------
Minority interest................................. 58,834 -- -- -- 310(f) 59,144
-------- ------- ------- -------- -------- --------
Mezzanine equity:
Preferred shares................................ 24,369 -- -- -- -- 24,369
-------- ------- ------- -------- -------- --------
Common shares................................... 3,809 -- -- -- -- 3,809
-------- ------- ------- -------- -------- --------
Partners' capital................................. -- 24,173 38,582 -- (62,755)(g) --
Shareholders' equity:
Common shares................................... 2 -- -- -- -- 2
Additional paid in capital...................... 247,968 -- -- 62,964(l) 30,165(h) 341,097
Deferred compensation........................... (1,917) -- -- -- -- (1,917)
Accumulated distributions in excess of
earnings...................................... (64,801) -- -- (2,750)(m) -- (67,551)
Notes receivable from officers/shareholders..... (1,977) -- -- -- -- (1,977)
-------- ------- ------- -------- -------- --------
Shareholders' equity/partners' capital.......... 179,275 24,173 38,582 60,214 (32,590) 269,654
-------- ------- ------- -------- -------- --------
$676,568 $45,915 $94,618 $ 34,573 $(32,795) $818,879
======== ======= ======= ======== ======== ========
Note: If limited partners in Net 1 and Net 2 elect to receive up to $20,000 of
their merger consideration in dissenter debentures, the impact to mortgages and
notes payable and shareholders equity would be to increase mortgages and notes
payable and decrease shareholders' equity by $20,000.
F-4
202
NOTES TO UNAUDITED PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET
(DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
(a) Reflects the excess over historical cost basis of
consideration paid by Lexington for the real estate of
Net 1 and Net 2 as determined as follows:
Merger consideration issued............................ $ 65,000
Mortgages assumed...................................... 73,842
Merger costs........................................... 2,010
Other liabilities assumed.............................. 2,451
---------
Purchase price......................................... 143,303
Allocation
Identifiable other assets............................ (1,739)
Share issuance costs, contra equity.................. (2,010)
---------
Subtotal.......................................... 139,554
Reclassification of Lexington investment in and
receivables from Net 1 and Net 2.................... 2,894
---------
Allocation to real estate, net....................... 142,448
Historical Net Partnership real estate basis......... (133,400)
---------
$ 9,048
=========
(b) Reflects the following:
The payment of costs incurred by Net 1 and Net 2
associated with the mergers and estimated final partner
distributions.......................................... $ (1,948)
Cash paid to the limited partners of Net 1 and Net 2... (32,175)
---------
$ (34,123)
=========
(c) Reflects the following:
Elimination of inter-entity notes receivable and
accrued interest............................................ $ (1,380)
Elimination of Lexington basis in its investments in
limited partner units of Net 1 and Net 2............... (1,409)
Allocation of merger costs paid by Lexington........... (1,040)
Elimination of accounts receivable -- straight line
rents for Net 1 and Net 2 property leases.............. (2,614)
Elimination of inter-entity accounts receivable........ (105)
Elimination of Lexington percentage ownership in the
Net 1 and Net 2 asset management contracts............. (340)
Elimination of capitalized financing costs of Net 1 and
Net 2.................................................. (832)
---------
$ (7,720)
=========
(d) Reflects inter-entity notes payable and accrued
interest............................................... $ (1,380)
=========
(e) Reflects the following:
Elimination of inter-entity accounts payable........... $ (105)
Estimated merger costs to be paid by Lexington......... 970
---------
$ 865
=========
F-5
203
(f) Reflects the following:
Issuance of 43,333 limited partnership units in Net 3,
assuming a $15 per unit price, in exchange for the
general partnership interests in Net 1 and Net 2....... $ 650
Elimination of Lexington percentage ownership in the
Net 1 and Net 2 asset management contracts............. (340)
---------
$ 310
=========
(g) Reflects the elimination of Net 1 and Net 2 partners'
capital................................................ $ (62,755)
=========
(h) Reflects the issuance of 2,145,000 common shares,
assuming a $15 per share price, associated with the
merger net of offering costs to be paid by Lexington of
$2,010................................................. $ 30,165
=========
(i) Reflects the following:
Cash proceeds from common share issuance, net of
underwriters discount and estimated offering costs..... $ 62,964
Cash paid to satisfy the $25,000, 8% Exchangeable
Redeemable Secured Notes, prepayment premium and
accrued interest at June 30, 2001...................... (28,391)
---------
$ 34,573
=========
(j) Reflects the repayment of the $25,000, 8% Exchangeable
Redeemable Secured Notes............................... $ (25,000)
=========
(k) Reflects the repayment of accrued interest............. $ (641)
=========
(l) Reflects the issuance of 4,400,000 common shares, at
$15.20 per share price, less underwriters discount and
estimated offering costs............................... $ 62,964
=========
(m) Reflects the recognition of the prepayment premium...... $ (2,750)
=========
F-6
204
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000
AND THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001
EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATIONS
The following is a reconciliation of numerators and denominators of the pro
forma basic and diluted earnings per share computations for each of the periods
presented ($000's except per share data):
12/31/00 6/30/01
----------- -----------
BASIC
Net income.................................................. $ 26,725 $ 14,289
Less preferred dividends.................................... (2,562) (1,344)
----------- -----------
Net income attributed to common shareholders................ $ 24,163 $ 12,945
=========== ===========
Weighted average number of common shares
outstanding -- historical................................. 16,900,039 17,219,900
Common shares issued in merger.............................. 2,145,000 2,145,000
Common shares issued in offering............................ 4,400,000 4,400,000
----------- -----------
Weighted average number of common shares used in calculation
of basic earnings per common share........................ 23,445,039 23,764,900
=========== ===========
Net income per common share -- basic:.................. $ 1.03 $ 0.55
=========== ===========
DILUTED
Net income attributable to common shareholders.............. $ 24,163 $ 12,945
Add incremental income attributed to assumed conversion of
dilutive securities....................................... 5,627 2,648
----------- -----------
Net income attributed to common shareholders................ $ 29,790 $ 15,593
=========== ===========
Weighted average number of common shares used in calculation
of basic earnings per common share........................ 23,445,039 23,764,900
Add incremental shares representing:
Shares issuable upon exercise of employee share options... 166,806 287,234
Shares issuable upon conversion of dilutive securities.... 5,767,630 5,575,261
----------- -----------
Weighted average number of common shares used in calculation
of diluted earnings per common share...................... 29,379,475 29,627,395
=========== ===========
Net income per common share -- diluted:................ $ 1.01 $ 0.53
=========== ===========
F-7
205
PRO FORMA EQUIVALENT CALCULATIONS FOR THE NET PARTNERSHIPS
The information set forth below provides a detailed analysis of the
calculation of the pro forma comparative unit data for the Net Partnerships
which is set forth under the heading "SUMMARY -- Unaudited Comparative Per
Share/Unit Data" on page 25, and assumes that no limited partners elect to
receive their merger consideration in the form of dissenter debentures.
NET 1 PRO FORMA EQUIVALENT CALCULATIONS
Assuming that the average closing price of Lexington common shares is
$15.00, which is the midpoint of the range for determining the number of common
shares to be issued, the exchange for each Net 1 limited partnership unit is
27.35 as calculated as follows:
Merger consideration per $1,000/unit........................ $820.38
Common share component (50%)................................ $410.19(A)
Assumed common share price.................................. $ 15.00(B)
Exchange ratio(A)/(B)....................................... 27.35
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 DIVIDENDS BASIC EPS DILUTED EPS
---------------------------- ---------- --------- -----------
Lexington pro forma amounts................................. $ 1.22 $ 1.03 $ 1.01
Exchange ratio.............................................. 27.35 27.35 27.35
---------- ------- ------
$ 33.37 $ 28.17 $27.62
========== ======= ======
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 DIVIDENDS BASIC EPS DILUTED EPS
------------------------------ ---------- --------- -----------
Lexington pro forma amounts................................. $ 0.63 $ 0.55 $ 0.53
Exchange ratio.............................................. 27.35 27.35 27.35
---------- ------- ------
$ 17.23 $ 15.04 $14.50
========== ======= ======
NET 2 PRO FORMA EQUIVALENT CALCULATIONS
Assuming that the average closing price of Lexington common shares is
$15.00, which is the midpoint of the range for determining the number of common
shares to be issued, the exchange ratio for each Net 2 limited partnership unit
is 2.73 as calculated as follows:
Merger consideration per $100/unit.......................... $ 81.96
Common share component (50%)................................ $ 40.98(A)
Assumed common share price.................................. $ 15.00(B)
Exchange ratio (A)/(B)...................................... 2.73
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 DIVIDENDS BASIC EPS DILUTED EPS
---------------------------- ---------- --------- -----------
Lexington pro forma amounts................................. $ 1.22 $ 1.03 $ 1.01
Exchange ratio.............................................. 2.73 2.73 2.73
---------- ------- ------
$ 3.33 $ 2.81 $ 2.76
========== ======= ======
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 DIVIDENDS BASIC EPS DILUTED EPS
------------------------------ ---------- --------- -----------
Lexington pro forma amounts................................. $ 0.63 $ 0.55 $ 0.53
Exchange ratio.............................................. 2.73 2.73 2.73
---------- ------- ------
$ 1.72 $ 1.50 $ 1.45
========== ======= ======
PRO FORMA BOOK VALUE PER SHARE
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001
------------------------------
Lexington -- Pro forma book value........................... $ 269,654(A)
Lexington -- Pro forma shares outstanding................... 24,065,896(B)
Lexington Pro forma book value per share (A/B)............. $ 11.20
Net 1 (exchange ratio 27.35 plus $410.19 in cash)........... $ 716.51
Net 2 (exchange ratio 2.73 plus $40.98 in cash)............. $ 71.56
F-8
206
ANNEX A-1
MERGER AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT BETWEEN LEXINGTON, NET 3 AND NET 1
207
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER
BY AND AMONG
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
NET 3 ACQUISITION L.P.
AND
NET 1 L.P.
This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER (this "Amendment") is
entered into as of July 19, 2001, by and between Lexington Corporate Properties
Trust, a Maryland statutory real estate investment trust ("Lexington"), Net 3
Acquisition L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Net 3"), and Net 1 L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership ("Net 1"). The parties to this Amendment are
collectively referred to as the "Parties."
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of November 13, 2000 (the "Agreement");
WHEREAS, the Parties desire, and have agreed, subject to the terms and
conditions set forth herein, to amend the Agreement in the manner set forth in
this Amendment to reflect, among others, the following changes: (i) to
substitute cash for the portion of the Merger Consideration otherwise payable in
Convertible Subordinated Debentures and (ii) to modify the "collar" reflected in
the Average Closing Price used to determine the number of Common Shares to be
issued to Net 1 from a range of $11 to $13 to a range of $14 to $16; and
WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall have the
meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as
follows:
AMENDMENTS
1. FIRST AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby amended to delete the present text
of the fourth recital thereto in its entirety, and to insert in its place the
following:
"WHEREAS, immediately prior to the Effective Time, the Net 1 GP will
contribute its general partnership interest in Net 1 to Net 3 as a
partnership contribution, pursuant to the terms and condition set forth in
the contribution agreement dated the date hereof by and between Net 3 and
Net 1 GP, as amended as of July 19, 2001 (the "Net 1 Contribution
Agreement");"
2. SECOND AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby amended to delete the phrase
"Convertible Subordinated Debentures" from Section 1.5 thereof, and to insert in
its place the phrase "Cash."
3. THIRD AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby amended to delete the present text
of Section 2.1 thereof in its entirety, and to insert in its place the
following:
"SECTION 2.1 Effect on Units. As of the Effective Time, by virtue of
the Merger and without any action on the part of the parties hereto or
their respective affiliates, the limited partnership interests of the
208
limited partners of Net 1 (the "Units") shall be converted into the
consideration (the "Merger Consideration"), determined as follows:
(a) Consideration. Except as provided in Section 2.1(b) or (c)
each Unit shall, in the Merger, be exchanged for the number of common
shares of Lexington, $0.0001 par value per share (the "Common Shares"),
and such amount of cash (the "Cash") as is determined in accordance with
the following formulas:
N = (0.50)V/A
P = (0.50)V
Where:
N = the number of Common Shares exchanged for each Unit;
A = the Average Closing Price;
P = the amount of Cash exchanged for each Unit; and
V = the Per Unit Adjusted Net Asset Value.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(a), as of the Effective Time, each
Unit held of record by a holder who votes against the Merger will
receive Common Shares and Cash in accordance with Section 2.1(a), unless
such holder affirmatively elects to receive consideration in the form of
Lexington's 8.50% senior subordinated debentures due eight years after
the closing date ("Dissenter Debentures") by following the procedures to
be set forth in the Registration Statement, in which case each Unit
shall, in the Merger, be exchanged for Dissenter Debentures with a
principal amount equal to the Per Unit Adjusted Net Asset Value.
(c) The Dissenter Debentures shall have the terms and conditions
set forth in Exhibit A. On or before the closing, the parties shall
enter into a mutually acceptable indenture with respect to the Dissenter
Debentures, which indenture shall satisfy the requirements of the Trust
Indenture Act of 1940. The indenture shall be substantially in a form as
reasonably agreed to by the parties hereto.
(d) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing to the contrary. no
fractional Common Shares shall be issued in connection with the Merger.
All Common Shares to which a holder of Units is entitled immediately
prior to the Effective Time shall be aggregated. If a fractional share
results from such aggregation, in lieu of receiving any such fractional
share, each holder of Units who would otherwise have been entitled to
receive a fraction of a Common Share shall receive cash equal to the
amount of Merger Consideration represented by such fractional share."
4. FOURTH AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby amended to delete the present
text of the second sentence of Section 2.3 thereof, and to insert in its place
the following:
"At the Effective Time, Lexington shall deposit with the Exchange
Agent, (i) share certificates representing the total number of Common
Shares issuable pursuant to Section 2.1(a), (ii) the aggregate amount of
Cash payable pursuant to Section 2.1(a) and (iii) the aggregate amount of
Dissenter Debentures issuable pursuant to Section 2.1(b), in each case in
exchange for the Units (such share certificates and Dissenter Debentures,
together with any dividends or distributions with respect thereto, and
payments of cash in lieu of fractional shares being hereinafter referred to
as the "Exchange Fund")."
5. FIFTH AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby amended to delete the phrase
"Convertible Subordinated Debentures or" and the phrase "Convertible
Subordinated Debentures" and wherever such phrases appear in Sections 2.4 and
3.1(s) thereof.
209
6. SIXTH AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby amended to delete the present text
of the second sentence of Section 7.2(f) thereof, and to insert in its place the
following:
"(f) "Average Closing Price" means the average closing price on the
New York Stock Exchange of the Common Shares for the 20-day period
preceding, but not including, the Closing Date; provided, however, that the
Average Closing Price shall not exceed $16.00 per Common Share, nor be less
than $14.00 per Common Share."
7. SEVENTH AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby amended to delete Section 7.2(m)
in its entirety.
8. EIGHTH AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby amended to delete the present
text of Exhibit A thereto, and to insert in its place Exhibit A hereto.
MISCELLANEOUS
9. COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together will
constitute one and the same instrument.
10. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement is in all
respects ratified, reaffirmed and confirmed and all of its terms shall remain in
full force and effect.
11. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Amendment and the Agreement constitute the entire
agreement between the Parties and supersede all prior understandings,
agreements, or representations by or between the Parties, written or oral, to
the extent they related in any way to the subject matter hereof or thereof.
12. SUCCESSION AND ASSIGNMENT. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and permitted
assigns. No Party may assign either this Amendment or any of its rights,
interests, or obligations hereunder without the prior written approval of the
other Parties hereto.
13. WAIVERS. Failure of any Party at any time to require the performance by
any other Party of any provision of this Amendment or any related agreement
shall in no way affect the right to require full performance of such provision
thereafter. Furthermore, the waiver by any Party of a breach of any provision of
this Amendment or any related agreement will not be held to be a waiver of any
other provision of this Amendment or any related agreement.
14. SEVERABILITY. The invalidity or unenforceability of any term or provision
of this Amendment or any related agreement shall not affect the validity or
enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or thereof.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
210
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to
the Agreement and Plan of Merger to be duly executed and made and entered into
as of the date first set forth above.
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
By: /s/ T. WILSON EGLIN
------------------------------------
Name: T. Wilson Eglin
Title: President
NET 3 ACQUISITION L.P.
By: Lex GP-1, Inc., its general
partner
By: /s/ PATRICK CARROLL
------------------------------------
Name: Patrick Carroll
Title: Vice President
NET 1 L.P.
By: Lepercq Net 1 L.P., its general
partner
By: Lepercq Net 1 Inc., its general
partner
By: /s/ E. ROBERT ROSKIND
------------------------------------
Name: E. Robert Roskind
Title: President
[SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LEXINGTON NET 1 MERGER AGREEMENT]
211
EXHIBIT A
TERMS OF DISSENTER DEBENTURES
Principal Amount.............. Up to $20 million, subject to waiver by
Lexington. The exact principal amount of the
dissenter debentures will be determined at the
closing of the Transaction based upon the
number of Units held by limited partners who
elect to receive Dissenter Debentures and will
be subject to the waiver by Lexington of the
limit on the amount of Dissenter Debentures to
be issued.
Interest...................... 8.5% per annum, on a day-to-day basis (based
upon a 365-day year and actual days elapsed)
from the closing of the Transaction. Interest
will be paid semi-annually in cash in arrears.
Repayment of Principal........ Principal on the Dissenter Debentures is due in
one installment on , 2009;
provided, however, that 80% of the net proceeds
of any taxable sale or refinancing of the
assets previously owned by either Net
Partnership, as applicable, will be used to
prepay the Dissenter Debentures.
Prepayment.................... Prepayable in whole or in part at any time.
Seniority..................... Expressly subordinated in right and priority of
payment to all institutional indebtedness of
Lexington outstanding on the closing of the
Transaction and any other indebtedness of
Lexington issued in the future which is not, by
its terms, expressly subordinated to the
Dissenter Debentures. The Dissenter Debentures
are also senior in right and priority of
payment to Lexington's existing Class A Senior
Cumulative Convertible Preferred Shares and to
all other classes of Lexington's capital shares
currently authorized or authorized in the
future.
Remedies...................... If an event of default occurs and is
continuing, holders of Dissenter Debentures
will have the following remedies (a) the rate
of interest on the Dissenter Debentures will
increase to 10%; provided that if such event of
default is cured or waived, the rate of
interest will be reduced, from the date of such
cure or waiver, to 8.5%, (b) automatic
acceleration with respect to bankruptcy
defaults, and (c) acceleration upon vote by
majority of holders upon non-bankruptcy
defaults.
212
AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER
DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 13, 2000
BY AND AMONG
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
NET 3 ACQUISITION L.P.
AND
NET 1 L.P.
213
PAGE
----
ARTICLE I THE MERGER.......................................................
SECTION 1.1 The Merger..................................................
SECTION 1.2 Closing.....................................................
SECTION 1.3 Effective Time..............................................
SECTION 1.4 Effects of the Merger.......................................
SECTION 1.5 Partnership Agreement.......................................
SECTION 1.6 General Partner.............................................
ARTICLE II CONSIDERATION FOR, AND MANNER OF CONVERTING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
INTERESTS OF NET 1...............................................
SECTION 2.1 Effect on Units.............................................
SECTION 2.2 Further Assurances..........................................
SECTION 2.3 Exchange Procedures.........................................
SECTION 2.4 Payments with Respect to Unexchanged Units..................
SECTION 2.5 Rights of Former Holders of Units...........................
ARTICLE III REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES.................................
SECTION 3.1 Representations and Warranties of Lexington.................
SECTION 3.2 Representations and Warranties of Net 3.....................
SECTION 3.3 Representations and Warranties of Net 1.....................
ARTICLE IV ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS...........................................
SECTION 4.1 Reasonable Best Efforts.....................................
SECTION 4.2 Public Announcements........................................
SECTION 4.3 Consents, Approvals and Filings.............................
SECTION 4.4 State Takeover Laws.........................................
SECTION 4.5 No Solicitation by Net 1....................................
SECTION 4.6 Conduct of Businesses.......................................
SECTION 4.7 Approvals of Shareholder and Limited Partners...............
SECTION 4.8 Inspection of Records.......................................
SECTION 4.9 Regulatory Filings..........................................
SECTION 4.10 Expenses....................................................
SECTION 4.11 REIT Status.................................................
SECTION 4.12 Appraisals..................................................
SECTION 4.13 Termination Fees............................................
ARTICLE V CONDITIONS PRECEDENT.............................................
SECTION 5.1 Conditions to Each Party's Obligation to Effect the
Merger......................................................
SECTION 5.2 Conditions to Obligations of Net 1..........................
SECTION 5.3 Conditions to Obligations of Lexington and Net 3............
SECTION 5.4 Frustration of Closing Conditions...........................
i
214
PAGE
----
ARTICLE VI TERMINATION, AMENDMENT AND WAIVER...............................
SECTION 6.1 Termination.................................................
SECTION 6.2 Effect of Termination.......................................
SECTION 6.3 Amendment...................................................
SECTION 6.4 Extension; Waiver...........................................
ARTICLE VII GENERAL PROVISIONS.............................................
SECTION 7.1 Nonsurvival of Representations and Warranties...............
SECTION 7.3 Notices.....................................................
SECTION 7.4 Interpretation..............................................
SECTION 7.5 Counterparts................................................
SECTION 7.6 Entire Agreement; Third-Party Beneficiaries.................
SECTION 7.7 GOVERNING LAW...............................................
SECTION 7.8 Assignment..................................................
SECTION 7.9 Enforcement.................................................
SECTION 7.10 Severability................................................
ii
215
AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER (this "Agreement"), dated as of November 13,
2000, by and among Lexington Corporate Properties Trust, a Maryland statutory
real estate investment trust ("Lexington"), Net 3 Acquisition L.P.. a Delaware
limited partnership ("Net 3"), and Net 1 L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
("Net 1"). Certain capitalized terms used in this Agreement are defined in
Section 7.2.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of Lexington (the "Board"), has determined
that it would be advisable and in the best interests of the holders of
beneficial interests in Lexington for Net 1 to merge with and into Net 3 with
Net 3 as the surviving entity, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in
this Agreement (the "Merger"); and
WHEREAS, Lexington, in its capacity as the general partner of Net 3, has
determined that it would be advisable and in the best interests of Net 3 for Net
3 to enter into and consummate the proposed Merger; and
WHEREAS, Lepercq Net 1 L.P., in its capacity as the general partner of Net
1 (the "Net 1 GP"), has determined that it would be advisable and in the best
interests of Net 1 to enter into and consummate the proposed Merger; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to the Effective Time, the Net 1 GP will
contribute its general partnership interest in Net 1 to Net 3 as a partnership
contribution, pursuant to the terms and condition set forth in the contribution
agreement dated the date hereof by and between Net 3 and Net 1 GP (the "Net 1
Contribution Agreement");
WHEREAS, for federal income tax purposes and in accordance with Treasury
Regulations sec. 1.708-1(c)(3) and (4), immediately prior to the Effective Time
of the Merger and subject to the consummation of the Merger, Net 3 will purchase
each limited partnership interest of Net 1 from each limited partner of Net 1
for a specified amount of consideration;
WHEREAS, the Merger is subject to the simultaneous consummation of the
merger of Net 2 with and into Net 3;
WHEREAS, Net l and Lexington have each received a fairness opinion
("Fairness Opinion") from a nationally-recognized investment banking firm
retained by it to provide such fairness opinion; and
WHEREAS, Net 1, the Net 1 GP, Net 3 and Lexington desire to make certain
representations, warranties, covenants and agreements in connection with the
Merger and also to prescribe various conditions to the Merger.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the representations, warranties,
covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto hereby
agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
THE MERGER
SECTION 1.1 The Merger. Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth in this Agreement, and in accordance with Maryland General Corporate Law
(the "MGCL") and the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (the
"DRULPA"), the Merger shall be effected such that Net 1 shall be merged with and
into Net 3 at the Effective Time (as defined in Section 1.3), the separate
existence of Net 1 shall cease and Net 3 shall continue as the surviving entity
in the Merger (the "Surviving Entity") and shall succeed to and assume all the
rights and obligations of Net 1. The Merger shall have the effects specified in
the MGCL and the DRULPA. The Merger shall be consummated pursuant to the terms
of this Agreement, which has been approved and adopted by the Board, the Net 1
GP and Lexington, in its capacity as the majority limited partner and sole
general partner of Net 3.
216
SECTION 1.2 Closing. Unless this Agreement shall have been terminated
pursuant to Section 6.1, and subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the
conditions set forth in Article V, the closing of the Merger (the "Closing")
will take place as soon as practicable following the last to be satisfied or
waived of the conditions set forth in Article V (other than the delivery of
certificates referred to in Sections 5.2(a) and (b) and Sections 5.3(a) and (b))
in accordance with this Agreement the date of the Closing being referred to
herein as (the "Closing Date"), at the offices of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &
Walker LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022, unless another date, time
or place is agreed to in writing by the parties hereto.
SECTION 1.3 Effective Time. If all the conditions to the Merger set forth
in Article V shall have been fulfilled or waived (and this Agreement shall not
have been terminated pursuant to Section 6.1 hereof), the parties shall cause a
Certificate of Merger to be properly executed, verified and delivered for filing
in accordance with DRULPA and the MGCL on the Closing Date. The Merger shall
become effective upon the later of (i) the issuance of a certificate of merger
by the State Department of Assessments and Taxation of the State of Maryland and
(ii) the issuance of a certificate of merger by the Secretary of State of the
State of Delaware, or such other date as may be agreed to by the parties, but
not later than the Closing Date (the "Effective Time").
SECTION 1.4 Effects of the Merger. The Merger shall have the effects set
forth in this Agreement and in the applicable provisions of the Act. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, and subject thereto, at the Effective
Time, all the properties, rights, privileges, powers and franchises of Net l and
Net 3 shall vest in the Surviving Entity, and all debts, liabilities and duties
of Net 1 and Net 3 shall become the debts, liabilities and duties of Surviving
Entity.
SECTION 1.5 Federal Income Tax Treatment. For federal income tax purposes
and in accordance with Treasury Regulations sec. 1.708-1(c)(3) and (4),
immediately prior to the Merger, and subject to the consummation thereof, Net 3
will purchase each limited partnership interest of Net 1 from each limited
partner of Net 1 that consents to treat the transaction for tax purposes as a
sale of that limited partner's partnership interest. Such consent shall have
been acquired pursuant to the terms of the Proxy Statement. The consideration
transferred for each such interest shall equal the sum of (1) the fair market
value of the Common Shares and principal amount of the Convertible Subordinated
Debentures received per Unit as specified in Section 2.1 and (2) the assumption
of such limited partner's share of partnership liabilities. Any limited partner
that does not consent to treat the Merger as a sale by such limited partner of
its partnership interests and elects to receive Dissenter Debentures will remain
a limited partner of Net 1 at the time of the Merger. Net 1 shall be considered
as undertaking the assets-over form of merger for federal income tax purposes
pursuant to Reg. sec. 1.7081(c)(3).
SECTION 1.6 Partnership Agreement. At the Effective Time, Net 3's
partnership agreement shall continue to be the partnership agreement of the
Surviving Entity until thereafter changed or amended as provided therein or by
applicable law.
SECTION 1.7 General Partner. At the Effective Time, Lexington shall
continue to be the general partner of the Surviving Entity, serving until the
earlier of its resignation or removal or until a successor is duly elected by
the limited partners.
ARTICLE II
CONSIDERATION FOR, AND MANNER OF CONVERTING LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP INTERESTS OF NET 1
SECTION 2.1 Effect on Units. As of the Effective Time, by virtue of the
Merger and without any action on the part of the parties hereto or their
respective affiliates, the limited partnership interests of the limited partners
of Net 1 (the "Units") shall be converted into the consideration (the "Merger
Consideration"), determined as follows:
(a) Consideration. Except as provided in Section 2.1(b) or (c) each
Unit shall, in the Merger, be exchanged for the number of common shares of
Lexington, $0.0001 par value per share (the
2
217
"Common Shares"), and such principal amount of Lexington's 8.5% convertible
subordinated debentures due eight years after the Closing Date
("Convertible Subordinated Debentures") as is determined in accordance with
the following formulas:
N = (0.50)V/A
P = (0.50)V
Where:
N = the number of Common Shares exchanged for each Unit;
A = the Average Closing Price;
P = the principal amount of Convertible Subordinated
Debentures exchanged for
each Unit; and
V = the Per Unit Adjusted Net Asset Value.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(a) hereof, a holder of Units may
elect to receive a greater proportion of its Merger Consideration, in
increments of 10% of such holder's Merger Consideration, in principal
amount of Convertible Subordinated Debentures with a corresponding
reduction in its Merger Consideration payable in Common Shares, as provided
in this Section 2.1(b) by following the procedures to be set forth in the
Registration Statement. In the event a holder of Units elects to receive a
greater proportion of its Merger Consideration in principal amount of
Convertible Subordinated Debentures, with a corresponding reduction in
Merger Consideration payable in Common Shares, then each Unit shall, in the
Merger, be exchanged for the number of Common Shares, and such principal
amount of Convertible Subordinated Debentures as is determined in
accordance with the following formulas:
N = V(X)/A
P = (1-X)V
Where:
N = the number of Common Shares exchangeable per Unit;
V = the Per Unit Adjusted Net Asset Value;
X = the percentage (i.e., less than 50%, by increments of 10%
only) of the
Merger Consideration which the holder of the Unit elects
to receive in Common
Shares;
A = the Average Closing Price, and
P = the principal amount of Convertible Subordinated
Debentures exchangeable
per Unit.
(c) Notwithstanding Sections 2.1(a) and (b), as of the Effective
Time, each Unit held of record by a holder who votes against the Merger
will receive Common Shares and Convertible Subordinated Debentures in
accordance with Section 2.1(a) or 2.1(b), as applicable, unless such holder
affirmatively elects to receive consideration in the form of Lexington's
8.50% senior subordinated debentures due eight years after the closing date
("Dissenter Debentures") by following the procedures to be set forth in the
Registration Statement, in which case each Unit shall, in the Merger, be
exchanged for Dissenter Debentures with a principal amount equal to the Per
Unit Adjusted Net Asset Value.
(d) The Convertible Subordinated Debentures and the Dissenter
Debentures shall have the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A. On
or before the closing, the parties shall enter into mutually acceptable
indentures with respect to the Convertible Subordinated Debentures and
Dissenter Debentures, which indentures shall satisfy the requirements of
the Trust Indenture Act of 1940. The indentures shall be substantially in a
form as reasonably agreed to by the parties hereto.
3
218
(e) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing to the contrary, no
fractional Common Shares shall be issued in connection with the Merger. All
Common Shares to which a holder of Units is entitled immediately prior to
the Effective Time shall be aggregated. If a fractional share results from
such aggregation, in lieu of receiving any such fractional share, each
holder of Units who would otherwise have been entitled to receive a
fraction of a Common Share shall receive cash equal to the amount of Merger
Consideration represented by such fractional share.
SECTION 2.2 Further Assurances. If, at any time after the Effective Time,
the Surviving Entity shall determine or be advised that any deeds, bills of
sale, assignments, assurances or any other actions or things are necessary or
desirable to vest, perfect or confirm of record or otherwise in the Surviving
Entity the right, title or interest in, to or under any of the rights,
properties or assets of Net 1 acquired or to be acquired by the Surviving Entity
as a result of, or in connection with, the Merger or otherwise to carry out this
Agreement, the Surviving Entity shall be authorized to execute and deliver, in
the name and on behalf of each of Lexington, Net 3 and Net 1, all such deeds,
bills of sale, assignments and assurances and to take and do, in the name and on
behalf of each of Lexington, Net 3 and Net 1 or otherwise, all such other
actions and things as may be necessary or desirable to vest, perfect or confirm
any and all right, title and interest in, to and under such rights, properties
or assets in the Surviving Entity or otherwise to carry out this Agreement.
SECTION 2.3 Exchange Procedures. Prior to the Effective Time, Lexington
shall appoint a commercial bank or trust company satisfactory to Net 1 to act as
exchange agent hereunder (the "Exchange Agent"). At the Effective Time,
Lexington shall deposit with the Exchange Agent, (i) share certificates
representing the total number of Common Shares issuable pursuant to Sections
2.1(a) and (b), (ii) the aggregate amount of Convertible Subordinated Debentures
issuable pursuant to Sections 2.1(a) and (b) and (iii) the aggregate amount of
Dissenter Debentures issuable pursuant to Section 2.1(c), in each case in
exchange for the Units (such share certificates. Convertible Subordinated
Debentures and Dissenter Debentures, together with any dividends or
distributions with respect thereto, and payments of cash in lieu of fractional
shares being hereinafter referred to as the "Exchange Fund"). Promptly after the
Effective Time, Lexington shall cause the Exchange Agent to mail to each holder
a form letter of transmittal (the "Transmittal Letter") specifying that delivery
shall be effected only upon proper execution and delivery to the Exchange Agent
of an assignment of interest of the Unit or such other documents as Lexington or
Net 3 may reasonably require (the "Transfer Document"), and instructions for use
in effecting the surrender of the Units in exchange for the applicable Merger
Consideration. Subject to the delivery to the Exchange Agent of a duly executed
Transfer Document and Transmittal Letter, promptly after the Effective Time, the
Exchange Agent shall issue to each holder of Units delivering such Transfer
Document and Transmittal Letter such holder's Merger Consideration calculated in
accordance with Section 2.1 in exchange for its Units. Until such Transfer
Document and Transmittal Letter are delivered as contemplated by this Section
2.3, each Unit shall be deemed at any time after the Effective Time to
constitute only the right to receive, upon such delivery, such Merger
Consideration.
SECTION 2.4 Payments with Respect to Unexchanged Units. No (i)
distributions with respect to Common Shares with a record date after the
Effective Time or (ii) amounts otherwise payable with respect to the Convertible
Subordinated Debentures or Dissenter Debentures shall be paid to any holder of
Units until the delivery of a Transfer Document and Transmittal Letter in
respect of such Units in accordance with Section 2.3. Following delivery of a
Transfer Document and Transmittal Letter in respect of such Units in accordance
with Section 2.3, Lexington shall pay to the holder of such Unit (the
"Unexchanged Units"), the Accrued Amounts attributable to such Unexchanged
Units. "Accrued Amounts" with respect to Unexchanged Units shall mean those
amounts which are payable (i) with respect to the Common Shares, (a) at the time
of such delivery, the amount of dividends from Lexington with a record date
after the Effective Time theretofore paid with respect to the number of whole
Common Shares into which the Units immediately prior to the Effective Time were
converted pursuant to Section 2.1, and (b) at the appropriate payment date, the
amount of dividends from Lexington with a record date after the Effective Time,
but prior to such delivery, and with a payment date subsequent to such delivery,
payable with respect to such whole Common Shares, and (ii) with respect to the
Convertible Subordinated Debentures or Dissenter Debentures, (a) at the time of
delivery of such Unexchanged Units, the amount of interest and principal payable
by Lexington with a record date after the Effective Time theretofore paid with
respect to the Convertible Subordinated Debentures or Dissenter
4
219
Debentures into which the Units immediately prior to the Effective Time were
converted pursuant to Section 2.1, and (b) at the appropriate payment date, the
amount of interest and principal payable from Lexington with a record date after
the Effective Time, but prior to such delivery, and with a payment date
subsequent to such delivery, payable with respect to such whole Convertible
Subordinated Debentures or Dissenter Debentures.
SECTION 2.5 Rights of Former Holders of Units. At the Effective Time, the
unit transfer books of Net 1 shall be closed as to holders of Units immediately
prior to the Effective Time and no transfer of Units by any such holder shall
thereafter be made or recognized.
ARTICLE III
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
SECTION 3.1 Representations and Warranties of Lexington. Lexington
represents and warrants to Net 1 as follows:
(a) Organization, Standing and Power. Lexington is a statutory real
estate investment trust duly created, validly existing and in good standing
under the laws of the State of Maryland and has the requisite trust power
and authority to carry on its business as now being conducted, except where
failure to do so would not have a Lexington Material Adverse Effect. Each
of Lexington's Subsidiaries (other than Net 3) is a corporation or
partnership duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the
laws of its jurisdiction of incorporation or organization, has the
requisite power and authority to own its properties and to carry on its
business as it is now being conducted, and is duly qualified to do business
and is in good standing in each jurisdiction in which the ownership of its
property or the conduct of its business requires such qualification, except
for jurisdictions in which such failure to be so qualified or to be in good
standing would not have a Lexington Material Adverse Effect. Lexington and
its Subsidiaries have obtained all licenses, permits and other
authorizations and have taken all actions required by applicable law or
governmental regulations in connection with their business as now
conducted, where the failure to obtain any such item or to take any such
action would have a Lexington Material Adverse Effect. Copies of the
Subsidiaries' organizational documents and partnership and Joint Venture
agreements have been or will be prior to the Closing, delivered or made
available to Net 1 and were or will be true and correct when delivered or
made available. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "Lexington
Material Adverse Effect" means any material adverse effect with respect to
Lexington or its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole, or any change of effect
that adversely, or is reasonably expected to adversely affect (i) the
business, assets, results from operations or condition (financial or
otherwise) of Lexington and its Subsidiaries, or (ii) the ability of
Lexington to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement in
any material respect or materially impair or delay Lexington's ability to
perform its obligations hereunder. For the purposes of this Section 3.1,
the term "Subsidiaries" shall include the entities set forth in the
Schedule 3.1(a), which are all of Lexington's Subsidiaries.
(b) Authority. Lexington has the requisite power and authority to
enter into this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated
by this Agreement and all other documents, agreements and instruments
related to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement to which it is a
party (the "Lexington Ancillary Agreements"). The execution, delivery and
performance of this Agreement by Lexington of the transactions contemplated
hereby have been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of
Lexington. Subject only to the approval of the Merger by the holders of a
majority of the outstanding voting shares of Lexington, the consummation by
Lexington of this Agreement, the Lexington Ancillary Agreements and the
transactions contemplated hereby and thereby have been duly authorized by
all requisite action on the part of Lexington.
(c) Enforceability. This Agreement has been duly executed and
delivered by Lexington and, assuming this Agreement constitutes the valid
and binding agreement of Net 1 and Net 3, constitutes a valid and binding
obligation of Lexington, enforceable against Lexington in accordance with
its terms, subject to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent
transfer, reorganization, moratorium and similar
5
220
laws affecting creditors' rights and remedies and to general principles of
equity (regardless of whether enforceability is considered in a proceeding
at law or in equity).
(d) Noncontravention. The execution and delivery of this Agreement
do not, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this
Agreement and compliance with the provisions hereof will not, (i) conflict
with any of the provisions of the declaration of trust or bylaws of
Lexington, (ii) conflict with, result in a breach of or default (with or
without notice or lapse of time, or both) under, or give rise to a right of
first refusal, termination, cancellation or acceleration of any obligation
(including to pay any sum of money) or loss of a benefit under, or require
the consent of any person under, any indenture or other agreement, permit,
concession, ground lease, franchise, license or similar instrument or
undertaking to which Lexington is a party or by Lexington or any of its
assets is bound, result in the creation or imposition of a material lien or
other restriction or encumbrance on any material asset of Lexington, which,
singly or in the aggregate, would have a Lexington Material Adverse Effect,
or (iii) violate any domestic or foreign law, rule or regulation or any
order, writ, judgment, injunction, decree, determination or award currently
in effect except for such violations, which, singly or in the aggregate,
would only have an immaterial effect. To Lexington's actual acknowledge,
neither Lexington nor any of its Subsidiaries (other than Net 3) is in
violation of any order of any court, governmental authority or arbitration
board or tribunal, or any law, ordinance, governmental rule or regulation
to which Lexington or any of its Subsidiaries (other than Net 3) or any of
their respective properties or assets are subject, where such violation
would have a Lexington Material Adverse Effect. Lexington and its
Subsidiaries (other than Net 3) have obtained all licenses, permits and
other authorizations and have taken all actions required by applicable law
or governmental regulations in connection with their business as now
conducted, where the failure to obtain any such item or to take any such
action would have a Lexington Material Adverse Effect.
(e) Consents. Other than the filings provided for in this Agreement
to effect the Merger, any filings required under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended (the "Securities Act"), or applicable state securities and "Blue
Sky" laws (collectively, the "Regulatory Filings"), no consent, approval or
authorization of; or declaration or filing with, or notice to, any domestic
or foreign governmental agency or regulatory authority (a "Governmental
Entity") or any third party which has not been received or made, is
required by or with respect to Lexington or in connection with the
execution and delivery of this Agreement by Lexington or the consummation
by Lexington of the transactions contemplated hereby, except for (i) the
filing of the Certificate of Merger with the Secretary of State of the
State of Delaware and the State Department of Assessments and Taxation of
the State of Maryland and (ii) consents, approvals, authorizations,
declarations, filings and notices that, if not obtained or made, will not,
individually or in the aggregate, result in a Lexington Material Adverse
Effect.
(f) Capitalization. As of September 30, 2000, the authorized capital
of Lexington consisted of Forty Million (40,000,000) Common Shares and Ten
Million (10,000,000) preferred shares of Lexington, $0.0001 par value per
share (the "Preferred Shares"). As of September 30, 2000, Seventeen Million
One Hundred Sixty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy (17,162,970) Common
Shares were outstanding and Two Million (2,000,000) Preferred Shares were
outstanding. Except as disclosed in the Lexington Reports, Lexington has no
outstanding bonds, debentures, notes or other obligations, the holders of
which have the right to vote (or which are convertible into or exercisable
for securities having the right to vote) with the shareholders of Lexington
on any matter. All such issued and outstanding Common Shares are duly
authorized, validly issued, fully paid, nonassessable and free of
preemptive rights. Except as disclosed in the Lexington Reports, there are
not any existing options, warrants, calls, puts, subscriptions, convertible
securities, or other rights, agreements or commitments which obligate
Lexington or any of its subsidiaries to issue, transfer, acquire or sell
any shares or other equity interest of Lexington or any of its
Subsidiaries, except under any employee incentive plan approved by
Lexington's shareholders. There are no agreements or understandings to
which Lexington is a party with respect to the voting of any Common Shares
or which restrict the transfer of any such shares, except in order to
protect its REIT status.
6
221
(g) Subsidiaries. Except as set forth in Schedule 3.1(a), Lexington
owns directly or indirectly each of the outstanding shares of capital stock
or all of the partnership or other equity interests of each of Lexington's
Subsidiaries (except those Joint Venture interests as many be disclosed in
Schedule 3.1(a)) and such interests are free and clear of all Encumbrances
other than liens imposed by local law which are not material.
(h) Other Interests. Except as disclosed in Schedule 3.1(a),
Lexington does not own directly or indirectly any interest or investment
(whether equity or debt) in any corporation, partnership, Joint Venture,
business, trust or entity (other than investments in short-term investments
securities).
(i) SEC Documents.
(i) Lexington has made available or will make available to Net 1
prior to the Closing, registration statements of Lexington filed with
the SEC in connection with public offerings of Lexington's securities
since 1995 and all exhibits, amendments and supplements thereto (the
"Lexington Registration Statements"), and each report, proxy statement
or information statement and all exhibits thereto prepared by it or
relating to its properties since the effective date of the latest
Lexington Registration Statement, each in the form (including exhibits
and any amendments thereto) filed with the SEC (collectively, the
"Lexington Reports").
(ii) To Lexington's actual knowledge, as of their respective
dates, the Lexington Reports (i) complied as to form in all material
respects with the applicable requirements of the Securities Laws and
(ii) did not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make
the statements made therein, in the light of the circumstances under
which they were made, not misleading. To Lexington's actual knowledge,
each of the consolidated balance sheets of Lexington included in or
incorporated by reference into the Lexington Reports (including the
related notes and schedules) fairly presents the consolidated financial
position of Lexington and its Subsidiaries as of its date and each of
the consolidated statements of income, retained earnings and cash flows
of Lexington included in or incorporated by reference into the Lexington
Reports (including any related notes and schedules) fairly presents the
results of operations, retained earnings or cash flows, as the case may
be, of Lexington and its Subsidiaries for the periods set forth therein
(subject, in the case of unaided statements, to normal year-end audit
adjustments which would not be material in amount or effect), in each
case in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
consistently applied during the periods involved, except as may be noted
therein and except, in the case of the unaided statements, as permitted
by the Securities Laws.
(iii) Except as and to the extent set forth on the consolidated
balance sheet of Lexington and its Subsidiaries at June 30, 2000,
including all notes thereto, or as set forth in the Lexington Reports,
neither Lexington nor any of its Subsidiaries has any material
liabilities or obligations of any nature (whether accrued, absolute,
contingent or otherwise) that would be required to be reflected on, or
reserved against in, a balance sheet of Lexington or in the notes
thereto, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles consistently applied, except liabilities arising in the
ordinary course of business since such date which would not have a
Lexington Material Adverse Effect.
(j) Litigation. To Lexington's actual knowledge, there are (i) no
continuing orders, injunctions or decrees of any court, arbitrator or
governmental authority to which Lexington or any of its Subsidiaries is a
party or by which any of its properties or assets are bound or, to which
any of its trustees, directors, officers, or affiliates is a party or by
which any of their properties or assets are bound and (ii) no actions,
suits or proceedings pending against Lexington or any of its Subsidiaries
or, to the knowledge of Lexington, against any of its trustees, officers or
affiliates or, to the knowledge of Lexington, threatened against Lexington
or any of its Subsidiaries or against any of its trustees, directors,
officers, or affiliates, at law or in equity, or before or by any federal
or state commission, board, bureau, agency or instrumentality that in the
case of clauses (i) or (ii) above are reasonably likely, individually or in
the aggregate, to have a Lexington Material Adverse Effect.
7
222
(k) Absence of Certain Changes. Except as disclosed in the Lexington
Reports filed with the SEC prior to the date hereof, (a) Lexington and its
Subsidiaries have conducted their business only in the ordinary course of
such business (which, for purposes of this Section only, shall include all
acquisitions of real estate properties and financing arrangements made in
connection therewith); (b) there has not been any Lexington Material
Adverse Effect; (c) there has not been any declaration, setting aside or
payment of any dividend or other distribution with respect to the Common
Shares (other than such payments which are consistent with past practice);
and (d) there has not been any material change in Lexington's accounting
principles, practices or methods.
(1) Taxes.
(i) Lexington and each of its Subsidiaries:
(1) has timely filed all federal and state tax returns
including, without limitation, information returns and reports
required to be filed by any of them for tax periods ended prior to
the date of this Agreement or requests for extensions have been
timely filed and any such request has been granted and has not
expired and all such returns are absolute and complete in all
material respects,
(2) has paid or accrued all taxes shown to be due and payable
on such returns or which have become due and payable pursuant to any
assessment, deficiency notice, 30-day letter or other notice received
by it and
(3) has properly accrued all taxes for such periods subsequent
to the periods covered by such returns. Neither Lexington nor any of
its Subsidiaries has received notice that the federal, state and
local income and franchise tax returns of Lexington or any such
Subsidiary has been or will be examined by any taxing authority.
Neither Lexington nor any of its Subsidiaries has executed or filed
with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") or any other taxing
authority any agreement now in effect extending the period for
assessment or collection of any income or other taxes.
(4) neither Lexington nor any of its Subsidiaries is a party to
any pending action or proceedings by any governmental authority for
assessment or collection of taxes, and no claim for assessment or
collection of taxes has been asserted against it. True, correct and
complete copies of all federal, state and local income or franchise
tax returns filed by Lexington and each of its Subsidiaries and all
communications relating thereto have been delivered to Net 1 or made
available to representatives of Net 1 or will be so delivered or made
available prior to the Closing. Lexington has (A) qualified to be
taxed as a REIT pursuant to Sections 856 through 859 of the Code for
its taxable years ended December 31, 1993 through 1999, inclusive;
(B) operated, and intends to continue to operate, in such a manner as
to qualify to be taxed as a REIT pursuant to Sections 856 through 859
of the Code for its taxable year in which the Effective Date occurs;
and (C) not taken or omitted to take any action which could result in
a challenge to its status as a REIT. Lexington represents that each
of its Subsidiaries is a qualified REIT subsidiary as defined in
Section 856 (i) of the Code.
(m) Books and Records. The books of account and other financial
records of Lexington and its Subsidiaries are in all material respects
true, complete and correct, have been maintained in accordance with good
business practices, and are accurately reflected in all materials respects
in the financial statements included in the Lexington Reports.
(n) Properties (i) Except as disclosed on Schedule 3.1(n), Lexington
and its Subsidiaries own, and each Joint Venture to which Lexington or any
of its Subsidiaries is a party owns, fee simple title to each of the real
properties reflected on the most recent balances sheet of Lexington
included in the Lexington Reports (the "Lexington Properties"), which are
all of the real estate properties owned by them, such Lexington Properties
which are subject to Encumbrances are so subject only to the extent
disclosed in the Lexington Reports and such Lexington Properties which are
free and clear of Encumbrances are listed as such on Schedule 3.1 (n)
hereto. To Lexington's actual knowledge,
8
223
Lexington's Properties are not subject to any rights of way, written
agreements, laws, ordinances and regulations affecting building use or
occupancy, or reservations of an interest in title (collectively, "Property
Restrictions"), except for (1) Encumbrances and Property Restrictions set
forth in the Lexington Reports; (2) Property Restrictions imposed or
promulgated by law or any governmental body or authority with respect to
real property, including zoning regulations that do not materially
adversely affect the current use of the property; (3) Encumbrances and
Property Restrictions disclosed on existing title reports or surveys (in
either case copies of which title reports and surveys have been or will be
delivered or made available to Net 1 prior to the Closing); and (4)
mechanics', carriers', workmen's, repairmen's liens and other Encumbrances,
Property Restrictions and other limitations of any kind, if any, which have
heretofore been bonded (and that are disclosed in the Lexington Reports) or
which individually or in the aggregate, do not exceed $100,000, do not
materially detract from the value of or materially interfere with the
present use of any of Lexington Properties subject thereto or affected
thereby, and do not otherwise materially impair business operations
conducted by Lexington and its Subsidiaries and which have arisen or been
incurred only in its construction activities or in the ordinary course of
business.
(ii) Valid policies of title insurance have been issued insuring
Lexington's or any of its Subsidiaries' fee simple title to Lexington
Properties, subject only to the matters disclosed above and such policies
are, at the date hereof, in full force and effect and no material claim has
been made against any such policy. To Lexington's actual knowledge (1)
there is no certificate, permit or license from any governmental authority
having jurisdiction over any of Lexington Properties or any agreement,
easement or other right which is necessary to permit the lawful use and
operation of the buildings and improvements on any of Lexington Properties
or which is necessary to permit the lawful use and operation of all
driveways, roads and other means of egress and ingress to and from any of
Lexington Properties that has not been obtained and is not in full force
and effect, or any pending threat of modification or cancellation of any of
same; (2) neither Lexington nor its Subsidiaries has received written
notice of any material violation of any federal, state or municipal law,
ordinance, order, regulation or requirement affecting any portion of any of
Lexington Properties issued by any governmental authority; (3) there are no
structural defects relating to Lexington Properties and no Lexington
Properties whose building systems are not in working order in any material
respect: and (4) there is (A) no physical damage to any Lexington Property
in excess of $100,000 for which there is no insurance in effect covering
the cost of the restoration, (B) no current renovation to any Lexington
Property for which Lexington is responsible, the cost of which exceeds
$100,000 and (C) no current restoration (excluding tenant improvements) on
any of Lexington Property the cost of which exceeds $100,000.
(iii) Neither Lexington nor its Subsidiaries have received notice to
the effect that and there are any (1) condemnation or rezoning proceedings
that are pending or threatened with respect to any of Lexington Properties
or (2) any zoning, building or similar laws, codes, ordinances, orders or
regulations that are or will be violated by the continued maintenance,
operation or use of any buildings or other improvements on any of Lexington
Properties or by the continued maintenance, operation or use of the parking
areas in any material respect. All work to be performed, payments to be
made and actions to be taken by Lexington or its Subsidiaries prior to the
date hereof pursuant to any agreement entered into with a governmental body
or authority in connection with a site approval, zoning reclassification or
other similar action relating to Lexington Properties has been performed,
paid or taken, as the case may be, and Lexington is not aware of any
planned proposed work, payments or actions that may be required after the
date hereof pursuant to such agreements.
(o) Environmental Matters. To the actual knowledge of Lexington,
none of Lexington, any of its Subsidiaries or any other person, has caused
or permitted (i) the unlawful presence of any Hazardous Material on any of
Lexington Properties, or (ii) any unlawful spills, releases, discharges or
disposal of Hazardous Materials to have occurred or be presently occurring
on or from Lexington Properties as a result of any construction on or
operation and use of such properties, which presence or occurrence would,
individually or in the aggregate, have a Lexington Material Adverse Effect;
and in connection with the construction on or operation and use of
Lexington Properties, Lexington and its Subsidiaries have not
9
224
failed to comply, in any material respect, with any applicable local, state
and federal environmental laws, regulations, ordinances and administrative
and judicial orders relating to the generation, recycling, reuse, sale,
storage, handling, transport and disposal of any Hazardous Materials.
(p) Labor Materials. Neither Lexington nor any of its Subsidiaries
is a party to, or bound by, any collective bargaining agreement, contract
or other agreement or understanding with a labor union or labor union
organization. There is no unfair labor practice or labor arbitration
proceeding pending or, to the knowledge of the executive officers of
Lexington, threatened against Lexington or its Subsidiaries relating to
their business, except for any such proceeding which would not have
Lexington Material Adverse Effect. To the knowledge of Lexington, there are
no organizational efforts with respect to the formation of a collective
bargaining unit presently being made or threatened involving employees of
Lexington or any of its Subsidiaries.
(q) No Brokers. Lexington has not entered into any contract,
arrangement or understanding with any person or firm which may result in
the obligation of Net 1 to pay any finder's fee, brokerage or agent's
commissions or other like payments in connection with the negotiations
leading to this Agreement or the consummation of the transactions
contemplated hereby. Lexington is not aware of any claim for payment of any
finder's fee, brokerage or agent's commissions or other like payments in
connection with the negotiations leading to this Agreement or the
consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby.
(r) Common Shares. The issuance and delivery by Lexington of the
Common Shares in connection with the Merger and this Agreement have been
duly and validly authorized by all necessary action on the part of
Lexington, except for the approval of its shareholders of the Merger
contemplated by this Agreement. The Common Shares to be issued in
connection with the Merger and this Agreement, when issued in accordance
with the terms of this Agreement, will be validly issued, fully paid and
nonassessable, except that shareholders may be subject to further
assessment with respect to certain claims for tort, contract, taxes,
statutory liability and otherwise in some jurisdictions to the extent such
claims are not satisfied by Lexington.
(s) The Debentures. The issuance and delivery by Lexington of the
Convertible Subordinated Debentures and the Dissenter Debentures in
connection with the Merger and this Agreement have been duly and validly
authorized by all necessary action on the part of Lexington, except for the
approval of its shareholders of the Merger as contemplated by this
Agreement. The Convertible Subordinated Debentures and the Dissenter
Debentures to be issued in connection with the Merger and this Agreement,
when issued in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, will constitute
binding obligations of Lexington enforceable in accordance with their
terms, subject to the laws respecting debtor rights generally.
(t) Convertible Securities. Lexington has no outstanding options,
warrants or other securities exercisable for, or convertible into, Common
Shares, the terms of which require any anti-dilution adjustments by reason
of the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby.
(u) Contracts and Commitments. The Lexington Reports disclose (i)
all unsecured notes or other obligations of Lexington and its Subsidiaries
which individually may result in total payments in excess of $100,000, (ii)
notes, debentures, bonds and other evidence of indebtedness which are
secured or collateralized by mortgages, deeds of trust or other security
interests in Lexington Properties or personal property of Lexington and its
Subsidiaries and (iii) each commitment entered into by Lexington or any of
its Subsidiaries which individually may result in total payments or
liability in excess of $100,000. Copies of the foregoing have been or will
be made available to Net 1 prior to the Closing and will be materially true
and correct when delivered or made available. None of Lexington or any of
its Subsidiaries has received any notice of a default that has not been
cured under any of the documents described in clauses (i) or (ii) above or
is in default respecting any payment obligations thereunder beyond any
applicable grace periods. There are no options of Lexington or any of its
Subsidiaries to purchase real property. All Joint Venture agreements to
which Lexington or any of its Subsidiaries is a party are disclosed in the
Lexington Reports and Lexington or its Subsidiaries are not in default with
respect to any obligations, which individually or in the aggregate are
material, thereunder.
10
225
(v) Developmental Rights. Set forth in Schedule 3.1 (v) is a list of
all material agreements entered into by Lexington relating to the
development, rehabilitation, capital improvement or construction of office
buildings, industrial facilities or other real estate properties, which
development or construction has not been substantially completed as of the
date of this Agreement. Such agreements have not been modified and are
valid and binding in accordance with their respective terms.
SECTION 3.2 Representations and Warranties of Net 3. Net 3 represents and
warrants to Net 1 as follows:
(a) Organization, Standing and Power. Net 3 is a limited partnership
duly created, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the
State of Delaware, and has all requisite power and authority to own, lease
and operate its properties and to carry on its business as now being
conducted, except where the failure to do so would not have, individually
or in the aggregate, a Lexington Material Adverse Effect.
(b) Authority. Net 3 has the requisite power and authority to enter
into this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated by this
Agreement. The execution, delivery and performance by Net 3 of this
Agreement and the consummation of the Merger by Net 3 has been duly
authorized by all necessary action on the part of Net 3.
(c) Enforceability. This Agreement has been duly executed and
delivered by Net 3 and, assuming this Agreement constitutes the valid and
binding agreement of Lexington and Net 1, constitutes a valid and binding
obligation of Net 3, enforceable against such party in accordance with its
terms, subject to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent transfer,
reorganization, moratorium and similar laws affecting creditors' rights and
remedies and to general principles of equity.
(d) Noncontravention. Except as set forth in Schedule 3.2(d), the
execution and delivery of this Agreement do not, and the consummation of
the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and compliance with the
provisions of this Agreement, will not (i) conflict with the limited
partnership agreement of Net 3, (ii) conflict with, result in a breach of
or default (with or without notice or lapse of time, or both) under, or
give rise to a right of termination, cancellation or acceleration of any
obligation or loss of a material benefit under, or require the consent of
any person under, any indenture, or other material agreement, permit,
concession, franchise, license or similar instrument or undertaking to
which Net 3 is a party or by which Net 3 or any of their assets are bound
or affected, or (iii) contravene any law, rule or regulation, or any order,
writ, judgment, injunction, decree, determination or award binding on or
applicable to Net 3 and currently in effect, which, in the case of clauses
(ii) and (iii) above, singly or in the aggregate, would have a Lexington
Material Adverse Effect. To the General Partner's actual knowledge, Net 3
is not in violation of any order of any court, governmental authority or
arbitration board or tribunal, or any law, ordinance, governmental rule or
regulation to which Net 3 or any of its properties or assets are subject,
where such violation would have a Lexington Material Adverse Effect. Net 3
has obtained all licenses, permits and other authorizations and has taken
all actions required by applicable law or governmental regulations in
connection with its business as now conducted, where the failure to obtain
any such item or to take any such action would have a Lexington Material
Adverse Effect.
SECTION 3.3 Representations and Warranties of Net 1. Net 1 represents and
warrants to Lexington and Net 3 as follows:
(a) Organization, Standing and Power. Net 1 is a limited partnership
duly created, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the
State of Delaware, and has all requisite power and authority to own, lease
and operate its properties and to carry on its business as now being
conducted, except where the failure to do so would not have, individually
or in the aggregate, a Net 1 Material Adverse Effect. Each of Net 1's
subsidiaries is a corporation, limited liability company or partnership
duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of its
jurisdiction of incorporation or organization, has the requisite power and
authority to own its properties and to carry on its business as it is now
be conducted, and is duly qualified to do business and is in good standing
in each jurisdiction in which the ownership of its property or the conduct
of its business requires such qualification, except for
11
226
jurisdictions in which such failure to be so qualified or to be in good
standing would not have a Net 1 Material Adverse Effect. Net 1 and its
subsidiaries have obtained all licenses, permits and other authorizations
and have taken all actions required by applicable law or governmental
regulations in connection with their business as now conducted, where the
failure to obtain any such item or to take any such action would have a Net
1 Material Adverse Effect. Copies of each of Net 1's subsidiaries'
organizational documents and partnership and Joint Venture agreements have
been or will be prior to the Closing, delivered or made available to
Lexington and were or will be true and correct when delivered or made
available. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "Net 1 Material Adverse
Effect" means any material adverse effect with respect to Net 1 or its
subsidiaries, taken as a whole, or any change of effect that adversely, or
is reasonably expected to adversely affect, (i) the business, assets,
results from operations or condition (financial or otherwise) or (ii) the
ability of Net 1 to consummate the transactions contemplated by this
Agreement in any material respect or materially impair or delay Net 1's
ability to perform its obligations hereunder.
(b) Authority. Net 1 has the requisite power and authority to enter
into this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated by this
Agreement. The execution, delivery and performance by Net 1 of this
Agreement and the consummation of the Merger by Net 1 has been duly
authorized by all necessary action on the part of Net 1. Subject only to
the approval of the Merger by the holders of a majority of the outstanding
partnership interests of Net 1, the consummation by Net 1 of this
Agreement, the Net 1 Ancillary Agreements and the transactions contemplated
hereby and thereby have been duly authorized by all requisite action on the
part of Net 1.
(c) Enforceability. This Agreement has been duly executed and
delivered by Net 1 and, assuming this Agreement constitutes the valid and
binding agreement of Lexington and Net 3, constitutes a valid and binding
obligation of Net 1, enforceable against Net 1 in accordance with its
terms, subject to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent transfer,
reorganization, moratorium and similar laws affecting creditors' rights and
remedies and to general principles of equity (regardless of whether
enforceability is considered in a proceeding at law or in equity).
(d) Noncontravention. The execution and delivery of this Agreement
do not, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this
Agreement and compliance with the provisions of this Agreement, will not
(i) conflict with the limited partnership agreement of Net 1, (ii) conflict
with, result in a breach of or default (with or without notice or lapse of
time, or both) under, or give rise to a right of termination, cancellation
or acceleration of any obligation or loss of a material benefit under, or
require the consent of any person under, any indenture, or other material
agreement, permit, concession, franchise, license or similar instrument or
undertaking to which Net 1 is a party or by which Net 1 or any of their
assets are bound or affected, or (iii) contravene any law, rule or
regulation, or any order, writ, judgment, injunction, decree, determination
or award binding on or applicable to Net 1 and currently in effect, which,
in the case of clauses (ii) and (iii) above, singly or in the aggregate,
would have a Net 1 Material Adverse Effect. To the General Partner's actual
knowledge, Net 1 is not in violation of any order of any court,
governmental authority or arbitration board or tribunal, or any law,
ordinance, governmental rule or regulation to which Net 1 or any of its
properties or assets are subject, where such violation would have a Net 1
Material Adverse Effect. Net 1 has obtained all licenses, permits and other
authorizations which it is required to have and has taken all actions
required by applicable law or governmental regulations in connection with
its business as now conducted, where the failure to obtain any such item or
to take any such action would have a Net 1 Material Adverse Effect.
(e) Consents. Other than the filings provided for in this Agreement
to effect the Merger, any Regulatory Filings required under the Exchange
Act, the Securities Act, or applicable State Securities and "Blue Sky"
laws, no consent, approval or authorization of, or declaration or filing
with, or notice to, any Governmental Entity which has not been received or
made is required by or with respect to Net 1 in connection with the
execution and delivery of this Agreement by Net 1 or the consummation by
Net 1 of any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, except for
(i) the filing of the Certificate of Mergers with the Secretary of State of
the State of Delaware and the State Department of Assessments and Taxation
of the State of Maryland, (ii) such other consents, approvals,
authorizations, filings or
12
227
notices as are set forth in Schedule 3.3(e) and (iii) consents, approvals,
authorizations, declarations, filings and notices that, if not obtained or
made, will not, individually or in the aggregate, result in a Net 1
Material Adverse Effect.
(f) Capitalization. As of September 30, 2000, Net 1's outstanding
partnership interests consisted of Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy
Two (30,772) Units and a general partnership interest equal to 1% of the
partnership interests. Net 1 has no outstanding bonds, debentures, notes or
other obligations, the holders of which have the right to vote (or which
are convertible into or exercisable for securities having the right to
vote) with the partners of Net 1 on any matter. All such outstanding
partnership interests are duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid,
nonassessable and free of preemptive rights. There are no existing options,
warrants, calls, puts, subscriptions, convertible securities, or other
rights, agreements or commitments which obligate Net 1 or any of its
subsidiaries to issue, transfer, acquire or sell any shares or other equity
interest of Net 1 or any of its subsidiaries. There are no agreements or
understandings to which Net 1 is a party with respect to the voting of any
partnership interests or which restrict the transfer of any such
partnership interests.
(g) Other Interests. Except as set forth in Schedule 3.3(o), Net 1
does not own, directly or indirectly, any interest or investment (whether
equity or debt) in any corporation, partnership, Joint Venture, business,
trust or entity (other than investments in short-term investment
securities).
(h) SEC Documents.
(i) Net 1 has made available or will make available to Lexington
prior to the Closing, registration statements of Net 1 filed with the
SEC in connection with public offerings of Net 1's securities since 1995
and all exhibits, amendments and supplements thereto (the "Net 1
Registration Statements"), and each report, proxy statement or
information statement and all exhibits thereto prepared by it or
relating to its properties since the effective date of the latest Net 1
Registration Statement, each in the form (including exhibits and any
amendments thereto) filed with the SEC (collectively, the "Net 1
Reports").
(ii) To Net 1 GP's actual knowledge, as of their respective dates,
the Net 1 Reports (i) complied as to form in all material respects with
the applicable requirements of the Securities Laws and (ii) did not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the
statements made therein, in the light of the circumstances under which
they were made, not misleading. To Net 1's actual knowledge, each of the
consolidated balance sheets of Net 1 included in or incorporated by
reference into the Net 1 Reports (including the related notes and
schedules) fairly presents the consolidated financial position of Net 1
and its subsidiaries as of its date and each of the consolidated
statements of income, retained earnings and cash flows of Net 1 included
in or incorporated by reference into the Net 1 Reports (including any
related notes and schedules) fairly presents the results of operations,
retained earnings or cash flows, as the case may be, of Net 1 and its
subsidiaries for the periods set forth therein (subject, in the case of
unaided statements, to normal year-end audit adjustments which would not
be material in amount or effect), in each case in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied during the
periods involved, except as may be noted therein and except, in the case
of the unaided statements, as permitted by the Securities Laws.
(iii) Except as and to the extent set forth on the consolidated
balance sheet of Net l and its subsidiaries at June 30, 2000, including
all notes thereto, or as set forth in the Net 1 Reports, neither Net 1
nor any of its subsidiaries has any material liabilities or obligations
of any nature (whether accrued, absolute, contingent or otherwise) that
would be required to be reflected on, or reserved against in, a balance
sheet of Net 1 or in the notes thereto, prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied, except
liabilities arising in the ordinary course of business since such date
which would not have a Net 1 Material Adverse Effect.
(i) Litigation. To the Net 1 GP's actual knowledge, there are (a) no
continuing orders, injunctions or decrees of any court, arbitrator or
governmental authority to which Net 1 is a party or by
13
228
which any of its properties or assets are bound or to which the Net 1 GP is
a party or by which any of his/ its properties or assets are bound and (b)
no actions, suits or proceedings pending against Net 1 or against the Net 1
GP or, to the actual knowledge of the Net 1 GP, threatened against Net 1 or
against the Net 1 GP, at law or in equity, or before or by any federal or
state commission, board, bureau, agency or instrumentality that in the case
of clauses (a) or (b) above are reasonably likely, individually or in the
aggregate, to have a Net 1 Material Adverse Effect.
(j) Absence of Certain Changes. Except as disclosed in the Net 1
Reports, (a) Net 1 has conducted its business only in the ordinary course
of such business (which for purposes of this Section 3.3 only, shall
include all acquisitions of real estate properties and financing
arrangements made in connection therewith); (b) there has not been any Net
1 Material Adverse Effect; (c) there has not been any distribution, setting
aside or payment of any distribution with respect to any Partner interest
in Net 1; and (d) there has not been any material change in Net 1's
accounting principles, practices or methods.
(k) Taxes. (i) Net 1 (A) has timely filed all federal and state tax
returns including, without limitation, information returns and reports
required to be filed by it for tax periods ended prior to the date of this
Agreement or requests for extensions have been timely filed and any such
request has been granted and has not expired and all such returns are
accurate and complete in all material respects, (B) has paid or accrued all
taxes shown to be due and payable on such returns or which have become due
and payable pursuant to any assessment, deficiency notice, 30-day letter or
other notice received by it and (C) has properly accrued all taxes for such
periods and periods subsequent to the periods covered by such returns. Net
1 has not received notice that the federal, state and local income and
franchise tax returns of Net 1 have been or will be examined by any taxing
authority. Net 1 has not executed or filed with the IRS or any other taxing
authority any agreement now in effect extending the period for assessment
or collection of any income or other taxes.
(ii) Net 1 is not a party to any pending action or proceeding by any
governmental authority for assessment or collection of taxes, and no claim
for assessment or collection of taxes has been asserted against it. True,
correct and complete copies of all federal, state and local income or
franchise tax returns filed by Net 1 since its inception and all
communications relating thereto have been delivered to Lexington or made
available to representatives of Lexington or will be so delivered or made
available prior to the Closing. Net 1 does not hold any asset (i) the
disposition of which could be subject to rules similar to Section 1374 of
the Code, as a result of an election under IRS Notice 88-19 or (ii) that is
subject to a consent filed pursuant to Section 341(f) of the Code and
regulations thereunder. For purposes of this Section 3.3(k), "taxes"
includes any interest, penalty or additional amount payable with respect to
any tax.
(1) Books and Records. The books of account and other financial
records of Net 1 are in all material respects true, complete and correct,
have been maintained in accordance with good business practices, and are
accurately reflected in all material respects in Net 1 financial
statements.
(m) Properties.
(i) Net 1 owns fee simple title to each of the real properties
reflected on the June 30, 2000 balance sheet of Net 1 (such properties,
the "Net 1 Properties"), which are all of the real estate properties
owned by it, and such Lexington Properties are subject to Encumbrances
only to the extent disclosed in the Lexington Reports and such Lexington
Properties that are free and clear of Encumbrances are listed as such on
Schedule 3.3(m)(i). To the Net 1 GP's actual knowledge, the Net 1
Properties are not subject to any Property Restrictions, except for (1)
Encumbrances and Property Restrictions disclosed in the Net 1 Reports,
(2) Property Restrictions imposed or promulgated by law or any
governmental body or authority with respect to real property, including
zoning regulations that do not materially adversely affect the current
use of the property, (3) Encumbrances and Property Restrictions
disclosed on existing title reports or current surveys (in either case
copies of which title reports and surveys have been or will be delivered
or made available to Lexington prior to the Closing) and/or (4)
mechanics', carriers', workmen's, repairmen's liens and
14
229
other Encumbrances, Property Restrictions and other limitations of any
kind, if any, which have heretofore been bonded (which individually or
in the aggregate do not exceed $10,000), do not materially detract from
the value of or materially interfere with the present use of any of the
Net 1 Properties subject thereto or affected thereby, and do not
otherwise materially impair business operations conducted by Net 1 and
which have arisen or been incurred only in its construction activities
or in the ordinary course of business.
(ii) Valid policies of title insurance have been issued insuring
Net 1's fee simple title to the Net 1 Properties subject only to the
matters disclosed above and such policies are, at the date hereof, in
full force and effect and no claim has been made against any such
policy. To the Net 1 GP's actual knowledge: (i) there is no certificate,
permit or license from any governmental authority having jurisdiction
over any of the Net 1 Properties or any agreement, easement or other
right which is necessary to permit the lawful use and operation of the
buildings and improvements on any of the Net 1 Properties or which is
necessary to permit the lawful use and operation of all driveways, roads
and other means of egress and ingress to and from any of the Net 1
Properties that has not been obtained and is not in full force and
effect, or any pending threat of modification or cancellation of any of
the same; (ii) Net 1 has not received written notice of any material
violation of any federal, state or municipal law, ordinance, order,
regulation or requirement affecting any portion of any of the Net 1
Properties issued by any governmental authority; (iii) there are no
structural defects relating to the Net 1 Properties and no Net 1
Properties whose building systems are not in working order in any
material respect; and (iv) there is (A) no physical damage to any Net 1
Property in excess of $10,000 for which there is no insurance in effect
covering the cost of the restoration, (B) no current renovation to any
Net 1 Property the cost of which exceeds $10,000 and (C) no current
restoration (excluding tenant improvements) of any Net 1 Property, the
cost of which exceeds $10,000.
(iii) Net 1 has not received notice to the effect that and there
are no (i) condemnation or rezoning proceedings that are pending or
threatened with respect to any of the Net 1 Properties or (ii) zoning,
building or similar laws, codes, ordinances, orders or regulations that
are or will be violated by the continued maintenance, operation or use
of any buildings or other improvements on any of the Net 1 Properties or
by the continued maintenance, operation or use of the parking areas. All
work to be performed, payments to be made and actions to be taken by Net
1 pursuant to any agreement entered into with a governmental body or
authority in connection with a site approval, zoning reclassification or
other similar action relating to the Net 1 Properties has been
performed, paid or taken, as the case may be, and the Net 1 GP is not
aware of any planned or proposed work, payments or actions that may be
required pursuant to such agreements, except as set forth in Schedule
3.3(m)(iii).
(n) Environmental Matters. To the Net 1 GP's actual knowledge,
neither Net 1 nor any other person has caused (a) the unlawful presence of
Hazardous Materials on any of the Net 1 Properties, or (b) any unlawful
spills, releases, discharges or disposal of Hazardous Materials to have
occurred or be presently occurring on or from the Net 1 Properties as a
result of any construction on or operation and use of such properties,
which presence or occurrence would, individually or in the aggregate, have
a Net 1 Material Adverse Effect; and in connection with the construction on
or operation and use of The Net 1 Properties, Net 1 has not failed to
comply, in any material respect, with any applicable local, state and
federal environmental laws, regulations, ordinances and administrative and
judicial orders relating to the generation, recycling, reuse, sale,
storage, handling, transport and disposal of any Hazardous Materials.
(o) Subsidiaries and Joint Ventures. Except as disclosed on Schedule
3.3(o), Net 1 has no subsidiaries, and Net 1 does not own, directly or
indirectly, any outstanding capital stock or equity interest in any
corporation, partnership, Joint Venture or other entity. For purposes of
this Agreement, (a) "subsidiary" means, with respect to any entity, any
corporation of which securities or other ownership interests have an
ordinary voting power to elect a majority of the board of directors of
other persons performing similar functions are directly or indirectly owned
by such entity and (b) "Joint Venture" means, with respect to any entity,
any corporation or organization (other than such entity and any
15
230
subsidiary thereof) of which such entity or any subsidiary thereof is,
directly or indirectly, the beneficial owner of 40% or more of any class of
equity securities or equivalent profit participation interest.
(p) Labor Matters. Net 1 is not a party to, or bound by, any
collective bargaining agreement, contract or other agreement or
understanding with a labor union or labor union organization. There is no
unfair labor practice or labor arbitration proceeding pending or, to the
actual knowledge of the Net 1 GP, threatened against Net 1 relating to its
business, except for any such proceeding which would not have a Net 1
Material Adverse Effect. To the actual knowledge of the Net 1 GP, there are
no organizational efforts with respect to the formation of a collective
bargaining unit presently being made or threatened involving employees of
Net 1.
(q) No Brokers. Net 1 has not entered into any contract, arrangement
or understanding with any person or firm which may result in the obligation
of Net 1 or Lexington to pay any finder's fees, brokerage or agent's
commissions or other like payments in connection with the negotiations
leading to this Agreement or the consummation of the transactions
contemplated hereby. Net 1 is not aware of any claim for payment of any
finder's fees, brokerage or agent's commissions or other like payments in
connection with the negotiations leading to this Agreement or the
consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby.
(r) Related Party Transactions. Except as set forth in the Net 1
Reports, there are no arrangements, agreements or contracts entered into by
Net 1 with (a) any consultant, (b) any person who is an officer, director
or affiliate of Net 1 or the General Partner, any relative of any of the
foregoing or any entity of which any of the foregoing is an affiliate, or
(c) any person who acquired Units in a private placement.
(s) Contracts and Commitments. The Net 1 Reports disclose (i) all
unsecured notes or other obligations of Net 1 which individually may result
in total payments in excess of $10,000, (ii) all notes, debentures, bonds
and other evidence of indebtedness which are secured or collateralized by
mortgages, deeds of trust or other security interests in The Net 1
Properties or personal property of Net 1, and (iii) each commitment entered
into by Net 1 which may result in total payments or liability in excess of
$10,000. Net 1 has not received any notice of a default that has not been
cured under any of the documents described in clause (i) above or is in
default respecting any payment of obligations thereunder beyond any
applicable grace periods. All options of Net 1 to purchase real property
are set forth in the Net 1 Reports and such options and Net 1's rights
thereunder are in full force and effect.
(t) Developmental Rights. There are no material agreements entered
into by Net 1 relating to the development, rehabilitation, capital
improvement or construction of office buildings, industrial facilities or
other real estate properties, which development or construction has not
been substantially completed as of the date of this Agreement.
(u) Convertible Securities. To the General Partner's actual
knowledge, Net 1 has no outstanding options, warrants or other securities
exercisable for, or convertible into, Units or other interests of Net 1,
the terms of which would require any anti-dilution adjustments by reason of
the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby.
ARTICLE IV
ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS
SECTION 4.1 Reasonable Best Efforts. Upon the terms and subject to the
conditions and other agreements set forth in this Agreement, each of the parties
agrees to use its reasonable best efforts to take, or cause to be taken, all
actions, and to do, or cause to be done, and to assist and cooperate with the
other parties in doing, all things necessary, proper or advisable to consummate
and make effective, in the most expeditious manner practicable, the Merger and
the other transactions contemplated by this Agreement, including the
satisfaction of the respective conditions set forth in Article V.
16
231
SECTION 4.2 Public Announcements. Lexington and Net 3, on the one hand,
and Net 1, on the other hand, will consult with each other before issuing, and
provide each other the opportunity to review and comment upon, any press release
or other public statements with respect to the transactions contemplated by this
Agreement, including the Merger, and shall not issue any such press release or
make any such public statement prior to such consultation, except as may be
required by applicable law, court process or by obligations pursuant to any
listing agreement with any national securities exchange or automated quotation
system.
SECTION 4.3 Consents, Approvals and Filings. (i) Net 1 and Lexington will
make and cause their respective Subsidiaries to make all necessary filings, as
soon as practicable, in order to facilitate prompt consummation of the Merger
and the other transactions contemplated by this Agreement. In addition, Net 1
and Lexington will each use their reasonable best efforts, and will cooperate
fully with each other (a) to comply as promptly as practicable with all
governmental requirements applicable to the Merger and the other transactions
contemplated by this Agreement; and (b) to obtain as promptly as practicable all
necessary permits, orders or other consents of Governmental Entities and
consents of all third parties necessary for the consummation of the Merger and
the other transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Each of Net 1 and
Lexington shall use reasonable best efforts to provide such information and
communications to Governmental Entities as such Governmental Entities may
reasonably request.
(ii) Each of the parties shall provide to the other party copies of all
applications in advance of filing or submission of such applications to
Governmental Entities in connection with this Agreement, and copies of all
correspondence with such Governmental Entities, and shall keep all the parties
timely apprised of the status of the foregoing.
SECTION 4.4 State Takeover Laws. Lexington, Net 3 and Net 1 shall take
all necessary steps to exempt the transactions contemplated by this Agreement
from, or if necessary to challenge the validity or applicability of, any state
takeover law, if any.
SECTION 4.5 No Solicitation by Net 1. (i) Net 1 shall not, directly or
indirectly, through any officer, director, employee, representative or agent of
Net 1, or any of its subsidiaries, solicit or encourage (including by way of
furnishing information) the initiation of any inquiries or proposals regarding
any merger, amalgamation, take-over bid, reorganization, sale of substantial
assets, sale of Units (including, without limitation, by way of a tender offer)
or similar transaction involving Net 1 or its subsidiaries with any party other
than Lexington and its Subsidiaries (any of the foregoing inquiries or proposals
being referred to herein as an "Acquisition Proposal"); provided, however, that
nothing contained in this Agreement shall prevent the Net 1 GP, in its capacity
as the general partner of Net 1, after consultation with its financial advisors,
and after receiving advice from outside counsel to the effect that the Net 1 GP,
in its capacity as the general partner of Net 1, is required to do so in order
to discharge properly its fiduciary duties, from considering, negotiating,
approving and recommending to the holders of Units an unsolicited bona fide
Acquisition Proposal which the Net 1 GP, in its capacity as the general partner
of Net 1, determines in good faith would result in a transaction more favorable
to the holders of Units than the transaction contemplated by this Agreement (any
such Acquisition Proposal being referred to herein as a "Superior Proposal").
(ii) Net 1 shall immediately notify Lexington after receipt of any
Acquisition Proposal or any request for nonpublic information relating to Net 1
in connection with an Acquisition Proposal or for access to the properties,
books or records of Net 1 by any person that informs the Net 1 GP that it is
considering making, or has made, an Acquisition Proposal. Such notice to
Lexington shall be made orally and in writing and shall indicate in reasonable
detail the identity of the offeror and the terms and conditions of such
proposal, inquiry or contract.
(iii) If the Net 1 GP, in its capacity as the general partner of Net 1,
receives a request for material nonpublic information by a person who makes a
bona fide Acquisition Proposal and the Net 1 GP, in its capacity as the general
partner of Net 1, determines that such proposal is a Superior Proposal, then,
and only in such case, Net 1 may, subject to the execution of a confidentiality
agreement, provide such party with access to information regarding Net 1.
17
232
(iv) The Net 1 GP, in its capacity as the general partner of Net 1, shall
immediately cease and cause to be terminated any existing discussions or
negotiations with any parties (other than with Lexington or Net 3) conducted
heretofore with respect to any of the foregoing.
(v) The Net 1 GP, in its capacity as the general partner of Net 1, shall
ensure that any investment banker or other advisor or representative retained by
Net 1 are aware of the restrictions described in this Section 4.5, and shall be
responsible for any breach of this Section by such bankers, advisors and
representatives.
SECTION 4.6 Conduct of Businesses. (a) Prior to the Effective Time,
except as may be set forth in the Schedule 4.6(a) or as contemplated by this
Agreement, unless the other party has consented in writing thereto, Lexington,
Net 3 and Net 1:
(i) Shall use their reasonable best efforts, and shall cause each of
their respective subsidiaries to use their reasonable best efforts, to
preserve intact their business organizations and goodwill and keep
available the services of their respective officers and employees;
(ii) Shall confer on a regular basis with one or more representatives
of the other to report material operational matters and, subject to Section
4.5, any proposals to engage in material transactions; and
(iii) Shall promptly notify the other of any material change in the
condition (financial or otherwise) of the business, properties, assets or
liabilities, or any material governmental complaints, investigations or
hearings (or communications indicating that the same may be contemplated),
or the breach in any material respect of any representation, warranty,
covenant or agreement contained herein.
(b) Prior to the Effective Time, except as may be set forth in Schedule
4.6(b), unless Lexington has consented (such consent not to be unreasonably
withheld or delayed) in writing thereto, Net 1:
(i) Shall conduct its operations according to its usual, regular and
ordinary course in substantially the same manner as heretofore conducted;
(ii) Shall not amend its limited partnership agreement;
(iii) Shall not (A) except pursuant to the exercise of options,
warrants, conversion rights and other contractual rights existing on the
date hereof and disclosed pursuant to this Agreement, issue any Units or
other interests in Net 1, make any distribution (other than in accordance
with past practice), effect any recapitalization or other similar
transaction, or (B) grant, confer or award any option, warrant, conversion
right or other right not existing on the date hereof to acquire any Units;
(iv) Shall not sell or otherwise dispose of (A) any Net 1 Properties,
or (B) except in the ordinary course of business, any of its other assets
which are material, individually or in the aggregate, provided, however, it
is understood and agreed that Net 1 shall distribute out any excess cash,
after payment of Net 1 Transaction Costs, prior to consummation of the
Merger;
(v) Shall not make any loans, advances or capital contributions to,
or investments in, any other person;
(vi) Shall not enter into any commitment which individually may
result in total payments or liability by or to it in excess of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) in the case of any one commitment or in excess of
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for all commitments;
(vii) Shall not enter into or terminate any lease.
(c) Prior to the Effective Time, except as may be set forth in Schedule
4.6(c), unless Net 1 has consented (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld
or delayed) in writing thereto, Lexington:
(i) Shall, and shall cause each of its Subsidiaries to, conduct its
operations according to their usual, regular and ordinary course in
substantially the same manner as heretofore conducted;
(ii) Shall not amend it Declaration of Trust except as contemplated
by this Agreement;
18
233
(iii) Shall not (A) except pursuant to the exercise of options,
warrants, conversion rights and other contractual rights (including
Lexington's existing dividend reinvestment plan) existing on the date
hereof and disclosed pursuant to this Agreement, issue any of its capital
shares, share dividend, recapitalization or other similar transaction, or
(B) grant, confer or award any option, warrant, conversion right to or
other right not existing on the date hereof to acquire any of its capital
shares (except pursuant to any employee incentive plan approved by
shareholders),
(iv) Except as set forth in Schedule 4.6(c), shall not, and shall not
permit any of its Subsidiaries to, sell or otherwise dispose of any
Lexington Properties or any of its capital stock of or other interests in
Subsidiaries, except in the ordinary course of business;
(v) Shall not, and shall not permit any of its Subsidiaries to
(except in the ordinary course of business), make any loans, advances or
capital contributions to, or investments in, any other person other than in
connection with the sale of properties;
(vi) Shall not, and shall not permit any of its Subsidiaries to,
enter into any commitment which individually may result in total payments
or liability by or to it in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars
($100,000.00) in the case of any one commitment or in excess of One Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($100.000.00) for all commitments, except for those
commitments in connection with the acquisition and/or development of
property disclosed in Schedule 3.1(v);
(vii) Shall not enter or terminate any lease.
SECTION 4.7 Approvals of Shareholder and Limited Partners. Lexington will
take all action necessary in accordance with applicable law and its
organizational documents to convene a meeting of its shareholders as promptly as
practicable to consider and vote upon or otherwise to obtain the consent of its
shareholders to approve this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby.
Net 1 will take all action necessary in accordance with applicable law and its
organizational documents to obtain the consent of its limited partners to
approve this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby. The Board and
the Net 1 GP shall each recommend such approval and Lexington and Net 1 shall
each take all lawful action to solicit such approval, including, without
limitation, timely mailing the Proxy Statement; provided, however, that such
recommendation or solicitation is subject to any action taken by, or upon
authority of, the Board and Net 1 GP, as the case may be, in the exercise of its
good faith judgment as to its fiduciary duties to its shareholders or partners,
as applicable, imposed by law as advised by counsel.
SECTION 4.8 Inspection of Records. From the date hereof to the Effective
Time, Net 1 and Lexington shall allow all designated officers, attorneys,
accountants and other representatives of the other access at all reasonable
times to the records and files, correspondence, audits and properties, as well
as to all information relating to commitments, contracts, titles and financial
position, or otherwise pertaining to the business and affairs of Net 1 and
Lexington and their respective subsidiaries.
SECTION 4.9 Regulatory Filings. Lexington, Net 3 and Net 1 shall
cooperate and promptly prepare and Lexington shall file with the SEC under the
Securities, as soon as practicable a Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the
"Registration Statement"), which will include a Joint Proxy and Consent
Solicitation Statement/Prospectus in connection with the Merger (the "Proxy
Statement"). The respective parties will cause the Registration Statement and
the Proxy Statement to comply as to form in all material respects with the
applicable provisions of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder. Lexington and Net 1 shall use reasonable
best efforts, and each will cooperate with the other, to have the Registration
Statement declared effective by the SEC as promptly as practicable. Lexington
and Net 1 shall use their respective best efforts to obtain, prior to the
effectiveness of the Registration Statement, any necessary state securities law
or "Blue Sky" permits or approvals required to carry out the transactions
contemplated by this Agreement. Lexington and Net 1 both agree that, with
respect to information within the scope of their knowledge, the Registration
Statement and the Proxy Statement and each amendment or supplement thereto, at
the time it is filed or becomes effective, will not include an untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated
therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; provided, however,
that the
19
234
foregoing shall not apply to the extent that any such untrue statement of a
material fact or omission to state a material fact was made by either Lexington
or Net 1 in reliance upon and in conformity with written information concerning
the other party furnished to by such other party specifically for use in the
Registration Statement. Lexington and Net 1 both agree that the written
information provided by them specifically for inclusion in the Registration
Statement and each amendment or supplement thereto, at the time it is filed or
becomes effective, will not include an untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make
the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were
made, not misleading. Lexington will advise Net 1, promptly after it receives
notice thereof, of the time when the Registration Statement may be filed or any
supplement or amendment has been filed or when the Registration Statement will
become effective, the issuance of any stop order, the suspension of the
qualification of the Merger Consideration issuable in connection with the Merger
for offering or sale in any jurisdiction, or any request by the SEC for
amendment of the Proxy Statement or comments thereon and responses thereto or
requests by the SEC for additional information.
SECTION 4.10 Expenses. Net 1 shall pay all of the Net 1 Transaction Costs
and Lexington shall pay all of the Lexington Transaction Costs.
SECTION 4.11 REIT Status. From and after the date and until the Effective
Time, neither Lexington, Net 3 not Net 1 nor any of their respective
subsidiaries or other affiliates shall (a) knowingly take any action, or
knowingly fail to take any action, that would jeopardize qualification of
Lexington as a REIT within the meaning of Sections 856 through 859 of the Code;
or (b) enter into any contract, agreement, commitment or arrangement with
respect to the foregoing.
SECTION 4.12 Appraisals. The parties acknowledge that Net 1 is obligated
to obtain an appraisal of the Net 1 Properties in accordance with the Net 1
partnership agreement. Net 1 agrees to engage Robert A. Stanger & Company to
conduct such appraisal as of December 31, 2000 and to furnish such appraisal to
Lexington and Net 3 as soon as practicable after December 31, 2000.
SECTION 4.13 Termination Fees. Net 1 shall pay a termination fee to
Lexington equal to 4% of the aggregate value of the Merger Consideration to be
received by the holders of Units if this Agreement is terminated in any of the
following circumstances: (a) the Net 1 GP accepts, solicits or recommends, a
Superior Proposal (b) the Net 1 GP withdraws or adversely modifies its
recommendation of the Merger; (c) the Net 1 GP makes any positive or neutral
recommendation regarding any Superior Proposal; (d) Net 1 enters into any
agreement which would result in a Superior Proposal occurring; or (e) the Net 1
GP authorizes any of the above. Lexington shall pay a termination fee to Net 1
equal to 4% of the aggregate value of the Merger Consideration to be received by
the holders of Units if this Agreement is terminated in any of the following
circumstances: (a) Lexington accepts a proposal for an Alternative Acquisition
Transaction; (b) the Board withdraws or adversely modifies its recommendation of
the Merger; (c) the Board makes any positive or neutral recommendation regarding
any proposal for an Alternative Acquisition Transaction; (d) Lexington enters
into any agreement which would result in an Alternative Acquisition Transaction
occurring; or (e) the Board authorizes any of the above. An "Alternative
Acquisition Transaction" is any merger, amalgamation, take-over bid,
reorganization, sale of substantial assets, sale of Common Shares (including,
without limitation, by way of a tender offer) or similar transaction involving
Lexington and its Subsidiaries with any party other than Net 1 and its
subsidiaries which would prevent Lexington from consummating the Merger with Net
1.
ARTICLE V
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
SECTION 5.1 Conditions to Each Party's Obligation to Effect the
Merger. The respective obligation of each party to effect the Merger is subject
to the satisfaction or written waiver on or prior to the Closing Date of the
following conditions:
(a) Limited Partner and Shareholder Approval. This Agreement, and
the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, including the
Merger and the issuance of the Merger Consideration
20
235
shall have been duly adopted and approved by the requisite vote of the
holders of Units and Lexington shareholders.
(b) Dissenters Debentures. Subject to waiver by Lexington, the
absence of holders of Units and holders of limited partnership interests in
Net 2 electing to receive Dissenter Debentures with an aggregate principal
amount in excess of $20 million.
(c) Concurrent Closings. The closing of the Net 2 Merger, the Net 1
GP Contribution, and the Net 2 GP Contribution shall occur concurrently
with the Closing hereunder.
(d) No Injunctions or Restraints. No statute, rule, regulation,
temporary restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or other
order issued by any court of competent jurisdiction or other legal
restraint or prohibition preventing the consummation of the Merger shall be
in effect; provided, however, that the party invoking this condition shall
use its best efforts to have any such temporary restraining order,
injunction, order, restraint or prohibition vacated.
(e) Governmental and Regulatory Consents. All material filings
required to be made prior to the Effective Time with, and all material
consents, approvals, permits and authorizations required to be obtained
prior to the Effective Time from, Governmental Entities, in connection with
the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the consummation of the
transactions contemplated hereby by Net 1 and Lexington will have been made
or obtained (as the case may be).
(f) Exchange Listing. The Common Shares issuable pursuant to the
Merger shall have been approved for listing on the New York Stock Exchange.
(g) Registration Statement. The Registration Statement shall be
effective under the Securities Act, no stop orders suspending the
effectiveness of the Registration Statement shall have been issued, no
action, suit, proceeding or investigation by the Securities and Exchange
Commission to suspend the effectiveness thereof shall have been initiated
and be continuing, and all necessary approvals under state securities laws,
or the Securities Act or the Exchange Act relating to the issuance or
trading of the Common Shares issuable pursuant to the Merger shall have
been received.
(h) Tax Opinion. The receipt by each of Lexington and Net 1 of an
opinion from Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, in form reasonably
satisfactory to Net 1 and to Lexington as to various tax consequences of
the Merger to the holders of Units and certain "REIT" matters including the
continuing status of Lexington as a REIT following completion of the
Merger.
SECTION 5.2 Conditions to Obligations of Net 1. The obligations of Net 1
to effect the Merger are further subject to the satisfaction or written waiver
on or prior to the Closing Date of the following conditions:
(a) Representations and Warranties. The representations and
warranties of Lexington and Net 3 set forth in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 that
are qualified as to materiality or Lexington Material Adverse Effect shall
be true and correct and the representations and warranties of Lexington and
Net 3 set forth in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 that are not so qualified shall be
true and correct in all material respects, in each case as of the date of
this Agreement and as of the Closing Date as though made on and as of the
Closing Date, except to the extent such representations and warranties
speak as of an earlier date. In addition, all such representations and
warranties shall be true and correct as of the date hereof and as though
made on and as of the Closing Date, except to the extent such
representation or warranty speaks of an earlier date (without regard to any
qualifications for materiality or Lexington Material Adverse Effect) except
to the extent that any such failure to be true and correct (other than any
such failure the effect of which is immaterial) individually and in the
aggregate with all such other failures would not have a Lexington Material
Adverse Effect, and Net 1 shall have received a certificate signed on
behalf of Lexington by an authorized officer of Lexington to the effect set
forth in this paragraph.
(b) Performance of Obligations of Lexington and Net 3. Lexington and
Net 3 shall have performed in all material respects all obligations
required to be performed by them under this Agreement at or prior to the
Closing Date, and Net 1 shall have received a certificate signed on behalf
of Lexington
21
236
by an authorized officer of Lexington to such effect and a certificate
signed on behalf of Net 3 by its general partner to such effect.
(c) No Material Adverse Effect. From and after the date of this
Agreement, there shall not have been any changes or events which,
individually or in the aggregate, have had or reasonably would be expected
to have a Lexington Material Adverse Effect.
(d) Consents. All consents of third parties set forth in Schedule
5.2(d) shall have been obtained.
(e) Bring-down of Fairness Opinion. Net 1 shall have received a
bring-down of its Fairness Opinion dated as of or immediately prior to the
date of mailing of the Proxy Statement to holders of Units.
SECTION 5.3 Conditions to Obligations of Lexington and Net 3. The
obligation of Lexington and Net 3 to effect the Merger is further subject to the
satisfaction or written waiver on or prior to the Closing Date of the following
conditions:
(a) Representations and Warranties. The representations and
warranties of Net 1 and the Net 1 GP set forth in Sections 3.3 that are
qualified as to materiality or Net 1 Material Adverse Effect shall be true
and correct and the representations and warranties of Net 1 and the Net 1
GP set forth in Sections 3.3 that are not so qualified shall be true and
correct in all material respects, in each case as of the date of this
Agreement and as of the Closing Date as though made on and as of the
Closing Date. In addition, all such representations and warranties shall be
true and correct as of the date hereof and as though made on and as of the
Closing Date, except to the extent such representation or warranty speaks
of an earlier date (without regard to any qualifications for materiality or
Net 1 Material Adverse Effect) except to the extent that any such failure
to be true and correct (other than any such failure the effect of which is
immaterial) individually and in the aggregate with all such other failures
would not have a Net 1 Material Adverse Effect, and Lexington and Net 3
shall have received a certificate signed on behalf of Net 1 by the Net 1 GP
to the effect set forth in this paragraph.
(b) Performance of Obligations of Net 1 and the Net 1 GP. Net 1 and
the Net 1 GP shall have performed in all material respects all obligations
required to be performed by them under this Agreement at or prior to the
Closing Date, and Lexington and Net 3 shall have received a certificate
signed on behalf of Net 1 by the Net 1 GP to such effect.
(c) No Material Adverse Effect. From and after the date of this
Agreement, there shall not have been any changes or events which,
individually or in the aggregate, have had or reasonably would be expected
to have a Net 1 Material Adverse Effect.
(d) Consents. All consents of third parties set forth in Schedule
5.3(d) shall have been obtained.
(e) Amendment of Net 1's Limited Partnership Agreement. Immediately
prior to the Effective Time, Net 1 shall have amended its limited
partnership agreement to the extent required to permit the Merger and other
transactions contemplated by this Agreement to be consummated.
(f) Bring-down of Fairness Opinion. Lexington shall have received a
bring-down of its Fairness Opinion dated as of or immediately prior to the
date of mailing of the Proxy Statement to holders of its Common Shares.
SECTION 5.4 Frustration of Closing Conditions. None of Lexington, Net 3
nor Net 1 may rely on the failure of any condition set forth in Section 5.1, 5.2
or 5.3, as the case may be, to be satisfied if such failure was caused by such
party's failure to use reasonable best efforts to commence or complete the
Merger and the other transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
22
237
ARTICLE VI
TERMINATION, AMENDMENT AND WAIVER
SECTION 6.1 Termination. This Agreement may be terminated and the
transactions contemplated hereby may be abandoned at any time prior to the
Effective Time, in any one of the following circumstances:
(a) By Lexington or Net 1 if the Merger has not been completed by
December 31, 2001. However, no party may terminate this Agreement if its
breach is the reason that the Merger has not been completed.
(b) By Lexington or Net 1 if a law or final court order prohibits the
Merger.
(c) By Lexington or Net 1 if the December 31, 2000 Appraisal Value is
greater than one hundred and five percent (105%) or less than ninety-five
percent (95%) of the Deemed Value.
(d) By Lexington or Net 1 if the requisite holders of the Units vote
not to approve the Merger.
(e) By Lexington or Net 1 if the requisite equity holders of
Lexington shares do not approve the Merger.
(f) By Lexington or Net 1, if (x) any statute, rule or regulation
shall have been promulgated by any Governmental Entity prohibiting or
restricting the Merger or (y) any federal or state court of competent
jurisdiction or other Governmental Entity shall have issued an order,
decree or ruling, or taken any other action permanently restraining,
enjoining or otherwise prohibiting the Merger and such order, decree,
ruling or other action shall have become final and non-appealable;
provided, that a party may not terminate this Agreement pursuant to this
clause (f) if it has not complied with its obligations under Section 4.3.
(g) By Lexington or Net 1, if (A) the other party shall have failed
to comply in any material respect with any of the covenants and agreements
(or in any respect with regard to covenants and agreements qualified by
materiality) contained in this Agreement to be complied with or performed
by such party at or prior to such date of termination, and such failure
continues for thirty (30) Business Days after the actual receipt by such
party of a written notice from the other party setting forth in detail the
nature of such failure, or (B) a representation or warranty of the other
party contained in this Agreement shall be untrue in any material respect
or a representation or warranty qualified as to materiality or Material
Adverse Effect, as the case may be, shall be untrue in any respect.
(h) By Net 1, if any of the conditions set forth in Section 5.2 shall
have become incapable of being fulfilled and shall not have been waived by
Net 1, or by Lexington and Net 3 if any of the conditions set forth in
Section 5.3 shall have become incapable of being fulfilled and shall not
have been waived by Lexington.
(i) By Lexington or Net 3, if the Net 1 GP shall have (a) withdrawn
or modified, in accordance with Section 4.7, in any manner adverse to
Lexington or Net 3, its approval or recommendation of the Merger or this
Agreement or (b) entered into, approved or recommended, a Superior
Proposal.
(j) By Net 1, if Lexington shall have (a) withdrawn or modified, in
accordance with Section 4.7, in any manner adverse to Net 1, its approval
or recommendation of the Merger or this Agreement or (b) entered into,
approved or recommended an Alternative Acquisition Transaction.
SECTION 6.2 Effect of Termination. In the event of the termination and
abandonment of this Agreement pursuant to Section 6.1, this Agreement (except
for the provisions of Sections 4.13 (with respect to a termination pursuant to
Section 6.1 (i) or (j)), this Section 6.2 and Article VII) shall forthwith
become void and have no effect, without any liability on the part of any party
hereto or its trustees, officers or shareholders; provided, however, that
nothing in this Section 6.2 shall relieve any party to this Agreement of
liability for any willful or intentional breach of this Agreement.
SECTION 6.3 Amendment. To the extent permitted by law, this Agreement may
be amended by a subsequent writing signed by each of the parties upon the
approval of the Net 1 GP and the Board, whether
23
238
before or after Net 1 Limited partner's or the Lexington shareholders' approval
of this Agreement has been obtained; provided, that after any such approval by
the Net 1 limited partners or the Lexington shareholders, as the case may be,
there shall be made no amendment that requires further approval by such limited
partners or shareholders without the further approval of such limited partners
or shareholders.
SECTION 6.4 Extension; Waiver. At any time prior to the Effective Time,
the parties may (a) extend the time for the performance of any of the
obligations or other acts of the other parties, (b) waive any inaccuracies in
the representations and warranties of the other parties contained in this
Agreement or in any document delivered pursuant to this Agreement or (c) subject
to Section 6.3, waive compliance with any of the agreements or conditions of the
other parties contained in this Agreement. Any agreement on the part of a party
to any such extension or waiver shall be valid only if set forth in an
instrument in writing signed on behalf of such party. The failure of any party
to this Agreement to assert any of its rights under this Agreement or otherwise
shall not constitute a waiver of such rights.
ARTICLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 7.1 Nonsurvival of Representations and Warranties. None of the
representations and warranties in this Agreement or in any instrument delivered
pursuant to this Agreement shall survive the Effective Time. This Section 7.1
shall not limit any covenant or agreement of the parties which by its terms
contemplates performance after the Effective Time.
SECTION 7.2 Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement of the following
terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) "Acquisition Proposal" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 4.5 of this Agreement.
(b) "Adjusted Net Asset Value" means Twenty Five Million Two Hundred
Forty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,245,000.00), which represents 99% of (1)
the Deemed Value less (2) Net 1's liabilities, determined in accordance
with GAAP, consistently applied, and (3) Net 1 Liquidation Costs.
(c) "Agreement" shall have the meaning set forth in the preamble to
this Agreement.
(d) "Aggregate Transaction Costs" means the total costs associated
with consummating the Mergers, but excluding the fees and expenses of
Prudential Securities Incorporated and the fees and expenses of Cohen &
Steers Capital Advisors LLC.
(e) "Alternative Acquisition Transaction" shall have the meaning set
forth in Section 4.13 of this Agreement.
(f) "Average Closing Price" means the average closing price on the
New York Stock Exchange of the Common Shares for the 20-day period
preceding, but not including, the Closing Date; provided, however, that the
Average Closing Price shall not exceed $13.00 per Common Share, nor be less
than $11.00 per Common Share.
(g) "Board" shall have the meaning set forth in the recitals to this
Agreement.
(h) "Business Day" means any day other than Saturday, Sunday or any
other day on which banks in the City of New York are required or permitted
to close.
(i) "Closing" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.2 of this
Agreement.
(j) "Closing Date" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.2 of
this Agreement.
(k) "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
(1) "Common Share" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.1(a)
of this Agreement.
(m) "Convertible Subordinated Debentures" shall have the meaning set
forth in Section 2.1(a) of this Agreement.
24
239
(n) "December 31, 2000 Appraisal Value" means the value of the Net
1's properties as established by the December 31, 2000 appraisals to be
conducted by Robert A. Stanger & Company.
(o) "Deemed Value" means Forty Six Million Seven Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($46,750,000.00), representing the value of the Net 1
Properties as agreed upon by the parties.
(p) "Dissenter Debentures" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 2.1(c) of this Agreement.
(p) "DRUPLA" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.1 of this
Agreement.
(q) "Effective Time" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.3
of this Agreement.
(r) "Encumbrances" means liens, mortgages, deeds of trust, claims
against title, charges which are liens or security interests.
(s) "Exchange Act" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.1(e)
of this Agreement.
(t) "Exchange Agent" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.3
of this Agreement.
(u) "Exchange Fund" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.3
of this Agreement.
(v) "GAAP" means generally accepted accounting principles, as in
effect in the United States.
(w) "Governmental Entity" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
3.1(e) of this Agreement.
(x) "Hazardous Materials" means any hazardous substance, hazardous
materials, toxic substances or waste materials.
(y) "IRS" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.3(k) of this
Agreement.
(z) "Joint Venture" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
3.3(o) of this Agreement.
(aa) "Lexington" shall have the meaning set forth in the preamble to
this Agreement.
(bb) "Lexington Ancillary Agreements" shall have the meaning set
forth in Section 3.1(b) of this Agreement.
(cc) "Lexington Material Adverse Effect" shall have the meaning set
forth in Section 3.1(a) of this Agreement.
(dd) "Lexington Properties" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 3.1(n)(i) of this Agreement.
(ee) "Lexington Registration Statements" shall have the meaning set
forth in Section 3.1(i)(i) of this Agreement.
(ff) "Lexington Reports" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
3.1(i)(i) of this Agreement.
(gg) "Lexington Transaction Costs" shall mean one-third of the
Aggregate Transaction Costs plus all of the fees and expenses of Prudential
Securities Incorporated.
(hh) "Merger" shall have the meaning set forth in the recitals to
this Agreement.
(ii) "Mergers" means, collectively, the Merger and the Net 2 Merger.
(jj) "Merger Consideration" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 2.1 of this Agreement.
(kk) "MGCL" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.1 of this
Agreement.
(ll) "Net 1" shall have the meaning set forth in the preamble to this
Agreement.
(mm) "Net 1 Contribution Agreement" shall have the meaning set forth
in the preamble to this Agreement.
(nn) "Net 1 GP" shall have the meaning set forth in the recitals to
this Agreement.
25
240
(oo) "Net 1 Material Adverse Effect" shall have the meaning set forth
in Section 3.3(a) of this Agreement.
(pp) "Net 1 Properties" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
3.3(m)(i) of this Agreement.
(qq) "Net 1 Liquidation Costs" means One Million Eight Hundred
Fifteen Million ($1,815,000.00), which represents the expected costs of
liquidating the real properties of Net l and related costs and expenses of
winding up the affairs Net 1 in order to effectuate a distribution of all
proceeds from such liquidation to the partners of Net 1.
(rr) "Net 1 Transaction Costs" shall mean one-third of the Aggregate
Transaction Costs plus one-half of the fees and expenses of Cohen & Steers
Capital Advisors LLC attributable to services rendered to Net 1 pursuant to
an engagement letter, dated July 6, 2000, by and between Net 1, Net 2 and
Cohen & Steers Capital Advisors LLC.
(ss) "Net 2" shall have the meaning set forth in the preamble to this
Agreement.
(tt) "Net 2 Merger" means the merger contemplated by the Net 2 Merger
Agreement.
(uu) "Net 2 Merger Agreement" means the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated the date hereof among Lexington, Net 3 and Net 2.
(vv) "Net 3" shall have the meaning set forth in the preamble to this
Agreement.
(ww) "Per Unit Adjusted Net Value" means the amount obtained by
dividing (1) the Adjusted Net Asset Value by (2) the total number of Units.
(xx) "Property Restrictions" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 3.1(n) of this Agreement.
(yy) "Proxy Statement" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
4.9 of this Agreement.
(zz) "Registration Statement" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 4.9 of this Agreement.
(aaa) "Regulatory Filings" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 3.1(e) of this Agreement.
(bbb) "Securities Act" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
3.1(e) of this Agreement.
(ccc) "subsidiary" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
3.3(o)(a) of this Agreement.
(ddd) "Subsidiaries" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
3.1(a) of this Agreement.
(eee) "Superior Proposal" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
4.5 of this Agreement.
(fff) "Surviving Entity" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
1.1 of this Agreement.
(ggg) "Transfer Document" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
2.3 of this Agreement.
(hhh) "Transmittal Letter" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 2.3 of this Agreement.
(iii) "Units" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.1 of this
Agreement.
26
241
SECTION 7.3 Notices. All notices, requests, claims, demands and other
communications under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed
given if delivered personally or sent by overnight courier (providing proof of
delivery) to the parties at the following addresses (or at such other address
for a party as shall be specified by like notice):
(i) if to Lexington, to
Lexington Corporate Properties Trust
355 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Attention: T. Wilson Eglin
Telecopy: (212) 986-6972
with a copy (which shall not constitute notice) to:
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
399 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Attention: Mark Schonberger, Esq.
Telecopy: (212) 319-4090
(ii) if to Net 3, to
c/o Lexington Corporate Properties Trust
355 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Attention: Patrick Carroll
Telecopy: (212) 986-6972
with a copy (which shall not constitute notice) to:
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
399 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Attention: Mark Schonberger, Esq.
Telecopy: (212) 319-4090
(iii) if to Net 1, to
c/o Lepercq Net 1 L.P.
355 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Attention: E. Robert Roskind
Telecopy: (212) 986-6972
with a copy (which shall not constitute notice) to:
Solomon, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Frishcer & Sharp
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10111
Telecopy: (212) 956-3700
SECTION 7.4 Interpretation. When a reference is made in this Agreement to
a Section or Schedule, such reference shall be to a Section of, or a Schedule
to, this Agreement unless otherwise indicated. The table of contents and
headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall
not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. Whenever
the words "include", "includes" or "including" are used in this Agreement, they
shall be deemed to be followed by the words "without limitation".
27
242
SECTION 7.5 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more
counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and
shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of
the parties and delivered to the other parties.
SECTION 7.6 Entire Agreement; Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement
constitutes the entire agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements and
understandings, both written and oral, among the parties with respect to the
subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement is not intended to confer upon
any person other than the parties hereto and the third party beneficiaries
referred to in the following sentence, any rights or remedies.
SECTION 7.7 GOVERNING LAW. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND
CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REGARDLESS OF
THE LAWS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE GOVERN UNDER APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF CONFLICTS OF
LAWS THEREOF.
SECTION 7.8 Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights,
interests or obligations under this Agreement shall be assigned, in whole or in
part, by operation of law or otherwise by any of the parties without the prior
written consent of the other parties, and any such assignment that is not
consented to shall be null and void. Subject to the preceding sentence, this
Agreement will be binding upon, inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by,
the parties and their respective successors and assigns.
SECTION 7.9 Enforcement. The parties agree that irreparable damage would
occur in the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement were not
performed in accordance with their specific terms or were otherwise breached. It
is accordingly agreed that the parties shall be entitled to an injunction or
injunctions to prevent breaches of this Agreement and to enforce specifically
the terms and provisions of this Agreement in any federal or state court located
in the State of New York, County of New York, this being in addition to any
other remedy to which they are entitled at law or in equity.
SECTION 7.10 Severability. Whenever possible, each provision or portion
of any provision of this Agreement will be interpreted in such manner as to be
effective and valid under applicable law but if any provision or portion of any
provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in
any respect under any applicable law or rule in any jurisdiction, so long as the
economic or legal substance of the transactions contemplated hereby is not
affected in any manner materially adverse to any party, such invalidity,
illegality or unenforceability will not affect any other provision or portion of
any provision in such jurisdiction, and this Agreement will be reformed,
construed and enforced in such jurisdiction as if such invalid, illegal or
unenforceable provision or portion of any provision had never been contained
herein.
[signature page follows]
28
243
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lexington, Net 3, and Net 1 have caused this Agreement
to be signed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, all as of
the date first written above.
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
By: /s/ T. WILSON EGLIN
------------------------------------
Name: T. Wilson Eglin
Title: President
NET 3 ACQUISITION L.P.
By: Lex GP-1, Inc., its general
partner
By: /s/ PATRICK CARROLL
------------------------------------
Name: Patrick Carroll
Title: Vice President
NET 1 L.P.
By: Lepercq Net 1 L.P., its general
partner
By: Lepercq Net 1 Inc., its general
partner
By: /s/ E. ROBERT ROSKIND
------------------------------------
Name: E. Robert Roskind
Title: President
[SIGNATURE PAGE TO LEXINGTON NET 1 MERGER AGREEMENT]
244
EXHIBIT A
TERMS OF CONVERTIBLE SUBORDINATED DEBENTURES
AND DISSENTER DEBENTURES
A-1
245
TERMS OF THE CONVERTIBLE SUBORDINATED DEBENTURES
Principal Amount.............. Up to $64.35 million. The exact amount of the
Convertible Subordinated Debentures to be
issued will be determined at the closing of the
Transaction based upon the number of Units held
by limited partners who elect to receive
Dissenter Debentures and the number of limited
partners who elect to receive a greater
proportion of their merger consideration in
Convertible Subordinated Debentures.
Interest...................... 8.5% per annum on a day-to-day basis based upon
a 365-day year and actual days elapsed from the
closing of the Transaction and will be paid
semi-annually in cash in arrears.
Repayment of Principal........ Due in one installment at maturity on
, 2009.
Seniority..................... Expressly subordinated in right and priority of
payment to the Dissenter Debentures, all
institutional indebtedness of Lexington
outstanding on the closing of the Transaction
and any other indebtedness of Lexington issued
in the future which is not by its terms
expressly subordinated to the Convertible
Subordinated Debentures. The Convertible
Subordinated Debentures are senior in right and
priority of payment to Lexington's existing
Class A Senior Cumulative Convertible Preferred
Shares and to all other classes of Lexington's
capital shares currently authorized or
authorized in the future.
Prepayment.................... No prepayment or redemption, in whole or in
part, prior to the fifth anniversary of
issuance. Following the fifth anniversary of
issuance and in the event that the Common
Shares trade at a price above $14.00 per share
for a period of thirty consecutive calendar
days, Lexington may repay or redeem, at any
time thereafter in cash or in Common Shares,
the Convertible Subordinated Debentures in
whole (but not in part). The $14.00 price is
subject to anti-dilution adjustments for stock
splits, stock dividends, other securities
dividends, reclassifications, exchanges,
substitutions, reorganizations, mergers and
consolidations.
Conversion.................... Subject to prepayment by Lexington, holders may
convert all or a portion of their Convertible
Subordinated Debentures commencing on the
fourth anniversary of the closing of the
Transaction into such number of Common Shares
as is obtained by dividing the aggregate
principal amount of all Convertible
Subordinated Debentures being converted by the
conversion price of $14.00 per share, subject
to anti-dilution adjustments for stock splits,
stock dividends, other securities dividends,
reclassifications, exchanges, substitutions,
reorganizations, mergers and consolidations.
Remedies...................... If an event of default occurs and is
continuing, holders of Convertible Subordinated
Debentures will have the following remedies:
(a) the rate of interest on the Convertible
Subordinated Debentures will increase to 10%,
provided that if such event of default is cured
or waived, the rate of interest will be reduced
from the date of such cure or waiver, to 8.5%,
(b) automatic acceleration with respect to
bankruptcy defaults, and (c) acceleration upon
vote by majority of holders upon non-bankruptcy
defaults.
A-2
246
TERMS OF THE DISSENTER DEBENTURES
Principal Amount.............. Up to $20 million, subject to waiver by
Lexington. The exact principal amount of the
Dissenter Debentures will be determined at the
closing of the Transaction based upon the
number of Units held by limited partners who
elect to receive Dissenter Debentures and will
be subject to the waiver by Lexington of the
limit on the amount of Dissenters Debentures to
be issued.
Interest...................... 8.5% per annum, on a day-to-day basis (based on
a 365-day year and actual days elapsed) from
the closing of the Transaction and will be paid
semi-annually in cash in arrears.
Repayment of Principal........ Principal on the Dissenters Debentures is due
in one installment on , 2009,
provided, however, that 80% of the net proceeds
of any taxable sale or refinancing of the
assets previously owned by either Net
Partnership, as applicable, will be used to
prepay the Dissenter Debentures.
Prepayment.................... Prepayable in whole or in part at any time.
Seniority..................... Senior to the Convertible Subordinated
Debentures and expressly subordinated in right
and priority of payment to all institutional
indebtedness of Lexington outstanding on the
closing of the Transaction and any other
indebtedness of Lexington issued in the future
which is not, by its terms, expressly
subordinated to the Dissenter Debentures. The
Dissenter Debentures are also senior in right
and priority of payment to Lexington's existing
Class A Senior Cumulative Convertible Preferred
Shares and to all other classes of Lexington's
capital shares currently authorized or
authorized in the future.
Remedies...................... Same as for the Convertible Subordinated
Debentures.
A-3
247
ANNEX A-2
MERGER AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT BETWEEN LEXINGTON, NET 3 AND NET 2
248
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER
BY AND AMONG
LEXINGTON CORPORATE PROPERTIES TRUST
NET 3 ACQUISITION L.P.
AND
NET 2 L.P.
This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER (this "Amendment") is
entered into as of July 19, 2001, by and between Lexington Corporate Properties
Trust, a Maryland statutory real estate investment trust ("Lexington"), Net 3
Acquisition L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Net 3"), and Net 2 L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership ("Net 2"). The parties to this Amendment are
collectively referred to as the "Parties."
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of November 13, 2000 (the "Agreement");
WHEREAS, the Parties desire, and have agreed, subject to the terms and
conditions set forth herein, to amend the Agreement in the manner set forth in
this Amendment to reflect, among others, the following changes: (i) to
substitute cash for the portion of the Merger Consideration otherwise payable in
Convertible Subordinated Debentures and (ii) to modify the "collar" reflected in
the Average Closing Price used to determine the number of Common Shares to be
issued to Net 2 from a range of $11 to $13 to a range of $14 to $16; and
WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall have the
meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as
follows:
AMENDMENTS
1. FIRST AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby amended to delete the present text
of the fourth recital thereto in its entirety, and to insert in its place the
following:
"WHEREAS, immediately prior to the Effective Time, the Net 2 GP will
contribute its general partnership interest in Net 2 to Net 3 as a
partnership contribution, pursuant to the terms and condition set forth in
the contribution agreement dated the date hereof by and between Net 3 and
Net 2 GP, as amended as of July 19, 2001 (the "Net 2 Contribution
Agreement");"
2. SECOND AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby amended to delete the phrase
"Convertible Subordinated Debentures" from Section 1.5 thereof, and to insert in
its place the phrase "Cash."
3. THIRD AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby amended to delete the present text
of Section 2.1 thereof in its entirety, and to insert in its place the
following:
"SECTION 2.1 Effect on Units. As of the Effective Time, by virtue of the
Merger and without any action on the part of the parties hereto or their
respective affiliates, the limited partnership interests of the limited partners
of Net 2 (the "Units") shall be converted into the consideration (the "Merger
Consideration"), determined as follows:
(a) Consideration. Except as provided in Section 2.1(b) or (c) each
Unit shall, in the Merger, be exchanged for the number of common shares of
Lexington, $0.0001 par value per share (the