Commitments and Contingencies
|6 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2019
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
Commitments and Contingencies
The Company carries comprehensive liability, fire, extended coverage, business interruption and rental loss insurance covering all of the properties in its portfolio under a blanket insurance policy, in addition to other coverages, such as trademark and pollution coverage that may be appropriate for certain of its properties. Additionally, the Company carries a directors’, officers’, entity and employment practices liability insurance policy that covers such claims made against the Company and its directors and officers. The Company believes the policy specifications and insured limits are appropriate and adequate for its properties given the relative risk of loss, the cost of the coverage and industry practice; however, its insurance coverage may not be sufficient to fully cover its losses.
Concentration of Credit Risk
The Company is subject to risks incidental to the ownership and operation of commercial real estate. These risks include, among others, the risks normally associated with changes in the general economic climate, trends in the retail industry, creditworthiness of tenants, competition for tenants and customers, changes in tax laws, interest rates, the availability of financing and potential liability under environmental and other laws.
The Company’s portfolio of properties is dependent upon regional and local economic conditions and is geographically concentrated in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast and Southwest, which markets represented approximately 4%, 36%, 59% and 1%, respectively, of the total annualized base rent of the properties in its portfolio as of June 30, 2019. The Company’s geographic concentration may cause it to be more susceptible to adverse developments in those markets than if it owned a more geographically diverse portfolio. Additionally, the Company’s retail shopping center properties depend on anchor stores or major tenants to attract shoppers and could be adversely affected by the loss of, or a store closure by, one or more of these tenants.
Regulatory and Environmental
As the owner of the buildings on our properties, the Company could face liability for the presence of hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos or lead) or other adverse conditions (e.g., poor indoor air quality) in its buildings. Environmental laws govern the presence, maintenance, and removal of hazardous materials in buildings, and if the Company does not comply with such laws, it could face fines for such noncompliance. Also, the Company could be liable to third parties (e.g., occupants of the buildings) for damages related to exposure to hazardous materials or adverse conditions in its buildings, and the Company could incur material expenses with respect to abatement or remediation of hazardous materials or other adverse conditions in its buildings. In addition, some of the Company’s tenants routinely handle and use hazardous or regulated substances and wastes as part of their operations at our properties, which are subject to regulation. Such environmental and health and safety laws and regulations could subject the Company or its tenants to liability resulting from these activities. Environmental liabilities could affect a tenant’s ability to make rental payments to the Company, and changes in laws could increase the potential liability for noncompliance. This may result in significant unanticipated expenditures or may otherwise materially and adversely affect the Company’s operations. The Company is not aware of any material contingent liabilities, regulatory matters or environmental matters that may exist.
The Company is involved in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of its business, including, but not limited to commercial disputes. The Company believes that such litigation, claims and administrative proceedings will not have a material adverse impact on its financial position or its results of operations. The Company records a liability when it considers the loss probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. In addition, the below legal proceedings are in process.
In May 2018, former Chief Executive Officer and President Jon S. Wheeler filed suit against the Company in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, asserting claims for breaches of his employment agreement with the Company and retaliatory termination. The Company is vigorously defending the claims set forth in the lawsuit. The non-jury trial of the lawsuit was scheduled for April 17-18, 2019, but was continued over the Company’s objections. The new trial date is December 17-18, 2019. At this juncture, the outcome of the matter cannot be predicted.
On or about June 28, 2018, JCP Investment Partnership, LP and JCP Investment Partnership II, Master Fund LP filed suit against the Company in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, alleging the Company failed to maintain the designated asset coverage ratio under the Articles Supplementary governing the issuance of the Company’s Series D Preferred Stock, and is therefore required to redeem those Preferred Shares at the price of $25.00 per share. The Company has filed an answer denying liability and, the parties are engaging in discovery. Trial has been scheduled for March 2-6, 2020. At this early juncture, the outcome of the matter cannot be predicted.
In September, 2018, former Chief Executive Officer and President Jon S. Wheeler filed claims for defamation and tortious interference with contract expectancy, prospective business relationships and economic advantage in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, asserting current CEO and President David Kelly defamed him in communications with an industry association. The Company’s D&O carrier has retained counsel for Mr. Kelly, who is vigorously defending the lawsuit, and has filed a counterclaim seeking approximately $150,000 in damages from Jon S. Wheeler. The parties are presently engaging in discovery. At this juncture, the outcome of the matter cannot be predicted.
In April 2019, BOKF (“Bank of Arkansas”) the lead lender for the Sea Turtle project in Hilton Head, South Carolina filed a suit against WD-I Associates, LLC and Jon Wheeler for default on BOKF’s two construction loans. BOKF seeks appointment of a Receiver to take over the financial management of the Project that WD-I was allegedly (mis)handling. That suit is presently stayed as to WD-I, pursuant to the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceeding it filed in Charleston, South Carolina. In the Beaufort action, BOKF has moved for a default judgment against Jon Wheeler, who personally guaranteed the two BOKF loans. The Company’s subsidiary, Wheeler Real Estate, LLC is named in the Beaufort suit solely in its position as the former property manager for WD-I Associates, to obtain financial information. No damages are sought from Wheeler Real Estate, LLC in the Beaufort action. The Company’s subsidiaries are creditors in the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.
Harbor Pointe Tax Increment Financing
On September 1, 2011, the Grove Economic Development Authority issued the Grove Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Revenue Note, Taxable Series 2011 in the amount of $2,415,000, bearing a variable interest rate of 2.29%, not to exceed 14% and payable in 50 semi-annual installments. The proceeds of the bonds were to provide funding for the construction of public infrastructure and other site improvements and to be repaid by incremental additional property taxes generated by development. Harbor Pointe Associates, LLC, then owned by an affiliate of Jon Wheeler, entered into an Economic Development Agreement with the Grove Economic Development Authority for this infrastructure development and in the event the ad valorem taxes were insufficient to cover annual debt service, Harbor Pointe Associates, LLC would reimburse the Grove Economic Development Authority (the “Agreement”). In 2014, Harbor Pointe Associates, LLC was acquired by the Company.
The total debt service shortfall over the life of the bond is uncertain as it is based on ad valorem taxes, assessed property values, property tax rates, LIBOR and future potential development ranging until 2036. The Company’s future total principal obligation under the Agreement will be no more than $2.26 million, the principal amount of the bonds, as of June 30, 2019. In addition, the Company may have an interest obligation on the note based on the principal balance and LIBOR rates in effect at future payment dates. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2019, the Company funded approximately $44 thousand in debt service shortfalls. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company funded approximately $5 thousand in debt service shortfalls. No amounts have been accrued for this as of June 30, 2019 as a reasonable estimate of future debt service shortfalls cannot be determined based on variables noted above.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef