GETTY REALTY CORP /MD/ - Quarter Report: 2012 September (Form 10-Q)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D. C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark one)

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012

OR

For the transition period from              to             

Commission file number 001-13777

GETTY REALTY CORP.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

125 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 103

Jericho, New York 11753

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)

(516) 478 - 5400

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

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.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer or a non-accelerated filer. See the definitions of “larger 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  ¨    No  x

Registrant had outstanding 33,396,310 shares of Common Stock, par value $.01 per share, as of November 9, 2012.

Table of Contents

GETTY REALTY CORP.

INDEX

Table of Contents

Part I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements

GETTY REALTY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except share data)

(unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

1

Table of Contents

GETTY REALTY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

(unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

2

Table of Contents

GETTY REALTY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(in thousands)

(unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

GETTY REALTY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(in thousands)

(unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

GETTY REALTY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Basis of Presentation: The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Getty Realty Corp. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. We are a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) specializing in the ownership, leasing and financing of retail motor fuel and convenience store properties and petroleum distribution terminals. As a REIT, we are not subject to federal corporate income tax on the taxable income we distribute to our shareholders. In order to continue to qualify for taxation as a REIT, we are required, among other things, to distribute at least 90% of our ordinary taxable income to our shareholders each year. The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). We manage and evaluate our operations as a single segment. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

Use of Estimates, Judgments and Assumptions: The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with GAAP, which requires management to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and revenues and expenses during the period reported. Our estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in our financial statements are subject to change. Actual results could differ from those estimates, judgments and assumptions. Estimates, judgments and assumptions underlying the accompanying consolidated financial statements include, but are not limited to, accounts receivable and related reserves, deferred rent receivable, net investment in direct financing leases, asset retirement obligations including environmental remediation costs, real estate, depreciation and amortization, impairment of long-lived assets, litigation, accrued liabilities, income taxes and the allocation of the purchase price of properties acquired to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed.

Fair Value Hierarchy: The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management to make estimates of fair value that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and revenues and expenses during the period reported using a hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure the fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The levels of the fair value hierarchy are as follows: Level 1-inputs that reflect unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that we have the ability to access at the measurement date; Level 2-inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability either directly or indirectly, including inputs in markets that are not considered to be active; and Level 3-inputs that are unobservable. Certain types of assets and liabilities are recorded at fair value either on a recurring or non-recurring basis. Assets required to be marked-to-market and reported at fair value every reporting period are classified as being valued on a recurring basis. Other assets not required to be recorded at fair value every period may be recorded at fair value if a specific provision or other impairment is recorded within the period to mark the carrying value of the asset to market as of the reporting date. Such assets are classified as being valued on a non-recurring basis.

5

Table of Contents

We currently do not have financial or non-financial assets and financial or non-financial liabilities that are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis. We have certain real estate assets where impairment charges have been recorded that are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis using Level 3 inputs as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 of $9,673,000 and $19,214,000, respectively. Due to the subjectivity inherent in the internal valuation techniques used in estimating fair value, the amounts realized from the sale of such assets may vary significantly from these estimates.

Discontinued Operations: We report as discontinued operations approximately 133 properties which meet the criteria to be classified as held for sale in accordance with GAAP as of the end of the current period and certain properties disposed of during the periods presented. Discontinued operations, including gains and losses, impairment charges and the operating results through the date of each respective sale for properties disposed of in 2012 and 2011 and impairment charges and operating results of properties classified as held for sale, are included in a separate component of income on the consolidated statement of operations. The operating results and impairment charges of such properties for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2011 has also been reclassified to discontinued operations to conform to the 2012 presentation. The properties currently being marketed for sale have a net carrying value aggregating $23,718,000 and are included in real estate held for sale in our consolidated balance sheets. The revenue from rental properties, impairment charges, other operating expenses and gains from dispositions of real estate related to these properties are as follows:

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and Long-Lived Assets to Be Disposed Of: Assets are written down to fair value (determined on a nonrecurring basis using a discounted cash flow method and significant unobservable inputs) when events and circumstances indicate that the assets might be impaired and the projected undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than the carrying amount of those assets. We review and adjust as necessary our depreciation estimates and method when long-lived assets are tested for recoverability. Assets held for disposal are written down to fair value less disposition costs.

We recorded non-cash impairment charges aggregating $7,406,000 and $10,552,000 for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2012, respectively, and $587,000 and $3,094,000 for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, in continuing operations and in discontinued operations. We record non-cash impairment charges and reduce the carrying amount of properties held for use to fair value where the carrying amount of the property exceeded the estimated future undiscounted cash flows expected to be received during the assumed holding period which includes the estimated sales value expected to be received at disposition. We record non-cash impairment charges and reduce the carrying amount of properties held for

6

Table of Contents

sale to fair value less disposal costs. The non-cash impairment charges recorded during the nine months ended September 30, 2012 were attributable to reductions in our estimates of value for properties held for sale and the accumulation of asset retirement costs as a result of an increase in estimated environmental liabilities which increased the carrying value of certain properties in excess of their fair value. Impairment charges recorded during the nine months ended September 30, 2011 were attributable to reductions in our estimates of value for properties marketed for sale and reductions in the assumed holding period used to test for impairment. The estimated fair value of real estate is based on the price that would be received to sell the property in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The internal valuation techniques that we used included discounted cash flow analysis, an income capitalization approach on prevailing or earnings multiples applied to earnings from the property, analysis of recent comparable lease and sales transactions, actual leasing or sale negotiations, bona fide purchase offers received from third parties and/or consideration of the amount that currently would be required to replace the asset, as adjusted for obsolescence. In general, we consider multiple internal valuation techniques when measuring the fair value of a property, all of which are based on unobservable inputs and assumptions that are classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. These unobservable inputs include assumed holding periods ranging up to 15 years, assumed average rent increases ranging up to 2.0% annually, income capitalized at a rate of 8.0% and cash flows discounted at a rate of 7.0%. These assessments have a direct impact on our net income because recording an impairment loss results in an immediate negative adjustment to net income. The evaluation of anticipated cash flows is highly subjective and is based in part on assumptions regarding future rental rates and operating expenses that could differ materially from actual results in future periods. Where properties held for use have been identified as having a potential for sale, additional judgments are required related to the determination as to the appropriate period over which the undiscounted cash flows should include the operating cash flows and the amount included as the estimated residual value. This requires significant judgment. In some cases, the results of whether impairment is indicated are sensitive to changes in assumptions input into the estimates, including the hold period until expected sale.

Unaudited Interim Financial Statements: The consolidated financial statements are unaudited but, in our opinion, reflect all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) necessary for a fair statement of the results for the periods presented. These statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes, which appear in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Earnings per Common Share: Basic earnings per common share gives effect, utilizing the two-class method, to the potential dilution from the issuance of common shares in settlement of restricted stock units (“RSUs” or “RSU”) which provide for non-forfeitable dividend equivalents equal to the dividends declared per common share. Basic earnings per common share is computed by dividing net earnings less dividend equivalents attributable to RSUs by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per common share also gives effect, if dilutive, to the potential dilution from the exercise of stock options utilizing the treasury stock method.

7

Table of Contents

Reclassifications: Certain amounts related to 2011 have been reclassified to conform to the 2012 presentation.

New Accounting Pronouncements: In May 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-04, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820) - Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS” (“ASU 2011-04”). ASU 2011-04 clarifies the application of existing fair value measurement requirements, changes certain principles related to measuring fair value and requires additional disclosures about fair value measurements. Required disclosures are expanded under the new guidance, especially for fair value measurements that are categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, for which quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used, and a narrative description of the valuation processes in place and sensitivity of recurring Level 3 measurements to changes in unobservable inputs is required. Entities will also be required to disclose the categorization by level of the fair value hierarchy for items that are not measured at fair value in the balance sheet but for which the fair value is required to be disclosed. ASU 2011-04 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011, and is applied prospectively. The adoption of this guidance in 2012 resulted in expanded disclosures on fair value measurements but did not have an impact to our measurements of fair value.

Our business model is to lease our properties on a triple-net basis primarily to petroleum distributors, and to a lesser extent to individual operators. Our tenants operate our properties directly or sublet our properties to operators who operate their gas stations, convenience stores, automotive repair service facilities or other businesses at our properties. These tenants are responsible for the operations conducted at these properties. Our tenants are generally responsible for the payment of all taxes, maintenance, repairs, insurance and other operating expenses relating to our properties. Substantially all of our tenants’ financial results depend on the sale of refined petroleum products and rental income from their subtenants. As a result, our tenants’ financial results are largely dependent on the performance of the petroleum marketing industry, which is highly competitive and subject to volatility. In those instances where we determine that the best use for a property is no

8

Table of Contents

longer as a gas station, we will seek an alternative tenant or buyer for the property. Approximately 20 of our properties are leased for uses such as fast food restaurants, automobile sales and other retail purposes, excluding approximately 55 properties described below which are currently marketed for sale and which have temporary occupancies. Our 1,110 properties are located in 21 states across the United States with concentrations in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions.

We previously leased to Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. (“Marketing”) approximately 760 properties comprising a unitary premises pursuant to a master lease (the “Master Lease”) and we derived a majority of our revenues from the leasing of these properties under the Master Lease. On December 5, 2011, Marketing filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”). Marketing rejected the Master Lease pursuant to an Order issued by the Bankruptcy Court, effective April 30, 2012 and possession of the properties subject to the Master Lease was returned to us. In accordance with GAAP, we recognize in revenue from rental properties in our consolidated statement of operations the full contractual rent and real estate obligations due to us by Marketing during the term of the Master Lease and provide bad debt reserves included in general and administrative expenses and earnings (loss) from discontinued operating activities in our consolidated statement of operations for our estimate of uncollectible amounts due from Marketing. As a result, we provided bad debt reserves related to uncollected rent and real estate taxes due from Marketing of $8,802,000 in the fourth quarter of 2011, $16,221,000 in the first two quarters of 2012. We reduced such reserves by $567,000 in the third quarter ended September 30, 2012 as a result of receiving cash from a partial liquidation of the Marketing bankruptcy estate. We have provided bad debt reserves aggregating $24,456,000 for all outstanding rent and real estate tax obligations due from Marketing as of September 30, 2012 which remain unpaid as of the filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. (See note 3 for additional information regarding Marketing and the Master Lease.)

As a result of Marketing’s bankruptcy filing and in anticipation of Marketing’s rejection of the Master Lease, we had commenced a process to enable a repositioning of the portfolio of properties that were subject to the Master Lease to be effective as soon as possible after the properties became available to us free of Marketing’s tenancy. As a result of that process, as of September 30, 2012, we have entered into long-term triple-net leases with petroleum distributors for six separate property portfolios comprising 282 properties in the aggregate and month-to-month license agreements with occupants of approximately 330 properties (substantially all of whom were Marketing’s former sub-tenants) allowing such occupants to continue to occupy and use these properties as gas stations, convenience stores, automotive repair service facilities or other businesses. The month-to-month license agreements require the operators to sell fuel provided exclusively by petroleum distributors with whom we have contracted for interim fuel supply and from whom we receive a fee based on gallons sold. We have also entered into additional month-to-month license agreements at approximately 55 properties which have had their underground storage tanks removed and are being used for various retail uses other than as a gas station. These properties are currently marketed for sale. Our month-to-month license agreements differ from our typical triple-net lease agreements in that we are responsible for the payment of certain environmental costs and property operating expenses including real estate taxes. Approximately 80 properties previously subject to the Master Lease are currently vacant, the majority of which have had their underground storage tanks removed and are marketed for sale.

The long-term triple-net leases with petroleum distributors for six separate property portfolios comprising 282 properties in the aggregate are unitary triple-net lease agreements generally with an initial term of 15 years,

9

Table of Contents

and options for successive renewal terms of up to 20 years. Rent is scheduled to increase at varying intervals of up to three years on the anniversary of the commencement date of the leases. The majority of the leases provide for additional rent based on the volume of petroleum products sold. As triple-net lessees, the tenants are required to pay all amounts pertaining to the properties subject to the leases, including taxes, assessments, licenses and permit fees, charges for public utilities and all other governmental charges. In addition, the majority of the leases require the tenants to make capital expenditures at our properties substantially all of which is related to the replacement of underground storage tanks that are the property our tenants. In certain leases we have agreed to reimburse the tenant for a portion of such capital expenditures. As part of the six new triple-net leases we have entered into through September 30, 2012, we transferred title of the USTs to our tenants and the obligation to pay for the retirement and decommissioning or removal of USTs at the end of their useful life or earlier if circumstances warranted at the 282 sites was fully or partially transferred to our new tenants. We remain contingently liable for this obligation in the event that our tenants do not satisfy their responsibilities. Accordingly, during the nine months ended September 30, 2012, we removed $6,875,000 of asset retirement obligations and $6,203,000 of net asset costs related to USTs from our balance sheet. The net amount of $672,000 is recorded as deferred rental revenue and will be recognized as additional revenues from rental properties over the terms of the various leases. Future contractual minimum annual rentals receivable from these tenants are as follows: 2012 — $7,691,000, 2013 — $13,694,000, 2014 — $14,568,000, 2015 — $14,960,000, 2016 — $15,106,000 and thereafter — $162,858,000.

Revenues from rental properties included in continuing operations for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2012 were $22,386,000 and $76,332,000, respectively, of which $102,000 and $20,535,000, respectively, were contractually due or received from Marketing under the Master Lease through its rejection on April 30, 2012 and $21,408,000 and $51,800,000, respectively, were contractually due or received from other tenants including rent for May 2012 through September 2012 related to properties repositioned from the Master Lease. Revenues from rental properties and rental property expenses included in continuing operations included $1,928,000 and $8,398,000, respectively, for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2012 and $1,542,000 and $3,104,000, respectively for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2011 for real estate taxes paid by us which were reimbursable by tenants (which includes amounts related to properties previously subject to the Master Lease discussed in the following paragraph). Revenues from rental properties included in continuing operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 also include $1,003,000 for amounts realized under interim fuel supply agreements.

As a result of Marketing’s bankruptcy filing, beginning in the first quarter of 2012, we began paying past due real estate taxes for 2011 and 2012, which taxes Marketing historically paid directly. Real estate taxes that we pay and were due from Marketing through April 30, 2012, the date the Master Lease was rejected, and from certain other tenants who are contractually obligated to reimburse us for the payment of real estate taxes pursuant to the terms of triple-net lease agreements are included in revenues from rental properties and in rental property expense in our consolidated statement of operations. Revenues from rental properties and rental property expense included in continuing operations included $1,928,000 and $8,398,000 for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2012, respectively, as compared to $1,542,000 and $3,104,000 for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, for real estate taxes paid by us which were due from Marketing and other tenants. Marketing also made additional direct payments for other operating expenses related to these properties, including environmental remediation costs other than those liabilities that were retained by us. Costs

10

Table of Contents

paid directly by Marketing under the terms of the Master Lease are not reflected in revenues from rental properties or rental property expense in our consolidated financial statements. We continue to incur costs associated with the Marketing bankruptcy and we anticipate paying directly other Property Expenditures (as defined below) historically paid by Marketing under the terms of the Master Lease for the foreseeable future.

In accordance with GAAP, we recognize rental revenue in amounts which vary from the amount of rent contractually due or received during the periods presented. As a result, revenues from rental properties include non-cash adjustments recorded for deferred rental revenue due to the recognition of rental income on a straight-line (or average) basis over the current lease term, net amortization of above-market and below-market leases and recognition of rental income recorded under direct financing leases using the effective interest method which produces a constant periodic rate of return on the net investments in the leased properties (the “Revenue Recognition Adjustments”). Revenue Recognition Adjustments included in continuing operations increased rental revenue by $1,459,000 and $2,994,000 for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2012 and by $1,338,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2011. Revenue Recognition Adjustments decreased rental revenue by $253,000 for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

We provide reserves for a portion of the recorded deferred rent receivable if circumstances indicate that a property may be disposed of before the end of the current lease term or if it is not reasonable to assume that a tenant will make all of its contractual lease payments during the current lease term. Our assessments and assumptions regarding the recoverability of the deferred rent receivable are reviewed on an ongoing basis and such assessments and assumptions are subject to change. As of December 31, 2011, the gross deferred rent receivable attributable to the Master Lease of $25,630,000 was fully reserved. As a result of the developments described above, we previously concluded that it was probable that we would not receive from Marketing the entire amount of the contractual lease payments owed to us under the Master Lease. Accordingly, during the third and fourth quarters of 2011, we recorded non-cash allowances for deferred rental revenue in continuing and discontinued operations aggregating $11,043,000 and $8,715,000, respectively, fully reserving in the fourth quarter of 2011 for the deferred rent receivable relating to the Master Lease. These non-cash allowances reduced our net earnings for the applicable periods in 2011, but did not impact our cash flow from operating activities. The gross deferred rent receivable and the reserve relating to the Master Lease were derecognized in the second quarter of 2012 upon termination of the Master Lease.

The components of the $92,110,000 net investment in direct financing leases as of September 30, 2012, are minimum lease payments receivable of $206,597,000 plus unguaranteed estimated residual value of $11,991,000 less unearned income of $126,478,000.

In order to minimize our exposure to credit risk associated with financial instruments, we place our temporary cash investments, if any, with high credit quality institutions. Temporary cash investments, if any, are currently held in an overnight bank time deposit with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

11

Table of Contents

MARKETING AND THE MASTER LEASE

On December 5, 2011, Marketing filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Bankruptcy Court. On March 7, 2012, we entered into a stipulation with Marketing and with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the Bankruptcy proceedings (the “Creditors Committee”), which was approved and made an Order by the Bankruptcy Court on April 2, 2012 (the “Stipulation”). Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, we are entitled to at least an administrative claim for the payment of all fixed rent and performance of other obligations due from Marketing under the Master Lease from December 5, 2011 until possession of the properties subject to the Master Lease was returned to us. For the period from December 5, 2011 (the date of the bankruptcy filing) through April 30, 2012, we have agreed to cap our aggregate priority administrative claims at $10,500,000, together with interest from May 1, 2012 until paid at the rate provided in the Master Lease (plus any transfer taxes paid by us).

Subsequent to Marketing’s rejection of the Master Lease, as described above, Marketing filed an amended plan of liquidation and disclosure statement with the Bankruptcy Court (the “Plan of Liquidation”) which was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court on August 24, 2012 and went effective September 24, 2012. The Plan of Liquidation incorporates the terms of the Stipulation. Subsequently, the liquidating trustee (the “Liquidating Trustee”) for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the Bankruptcy proceedings (the “Creditors Committee”) began to oversee the liquidation of the Marketing estate (the “Marketing Estate”). As described above, certain of our claims are considered administrative claims which have priority over other creditors’ claims. As such, the $667,000 we received in October 2012 from the initial distribution in the Marketing Estate liquidation was applied against our priority administrative claim. To the extent the Liquidating Trustee is successful in collecting funds on behalf of the Marketing Estate, we are entitled to receive all amounts available for distribution until our priority administrative claim is satisfied in full. The Liquidating Trustee for the Creditors Committee continues to oversee the Marketing Estate and pursue claims for the benefit of the Creditors related to the collection of various deposits, including insurance policy claims and tank reimbursement funds. We continue to maintain significant pre-petition and post-petition claims against the Marketing Estate as previously disclosed. Due to the receipt of cash from the initial distribution of the Marketing Estate liquidation, in the third quarter of 2012, we reversed a portion of our bad debt reserve for uncollectible amounts due from Marketing and reduced bad debt expense included in general and administrative expenses on our consolidated statement of income. We cannot provide any assurance that we will ultimately collect any of the claims against or unpaid amounts due from the Marketing Estate pursuant to the Plan of Liquidation, or otherwise.

In connection with Marketing’s bankruptcy proceedings, on December 29, 2011, Marketing filed a lawsuit against Lukoil Americas Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary Lukoil North America LLC (collectively, “Lukoil Americas”) asserting, among other claims, that Lukoil fraudulently transferred substantially all of Marketing’s assets with value and positive cash flow from Marketing to Lukoil Americas (the “Lukoil Complaint”). Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, the Liquidating Trustee will pursue the Lukoil Complaint for the benefit of the Marketing Estate. It is possible that the Liquidating Trustee on behalf of the Marketing Estate may be successful in its claims against Lukoil Americas and therefore it is possible that we may ultimately recover a portion of our claims against Marketing including our post-petition administrative claims, which have priority over other creditors’ claims, and our pre-petition claims.

12

Table of Contents

In October 2012, we entered into an agreement with the Marketing Estate to make loans up to an aggregate amount of $6,425,000 to fund certain expenses incurred in connection with the wind-down of the Marketing Estate and the prosecution of the Lukoil Complaint (the “Litigation Funding Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Litigation Funding Agreement, we agreed to make a series of advances to fund the prosecution of the Lukoil Complaint, which are all subject to the aggregate amount of $6,425,000, including: (i) up to $5,200,000 to fund the Marketing Estate’s legal fees and expenses relating to the Lukoil Complaint, and (ii) up to $725,000 to fund the fees and expenses of expert witnesses and consultants hired by the Liquidating Trustee to pursue the Lukoil Complaint. In addition, we agreed to make advances in an amount up to $800,000 to fund the Marketing Estate’s operations and wind-down expenses. Under the terms of the Litigation Funding Agreement, we are entitled to receive from the proceeds of the Lukoil Complaint, if any, the sum of: (i) all funds advanced to the Marketing Estate for fees and expenses related to expert witnesses and consultants required to pursue the Lukoil Complaint plus interest accrued at 15% per annum; (ii) all funds advanced to the Liquating Trustee for the Marketing Estate’s operations and wind-down expenses plus interest accrued at 15% per annum; and (iii) the greater of (a) all funds advanced for legal fees and expenses relating to the Lukoil Complaint plus interest accrued at 15% per annum, or (b) 24% of the gross proceeds from any settlement or favorable judgment from the Lukoil Complaint. As of the filing of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, we have advanced approximately $220,000 to the Marketing Estate pursuant to Litigation Funding Agreement for wind-down expenses. The payments we receive pursuant to the Litigation Funding Agreement, if any, do not apply against our priority administrative claim or our other pre-petition and post-petition claims against the Marketing Estate. We cannot provide any assurance that we will be repaid any amounts we advance, or that we will receive any additional return on such advances (as described above), pursuant to the Litigation Funding Agreement.

Under the Master Lease, Marketing was responsible to pay for the retirement and decommissioning or removal of USTs at the end of their useful life or earlier if circumstances warranted as well as all environmental liabilities discovered during the term of the Master Lease, including: (i) remediation of environmental contamination Marketing caused and compliance with various environmental laws and regulations as the operator of our properties, and (ii) known and unknown environmental liabilities allocated to Marketing under the terms of the Master Lease and various other agreements with us relating to Marketing’s business and the properties it leased from us (collectively the “Marketing Environmental Liabilities”). In connection with our repositioning of the properties previously subject to the Master Lease, we have and anticipate that in the future, as between us and any new tenant or transferee of a property or group of properties, we will retain environmental remediation liabilities that are known to exist with respect to that property or group of properties prior to the date of re-letting or sale, subject to our rights to pursue any third-party wholly or partially responsible therefor.

Since the Master Lease was structured as a “triple-net” lease, Marketing (as the lessee) had the responsibility for all operating expenses including maintenance, repairs, real estate taxes, insurance and general upkeep of these properties (“Property Expenditures”) during the term of the Master Lease and for the Marketing Environmental Liabilities. Marketing failed to meet many of its obligations to undertake or pay for these Property Expenditures. Due to Marketing’s bankruptcy filing, in 2012, we commenced paying for Property Expenditures, and subject to various site-specific factors we expect to directly pay for varying types of costs over a period of years for deferred maintenance, required renovations, replacement of underground storage tanks and related equipment and zoning and permitting costs (“Capital Improvements”). In addition, as a result

13

Table of Contents

of Marketing’s bankruptcy filing, we accrued for the Marketing Environmental Liabilities in the fourth quarter of 2011 and commenced funding remediation activities during the second quarter of 2012 related to such accrued Marketing Environmental Liabilities. We do not expect to be reimbursed for any such remediation activities except to the extent of possible recoveries resulting from our claims in the Lukoil Complaint described above. We expect to continue to incur and fund costs associated with the Marketing bankruptcy proceedings and associated eviction proceedings and we anticipate incurring significant Property Expenditures and Capital Improvement costs. It is also possible that our estimates for environmental remediation and tank removal expenses relating to these properties will be higher than the Marketing Environmental Liabilities we have accrued and that issues involved in re-letting or repositioning these properties may require significant management attention that would otherwise be devoted to other segments of our ongoing business. These and other actions are expected to significantly increase our operating expenses for the foreseeable future. As of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, we have not determined the total amounts of any such additional expenses. The incurrence of these various expenses may materially negatively impact or negatively impact to a greater extent than we have experienced our cash flow and ability to pay dividends.

Our estimates, judgments, assumptions and beliefs regarding Marketing and the Master Lease affect the amounts reported in our financial statements and are subject to change. Actual results could differ from these estimates, judgments and assumptions and such differences could be material. If the Marketing Environmental Liabilities are greater than our accruals; if we incur significant Property Expenditures, Capital Improvement costs and operating expenses relating to these properties; if the repositioning of the properties previously subject to the Master Lease leads to a protracted and expensive process for taking control and or re-letting our properties; if re-letting these properties requires significant management attention that would otherwise be devoted to our ongoing business; if the Bankruptcy Court takes actions that are detrimental to our interests; if we are unable to re-let or sell a portion of the properties previously subject to the Master Lease at all or upon terms that are favorable to us; or if we change our estimates, judgments, assumptions and beliefs related to the properties previously subject to the Master Lease; our business, financial condition, revenues, operating expenses, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends and stock price may continue to be materially adversely affected or adversely affected to a greater extent than we have experienced. (For additional information regarding the historical portion of our financial results that are attributable to Marketing, see note 12 in “Item 8. Financial Statements & Supplementary Data — Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.”, which appears in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 and note 9 in “Item 1. Financial Statements— Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.”) (For information regarding factors that could adversely affect us relating to our lessees, including Marketing, see “Part II, Item 1A. Risk Factors” which appear in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012.)

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had accrued $3,736,000 and $4,242,000, respectively, for certain of these matters which we believe were appropriate based on information then currently available. It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to

14

Table of Contents

the amounts recorded, for environmental litigation accruals. Matters related to our Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River and the MTBE multi-district litigation case, in particular, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

Matters related to our Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River

In September 2003, we received a directive (the “Directive”) from the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (the “NJDEP”) notifying us that we are one of approximately 66 potentially responsible parties for natural resource damages resulting from discharges of hazardous substances into the Lower Passaic River. The Directive calls for an assessment of the natural resources that have been injured by the discharges into the Lower Passaic River and interim compensatory restoration for the injured natural resources. There has been no material activity with respect to the NJDEP Directive since early after its issuance. The responsibility for the alleged damages, the aggregate cost to remediate the Lower Passaic River, the amount of natural resource damages and the method of allocating such amounts among the potentially responsible parties have not been determined. Effective May 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with over 70 parties comprising a Cooperating Parties Group (“CPG”) (many of whom are also named in the Directive) who have collectively agreed to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for the Lower Passaic River. We are a party to the AOC and are a member of the CPG. The RI/FS is intended to address the investigation and evaluation of alternative remedial actions with respect to alleged damages to the Lower Passaic River, and is scheduled to be completed in or about 2015. The RI/FS does not resolve liability issues for remedial work or restoration of, or compensation for, natural resource damages to the Lower Passaic River, which are not known at this time.

In a related action, in December 2005, the State of New Jersey through various state agencies brought suit against certain companies which the State alleges are responsible for various categories of past and future damages resulting from discharges of hazardous substances to the Passaic River. In February 2009, certain of these defendants filed third-party complaints against approximately 300 additional parties, including us, seeking contribution for such parties’ proportionate share of response costs, cleanup and other damages, based on their relative contribution to pollution of the Passaic River and adjacent bodies of water. We believe that ChevronTexaco is contractually obligated to indemnify us, pursuant to an indemnification agreement, for most if not all of the conditions at the property identified by the NJDEP and the EPA. Accordingly, our potential range of loss including our ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, cannot be made with any certainty at this time.

MTBE Litigation

We are defending against one remaining lawsuit of many brought by or on behalf of private and public water providers and governmental agencies. These cases alleged (and, as described below with respect to one remaining case, continue to allege) various theories of liability due to contamination of groundwater with methyl tertiary butyl ether (a fuel derived from methanol, commonly referred to as “MTBE”) as the basis for claims seeking compensatory and punitive damages, and name as defendant approximately 50 petroleum

15

Table of Contents

refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE, or gasoline containing MTBE. During 2010, we agreed to, and subsequently paid, $1,725,000 to settle two plaintiff classes covering 52 pending cases. Presently, we remain a defendant in one MTBE case involving multiple locations throughout the State of New Jersey brought by various governmental agencies of the State of New Jersey, including the NJDEP.

As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we maintained a litigation reserve representing our best estimate of loss relating to the remaining MTBE case in an amount which we believe was appropriate based on information then currently available. However, we are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty for the case involving the State of New Jersey as there remains uncertainty as to the accuracy of the allegations in this case as they relate to us, our defenses to the claims, our rights to indemnification and the aggregate possible amount of damages for which we may be held liable.

DIVIDENDS

To qualify for taxation as a REIT, we, among other requirements, must distribute annually to our stockholders at least 90% of our taxable income, including taxable income that is accrued by us without a corresponding receipt of cash. We cannot provide any assurance that our cash flows will permit us to continue paying cash dividends. The Internal Revenue Service has allowed the use of a procedure, as a result of which we could satisfy the REIT income distribution requirement by making a distribution on our common stock comprised of (i) shares of our common stock having a value of up to 90% of the total distribution and (ii) cash in the remaining amount of the total distribution, in lieu of paying the distribution entirely in cash. The procedure will only apply to distributions made after 2011 to the extent that we properly elect under applicable law to treat such distributions as made out of taxable income that arose in 2011. We cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to satisfy our REIT income distribution requirement with respect to taxable income arising in 2012 and thereafter by making distributions payable in whole or in part in shares of our common stock. Should the Internal Revenue Service successfully assert that our earnings and profits were greater than the amounts distributed, we may fail to qualify as a REIT; however, we may avoid losing our REIT status by paying a deficiency dividend to eliminate any remaining earnings and profits. We may have to issue a dividend payable in a combination of stock and cash, borrow money or sell assets to pay such a deficiency dividend.

We are a party to a $175,000,000 amended and restated senior secured revolving credit agreement entered into on March 9, 2012 (the “Credit Agreement”) with a group of commercial banks led by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “Bank Syndicate”) which matures on March 9, 2013. As of September 30, 2012, borrowings under the Credit Agreement were $151,700,000 bearing interest at a rate of 3.25% per annum. The Credit Agreement permits borrowings at an interest rate equal to the sum of a base rate plus a margin of 2.00% or a LIBOR rate plus a margin of 3.00%. The annual commitment fee on the undrawn funds under the Credit Agreement is 0.40%.

16

Table of Contents

The Credit Agreement provides for security in the form of, among other items, mortgage liens on several portfolios of our properties such that borrowings outstanding under the Credit Agreement do not exceed 70% of the value of the mortgaged properties. The Credit Agreement allocates $125,000,000 of the total Bank Syndicate commitment to a term loan and $50,000,000 of the total Bank Syndicate commitment to a revolving facility. Under the terms of the Credit Agreement, any proceeds from the issuance of debt are required to be used to pay down and permanently reduce the aggregate amount of Bank Syndicate commitments. Additionally, 50% of the net proceeds from any equity issuance by us will be used to pay down and permanently reduce the aggregate amount of Bank Syndicate commitments with the remaining proceeds used to pay down the revolving facility. Such repayments under the revolving facility can be redrawn assuming we meet the terms and conditions discussed below whereas amounts used to permanently reduce Bank Syndicate commitments cannot be redrawn. Under the Credit Agreement, we are unable to access undrawn funds until we meet certain criteria including achieving pro forma revenue targets, the resolution of material litigation with our tenants and conditioned upon having no tenant upon whom our financial results are materially dependent subject to bankruptcy or any such similar proceedings. The Credit Agreement does not provide for scheduled reductions in the principal balance prior to its maturity.

The Credit Agreement contains restrictive terms and conditions, including restricting our use of proceeds from the issuance of debt or equity or the sale of properties, weekly financial reporting, financial covenants such as those requiring us to maintain minimum cash balances, minimum liquidity, minimum EBITDA, coverage ratios and other covenants which may limit our ability to incur debt or pay dividends. The Credit Agreement contains customary events of default, including default under the Term Loan Agreement, change of control, failure to maintain REIT status or a material adverse effect on our business, assets, prospects or condition. Any event of default, if not cured or waived, would increase by 200 basis points (2.00%) the interest rate we pay under the Credit Agreement and prohibit us from drawing funds against the Credit Agreement and could result in the acceleration of our indebtedness under the Credit Agreement and could also give rise to an event of default and consequent acceleration of our indebtedness under the Term Loan Agreement described below. We may be required to enter into alternative loan agreements, sell assets, reduce or eliminate our dividend or issue additional equity at unfavorable terms if we do not have access to funds under our Credit Agreement or as a result of acceleration of our indebtedness under the Credit Agreement and Term Loan Agreement. However, we cannot provide any assurance that we may be able to enter into alternative loan agreements, sell assets, reduce or eliminate our dividend or issue additional equity.

We are a party to a $25,000,000 amended term loan agreement with TD Bank (the “Term Loan Agreement” or “Term Loan”). On March 9, 2012, we entered into an agreement with TD Bank amending significant terms of the Term Loan Agreement and extending the maturity date by approximately six months to March 2013. As of September 30, 2012, borrowings under the Term Loan Agreement were $22,225,000 bearing interest at a rate of 3.50% per annum. The Term Loan Agreement bears interest at a rate equal to a 30 day LIBOR rate (subject to a floor of 0.40%) plus a margin of 3.10%. The Term Loan Agreement provides for annual reductions of $780,000 in the principal balance with a balloon payment due at maturity. A balloon payment of $21,900,000 is due in March 2013 pursuant to the Term Loan Agreement. The Term Loan Agreement contains restrictive terms and conditions including financial covenants such as those requiring us to maintain minimum cash balances, minimum liquidity, minimum EBITDA, coverage ratios and other covenants which may limit our ability to incur debt or pay dividends. The Term Loan Agreement contains customary

17

Table of Contents

events of default, including default under the Credit Agreement, change of control, failure to maintain REIT status or a material adverse effect on our business, assets, prospects or condition. Any event of default, if not cured or waived, would increase by 300 basis points (3.00%) the interest rate we pay under the Term Loan Agreement and could result in the acceleration of our indebtedness under the Term Loan Agreement and could also give rise to an event of default and could result in the acceleration of our indebtedness under our Credit Agreement. We may be required to enter into alternative loan agreements, sell assets, reduce or eliminate our dividend or issue additional equity at unfavorable terms if we do not have access to funds under our Credit Agreement or as a result of acceleration of our indebtedness under the Credit Agreement and Term Loan Agreement. However, we cannot provide any assurance that we may be able to enter into alternative loan agreements, sell assets, reduce or eliminate our dividend or issue additional equity.

The fair value of the borrowings outstanding under the Credit Agreement was $151,700,000 as of September 30, 2012. The fair value of the borrowings outstanding under the Term Loan Agreement was $22,200,000 as of September 30, 2012. The fair value of the borrowings outstanding under the Credit Agreement and the Term Loan Agreement were determined using a discounted cash flow technique that incorporates a market interest yield curve based on market data obtained from sources independent of us that are observable at commonly quoted intervals and are defined by GAAP as “Level 2” inputs in the “Fair Value Hierarchy” with adjustments for duration, optionality, risk profile and borrowings outstanding, which are based on unobservable “Level 3” inputs. We classified our valuations of the borrowings outstanding under the Credit Agreement and the Term Loan Agreement entirely within Level 3 of the Fair Value Hierarchy.

In order to continue to meet liquidity needs (including the repayment of the balance outstanding under the Credit Agreement and the Term Loan Agreement when due in March 2013), we must extend the maturity of or refinance the Credit Agreement and the Term Loan Agreement or obtain additional sources of financing. Additional sources of financing may be more expensive or contain more onerous terms than exist under our current Credit Agreement and Term Loan Agreement, or simply may not be available. We may be required to enter into alternative loan agreements, sell assets, reduce or eliminate our dividend or issue additional equity at unfavorable terms if we do not extend the term of the Credit Agreement and the Term Loan Agreement beyond March 2013. There can be no assurance that at or prior to expiration of the Credit Agreement and the Term Loan Agreement we will be able to further amend the Credit Agreement and the Term Loan Agreement or enter into new credit agreements on favorable terms, if at all. We believe that our operating cash needs for the next twelve months can be met by cash flows from operations and available cash and cash equivalents. If we fail to comply with the terms of the Credit Agreement and the Term Loan Agreement, obtain additional sources of financing or refinance our existing debt, this could have a material adverse affect on our business, financial condition, results of operation, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

We were a party to a $45,000,000 LIBOR based interest rate swap, effective through June 30, 2011 (the “Swap Agreement”). The Swap Agreement was intended to effectively fix, at 5.44%, the LIBOR component of the interest rate determined under our LIBOR based loan agreements. We entered into the Swap Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., designated and qualifying as a cash flow hedge, to reduce our exposure to

18

Table of Contents

the variability in future cash flows attributable to changes in the LIBOR rate. Our primary objective when undertaking the hedging transaction and derivative position was to reduce our variable interest rate risk by effectively fixing a portion of the interest rate for existing debt and anticipated refinancing transactions. We determined that the derivative used in the hedging transaction was highly effective in offsetting changes in cash flows associated with the hedged item and that no gain or loss was required to be recognized in earnings during the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2011 representing the hedge’s ineffectiveness.

The fair values of the Swap Agreement obligation were determined using (i) discounted cash flow analyses on the expected cash flows of the Swap Agreement, which were based on market data obtained from sources independent of the Company consisting of interest rates and yield curves that are observable at commonly quoted intervals and are defined by GAAP as “Level 2” inputs in the “Fair Value Hierarchy”, and (ii) credit valuation adjustments, which were based on unobservable “Level 3” inputs. We classified our valuations of the Swap Agreement entirely within Level 2 of the Fair Value Hierarchy since the credit valuation adjustments were not significant to the overall valuations of the Swap Agreement.

We are subject to numerous existing federal, state and local laws and regulations, including matters relating to the protection of the environment such as the remediation of known contamination and the retirement and decommissioning or removal of long-lived assets including buildings containing hazardous materials, USTs and other equipment. Environmental costs are principally attributable to remediation costs which include installing, operating, maintaining and decommissioning remediation systems, monitoring contamination and governmental agency reporting incurred in connection with contaminated properties. We seek reimbursement from state UST remediation funds related to these environmental costs where available. In July 2012, we purchased for $3,062,000 a ten-year pollution legal liability insurance policy covering all of our properties for pre-existing unknown environmental liabilities and new environmental events. The policy has a $50,000,000 aggregate limit and is subject to various self-insured retentions and other conditions and limitations. Our intention in purchasing this policy is to obtain protection predominantly for significant events. No assurances can be given that we will obtain a net financial benefit from this investment. Historically we did not maintain pollution legal liability insurance to protect from potential future claims related to known and unknown environmental liabilities.

We enter into leases and various other agreements which allocate responsibility for known and unknown environmental liabilities by establishing the percentage and method of allocating responsibility between the parties. In accordance with the leases with certain tenants, we have agreed to bring the leased properties with known environmental contamination to within applicable standards, and to either regulatory or contractual closure (“Closure”). Generally, upon achieving Closure at each individual property, our environmental liability under the lease for that property will be satisfied and future remediation obligations will be the responsibility of our tenant.

Generally, our tenants are directly responsible to pay for: (i) the retirement and decommissioning or removal of USTs and other equipment, (ii) remediation of environmental contamination they cause and compliance with various environmental laws and regulations as the operators of our properties, and (iii) environmental liabilities

19

Table of Contents

allocated to them under the terms of our leases and various other agreements. We are contingently liable for these obligations in the event that our tenants do not satisfy their responsibilities. Under the Master Lease, Marketing was responsible to pay for the retirement and decommissioning or removal of USTs at the end of their useful life or earlier if circumstances warranted as well as all environmental liabilities discovered during the term of the Master Lease, including: (i) remediation of environmental contamination Marketing caused and compliance with various environmental laws and regulations as the operator of our properties, and (ii) known and unknown environmental liabilities allocated to Marketing under the terms of the Master Lease and various other agreements with us relating to Marketing’s business and the properties it leased from us (collectively the “Marketing Environmental Liabilities”). A liability has not been accrued for obligations that are the responsibility of our tenants (other than the Marketing Environmental Liabilities accrued in the fourth quarter of 2011) based on our tenants’ history of paying such obligations and/or our assessment of their financial ability and intent to pay their share of such costs. However, there can be no assurance that our assessments are correct or that our tenants who have paid their obligations in the past will continue to do so.

In the fourth quarter of 2011, since we could no longer assume that Marketing would be able to meet its environmental remediation obligations at 246 properties and its obligations to remove all underground storage tanks at the end of their useful life or earlier if circumstances warrant, we accrued $47,874,000 as the aggregate Marketing Environmental Liabilities. The actual amount of the Marketing Environmental Liabilities may be significantly higher and we can provide no assurance as to the accuracy of our estimates. In conjunction with recording the Marketing Environmental Liabilities, we increased the carrying value for each of the properties by the amount of the related estimated environmental obligation and simultaneously recorded impairment charges aggregating $17,017,000 where the accumulation of asset retirement costs increased the carrying value of the property above its estimated fair value.

As part of the six new triple-net leases we have entered into through September 30, 2012, we transferred title of the USTs to our tenants and the obligation to pay for the retirement and decommissioning or removal of USTs at the end of their useful life or earlier if circumstances warranted at the 282 sites was fully or partially transferred to our new tenants. Accordingly, during the nine months ended September 30, 2012, we removed $6,875,000 of asset retirement obligations and $6,203,000 of net asset costs related to USTs from our balance sheet. The net amount of $672,000 is recorded as deferred rental revenue and will be recognized as additional revenues from rental properties over the terms of the various leases. (See note 2 for additional information.)

It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in material adjustments to the amounts recorded for environmental litigation accruals and environmental remediation liabilities. We are required to accrue for environmental liabilities that we believe are allocable to others under various other agreements if we determine that it is probable that the counterparty will not meet its environmental obligations. The ultimate resolution of these matters could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

The estimated future costs for known environmental remediation requirements are accrued when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. The accrued liability is the aggregate of the best estimate of the fair value of cost for each component of the liability net of estimated recoveries from state UST remediation funds considering estimated recovery rates developed from prior experience with the funds.

20

Table of Contents

Environmental exposures are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons, including the extent of contamination, alternative treatment methods that may be applied, location of the property which subjects it to differing local laws and regulations and their interpretations, as well as the time it takes to remediate contamination. In developing our liability for estimated environmental remediation costs on a property by property basis, we consider among other things, enacted laws and regulations, assessments of contamination and surrounding geology, quality of information available, currently available technologies for treatment, alternative methods of remediation and prior experience. Environmental accruals are based on estimates which are subject to significant change, and are adjusted as the remediation treatment progresses, as circumstances change and as environmental contingencies become more clearly defined and reasonably estimable.

Environmental obligations are initially measured at fair value based on their expected future net cash flows which have been adjusted for inflation and discounted to present value. As of September 30, 2012, December 31, 2011 and 2010, we had accrued $52,300,000, $57,700,000 and $14,874,000, respectively, as our best estimate of the fair value of reasonably estimable environmental remediation costs net of estimated recoveries and obligations to remove USTs. The environmental liabilities were subsequently accreted for the change in present value due to the passage of time and, accordingly, $2,250,000 and $469,000 of net accretion expense was recorded for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, which is included in environmental expenses. In addition, during the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2012 we recorded credits to environmental expenses aggregating $211,000 and $2,859,000, respectively, where decreases in estimated remediation costs exceeded the depreciated carrying value of previously capitalized asset retirement costs. Environmental expenses also include project management fees, legal fees and provisions for environmental litigation loss reserves.

During the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2012, we increased the carrying value of certain of our properties by $729,000 and $4,420,000, respectively, due to increases in estimated remediation costs. The recognition, and subsequent changes in estimates, in environmental liabilities and the increase or decrease in carrying value of the properties are non-cash transactions which do not appear on the face of the consolidated statements of cash flows. Capitalized asset retirement costs are being depreciated over the estimated remaining life of the underground storage tank, a ten year period if the increase in carrying value related to environmental remediation obligations or such shorter period if circumstances warrant, such as the remaining lease term for properties we lease from others. Depreciation and amortization expense included in our consolidated statements of operations for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2012 includes $1,324,000 and $4,492,000, respectively, of depreciation related to capitalized asset retirement costs of $28,364,000 as of September 30, 2012.

We cannot predict what environmental legislation or regulations may be enacted in the future or how existing laws or regulations will be administered or interpreted with respect to products or activities to which they have not previously been applied. We cannot predict if state UST fund programs will be administered and funded in the future in a manner that is consistent with past practices and if future environmental spending will continue to be eligible for reimbursement at historical recovery rates under these programs. Compliance with more

21

Table of Contents

stringent laws or regulations, as well as more vigorous enforcement policies of the regulatory agencies or stricter interpretation of existing laws, which may develop in the future, could have an adverse effect on our financial position, or that of our tenants, and could require substantial additional expenditures for future remediation.

In view of the uncertainties associated with environmental expenditures contingencies related to our tenants and other parties, however, we believe it is possible that the fair value of future actual net expenditures could be substantially higher than amounts currently recorded by us. Adjustments to accrued liabilities for environmental remediation costs will be reflected in our financial statements as they become probable and a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. Future environmental expenses could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

A summary of the changes in shareholders’ equity for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 is as follows (in thousands, except share amounts):

We are authorized to issue 20,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $.01 per share, of which none were issued as of September 30, 2012 or December 31, 2011.

In the first quarter of 2011, we completed a public stock offering of 3,450,000 shares of our common stock, of which 3,000,000 shares were issued in January 2011 and 450,000 shares, representing the underwriter’s over-allotment, were issued in February 2011. Substantially all of the aggregate $91,986,000 net proceeds from the issuance of common stock (after related transaction costs of $267,000) was used to repay a portion of the outstanding balance under our Credit Agreement and the remainder was used for general corporate purposes.

22

Table of Contents

CPD NY SALE/LEASEBACK

On January 13, 2011, we acquired fee or leasehold title to 59 Mobil-branded gasoline station and convenience store properties and also took a security interest in six other Mobil-branded gasoline stations and convenience store properties in a sale/leaseback and loan transaction with CPD NY Energy Corp. (“CPD NY”), a subsidiary of Chestnut Petroleum Dist. Inc. Our total investment in the transaction was $111,621,000 including acquisition costs, which was financed entirely with borrowings under our Credit Agreement.

The properties were acquired or financed in a simultaneous transaction among ExxonMobil, CPD NY and us whereby CPD NY acquired a portfolio of 65 gasoline station and convenience stores from ExxonMobil and simultaneously completed a sale/leaseback of 59 of the acquired properties and leasehold interests with us. The lease between us, as lessor, and CPD NY, as lessee, governing the properties is a unitary triple-net lease agreement (the “CPD Lease”), with an initial term of 15 years, and options for up to three successive renewal terms of ten years each. The CPD Lease requires CPD NY to pay a fixed annual rent for the properties (the “Rent”), plus an amount equal to all rent due to third-party landlords pursuant to the terms of third-party leases. The Rent is scheduled to increase on the third anniversary of the date of the CPD Lease and on every third anniversary thereafter. As a triple-net lessee, CPD NY is required to pay all amounts pertaining to the properties subject to the CPD Lease, including taxes, assessments, licenses and permit fees, charges for public utilities and all other governmental charges. Partial funding to CPD NY for the transaction was also provided by us under a secured, self-amortizing loan having a 10-year term (the “CPD Loan”).

We accounted for this transaction as a business combination. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and equipment) “as if vacant” and intangible assets consisting of above-market and below-market leases. Based on these estimates, we allocated $60,610,000 of the purchase price to land, net above-market and below-market leases related to leasehold interests as lessee of $953,000 which is accounted for as a deferred asset, net above-market and below-market leases related to leasehold interests as lessor of $2,516,000 which is accounted for as a deferred liability, $38,752,000 allocated to direct financing leases and capital lease assets, and $18,400,000 which is accounted for in notes, mortgages and accounts receivable, net. In connection with the acquisition of certain leasehold interests, we also recorded capital lease obligations aggregating $5,768,000. We also incurred transaction costs of $1,190,000 directly related to the acquisition which are included in general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statement of operations.

23

Table of Contents

The selected unaudited financial data of CPD NY which has been prepared by CPD NY’s management is provided below.

NOURIA SALE/LEASEBACK

On March 31, 2011, we acquired fee or leasehold title to 66 Shell-branded gasoline station and convenience store properties in a sale/leaseback transaction with Nouria Energy Ventures I, LLC (“Nouria”), a subsidiary of Nouria Energy Group. Our total investment in the transaction was $87,047,000 including acquisition costs, which was financed entirely with borrowings under our Credit Agreement.

The properties were acquired in a simultaneous transaction among Motiva Enterprises LLC (“Shell”), Nouria and us whereby Nouria acquired a portfolio of 66 gasoline station and convenience stores from Shell and simultaneously completed a sale/leaseback of the 66 acquired properties and leasehold interests with us. The lease between us, as lessor, and Nouria, as lessee, governing the properties is a unitary triple-net lease agreement (the “Nouria Lease”), with an initial term of 20 years, and options for up to two successive renewal terms of ten years each followed by one final renewal term of five years. The Nouria Lease requires Nouria to pay a fixed annual rent for the properties (the “Rent”), plus an amount equal to all rent due to third-party landlords pursuant to the terms of third-party leases. The Rent is scheduled to increase on every annual anniversary of the date of the Nouria Lease. As a triple-net lessee, Nouria is required to pay all amounts pertaining to the properties subject to the Nouria Lease, including taxes, assessments, licenses and permit fees, charges for public utilities and all other governmental charges.

24

Table of Contents

We accounted for this transaction as a business combination. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and equipment) “as if vacant” and intangible assets consisting of above-market and below-market leases. Based on these estimates, we allocated $37,875,000 of the purchase price to land, net above-market and below-market leases relating to leasehold interests as lessee of $3,895,000, which is accounted for as a deferred asset, net above-market and below-market leases related to leasehold interests as lessor of $3,768,000, which is accounted for as a deferred liability, $37,315,000 allocated to direct financing leases and capital lease assets and $12,000,000 which is accounted for in notes, mortgages and accounts receivable, net. In connection with the acquisition of certain leasehold interests, we also recorded capital lease obligations aggregating $1,114,000. We also incurred transaction costs of $844,000 directly related to the acquisition which is included in general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statement of operations.

UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL INFORMATION

The following unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial information for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 has been prepared utilizing the historical financial statements of Getty Realty Corp. and the combined effect of additional revenue and expenses from the properties acquired from both CPD NY and Nouria assuming that the acquisitions had occurred as of the beginning of the period presented, after giving effect to certain adjustments including: (a) rental income adjustments resulting from the straight-lining of scheduled rent increases; (b) rental income adjustments resulting from the recognition of revenue under direct financing leases over the lease term using the effective interest rate method which produces a constant periodic rate of return on the net investment in the leased properties; (c) rental income adjustments resulting from the amortization of above-market leases with tenants; and (d) rent expense adjustments resulting from the amortization of below-market leases with landlords. The following information also gives effect to the additional interest expense resulting from the assumed increase in borrowings outstanding under the Credit Agreement to fund the acquisitions and the elimination of acquisition costs. The unaudited pro forma condensed financial information is not indicative of the results of operations that would have been achieved had the acquisition from CPD NY and Nouria reflected herein been consummated on the date indicated or that will be achieved in the future.

25

Table of Contents

Condensed combining financial information as of December 31, 2011 and for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2011 has been derived from our books and records and is provided below to illustrate, for informational purposes only, the net contribution to our financial results that were realized from the Master Lease with Marketing (which represented approximately 69% of our properties as of December 31, 2011) and from properties leased to other tenants. As a result of the rejection of the Master Lease on April 30, 2012, our financial results are no longer materially dependent on the performance of Marketing to meet its obligations to us under the Master Lease.

The condensed combining financial information set forth below presents the results of operations, net assets and cash flows related to Marketing and the Master Lease, our other tenants and our corporate functions necessary to arrive at the information for us on a combined basis. The assets, liabilities, lease agreements and other leasing operations attributable to the Master Lease and other tenant leases are not segregated in legal entities. However, we generally maintain our books and records in site specific detail and have classified the operating results which are clearly applicable to each owned or leased property as attributable to Marketing or our other tenants or to non-operating corporate functions. The condensed combining financial information has been prepared by us using certain assumptions, judgments and allocations. In our prior filings, each of our properties were classified as attributable to Marketing, other tenants or corporate for all periods presented based on the property’s use as of the latest balance sheet date included in such filing or the property’s use immediately prior to its disposition or third-party lease expiration.

As a result of the rejection of the Master Lease on April 30, 2012, we have omitted the condensed combining financial information as of September 30, 2012 and for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2012 since our financial results are no longer materially dependent on the performance of Marketing to meet its obligations to us under the Master Lease. For the historical condensed combining financial information set forth below, each of the properties were classified based on the property’s use as of December 31, 2011. (See note 12 in “Item 8. Financial Statements & Supplementary Data — Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.”, which appears in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 for the condensed combining financial information as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 and for the three year period ended December 31, 2011.)

Environmental remediation expenses have been attributed to Marketing or other tenants on a site specific basis and environmental related litigation expenses and professional fees have been attributed to Marketing or other tenants based on the pro rata share of specifically identifiable environmental expenses for the period from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011.

The heading “Corporate” in the statements below includes assets, liabilities, income and expenses attributed to general and administrative functions, financing activities and parent or subsidiary level income taxes, capital taxes or franchise taxes which were not incurred on behalf of our leasing operations and are not reasonably allocable to Marketing or other tenants. With respect to general and administrative expenses, we have attributed those expenses clearly applicable to Marketing and other tenants. We considered various methods of allocating to Marketing and other tenants amounts included under the heading “Corporate” and determined that none of the methods resulted in a reasonable allocation of such amounts or an allocation of such amounts that more clearly summarizes the net contribution to our financial results realized from the leasing operations of properties

26

Table of Contents

previously leased to Marketing and of properties leased to other tenants. Moreover, we determined that each of the allocation methods we considered resulted in a presentation of these amounts that would make it more difficult to understand the clearly identifiable results from our leasing operations attributable to Marketing and other tenants. We believe that the segregated presentation of assets, liabilities, income and expenses attributed to general and administrative functions, financing activities and parent or subsidiary level income taxes, capital taxes or franchise taxes provides the most meaningful presentation of these amounts since changes in these amounts are not fully correlated to changes in our leasing activities.

While we believe these assumptions, judgments and allocations are reasonable, the condensed combining financial information is not intended to reflect what the net results would have been had assets, liabilities, lease agreements and other operations attributable to Marketing or our other tenants been conducted through stand-alone entities during any of the periods presented.

The condensed combining balance sheet of Getty Realty Corp. as of December 31, 2011 is as follows (in thousands):

27

Table of Contents

The condensed combining statement of operations of Getty Realty Corp. for the three months ended September 30, 2011 is as follows (in thousands):