XML 40 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.4

Commitments And Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | 9. Commitments and Contingencies General In the normal course of business, the Company guarantees its performance of services or indemnifies third parties against its negligence. In addition, in the normal course of business, the Company guarantees to certain tenants the obligations of the Company’s subsidiaries to complete construction of the building, to pay tenant improvement allowances and brokerage commissions in connection with their leases and limited costs arising from delays in delivery of their premises. The Company had letter of credit and performance obligations related to lender and development requirements that totaled approximately $23.2 million at December 31, 2025. Certain of the Company’s joint venture agreements include provisions whereby, at certain specified times, each partner has the right to initiate a purchase or sale of its interest in the joint venture. From time to time, under certain of the Company’s joint venture agreements, if certain return thresholds are achieved, one or more partners could be entitled to an additional promoted interest or payments. From time to time, the Company (or ventures in which the Company has an ownership interest) has agreed, and may in the future agree, to (1) guarantee portions of the principal, interest and other amounts in connection with their borrowings, (2) provide customary environmental indemnifications and nonrecourse carve-outs (e.g., guarantees against fraud, misrepresentation and bankruptcy) in connection with their borrowings and (3) provide guarantees to lenders, tenants and other third parties for the completion of development projects. The Company has agreements with its third-party joint venture partners whereby the partners agree to reimburse the joint venture for their share of any payments made under the guarantee. In some cases, the Company earns a fee from the applicable joint venture for providing the guarantee. In connection with the sale of Metropolitan Square, an approximately 657,000 square foot office building in Washington, DC in which the Company had a 20% equity interest, the Company agreed to become a co-lender of up to $20.0 million under a mezzanine loan. The mezzanine loan has a maximum principal amount of $100.0 million, and it is subordinate only to an existing senior loan. The mezzanine loan may be drawn upon for future lease-up, operating and other costs on an as-needed basis, and amounts borrowed will bear interest at a per annum rate of 12%, compounded monthly. As of December 31, 2025, the Company has funded approximately $9.4 million under the mezzanine loan. In connection with the Company’s joint venture at 3 Hudson Boulevard, the Company provided $80.0 million of mortgage financing to the joint venture, which was in maturity default from August 7, 2024 to October 17, 2025. On October 17, 2025, the joint venture refinanced the mortgage loan (See Note 6), which includes a mezzanine loan provided by the Company with a maximum commitment of $50.0 million that bears interest at a variable rate equal to Term SOFR plus 7.25% per annum. As of December 31, 2025, the Company had funded approximately $18.4 million of the mezzanine loan (See Note 16). Legal Matters The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. These matters are generally covered by insurance. Management believes that the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or liquidity of the Company. In addition, the Company is subject to the following legal proceedings: In connection with the acquisition of an office property in New York City in 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with the seller pursuant to which the seller could earn various fees (i.e., Fixed, Additional and Final Fees) based on the future leasing performance of the property. The Company initially accrued approximately $1.5 million as an estimate of the fees it would owe the seller. In 2020, the seller filed suit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, claiming that consideration significantly in excess of the initial reserve amount is owed under the agreement. The disagreement between the Company and the seller involves material issues of contract interpretation and, more importantly, the method of calculating fees, including various inputs (both facts and assumptions) that drive the calculations. On January 25, 2024, the New York Supreme Court granted in part the seller’s motion for summary judgment finding that the Company owes the seller an “Additional Fee” and a “Final Fee” under the terms of the parties’ purchase agreement. The court issued a follow-on order on February 8, 2024, confirming its earlier order that the seller is entitled to the fees described in the parties’ agreement. Other than the “Fixed Fee,” which the Company agreed to pay and for which it had established a reserve of approximately $2.2 million (including interest), the amount of the fees (if any) that are due to the seller has not been determined. On December 9, 2024, the court issued a judgment awarding the seller the Fixed Fee (including interest) of approximately $2.7 million and the Company paid this fee following the judgment. For the Additional Fee and Final Fee, the seller submitted a request for the appointment of a Special Referee on January 7, 2025. On February 18, 2025 a Special Referee was appointed to determine damages for the Additional and Final Fee. The parties held a five-day hearing with the Special Referee during July and August 2025 before filing opening and post-trial briefs in September and October 2025. The Special Referee held an additional hearing in December 2025 and indicated a ruling could be expected in the first quarter of 2026. Separately, the Company filed a notice of appeal on January 15, 2025 to preserve the Company’s ability to appeal the grant of summary judgment on the question of whether the Company is liable for payment of the Additional Fee and Final Fee. The First Department granted the Company’s request extending the time to perfect the appeal to September 2026. The Company disputes the seller’s calculations and intends to continue defending itself vigorously. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the lawsuit. If the court ultimately agrees with the seller’s calculations, then amounts due to the seller could theoretically be as high as the additional $25 million claimed in the seller’s revised complaint, plus interest. Although the Company disputes those calculations, there can be no assurance that the Company’s ultimate liability will not be material. On April 26, 2024, Brammer Bio MA, LLC (“Brammer”), a subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and an abutter to the Company’s 290 Binney Street development project located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, filed a complaint in Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts against the Company relating to certain ongoing construction activities. In the first quarter of 2023, the Company commenced development of 290 Binney Street, an approximately 573,000 net rentable square foot laboratory/life sciences property that is 100% pre-leased to AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals (“AstraZeneca”). The Company has a 55% interest in the joint venture that owns 290 Binney Street. Brammer subleases the premises at 250 Binney Street, the Company’s approximately 67,000 net rentable square foot life sciences property that is adjacent to 290 Binney Street. Brammer alleged that, as a result of the Company’s construction of 290 Binney Street, it is threatened with irreparable harm due to intrusion onto the 250 Binney Street premises and the loss of its property rights. Brammer also alleged that the 290 Binney Street development project has caused and is causing major disruption to its manufacturing operations, and that it has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of losses to its clients and customers. Brammer brought the action for quiet title, breach of contract, trespass and nuisance, and it is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and specific performance purportedly to protect its property interests in the premises located at 250 Binney Street. On May 16, 2024, Brammer’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied by the trial court. Brammer subsequently appealed that decision, electing pursuant to Massachusetts civil procedure rules to petition for appeals to both a single justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court and to a full appellate panel. On July 16, 2024, the single justice assigned to the appeal issued an order declining to rule on the substance of the appeal petition, deferring instead to the full appellate panel. On August 12, 2025, the clerk of the Massachusetts Appeals Court completed the procedural steps that were necessary in order for Brammer’s appeal to be heard before the full appellate panel. The parties are now proceeding through the briefing process, with a hearing likely to take place sometime in the first quarter of 2026. The remainder of the case continues to proceed in the trial court on the standard litigation timeline. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses against Brammer’s claims and intends to defend against them vigorously. However, there can be no assurance the Company will prevail in the litigation. If the Company is enjoined from further construction activities, it could suffer delays in construction that could result in its failure to deliver a completed building on the schedule contemplated by the Company’s lease with AstraZeneca or at all, and this could result in owing financial penalties to AstraZeneca and other third parties. Although the Company is unable to estimate a range of loss for all related matters for which losses are reasonably possible, if the court grants injunctive relief or awards monetary damages to Brammer, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and financial condition. The Company is a named defendant in an alleged collective and class action wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of certain individuals who provided off-duty, uniformed security services at the Company’s buildings in New York City pursuant to the New York Police Department’s Paid Detail Program. In addition to the Company, the plaintiffs also named as defendants more than ninety (90) other companies. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 23, 2025, and brought the claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the Freelance Isn’t Free Act. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a first amended complaint and a second amended complaint on February 13, 2025 and February 24, 2025, respectively. On December 15, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which seeks to add approximately eighty-five (85) new defendants to the lawsuit. Each of the complaints alleges that the plaintiffs were not paid certain wages owed to them or were not paid in a timely manner and that the plaintiffs did not receive certain wage payment notices required by law. The Company has not yet filed a responsive pleading and discovery has not yet commenced. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a range of loss for which losses are reasonably possible. Although the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to defend against them vigorously, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the lawsuit. Concentrations of Credit Risk Management of the Company performs ongoing credit evaluations of tenants and may require tenants to provide some form of credit support such as corporate guarantees, security deposits and/or other financial guarantees. Although the Company’s properties are geographically diverse and tenants operate in a variety of industries, to the extent the Company has a significant concentration of rental revenue from any single tenant, the inability of that tenant to make its lease payments could have an adverse effect on the Company. Insurance The Company’s property insurance program per occurrence limits are $1.0 billion for its portfolio insurance program, including coverage for acts of terrorism other than nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological terrorism (“Terrorism Coverage”). The Company also carries $1.35 billion of property insurance in excess of the $1.0 billion of coverage in the Company’s property insurance program for 601 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, consisting of $750 million of property and Terrorism Coverage in excess of the Company’s property insurance program and $600 million of Terrorism Coverage only in excess of the $1.75 billion of coverage. Certain properties, including the General Motors Building located at 767 Fifth Avenue in New York, New York (“767 Fifth Avenue”), are currently insured in separate insurance programs. The property insurance program per occurrence limits for 767 Fifth Avenue are $1.625 billion, including Terrorism Coverage. The Company also currently carries nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological terrorism insurance coverage for acts of terrorism certified under the Federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (as amended, “TRIA”) (“NBCR Coverage”), which is provided by IXP, LLC (“IXP”) as a direct insurer, for the properties in the Company’s portfolio, including 767 Fifth Avenue, but excluding certain other properties owned in joint ventures with third parties or which the Company manages. The per occurrence limit for NBCR Coverage is $1.0 billion. Under TRIA, after the payment of the required deductible and coinsurance, the NBCR Coverage provided by IXP is backstopped by the Federal Government if the aggregate industry insured losses resulting from a certified act of terrorism exceed a “program trigger.” The program trigger is $200 million, the coinsurance is 20% and the deductible is 20% of the premiums earned by the insurer for the year prior to a claim. If the Federal Government pays out for a loss under TRIA, it is mandatory that the Federal Government recoup the full amount of the loss from insurers offering TRIA coverage after the payment of the loss pursuant to a formula in TRIA. The Company may elect to terminate the NBCR Coverage if the Federal Government seeks recoupment for losses paid under TRIA, if TRIA is not extended after its expiration on December 31, 2027, if there is a change in its portfolio or for any other reason. The Company intends to continue to monitor the scope, nature and cost of available terrorism insurance. The Company also currently carries earthquake insurance on its properties located in areas known to be subject to earthquakes. Specifically, the Company currently carries earthquake insurance which covers its San Francisco and Los Angeles regions with a $330 million per occurrence limit, and a $330 million annual aggregate limit, $30 million of which is provided by IXP, as a direct insurer. This insurance is subject to a deductible in the amount of 5% of the value of the affected property. In addition, the Company currently carries earthquake insurance which covers its Seattle region with a $110 million per occurrence limit, and a $110 million annual aggregate limit. This insurance is subject to a deductible in the amount of 2% of the value of the affected property. The amount of the Company’s earthquake insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover losses from earthquakes. In addition, the amount of earthquake coverage could impact the Company’s ability to finance properties subject to earthquake risk. The Company may discontinue earthquake insurance or change the structure of its earthquake insurance program on some or all of its properties in the future if the premiums exceed the Company’s estimation of the value of the coverage. IXP, a captive insurance company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, acts as a direct insurer with respect to a portion of the Company’s earthquake insurance coverage for its Greater San Francisco and Los Angeles properties and the Company’s NBCR Coverage. Insofar as the Company owns IXP, it is responsible for its liquidity and capital resources, and the accounts of IXP are part of the Company’s consolidated financial statements. In particular, if a loss occurs which is covered by the Company’s NBCR Coverage but is less than the applicable program trigger under TRIA, IXP would be responsible for the full amount of the loss without any backstop by the Federal Government. IXP would also be responsible for any recoupment charges by the Federal Government in the event losses are paid out and its insurance policy is maintained after the payout by the Federal Government. If the Company experiences a loss and IXP is required to pay under its insurance policy, the Company would ultimately record the loss to the extent of the required payment. Therefore, insurance coverage provided by IXP should not be considered as the equivalent of third-party insurance, but rather as a modified form of self-insurance. In addition, BPLP has issued a guarantee to cover liabilities of IXP in the amount of $20.0 million. The Company continues to monitor the state of the insurance market in general, and the scope and costs of coverage for acts of terrorism, earthquakes, pandemics and cybersecurity incidents, in particular, but the Company cannot anticipate what coverage will be available on commercially reasonable terms in future policy years. There are other types of losses, such as from wars, for which the Company cannot obtain insurance at all or at a reasonable cost. With respect to such losses and losses from acts of terrorism, earthquakes, pandemics or other catastrophic events, if the Company experiences a loss that is uninsured or that exceeds policy limits, the Company could lose the capital invested in the damaged properties, as well as the anticipated future revenues from those properties. Depending on the specific circumstances of each affected property, it is possible that the Company could be liable for mortgage indebtedness or other obligations related to the property. Any such loss could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. State and Local Tax Matters Because BXP is organized and qualifies as a REIT, it is generally not subject to federal income taxes, but is subject to certain state and local taxes. In the normal course of business, certain entities through which the Company owns real estate either have undergone, or are currently undergoing, tax audits. Although the Company believes that it has substantial arguments in favor of its positions in the ongoing audits, in some instances there is no controlling precedent or interpretive guidance on the specific point at issue. Collectively, tax deficiency notices received to date from the jurisdictions conducting the ongoing audits have not been material. However, there can be no assurance that future audits will not occur with increased frequency or that the ultimate result of such audits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations. Environmental Matters It is the Company’s policy to retain independent environmental consultants to conduct or update Phase I environmental assessments (which generally do not involve invasive techniques such as soil or ground water sampling) and asbestos surveys in connection with the Company’s acquisition of properties. These pre-purchase environmental assessments have not revealed environmental conditions that the Company believes will have a material adverse effect on its business, assets, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, and the Company is not otherwise aware of environmental conditions with respect to its properties that the Company believes would have such a material adverse effect. However, from time to time environmental conditions at the Company’s properties have required and may in the future require environmental testing and/or regulatory filings, as well as remedial action. In February 1999, the Company (through a joint venture) acquired from Exxon Corporation a property in Massachusetts that was formerly used as a petroleum bulk storage and distribution facility and was known by the state regulatory authority to contain soil and groundwater contamination. The Company developed an office park on the property. The Company engaged a specially licensed environmental consultant to oversee the management of contaminated soil and groundwater that was disturbed in the course of construction. Under the property acquisition agreement, Exxon agreed to (1) bear the liability arising from releases or discharges of oil and hazardous substances which occurred at the site prior to the Company’s ownership, (2) continue monitoring and/or remediating such releases and discharges as necessary and appropriate to comply with applicable requirements, and (3) indemnify the Company for certain losses arising from preexisting site conditions. Any indemnity claim may be subject to various defenses and contractual limitations, including time limits and limits on the specific use of the property, and there can be no assurance that the amounts paid under the indemnity, if any, would be sufficient to cover the liabilities arising from any such releases and discharges. Environmental investigations at some of the Company’s properties and certain properties owned by affiliates of the Company have identified groundwater contamination migrating from off-site source properties. In each case the Company engaged a licensed environmental consultant to perform the necessary investigations and assessments and to prepare any required submittals to the regulatory authorities. In each case the environmental consultant concluded that the properties qualify under the regulatory program or the regulatory practice for a status which eliminates certain deadlines for conducting response actions at a site. The Company also believes that these properties qualify for liability relief under certain statutory provisions or regulatory practices regarding upgradient releases. Although the Company believes that the current or former owners of the upgradient source properties may bear responsibility for some or all of the costs of addressing the identified groundwater contamination, the Company will take such further response actions (if any) that it deems necessary or advisable. Other than periodic testing at some of these properties, no such additional response actions are anticipated at this time. Some of the Company’s properties and certain properties owned by the Company’s affiliates are located in urban, industrial and other previously developed areas where fill or current or historical uses of the areas have caused site contamination. Accordingly, it is sometimes necessary to institute special soil and/or groundwater handling procedures and/or include particular building design features in connection with development, construction and other property operations in order to achieve regulatory closure and/or ensure that contaminated materials are addressed in an appropriate manner. In these situations, it is the Company’s practice to investigate the nature and extent of detected contamination, including potential issues associated with vapor intrusion concerns and/or potential contaminant migration to or from the subject property in ground water, assess potential liability risks and estimate the costs of required response actions and special handling procedures. The Company then uses this information as part of its decision-making process with respect to the acquisition, deal structure and/or development of the property. For example, the Company owns a parcel in Massachusetts which was formerly used as a quarry/asphalt batching facility. Pre-purchase testing indicated that the site contained relatively low levels of certain contaminants. The Company has developed an office park on this property. Prior to and during redevelopment activities, the Company engaged a specially licensed environmental consultant to monitor environmental conditions at the site and prepare necessary regulatory submittals based on the results of an environmental risk characterization. A submittal has been made to the regulatory authorities in order to achieve regulatory closure at this site. The submittal included an environmental deed restriction that mandates compliance with certain protective measures in a portion of the site where low levels of residual soil contamination have been left in place in accordance with applicable laws. The Company expects that resolution of the environmental matters relating to the above will not have a material impact on its business, assets, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. However, the Company cannot assure you that it has identified all environmental liabilities at its properties, that all necessary remediation actions have been or will be undertaken at the Company’s properties or that the Company will be indemnified, in full or at all or that the Company will have insurance coverage, in the event that such environmental liabilities arise.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration