XML 47 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | Contingencies Litigation The Company is currently involved in certain litigation that arises in the ordinary course of business, most of which is expected to be covered by liability insurance. Management makes assumptions and estimates concerning the likelihood and amount of any potential loss relating to these matters using the latest information available. The Company records a liability for litigation if an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. If an unfavorable outcome is probable and a reasonable estimate of the loss is a range, the Company accrues the best estimate within the range. If no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company accrues the minimum amount within the range. If an unfavorable outcome is probable but the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, the Company discloses the nature of the litigation and indicates that an estimate of the loss or range of loss cannot be made. If an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and the estimated loss is material, the Company discloses the nature and estimate of the possible loss of the litigation. The Company does not disclose information with respect to litigation where an unfavorable outcome is considered to be remote or where the estimated loss would not be material. Based on current expectations, such matters, both individually and in the aggregate, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the liquidity, results of operations, business or financial condition of the Company. On March 11, 2010, The Promenade D'Iberville, LLC (“TPD”), a subsidiary of the Company, filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, against M. Hanna Construction Co., Inc. (“M Hanna”), Gallet & Associates, Inc., LA Ash, Inc., EMJ Corporation (“EMJ”) and JEA (f/k/a Jacksonville Electric Authority), seeking damages for alleged property damage and related damages occurring at a shopping center development in D'Iberville, Mississippi. EMJ filed an answer and counterclaim denying liability and seeking to recover from TPD the retainage of approximately $327 allegedly owed under the construction contract. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. (“Kohl's”) was granted permission to intervene in the lawsuit and, on April 13, 2011, filed a cross-claim against TPD alleging that TPD is liable to Kohl's for unspecified damages resulting from the actions of the defendants and for the failure to perform the obligations of TPD under a Site Development Agreement with Kohl's. Kohl's also made a claim against the Company which guaranteed the performance of TPD under the Site Development Agreement. The case is at the discovery stage. Although, based on information currently available, the Company believes the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome related to the claims made by EMJ and Kohl's against the Company in connection with the TPD case is remote, the Company is providing disclosure of this litigation due to the related party relationship between the Company and EMJ described below. TPD also has filed claims under several insurance policies in connection with this matter, and there are three pending lawsuits relating to insurance coverage. On October 8, 2010, First Mercury Insurance Company (“First Mercury”) filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against M Hanna and TPD seeking a declaratory judgment concerning coverage under a liability insurance policy issued by First Mercury to M Hanna. That case was dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction and refiled in Texas state court. On June 13, 2011, TPD filed an action in the Chancery Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union”) and EMJ seeking a declaratory judgment regarding coverage under a liability insurance policy issued by National Union to EMJ and recovery of damages arising out of National Union's breach of its obligations. In March 2012, Zurich American and Zurich American of Illinois, which also have issued liability insurance policies to EMJ, intervened in that case and the case is set for trial on October 29, 2013. On February 14, 2012, TPD filed claims in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against Factory Mutual Insurance Company and Federal Insurance Company seeking a declaratory judgment concerning coverage under certain builders risk and property insurance policies issued by those respective insurers to the Company. Certain executive officers of the Company and members of the immediate family of Charles B. Lebovitz, Chairman of the Board of the Company, collectively have a significant non-controlling interest in EMJ, a major national construction company that the Company engaged to build a substantial number of the Company's properties. EMJ is one of the defendants in the Harrison County, MS and Hamilton County, TN cases described above. Environmental Contingencies The Company evaluates potential loss contingencies related to environmental matters using the same criteria described above related to litigation matters. Based on current information, an unfavorable outcome concerning such environmental matters, both individually and in the aggregate, is considered to be reasonably possible. However, the Company believes its maximum potential exposure to loss would not be material to its results of operations or financial condition. The Company has a master insurance policy that provides coverage through 2022 for certain environmental claims up to $10,000 per occurrence and up to$50,000 in the aggregate, subject to deductibles and certain exclusions. Other Contingencies The Company consolidates its investment in a joint venture, CW Joint Venture, LLC (“CWJV”), with Westfield. The terms of the joint venture agreement require that CWJV pay an annual preferred distribution at a rate of 5.0%, which increases to 6.0% on July 1, 2013, on the preferred liquidation value of the PJV units of CWJV that are held by Westfield. Westfield has the right to have all or a portion of the PJV units redeemed by CWJV with either cash or property owned by CWJV, in each case for a net equity amount equal to the preferred liquidation value of the PJV units. At any time after January 1, 2013, Westfield may propose that CWJV acquire certain qualifying property that would be used to redeem the PJV units at their preferred liquidation value. If CWJV does not redeem the PJV units with such qualifying property (a “Preventing Event”), then the annual preferred distribution rate on the PJV units increases to 9.0% beginning July 1, 2013. The Company will have the right, but not the obligation, to offer to redeem the PJV units from January 31, 2013 through January 31, 2015 at their preferred liquidation value, plus accrued and unpaid distributions. The Company amended the joint venture agreement with Westfield in September 2012 to provide that, if the Company exercises its right to offer to redeem the PJV units on or before August 1, 2013, then the preferred liquidation value will be reduced by $10,000 so long as Westfield does not reject the offer and the redemption closes on or before September 30, 2013. If the Company fails to make such an offer, the annual preferred distribution rate on the PJV units increases to 9.0% for the period from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016, at which time it decreases to 6.0% if a Preventing Event has not occurred. If, upon redemption of the PJV units, the fair value of the Company’s common stock is greater than $32.00 per share, then such excess (but in no case greater than $26,000 in the aggregate) shall be added to the aggregate preferred liquidation value payable on account of the PJV units. The Company accounts for this contingency using the method prescribed for earnings or other performance measure contingencies. As such, should this contingency result in additional consideration to Westfield, the Company will record the current fair value of the consideration issued as a purchase price adjustment at the time the consideration is paid or payable. Guarantees The Company may guarantee the debt of a joint venture primarily because it allows the joint venture to obtain funding at a lower cost than could be obtained otherwise. This results in a higher return for the joint venture on its investment, and a higher return on the Company’s investment in the joint venture. The Company may receive a fee from the joint venture for providing the guaranty. Additionally, when the Company issues a guaranty, the terms of the joint venture agreement typically provide that the Company may receive indemnification from the joint venture partner or have the ability to increase its ownership interest. The Company owns a parcel of land in Lee’s Summit, MO that it is ground leasing to a third party development company. The third party developed and operates a shopping center on the land parcel. The Company has guaranteed 27% of the third party’s construction loan and bond line of credit (the “loans”) of which the maximum guaranteed amount, representing 27% of capacity, is approximately $15,183. The total amount outstanding at March 31, 2013 on the loans was $49,345 of which the Company has guaranteed $13,323. The Company included an obligation of $192 as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets to reflect the estimated fair value of the guaranty. The loan matured in April 2013. The third party developer is working with the lender to extend the maturity date of the loan. The Company has not increased its accrual for the contingent obligation as the Company does not believe that this contingent obligation is probable. The Company has guaranteed 100% of the construction and land loans of West Melbourne I, LLC (“West Melbourne”), an unconsolidated affiliate in which the Company owns a 50% interest, of which the maximum guaranteed amount is $44,075. West Melbourne developed and operates Hammock Landing, a community center in West Melbourne, FL. The total amount outstanding on the loans at March 31, 2013 was $44,075. The guaranty will expire upon repayment of the debt. The land loan, and the construction loan, each representing $2,839 and $41,236, respectively, of the amount outstanding at March 31, 2013, mature in November 2013. The construction loan has a one-year extension option available. The Company included an obligation of $478 in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 to reflect the estimated fair value of this guaranty. The Company has guaranteed 100% of the construction loan of Port Orange I, LLC ("Port Orange"), an unconsolidated affiliate in which the Company owns a 50% interest, of which the maximum guaranteed amount is $63,030. Port Orange developed and operates The Pavilion at Port Orange, a community center in Port Orange, FL. The total amount outstanding at March 31, 2013 on the loan was $63,030. The guaranty will expire upon repayment of the debt. The loan matures in March 2014 and has a one-year extension option available. The Company included an obligation of $961 in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 to reflect the estimated fair value of this guaranty. The Company has guaranteed the lease performance of York Town Center, LP ("YTC"), an unconsolidated affiliate in which the Company owns a 50% interest, under the terms of an agreement with a third party that owns property as part of York Town Center. Under the terms of that agreement, YTC is obligated to cause performance of the third party’s obligations as landlord under its lease with its sole tenant, including, but not limited to, provisions such as co-tenancy and exclusivity requirements. Should YTC fail to cause performance, then the tenant under the third party landlord’s lease may pursue certain remedies ranging from rights to terminate its lease to receiving reductions in rent. The Company has guaranteed YTC’s performance under this agreement up to a maximum of $22,000, which decreases by $800 annually until the guaranteed amount is reduced to $10,000. The guaranty expires on December 31, 2020. The maximum guaranteed obligation was $17,200 as of March 31, 2013. The Company entered into an agreement with its joint venture partner under which the joint venture partner has agreed to reimburse the Company 50% of any amounts it is obligated to fund under the guaranty. The Company did not include an obligation for this guaranty because it determined that the fair value of the guaranty was not material as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012. The Company has guaranteed 100% of a term loan for JG Gulf Coast Town Center LLC ("Gulf Coast"), an unconsolidated affiliate in which the Company owns a 50% interest, of which the maximum guaranteed amount is $6,658. The loan is for the third phase expansion of Gulf Coast Town Center, a shopping center located in Ft. Myers, FL. The total amount outstanding at March 31, 2013 on the loan was $6,658. The guaranty will expire upon repayment of the debt. The loan matures in July 2015. The Company did not include an obligation for this guaranty because it determined that the fair value of the guaranty was not material as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012. In March 2013, the Company guaranteed 100% of a construction loan for Fremaux, an unconsolidated affiliate in which the Company owns a 65% interest, of which the maximum guaranteed amount is $46,000. The loan is for the development of Fremaux Town Center, a community center located in Slidell, LA. The total amount outstanding at March 31, 2013 on the loan was $2,698. The guaranty will expire upon repayment of the debt. The loan matures in March 2016 and has two one-year extension options for an outside maturity date of March 2018. The Company received a 1% fee for this guaranty when the loan was issued in March 2013 and has included an obligation of $460 in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 2013 to reflect the estimated fair value of this guaranty. Performance Bonds The Company has issued various bonds that it would have to satisfy in the event of non-performance. The total amount outstanding on these bonds was $26,865 and $29,211 at March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

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 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 2: 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 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 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 6: 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 Reference 7: 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. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration