XML 28 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.5.0.2

Net Investment in Direct Financing Leases | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2016
Net Investment in Direct Financing Leases |
Net Investment in Direct Financing Leases | NOTE 5. Net Investment in Direct Financing Leases Net investment in DFLs consisted of the following (dollars in thousands):
|  | September 30, |  | December 31, |
|  | 2016 |  | 2015 |
Minimum lease payments receivable |  | $ | 25,799,416 |  | $ | 26,283,392 |
Estimated residual values |  |  | 3,934,795 |  |  | 3,900,679 |
Less unearned income |  |  | (23,056,770) |  |  | (23,462,022) |
Net investment in direct financing leases before allowance |  |  | 6,677,441 |  |  | 6,722,049 |
Allowance for DFL losses |  |  | (817,040) |  |  | (817,040) |
Net investment in direct financing leases |  | $ | 5,860,401 |  | $ | 5,905,009 |
Properties subject to direct financing leases |  |  | 340 |  |  | 348 |
HCR ManorCare, Inc. The Company acquired 334 post-acute, skilled nursing and assisted living facilities in its 2011 transaction with HCRMC and entered into a triple-net Master Lease and Security Agreement (the “Master Lease”) with a subsidiary (“Lessee”) of HCRMC. The Master Lease, as amended by the “HCRMC Lease Amendment” described below, is referred to herein as the “Amended Master Lease.” As part of the Company’s fourth quarter 2015 review process, including its internal rating evaluation, it assessed the collectibility of all contractual rent payments under the Amended Master Lease, as discussed below. The Company’s evaluation included, but was not limited to, consideration of: (i) the continued decline in HCRMC’s operating performance and fixed charge coverage ratio during the second half of 2015, with the most significant deterioration occurring during the fourth quarter, (ii) the reduced growth outlook for the post-acute/skilled nursing business and (iii) HCRMC’s 2015 audited financial statements. The Company determined that the timing and amounts owed under the Amended Master Lease were no longer reasonably assured and assigned an internal rating of “Watch List” as of December 31, 2015. Further, the Company placed the HCRMC DFL investments on nonaccrual status and began utilizing a cash basis method of accounting in accordance with its policies. As a result of assigning an internal rating of “Watch List” to its HCRMC DFL investments during the quarterly review process, the Company further evaluated the carrying amount of its HCRMC DFL investments. As a result of the significant decline in HCRMC’s fixed charge coverage ratio in the fourth quarter of 2015, combined with a lower growth outlook for the post-acute/skilled nursing business, the Company determined that it was probable that its HCRMC DFL investments were impaired and the amount of the loss could be reasonably estimated. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recorded an allowance for DFL losses (impairment charge) of $817 million, reducing the carrying amount of its HCRMC DFL investments from $6.0 billion to $5.2 billion at December 31, 2015. In December 2015, the Company reduced the carrying amount of its equity investment in HCRMC to zero and, beginning in January 2016, income is recognized only if cash distributions are received from HCRMC. As a result, the Company no longer recharacterizes (eliminates) its proportional ownership share of income from DFLs to equity income from unconsolidated JVs (see Note 7). During the three months ended March 31, 2015, the Company and HCRMC agreed to market for sale the real estate and operations associated with 50 non-strategic facilities under the Master Lease. HCRMC will receive an annual rent reduction under the Master Lease based on 7.75% of the net sales proceeds received by HCP. During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company completed sales of 22 non-strategic HCRMC facilities for $219 million. During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, the Company sold an additional 11 facilities for $62 million, bringing the total facilities sold through October 31, 2016 to 33. Of the 17 remaining non-strategic facilities, seven are expected to close by the end of 2016 and 10 are expected to be sold in the first quarter of 2017, for an aggregate amount of $62 million. On March 29, 2015, certain subsidiaries of the Company entered into an amendment to the Master Lease (the “HCRMC Lease Amendment”) effective April 1, 2015. The HCRMC Lease Amendment reduced initial annual rent by a net $68 million from $541 million to $473 million. Commencing on April 1, 2016, the minimum rent escalation was reset to 3.0% for each lease year through the expiration of the initial term of each applicable pool of facilities. Prior to the HCRMC Lease Amendment, rent payments would have increased 3.5% on April 1, 2015 and 2016 and 3.0% annually thereafter. The initial term was extended five years to an average of 16 years, and the extension options’ aggregate terms remained the same. As consideration for the rent reduction, the Company received a deferred rent obligation (“DRO”) from the Lessee equal to an aggregate amount of $525 million, which was allocated into two tranches: (i) a Tranche A DRO of $275 million and (ii) a Tranche B DRO of $250 million. The Lessee made rental payments equal to 6.9% of the outstanding amount (representing $19 million) for the initial lease year until the entire Tranche A DRO was paid in full in March 2016 in connection with the nine facility purchases discussed below. Commencing on April 1, 2016, until the Tranche B DRO is paid in full, the outstanding principal balance of the Tranche B DRO will be increased annually by (i) 3.0% initially, (ii) 4.0% commencing on April 1, 2019, (iii) 5.0% commencing on April 1, 2020, and (iv) 6.0% commencing on April 1, 2021 and annually for the remainder of its term. The DRO is due and payable on the earlier of (i) certain capital or liquidity events of HCRMC, including an initial public offering or sale, or (ii) March 31, 2029, which is not subject to any extensions. The HCRMC Lease Amendment also imposes certain restrictions on the Lessee and HCRMC until the DRO is paid in full, including with respect to the payment of dividends and the transfer of interest in HCRMC. Additionally, HCRMC agreed to sell, and HCP agreed to purchase, nine post-acute facilities for an aggregate purchase price of $275 million. Through December 31, 2015, HCRMC and HCP completed seven of the nine facility purchases for $183 million. Through March 31, 2016, HCRMC and HCP completed the remaining two facility purchases for $92 million, bringing the nine facility purchases to an aggregate $275 million, the proceeds of which were used to settle the Tranche A DRO discussed above. Following the purchase of a facility, the Lessee leases such facility from the Company pursuant to the Amended Master Lease. The nine facilities initially contribute an aggregate of $19 million of annual rent (subject to escalation) under the Amended Master Lease. In March 2015, the Company recorded a net impairment charge of $478 million related to its HCRMC DFL investments. The impairment charge reduced the carrying value of the HCRMC DFL investments from $6.6 billion to $6.1 billion, based on the present value of the future lease payments effective April 1, 2015 under the Amended Master Lease discounted at the original DFL investments’ effective lease rate. During the three months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, the Company recognized DFL income of $116 million and $141 million, respectively, and received cash payments of $116 million and $118 million, respectively, from the HCRMC DFL investments. During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, the Company recognized DFL income of $346 million and $433 million, respectively, and received cash payments of $346 million and $367 million, respectively, from the HCRMC DFL investments. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, the Company recognized a total of $23 million and $66 million, respectively, of net accretion related to its HCRMC DFL investments. No accretion related to its HCRMC DFL investments has been recognized in 2016 due to the Company utilizing a cash basis method of accounting beginning January 1, 2016. The carrying value of the HCRMC DFL investments was $5.1 billion and $5.2 billion at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The Company acquired the HCRMC DFL investments in 2011 through an acquisition of a C-Corporation, which was subject to federal and state built-in gain tax of up to $2 billion, if all the assets were sold within 10 years. At the time of acquisition, the Company intended to hold the assets for at least 10 years, at which time the assets would no longer be subject to the built-in gain tax. In December 2015, the U.S. Federal Government passed legislation which permanently reduced the holding period, for federal tax purposes, to five years. The Company satisfied the five year holding period requirement in April 2016. In June 2016, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued proposed regulations that would change the holding period back to 10 years, but effective only for conversion transactions after August 8, 2016. As currently proposed, these regulations will not impact the properties in the HCRMC DFL as the HCRMC conversion transaction occurred on April 7, 2011. However, certain states still require a 10-year holding period and, as such, the assets are still subject to state built-in gain tax. During the nine months ended September 30, 2016, the Company determined that it may sell assets during the next five years and, therefore, recorded a deferred tax liability of $47 million representing its estimated exposure to state built-in gain tax. On April 20, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) unsealed a previously filed complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against HCRMC and certain of its affiliates in three consolidated cases following a civil investigation arising out of three lawsuits filed by former employees of HCRMC under the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act. The DOJ’s complaint in intervention is captioned United States of America, ex rel. Ribik, Carson, and Slough v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., ManorCare Inc., HCR ManorCare Services, LLC and Heartland Employment Services, LLC (Civil Action Numbers: 1:09cv13; 1:11cv1054; 1:14cv1228 (CMH/TCB)). The complaint alleges that HCRMC submitted claims to Medicare for therapy services that were not covered by the skilled nursing facility benefit, were not medically reasonable and necessary, and were not skilled in nature, and therefore not entitled to Medicare reimbursement. The DOJ is seeking treble damages (in an unspecified amount); civil penalties (in an unspecified amount); compensation for alleged unjust enrichment; recovery of certain payments the government made to HCRMC; and costs, pre-judgment interest, and expenses. In June 2016, the court approved the parties’ joint discovery plan, which provides for discovery to be completed by February 2017. The court has not yet issued a scheduling order setting forth dates for summary judgment motions, other pre-trial motions or a trial date. While this litigation is at an early stage and HCRMC has indicated that it believes the claims are unjust and it will vigorously defend against them, the ultimate outcome is uncertain and could, among other things, cause HCRMC to: (i) incur substantial additional time and costs to respond to and defend HCRMC's actions in the litigation with the DOJ and any other third-party payors, (ii) refund or adjust amounts previously paid for services under governmental programs and to change business operations going forward in a manner that negatively impacts future revenue, (iii) pay substantial fines and penalties and incur other administrative sanctions, including having to conduct future business operations pursuant to a corporate integrity agreement, which may be with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, (iv) lose the right to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs, and (v) suffer damage to HCRMC's reputation. In addition, any settlement in the DOJ litigation, with or without an admission of wrongdoing, may include a substantial monetary component that could have a material adverse effect on HCRMC’s liquidity and financial condition. See Notes 1, 7, 11 and 17 for additional discussion of HCRMC. DFL Internal Ratings The following table summarizes the Company’s internal ratings for DFLs at September 30, 2016 (dollars in thousands):
|  | Carrying |  | Percentage of |  | Internal Ratings |
Segment |  | Amount |  | DFL Portfolio |  | Performing DFLs |  | Watch List DFLs |  | Workout DFLs |
SH NNN |  | $ | 629,330 |  | 11 |  | $ | 267,326 |  | $ | 362,004 |  | $ | — |
QCP |  |  | 5,107,180 |  | 87 |  |  | — |  |  | 5,107,180 |  |  | — |
Other |  |  | 123,891 |  | 2 |  |  | 123,891 |  |  | — |  |  | — |
|  | $ | 5,860,401 |  | 100 |  | $ | 391,217 |  | $ | 5,469,184 |  | $ | — |
Beginning September 30, 2013, the Company placed a 14-property senior housing triple-net DFL (the “DFL Portfolio”) on nonaccrual status and assigned an internal rating of “Watch List.” The Company determined that the collection of all rental payments was and continues to be no longer reasonably assured; therefore, rental revenue from the DFL Portfolio is recognized when cash is received utilizing a cash basis method of accounting in accordance with its policies. During the three months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, the Company recognized DFL income of $4 million and $3 million, respectively, and received cash payments of $5 million from the DFL Portfolio. During the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, the Company recognized DFL income of $11 million and $12 million, respectively, and received cash payments of $15 million and $16 million, respectively, from the DFL Portfolio. The carrying value of the DFL Portfolio was $362 million and $366 million at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for lessor's leasing arrangements, which includes direct financing, sales type and leveraged leases. Disclosure may include the effect on the balance sheet and the income statement resulting from a change in lease classification for leases that at inception would have been classified differently had guidance been in effect at the inception of the original lease. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 840 -SubTopic 30 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496975&loc=d3e45377-112738 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 840 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6452767&loc=d3e37045-112695 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 840 -SubTopic 10 -Section 55 -Paragraph 47 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6584217&loc=d3e38847-112698 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CapitalLeasesInFinancialStatementsOfLessorDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

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