UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

FORM 10-K

 

 

 

OR

 

 

 

 

 

VORNADO REALTY TRUST

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:      NONE

 

---

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. YES o     NO x

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

YES o NO x

 

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common shares held by non-affiliates of the registrant, i.e. by persons other than officers and trustees of Vornado Realty Trust, was $15,085,478,000 at June 30, 2007.

 

As of February 1, 2008, there were 153,374,257 of the registrant’s common shares of beneficial interest outstanding.

 

 

Documents Incorporated by Reference

 

Part III: Portions of Proxy Statement for Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 15, 2008.

 

 

 

 

 

---

INDEX

_______________________

 

2

 

---

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

 

Certain statements contained herein constitute forward-looking statements as such term is defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. They represent our intentions, plans, expectations and beliefs and are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties. Our future results, financial condition and business may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. You can find many of these statements by looking for words such as “approximates,” “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “intends,” “plans,” “would,” “may” or other similar expressions in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also note the following forward-looking statements: in the case of our development projects, the estimated completion date, estimated project cost and cost to complete; and estimates of future capital expenditures, common and preferred share dividends and operating partnership distributions. Many of the factors that will determine the outcome of these and our other forward-looking statements are beyond our ability to control or predict. For further discussion of factors that could materially affect the outcome of our forward-looking statements, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this annual report on Form 10-K.

 

For these statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or the date of any document incorporated by reference. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. We do not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to our forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances occurring after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

3

 

---

PART I

THE COMPANY

Vornado Realty Trust is a fully-integrated real estate investment trust (“REIT”) and conducts its business through Vornado Realty L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Operating Partnership”). All references to “we,” “us,” “Company” and “Vornado” refer to Vornado Realty Trust and its consolidated subsidiaries, including the Operating Partnership. Vornado is the sole general partner of, and owned approximately 90.1% of the common limited partnership interest in, the Operating Partnership at December 31, 2007.

 

At December 31, 2007, we own directly or indirectly:

 

Office Properties:

(i)      all or portions of 28 office properties aggregating approximately 16.0 million square feet in the New York City metropolitan area (primarily Manhattan);

 

(ii)      all or portions of 83 office properties aggregating 17.6 million square feet in the Washington, DC and Northern Virginia areas;

 

(iii)     a 70% controlling interest in 555 California Street, a three-building complex aggregating 1.8 million square feet in San Francisco’s financial district;

 

Retail Properties:

(iv)     177 retail properties in 21 states, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico aggregating approximately 21.9 million square feet, including 3.6 million square feet owned by tenants on land leased from us;

 

Merchandise Mart Properties:

(v)      9 properties in five states and Washington, DC aggregating approximately 9.1 million square feet of showroom and office space, including the 3.3 million square foot Merchandise Mart in Chicago;

 

Temperature Controlled Logistics:

(vi)     a 47.6% interest in Americold Realty Trust which owns and operates 90 cold storage warehouses nationwide;

 

Toys “R” Us, Inc.:

(vii)    a 32.7% interest in Toys “R” Us, Inc. which owns and/or operates 1,352 stores worldwide, including 588 toy stores and 259 Babies “R” Us stores in the United States and 505 toy stores internationally;

 

Other Real Estate Investments:

 

(viii)   32.8% of the common stock of Alexander’s, Inc. (NYSE: ALX), which has seven properties in the greater New York metropolitan area;

 

(ix)     the Hotel Pennsylvania in New York City, consisting of a hotel portion containing 1.0 million square feet with 1,700 rooms and a commercial portion containing 400,000 square feet of retail and office space;

 

(x)     mezzanine loans to entities that have significant real estate assets; and 

 

(xi)     interests in other real estate, including interests in other public companies that own and manage office, industrial and retail properties net leased to major corporations and student and military housing properties throughout the United States; six warehouse/industrial properties in New Jersey containing approximately 1.2 million square feet; and other investments and marketable securities.

 

4

 

---

OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY

Our business objective is to maximize shareholder value. We intend to achieve this objective by continuing to pursue our investment philosophy and executing our operating strategies through:

 

 

We expect to finance our growth, acquisitions and investments using internally generated funds, proceeds from possible asset sales and by accessing the public and private capital markets.

 

 

ACQUISITIONS AND INVESTMENTS

 

During 2007, we completed $4,045,400,000 of real estate acquisitions and investments in 33 separate transactions, consisting of an aggregate of $3,024,600,000 in cash, $958,700,000 in existing mortgage debt and $62,100,000 in common or preferred Operating Partnership units. Details of the significant transactions are summarized below.

 

100 West 33^rd Street, New York City (the “Manhattan Mall”)

 

On January 10, 2007, we acquired the Manhattan Mall for approximately $689,000,000 in cash. This mixed-use property is located on the entire Sixth Avenue block-front between 32^nd and 33^rd Streets in Manhattan and contains approximately 1,000,000 square feet, including 845,000 square feet of office space and 164,000 square feet of retail space. Included as part of the acquisition were 250,000 square feet of additional air rights. The property is adjacent to our Hotel Pennsylvania.

 

Bruckner Plaza, Bronx, New York

 

On January 11, 2007, we acquired the Bruckner Plaza shopping center, containing 386,000 square feet, for approximately $165,000,000 in cash. Also included as part of the acquisition was an adjacent parcel which is ground leased to a third party. The property is located on Bruckner Boulevard in the Bronx, New York.

 

Filene’s, Boston, Massachusetts

 

On January 26, 2007, a joint venture in which we have a 50% interest, acquired the Filene’s property located in the Downtown Crossing district of Boston, Massachusetts for approximately $100,000,000 in cash, of which our share was $50,000,000. The venture plans to redevelop the property to include approximately 1,400,000 square feet, consisting of office, retail and condominium apartments.

 

5

 

---

ACQUISITIONS AND INVESTMENTS - CONTINUED

 

H Street Building Corporation (“H Street”)

 

In July 2005, we acquired H Street, which owns a 50% interest in real estate assets located in Pentagon City, Virginia and Washington, DC. On April 30, 2007, we acquired the corporations that own the remaining 50% interest in these assets for approximately $383,000,000, consisting of $322,000,000 in cash and $61,000,000 of existing mortgages. These assets include twin office buildings located in Washington, DC, containing 577,000 square feet, and assets located in Pentagon City, Virginia, comprised of 34 acres of land leased to three residential and retail operators, a 1,680 unit high-rise apartment complex and 10 acres of vacant land. In conjunction with this acquisition all existing litigation was dismissed.

 

Further, we agreed to sell approximately 19.6 of the 34 acres of land to one of the existing ground lessees in two closings over a two-year period for approximately $220,000,000. On May 11, 2007, we closed on the sale of 11 of the 19.6 acres for $104,000,000 and received $5,000,000 in cash and a $99,000,000 note due December 31, 2007. On September 28, 2007, the buyer pre-paid the note in cash and we recognized a net gain on sale of $4,803,000. In April 2007, we received letters from the two remaining ground lessees claiming a right of first offer on the sale of the land, one of which has since retracted its letter and reserved its rights under the lease.

 

In connection with purchase accounting, in July 2005 and April 2007 we recorded an aggregate of $220,000,000 of deferred tax liabilities for the differences between the tax basis and the book basis of the acquired assets and liabilities. We were required to record these deferred tax liabilities because H Street and its partially owned entities were operated as C Corporations at the time they were acquired. As of February 2008, we have completed all of the actions necessary to enable these entities to elect REIT status effective for the tax year beginning on January 1, 2008. Consequently, in the first quarter of 2008, the deferred tax liabilities will be eliminated and we will recognize $220,000,000 as an income tax benefit on our consolidated statement of income.

 

Our total purchase price for 100% of the assets we will own, after the anticipated proceeds from the land sales, is $409,000,000, consisting of $286,000,000 in cash and $123,000,000 of existing mortgages.

 

1290 Avenue of the Americas and 555 California Street

 

On May 24, 2007, we acquired a 70% controlling interest in 1290 Avenue of the Americas, a 2,000,000 square foot Manhattan office building located on the block-front between 51^st and 52^nd Street on Avenue of the Americas, and the three- building 555 California Street complex (“555 California Street”) containing 1,800,000 square feet, known as the Bank of America Center, located at California and Montgomery Streets in San Francisco’s financial district. The purchase price for our 70% interest in the real estate was approximately $1.8 billion, consisting of $1.0 billion of cash and $797,000,000 of existing debt. Our share of the debt is comprised of $308,000,000 secured by 1290 Avenue of the Americas and $489,000,000 secured by 555 California Street. Our 70% interest was acquired through the purchase of all of the shares of a group of foreign companies that own, through U.S. entities, the 1% sole general partnership interest and a 69% limited partnership interest in the partnerships that own the two properties. The remaining 30% limited partnership interest is owned by Donald J. Trump.

 

In August 2005, Mr. Trump brought a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court against, among others, the general partners of the partnerships referred to above.   Mr. Trump’s claims arose out of a dispute over the sale price of, and use of proceeds from, the sale of properties located on the former Penn Central rail yards between West 59th and 72nd Streets in Manhattan which were formerly owned by the partnerships. In decisions dated September 14, 2005 and July 24, 2006, the Court denied various of Mr. Trump’s motions and ultimately dismissed all of Mr. Trump’s claims, except for his claim seeking access to books and records.  In a decision dated October 1, 2007, the Court determined that Mr. Trump had already received access to the books and records to which he was entitled, with the exception of certain documents which were subsequently delivered to Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump has sought re-argument and renewal on, and filed a notice of appeal in connection with, his dismissed claims.  

 

In connection with the acquisition, we agreed to indemnify the sellers for liabilities and expenses arising out of Mr. Trump’s claim that the general partners of the partnerships we acquired did not sell the rail yards at a fair price or could have sold the rail yards for a greater price and any other claims asserted in the legal action; provided however, that if Mr. Trump prevails on certain claims involving partnership matters, other than claims relating to sale price, the sellers will be required to reimburse us for certain costs related to those claims. We believe that the claims relating to the sale price are without merit. All other allegations are not asserted as a basis for damages and regardless of merit would not be material to our consolidated financial statements.

 

6

 

---

ACQUISITIONS AND INVESTMENTS - CONTINUED

 

India Property Fund L.P.

 

On June 14, 2007, we committed to contribute $95,000,000 to the India Property Fund, L.P. (the “Fund”), established to acquire, manage and develop real estate in India. In addition, we sold our interest in another India real estate partnership to the Fund for $77,000,000 and deferred the $3,700,000 net gain on sale. On December 20, 2007, we increased our commitment to the Fund by $20,000,000. As of December 31, 2007, the Fund has equity commitments aggregating $227,500,000, of which our $115,000,000 commitment represents 50.6%. In January 2008, the Fund completed capital calls aggregating $50,400,000, of which our share was $25,500,000.

 

Shopping Center Portfolio Acquisition

 

On June 26, 2007, we entered into an agreement to acquire a portfolio of 15 shopping centers aggregating approximately 1.9 million square feet for an aggregate purchase price of $351,000,000. The properties are located primarily in Northern New Jersey and Long Island, New York. We have completed the acquisition of nine of these properties for an aggregate purchase price of $250,478,000 consisting of $109,279,000 in cash, $49,599,000 in Vornado Realty L.P. preferred units, $12,460,000 of Vornado Realty L.P. common units and $79,140,000 of existing mortgage debt. We have determined not to complete the acquisition of the remaining six properties and have expensed $2,700,000 for costs of acquisitions not consummated on our consolidated statement of income for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

BNA Complex

 

On August 9, 2007, we acquired a three building complex from The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (“BNA”) for $111,000,000 in cash. The complex contains approximately 300,000 square feet and is located in Washington’s West End between Georgetown and the Central Business District. We plan to convert two of these buildings to rental apartments. Simultaneously with the acquisition, we sold Crystal Mall Two, a 277,000 square foot office building located at 1801 South Bell Street in Crystal City, to BNA for $103,600,000 in cash, which resulted in a net gain of $19,893,000.

 

INVESTMENTS IN MEZZANINE LOANS

At December 31, 2007, the carrying amount of our investments in mezzanine loans aggregated $492,339,000, net of a $57,000,000 allowance described below. Substantially all of these investments are loans to companies that have significant real estate assets. Mezzanine loans are generally subordinate to first mortgage loans and are secured by pledges of equity interests of the entities owning the underlying real estate. During 2007 we were repaid principal amounts aggregating $241,000,000 and we made new investments aggregating $217,000,000. As of December 31, 2007, these investments have a weighted average interest rate of 9.7%.

 

On June 5, 2007, we acquired a 42% interest in two MPH mezzanine loans totaling $158,700,000, for $66,000,000 in cash. The loans, which were due on February 8, 2008 and have not been repaid, are subordinate to $2.9 billion of mortgage and other debt and secured by the equity interests in four New York City properties: Worldwide Plaza, 1540 Broadway office condominium, 527 Madison Avenue and Tower 56. We have reduced the net carrying amount of the loans to $9,000,000, by recognizing a $57,000,000 non-cash charge which is included as a reduction of “interest and other investment income” on our consolidated statement of income for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

7

 

---

OTHER INVESTMENTS

 

GMH Communities L.P. (“GMH”)

 

At December 31, 2007, we own 7,337,857 GMH Communities L.P. (“GMH”) limited partnership units, which are exchangeable on a one-for-one basis into common shares of GMH Communities Trust (NYSE: GCT) (“GCT”), and 2,517,247 common shares of GCT, or 13.8% of the limited partnership interest of GMH. GMH is a self-advised, self-managed, specialty housing company that focuses on providing housing to college and university students residing off-campus and to members of the U.S. military and their families located on or near military bases throughout the United States.

 

On February 12, 2008, GCT announced that it has entered into two definitive agreements in connection with the sale of its military and student housing divisions for an aggregate sales price of approximately $9.61 per share/unit. In addition, GCT anticipates selling its remaining assets prior to the closing of the merger. The merger, which has been unanimously approved by GCT’s Board of Trustees, is subject to GCT shareholder approval and customary closing conditions.

 

As of December 31, 2007, the fair value of our investment in GMH and GCT based on GCT’s December 31, 2007 closing share price of $5.52, was $54,400,000, or $48,860,000 below the carrying amount of $10.48 per share/unit on our consolidated balance sheet. We have concluded that as of December 31, 2007, the decline in the value of our investment is not “other-than-temporary,” based on the aggregate value anticipated to be received as a result of the transactions described above, including the additional consideration from the sale of GCT’s remaining assets.

 

DISPOSITIONS

 

Investment in McDonald’s Corporation (“McDonalds”) (NYSE: MCD)

 

In July 2005 we acquired 858,000 McDonalds’ common shares at a weighted average price of $29.54 per share. These shares were classified as “available-for-sale” marketable equity securities on our consolidated balance sheet and the fluctuations in the market value of these shares during the period of our ownership was recorded as “other comprehensive income” in the shareholders’ equity section of our consolidated balance sheet. During October 2007, we sold all of these shares at a weighted average price of $56.45 per share and recognized a net gain of $23,090,000, representing accumulated appreciation during the period of our ownership.

 

During the second half of 2005, we acquired an economic interest in an additional 14,565,500 McDonalds’ common shares through a series of privately negotiated transactions with a financial institution pursuant to which we purchased a call option and simultaneously sold a put option at the same strike price on McDonalds’ common shares. These call and put options had an initial weighted-average strike price of $32.66 per share, or an aggregate of $475,692,000 and provided for net cash settlement. Under these agreements, the strike price for each pair of options increased at an annual rate of LIBOR plus 45 basis points and was decreased for dividends received. The options provided us with the same economic gain or loss as if we had purchased the underlying common shares and borrowed the aggregate purchase price at an annual rate of LIBOR plus 45 basis points. Because these options were derivatives and did not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, the gains or losses resulting from the mark-to-market of the options at the end of each reporting period were recognized as “investment income or loss” on our consolidated statements of income. In 2006, we sold 2,119,500 of these shares at a weighted average price of $35.49 per share, and acquired an additional 1,250,000 option shares at a weighted average price of $33.08 per share. As of December 31, 2006, there were 13,695,500 option shares in the derivative position with an adjusted weighted average strike price of $32.70 per share. During August, September and October 2007, we settled the 13,695,500 option shares and received an aggregate of $260,719,000 in cash. During the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, we recognized net gains of $108,821,000, $138,815,000 and $17,254,000, respectively, representing income from the mark-to-market of these shares during the period of our ownership through their settlement, net of related LIBOR charges.

 

The aggregate net gain from inception of our investments in McDonalds in 2005 through final settlement in October 2007 was $289,414,000.

 

Property Sales

 

During 2007, we sold three properties (Crystal Mall Two, Arlington Plaza and the Vineland, New Jersey shopping center property) in three separate transactions for an aggregate sales price of $177,874,000 in cash, which resulted in an aggregate net gain of $55,501,000.

 

8

 

---

DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

 

We are currently engaged in various development/redevelopment projects for which we have budgeted approximately $1.977 billion. Of this amount, $214.9 million was expended prior to 2007, $401.6 million was expended in 2007 and $719.6 million is estimated to be expended in 2008. Below is a description of these projects.

 

 

 

9

 

---

DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS - CONTINUED

 

On July 19, 2005 a joint venture in which we have a 50% interest entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and has been designated as the developer to convert the Farley Post Office in Manhattan, which occupies the super block between 31^st and 33^rd Streets from 8^th to 9^th Avenues, into the Moynihan Train Station. The plans for the Moynihan Train Station project include 300,000 square feet for a new transportation facility to be financed with public funding, as well as 850,000 square feet of commercial space and up to 1.0 million square feet of air rights intended to be transferred to an adjacent site. The venture endeavors to expand the plans to incorporate the adjacent super block to the east, relocating Madison Square Garden from its present site above Penn Station to the west end of the Farley Complex, permitting it to develop 5.5 million square feet of mixed use space on the old Madison Square Garden site and incorporate our existing 1.5 million square foot Two Penn Plaza into a 7.0 million square foot complex. In March 2007, New York’s Empire State Development Corporation (the “ESDC”) acquired the Farley building from the United States Postal Service. In October 2007, the ESDC issued a Draft Scope of Work in connection with the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement describing the expanded development plan and proposing a zoning sub-district which would enable the venture to transfer the air rights under the original plans or the expanded plans to other locations within the Penn Plaza area. In addition, the Draft Scope of Work describes the public approvals and public actions necessary to implement either the original or expanded plans.

 

On December 4, 2007 a joint venture in which we are the 80% controlling and development partner was selected as the developer of the north wing of the Port Authority Bus Terminal at 42^nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan. The joint venture intends to enter into a 99 year lease with the Port Authority to create approximately 60,000 square feet of retail space and develop a 1.3 million square foot office tower. The Port Authority also intends to renovate and modernize the bus terminal. The parties are also discussing the redevelopment of the south wing of the terminal.

 

We are evaluating other development opportunities, for which final plans and budgeted costs have yet to be determined, including: (i) redevelopment plans for the Hotel Pennsylvania, (ii) redeveloping certain shopping malls, including the Green Acres and Springfield Malls, (iii) redeveloping and expanding retail space and signage in the Penn Plaza area, (iv) conversion of 220 Central Park South, a residential apartment building, to condominiums and (v) other projects.

 

There can be no assurance that any of our development projects will commence, or if commenced, be completed on schedule or within budget.

 

 

 

10

 

---

FINANCING ACTIVITIES

On March 21, 2007, we sold $1.4 billion aggregate principal amount of 2.85% convertible senior debentures due 2027, pursuant to an effective registration statement. The aggregate net proceeds from this offering, after underwriters’ discounts and expenses, were approximately $1.37 billion. The debentures are redeemable at our option beginning in 2012 for the principal amount plus accrued and unpaid interest. Holders of the debentures have the right to require us to repurchase their debentures in 2012, 2017, and 2022 and in certain other limited circumstances. The debentures are convertible, under certain circumstances, for cash and Vornado common shares at an initial conversion rate of 6.1553 common shares per $1,000 of principal amount of debentures. The initial conversion price was $162.46, which represented a premium of 30% over the March 21, 2007 closing price for our common shares. The principal amount of debentures will be settled for cash and the amount in excess of the principal defined as the conversion value will be settled in cash or, at our election, Vornado common shares.

 

On September 28, 2007, the Operating Partnership entered into a new $1.510 billion unsecured revolving credit facility, which was increased by $85,000,000 on October 12, 2007 and can be increased to up to $2.0 billion during the initial term. The new facility has a three-year term with two one-year extension options, bears interest at LIBOR plus 55 basis points (5.43% at December 31, 2007), based on our current credit ratings and requires the payment of an annual facility fee of 15 basis points. Together with the existing $1.0 billion credit facility, the Operating Partnership has an aggregate of $2.595 billion of unsecured revolving credit. Vornado is the guarantor of the Operating Partnership’s obligations under both revolving credit agreements. The existing $1.0 billion credit facility’s financial covenants have been modified to conform to the financial covenants under the new agreement. Significant modifications include (i) changing the definition of Capitalization Value to exclude corporate unallocated general and administrative expenses and to reduce the capitalization rate to 6.5% from 7.5%, and (ii) changing the definition of Total Outstanding Indebtedness to exclude indebtedness of unconsolidated joint ventures. Under the new agreement, “Equity Value” may not be less than Three Billion Dollars; “Total Outstanding Indebtedness” may not exceed sixty percent (60%) of “Capitalization Value;” the ratio of “Combined EBITDA” to “Fixed Charges,” each measured as of the most recently ended calendar quarter, may not be less than 1.40 to 1.00; the ratio of “Unencumbered Combined EBITDA” to “Unsecured Interest Expense,” each measured as of the most recently ended calendar quarter, may not be less than 1.50 to 1.00; at any time, “Unsecured Indebtedness” may not exceed sixty percent (60%) of “Capitalization Value of Unencumbered Assets;” and the ratio of “Secured Indebtedness” to “Capitalization Value,” each measured as of the most recently ended calendar quarter, may not exceed fifty percent (50%). The new agreement also contains standard representations and warranties and other covenants. The terms in quotations in this paragraph are all defined in the new agreement, which was filed as an exhibit to our Current Report on Form 8-K dated September 28, 2007, filed on October 4, 2007.

 

In addition to the above, during 2007 we completed approximately $1.111 billion of property level financings and repaid approximately $412,674,000 of existing debt with a portion of the proceeds.

 

The net proceeds we received from the above financings were used primarily to fund acquisitions and investments and for other general corporate purposes. We may seek to obtain additional capital through equity offerings, debt financings or asset sales, although there is no express policy with respect these capital markets transactions. We may also offer our shares or Operating Partnership units in exchange for property and may repurchase or otherwise re-acquire our shares or any other securities in the future.

 

11

 

---

SEASONALITY

Our revenues and expenses are subject to seasonality during the year which impacts quarter-by-quarter net earnings, cash flows and funds from operations. The business of Toys “R” Us, Inc. (“Toys”) is highly seasonal. Historically, Toys’ fourth quarter net income, which we record on a one-quarter lag basis in our first quarter, accounts for more than 80% of Toys’ fiscal year net income. The Office and Merchandise Mart segments have historically experienced higher utility costs in the third quarter of the year. The Merchandise Mart segment also has experienced higher earnings in the second and fourth quarters of the year due to major trade shows occurring in those quarters. The Retail segment revenue in the fourth quarter is typically higher due to the recognition of percentage rental income. The Temperature Controlled Logistics segment has experienced higher earnings in the fourth quarter due to higher activity and occupancy in warehouse operations due to the holiday season’s impact on the food industry.

 

TENANTS ACCOUNTING FOR OVER 10% OF REVENUES

None of our tenants represented more than 10% of total revenues for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006.

 

CERTAIN ACTIVITIES

We are not required to base our acquisitions and investments on specific allocations by type of property. We have historically held our properties for long-term investment; however, it is possible that properties in the portfolio may be sold in whole or in part, as circumstances warrant, from time to time. Further, we have not adopted a policy that limits the amount or percentage of assets which could be invested in a specific property. While we may seek the vote of our shareholders in connection with any particular material transaction, generally our activities are reviewed and may be modified from time to time by our Board of Trustees without the vote of shareholders.

 

EMPLOYEES

As of December 31, 2007, we have approximately 4,020 employees, of which 311 are corporate staff. The New York Office Properties segment has 128 employees and an additional 2,021 employees of Building Maintenance Services LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary. The Washington, DC Office Properties, Retail Properties and Merchandise Mart Properties segments have 232, 200 and 559 employees, respectively, and the Hotel Pennsylvania has 569 employees. The forgoing does not include employees of partially owned entities, including Americold Realty Trust, Toys or Alexander’s, in which we own 47.6%, 32.7% and 32.8%, respectively.

 

SEGMENT DATA

We operate in the following business segments: New York Office Properties, Washington, DC Office Properties, Retail Properties, Merchandise Mart Properties, Temperature Controlled Logistics and Toys. Financial information related to our business segments for the years 2007, 2006 and 2005 is set forth in Note 20 – Segment Information to our consolidated financial statements in this annual report on Form 10-K. The Merchandise Mart Properties segment has trade show operations in Canada and Switzerland. The Temperature Controlled Logistics segment manages one warehouse in Canada. The Toys segment operates in 505 locations internationally. In addition, we have one partially owned consolidated investment and three partially owned nonconsolidated investments in real estate partnerships located in India, which are included in the Other segment.

 

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES

Our principal executive offices are located at 888 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York 10019; telephone (212) 894-7000.

 

MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE

Copies of our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports, as well as Reports on Forms 3, 4 and 5 regarding officers, trustees or 10% beneficial owners of us, filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a), 15(d) or 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are available free of charge through our website (www.vno.com) as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. We have also made available on our website copies of our Audit Committee Charter, Compensation Committee Charter, Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee Charter, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and Corporate Governance Guidelines. In the event of any changes to these charters or the code or guidelines, changed copies will also be made available on our website. Copies of these documents are also available directly from us free of charge. Our website also includes other financial information about us, including certain non-GAAP financial measures, none of which is a part of this annual report on Form 10-K.

 

12

 

---

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Material factors that may adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition are summarized below.

 

REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS' VALUE AND INCOME FLUCTUATE DUE TO VARIOUS FACTORS.

The value of real estate fluctuates depending on conditions in the general economy and the real estate business. These conditions may also limit our revenues and available cash.

 

The factors that affect the value of our real estate investments include, among other things:

 

 

The rents we receive and the occupancy levels at our properties may decline as a result of adverse changes in any of these factors. If our rental revenues and/or occupancy levels decline, we generally would expect to have less cash available to pay our indebtedness and distribute to our shareholders. In addition, some of our major expenses, including mortgage payments, real estate taxes and maintenance costs, generally do not decline when the related rents decline.

 

Real estate is a competitive business.

Our business segments – Office, Retail, Merchandise Mart Properties, Temperature Controlled Logistics, Toys “R” Us and Other – operate in highly competitive environments. We have a large concentration of properties in the New York City metropolitan area and in the Washington, DC and Northern Virginia areas. We compete with a large number of real estate property owners and developers, some of which may be willing to accept lower returns on their investments. Principal factors of competition are rent charged, attractiveness of location, the quality of the property and breadth and quality of services provided. Our success depends upon, among other factors, trends of the national, regional and local economies, financial condition and operating results of current and prospective tenants and customers, availability and cost of capital, construction and renovation costs, taxes, governmental regulations, legislation and population trends.

 

 

13

 

---

We depend on leasing space to tenants on economically favorable terms and collecting rent from tenants who may not be able to pay.

Our financial results depend significantly on leasing space in our properties to tenants on economically favorable terms. In addition, because a substantial majority of our income comes from renting of real property, our income, funds available to pay indebtedness and funds available for distribution to our shareholders will decrease if a significant number of our tenants cannot pay their rent or if we are not able to maintain our levels of occupancy on favorable terms. If a tenant does not pay its rent, we might not be able to enforce our rights as landlord without delays and might incur substantial legal costs.

 

Inflation may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

 

Although inflation has not materially impacted our operations in the recent past, increased inflation could have a pronounced negative impact on our mortgage and debt interest and general and administrative expenses, as these costs could increase at a rate higher than our rents. Inflation could also have an adverse effect on consumer spending which could impact our tenants’ sales and, in turn, our percentage rents, where applicable.

 

Bankruptcy or insolvency of tenants may decrease our revenues and available cash.

From time to time, some of our tenants have declared bankruptcy, and other tenants may declare bankruptcy or become insolvent in the future. If a major tenant declares bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, the rental property at which it leases space may have lower revenues and operational difficulties. In the case of our shopping centers, the bankruptcy or insolvency of a major tenant could cause us to have difficulty leasing the remainder of the affected property. Our leases generally do not contain restrictions designed to ensure the creditworthiness of our tenants. As a result, the bankruptcy or insolvency of a major tenant could result in a lower level of net income and funds available for the payment of our indebtedness or for distribution to our shareholders.

 

We may incur costs to comply with environmental laws.

Our operations and properties are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning the protection of the environment, including air and water quality, hazardous or toxic substances and health and safety. Under some environmental laws, a current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be required to investigate and clean up hazardous or toxic substances released at a property. The owner or operator may also be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage or personal injuries and for investigation and clean-up costs incurred by those parties because of the contamination. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of the release of the substances or caused the release. The presence of contamination or the failure to remediate contamination may impair our ability to sell or lease real estate or to borrow using the real estate as collateral. Other laws and regulations govern indoor and outdoor air quality including those that can require the abatement or removal of asbestos-containing materials in the event of damage, demolition, renovation or remodeling and also govern emissions of and exposure to asbestos fibers in the air. The maintenance and removal of lead paint and certain electrical equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and underground storage tanks are also regulated by federal and state laws. We are also subject to risks associated with human exposure to chemical or biological contaminants such as molds, pollens, viruses and bacteria which, above certain levels, can be alleged to be connected to allergic or other health effects and symptoms in susceptible individuals. We could incur fines for environmental compliance and be held liable for the costs of remedial action with respect to the foregoing regulated substances or tanks or related claims arising out of environmental contamination or human exposure at or from our properties.

 

Each of our properties has been subjected to varying degrees of environmental assessment. The environmental assessments did not, as of this date, reveal any environmental condition material to our business. However, identification of new compliance concerns or undiscovered areas of contamination, changes in the extent or known scope of contamination, discovery of additional sites, human exposure to the contamination or changes in cleanup or compliance requirements could result in significant costs to us.

 

 

 

14

 

---

Some of our potential losses may not be covered by insurance.

We carry commercial liability and all risk property insurance ((i) fire, (ii) flood, (iii) extended coverage, (iv) “acts of terrorism” as defined in the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (“TRIPRA”), which expires in December 2014, and (v) rental loss insurance) with respect to our assets. Our New York Office, Washington, DC Office, Retail and Merchandise Mart divisions have $1.5 billion of per occurrence all risk property insurance coverage, including terrorism coverage, in effect through September 15, 2008. AmeriCold has $250,000,000 of per occurrence all risk property insurance coverage, including terrorism coverage, in effect through January 1, 2009. Our California properties have earthquake insurance with coverage of $150,000,000 per occurrence, subject to a deductible in the amount of 5% of the value of the affected property, and a $150,000,000 annual aggregate limit.

 

In June 2007 we formed Penn Plaza Insurance Company, LLC (“PPIC”), a wholly owned consolidated subsidiary, to act as a re-insurer with respect to a portion of our earthquake insurance coverage and as a direct insurer for coverage for “certified” acts of terrorism and for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological (“NBCR”) acts, as defined by TRIPRA. Coverage for “certified” acts of terrorism is fully reinsured by third party insurance companies and the Federal government with no exposure to PPIC. Prior to the formation of PPIC, we were uninsured for losses under NBCR coverage. Subsequently, we have $1.5 billion of NBCR coverage under TRIPRA, for which PPIC is responsible for 15% of each NBCR loss and the insurance company deductible of $1,000,000. We are ultimately responsible for any loss borne by PPIC.

 

We continue to monitor the state of the insurance market and the scope and costs of coverage for acts of terrorism. However, we cannot anticipate what coverage will be available on commercially reasonable terms in future policy years.

 

Our debt instruments, consisting of mortgage loans secured by our properties (which are generally non-recourse to us), senior unsecured notes, exchangeable senior debentures, convertible senior debentures and revolving credit agreements contain customary covenants requiring us to maintain insurance. Although we believe that we have adequate insurance coverage for purposes of these agreements, we may not be able to obtain an equivalent amount of coverage at reasonable costs in the future. Further, if lenders insist on greater coverage than we are able to obtain it could adversely affect our ability to finance and/or refinance our properties and expand our portfolio.

 

Because we operate one hotel property, we face the risks associated with the hospitality industry.

We own the Hotel Pennsylvania in New York City. If the hotel does not generate sufficient receipts, our cash flow would be decreased, which could reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our shareholders. The following factors, among others, are common to the hotel industry, and may reduce the revenues generated by our hotel property:

 

•

physical condition, which may require substantial additional capital.

 

15

 

---

Because of the ownership structure of our hotel, we face potential adverse effects from changes to the applicable tax laws.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, REITs like us are not allowed to operate hotels directly or indirectly. Accordingly, we lease The Hotel Pennsylvania to our taxable REIT subsidiary, or TRS. While the TRS structure allows the economic benefits of ownership to flow to us, the TRS is subject to tax on its income from the operations of the hotel at the federal and state level. In addition, the TRS is subject to detailed tax regulations that affect how it may be capitalized and operated. If the tax laws applicable to a TRS are modified, we may be forced to modify the structure for owning the hotel, and such changes may adversely affect the cash flows from the hotel. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Treasury Department and Congress frequently review federal income tax legislation, and we cannot predict whether, when or to what extent new federal tax laws, regulations, interpretations or rulings will be adopted. Any of such actions may prospectively or retroactively modify the tax treatment of the TRS and, therefore, may adversely affect our after-tax returns from the hotel.

 

Compliance or failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act or other safety regulations and requirements could result in substantial costs. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act generally requires that public buildings, including our properties, be made accessible to disabled persons. Noncompliance could result in the imposition of fines by the federal government or the award of damages to private litigants. From time to time persons have asserted claims against us with respect to some of our properties under this Act, but to date such claims have not resulted in any material expense or liability. If, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, we are required to make substantial alterations and capital expenditures in one or more of our properties, including the removal of access barriers, it could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations, as well as the amount of cash available for distribution to our shareholders.

 

Our properties are subject to various federal, state and local regulatory requirements, such as state and local fire and life safety requirements. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we could incur fines or private damage awards. We do not know whether existing requirements will change or whether compliance with future requirements will require significant unanticipated expenditures that will affect our cash flow and results of operations.

 

16

 

---

OUR INVESTMENTS ARE CONCENTRATED IN THE NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON, DC METROPOLITAN AREAS. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING THESE AREAS GENERALLY COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR BUSINESS.

A significant portion of our properties are in the New York City/New Jersey and Washington, DC metropolitan areas and are affected by the economic cycles and risks inherent to those areas.

During 2007, approximately 71% of our EBITDA, excluding items that affect comparability, came from properties located in the New York City and Washington, DC metropolitan areas and in New Jersey. In addition, we may continue to concentrate a significant portion of our future acquisitions in these metropolitan areas or in other geographic real estate markets in the United States or abroad. Real estate markets are subject to economic downturns, as they have in the past, and we cannot predict how economic conditions will impact these markets in both the short and long term. Declines in the economy or a decline in the real estate markets in these areas could hurt our financial performance and the value of our properties. The factors affecting economic conditions in these regions include:

 

 

It is impossible for us to assess the future effects of the current uncertain trends in the economic and investment climates of the geographic areas in which we concentrate, and more generally of the United States, or the real estate markets in these areas. If these conditions persist or if there is any local, national or global economic downturn, our businesses and future profitability may be adversely affected.

 

Terrorist attacks, such as those of September 11, 2001 in New York City and the Washington, DC area, may adversely affect the value of our properties and our ability to generate cash flow.

We have significant investments in large metropolitan areas, including the New York, Washington, DC, Chicago, Boston and San Francisco metropolitan areas. In the aftermath of a terrorist attack, tenants in these areas may choose to relocate their businesses to less populated, lower-profile areas of the United States that may be perceived to be less likely targets of future terrorist activity and fewer customers may choose to patronize businesses in these areas. This in turn would trigger a decrease in the demand for space in these areas, which could increase vacancies in our properties and force us to lease our properties on less favorable terms. As a result, the value of our properties and the level of our revenues and cash flows could decline materially.

 

 

17

 

---

WE MAY ACQUIRE OR SELL ADDITIONAL ASSETS OR ENTITIES OR DEVELOP ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES. OUR FAILURE OR INABILITY TO CONSUMMATE THESE TRANSACTIONS OR MANAGE THE RESULTS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL RESULTS.

 

We have grown rapidly through acquisitions. We may not be able to maintain this rapid growth and our failure to do so could adversely affect our stock price.

We have experienced rapid growth in recent years, increasing our total assets from approximately $565 million at December 31, 1997 to approximately $22.5 billion at December 31, 2007. We may not be able to maintain a similar rate of growth in the future or manage our growth effectively. Our failure to do so may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations and ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

 

We may acquire or develop properties or acquire other real estate related companies and this may create risks.

We may acquire or develop properties or acquire other real estate related companies when we believe that an acquisition or development is consistent with our business strategies. We may not, however, succeed in consummating desired acquisitions or in completing developments on time or within budget. In addition, we may face competition in pursuing acquisition or development opportunities that could increase our costs. When we do pursue a project or acquisition, we may not succeed in leasing newly developed or acquired properties at rents sufficient to cover our costs of acquisition and development or in operating the businesses we acquired. Difficulties in integrating acquisitions may prove costly or time-consuming and could divert management’s attention. Acquisitions or developments in new markets or industries where we do not have the same level of market knowledge may result in poorer than anticipated performance. We may also abandon acquisition or development opportunities that we have begun pursuing and consequently fail to recover expenses already incurred and have devoted management time to a matter not consummated. Furthermore, our acquisitions of new properties or companies will expose us to the liabilities of those properties or companies, some of which we may not be aware at the time of acquisition. In addition, development of our existing properties presents similar risks.

 

From time to time we have made, and in the future we may seek to make, one or more material acquisitions. The announcement of such a material acquisition may result in a significant decline in the price of our common shares.

 

We are continuously looking at material transactions that we will believe will maximize shareholder value. However, an announcement by us of one or more significant acquisitions could result in a quick and significant decline in the price of our common shares and convertible and exchangeable securities.

 

It may be difficult to buy and sell real estate quickly.

Real estate investments are relatively difficult to buy and sell quickly. Consequently, we may have limited ability to vary our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions.

 

We may not be permitted to dispose of certain properties or pay down the debt associated with those properties when we might otherwise desire to do so without incurring additional costs.

As part of an acquisition of a property, including our January 1, 2002 acquisition of Charles E. Smith Commercial Realty L.P.’s 13.0 million square foot portfolio, we may agree, and in the case of Charles E. Smith Commercial Realty L.P. did agree, with the seller that we will not dispose of the acquired properties or reduce the mortgage indebtedness on them for significant periods of time unless we pay certain of the resulting tax costs of the seller. These agreements could result in our holding on to properties that we would otherwise sell and not pay down or refinance indebtedness that we would otherwise pay down or refinance.

 

18

 

---

On January 1, 2002, we completed the acquisition of the 66% interest in Charles E. Smith Commercial Realty L.P. that we did not previously own. The terms of the merger restrict our ability to sell or otherwise dispose of, or to finance or refinance, the properties formerly owned by Charles E. Smith Commercial Realty L.P., which could result in our inability to sell these properties at an opportune time and increased costs to us.

Subject to limited exceptions, we are restricted from selling or otherwise transferring or disposing of certain properties located in the Crystal City area of Arlington, Virginia for a period of 12 years. These restrictions, which currently cover approximately 13.0 million square feet of space, could result in our inability to sell these properties at an opportune time and increase costs to us.

 

From time to time we make investments in companies over which we do not have sole control. Some of these companies operate in industries that differ from our current operations, with different risks than investing in real estate.

From time to time we make debt or equity investments in other companies that we may not control or over which we may not have sole control. These investments include but are not limited to:  Alexander’s, Inc., Toys, The Lexington Master Limited Partnership, GMH Communities L.P. and equity and mezzanine investments in other entities that have significant real estate assets. Although these businesses generally have a significant real estate component, certain operate in businesses that are different from our primary lines of business including, without limitation, operating or managing toy stores, department stores, student and military housing facilities. Consequently, our investment in these businesses, among other risks, subjects us to the operating and financial risks of industries other than real estate and to the risk that we do not have sole control over the operations of these businesses. From time to time we may make additional investments in or acquire other entities that may subject us to additional similar risks. Our investments in entities over which we do not have sole control, including joint ventures, present additional risks such as our having differing objectives than our partners or the entities in which we invest, or our becoming involved in disputes, or competing with those persons. In addition, we rely on the internal controls and financial reporting controls of these entities and their failure to comply with applicable standards may adversely affect us.

 

We are subject to risks that affect the general retail environment.

A substantial proportion of our properties are in the retail shopping center real estate market and we have a significant investment in retailers such as Toys. See “Our investment in Toys “R” Us, Inc. subjects us to risks different from our other lines of business and may result in increased seasonality and volatility in our reported earnings” below. This means that we are subject to factors that affect the retail environment generally, including the level of consumer spending and consumer confidence, the threat of terrorism and increasing competition from discount retailers, outlet malls, retail websites and catalog companies. These factors could adversely affect the financial condition of our retail tenants and the retailers in which we hold an investment and the willingness of retailers to lease space in our shopping centers.

 

We depend upon our anchor tenants to attract shoppers.

We own several regional malls and other shopping centers that are typically anchored by well-known department stores and other tenants who generate shopping traffic at the mall or shopping center. The value of our properties would be adversely affected if tenants or anchors failed to meet their contractual obligations, sought concessions in order to continue operations or ceased their operations. If the sales of stores operating in our properties were to decline significantly due to economic conditions, closing of anchors or for other reasons, tenants may be unable to pay their minimum rents or expense recovery charges. In the event of a default by a tenant or anchor, we may experience delays and costs in enforcing our rights as landlord.

 

19

 

---

Our investment in Toys “R” Us, Inc. subjects us to risks different from our other lines of business and may result in increased seasonality and volatility in our reported earnings.

On July 21, 2005, a joint venture that we own equally with Bain Capital and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. acquired Toys “R” Us, Inc. (“Toys”). Because Toys is a retailer, its operations subject us to the risks of a retail company that are different than those presented by our other lines of business. The business of Toys is highly seasonal. Historically, Toys fourth quarter net income accounts for more than 80% of its fiscal year net income. In addition, our fiscal year ends on December 31 whereas, as is common for retailers, Toys’ fiscal year ends on the Saturday nearest to January 31. Therefore, we record our pro-rata share of Toys’ net earnings on a one quarter-lag basis. For example, our financial results for the year ended December 31, 2007 include Toys’ financial results for its first, second and third quarters ended October 28, 2006, as well as Toys’ fourth quarter results of 2005. Because of the seasonality of Toys, our reported net income will likely show increased volatility. We may also, in the future and from time to time, invest in other businesses that may report financial results that are more volatile than our historical financial results.

 

We invest in subordinated or mezzanine debt of certain entities that have significant real estate assets. These investments involve greater risk of loss than investments in senior mortgage loans.

We invest, and may in the future invest, in subordinated or mezzanine debt of certain entities that have significant real estate assets. As of December 31, 2007, our mezzanine debt securities have an aggregate carrying amount of $492,339,000. These investments, which are subordinate to the mortgage loans secured by the real property, are generally secured by pledges of the equity interests of the entities owning the underlying real estate. These investments involve greater risk of loss than investments in senior mortgage loans which are secured by real property. If a borrower defaults on debt to us or on debt senior to us, or declares bankruptcy, we may not be able to recover some or all of our investment. The value of the assets securing or supporting our investments could deteriorate over time due to factors beyond our control, including acts or omissions by owners, changes in business, economic or market conditions, or foreclosure. Such deteriorations in value may result in the recognition of impairment losses on our statement of operations. In addition, there may be significant delays and costs associated with the process of foreclosing on collateral securing or supporting our investments.

 

We evaluate the collectibility of both interest and principal of each of our loans, if circumstances warrant, to determine whether they are impaired. A loan is impaired when based on current information and events, it is probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the existing contractual terms. When a loan is impaired, the amount of the loss accrual is calculated by comparing the carrying amount of the investment to the value determined by discounting the expected future cash flows at the loan’s effective interest rate or, as a practical expedient, to the value of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent. There can be no assurance that our estimates of collectible amounts will not change over time or that they will be representative of the amounts we actually collect, including amounts we would collect if we chose to sell these investments before their maturity. If we collect less than our estimates, we will record charges which could be material.

 

We invest in marketable equity securities of companies that have significant real estate assets. The value of these investments may decline as a result of operating performance or economic or market conditions.

We invest, and may in the future invest, in marketable equity securities of publicly-traded real estate companies or companies that have significant real estate assets. As of December 31, 2007, our marketable securities have an aggregate carrying amount of $323,106,000. Significant declines in the value of these investments due to operating performance or economic or market conditions may result in the recognition of impairment losses on our statement of operations.

 

 

20

 

---

OUR ORGANIZATIONAL AND FINANCIAL STRUCTURE GIVES RISE TO OPERATIONAL AND FINANCIAL RISKS.

We May Not Be Able to Obtain Capital to Make Investments.

We depend primarily on external financing to fund the growth of our business. This is because one of the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, for a REIT is that it distribute 90% of its net taxable income, excluding net capital gains, to its shareholders. There is a separate requirement to distribute net capital gains or pay a corporate level tax in lieu thereof. Our access to debt or equity financing depends on the willingness of third parties to lend or make equity investments and on conditions in the capital markets generally. We and other companies in the real estate industry have experienced limited availability of financing from time to time. Although we believe that we will be able to finance any investments we may wish to make in the foreseeable future, new financing may not be available on acceptable terms.

 

For information about our available sources of funds, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources” and the notes to the consolidated financial statements in this annual report on Form 10-K.

 

Vornado Realty Trust depends on dividends and distributions from its direct and indirect subsidiaries. The creditors and preferred security holders of these subsidiaries are entitled to amounts payable to them by the subsidiaries before the subsidiaries may pay any dividends or distributions to Vornado Realty Trust.

Substantially all of Vornado Realty Trust’s assets are held through its Operating Partnership that holds substantially all of its properties and assets through subsidiaries. The Operating Partnership’s cash flow is dependent on cash distributions to it by its subsidiaries, and in turn, substantially all of Vornado Realty Trust’s cash flow is dependent on cash distributions to it by the Operating Partnership. The creditors of each of Vornado Realty Trust’s direct and indirect subsidiaries are entitled to payment of that subsidiary’s obligations to them, when due and payable, before distributions may be made by that subsidiary to its equity holders. Thus, the Operating Partnership’s ability to make distributions to holders of its units depends on its subsidiaries’ ability first to satisfy their obligations to their creditors and then to make distributions to the Operating Partnership. Likewise, Vornado Realty Trust’s ability to pay dividends to holders of common and preferred shares depends on the Operating Partnership’s ability first to satisfy its obligations to its creditors and make distributions payable to holders of preferred units and then to make distributions to Vornado Realty Trust.

 

Furthermore, the holders of preferred units of the Operating Partnership are entitled to receive preferred distributions before payment of distributions to holders of common units of the Operating Partnership, including Vornado Realty Trust. Thus, Vornado Realty Trust’s ability to pay dividends to holders of its shares and satisfy its debt obligations depends on the Operating Partnership’s ability first to satisfy its obligations to its creditors and make distributions payable to holders of preferred units and then to make distributions to Vornado Realty Trust. As of December 31, 2007, there were nine series of preferred units of the Operating Partnership not held by Vornado Realty Trust that have preference over Vornado Realty Trust common shares with a total liquidation value of $399,347,000.

 

In addition, Vornado Realty Trust’s participation in any distribution of the assets of any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries upon the liquidation, reorganization or insolvency, is only after the claims of the creditors, including trade creditors and preferred security holders, are satisfied.

 

We have indebtedness, and this indebtedness, and its cost, may increase.

As of December 31, 2007, we had approximately $12.952 billion of total debt outstanding, including our pro rata share of debt of partially owned entities. Our ratio of total debt to total enterprise value was approximately 47%. When we say “enterprise value” in the preceding sentence, we mean market equity value of Vornado Realty Trust’s common and preferred shares plus total debt outstanding, including our pro rata share of debt of partially owned entities. In the future, we may incur additional debt, and thus increase our ratio of total debt to total enterprise value, to finance acquisitions or property developments. If our level of indebtedness increases, there may be an increased risk of a credit rating downgrade or a default on our obligations that could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, in a rising interest rate environment, the cost of our existing variable rate debt and any new debt or other market rate security or instrument may increase.

 

21

 

---

Covenants in our debt instruments could adversely affect our financial condition and our acquisitions and development activities.

The mortgages on our properties contain customary covenants such as those that limit our ability, without the prior consent of the lender, to further mortgage the applicable property or to discontinue insurance coverage. Our unsecured credit facilities, unsecured debt securities and other loans that we may obtain in the future contain customary restrictions, requirements and other limitations on our ability to incur indebtedness, including covenants that limit our ability to incur debt based upon the level of our ratio of total debt to total assets, our ratio of secured debt to total assets, our ratio of EBITDA to interest expense, and fixed charges, and that require us to maintain a certain level of unencumbered assets to unsecured debt. Our ability to borrow under these facilities is subject to compliance with certain financial and other covenants. In addition, failure to comply with our covenants could cause a default under the applicable debt instrument, and we may then be required to repay such debt with capital from other sources. Under those circumstances, other sources of capital may not be available to us, or be available only on unattractive terms. Additionally, our ability to satisfy current or prospective lenders’ insurance requirements may be adversely affected if lenders generally insist upon greater insurance coverage against acts of terrorism than is available to us in the marketplace or on commercially reasonable terms.

 

We rely on debt financing, including borrowings under our unsecured credit facilities, issuances of unsecured debt securities and debt secured by individual properties, to finance acquisitions and development activities and for working capital. If we are unable to obtain debt financing from these or other sources, or refinance existing indebtedness upon maturity, our financial condition and results of operations would likely be adversely affected. If we breach covenants in our debt agreements, the lenders can declare a default and, if the debt is secured, can take possession of the property securing the defaulted loan.

 

Vornado Realty Trust may fail to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT and may be required to pay income taxes at corporate rates.

Although we believe that we will remain organized and will continue to operate so as to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we may fail to remain qualified in this way. Qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes is governed by highly technical and complex provisions of the Internal Revenue Code for which there are only limited judicial or administrative interpretations. Our qualification as a REIT also depends on various facts and circumstances that are not entirely within our control. In addition, legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions may significantly change the tax laws with respect to the requirements for qualification as a REIT or the federal income tax consequences of qualifying as a REIT.

 

If, with respect to any taxable year, we fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT and do not qualify under statutory relief provisions, we could not deduct distributions to shareholders in computing our taxable income and would have to pay federal income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates. The federal income tax payable would include any applicable alternative minimum tax. If we had to pay federal income tax, the amount of money available to distribute to shareholders and pay our indebtedness would be reduced for the year or years involved, and we would no longer be required to distribute money to shareholders. In addition, we would also be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification was lost, unless we were entitled to relief under the relevant statutory provisions. Although we currently intend to operate in a manner designed to allow us to qualify as a REIT, future economic, market, legal, tax or other considerations may cause us to revoke the REIT election or fail to qualify as a REIT.

 

We face possible adverse changes in tax laws, which may result in an increase in our tax liability.

From time to time changes in state and local tax laws or regulations are enacted, which may result in an increase in our tax liability. The shortfall in tax revenues for states and municipalities in recent years may lead to an increase in the frequency and size of such changes. If such changes occur, we may be required to pay additional taxes on our assets or income. These increased tax costs could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations and the amount of cash available for payment of dividends.

 

Loss of our key personnel could harm our operations and adversely affect the value of our common shares.

We are dependent on the efforts of Steven Roth, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Chief Executive Officer of Vornado Realty Trust, and Michael D. Fascitelli, the President of Vornado Realty Trust. While we believe that we could find replacements for these key personnel, the loss of their services could harm our operations and adversely affect the value of our common shares.

 

22

 

---

VORNADO REALTY TRUST'S CHARTER DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE LAW MAY HINDER ANY ATTEMPT TO ACQUIRE US.

Our Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust sets limits on the ownership of our shares.

Generally, for Vornado Realty Trust to maintain its qualification as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code, not more than 50% in value of the outstanding shares of beneficial interest of Vornado Realty Trust may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of Vornado Realty Trust’s taxable year. The Internal Revenue Code defines “individuals” for purposes of the requirement described in the preceding sentence to include some types of entities. Under Vornado Realty Trust’s Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, as amended, no person may own more than 6.7% of the outstanding common shares of any class, or 9.9% of the outstanding preferred shares of any class, with some exceptions for persons who held common shares in excess of the 6.7% limit before Vornado Realty Trust adopted the limit and other persons approved by Vornado Realty Trust’s Board of Trustees. These restrictions on transferability and ownership may delay, deter or prevent a change in control of Vornado Realty Trust or other transaction that might involve a premium price or otherwise be in the best interest of the shareholders. We refer to Vornado Realty Trust’s Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, as amended, as the “declaration of trust.”

 

We have a classified Board of Trustees and that may reduce the likelihood of certain takeover transactions.

 

Vornado Realty Trust’s Board of Trustees is divided into three classes of trustees. Trustees of each class are chosen for three-year staggered terms. Staggered terms of trustees may reduce the possibility of a tender offer or an attempt to change control of Vornado Realty Trust, even though a tender offer or change in control might be in the best interest of Vornado Realty Trust’s shareholders.

 

We may issue additional shares in a manner that could adversely affect the likelihood of certain takeover transactions.

 

Vornado Realty Trust’s declaration of trust authorizes the Board of Trustees to:

 

The Board of Trustees could establish a series of preferred shares whose terms could delay, deter or prevent a change in control of Vornado Realty Trust or other transaction that might involve a premium price or otherwise be in the best interest of Vornado Realty Trust’s shareholders, although the Board of Trustees does not now intend to establish a series of preferred shares of this kind. Vornado Realty Trust’s declaration of trust and bylaws contain other provisions that may delay, deter or prevent a change in control of Vornado Realty Trust or other transaction that might involve a premium price or otherwise be in the best interest of our shareholders.

 

The Maryland General Corporation Law contains provisions that may reduce the likelihood of certain takeover transactions.

 

Under the Maryland General Corporation Law, as amended, which we refer to as the “MGCL,” as applicable to real estate investment trusts, certain “business combinations,” including certain mergers, consolidations, share exchanges and asset transfers and certain issuances and reclassifications of equity securities, between a Maryland real estate investment trust and any person who beneficially owns ten percent or more of the voting power of the trust’s shares or an affiliate or an associate, as defined in the MGCL, of the trust who, at any time within the two-year period before the date in question, was the beneficial owner of ten percent or more of the voting power of the then outstanding voting shares of beneficial interest of the trust, which we refer to as an “interested shareholder,” or an affiliate of the interested shareholder, are prohibited for five years after the most recent date on which the interested shareholder becomes an interested shareholder. After that five-year period, any business combination of these kinds must be recommended by the board of trustees of the trust and approved by the affirmative vote of at least (a) 80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of outstanding shares of beneficial interest of the trust and (b) two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of voting shares of the trust other than shares held by the interested shareholder with whom, or with whose affiliate, the business combination is to be effected, unless, among other conditions, the trust’s common shareholders receive a minimum price, as defined in the MGCL, for their shares and the consideration is received in cash or in the same form as previously paid by the interested shareholder for its common shares.

 

23

 

---

The provisions of the MGCL do not apply, however, to business combinations that are approved or exempted by the board of trustees of the applicable trust before the interested shareholder becomes an interested shareholder, and a person is not an interested shareholder if the board of trustees approved in advance the transaction by which the person otherwise would have become an interested shareholder.

 

In approving a transaction, the Board may provide that its approval is subject to compliance, at or after the time of approval, with any terms and conditions determined by the Board. Vornado Realty Trust’s Board has adopted a resolution exempting any business combination between any trustee or officer of Vornado Realty Trust, or their affiliates, and Vornado Realty Trust. As a result, the trustees and officers of Vornado Realty Trust and their affiliates may be able to enter into business combinations with Vornado Realty Trust that may not be in the best interest of shareholders. With respect to business combinations with other persons, the business combination provisions of the MGCL may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of Vornado Realty Trust or other transaction that might involve a premium price or otherwise be in the best interest of the shareholders. The business combination statute may discourage others from trying to acquire control of Vornado Realty Trust and increase the difficulty of consummating any offer.

 

We may change our policies without obtaining the approval of our shareholders.

Our operating and financial policies, including our policies with respect to acquisitions of real estate or other companies, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization and dividends, are exclusively determined by our Board of Trustees. Accordingly, our shareholders do not control these policies.

 

OUR OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE AND RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS MAY GIVE RISE TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

Steven Roth and Interstate Properties may exercise substantial influence over us. They and some of our other trustees and officers have interests or positions in other entities that may compete with us.

As of December 31, 2007, Interstate Properties, a New Jersey general partnership, and its partners owned approximately 8.3% of the common shares of Vornado Realty Trust and approximately 27.2% of the common stock of Alexander’s, Inc. Steven Roth, David Mandelbaum and Russell B. Wight, Jr. are the three partners of Interstate Properties. Mr. Roth is the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Vornado Realty Trust, the managing general partner of Interstate Properties and the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Alexander’s. Messrs. Wight and Mandelbaum are trustees of Vornado Realty Trust and also directors of Alexander’s.

 

As of December 31, 2007, the Operating Partnership owned 32.8% of the outstanding common stock of Alexander’s. Alexander’s is a REIT engaged in leasing, managing, developing and redeveloping properties, focusing primarily on the locations where its department stores operated before they ceased operations in 1992. Alexander’s has seven properties, which are located in the New York City metropolitan area. Mr. Roth and Mr. Fascitelli, the President and a trustee of Vornado Realty Trust, are directors of Alexander’s. Messrs. Mandelbaum, West and Wight are trustees of Vornado Realty Trust and are directors of Alexander’s.

 

Because of these overlapping interests, Mr. Roth and Interstate Properties and its partners may have substantial influence over Vornado Realty Trust and on the outcome of any matters submitted to Vornado Realty Trust shareholders for approval. In addition, certain decisions concerning our operations or financial structure may present conflicts of interest among Messrs. Roth, Mandelbaum and Wight and Interstate Properties and our other equity or debt holders. In addition, Mr. Roth, Interstate Properties and its partners, and Alexander’s currently and may in the future engage in a wide variety of activities in the real estate business which may result in conflicts of interest with respect to matters affecting us, such as which of these entities or persons, if any, may take advantage of potential business opportunities, the business focus of these entities, the types of properties and geographic locations in which these entities make investments, potential competition between business activities conducted, or sought to be conducted, competition for properties and tenants, possible corporate transactions such as acquisitions and other strategic decisions affecting the future of these entities.

 

Vornado Realty Trust currently manages and leases the real estate assets of Interstate Properties under a management agreement for which it receives an annual fee equal to 4% of base rent and percentage rent and certain other commissions. The management agreement has a term of one year and is automatically renewable unless terminated by either of the parties on 60 days’ notice at the end of the term. Vornado Realty Trust earned $800,000, $798,000, and $791,000 of management fees under the management agreement for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005. Because of the relationship among Vornado Realty Trust, Interstate Properties and Messrs. Roth, Mandelbaum and Wight, as described above, the terms of the management agreement and any future agreements between Vornado Realty Trust and Interstate Properties may not be comparable to those Vornado Realty Trust could have negotiated with an unaffiliated third party.

 

24

 

---

There may be conflicts of interest between Alexander’s and us.

As of December 31, 2007, the Operating Partnership owned 32.8% of the outstanding common stock of Alexander’s. Alexander’s is a REIT engaged in leasing, managing, developing and redeveloping properties, focusing primarily on the locations where its department stores operated before they ceased operations in 1992. Alexander’s has seven properties. Interstate Properties, which is described above, and its partners owned an additional 27.2% of the outstanding common stock of Alexander’s, as of December 31, 2007. Mr. Roth, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Vornado Realty Trust, is Chief Executive Officer, a director of Alexander’s and managing general partner of Interstate, and Mr. Fascitelli, President and a trustee of Vornado Realty Trust, is President and a director of Alexander’s. Messrs. Mandelbaum, West and Wight, trustees of us, are also directors of Alexander’s and general partners of Interstate. Alexander’s common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “ALX.”

 

The Operating Partnership manages, develops and leases the Alexander’s properties under management and development agreements and leasing agreements under which the Operating Partnership receives annual fees from Alexander’s. These agreements have a one-year term expiring in March of each year and are all automatically renewable. Because Vornado Realty Trust and Alexander’s share common senior management and because a majority of the trustees of Vornado Realty Trust also constitute the majority of the directors of Alexander’s, the terms of the foregoing agreements and any future agreements between us and Alexander’s may not be comparable to those we could have negotiated with an unaffiliated third party.

 

For a description of Interstate Properties’ ownership of Vornado Realty Trust and Alexander’s, see “Steven Roth and Interstate Properties may exercise substantial influence over us. They and some of our other trustees and officers have interests or positions in other entities that may compete with us” above.

 

 

THE NUMBER OF SHARES OF VORNADO REALTY TRUST AND THE MARKET FOR THOSE SHARES GIVE RISE TO VARIOUS RISKS.

Vornado Realty Trust has many shares available for future sale, which could hurt the market price of its shares.

As of December 31, 2007, we had authorized but unissued, 96,923,394 common shares of beneficial interest, $.04 par value, and 76,016,023 preferred shares of beneficial interest, no par value, of which 68,016,023 preferred shares have not been reserved and remain available for issuance as a newly-designated class of preferred. We may issue these authorized but unissued shares from time to time in public or private offerings or in connection with acquisitions.

 

In addition, as of December 31, 2007, 14,556,397 common shares were reserved for issuance upon redemption of Operating Partnership common units. Some of these shares may be sold in the public market after registration under the Securities Act under registration rights agreements between Vornado Realty Trust and some holders of common units of the Operating Partnership. These shares may also be sold in the public market under Rule 144 under the Securities Act or other available exemptions from registration. In addition, we have reserved a number of common shares for issuance under employee benefit plans, and these common shares will be available for sale from time to time. We have awarded shares of restricted stock and granted options to purchase additional common shares to some of our executive officers and employees. Of the authorized but unissued common and preferred shares above, 51,052,118 common and 8,000,000 preferred shares, in the aggregate, were reserved for issuance upon the redemption of Operating Partnership units, conversion of outstanding convertible securities, under benefit plans or for other activity not directly under our control.

 

We cannot predict the effect that future sales of Vornado Realty Trust common and preferred shares or Operating Partnership common and preferred units will have on the market prices of Vornado Realty Trust’s outstanding shares.

 

25

 

---

Changes in market conditions could hurt the market price of Vornado Realty Trust’s shares.

The value of our common and preferred shares depends on various market conditions, which may change from time to time. Among the market conditions that may affect the value of our common and preferred shares are the following:

 

 

The stock market in recent years has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies.

 

Increased market interest rates may hurt the value of Vornado Realty Trust’s common and preferred shares.

We believe that investors consider the distribution rate on REIT shares, expressed as a percentage of the price of the shares, relative to market interest rates as an important factor in deciding whether to buy or sell the shares. If market interest rates go up, prospective purchasers of REIT shares may expect a higher distribution rate. Higher interest rates would likely increase our borrowing costs and might decrease funds available for distribution. Thus, higher market interest rates could cause the market price of Vornado Realty Trust’s common and preferred shares to decline.

 

 

 

 

There are no unresolved comments from the staff of the Securities Exchange Commission as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

26

 

---

We own New York Office Properties, Washington, DC Office Properties, Retail properties, Merchandise Mart properties and Temperature Controlled Logistics refrigerated warehouses. We also have investments in Toys “R” Us, Alexander’s, The Lexington Master Limited Partnership, GMH Communities L.P., Hotel Pennsylvania and industrial buildings. Below are the details of our properties by operating segment.

 

NEW YORK OFFICE PROPERTIES

 

Our New York Office Properties segment contains 16.0 million square feet, including 15.0 million square feet of office space, 851,000 square feet of retail space and 183,000 square feet of showroom space. In addition, the New York Office Properties contain six garages totaling 368,000 square feet (1,739 spaces) which are managed by or leased to third parties. The garage space is excluded from the statistics provided in this section.

 

Occupancy and average annual escalated rent per square foot, excluding garage space:

 

 

 

2007 New York Office Properties rental revenue by tenants’ industry:

 

 

New York Office Properties lease terms generally range from five to seven years for smaller tenant spaces to as long as 15 years for major tenants, and may include extension options at market rates. Leases typically provide for step-ups in rent periodically over the term of the lease and pass through to tenants the tenant’s share of increases in real estate taxes and operating expenses over a base year. Electricity is provided to tenants on a sub-metered basis or included in rent based on surveys and adjusted for subsequent utility rate increases. Leases also typically provide for tenant improvement allowances for all or a portion of the tenant’s initial construction costs of its premises.

 

27

 

---

NEW YORK OFFICE PROPERTIES - CONTINUED

 

Tenants accounting for 2% or more of 2007 New York Office Properties total revenues:

 

 

______________________

 

2007 New York Office Leasing Activity:

 

_________________________________

 

 

In addition to the office space noted above, in 2007 we leased 24,000 square feet of retail space contained in the above office buildings at a weighted average initial rent of $217.90 per square foot.

 

28

 

---

NEW YORK OFFICE PROPERTIES - CONTINUED

 

Lease expirations as of December 31, 2007 assuming none of the tenants exercise renewal options:

 

 

_________________________

 

29

 

---

NEW YORK OFFICE PROPERTIES - CONTINUED

New York Office Properties owned by us as of December 31, 2007:

 

30

---

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE PROPERTIES

 

As of December 31, 2007, we own 83 properties aggregating 17.6 million square feet in the Washington, DC and Northern Virginia area including of 72 office buildings, 7 residential properties and a hotel property. As of December 31, 2007, three buildings are out of service for redevelopment. We manage an additional 5.3 million square feet of office and other commercial properties. In addition, the Washington, DC Office Properties portfolio includes 49 garages totaling approximately 9.3 million square feet (29,000 spaces) which are managed by or leased to third parties. The garage space is excluded from the statistics provided in this section.

 

As of December 31, 2007, 24% percent of the space in the Washington, DC Office Properties portfolio is leased to various agencies of the U.S. government.

 

Occupancy and average annual escalated rent per square foot:

 

 

 

2007 rental revenue by tenants’ industry:

 

 

Washington, DC Office Properties leases are typically for four to seven year terms, and may provide for extension options at either pre-negotiated or market rates. Most leases provide for annual rental escalations throughout the lease term, plus recovery of increases in real estate taxes and certain property operating expenses over a base year. Annual rental escalations are typically based upon either fixed percentage increases or the consumer price index. Leases also typically provide for tenant improvement allowances for all or a portion of the tenant’s initial construction costs of its premises.

 

31

 

---

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE PROPERTIES - CONTINUED

 

Tenants accounting for 2% or more of Washington, DC Office Properties total revenues:

 

 

 

2007 Washington, DC Leasing Activity:

 

_________________________

 

 

32

 

---

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE PROPERTIES - CONTINUED

 

Lease expirations as of December 31, 2007 assuming none of the tenants exercise renewal options:

 

 

 

33

 

---

 

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE PROPERTIES - CONTINUED

 

Washington, DC Office Properties owned by us as of December 31, 2007:

 

 

34

 

---

 

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE PROPERTIES - CONTINUED

 

Washington, DC Office Properties owned by us as of December 31, 2007 - continued:

 

 

35

 

---

 

RETAIL PROPERTIES SEGMENT

 

As of December 31, 2007, we own 177 retail properties, of which 147 are strip shopping centers located primarily in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and California; 8 are regional malls located in New York, New Jersey, Virginia and San Juan, Puerto Rico; and 22 are retail properties located in Manhattan (“Manhattan Street Retail”). Our strip shopping centers and malls are generally located on major highways in mature, densely populated areas, and therefore attract consumers from a regional, rather than a neighborhood market place.

 

Strip Shopping Centers

 

Our strip shopping centers contain an aggregate of 15.8 million square feet and are substantially (over 80%) leased to large stores (over 20,000 square feet). Tenants include destination retailers such as discount department stores, supermarkets, home improvement stores, discount apparel stores and membership warehouse clubs. Tenants typically offer basic consumer necessities such as food, health and beauty aids, moderately priced clothing, building materials and home improvement supplies, and compete primarily on the basis of price and location.

 

Regional Malls

 

The Green Acres Mall in Long Island, New York contains 1.8 million square feet, and is anchored by Sears, J.C. Penney, Macy’s and Macy’s Furniture Gallery, Wal-Mart and a BJ’s Wholesale Club.

 

The Monmouth Mall in Eatontown, New Jersey, in which we own a 50% interest, contains 1.4 million square feet and is anchored by Macy’s, Lord & Taylor, J.C. Penney and Boscovs, three of which own their stores aggregating 719,000 square feet. The joint venture plans to construct 60,000 square feet of free-standing retail space in the mall complex, subject to governmental approvals. The expansion is expected to be completed during 2008.

 

The Springfield Mall in Springfield, Virginia contains 1.2 million square feet and is anchored by Macy’s, and J.C. Penney and Target who own their stores aggregating 390,000 square feet. We intend to redevelop, reposition and re-tenant the mall.

 

The Broadway Mall in Hicksville, Long Island, New York contains 1.1 million square feet and is anchored by Macy’s, Ikea, Multiplex Cinema and Target, which owns its store containing 141,000 square feet.       

 

The Bergen Town Center in Paramus, New Jersey contained approximately 900,000 square feet when we acquired it in December 2003. We are currently in the process of redeveloping the mall and constructing approximately 500,000 square feet of new space in place of 300,000 square feet which was demolished during 2007. Upon completion of the redevelopment at the end of 2008, the mall will contain approximately 1,200,000 square feet of retail space, of which 416,000 square feet has been leased to Century 21, Whole Foods and Target (ground leased).

 

The South Hills Mall in Poughkeepsie, New York contains 314,000 square feet and is anchored by Kmart and Burlington Coat Factory. We plan to redevelop the property into a 575,000 square foot strip shopping center. The redevelopment is expected to be completed during 2009.

 

The Montehiedra Mall in San Juan, Puerto Rico contains 540,000 square feet and is anchored by Home Depot, Kmart, and Marshalls.

 

The Las Catalinas Mall in San Juan, Puerto Rico, contains 496,000 square feet and is anchored by Kmart and Sears, which owns its 140,000 square foot store.

 

Manhattan Street Retail

 

Manhattan Street Retail is comprised of 22 properties containing 943,000 square feet. These properties include 4 Union Square, which contains 198,000 square feet anchored by Whole Foods Market, Filenes Basement and DSW; the Manhattan Mall, which is under development and will include a new JC Penney store; and 1540 Broadway in Times Square, which contains 154,000 square feet anchored by Virgin Records and Planet Hollywood; and properties on Madison Avenue, and in SoHo, occupied by retailers including H&M, the GAP, Gucci, Chloe and Cartier. Manhattan Street Retail does not include 851,000 square feet of retail space in certain of our New York Office buildings.

 

36

 

---

RETAIL PROPERTIES SEGMENT – CONTINUED

 

Occupancy and average annual net rent per square foot:

 

At December 31, 2007, the aggregate occupancy rate for the entire Retail Properties portfolio of 21.9 million square feet was 94.3%. Details of our ownership interest in the strip shopping centers, regional malls and Manhattan retail properties for the past five years are provided below.

 

Strip Shopping Centers:

 

 

Regional Malls:

 

 

Manhattan Street Retail:

 

 

37

 

---

 

RETAIL PROPERTIES SEGMENT – CONTINUED

 

2007 rental revenue by type of retailer:

 

 

Shopping center lease terms range from five years or less in some instances for smaller tenant spaces to as long as 25 years for major tenants. Leases generally provide for additional rents based on a percentage of tenants’ sales and pass through to tenants the tenants’ share of all common area charges (including roof and structure in strip shopping centers, unless it is the tenant’s direct responsibility), real estate taxes and insurance costs and certain capital expenditures. Percentage rent accounted for less than 1% of 2007 Retail Properties total revenues. None of the tenants in the Retail Properties segment accounted for more than 10% of 2007 Retail Properties total revenues.

 

 

Tenants accounting for 2% or more of 2007 Retail Properties total revenues:

 

 

 

38

 

---

RETAIL PROPERTIES SEGMENT – CONTINUED

Lease expirations as of December 31, 2007 assuming none of the tenants exercise renewal options: