XML 86 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies In addition to the commitments and contingencies disclosed elsewhere, the Company has the following commitments and contingencies. The Company is obligated under certain tenant leases, including its proportionate share for leases for non-consolidated entities, to fund the expansion of the underlying leased properties. The Company, under certain circumstances, may guarantee to tenants the completion of base building improvements and the payment of tenant improvement allowances and lease commissions on behalf of its subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had two outstanding guarantees for (1) the completion of the base building improvements and the payment of a related tenant improvement allowance for an office property in Orlando, Florida, which the unfunded amounts were estimated to be $8,414 and (2) the payment of a tenant improvement allowance and related lease commission of $5,567 for a property in Allen, Texas. From time to time, the Company is directly or indirectly involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of the Company's business. Management believes, based on currently available information, and after consultation with legal counsel, that although the outcomes of those normal course proceedings are uncertain, the results of such proceedings, in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the following two legal proceedings were resolved: Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. and SPCP Group LLC v. Lexington Drake, L.P., et al. (Supreme Court of the State of New York-Index No. 603051/08). On June 30, 2006, one of the Company's property owner subsidiaries and a property owner subsidiary of a then co-investment program respectively sold to Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. (“Deutsche Bank”), (1) a $7,680 bankruptcy damage claim against Dana Corporation for $5,376 (“Farmington Hills claim”) and (2) a $7,727 bankruptcy damage claim against Dana Corporation for $5,680 (“Antioch claim”). Under the terms of the agreements covering the sale of the claims, which were guaranteed by the Company, the property owner subsidiaries were obligated to reimburse Deutsche Bank should the claim ever be disallowed, subordinated or otherwise impaired, to the extent of such disallowance, subordination or impairment, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of payment of the purchase price by Deutsche Bank. On October 12, 2007, Dana Corporation filed an objection to both claims. The Company assisted Deutsche Bank and the then holders of the claims in the preparation and filing of a response to the objection. Despite a belief by the Company that the objections were without merit, the holders of the claims, without the Company's consent, settled the allowed amount of the claims at $6,500 for the Farmington Hills claim and $7,200 for the Antioch claim in order to participate in a special settlement pool for allowed intangible unsecured claims and a preferred share rights offering having a value thought to be equal to, or greater than, the reduction of the claims. Deutsche Bank made a formal demand with respect to the Farmington Hills claim in the amount of $826 plus interest, but did not make a formal demand with respect to the Antioch claim. Following a rejection of the demand by the Company, on December 11, 2009, Deutsche Bank and the then holders of the claims filed a summons and complaint with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York for the Farmington Hills and Antioch claims, and claimed damages of $1,200 plus interest from the date of assignment at the rate of 10% per year and expenses. Together with the property owner subsidiaries, the Company answered the complaint on November 26, 2008 and served numerous discovery requests. After almost a year of inactivity, on March 18, 2010, the defendants and the plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment and related opposing and supporting motions. On November 22, 2010, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on their motion for summary judgment. The court referred the issue of damages to a special referee to determine the value of plaintiffs' participation in the preferred share rights offering and a settlement pool for allowed intangible unsecured claims so as to be taken into consideration with respect to computation of damages, if any. After motions before the special referee and discovery on July 11, 2012, the special referee recommended damages in favor of the plaintiffs as follows: (1) $826 for the Farmington Hills claim as well as 10% interest as of April 27, 2012 in the sum of $482 and additional prejudgment interest from April 28, 2012 to entry of judgment and thereafter statutory interest of 9%; (2) $388 for the Antioch claim as well as 10% interest as of April 27, 2012 in the sum of $226 and additional prejudgment interest from April 28, 2012 to entry of judgment and thereafter statutory interest of 9%; and (3) attorneys' fee and disbursements of $827 together with statutory interest of 9% as to fees and disbursements to be calculated from July 11, 2012. The Company recorded a $2,800 litigation reserve during the second quarter of 2012 relating to this litigation and settled the litigation in the third quarter of 2012 for $2,775 and mutual releases. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas v. United States General Services Administration (United States District Court for the District of Kansas-Case Number 11-2400-JTM-KMH). On April 4, 2011, one of the Company's property owner subsidiaries entered into a lease termination with Applebee's Services, Inc., pursuant to which Applebee's Services, Inc. made a lease termination payment of $19,910 in October 2011 and vacated the Lenexa, Kansas facility in November 2011. Also on April 4, 2011, the Company's property owner subsidiary entered into a ten year lease with the United States General Services Administration ("GSA") for the same facility. On April 15, 2011, an unsuccessful bidder for the GSA lease filed a protest with the United States Government Accountability Office ("GAO") protesting the award of the lease to the Company's property owner subsidiary. On July 22, 2011, after a full briefing of the protest, the GAO denied the protest. However, prior to the GAO ruling on July 19, 2011, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County, Kansas City filed a claim against the GSA requesting, among other things, an injunction against the award of the ten year lease. On March 21, 2012, the District Court issued a memorandum opinion transferring the case to the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Company intervened in the action. On June 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal and the case was dismissed. The Company does not expect any further activity with respect to this litigation. Other. Four of our executive officers have employment contracts and are entitled to severance benefits upon termination by the Company without cause or termination by the executive officer with good reason, in each case, as defined in the employment contract.

X
- 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/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration