Annual Statements Open main menu
  1. Annual Statements
  2. » Companies
  3. » InvenTrust Properties Corp.
  4. » Annual Report: 2013 (Form 10-K)

InvenTrust Properties Corp. - Annual Report: 2013 (Form 10-K)


UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 
 
 
 
 
FORM 10-K
x
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2013
¨
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM            TO          
COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: 000-51609
 
 
 
 
 
 
Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Maryland
 
34-2019608
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
 
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
 
 
2901 Butterfield Road, Oak Brook, Illinois
 
60523
(Address of principal executive offices)
 
(Zip Code)
630-218-8000
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
None
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Common stock, $0.001 par value per share
(Title of Class)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x
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  ¨    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 the 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 website, 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 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.  x
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 definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Large accelerated filer
¨
  
Accelerated filer
¨
 
 
 
 
Non-accelerated filer
x
  
Smaller reporting company
¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x
There is no established market for the registrant’s shares of common stock. The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2013 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second quarter) was approximately $6,210,793,798, based on the estimated per share value of $6.93, as established by the registrant on December 19, 2012.
As of March 11, 2014, there were 915,257,302 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.
The registrant incorporates by reference portions of its Definitive Proxy Statement for the 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which is expected to be filed no later than April 30, 2014, into Part III of this Form 10-K to the extent stated herein.


INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
 
 
 
 
 
Page
 
 
 
 
 
Item 1.
Item 1A.
Item 1B.
Item 2.
Item 3.
Item 4.
 
 
 
 
 
Item 5.
Item 6.
Item 7.
Item 7A.
Item 8.
Item 9.
Item 9A.
Item 9B.
 
 
 
 
 
Item 10.
Item 11.
Item 12.
Item 13.
Item 14.
 
 
 
 
 
Item 15.
 
This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes references to certain trademarks. Courtyard by Marriott®, Marriott®, Marriott Suites®, Residence Inn by Marriott® and SpringHill Suites by Marriott® trademarks are the property of Marriott International, Inc. (“Marriott”) or one of its affiliates. Doubletree®, Embassy Suites®, Hampton Inn®, Hilton Garden Inn®, Hilton Hotels® and Homewood Suites by Hilton® trademarks are the property of Hilton Hotels Corporation (“Hilton”) or one or more of its affiliates. Hyatt Place® and Andaz trademarks are the property of Hyatt Corporation (“Hyatt”). Intercontinental Hotels ® trademark is the property of IHG. Fairmont Hotels and Resorts is a trademark. The Aloft service name and the Westin service name are the property of Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. For convenience, the applicable trademark or service mark symbol has been omitted but will be deemed to be included wherever the above-referenced terms are used.
 



PART I

Item 1. Business
General
References to "we", "our", "us", and "the Company" are references to Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. and our business and operations conducted through our directly or indirectly owned subsidiaries.
Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. owns, manages, acquires and develops a diversified portfolio of commercial real estate located throughout the United States. In addition, we own assets and properties in development through various joint ventures with various controlling and noncontrolling interests, as well as investments in marketable securities and other assets. We were incorporated in October 2004 as a Maryland corporation and have elected to be taxed, and currently qualify, as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) for federal tax purposes.
Our strategic focus has been to realign our diversified portfolio in three specific asset classes - retail, lodging and student housing. As of December 31, 2013, our portfolio was comprised of 277 properties representing 17.0 million square feet of retail space, 19,337 hotel rooms, 8,290 student housing beds and and 7.3 million square feet of non-core space, which consists primarily of office and industrial properties.

Strategy and Objectives
Our objective is to deliver financially rewarding results to our stockholders through thoughtful capital rotation and investment. We intend to achieve this objective by continuing to execute on our portfolio strategy, focusing our diversified assets in three specific real estate asset classes - retail, lodging and student housing. We believe this strategy presents the best opportunity to capitalize on current market trends in commercial real estate and realize income growth in these sectors.
A component of our strategy is to improve the overall quality of our retail, lodging and student housing segments for long-term growth through selective asset acquisition and sales. We continue to use our expertise to capitalize on opportunities in the real estate industry. We believe our ability to identify and react to investment opportunities is one of our biggest strengths. This strategy will take time as we dispose of less strategic assets and rotate capital into our targeted segments. Our focus has been, and will continue to be, maximizing stockholder value over the long-term.
From time to time, as part of our long-term corporate goal of enhancing stockholder value, we have explored, and will continue to explore, potential strategic transactions including acquisitions and divestitures as well as ways to create liquidity for our stockholders. As previously disclosed by us, these potential strategic transactions may take many forms, including listing our shares on a national securities exchange, a spin-off of an entity owning one of our property segments, an initial public offering or listing of this entity on a national securities exchange, a merger with another existing REIT, or the sale of all, or substantially all, of one or more of our property segments. We currently have no definitive plan or proposal to conduct any specific strategic transaction. We may decide to engage in one or more such transactions in the future, if, among other things, our board determines that any such transactions are in the best interest of the Company and market conditions are favorable.
During the execution of our strategy, we will focus on maintaining a stable income stream to provide a sustainable monthly distribution to our stockholders.
Our three objectives in the execution of our strategy are:

•
Sustaining a monthly stockholder distribution while maintaining capital preservation
•
Tailoring our portfolio to lodging, student housing and multi-tenant retail by expanding and enhancing these portfolios
•
Positioning for the potential for multiple liquidity events by segment type

2013 Highlights
Distributions
We paid a monthly cash distribution to our stockholders which totaled in the aggregate $449.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, which was equal to $0.50 per share for 2013, assuming that a share was outstanding the entire year. The distributions paid for the year ended December 31, 2013 were funded from cash flow from operations, distributions from unconsolidated joint ventures and gains on sale of properties.

1

Investing Activities
Our acquisition and disposition activities highlight our move to divest of non-strategic assets and redeploy the capital into our long-term strategic segments: retail, lodging and student housing. We acquired fourteen lodging properties totaling 3,303 rooms for $963.3 million. We acquired three student housing properties consisting of 1,409 beds for $161.1 million. In addition, we acquired four retail properties consisting of 483,753 square feet for $92.3 million. As part of our strategy to realign our asset segments, we sold 313 properties for a gross disposition price of $2.0 billion, including 259 bank branches, 48 non-core properties, three multi-tenant retail properties, and three hotels. Additionally, we contributed 14 retail properties, including one of the properties we acquired this year, to the IAGM Retail Fund I, LLC joint venture for a gross disposition price of $443.7 million.
On August 8, 2013, we entered into a purchase agreement to sell our net lease assets, consisting of 294 retail, office, and industrial properties in a transaction valued at approximately $2.3 billion, including the assumption of approximately $795.3 million of debt and repayment by us of approximately $360.9 million of debt. In accordance with the terms of the purchase agreement, the buyer elected to “kick-out” of the transaction 13 properties valued at approximately $180.1 million. Excluding the “kicked out” properties, the transaction is valued at approximately $2.1 billion. As of December 31, 2013, we closed on the first two tranches of the net lease portfolio consisting of 57 properties for a disposition price of $669.7 million. The remaining 224 properties are expected to be sold at a gain through multiple closings during the first half of 2014. We have classified the remaining properties as held for sale on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2013 and consequently the operations are reflected as discontinued operations on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. On January 8, 2014, February 21, 2014, and March 10, 2014 we closed on three more tranches of the net lease portfolio consisting of 30, 28, and 151 properties for a disposition price of $55.3, $451.9, and $278.6 million, respectively.
Financing Activities
We obtained a senior unsecured credit facility consisting of a $300 million senior unsecured revolving line of credit and a $200 million unsecured term loan. The credit facility requires monthly interest-only payments at a rate of LIBOR plus a margin ranging from 1.60% to 2.45% on the outstanding balance of the revolver depending on leverage levels, and at a rate of LIBOR plus a margin ranging from 1.50% to 2.45% on the outstanding balance of the term loan depending on leverage levels. As of December 31, 2013, we had $299.8 million available under the revolving line of credit and had borrowed the full amount of the term loan. As of December 31, 2013, the interest rates of the revolving line of credit and unsecured term loan were 1.60% and 1.67% per annum, respectively. The facility will assist us in bridging the proceeds from disposing of non-strategic assets and acquiring retail, lodging and student housing assets.
We successfully refinanced or paid off our 2013 maturities of approximately $882.9 million and placed debt of approximately $700.8 million on new and existing properties. We were able to obtain favorable rates while still maintaining what we believe is a manageable debt maturity schedule for future years. As of December 31, 2013, we had mortgage debt of approximately $4.7 billion and have a weighted average interest rate of 5.09% per annum. Our mortgage debt maturities for 2014 are $418.5 million with a weighted average interest rate of 3.94%.
Operating Results
We experienced an increase in our net operating income due to organic growth in our lodging and student housing segments as our same store net operating income results increased 6.8% and 5.5%, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to 2012. These increases are due to higher occupancy and RevPAR increases in the lodging segment and rental rate increases in our student housing segment. Our retail segments remained unchanged, exhibiting stable occupancy and contractual rental rates. Our non-core segment was slightly down as a result of re-leasing vacant space at decreased rental rates.
We also experienced an increase over the prior year in our total net operating income of 28.3% and 78.8% in the lodging and student housing segments, respectively. The addition of 21 lodging and 8 student housing properties (including properties fully placed in service from construction in progress) since January 1, 2012 contributed $76.3 million and $20.1 million, respectively, of net operating income for the year ended December 31, 2013.
The following table represents our same store net operating income for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012. Same store properties are properties we have owned and operated for the same period during each year. Net operating income is calculated in Item 7 and reconciled to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") net income in Item 8, Note 13 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

2

 
2013
Net Operating Income
 
2012
Net Operating Income
 
Increase (Decrease)
 
Increase (Decrease)
 
2013
Average Economic
Occupancy (a)
 
2012
Average Economic
Occupancy (a)
Retail
$
179,802

 
$
180,658

 
$
(856
)
 
(0.5
)%
 
91
%
 
92
%
Lodging
195,964

 
183,465

 
12,499

 
6.8
 %
 
73
%
 
73
%
Student Housing
15,342

 
14,543

 
799

 
5.5
 %
 
93
%
 
91
%
Non-core
74,719

 
77,127

 
(2,408
)
 
(3.1
)%
 
89
%
 
90
%
 
$
465,827

 
$
455,793

 
$
10,034

 
2.2
 %
 
 
 
 
(a) Economic occupancy is defined as the percentage of total gross leasable area for which a tenant is obligated to pay rent under the terms of its lease agreement, regardless of the actual use or occupation by that tenant of the area being leased.
In 2014, we expect similar increases in operating results compared to 2013 in our lodging and student housing portfolios due to the growth projected in these segments. As occupancy rates increase close to peak levels in lodging and student housing, the ability to increase rooms rates and rental rates, respectively, will help grow our revenue for each segment in 2014. We believe that our stable occupancy in our retail portfolio will result in consistent operating performance in 2014. In addition, we expect to see similar or slightly decreased operating performance in our non-core portfolio in 2014.
Segment Data
Our business segments are retail, lodging, student housing and non-core. We evaluate segment performance primarily based on net operating income. Net operating income of the segments does not include interest expense, depreciation and amortization, general and administrative expenses, net income of noncontrolling interest and other investment income from corporate investments. The non-segmented assets consist of our cash and cash equivalents, investment in marketable securities, construction in progress, investment in unconsolidated entities and notes receivable. Information related to our business segments, including a measure of profits or loss and revenues from external customers for each of the last three fiscal years and total assets for each of the last two fiscal years, is set forth in Note 13 to our consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Significant Tenants
For the year ended December 31, 2013, we generated approximately 9% of our rental revenue (excluding lodging and student housing) from continuing operations from two properties leased to one tenant, AT&T, Inc. We also own a third property that is leased to AT&T, Inc., but the property is classified as held for sale as of December 31, 2013.
Tax Status
We have elected to be taxed as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), beginning with the tax year ended December 31, 2005. Because we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we generally will not be subject to federal income tax on taxable income that we distribute to our stockholders. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, without the benefit of certain relief provisions, we will be subject to federal and state income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates. Even if we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain state and local taxes on our income, property or net worth, respectively, and to federal income and excise taxes on our undistributed income.
Competition
The commercial real estate market is highly competitive. We compete for tenants in all of our markets with other owners and operators of commercial properties. We compete based on a number of factors that include location, rental rates, security, suitability of the property’s design to tenants’ needs and the manner in which the property is operated and marketed. The number of competing properties in a particular market could have a material effect on a property’s occupancy levels, rental rates and operating income.

We compete with many third parties engaged in real estate investment activities including other REITs, other REITs sponsored by our sponsor, specialty finance companies, savings and loan associations, banks, mortgage bankers, insurance companies, mutual funds, institutional investors, investment banking firms, lenders, hedge funds, governmental bodies and other entities. There are also other REITs with investment objectives similar to ours and others may be organized in the future. In addition, these same entities seek financing through the same channels that we do. Therefore, we compete for funding in a market where funds for real estate investment may decrease, or grow less than the underlying demand.

3

Employees
As of December 31, 2013, we have 201 full-time individuals employed by our student housing subsidiaries.
As of December 31, 2013, we had entered into a business management agreement with Inland American Business Manager & Advisor, Inc. pursuant to which it served as our business manager, with responsibility for overseeing and managing our day-to-day operations. We had also entered into property management agreements with each of our property managers. We had paid fees to our business manager and our property managers in consideration for the services they perform for us pursuant to these agreements. Except as noted below, we had also reimbursed these entities for the expenses they incur in performing services for us including the compensation expenses for persons providing services to us.
As of December 31, 2013, we did not employ our executive officers and they did not receive any compensation from us for their services as such officers. Our executive officers were officers of one or more of The Inland Group, Inc.’s affiliated entities, including our business manager, and were compensated by these entities, in part, for their services rendered to us. We did not reimburse the business manager for any compensation paid to persons serving as one of our executive officers or as an executive officer of the business manager or property managers.

Subsequently, on March 12, 2014, we began the process of becoming fully self-managed by terminating our business management agreement, hiring all of our business manager’s employees, and acquiring the assets of our business manager necessary to perform the functions previously performed by the business manager. As a first step towards internalizing our property managers, we hired certain of their employees; assumed responsibility for performing certain significant property management functions; and amended our property management agreements to reduce our property management fees as a result of our assumption of such responsibilities. As the second step, on December 31, 2014, we expect to terminate our property management agreements, hire the remaining property manager employees and acquire the assets necessary to conduct the remaining functions performed by our property managers. As a consequence, beginning January 1, 2015, we expect to become fully self-managed. We will not pay an internalization fee or self-management fee in connection with these self-management transactions. These self-management transactions immediately eliminate the management and advisory fees paid to the business manager and at the end of 2014, we expect to eliminate the fees paid to our property managers when we terminate the property management agreements. As part of the self-management transactions, we agreed to reimburse our business manager and property managers for certain transaction and employee related expenses and directly retain affiliates of The Inland Group, Inc. for IT services, customer service and certain back-office services that were provided to us and managed by our business manager prior to the termination of the business management agreement.
Conflicts of Interest
Our governing documents require a majority of our directors to be independent. Further, any transactions between The Inland Group, Inc. or its affiliates, including our business manager and property managers, and us must be approved by a majority of our independent directors.
Environmental Matters
Compliance with federal, state and local environmental laws has not had a material adverse effect on our business, assets, or results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay distributions, and we do not believe that our existing portfolio will require us to incur material expenditures to comply with these laws and regulations. However, we cannot predict the impact of unforeseen environmental contingencies or new or changed laws or regulations on our properties.
Seasonality
The lodging segment is seasonal in nature, reflecting higher revenue and operating income during the second and third quarters. This seasonality can be expected to cause fluctuations in our net operating income for the lodging segment. None of our other segments are seasonal in nature.

4

Access to Company Information
We electronically file our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The public may read and copy any of the reports that are filed with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at (800)-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains an Internet site at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically.
We make available, free of charge, by responding to requests addressed to our customer relations group, the Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports on our website, www.inland-american.com. These reports are available as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed or furnished to the SEC.
Certifications
We have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the principal executive officer and principal financial officer certifications required pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which are attached as Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

5


Item 1A. Risk Factors
The occurrence of any of the risks discussed below could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.
Risks Related to Our Business
Disruptions in the financial markets or economic conditions could adversely affect our ability to refinance or secure additional debt financing at attractive terms.
Credit markets are subject to rapid changes from macro economic factors, including rising interest rates, perceptions of the overall health in the US economy and real estate in particular, and regulatory environment in which we, our lenders and tenants operate.
In addition, disruptions in the financial markets or economic conditions may negatively impact commercial real estate fundamentals which could have various negative impacts on the value of our investments including:
•
a decrease in the values of our investments in commercial properties, below the amounts paid for these investments; or
•
a decrease in revenues from our properties, due to lower occupancy and rental rates, which may make it more difficult for us to pay distributions or meet our debt service obligations on debt financing.

Our ongoing strategy depends, in part, upon future acquisitions, and we may not be successful in identifying and consummating these transactions.
Our long-term business strategic plan is to refine our diversified portfolio of assets and to focus on the retail, lodging, and student housing sectors. As we continue to execute on this strategy, we plan to rotate capital out of our other asset classes - such as multi-family, office and industrial - to invest in, enhance and expand our strategic holdings in the retail, lodging, and student housing sectors. There is no assurance we will be able to sell assets at acceptable prices or identify suitable replacement assets on satisfactory terms, if at all. We may also face delays in reinvesting net sales proceeds in new assets which would impact the return we earn on our assets.
We face significant competition for attractive investment opportunities from an indeterminate number of other real estate investors, including investors with significant capital resources such as domestic and foreign corporations and financial institutions, publicly-traded and privately-held REITs, private institutional investment funds, investment banking firms, life insurance companies and pension funds. As a result of competition, we may be unable to acquire additional properties as we desire or the purchase price may be significantly elevated.
In light of current market conditions and real estate values, we may face significant competition to acquire stabilized properties, or have to accept lease-up risk associated with properties that have lower occupancy. As market conditions and real estate values recover, more properties may become available for acquisition, but we can provide no assurances that these properties will meet our investment objectives or that we will be successful in acquiring these properties. If we are unable to acquire sufficient debt financing at suitable rates or at all, we may be unable to acquire as many additional properties as we anticipate.
Our ongoing strategy involves the selling of properties; however, we may be unable to sell a property at acceptable terms and conditions, if at all.
As we execute on our long-term strategy we will rotate capital out of certain asset classes, such as multi-family, office and industrial to reinvest into retail, lodging or student housing. Besides executing on our strategy, it may make economic sense to sell properties in any asset class when we believe the value of the leases in place at a property will significantly decline over the remaining lease term, or where we conclude that the property has limited or no equity value with a near-term debt maturity, or when a property has equity but the projected returns do not justify further investment, or when the equity in a property can be redeployed in the portfolio in order to achieve better returns or strategic goals. As we engage to sell these properties, general economic conditions along with property specific issues, such as vacancies, lease terminations and debt defeasance, may negatively affect the value of our properties and therefore reducing our return on the investment or preventing us from selling the property on acceptable terms. Real estate investments often cannot be sold quickly. As a result, economic conditions may prevent potential purchasers from obtaining financing on acceptable terms, if at all, thereby delaying or preventing our ability to sell our properties.

6


We may not be successful in identifying, executing and completing strategic alternatives, including liquidity events, with respect to any asset segment or in providing liquidity options to our stockholders.
Our long-term business strategic plan is to refine our diversified portfolio of assets and to focus on the retail, lodging, and student housing sectors. One of our objectives in connection with this plan is to explore various strategic alternatives, position the Company for possible multiple liquidity events by segment and provide liquidity options for our stockholders, such as sales, mergers, spin-offs, initial public offerings, listing or other capital markets or merger and acquisition transactions. The execution and consummation as well as the timing of any such transactions are subject to a number of known and unknown risks that are difficult to predict and many of which are out of our control. Among the factors that could impact our ability to successfully identify, execute and complete such transactions and provide liquidity options for our stockholders are:
•
macro economic factors;
•
economic, financial and investment conditions;
•
the state of the equity and debt capital markets;
•
the state of the retail, lodging and student housing industries and where in the “cycle” the relevant industry is at the time the Company is in a position to effectuate a strategic transaction;
•
changes or increases in interest rates and availability of financing;
•
competition;
•
the need and our ability to effectuate internal restructuring transactions in order to allow the Company to execute on and complete one or more strategic alternatives;
•
our ability to obtain required lender and other third party consents and the timing of such consents;
•
refinancing considerations;
•
the existence of interested buyers and potential merger candidates;
•
tax considerations; and
•
the existence of pending or threatened legal or regulatory proceedings against the Company.

Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to identify strategic opportunities or successfully execute and complete transactions on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Similarly, we cannot assure you that we will actually realize any anticipated benefits from such transactions, including that the consummation of any such strategic alternatives will result in our ability to provide liquidity options to our stockholders. Additionally, even if the Company is successful in executing and completing a transaction with respect to one or more of its asset segments, the Company may determine that it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to reinvest any net proceeds resulting from such strategic transaction(s) in one or more of the Company’s core strategic segments. Furthermore, the pursuit of such strategic alternatives could demand significant time and attention from management and divert management’s attention from focusing on our core strategic holdings and business plan, which could harm our business.
We are subject to many risks in the process of becoming a self-managed company, and the transition may not prove successful.

On March 12, 2014, we entered into a series of agreements, and amendments to existing agreements, with our business manager and property managers, under which we have begun the process of becoming fully self-managed, which we refer to as the self-management transactions. As a result of the self-management transactions and related agreements, we terminated our business management agreement, hired all of the business manager’s employees and acquired the assets necessary to conduct the functions previously performed by our business manager. In addition, we hired certain employees of our property managers; assumed certain property manager functions, including property-level accounting, lease administration, leasing, marketing and construction functions; and amended our property management agreements to reduce our property management fees as a result of our assumption of such responsibilities. We also have now agreed to directly retain certain affiliates of the business manager to provide us with information technology services, investor services and other back-office services that were provided to us through our business manager and managed by our business manager prior to the termination of the business management agreement. On December 31, 2014, subject to the satisfaction of certain closing conditions, we have agreed to hire our property managers’ remaining employees and acquire the assets necessary to conduct the functions previously performed by our property manager. As a result of such closing conditions, there can be no assurance that the remaining self-management transactions with our property managers will be completed. If they are not completed, we could be forced to extend the property management agreements, retain new property managers or build our own property management functions, which could result in significant disruption to our business and result in substantial additional costs.
In transitioning to self-management, we could have difficulty integrating business management and property management services into a stand-alone entity and will bear risks to which we have not historically been exposed. An inability to manage the transition to self-management effectively could, therefore, result in our incurring additional costs or experiencing other

7


problems. There may also be unforeseen costs, expenses and difficulties associated with self-providing the services previously provided by our business manager and property managers. Such difficulties could cause us to incur additional costs, and our management's attention could be diverted from most effectively managing our business and properties.

Effective February 1, 2014, we no longer pay fees to our business manager and beginning January 1, 2015, we expect not to pay fees to our property managers. However, our direct expenses will increase. We will be responsible for paying the salaries and benefits (including employee benefit plan costs) of all of our employees as well as costs associated with legal, accounting, general office and other services. We will also be subject to potential liabilities that are commonly faced by employers, such as workers’ disability and compensation claims, potential labor disputes and other employee related grievances. We may also issue equity awards to officers and employees which would decrease our net income and funds from operations and may further dilute your investment. Furthermore, there may be unforeseen costs, expenses and difficulties associated with providing services previously provided by our business manager and property managers. As a consequence, we cannot be certain that the transition to self-management will improve our financial performance.

Under the agreements related to the self-management transactions, the business manager has retained, and the property managers will retain, liability for, and will indemnify and hold us harmless against liabilities of, their pre-closing operations. In addition, the business manager and property managers are obligated to indemnify us for breaches of representations and warranties and violations of covenants contained in such agreements. If the business manager or property managers do not satisfy such obligations, or do not comply with their indemnity obligations, we could incur significant additional costs. The business manager’s and property managers’ obligations, including their indemnity obligations, are guaranteed by an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of The Inland Group, Inc. Such guarantee includes certain guarantor covenants, including maintaining minimum net assets of $15,000,000. The guarantor’s primary assets are marketable securities, the value of which is subject to market fluctuations. There can be no assurance that the guarantor will comply with its financial covenants or that sufficient assets will be available to pay amounts owed to us under the guarantee. Consequently, we could incur substantial costs if the guarantor fails to meet its obligations under the guarantee. In addition, we will continue to rely on our property managers and affiliates of our business manager to provide us with services that are important to our business. If the property managers or the business manager affiliates are unwilling or unable to provide such services as required under the applicable agreements, then disruptions to our business may occur, and we may incur substantial additional costs.

If we lose or are unable to obtain key personnel, our ability to implement our business strategies could be delayed or hindered.
Our ability to achieve our objectives depends, to a significant degree, upon the continued contributions of our executive officers and our other key personnel. We do not have employment agreements with these persons and do not separately maintain “key person” life insurance that would provide us with proceeds in the event of death or disability of these persons. We believe that our future success depends, in large part, on our ability to retain and hire highly-skilled managerial and operating personnel. Competition for persons with managerial and operational skills is intense, and we cannot assure you that we will be successful in retaining or attracting skilled personnel. If we lose or are unable to obtain the services of our executive officers and other key personnel, or do not establish or maintain the necessary strategic relationships, our ability to implement our business strategy could be delayed or hindered.
We are the subject of an ongoing investigation by the SEC and have received related derivative demands by stockholders to conduct investigations. The SEC's investigation, the derivative demands, or both could have a material adverse impact on our business.
We have learned that the SEC is conducting a non-public, formal, fact-finding investigation (the “SEC Investigation”) to determine whether there have been violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws related to the business management fees, property management fees, transactions with affiliates, timing and amount of distributions paid to investors, determination of property impairments, and any decision regarding whether the Company might become a self-administered REIT.
We have also received related demands (“Derivative Demands”) by stockholders to conduct investigations regarding claims that our officers, our board of directors, our former business manager, and the affiliates of our former business manager (the “Inland American Parties”) breached their fiduciary duties to us in connection with the matters that we disclosed are subject to the SEC Investigation. The first Derivative Demand claims that the Inland American Parties (i) falsely reported the value of our common stock until September 2010; (ii) caused us to purchase shares of our common stock from stockholders at prices in excess of their value; and (iii) disguised returns of capital paid to stockholders as REIT income resulting in the payment of fees to our former business manager for which it was not entitled. The three stockholders in that demand contend that legal proceedings should seek recovery of damages in an unspecified amount allegedly sustained by us. The second Derivative Demand by another shareholder makes similar claims and further alleges that the Inland American Parties (i) caused us to

8


engage in transactions that unduly favored related parties, (ii) falsely disclosed the timing and amount of distributions, and (iii) falsely disclosed whether we might become a self-administered REIT. A special litigation committee has been formed by our board of directors to investigate the matters related to the Investigation and the Derivative Demands. We also received a letter from another stockholder that fully adopts and joins in the first Derivative Demand, but makes no additional demands on us to perform investigation or pursue claims.
Upon receiving the first of the Derivative Demands, the full board of directors responded by authorizing the independent directors to investigate the claims contained in the first Derivative Demand, any subsequent stockholder demands, as well as any other matters the independent directors see fit to investigate, including matters related to the SEC Investigation. Pursuant to this authority, the independent directors have formed a special litigation committee that is comprised solely of independent directors to review and evaluate the matters referred by the full Board to the independent directors, and to recommend to the full Board any further action as is appropriate. The special litigation committee is investigating these claims with the assistance of independent legal counsel and will make a recommendation to the Board of Directors after the committee has completed its investigation.
On March 21, 2013, counsel for the stockholders who made the first Derivative Demand filed a derivative lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on behalf of the Company. The case has been stayed pending completion of the special litigation committee's investigation.
We cannot reasonably estimate the timing or outcome of either the SEC Investigation or the investigation by the special litigation committee or Derivative Demands, nor can we predict whether or not any of these matters may have a material adverse effect on our business. These matters may cause us to incur significant legal expense, both directly and as the result of any indemnification obligations. In addition, the SEC Investigation, the Derivative Demands or the special litigation committee investigation may divert management's attention from our ordinary business operations or may also limit our ability to obtain financing to fund our on-going operating requirements, which could harm our business. Adverse findings by the SEC or the special litigation committee, future litigation related thereto, or the incurrence of costs, fees, fines or penalties that are not reimbursed under our insurance policies, could have a material adverse impact on our business.
The failure of any bank in which we deposit our funds could reduce the amount of cash we have available to pay distributions and make additional investments.
We have deposited our cash and cash equivalents in several banking institutions in an attempt to minimize exposure to the failure or takeover of any one of these entities. However, the Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation, or “FDIC,” generally only insures limited amounts per depositor per insured bank. At December 31, 2013 we had cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash deposited in interest bearing transaction accounts at certain financial institutions exceeding these federally insured levels. If any of the banking institutions in which we have deposited funds ultimately fails, we may lose our deposits over the federally insured levels. The loss of our deposits could reduce the amount of cash we have available to distribute or invest.
A failure of our information technology (IT) infrastructure could adversely impact our business and operations.
We rely upon the capacity, reliability and security of our information technology infrastructure and our ability to expand and continually update this infrastructure in response to changing needs of our business. We face the challenge of supporting older systems and hardware and implementing necessary upgrades to our IT infrastructure. We may not be able to successfully implement these upgrades in an effective manner. In addition, we may incur significant increases in costs and extensive delays in the implementation and rollout of any upgrades or new systems. If there are technological impediments, unforeseen complications, errors or breakdowns in implementation, the disruptions could have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
Risks Related to our Real Estate Assets
There are inherent risks with real estate investments.
Investments in real estate assets are subject to varying degrees of risk. For example, an investment in real estate cannot generally be quickly converted to cash, limiting our ability to promptly vary our portfolio in response to changing economic, financial and investment conditions. Investments in real estate assets also are subject to adverse changes in general economic conditions which, for example, reduce the demand for rental space or impact a tenant’s ability to pay rent.

9


Among the factors that could impact our real estate assets and the value of an investment in us are:
•
local conditions such as an oversupply of space or reduced demand for real estate assets of the type that we own or seek to acquire, including, with respect to our lodging properties, quick changes in supply of and demand for rooms that are rented or leased on a day-to-day basis;
•
inability to collect rent from tenants;
•
vacancies or inability to rent space on favorable terms;
•
inflation and other increases in operating costs, including insurance premiums, utilities and real estate taxes;
•
increases in energy costs or airline fares or terrorist incidents which impact the propensity of people to travel and therefore impact revenues from our lodging facilities because operating costs cannot be adjusted as quickly;
•
adverse changes in the federal, state or local laws and regulations applicable to us, including those affecting rents, zoning, prices of goods, fuel and energy consumption, water and environmental restrictions;
•
the relative illiquidity of real estate investments;
•
changing market demographics;
•
an inability to acquire and finance, or refinance, properties on favorable terms, if at all;
•
acts of God, such as earthquakes, floods or other uninsured losses; and
•
changes or increases in interest rates and availability of financing.
In addition, periods of economic slowdown or recession, or declining demand for real estate, or the public perception that any of these events may occur, could result in a general decline in rents or increased defaults under existing leases. We have experienced these impacts in the last few years. There is no assurance that conditions will improve or that these impacts will not occur in the future.
We depend on tenants for our revenue, and accordingly, lease terminations, tenant default, and bankruptcies could adversely affect the income produced by our properties.
The success of our investments depends on the financial stability of our tenants. Certain economic conditions may adversely affect one or more of our tenants. For example, business failures and downsizings can affect the tenants of our office and industrial properties and may also contribute to reduced consumer demand for retail products and services which would impact tenants of our retail properties. In addition, our retail shopping center properties typically are anchored by large, nationally recognized tenants, any of which may experience a downturn in their business that may weaken significantly their financial condition and thus the performance of the applicable shopping center. Further, mergers or consolidations among large retail establishments could result in the closure of existing stores or duplicate or geographically overlapping store locations, which could include tenants at our retail properties.
As a result of these factors, our tenants may delay lease commencements, decline to extend or renew their leases upon expiration, fail to make rental payments, or declare bankruptcy. Any of these actions could result in the termination of the tenants' leases, the expiration of existing leases without renewal, or the loss of rental income attributable to the terminated or expired leases. In the event of a tenant default or bankruptcy, we may experience delays in enforcing our rights as a landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment and re-leasing our property. Specifically, a bankruptcy filing by, or relating to, one of our tenants or a lease guarantor would bar efforts by us to collect pre-bankruptcy debts from that tenant or lease guarantor, or its property, unless we receive an order permitting us to do so from the bankruptcy court. In addition, we cannot evict a tenant solely because of bankruptcy. The bankruptcy of a tenant or lease guarantor could delay our efforts to collect past due balances under the relevant leases, and could ultimately preclude collection of these sums. If a lease is assumed by the tenant in bankruptcy, all pre-bankruptcy balances due under the lease must be paid to us in full. If, however, a lease is rejected by a tenant in bankruptcy, we would have only a general, unsecured claim for damages. An unsecured claim would only be paid to the extent that funds are available and only in the same percentage as is paid to all other holders of general, unsecured claims. Restrictions under the bankruptcy laws further limit the amount of any other claims that we can make if a lease is rejected. As a result, it is likely that we would recover substantially less than the full value of the remaining rent during the term.
Geographic concentration also exposes us to risks of oversupply and competition in these markets. Significant increases in the supply of certain property types, including hotels, without corresponding increases in demand could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and our ability to pay distributions.
As of December 31, 2013, approximately, 6%, 8%, and 10% of our base rental income of our consolidated portfolio, excluding our lodging properties, was generated by properties located in the Dallas, Chicago and Houston metropolitan areas, respectively. Additionally, at December 31, 2013, 45 of our lodging properties, or approximately 45% of our lodging portfolio,

10


were located on the eastern seaboard states ranging from Connecticut to Florida, including 7 hotels in New Jersey. Approximately 27% of our lodging portfolio is located in the southern states, including 19 properties located in Texas.
One of our tenants generated a significant portion of our revenue, and rental payment defaults by this significant tenant could adversely affect our results of operations.
For the year ended December 31, 2013, approximately 9% of our rental revenue from continuing operations was generated by two properties leased to AT&T, Inc. The leases, with approximately 1.7 million and 0.3 million square feet, expire in 2016 and 2019, respectively. An additional property leased to AT&T is classified as held for sale, and the lease, with approximately 1.5 million square feet, expires in 2017. As a result of the concentration of revenue generated from these properties, if AT&T were to cease paying rent or fulfilling its other monetary obligations, we could have significantly reduced rental revenues or higher expenses until the defaults were cured or the properties were leased to a new tenant or tenants.
Leases representing approximately 7.0% and 12.9% of the rentable square feet of our retail and non-core portfolio, respectively, are scheduled to expire in 2014. We may be unable to renew leases or lease vacant space at favorable rates or at all.
As of December 31, 2013, leases representing approximately 7.0% of the 17,031,497 rentable square feet of our retail portfolio and 12.9% of the 7,257,246 rentable square feet of our non-core properties (excluding a conventional multi-family property) are scheduled to expire in 2014. We may be unable to extend or renew any of these leases, or we may be able to lease these spaces only at rental rates equal to or below existing rental rates. In addition, some of our tenants have leases that include early termination provisions that permit the lessee to terminate all or a portion of its lease with us after a specified date or upon the occurrence of certain events with little or no liability to us. We may be required to offer substantial rent abatements, tenant improvements, early termination rights or below-market renewal options to retain these tenants or attract new ones. Portions of our properties may remain vacant for extended periods of time. Further, some of our leases currently provide tenants with options to renew the terms of their leases at rates that are less than the current market rate or to terminate their leases prior to the expiration date thereof. If we are unable to obtain new rental rates that are on average comparable to our asking rents across our portfolio, then our ability to generate cash flow growth will be negatively impacted.
We may be required to make significant capital expenditures to improve our properties in order to retain and attract tenants.
We expect that, upon the expiration of leases at our properties, we may be required to provide rent or other concessions to tenants, accommodate requests for renovations, build-to-suit remodeling and other improvements or provide additional services to our tenants. As a result, we may have to pay for significant leasing costs or tenant improvements in order to retain tenants whose leases are expiring and to attract new tenants in sufficient numbers. Additionally, we may need to raise capital to fund these expenditures. If we are unable to do so, or if capital is otherwise unavailable, we may be unable to fund the required expenditures. This could result in non-renewals by tenants upon expiration of their leases or the ability to attract new tenants, which would result in declines in revenues from operations.
We face significant competition in the leasing market, which may decrease or prevent increases in the occupancy and rental rates of our properties.
We own properties located throughout the United States. We compete with numerous developers, owners and operators of commercial properties, many of which own properties similar to, and in the same market areas as, our properties. If our competitors offer space at rental rates below current market rates, or below the rental rates we currently charge our tenants, we may lose existing or potential tenants and we may be pressured to reduce our rental rates below those we currently charge in order to attract new tenants or retain existing tenants when their leases expire. Also, if our competitors develop additional properties in locations near our properties, there may be increased competition for creditworthy tenants, which may require us to make capital improvements to properties that we would not have otherwise made.
Acts of God, such as earthquakes, floods or other uninsured losses may make us susceptible to adverse climate developments from the effects of these natural disasters in those areas.
Because our properties are concentrated in certain geographic areas, our operating results are likely to be impacted by climate changes affecting the real estate markets in those areas. Adverse events such as hurricanes, floods, wildfires, earthquakes, blizzards or other natural disasters, could cause a loss of revenues at our real estate properties. These losses may not be insured or insurable at an acceptable cost. Elements such as water, wind, hail, or fire damage can increase or accelerate wear on our properties' weatherproofing, and mechanical, electrical and other systems, and cause mold issues. As a result, we may incur additional operating costs and expenditures for capital improvements and maintenance at these properties.

11


Actions of our joint venture partners could negatively impact our performance.
As of December 31, 2013 we had entered into joint venture agreements with ten entities to fund investment is in office, industrial/distribution, retail, lodging, and mixed use properties. The carrying value of our investment in these joint ventures, which we do not consolidate for financial reporting purposes, was $263.9 million. For the year ended December 31, 2013, we recorded income of $12.0 million and impairments, gains and losses, net of $3.5 million associated with these ventures.
With respect to these investments, we are not in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the property, or the joint venture. Consequently, our joint venture investments may involve risks not otherwise present with other methods of investing in real estate. For example, our venture partner may have economic or business interests or goals which are or which become inconsistent with our business interests or goals or may take action contrary to our instructions or requests or contrary to our policies or objectives. We have experienced these events from time to time with our current or former venture partners, which in some cases has resulted in litigation. An adverse outcome in any lawsuit could have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, any litigation increases our expenses and prevents our officers and directors from focusing their time and effort on our core strategic holdings and business plans. Our relationships with our venture partners are contractual in nature. These agreements may restrict our ability to sell our interest when we desire or on advantageous terms and, on the other hand, may be terminated or dissolved under the terms of the agreements and, in each event, we may not continue to own or operate the interests or assets underlying the relationship or may need to purchase these interests or assets at an above-market price to continue ownership.
Credit market disruptions and certain economic trends may increase the likelihood of a commercial developer defaulting on its obligations with respect to our development projects, including projects where we have notes receivable, or becoming bankrupt or insolvent.
We have invested in, and may continue to invest in, projects that are in various stages of pre-development and development. Investing in properties in pre-development or under development, and in lodging properties in particular, which typically must be renovated or otherwise improved on a regular basis, including renovations and improvements required by existing franchise agreements, subjects us to uncertainties such as the ability to achieve desired zoning for development, environmental concerns of governmental entities or community groups, ability to control construction costs or to build in conformity with plans, specifications and timetables. In many cases, developers may not have adequate capital to address downturns in the market. Further, the developers of the projects in which we have invested are exposed to risks not only with respect to our projects, but also other projects in which they are involved. A default by a developer in respect to one of our development project investments, or the bankruptcy, insolvency or other failure of a developer for one of these projects, may require that we determine whether we want to assume the senior loan, fund monies beyond what we are contractually obligated to fund, take over development of the project, find another developer for the project, or sell our interest in the project. Developer failures could give tenants the right to terminate pre-construction leases, delay efforts to complete or sell the development project and could ultimately preclude us from realizing our anticipated returns. These events could cause a decrease in the value of our development assets and compel us to seek additional sources of funding, which may or may not be available, in order to hold and complete the development project.
Generally, under bankruptcy law and the bankruptcy guarantees we have required of certain of our joint venture development partners, we may seek recourse from the developer-guarantor to complete our development project with a substitute developer partner. However, in the event of a bankruptcy by the developer-guarantor, we cannot provide assurance that the developer or its trustee will satisfy its obligations. The bankruptcy of any developer or the failure of the developer to satisfy its obligations would likely cause us to have to complete the development or find a replacement developer, which could result in delays and increased costs. We cannot provide assurance that we would be able to complete the development on terms as favorable as when we first entered into the project. If we are not able to, or elect not to, the development costs ordinarily would be charged against income for the then-current period if we determine our costs are not recoverable.
Our investments in equity and debt securities have materially impacted, and may in the future materially impact, our results.
As of December 31, 2013, we owned investment in real estate related equity and debt securities with an aggregate market value of $242.8 million. For the year ended December 31, 2013, we realized gains on sale of securities of $31.5 million net of impairments of $1.1 million, and net unrealized gains of $17.6 million. Real estate related equity securities are always unsecured and subordinated to other obligations of the issuer. Investments in real estate-related equity securities are subject to numerous risks including: (1) limited liquidity in the secondary trading market in the case of unlisted or thinly traded securities; (2) substantial market price volatility resulting from, among other things, changes in prevailing interest rates in the overall market or related to a specific issuer, as well as changing investor perceptions of the market as a whole, REIT or real estate securities in particular or the specific issuer in question; (3) subordination to the liabilities of the issuer; (4) the possibility that

12


earnings of the issuer may be insufficient to meet its debt service obligations or to pay distributions; and (5) with respect to investments in real estate-related preferred equity securities, the operation of mandatory sinking fund or call/redemption provisions during periods of declining interest rates that could cause the issuer to redeem the securities. In addition, investments in real estate-related securities involve special risks relating to the particular issuer of the securities, including the financial condition and business outlook of the issuer and to the risks inherent with real estate-related investments discussed herein. In fact, many of the entities that we have invested in have reduced the dividends paid on their securities. The stock prices for some of these entities have declined since our initial purchase, and in certain cases we have sold these investments at a loss.
Any mortgage loans that we originate or purchase are subject to the risks of delinquency and foreclosure.
We may originate and purchase mortgage loans. Mortgage loans are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risks of loss. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property depends primarily upon the successful operation of the property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower's ability to repay the loan may be impaired. A property's net operating income can be affected by the any of the potential issues associated with real estate-related investments as discussed herein. We bear the risks of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan. In the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to that borrower will be deemed to be collateralized only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy (as determined by the bankruptcy court), and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law. Foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process that could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed mortgage loan. We may also be forced to foreclose on certain properties, be unable to sell these properties and be forced to incur substantial expenses to improve operations at the property.
An increase in real estate taxes may decrease our income from properties.
From time to time, the amount we pay for property taxes increases as either property values increase or assessment rates are adjusted. Increases in a property's value or in the assessment rate result in an increase in the real estate taxes due on that property. If we are unable to pass the increase in taxes through to our tenants, our net operating income for the property will decrease.
Uninsured losses or premiums for insurance coverage may adversely affect a stockholder's returns.
We attempt to adequately insure all of our properties against casualty losses. There are types of losses, generally catastrophic in nature, such as losses due to wars, acts of terrorism, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, pollution or environmental matters that are uninsurable or not economically insurable, or may be insured subject to limitations, such as large deductibles or co-payments. Risks associated with potential acts of terrorism could sharply increase the premiums we pay for coverage against property and casualty claims. Additionally, mortgage lenders sometimes require commercial property owners to purchase specific coverage against terrorism as a condition for providing mortgage loans. These policies may not be available at a reasonable cost, if at all, which could inhibit our ability to finance or refinance our properties. In such instances, we may be required to provide other financial support, either through financial assurances or self-insurance, to cover potential losses. If we incur any casualty losses not fully covered by insurance, the value of our assets will be reduced by the amount of the uninsured loss. In addition, other than any reserves we may establish, we have no designated source of funding to repair or reconstruct any uninsured damaged property.
Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence or war may affect the markets in which we operate our operations and our profitability.
We own estate assets located in areas that are susceptible to attack. These attacks may directly impact the value of our assets through damage, destruction, loss or increased security costs. Although we may obtain terrorism insurance, we may not be able to obtain sufficient coverage to fund any losses we may incur. Risks associated with potential acts of terrorism could sharply increase the premiums we pay for coverage against property and casualty claims. Further, certain losses resulting from these types of events are uninsurable or not insurable at reasonable costs. More generally, any terrorist attack, other act of violence or war, including armed conflicts, could result in increased volatility in or damage to, the United States and worldwide financial markets and economy. Any terrorist incident may, for example, deter people from traveling.

13


The cost of complying with environmental and other governmental laws and regulations may adversely affect us.
All real property and the operations conducted on real property are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations (including those of foreign jurisdictions) relating to environmental protection and human health and safety. These laws and regulations generally govern wastewater discharges, air emissions, the operation and removal of underground and above-ground storage tanks, the use, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of solid and hazardous materials, and the remediation of contamination associated with disposals. We also are required to comply with various local, state and federal fire, health, life-safety and similar regulations. Some of these laws and regulations may impose joint and several liabilities on tenants or owners for the costs of investigating or remediating contaminated properties. These laws and regulations often impose liability whether or not the owner knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of the hazardous or toxic substances. The cost of removing or remediating could be substantial. In addition, the presence of these substances, or the failure to properly remediate these substances, may adversely affect our ability to sell or rent a property or to use the property as collateral for borrowing.
Environmental laws and regulations also may impose restrictions on the manner in which properties may be used or businesses may be operated, and these restrictions may require substantial expenditures by us. Environmental laws and regulations provide for sanctions in the event of noncompliance and may be enforced by governmental agencies or, in certain circumstances, by private parties. Third parties may seek recovery from owners of real properties for personal injury or property damage associated with exposure to released hazardous substances. Compliance with new or more stringent laws or regulations or stricter interpretations of existing laws may require material expenditures by us. For example, various federal, regional and state laws and regulations have been implemented or are under consideration to mitigate the effects of climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Among other things, “green” building codes may seek to reduce emissions through the imposition of standards for design, construction materials, water and energy usage and efficiency, and waste management. We are not aware of any such existing requirements that we believe will have a material impact on our current operations. However, future requirements could increase the costs of maintaining or improving our existing properties or developing new properties.
Our properties may contain or develop harmful mold, which could lead to liability for adverse health effects and costs of remediating the problem.
The presence of mold at any of our properties could require us to undertake a costly program to remediate, contain or remove the mold. Mold growth may occur when moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials. Some molds may produce airborne toxins or irritants. Concern about indoor exposure to mold has been increasing because exposure to mold may cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic or other reactions. The presence of mold could expose us to liability from our tenants, their employees and others if property damage or health concerns arise.
We may incur significant costs to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Our properties generally are subject to the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. Under this act, all places of public accommodation are required to comply with federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons. The act has separate compliance requirements for “public accommodations” and “commercial facilities” that generally require that buildings and services be made accessible and available to people with disabilities. The act's requirements could require us to remove access barriers and could result in the imposition of injunctive relief, monetary penalties or, in some cases, an award of damages.


Additional Risks Associated with our Retail Assets
Our retail properties face considerable competition for the tenancy of our lessees and the business of retail shoppers.
There are numerous shopping venues that compete with our retail properties in attracting retailers to lease space and shoppers to patronize their properties. In addition, our retail tenants face changing consumer preferences and increasing competition from other forms of retailing, such as catalogues and other forms of direct marketing, internet websites and telemarketing as well as other retail centers located within the geographic market area of our retail properties that compete with our properties for customers. All of these factors may adversely affect our tenants’ cash flows and, therefore, their ability to pay rent.

14


Retail conditions may adversely affect our income and our ability to make distributions to you.
A retail property’s revenues and value may be adversely affected by a number of factors, many of which apply to real estate investment generally, but which also include trends in the retail industry and perceptions by retailers or shoppers of the safety, convenience and attractiveness of the retail property. Our properties are located in public places, and any incidents of crime or violence, including acts of terrorism, could result in a reduction of business traffic to tenant stores in our properties. Any such incidents may also expose us to civil liability or harm our reputation. In addition, to the extent that the investing public has a negative perception of the retail sector, the value of our retail properties may be negatively impacted.
The recent economic downturn and weak recovery in the United States has had, and may continue to have, an adverse impact on the retail industry generally. Slow or negative growth in the retail industry could result in defaults by retail tenants, which could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, or result of operations.
The economic downturn and weak recovery in the United States has had an adverse impact on the retail industry generally. As a result, the retail industry is facing reductions in sales revenues and increased bankruptcies throughout the United States. The continuation of adverse economic conditions may result in an increase in distressed or bankrupt retail companies, which in turn would result in an increase in defaults by tenants at our commercial properties. Additionally, slow economic growth is likely to hinder new entrants into the retail market which may make it difficult for us to fully lease our real properties. Tenant defaults and decreased demand for retail space would have an adverse impact on the value of our retail properties and our results of operations.
Competition may impede our ability to renew leases or re-let space as leases expire and require us to undertake unbudgeted capital improvements, which could harm our operating results.
Our properties are located in developed areas. Any competitive properties that are developed close to our existing properties also may impact our ability to lease space to creditworthy tenants. Increased competition for tenants may require us to make capital improvements to properties that we would not have otherwise planned to make. Any unbudgeted capital improvements may negatively impact our financial position. Also, to the extent we are unable to renew leases or re-let space as leases expire, it would result in decreased cash flow from tenants and reduce the income produced by our properties. Excessive vacancies (and related reduced shopper traffic) at one of our properties may hurt sales of other tenants at that property and may discourage them from renewing leases.
We may be restricted from re-leasing space at our retail properties.
Leases with retail tenants may contain provisions giving the particular tenant the exclusive right to sell particular types of merchandise or provide specific types of services within the particular retail center. These provisions may limit the number and types of prospective tenants interested in leasing space in a particular retail property.
We have entered into long-term leases with some of our retail tenants, those leases may not result in fair value over time, which could adversely affect our revenues and ability to make distributions.
We have entered into long-term leases with some of our retail tenants. Long-term leases do not allow for significant changes in rental payments and do not expire in the near term. If we do not accurately judge the potential for increases in market rental rates when negotiating these long-term leases, significant increases in future property operating costs could result in receiving less than fair value from these leases. These circumstances would adversely affect our revenues and funds available for distribution.
Our revenue will be impacted by the success and economic viability of our anchor retail tenants. Our reliance on single or significant tenants in certain buildings may decrease our ability to lease vacated space and adversely affect the returns on your investment.
In the retail sector, a tenant occupying all or a large portion of the gross leasable area of a retail center, commonly referred to as an anchor tenant, may become insolvent, may suffer a downturn in business, or may decide not to renew its lease. Any of these events would result in a reduction or cessation in rental payments to us and would adversely affect our financial condition. A lease termination by an anchor tenant could result in lease terminations or reductions in rent by other tenants whose leases may permit cancellation or rent reduction if another tenant’s lease is terminated. Similarly, the leases of some anchor tenants may permit the anchor tenant to transfer its lease to another retailer. The transfer to a new anchor tenant could cause customer traffic in the retail center to decrease and thereby reduce the income generated by that retail center. A lease transfer to a new anchor tenant could also allow other tenants to make reduced rental payments or to terminate their leases in accordance with lease

15


terms. In the event that we are unable to release the vacated space to a new anchor tenant, we may incur additional expenses in order to remodel the space to be able to re-lease the space to more than one tenant.
Additional Risks Associated with our Lodging Assets

We are subject to the business, financial and operating risks inherent to the lodging industry, any of which could reduce our revenues and limit opportunities for growth.
Our business is subject to a number of business, financial and operating risks inherent to the lodging industry, including:
•
significant competition from multiple lodging providers in all areas where we operate;
•
changes in operating costs, including energy, food, compensation, benefits and insurance;
•
increases in costs due to inflation that may not be fully offset by price and fee increases in our business;
•
changes in tax and governmental regulations that influence or set wages, prices, interest rates or construction and maintenance procedures and costs;
•
the costs and administrative burdens associated with complying with applicable laws and regulations;
•
significant increases in cost for health care coverage for employees and potential government regulation with respect to health care coverage;
•
shortages of labor or labor disruptions;
•
the availability and cost of capital necessary for us and third-party hotel owners to fund investments, capital expenditures and service debt obligations;
•
the quality of services provided by franchisees;
•
the financial condition of third-party property owners, developers and joint venture partners;
•
relationships with third-party property owners, developers and joint venture partners, including the risk that owners may terminate our management, franchise or joint venture agreements;
•
changes in desirability of geographic regions of the hotels in our business and geographic concentration of our operations and customers;
•
changes in the supply and demand for hotel services (including rooms, food and beverage, and other products and services);
•
the ability of third-party internet and other travel intermediaries to attract and retain customers; and
•
decreases that may result in the frequency of business travel as a result of alternatives to in person meetings, including virtual meetings hosted on-line or over private teleconferencing networks.

Any of these factors could increase our costs or limit or reduce the prices we are able to charge for lodging services, or otherwise affect our ability to maintain existing properties or develop new properties. As a result, any of these factors can reduce our revenues and limit opportunities for growth.
Macro economic and other factors beyond our control can adversely affect and reduce demand for our products and services.
Macro economic and other factors beyond our control can reduce demand for lodging products and services, including demand for rooms at properties that we own. These factors include, but are not limited to:
•
changes in general economic conditions, including low consumer confidence, unemployment levels, depressed real estate prices resulting from the severity and duration of any downturn in the U.S. or global economy;
•
war, political conditions or civil unrest, terrorist activities or threats and heightened travel security measures instituted in response to these events;
•
decreased corporate or government travel-related budgets and spending, as well as cancellations, deferrals or renegotiations of group business such as industry conventions;
•
statements, actions, or interventions by governmental officials related to travel and corporate travel-related activities and the resulting negative public perception of such travel and activities;
•
the financial and general business condition of the airline, automotive and other transportation-related industries and its impact on travel, including decreased airline capacity and routes;
•
conditions which negatively shape public perception of travel, including travel-related accidents and outbreaks of pandemic or contagious diseases, such as avian flu, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and H1N1 (swine flu);
•
climate change or availability of natural resources;
•
natural or man-made disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, floods, volcanic eruptions, oil spills and nuclear incidents;
•
changes in the desirability of particular locations or travel patterns of customers;
•
cyclical over-building in the hotel industry; and

16


•
organized labor activities, which could cause a diversion of business from hotels involved in labor negotiations and loss of business for our hotels generally as a result of certain labor tactics.

Any one or more of these factors could limit or reduce overall demand for our products and services or could negatively impact our revenue sources, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We focus on investing in upper-upscale and upscale lodging segments. These segments can be very volatile.
A significant portion of our assets consist of hotels, a very different asset class from retail and student housing properties. Retail tenants tend to enter into longer term leases which provide us with some stability over the term of the lease. Lodging, however, is very volatile. Most hotel guests stay at a hotel for only a few nights, so the rate and occupancy at each of our hotels changes every day. In addition, we are focusing on investing in the upper-upscale and upscale segments of the lodging sector. These segments tend to be more susceptible to changes in the economy because they generally target business and high end leisure travelers. In particular, revenue from group contract business, such as meeting space and conferences, may be large component of total revenues for an upper-upscale hotel. Due to economy changes, there may be a reduction in group business demand. As a result, revenues and earnings from our hotel sector may be very volatile.
In the past, events beyond our control, including economic slowdowns and terrorism, harmed the operating performance of the lodging industry generally. If these or similar events occur again, our operating and financial results may be harmed by declines in average daily room rates and occupancy.
The performance of the lodging industry has traditionally been closely linked with the performance of the general economy. The majority of our hotels are classified as upper upscale hotels. In an economic downturn, this type of hotel may be more susceptible to a decrease in revenue, as compared to hotels in other categories that have lower room rates because, as noted above, upper upscale hotels generally target business and high-end leisure travelers. In periods of economic difficulties, business and leisure travelers may reduce travel costs by limiting travel or by using lower cost accommodations. Also, volatility in transportation fuel costs, increases in air and ground travel costs and decreases in airline capacity may reduce the demand for our hotel rooms. Accordingly, our financial results may be harmed if economic conditions worsen, or if travel-associated costs, such as transportation fuel costs, increase. In addition, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 had a dramatic adverse effect on business and leisure travel, and on the occupancy and average daily rate of our hotels. Future terrorist activities could have a harmful effect on both the industry and us.
Failure of the lodging industry to exhibit sustained improvement or to improve as expected will impact our business strategy.
We continue to execute on our strategy to focus on three property types: retail, student housing and lodging. The lodging sector has become one of our larger property segments. Our focus on lodging is driven, in part, on our view that lodging will benefit from an improving economy. There is no assurance, however, that the general economy will continue to improve or that lodging industry fundamentals will continue to improve with the general economy. In the event conditions in the industry do not sustain improvement or improve as we expect, or deteriorate, our revenues and profits from our lodging properties will be negatively impacted. Further, the underlying value of our assets may grow slower than the economy as a whole or may decline in value which will have a material adverse effect on our business plan.
The lodging industry is subject to seasonal and cyclical volatility, which may contribute to fluctuations in our results of operations and financial condition.
The lodging industry is seasonal in nature. The periods during which our lodging properties experience higher revenues vary from property to property, depending principally upon location and the customer base served. Due to seasonality, we generally expect our lodging revenues to be greater during the second and third quarters with lower revenues in the first and fourth quarters. In addition, the lodging industry is cyclical and demand generally follows, on a lagged basis, the general economy. The seasonality and cyclicality of our industry may contribute to fluctuations in our results of operations and financial condition.
Our hotels are subject to significant competition.
The hotel industry is very competitive regardless of the segment. Material increases in the supply of new hotel rooms to a particular market can quickly destabilize that market and existing hotels can experience rapidly decreasing RevPAR and profitability. Over-building in one or more of our markets may adversely affect our business plan.

17


In the case of the upper upscale segment, hotels compete on the basis of location, room rates and quality, service levels, reputation and reservations systems, among many other factors. There are many competitors in this segment, some of whom may have greater marketing and financial resources than us. This competition could reduce occupancy levels and room revenue at our hotels, which would harm our operations. Over-building in the hotel industry may increase the number of rooms available and may decrease occupancy and room rates. We may also face competition from nationally recognized hotel brands with which we are not associated. In addition, in periods of weak demand, profitability is negatively affected by the relatively high fixed costs of operating upper upscale hotels when compared to other classes of hotels.
We may be adversely affected by increased use of business related technology which may reduce the need for business related travel.
The increased use of teleconference and video-conference technology by businesses could result in decreased business travel as companies increase the use of technologies that allow multiple parties from different locations to participate in meetings without traveling to a centralized meeting location. To the extent that such technologies play an increased role in day-to-day business and the necessity for business related travel decreases, hotel room demand may decrease and our financial condition, results of operations, the market price of our common stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders may be adversely affected.
The operating results of some of our individual hotels are significantly impacted by group contract business (such as meeting space and conferences) and room nights generated by large corporate transient customers, and the loss of such customers for any reason could harm our operating results.
Group contract business (such as meeting space and conferences) and room nights generated by other large corporate transient customers can significantly impact the results of operations of our hotels. These contracts and customers vary from hotel to hotel and change from time to time. Such group contracts are typically for a limited period of time after which they may be put up for competitive bidding. The impact and timing of large events are not always easy to predict. As a result, the operating results for our individual hotels can fluctuate as a result of these factors, possibly in adverse ways, and these fluctuations can affect the revenues and earnings generated by our lodging properties.
The outbreak of influenza or other widespread contagious disease could reduce travel and adversely affect hotel demand.
The widespread outbreak of infectious or contagious disease in the U.S. could reduce travel and adversely affect the hotel industry generally and our business in particular.
We are subject to risks associated with our ongoing need for renovations and capital improvements as well as financing these expenditures.
In order to remain competitive, our hotels have an ongoing need for renovations and other capital improvements, including replacements, from time to time, of furniture, fixtures and equipment. These capital improvements may give rise to the following risks:
•
construction cost overruns and delays;
•
a possible shortage of available monies to fund capital improvements and the related possibility that financing for these capital improvements may not be available to us on affordable terms;
•
the renovation investment failing to produce the returns on investment that we expect;
•
disruptions in the operations of the hotel as well as in demand for the hotel while capital improvements are underway; and
•
disputes with franchisors/hotel managers regarding compliance with relevant management/franchise agreements.
In addition, we may not be able to fund capital improvements or acquisitions solely from cash provided from our operating activities because we generally must distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding net capital gains, each year to maintain our REIT tax status. As a result, our ability to fund capital expenditures, or investments through retained earnings, is very limited. Consequently, we rely upon the availability of debt or equity capital to fund our investments and capital improvements. These sources of funds may not be available on reasonable terms and conditions or at all.
Our franchisors and brand managers may require us to make capital expenditures pursuant to property improvement plans, or PIPs, and the failure to make the expenditures required under the PIPs or to comply with brand standards could cause the franchisors or hotel brands to terminate the franchise or management agreements.

18


Our franchisors and brand managers may require that we make renovations to certain of our hotels in connection with revisions to our franchise or management agreements. In addition, upon regular inspection of our hotels, our franchisors and hotel brands may determine that additional renovations are required to bring the physical condition of our hotels into compliance with the specifications and standards each franchisor or hotel brand has developed. In connection with the acquisitions of hotels, franchisors and hotel brands may also require PIPs, which set forth their renovation requirements. If we do not satisfy the PIP renovation requirements, the franchisor or hotel brand may have the right to terminate the applicable agreement. In addition, if we default on a franchise agreement as a result of our failure to comply with the PIP requirements, in general, we will be required to pay the franchisor liquidated damages.
Funds spent to maintain licensed brand standards or the loss of a brand license would adversely affect our lodging segment.
Our hotels operate under licensed brands, either through management or franchise agreements with hotel brand companies that permit us to do so, and we anticipate that the hotels we acquire in the future also will operate under licensed brands. We are therefore subject to the risks inherent in concentrating our hotels in several licensed brands. These risks include reductions in business following negative publicity related to one of our licensed brands or arising from or after a dispute with a hotel brand company.
The maintenance of the brand licenses for our hotels is subject to the hotel brand companies’ operating standards and other terms and conditions. Hotel brand companies periodically inspect our hotels to ensure that we and our lessees and hotel managers follow their standards. Failure by us, our taxable REIT subsidiaries or one of our hotel managers to maintain these standards or other terms and conditions could result in a brand license being terminated. If a brand license terminates due to our failure to make required improvements or to otherwise comply with its terms, we may also be liable to the hotel brand company for a termination payment, which will vary by hotel brand company and by hotel. As a condition of our continued holding of a brand license, a hotel brand company could also possibly require us to make capital expenditures, even if we do not believe the capital improvements are necessary or desirable or will result in an acceptable return on our investment. Nonetheless, we may risk losing a brand license if we do not make hotel brand company-required capital expenditures.
If a hotel brand company terminates the brand license, we may try either to obtain a suitable replacement brand or to operate the hotel without a brand license. The loss of a brand license could materially and adversely affect the operations or the underlying value of the hotel because of the loss of associated name recognition, marketing support and centralized reservation systems provided by the hotel brand company. A loss of a brand license for one or more hotels could materially and adversely affect the revenues and earnings generated by our lodging sector.
Many real estate costs are fixed, even if revenue from our hotels decreases.
Many costs, such as real estate taxes, insurance premiums and maintenance costs, generally are not reduced even when a hotel is not fully occupied, room rates decrease or other circumstances cause a reduction in revenues. In addition, newly acquired or renovated hotels may not produce the revenues we anticipate immediately, or at all, and the hotel's operating cash flow may be insufficient to pay the operating expenses and debt service associated with these new hotels. If we are unable to offset real estate costs with sufficient revenues across our portfolio, may be adversely affected.
To qualify as a REIT, we must rely on third parties to operate our hotels.
To continue qualifying as a REIT, we may not, among other things, operate any hotel, or directly participate in the decisions affecting the daily operations of any hotel. Thus, we have retained third party managers to operate our hotel properties. We do not have the authority to directly control any particular aspect of the daily operations of any hotel, such as setting room rates. Thus, even if we believe our hotels are being operated in an inefficient or sub-optimal manner, we may not be able to require an immediate change to the method of operation. Our only alternative for changing the operation of our hotels may be to replace the third party manager of one or more hotels in situations where the applicable management agreement permits us to terminate the existing manager. Certain of these agreements may not be terminated without cause, which generally requires fraud, misrepresentation and other illegal acts. Even if we terminate or replace any manager, there is no assurance that we will be able to find another manager or that we will be able to enter into new management agreements favorable to us. Any change of hotel management would disrupt operations, which could have an adverse material effect on our operating results and financial condition.
Conditions of franchise agreements could adversely affect us.
Our lodging properties are operated pursuant to agreements with nationally recognized franchisors including Marriott International, Inc., Hilton Hotels Corporation, Intercontinental Hotels Group PLC, Hyatt Corporation, Fairmont Hotels and

19


Resorts, and Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. These agreements generally contain specific standards for, and restrictions and limitations on, the operation and maintenance of a franchised hotel in order to maintain uniformity within the particular franchisor's system. These standards are subject to change, in some cases at the discretion of the franchisor, and may restrict our ability to make improvements or modifications to a hotel without the consent of the franchisor. Conversely, these standards may require us to make certain improvements or modifications to a hotel, even if we do not believe the capital improvements are necessary or desirable or will result in an acceptable return on our investment.
These agreements also permit the franchisor to terminate the agreement in certain cases such as a failure to pay royalties and fees or to perform covenants contained in the franchise agreement, bankruptcy, abandonment of the franchise, commission of a felony, assignment of the franchise without the consent of the franchisor or failure to comply with applicable law or maintain applicable standards in the operation and condition of the relevant hotel. If a franchise license terminates due to our failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, we may be liable to the franchisor for a termination payment. These payments vary. Also, these franchise agreements do not renew automatically. If we were to lose a franchise agreement, there is no assurance that we would be able to enter into an agreement with a different franchisor.
Due to restrictions in our hotel management agreements, franchise agreements, mortgage agreements and ground leases, we may not be able to sell our hotels at the highest possible price (or at all).
Our current hotel management agreements are long-term and contain certain restrictions on selling our hotels, which may affect the value of our hotels.
The hotel management agreements that we have entered into, and those we expect to enter into in the future, contain provisions restricting our ability to dispose of our hotels which, in turn, may have an adverse affect on the value of our hotels. Our hotel management agreements generally prohibit the sale of a hotel to:
•
certain competitors of the manager;
•
purchasers who are insufficiently capitalized; or
•
purchasers who might jeopardize certain liquor or gaming licenses.
In addition, our current hotel management agreements contain initial terms ranging from six to forty years and certain agreements have renewal periods of three to ten years which are exercisable at the option of the owner. Because our hotels would have to be sold subject to the applicable hotel management agreement, the term length of a hotel management agreement may deter some potential purchasers and could adversely impact the price realized from any such sale. To the extent we receive lower sale proceeds, we could experience a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to stockholders.
We are subject to risks associated with the employment of hotel personnel, particularly with hotels that employ unionized labor, which could increase our operating costs, reduce the flexibility of our hotel managers to adjust the size of the workforce at our hotels and impair our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.
We have entered into management agreements with third-party hotel managers to operate our hotels. Our hotel managers are responsible for hiring and maintaining the labor force at each of our hotels. Although we do not directly employ or manage employees at our hotels, we are subject to many of the costs and risks generally associated with the hotel labor force, particularly those hotels with unionized labor. From time to time, hotel operations may be disrupted as a result of strikes, lockouts, public demonstrations or other negative actions and publicity. We also may incur increased legal costs and indirect labor costs as a result of contract disputes or other events. Additionally, hotels where our managers have collective bargaining agreements with employees are more highly affected by labor force activities than others. The resolution of labor disputes or re-negotiated labor contracts could lead to increased labor costs, either by increases in wages or benefits or by changes in work rules that raise hotel operating costs. Furthermore, labor agreements may limit the ability of our hotel managers to reduce the size of hotel workforces during an economic downturn because collective bargaining agreements are negotiated between the hotel managers and labor unions. We do not have the ability to control the outcome of these negotiations.

20


Risks Associated with Debt Financing
Borrowings may reduce the funds available for distribution and increase the risk of loss since defaults may cause us to lose the properties securing the loans.
We have acquired, and will continue to acquire, real estate assets by assuming existing financing or borrowing new monies. Our articles permit us to borrow up to 300% of our net assets. In addition, we may obtain loans secured by some or all of our properties or other assets to fund additional acquisitions or operations including to satisfy the requirement that we distribute at least 90% of our annual “REIT taxable income” (subject to certain adjustments) to our stockholders, or as is otherwise necessary or advisable to assure that we qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. Payments required on any amounts we borrow reduce the funds available for, among other things, distributions to our stockholders because cash otherwise available for distribution is required to pay principal and interest associated with amounts we borrow.
Defaults on loans secured by a property we own may result in us losing the property or properties securing the loan that is in default as a result of foreclosure actions initiated by a lender. For tax purposes, a foreclosure would be treated as a sale of the property for a purchase price equal to the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the property. If the outstanding balance of the debt exceeds our tax basis in the property, we would recognize taxable gain on the foreclosure but would not receive any cash proceeds. We also may fully or partially guarantee any monies that subsidiaries borrow to purchase or operate real estate assets. In these cases, we will be responsible to the lender for repaying the loans if the subsidiary is unable to do so. If any mortgage contains cross-collateralization or cross-default provisions, more than one property may be affected by a default.
Lenders may restrict certain aspects of our operations, which could, among other things, limit our ability to make distributions.
The terms and conditions contained in any of our loan documents may require us to maintain cash reserves; limit the aggregate amount we may borrow on a secured and unsecured basis; require us to satisfy restrictive financial covenants; prevent us from entering into certain business transactions, such as a merger, sale of assets or other business combination; restrict our leasing operations; or require us to obtain consent from the lender to complete transactions or make investments that are ordinarily approved only by our board of directors. In particular, we have secured mortgages on certain upper-upscale lodging properties. We believe these properties to be more susceptible to changes in the economy because they target business and high end leisure travelers. This may inhibit us from satisfying our debt covenants and put us in default with the terms of our loan documents.
In addition, secured lenders typically restrict our ability to discontinue insurance coverage on a mortgaged property even though we may believe that the insurance premiums paid to insure against certain losses, such as losses due to wars, acts of terrorism, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, pollution or environmental matters, are greater than the potential risk of loss.
Our mortgage agreements contain certain provisions that may limit our ability to sell our properties.
In order to assign or transfer our rights and obligations under certain of our mortgage agreements, we generally must obtain the consent of the lender, pay a fee equal to a fixed percentage of the outstanding loan balance, and pay any costs incurred by the lender in connection with any such assignment or transfer.
These provisions of our mortgage agreements may limit our ability to sell our properties which, in turn, could adversely impact the price realized from any such sale. To the extent we receive lower sale proceeds, we could experience a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to stockholders.
Interest-only indebtedness may increase our risk of default.
We have obtained, and continue to borrow interest-only mortgage indebtedness. During the interest only period, the amount of each scheduled payment is less than that of a traditional amortizing mortgage loan. The principal balance of the mortgage loan is not reduced (except in the case of prepayments) because there are no scheduled monthly payments of principal during this period. After the interest-only period, we are required either to make scheduled payments of amortized principal and interest or to make a lump-sum or “balloon” payment at maturity. These required principal or balloon payments increase the amount of our scheduled payments and may increase our risk of default under the related mortgage loan if we are unable to fund the lump-sum or balloon amount.

21


Increases in interest rates could increase the amount of our debt payments.
As of December 31, 2013, approximately $1.0 billion of our mortgage payables and $200.2 million of our line of credit debt bore interest at variable rates. Increases in interest rates on variable rate debt that has not otherwise been hedged through the use of swap agreements reduce the funds available for other needs, including distribution to our stockholders. As of December 31, 2013, approximately $3.7 billion of our total indebtedness bore interest at fixed rates. As fixed rate debt matures, we may not be able to borrow at rates equal to or lower than the rates on the expiring debt. In addition, if rising interest rates cause us to need additional capital to repay indebtedness, we may be forced to sell one or more of our properties or investments in real estate at times which may not permit us to realize the return on the investments we would have otherwise realized.
To hedge against interest rate fluctuations, we use derivative financial instruments, which may be costly and ineffective.
From time to time, we use derivative financial instruments to hedge exposures to changes in interest rates on certain loans secured by our assets. Our derivative instruments currently consist of interest rate swap contracts but may, in the future, include, interest rate cap or floor contracts, futures or forward contracts, options or repurchase agreements. Our actual hedging decisions are determined in light of the facts and circumstances existing at the time of the hedge. There is no assurance that our hedging strategy will achieve our objectives. We may be subject to costs, such as transaction fees or breakage costs, if we terminate these arrangements.
To the extent that we use derivative financial instruments to hedge against interest rate fluctuations, we are exposed to credit risk, basis risk and legal enforceability risks. In this context, credit risk is the failure of the counterparty to perform under the terms of the derivative contract. Basis risk occurs when the index upon which the contract is based is more or less variable than the index upon which the hedged asset or liability is based, thereby making the hedge less effective. Finally, legal enforceability risks encompass general contractual risks including the risk that the counterparty will breach the terms of, or fail to perform its obligations under, the derivative contract. A counterparty could fail, shut down, file for bankruptcy or be unable to pay out contracts. The business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in a default. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction may result in the loss of unrealized profits and force us to cover our resale commitments, if any, at the then current market price. Although generally we will seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging positions, it may not always be possible to dispose of or close out a hedging position without the consent of the hedging counterparty, and we may not be able to enter into an offsetting contract to cover our risk. We cannot provide assurance that a liquid secondary market will exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and we may be required to maintain a position until exercise or expiration, which could result in losses.
Further, the REIT provisions of the Code may limit our ability to hedge the risks inherent to our operations. We may be unable to manage these risks effectively.
We may be contractually obligated to purchase property even if we are unable to secure financing for the acquisition.
We typically finance a portion of the purchase price for each property that we acquire. However, to ensure that our offers are as competitive as possible, we generally do not enter into contracts to purchase property that include financing contingencies. Thus, we may be contractually obligated to purchase a property even if we are unable to secure financing for the acquisition. In this event, we may choose to close on the property by using cash on hand, which would result in less cash available for other purposes including funding operating costs or paying distributions to our stockholders. Alternatively, we may choose not to close on the acquisition of the property and default on the purchase contract. If we default on any purchase contract, we could lose our earnest money and become subject to liquidated or other contractual damages and remedies.
The financial covenants under our credit agreement may restrict our ability to make distributions and our operating and acquisition activities. If we breach the financial covenants we could be held in default under the credit agreement, which could accelerate our repayment date and materially adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition.
On May 8, 2013, we entered into a credit agreement with KeyBank National Association, JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association and other financial institutions to provide for a senior unsecured credit facility, which was subsequently expanded on November 5, 2013. The credit facility consists of a $300 million senior unsecured revolving line of credit and a $200 million unsecured term loan. We also have an accordion feature to increase available borrowings up to $800 million in certain circumstances with lenders’ consent.
As of December 31, 2013, we had borrowed the full amount of the term loan and had $299.8 million available under the revolving line of credit. This full recourse credit agreement requires compliance with certain financial covenants including: a minimum net worth requirement, restrictions on indebtedness, a distribution limitation and investment restrictions. These

22


covenants could prevent or inhibit our ability to make distributions to its stockholders and to pursue some business initiatives or effect certain transactions that may otherwise be beneficial to us.
The credit agreement also contains default provisions including the failure to (i) timely pay debt service: (ii) comply with financial and operating covenants in the credit agreement; or (iii) pay when due, all amounts outstanding under the credit agreement. Declaration of a default by the lenders under the credit agreement could restrict our ability to borrow additional monies and accelerate all amounts outstanding under the credit facility.
Risks Related to Our Common Stock
Since Inland American shares are not currently traded on a national stock exchange, there is no established public market for our shares and you may not be able to sell your shares.
Our shares of common stock are not listed on a national securities exchange. There is no established public trading market for our shares and no assurance that one may develop. Our charter also prohibits the ownership of more than 9.8% in value of the aggregate of the outstanding shares of our stock or more than 9.8% (in value or numbers whichever is more restrictive) of any class or series of shares of our stock by any single investor unless exempted by our board. This may inhibit investors from purchasing a large portion of our shares. Our charter also does not require our directors to seek stockholder approval to liquidate our assets by a specified date, nor does our charter require our directors to list our shares for trading on a national exchange by a specified date. There is no assurance the board will pursue a listing or other liquidity event. In addition, even if our board decides to seek a listing of our shares of common stock, there is no assurance that we will satisfy the listing requirements or that our shares will be approved for listing. If and when a listing occurs there is no guarantee you will be able to sell your common shares at a price equal to your initial investment value.
Our stockholders may not be able to sell some or all of their shares under our share repurchases program.
Our share repurchase program, which was effective through February 28, 2014, contained numerous restrictions that limited our stockholders' ability to sell their shares, including those relating to the number of shares of our common stock that we could repurchase at any given time and limiting the funds we could use to repurchase shares pursuant to the program. Under the program, we may repurchase shares of our common stock, on a quarterly basis only, from the beneficiary of a stockholder that has died or from stockholders that have a “qualifying disability” or are confined to a “long-term care facility” (together, referred to herein as “hardship repurchases”). Our program does not permit us to accept shares for repurchase for any other reason, further, we are authorized to repurchase shares at a price per share equal to 100% of the most recently disclosed estimated per share value of our common stock, which currently is equal to $6.94 per share. Our obligation to repurchase any shares under the program is further conditioned upon our having sufficient funds available to complete the repurchase. Through February 28, 2014, our board has reserved $10.0 million per calendar quarter for the purpose of funding repurchases associated with death and $15.0 million per calendar quarter for the purpose of funding hardship repurchases. If the funds reserved for either category of repurchase under the program are insufficient to repurchase all of the shares for which repurchase requests have been received for a particular quarter, or if the number of shares accepted for repurchase would cause us to exceed the 5.0% limit set forth therein, we will repurchase the shares in the following order: (1) for death repurchases, we will repurchase shares in chronological order, based upon the beneficial owner's date of death; and (2) for hardship repurchases, we will repurchase shares on a pro-rata basis, up to, but not in excess of, the limits described herein; provided, that in the event that the repurchase would result in a stockholder owning less than 150 shares, we will repurchase all of that stockholder's shares. Further, we have no obligation to repurchase shares if the repurchase would violate the restrictions on distributions under Maryland law, which prohibits distributions that would cause a corporation to fail to meet statutory tests of solvency.
Since the repurchase price is equal to our estimated per share value of our common stock, a stockholder may receive less than the amount of their investment in the shares. Moreover, our directors have the discretion to suspend or terminate the program upon 30 days' notice. Therefore, our stockholders may not have the opportunity to make a repurchase request prior to a potential termination of the share repurchase program and our stockholders may not be able to sell any of their shares of common stock back to us. As a result of these restrictions and circumstances, the ability of our stockholders to sell their shares should they require liquidity is significantly restricted.
The estimated value of our common stock is based on a number of assumptions and estimates that may not be accurate or complete and is also subject to a number of limitations.
On December 27, 2013, we announced an estimated value of our common stock equal to $6.94 per share. The audit committee of the Company’s board of directors engaged Real Globe Advisors, LLC (“Real Globe”), an independent third-party real estated advisory firm to estimate the per share value of our common stock on a fully diluted basis as of December 31, 2013. As

23


with any methodology used to estimate value, the methodology employed by Real Globe and the recommendations made by our former business manager were based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that may not be accurate or complete. Further, different parties using different assumptions and estimates could derive a different estimated value per share, which could be significantly different from our estimated value per share. The estimated per share value does not represent the: (i) the amount at which our shares would trade at a national securities exchange, (ii) the amount a stockholder would obtain if he or she tried to sell his or her shares or (iii) the amount stockholders would receive if we liquidated our assets and distributed the proceeds after paying all of our expenses and liabilities. Accordingly, with respect to the estimated value per share, we can give no assurance that:
•
a stockholder would be able to resell his or her shares at this estimated value;
•
a stockholder would ultimately realize distributions per share equal to our estimated value per share upon liquidation of our assets and settlement of our liabilities or a sale of the Company;
•
our shares would trade at a price equal to or greater than the estimated value per share if we listed them on a national securities exchange; or
•
the methodology used to estimate our value per share would be acceptable to FINRA or that the estimated value per share will satisfy the applicable annual valuation requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) with respect to employee benefit plans subject to ERISA and other retirement plans or accounts subject to Section 4975 of the Code.

There is no assurance that we will be able to continue paying cash distributions or that distributions will increase over time.
We pay regular monthly cash distributions to our stockholders. However, there are many factors that can affect the availability and timing of cash distributions such as our ability to earn positive yields on our real estate assets, the yields on securities of other entities in which we invest, our operating expense levels, as well as many other variables. Our long-term portfolio strategy may also affect our ability to pay our cash distributions if we are not able to reinvest the capital we receive from our properties dispositions, in a reasonable amount of time, into assets that generate cash flow yields similar to or greater than the properties sold. There is no assurance that we will be able to continue paying distributions at the current level or that the amount of distributions will increase, or not decrease, over time. Even if we are able to continue paying distributions, the actual amount and timing of distributions is determined by our board of directors in its discretion and typically depends on the amount of funds available for distribution, which depends on items such as current and projected cash requirements and tax considerations. As a result, our distribution rate and payment frequency may vary from time to time.
Funding distributions from sources other than cash flow from operating activities may negatively impact our ability to sustain or pay future distributions and results in us having less cash available for other uses, such as property purchases.
If our cash flow from operating activities is not sufficient to fully fund the payment of distributions, the level of our distributions may not be sustainable and some or all of our distributions will be paid from other sources. For the year ended December 31, 2013, distributions were paid from cash flow from operations, distributions from unconsolidated entities, and gain on sales of properties. We also may use cash from financing activities, components of which may include borrowings (including borrowings secured by our assets) and have used proceeds from the sales of our properties, to fund distributions. To the extent distributions are paid from these sources or gains on sales of assets, we will have less money available for other uses, such as cash needed to refinance existing indebtedness or for the purchase of new assets.
Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure
Stockholders have limited control over changes in our policies and operations.
Our board of directors determines our major policies, including our investment policies and strategies, and policies regarding financing, debt and equity capitalization, REIT qualification and distributions. Our board of directors may amend or revise certain of these and other policies without a vote of the stockholders.
Stockholders' interest in us will be diluted if we issue additional shares.
Stockholders do not have preemptive rights to any shares issued by us in the future. Our articles authorize us to increase or decrease the aggregate number of shares of stock or the number of shares of stock of any class or series that the Company has authority to issue. Future issuances of common stock, including issuances through our distribution reinvestment plan (“DRP”), reduce the percentage of our shares owned by our current stockholders who do not participate in future stock issuances. Stockholders are not entitled to vote on whether or not we issue additional shares. In addition, depending on the terms and pricing of an additional offering of our shares and the value of our properties, our stockholders may experience dilution in the

24


value of their shares. Further, our board could issue stock on terms and conditions that subordinate the rights of the holders of our current common stock or have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control in us, including an extraordinary transaction (such as a merger, tender offer or sale of all or substantially all of our assets) that might provide a premium price for our stockholders.
Stockholders' returns may be reduced if we are required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act.
We are not registered, and do not intend to register our company or any of our subsidiaries, as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”). If we or any of our subsidiaries become obligated to register as an investment company, the registered entity would have to comply with regulation under the Investment Company Act with respect to capital structure (including the registered entity's ability to use borrowings), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the Investment Company Act) and portfolio composition, including disclosure requirements and restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, and other matters. Compliance with the Investment Company Act would limit our ability to make certain investments and require us to significantly restructure our operations and business plan. The costs we would incur and the limitations that would be imposed on us as a result of such compliance and restructuring would negatively affect the value of our common stock, our ability to make distributions and the sustainability of our business and investment strategies.
We believe that neither we nor any subsidiaries we own fall within the definition of an investment company under Section 3(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act because we primarily engage in the business of investing in real property, through our wholly or majority owned subsidiaries, each of which has at least 60% of their assets in real property. The company conducts its operations, directly and through wholly or majority-owned subsidiaries, so that none of the company and its subsidiaries is registered or will be required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. Section 3(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act, in relevant part, defines an investment company as (i) any issuer that is, or holds itself out as being, engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities., or (ii) any issuer that is engaged, or proposes to engage, in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities and owns, or proposes to acquire, “investment securities” having a value exceeding 40% of the value of its total assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis, which we refer to as the “40% test.” The term “investment securities” generally includes all securities except government securities and securities of majority-owned subsidiaries that are not themselves investment companies and are not relying on the exemption from the definition of investment company under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act. We and our subsidiaries are primarily engaged in the business of investing in real property and, as such, fall outside of the definition of an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act. We also conduct our operations and the operations of our subsidiaries so that each complies with the 40% test.
Accordingly, we believe that neither we nor any of our wholly and majority-owned subsidiaries are considered investment companies under either Section 3(a)(1)(A) or Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act. If we or any of our wholly or majority-owned subsidiaries would ever inadvertently fall within one of the definitions of “investment company,” we intend to rely on the exemption provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act. To rely upon Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act as it has been interpreted by the SEC staff, an entity would have to invest at least 55% of its total assets in “mortgage and other liens on and interests in real estate,” which we refer to as “qualifying real estate investments” and maintain an additional 25% of its total assets in qualifying real estate investments or other real estate-related assets. The remaining 20% of the entity's assets can consist of miscellaneous assets. These criteria may limit what we buy, sell and hold.
We classify our assets for purposes of Section 3(c)(5)(C) based in large measure upon no-action letters issued by the SEC staff and other interpretive guidance provided by the SEC and its staff. The no-action positions are based on factual situations that may be substantially different from the factual situations we may face, and a number of these no-action positions were issued more than twenty years ago. Pursuant to this guidance, and depending on the characteristics of the specific investments, certain mortgage-backed securities, other mortgage-related instruments, joint venture investments and the equity securities of other entities may not constitute qualifying real estate assets, and therefore, we may limit our investments in these types of assets. The SEC or its staff may not concur with the way we classify our assets. Future revisions to the Investment Company Act or further guidance from the SEC or its staff may cause us to no longer be in compliance with the exemption from the definition of an “investment company” provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) and may force us to re-evaluate our portfolio and our investment strategy. To the extent that the SEC or its staff provides more specific or different guidance, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. Any additional guidance from the SEC or its staff could provide additional flexibility to us, or it could further inhibit our ability to pursue the strategies we have chosen.

25


A change in the value of any of our assets could cause us to fall within the definition of “investment company” and negatively affect our ability to be free from registration and regulation under the Investment Company Act. To avoid being required to register the company or any of its subsidiaries as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we may be unable to sell assets we would otherwise want to sell and may need to sell assets we would otherwise wish to retain. Sales may be required during adverse market conditions, and we could be forced to accept a price below that which we would otherwise consider acceptable. In addition, we may have to acquire additional income or loss generating assets that we might not otherwise have acquired or may have to forgo opportunities to acquire interests in companies that we would otherwise want to acquire and would be important to our investment strategy. Any such selling, acquiring or holding of assets driven by Investment Company Act considerations could negatively affect the value of our common stock, our ability to make distributions and the sustainability of our business and investment strategies.
If we or our subsidiaries were required to register as an investment company but failed to do so, we or the applicable subsidiary would be prohibited from engaging in our or its business, and criminal and civil actions could be brought against us or the applicable subsidiary. In addition, our contracts would be unenforceable unless a court required enforcement, and a court could appoint a receiver to take control of us and liquidate our business.
Our rights, and the rights of our stockholders, to recover claims against our officers and directors are limited by Maryland law.
Maryland law provides that a director or officer has no liability in that capacity if he or she performs his or her duties in good faith, in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in our best interest and with the care that an ordinary prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. Our charter and bylaws require us to indemnify our directors and officers to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law for any claim or liability to which they may become subject or which they may incur by reason of their service as directors or officers. Maryland law generally permits a corporation to indemnify its directors and officers for losses, liabilities and expenses unless it is established that: (i) the act or omission of the director or officer was material to the matter giving rise to the proceeding and was either committed in bad faith or was the result of active and deliberate dishonesty; (ii) the director or officer actually received an improper personal benefit in money, property or services; or (iii) in the case of a criminal proceeding, the director or officer had reasonable cause to believe that the act or omission was unlawful. As a result, we and our stockholders may have more limited rights against our directors and officers than might otherwise exist under common law, which could reduce our and our stockholders’ recovery from these persons if they act in a negligent or grossly negligent manner. In addition, we may be obligated to fund the defense costs incurred by our officers and directors in some cases.
Our articles place limits on the amount of common stock that any person may own without the prior approval of our board of directors.
To qualify as a REIT, no more than 50% of the outstanding shares of our common stock may be beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of each taxable year. Our articles prohibit any persons or groups from owning more than 9.8% of our common stock without the prior approval of our board of directors. These provisions may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us, including an extraordinary transaction such as a merger, tender offer or sale of all or substantially all of our assets that might involve a premium price for holders of our common stock. Further, any person or group attempting to purchase shares exceeding these limits could be compelled to sell the additional shares and, as a result, to forfeit the benefits of owning the additional shares.
Our articles permit our board of directors to issue preferred stock on terms that may subordinate the rights of the holders of our current common stock or discourage a third party from acquiring us.
Our board of directors is permitted to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval. Further, our board may classify or reclassify any unissued preferred stock and establish the preferences, conversions or other rights, voting powers, restrictions, limitations as to dividends and other distributions, qualifications, and terms or conditions of redemption of any preferred stock. Thus, our board of directors could authorize us to issue shares of preferred stock with terms and conditions that could subordinate the rights of the holders of our common stock or have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us, including an extraordinary transaction such as a merger, tender offer or sale of all or substantially all of our assets, that might provide a premium price for holders of our common stock.
Maryland law prohibits certain business combinations, which may make it more difficult for us to be acquired.
Under Maryland law, “business combinations” between a Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder or an affiliate of an interested stockholder are prohibited for five years after the most recent date on which the holder becomes an “interested

26


stockholder.” These business combinations include a merger, consolidation, share exchange or, in circumstances specified in the statute, an asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities. An “interested stockholder” is defined as:
•
any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of the voting power of the then outstanding voting stock of the corporation; or
•
an affiliate or associate of the corporation who, at any time within the two-year period prior to the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of the voting power of the then outstanding voting stock of the corporation.

A person is not an interested stockholder under the statute if the board of directors approved, in advance, the transaction by which the person otherwise would have become an interested stockholder. However, in approving a transaction, the board of directors may condition its approval on compliance, at or after the time of approval, with any terms and conditions determined by the board.
After the expiration of the five-year period described above, any business combination between the Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder generally must be recommended by the board of directors of the corporation and approved by the affirmative vote of at least:
•
80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of the then outstanding shares of voting stock of the corporation; and
•
two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of voting stock of the corporation other than shares held by the interested stockholder with whom or with whose affiliate the business combination is to be effected or held by an affiliate or associate of the interested stockholder.

These super-majority voting requirements do not apply if the corporation’s common stockholders receive a minimum price, as defined under Maryland law, for their shares in the form of cash or other consideration in the same form as previously paid by the interested stockholder for its shares. Maryland law also permits various exemptions from these provisions, including business combinations that are exempted by the board of directors before the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. The business combination statute may discourage others from trying to acquire control of us and increase the difficulty of consummating any offer.
Maryland law limits, in some cases, the ability of a third party to vote shares acquired in a “control share acquisition.”
Under the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act, persons or entities owning “control shares” of a Maryland corporation acquired in a “control share acquisition” have no voting rights with respect to those shares except to the extent approved by a vote of two-thirds of the corporation's disinterested stockholders. Shares of stock owned by the acquirer or by officers or directors who are employees of the corporation, are not considered disinterested for these purposes. “Control shares” are shares of stock that, taken together with all other shares of stock the acquirer previously acquired, would entitle the acquirer to exercise voting power in electing directors within one of the following ranges of voting power:
•
one-tenth or more but less than one-third of all voting power;
•
one-third or more but less than a majority of all voting power; or
•
a majority or more of all voting power.
Control shares do not include shares of stock the acquiring person is entitled to vote as a result of having previously obtained stockholder approval. A “control share acquisition” means the acquisition of control shares, subject to certain exceptions. The Control Share Acquisition Act does not apply to (1) shares acquired in a merger, consolidation or share exchange if the corporation is a party to the transaction or (2) acquisitions approved or exempted by our articles or bylaws.
Federal Income Tax Risks
If we fail to qualify as a REIT, we will have less cash to distribute to our stockholders.
Our qualification as a REIT depends on our ability to meet requirements regarding our organization and ownership, distributions of our income, the nature and diversification of our income and assets as well as other tests imposed by the Code. We cannot assure you that our actual operations for any one taxable year will satisfy these requirements. Further, new legislation, regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions could significantly affect our ability to qualify as a REIT and/or the federal income tax consequences of our qualification as a REIT. If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT and did not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions:

27


•
we would not be allowed to deduct distributions paid to stockholders when computing our taxable income;
•
we would be subject to federal, state and local income tax (including any applicable alternative minimum tax) on our taxable income at regular corporate rates;
•
we would be disqualified from being taxed as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which we failed to qualify, unless we qualify for certain statutory relief provisions;
•
we would have less cash to pay distributions to stockholders; and
•
we may be required to borrow additional funds or sell some of our assets in order to pay the corporate tax obligations we may incur as a result of being disqualified.
In addition, if we were to fail to qualify as a REIT, all distributions to stockholders that we did pay would be subject to tax as regular corporate dividends to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits. This means that our U.S. stockholders who are taxed at individual rates would be taxed on our dividends at long-term capital gains rates of up to 20% and that our corporate stockholders generally would be entitled to the dividends received deduction with respect to such dividends, subject, in each case, to applicable limitations under the Code.
We are seeking closing agreements with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) granting us relief for potential failures to satisfy certain REIT qualification requirements, and we may have to pay a significant penalty even if the IRS grants our requests.
A REIT is subject to a number of organizational and operational requirements, including a requirement that it currently distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income (subject to certain adjustments) to its stockholders (the “90% Distribution Test”). We have identified certain distribution and stockholder reimbursement practices that may have caused certain dividends paid by the consolidated Inland American REIT and MB REIT (Florida), Inc. (“MB REIT”) to be treated as preferential dividends, which cannot be used to satisfy the 90% Distribution Requirement. We have also identified the ownership of certain assets by the Inland American REIT and MB REIT that may have violated a REIT qualification requirement that prohibits a REIT from owning "securities" of any one issuer in excess of 5% of the REIT's total assets at the end of any calendar quarter (the "5% Securities Test"). In order to provide greater certainty with respect to the qualification of the Inland American REIT and MB REIT as REITs for federal income tax purposes, management concluded that it was in our best interest and the best interest of our stockholders to request closing agreements from the IRS for both the Inland American REIT and MB REIT with respect to such matters. Accordingly, on October 31, 2012, MB REIT filed a request for a closing agreement with the IRS. Additionally, we filed a separate request for a closing agreement on behalf of the Inland American REIT on March 7, 2013.
We identified certain aspects of the calculation of certain dividends on MB REIT's preferred stock and also aspects of the operation of certain "set aside" provisions with respect to accrued but unpaid dividends on certain classes of MB REIT's preferred stock that may have caused certain dividends to be treated as preferential dividends. In the case of the Inland American REIT, management identified certain aspects of the operation of the dividend reinvestment plan and distribution procedures and also certain reimbursements of stockholder expenses that may have caused certain dividends to be treated as preferential dividends. If these practices resulted in preferential dividends, the Inland American REIT and MB REIT would not have satisfied the 90% Distribution Requirement and thus may not have qualified as REITs, which would result in substantial corporate tax liability for the years in which the Inland American REIT or MB REIT failed to qualify as REITs.
In addition, the Inland American REIT and MB REIT made certain overnight investments in bank commercial paper. While the Code does not provide a specific definition of “cash item”, we believe that overnight commercial paper should be treated as a “cash item”, which is not treated as a “security” for purposes of the 5% Securities Test. If treated as a "security", the bank commercial paper would appear to have represented more than 5% of the respective REIT's total assets at the end of certain calendar quarters. In the event this commercial paper is treated as a "security", we anticipate that we would be required to pay corporate income tax on the income earned with respect to the portion of the commercial paper that violated the 5% Securities Test.
We can provide no assurance that the IRS will accept the Inland American REIT's or MB REIT's closing agreement requests. Our former business manager has agreed to pay any penalty the IRS requires as a condition of granting the closing agreements.
To maintain REIT status, we may be forced to borrow funds or dispose of assets during unfavorable market conditions to make distributions to our stockholders, which could increase our operating costs and decrease the value of an investment in our company.
To qualify as a REIT, we must comply with the 90% Distribution Test each year. At times, we may not have sufficient funds to satisfy the 90% Distribution Test and may need to borrow funds or dispose of assets to make these required distributions and maintain our REIT status and avoid the payment of income and excise taxes. Our inability to satisfy the the 90% Distribution

28


Test with operating cash flow could result from (1) differences in timing between the actual receipt of cash and inclusion of income for federal income tax purposes; (2) the effect of non-deductible capital expenditures; (3) the creation of reserves; or (4) required debt amortization payments. We may need to borrow funds at times when market conditions are unfavorable. Further, if we are unable to borrow funds when needed for this purpose, we would have to find alternative sources of funding or risk losing our status as a REIT.
Even if we qualify as a REIT, we may face other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flows.
Even if we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets. For example:
•
We will be subject to tax on any undistributed income. We will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which distributions we pay in any calendar year plus amounts retained for which federal income tax was paid are less than the sum of 85% of our ordinary income, 95% of our capital gain net income and 100% of our undistributed income from prior years.
•
If we have net income from the sale of foreclosure property that we hold primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business or other non-qualifying income from foreclosure property, we must pay a tax on that income at the highest corporate income tax rate.
•
If we sell a property, other than foreclosure property, that we hold primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business, our gain would be subject to the 100% “prohibited transactions” tax.
•
Our taxable REIT subsidiaries are subject to regular corporate federal, state and local taxes.
•
We will be subject to a 100% penalty tax on transactions with a taxable REIT subsidiary that are not conducted on an arm's-length basis.

Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distributions to our stockholders.
The prohibited transactions tax may limit our ability to dispose of our properties , and we could incur a material tax liability if the IRS successfully asserts that the 100% prohibited transaction tax applies to some or all of our past or future dispositions.
A REIT's net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property, other than foreclosure property, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We may be subject to the prohibited transactions tax equal to 100% of net gain upon a disposition of a property. As part of our plan to refine our portfolio, we have selectively disposed of certain of our properties in the past and intend to make additional dispositions in the future. Although a safe harbor to the characterization of the sale of property by a REIT as a prohibited transaction is available, not all of our past dispositions have qualified for that safe harbor and some or all of our future dispositions may not qualify for that safe harbor. We believe that our past dispositions will not be treated as prohibited transactions, and we intend to avoid disposing of property that may be characterized as held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. To avoid the prohibited transaction tax, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of our properties or may conduct such sales through a taxable REIT subsidiary, which would be subject to federal, state and local income taxation. Moreover, no assurance can be provided that the IRS will not assert that some or all of our past or future dispositions are subject to the 100% prohibited transactions tax.  If the IRS successfully imposes the 100% prohibited transactions tax on some or all of our dispositions, the resulting tax liability could be material.
We may fail to qualify as a REIT if the IRS successfully challenges the valuation of our common stock used for purposes of our DRP.
In order to satisfy the 90% Distribution Requirement, the dividends we pay must not be “preferential.” A dividend determined to be preferential will not qualify for the dividends paid deduction. To avoid paying preferential dividends, we must treat every stockholder of a class of stock with respect to which we make a distribution the same as every other stockholder of that class, and we must not treat any class of stock other than according to its dividend rights as a class. For example, if certain stockholders receive a distribution that is more or less than the distributions received by other stockholders of the same class, the distribution will be preferential. If any part of a distribution is preferential, none of that distribution will be applied towards satisfying the 90% Distribution Requirement.
Stockholders participating in our DRP receive distributions in the form of shares of our common stock rather than in cash. Currently, the purchase price per share under our DRP is equal to 100% of the “market price” of a share of our common stock. Because our common stock is not yet listed for trading, for these purposes, “market price” means the fair market value of a share of our common stock, as estimated by us. In the past, our DRP has offered participants the opportunity to acquire newly-

29


issued shares of our common stock at a discount to the “market price.” Pursuant to an IRS ruling, the prohibition on preferential dividends does not prohibit a REIT from offering shares under a distribution reinvestment plan at discounts of up to 5% of fair market value, but a discount in excess of 5% of the fair market value of the shares would be considered a preferential dividend. Any discount we have offered in the past was intended to fall within the safe harbor for such discounts set forth in the ruling published by the IRS. However, the fair market value of our common stock has not been susceptible to a definitive determination. If the purchase price under our DRP is deemed to have been at more than a 5% discount at any time, we would be treated as having paid one or more preferential dividends. Similarly, we would be treated as having paid one or more preferential dividends if the IRS successfully asserted that the value of the common stock distributions paid to stockholders participating in our DRP exceeded on a per-share basis the cash distribution paid to our other stockholders, which could occur if the IRS successfully asserted that the fair market value of our common stock exceeded the “market value” used for purposes of calculating the distributions under our DRP. If we are determined to have paid preferential dividends as a result of our DRP, we would likely fail to qualify as a REIT.
Complying with the REIT requirements may force us to liquidate otherwise attractive investments.
To maintain qualification as a REIT, we must ensure that at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of our assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified real estate assets, including shares of stock in other REITs, certain mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than governmental securities, qualified real estate assets and securities of taxable REIT subsidiaries) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities, qualified real estate assets and securities of taxable REIT subsidiaries) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 25% of the value of our total securities can be represented by securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries. If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we must correct the failure within thirty days after the end of the calendar quarter to avoid losing our REIT status and suffering adverse tax consequences. As a result, we may be required to liquidate otherwise attractive investments in order to maintain our REIT status.
If our leases are not respected as true leases for federal income tax purposes, we would fail to qualify as a REIT.
To qualify as a REIT, we must satisfy two gross income tests, pursuant to which specified percentages of our gross income must be passive income such as rent. For the rent we receive under our lease to be treated as qualifying income for purposes of the gross income tests, the leases must be respected as true leases for federal income tax purposes and must not be treated as service contracts, joint ventures or some other type of arrangement. There are no controlling Treasury regulations, published rulings or judicial decisions involving leases with terms substantially the same as our hotel leases that discuss whether such leases constitute true leases for federal income tax purposes. We believe that all of our leases, including our hotel leases, will be respected as true leases for federal income tax purposes. There can be no assurance, however, that the IRS will agree with this characterization. If a significant portion of our leases were not respected as true leases for federal income tax purposes, we would not be able to satisfy either of the two gross income tests and each would likely lose its REIT status.
If MB REIT failed to qualify as a REIT, we would likely fail to qualify as a REIT.
We own 100% of the common stock of MB REIT, which owns a significant portion of our properties and has elected to be taxed as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. MB REIT is subject to the various REIT qualification requirements and other limitations that apply to us. We believe that MB REIT has operated and will continue to operate in a manner to permit it to qualify for taxation as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. However, if MB REIT were to fail to qualify as a REIT, then (1) MB REIT would become subject to regular corporation income tax and (2) our ownership of shares MB REIT would cease to be a qualifying real estate asset for purposes of the 75% asset test applicable to REITs and would become subject to the 5% asset test, the 10% vote test, and the 10% value test generally applicable to our ownership in corporations other than REITs, qualified REIT subsidiaries and taxable REIT subsidiaries. If MB REIT were to fail to qualify as a REIT, we would not satisfy the 5% asset test, the 10% value test, or the 10% vote test, in which event we would fail to qualify as a REIT unless we qualified for certain statutory relief provisions.
If our hotel managers do not qualify as “eligible independent contractors,” we would fail to qualify as a REIT.
Rent paid by a lessee that is a “related party tenant” of ours will not be qualifying income for purposes of the two gross income tests applicable to REITs. We lease our hotels to certain of our taxable REIT subsidiaries. A taxable REIT subsidiary will not be treated as a “related party tenant,” and will not be treated as directly operating a lodging facility, which is prohibited, to the extent that hotels that our taxable REIT subsidiaries lease are managed by an “eligible independent contractor.”

30


We believe that the rent paid by our taxable REIT subsidiaries that lease our hotels is qualifying income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests and that our taxable REIT subsidiaries qualify to be treated as “taxable REIT subsidiaries” for federal income tax purposes, but there can be no assurance that the IRS will not challenge this treatment or that a court would not sustain such a challenge. If the IRS successfully challenged this treatment, we would likely fail to satisfy the asset tests applicable to REITs and a significant portion of our income would fail to qualify for the gross income tests. If we failed to satisfy either the asset or gross income tests, we would likely lose our REIT qualification for federal income tax purposes, unless we qualified for certain statutory relief provisions.
If our hotel managers do not qualify as “eligible independent contractors,” we may fail to qualify as a REIT. Each of the hotel management companies that enters into a management contract with our taxable REIT subsidiaries that lease our hotels must qualify as an “eligible independent contractor” under the REIT rules in order for the rent paid to us by taxable REIT subsidiaries to be qualifying income for gross income tests. Among other requirements, in order to qualify as an eligible independent contractor, (1) a manager must be actively engaged in the trade or business of operating hotels for third parties at the time the manger enters into a management contract with a taxable REIT subsidiary lessee and (2) the manager must not own more than 35% of our outstanding shares (by value) and no person or group of persons can own more than 35% of our outstanding shares and the ownership interests of the manager. Although we believe that all of our hotel managers qualify as eligible independent contractors, no complete assurance can be provided that the IRS will not successfully challenge that position.
Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively.
The REIT provisions of the Code may limit our ability to hedge the risks inherent to our operations. Under current law, any income that we generate from derivatives or other transactions intended to hedge our interest rate risk with respect to borrowings made to acquire or carry real estate assets generally will not constitute gross income for purposes of the two gross income tests applicable to REITs, so long as we clearly identify any such transactions as hedges for tax purposes before the close of the day on which they are acquired or entered into and we satisfy other identification requirements. In addition, any income from other hedging transactions would generally not constitute gross income for purposes of both the gross income tests. Accordingly, we may have to limit the use of hedging techniques that might otherwise be advantageous, which could result in greater risks associated with interest rate or other changes than we would otherwise incur.
Legislative or regulatory action could adversely affect you.
Changes to the tax laws are likely to occur, and these changes may adversely affect the taxation of our stockholders. Any such changes could have an adverse effect on an investment in our shares or on the market value or the resale potential of our assets. Future legislation might result in a REIT having fewer tax advantages, and it could become more advantageous for a company that invests in real estate to elect to be taxed, for federal income tax purposes, as a corporation. As a result, our charter provides our board of directors with the power, under certain circumstances, to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election and cause us to be taxed as a corporation, without the vote of our stockholders. Our board of directors has fiduciary duties to us and our stockholders and could only cause changes in our tax treatment if it determines in good faith that such changes are in the best interest of our stockholders. You are urged to consult with your own tax advisor with respect to the status of legislative, regulatory or administrative developments and proposals and their potential effect on an investment in our stock.
The taxation of dividends may adversely affect the value of our stock.
The maximum tax rate applicable to “qualified dividend income” payable to U.S. stockholders that are taxed at individual rates is 20%. Dividends payable by REITs, however, are generally not eligible for the reduced rates on qualified dividend income. The more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate qualified dividends could cause investors who are taxed at individual rates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the shares of REITs, including our stock.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.

31

Item 2. Properties

We own interests in retail, lodging, student housing, and non-core properties. As of December 31, 2013, we, directly or indirectly, including through joint ventures in which we have a controlling interest, owned an interest in 178 properties, excluding our lodging and development properties, located in 31 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Inland American Winston Hotels, Inc., Inland American Orchard Hotels, Inc., Inland American Urban Hotels, Inc., and Inland American Lodging Corporation, own 99 lodging properties in 26 states and the District of Columbia. (Dollar amounts stated in thousands, except for revenue per available room, average daily rate and average rent per square foot).
Not included in the property count of 178 properties are 224 properties that are held for sale as of December 31, 2013. These 224 properties are expected to be sold in 2014. In accordance with GAAP, we classify properties as held for sale when certain criteria are met. On the day that the criteria are met, we suspend depreciation on the properties held for sale, including depreciation for tenant improvements and additions, as well as the amortization of acquired in-place leases. Although we still hold these properties as of December 31, 2013, the assets and liabilities associated with those investment properties that are held for sale are classified separately on the consolidated balance sheets for the most recent reporting period and recorded at the lesser of the carrying value or fair value less costs to sell. At December 31, 2013, these assets were recorded at their carrying value. Furthermore, the operations for the periods presented are classified on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income as discontinued operations for all periods presented.
General
The following table sets forth information regarding the ten largest individual tenants in descending order based on annualized rent paid in 2013 but excluding our lodging and student housing properties. Annualized rent is computed as revenue for the last month of the period multiplied by twelve months. Average rent per square foot is computed as annualized rent divided by the total occupied square footage at the end of the period. Annualized rent includes the effect of rent abatements, lease inducements and straight-line rent GAAP adjustments. Physical occupancy is defined as the percentage of total gross leasable area actually used or occupied by a tenant. Economic occupancy is defined as the percentage of total gross leasable area for which a tenant is obligated to pay rent under the terms of its lease agreement, regardless of the actual use or occupation by that tenant of the area being leased.
 
Tenant Name
Type
 
Total Annualized Rental Income 
2013 ($)
 
Percent of 
Total Annualized Income
 
Gross Leasable Area
 
Percentage of Gross Leasable Area
AT&T
Non-core
 
$28,087
 
9.40%
 
1,943,177
 
8.99%
The Geo Group, Inc.
Non-core
 
9,850

 
3.30%
 
301,029
 
1.39%
Ross Dress for Less
Retail
 
8,407

 
2.81%
 
823,616
 
3.81%
Lockheed Martin
Non-core
 
8,007

 
2.68%
 
347,233
 
1.61%
Best Buy
Retail
 
7,790

 
2.61%
 
551,785
 
2.55%
Imagine
Non-core
 
7,687

 
2.57%
 
364,710
 
1.69%
Publix
Retail
 
6,011

 
2.01%
 
664,287
 
3.07%
Tom Thumb
Retail
 
5,875

 
1.97%
 
626,533
 
2.90%
Bed Bath & Beyond
Retail
 
4,883

 
1.63%
 
464,970
 
2.15%
Petsmart
Retail
 
4,772

 
1.60%
 
371,615
 
1.72%
Totals
 
 
$91,369
 
 
 
6,458,955
 
 

The following sections set forth certain summary information about the character of the properties that we owned at December 31, 2013. Certain of the Company’s properties, both continuing and those classified as held for sale, are encumbered by mortgages, totaling $4,731,709. Additional detail about the properties can be found on Schedule III – Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation.


32

Retail Segment
As of December 31, 2013, our retail segment consisted of 119 properties, with an average of approximately 143,000 square feet of total space, located in stable communities, primarily in the eastern regions of the country. Our retail tenants are largely necessity-based retailers such as grocery and pharmacy. We own the following types of retail centers:
•
Community or neighborhood centers which are generally open air and designed for tenants that offer a larger array of apparel and other soft goods. Typically, community centers contain anchor stores and other national retail tenants. Our neighborhood shopping centers are generally in-line strip centers with a grocery store anchor, a drugstore, and other small retailers. Tenants of these centers typically offer necessity-based products.
•
Power centers consist of several anchors, such as department stores, off-price stores, warehouse clubs or stores that offer a large selection of merchandise. Typically, the number of specialty tenants is limited.
We have not experienced bankruptcies or receivable write-offs in our retail portfolio that have materially impacted our result of operations. Our retail business is not highly dependent on specific retailers or specific retail industries, which we believe shields the portfolio from significant revenue variances over time.
The following table reflects the types of properties within our retail segment as of December 31, 2013.
 
Retail Properties
Number
of
Properties
 
Total Gross
Leasable 
Area (GLA)
(Sq. Ft.)
 
Percentage of 
Economic
Occupancy as of
December 31,
2013
 
Total Number of
Financially
Active Leases 
as of
December 31, 2013
 
Total
Annualized
Rent ($)
 
Average Rent
PSF ($)
Community & Neighborhood Center
70
 
6,433,110

 
90%
 
981
 
$82,359
 
$14.29
Power Center
49
 
10,598,387

 
91%
 
1,036
 
126,904

 
13.14

 
119
 
17,031,497

 
91%
 
2,017
 
$209,263
 
$13.57
The following table represents lease expirations for the retail segment:
Lease Expiration Year
Number of
Expiring 
Leases
 
GLA of 
Expiring
Leases
(Sq. Ft.)
 
Annualized
Rent of Expiring
Leases ($)
 
Percent of
Total GLA
 
Percent of 
Total
Annualized 
Rent
 
Expiring
Rent/Square
Foot ($)
2014
279
 
1,195,197

 
$16,975
 
7.8%
 
8.0%
 
$14.20
2015
334
 
2,215,575

 
27,678

 
14.4%
 
13.1%
 
12.49

2016
315
 
1,837,929

 
26,206

 
11.9%
 
12.4%
 
14.26

2017
353
 
1,827,469

 
31,418

 
11.8%
 
14.9%
 
17.19

2018
287
 
1,853,358

 
27,701

 
12.0%
 
13.2%
 
14.95

2019
156
 
1,977,913

 
24,954

 
12.8%
 
11.8%
 
12.62

2020
57
 
795,303

 
11,096

 
5.2%
 
5.4%
 
13.95

2021
48
 
510,207

 
6,794

 
3.3%
 
3.2%
 
13.32

2022
44
 
802,338

 
9,975

 
5.2%
 
4.7%
 
12.43

2023
47
 
701,950

 
9,706

 
4.6%
 
4.6%
 
13.83

Thereafter
91
 
1,694,491

 
18,388

 
11.0%
 
8.7%
 
10.85

 
2,011
 
15,411,730

 
$210,890
 
100%
 
100%
 
$13.68
We believe the percentage of leases expiring over the next five years of 12%, is a manageable percentage of lease rollover. We believe that we have staggered our lease expirations so that we can manage lease rollover.


33

The following table represents lease spread metrics for leases that commenced in 2013 compared to expiring leases for the prior tenant in the same unit:

Number of Leases Commenced
2013
GLA SF
New Contractual Rent per Square Foot ($PSF) (a)
Prior Contractual Rent ($PSF) (a)
% Change over Prior Contract Rent (a)
Weighted Average Lease Term (b)
Tenant Improvement Allowance ($PSF)
Lease Commissions ($PSF)
Comparable Renewal Leases (c)
249
1,200,378
$15.72
$15.27
3.0%
4.34
$0.35
$0.05
Comparable New Leases (c)
40
282,739
13.96
12.54
11.3%
4.64
5.89
2.45
Non-Comparable Renewal and New Leases
87
415,211
12.03
—
—%
4.86
11.34
3.60
Total
376
1,898,328
$15.38
$14.75
4.3%
4.50
$3.58
$1.18
(a) Non-comparables are not included in totals.
(b) Month-to-month leases do not have expiration date and are not included in weighted avg lease term.
(c) Comparable lease is defined as a lease that meets all of the following criteria: same unit, leased within one year of prior tenant, square footage of unit stayed the same or within 10% of prior unit square footage.

In 2013, we executed 121 new leases and 255 renewals for 1.9 million square feet of GLA, of which 40 and 249 were comparable, respectively. For our comparable new leases, contractual base rent increased 11.3% from prior contractual base rent, going from $12.54 to $13.96 per square foot. The weighted average term is 4.64 years, with tenant improvement allowances at $5.89 per square foot and lease commissions at $2.45 per square foot. Similarly, our comparable renewed leases saw rent growth of 2.91%, increasing from $15.27 to $15.72 per square foot. The weighted average term is 4.34 years, with tenant improvement allowances at $0.35 per square foot and lease commissions at $0.05 per square foot. We also had 87 non-comparable leases commence in 2013 with contractual base rents starting at $12.03 per square foot and a weighted average term of 4.86 years. Tenant improvement allowances and lease commissions were $11.34 and $3.60 per square foot, respectively.

Tenant improvements allowances were primarily given for our new leases. The largest four leases represent 29% of the total given. Lease commissions were also primarily paid to our brokers for our new deals. The largest two commissions comprised 16% of the total paid.

As of December 31, 2012, we had 364 leases set to expire in 2013 of which the gross leaseable area of those leases was 1.5 million square feet. We are encouraged by our 2013 lease activity having achieved a comparable new and renewal rate of approximately 80% by number of leases.
Lodging Segment
Lodging facilities have characteristics different from those found in retail, student housing, and non-core properties. Revenue, operating expenses, and net income of lodging properties are directly tied to the daily hotel sales operation whereas these other asset classes generate revenue from medium to long-term lease contracts. Lodging facilities have the benefit of capturing increased revenue opportunities on a daily or weekly basis but are also subject to immediate decreases in lodging revenue as a result of declines in daily rental rates or daily occupancy when demand is reduced. Due to seasonality, we expect our lodging revenues to be greater during the second and third quarters with lower revenues in the first and fourth quarters.
We follow two practices common for REITs that own lodging properties: 1) association with national franchise organizations and 2) management of the properties by third-party hotel managers. We have aligned our portfolio with what we believe are the top franchise enterprises in the lodging industry: Marriott, Hilton, Intercontinental, Hyatt, Fairmont, and Starwood Hotels. By entering into franchise agreements with these organizations, we believe our lodging operations benefit from enhanced advertising, marketing, and sales programs through the franchisor (in this case, the organization) while the franchisee (in this case, us) pays only a fraction of the overall cost for these programs. Additionally, by using the franchise system we are also able to benefit from the frequent traveler rewards programs or “point awards” systems of the franchisor which we believe further bolsters occupancy and overall daily rental rates.


34

The majority of our lodging facilities and these franchise enterprises are classified in the “upscale” or “upper-upscale” lodging categories. The classifications are defined by Smith Travel Research, an independent provider of lodging industry statistical data. The classification of a property is based on lodging industry standards, which take into consideration many factors such as guest facilities and amenities, level of service and quality of accommodations.
The following table reflects the types of properties within our lodging segment as of December 31, 2013.
Lodging Properties
Number
of
Properties
 
Number 
of
Rooms
 
Average
Occupancy for
the Year ended
December 31, 2013
 
Average Revenue Per
Available Room for
the Year ended
December 31, 2013 ($)
 
Average Daily
Rate for the
Year 2013 ($)
Luxury
5
 
1,281
 
68%
 
$126
 
$185
Upper-Upscale
27
 
8,319
 
73%
 
114
 
156
Upscale
62
 
9,020
 
74%
 
97
 
130
Upper-Midscale
5
 
717
 
76%
 
100
 
132
 
99
 
19,337
 
73%
 
$105
 
$143


Student Housing Segment
Our student housing portfolio consists of residential and mixed-use communities located close to university campuses and in urban infill locations. The student housing properties are high-end properties with amenities such as fitness centers, swimming pools, multimedia lounges, and sports courts. Most of the properties are marketed under the "University House" brand. We are increasing the size of our student housing portfolio through acquisitions and developments. In 2013, we acquired three properties and placed one property in service. The properties are leased on a per bed basis and typically are one year leases commencing in the fall season in conjunction with the beginning of the school year.
The following table reflects the types of properties within our student-housing segment as of December 31, 2013.
 
 
Number of Properties
 
Total Beds
 
% of Economic
Occupancy as of
December 31, 2013
 
Total No. of
Beds Occupied
 
Rent per
Bed ($)
Student Housing
14
 
8,290
 
92%
 
7,632
 
$724


Non-core Segment
We are executing our long-term portfolio strategy by focusing on three specific real estate asset classes - retail, lodging, and student housing. The remaining assets outside of these asset classes are grouped together in the non-core segment. Our non-core segment is comprised of office properties, office and retail bank branches, single tenant retail properties, net lease properties and one conventional multi-family property.
The following table reflects the types of properties within our non-core segment as of December 31, 2013.
Non-core
Number of
Properties
 
Total Gross
Leasable 
Area
(Sq. Ft.)
 
Percentage of 
Economic
Occupancy as of
December 31,
2013
 
Total No. of
Financially
Active Leases 
as of
December 31, 2013
 
Sum of
Annualized
Rent ($)
 
Average Rent
PSF / Unit ($)
Single tenant retail
10
 
317,832

 
91%
 
7
 
$
3,571

 
$12.32
Office
10
 
3,551,858

 
85%
 
20
 
51,099

 
16.93

Correctional facility
2
 
457,345

 
100%
 
2
 
12,076

 
26.40

Charter schools
8
 
364,710

 
100%
 
8
 
7,687

 
21.08

Distribution centers
14
 
2,371,404

 
87%
 
25
 
15,124

 
7.33

Conventional multi-family
1
 
194,097

 
97%
 
246
 
3,462

 
$1,173
 
45
 
7,257,246

 
88%
 
308
 
$
93,019

 
 

35

The following table represents lease expirations for the non-core segment, exclusive of multi-family lease activity:
Lease Expiration Year
Number of
Expiring 
Leases
 
GLA of 
Expiring
Leases
(Sq. Ft.)
 
Annualized
Rent of Expiring
Leases ($)
 
Percent of
Total GLA
 
Percent of 
Total
Annualized 
Rent
 
Expiring
Rent/Square
Foot ($)
2014
10
 
935,350

 
$9,351
 
15.1%
 
10.3%
 
$10.00
2015
9
 
217,089

 
2,560

 
3.5%
 
3.0%
 
11.79

2016
11
 
2,315,448

 
33,732

 
37.4%
 
37.3%
 
14.57

2017
5
 
270,775

 
5,167

 
4.4%
 
5.7%
 
19.08

2018
8
 
345,044

 
7,721

 
5.6%
 
8.5%
 
22.38

2019
4
 
676,863

 
8,370

 
10.9%
 
9.3%
 
12.37

2020
2
 
329,909

 
10,127

 
5.3%
 
11.2%
 
30.70

2021
2
 
226,979

 
3,268

 
3.7%
 
3.6%
 
14.40

2022
1
 
20,845

 
575

 
0.3%
 
0.6%
 
27.58

2023
—
 
—

 
—

 
—%
 
—%
 
—

Thereafter
10
 
854,359

 
9,536

 
13.8%
 
10.5%
 
11.16


62
 
6,192,661

 
$90,408
 
100%
 
100%
 
$14.60
We believe the percentage of leases expiring over the next five years, ranging from 3% to 10%, except for 2016, is a manageable percentage of lease rollover. In 2016, the lease expires for a property with approximately 1.7 million square feet, occupied by AT&T in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, which is in the greater metro Chicago market.


36


Item 3. Legal Proceedings
As previously disclosed, the SEC is conducting a non-public, formal, fact-finding investigation ("SEC Investigation") to determine whether there have been violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws regarding our business manager fees, property management fees, transactions with our affiliates, timing and amount of distributions paid to our investors, determination of property impairments, and any decision regarding whether we might become a self-administered REIT. We have not been accused of any wrongdoing by the SEC. We also have been informed by the SEC that the existence of this investigation does not mean that the SEC has concluded that anyone has broken the law or that the SEC has a negative opinion of any person, entity, or security. We have been cooperating fully with the SEC.
We cannot reasonably estimate the timing of the investigation, nor can we predict whether or not the investigation might have a
material adverse effect on our business.
We have also received related demands (“Derivative Demands”) by stockholders to conduct investigations regarding claims that our officers, our board of directors, our former business manager, and affiliates of our former business manager (the “Inland American Parties”) breached their fiduciary duties to us in connection with the matters that we disclosed are subject to the SEC Investigation. The first Derivative Demand claims that the Inland American Parties (i) falsely reported the value of our common stock until September 2010; (ii) caused us to purchase shares of our common stock from stockholders at prices in excess of their value; and (iii) disguised returns of capital paid to stockholders as REIT income, resulting in the payment of fees to our former business manager for which it was not entitled. The three stockholders in that demand contend that legal proceedings should seek recovery of damages in an unspecified amount allegedly sustained by us. The second Derivative Demand by another shareholder makes similar claims and further alleges that the Inland American Parties (i) caused us to engage in transactions that unduly favored related parties, (ii) falsely disclosed the timing and amount of distributions, and (iii) falsely disclosed whether we might become a self-administered REIT. We also received a letter from another stockholder that fully adopts and joins in the first Derivative Demand, but makes no additional demands on us to perform investigation or pursue claims.
Upon receiving the first of the Derivative Demands, the full board of directors responded by authorizing the independent directors to investigate the claims contained in the first Derivative Demand, any subsequent stockholder demands, as well as any other matters the independent directors see fit to investigate, including matters related to the SEC Investigation. Pursuant to this authority, the independent directors have formed a special litigation committee that is comprised solely of independent directors to review and evaluate the matters referred by the full Board to the independent directors, and to recommend to the full Board any further action as is appropriate. The special litigation committee is investigating these claims with the assistance of independent legal counsel and will make a recommendation to the Board of Directors after the committee has completed its investigation.
On March 21, 2013, counsel for the stockholders who made the first Derivative Demand filed a derivative lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on behalf of the Company. The case has been stayed pending completion of the special litigation committee's investigation. We cannot reasonably estimate the timing of the special litigation committee investigation or the Derivative Demands, nor can we predict whether or not the special litigation committee investigation or Derivative Demands might have a material adverse effect on our business.
On April 26, 2013, two of our stockholders filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, and current members and one former member of our board of directors ("the Defendants"). The complaint sought damages on behalf of plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals who purchased additional shares in the Company pursuant to our Distribution Reinvestment Plan ("DRP") on or after March 30, 2009. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and to members of the putative class by inflating the yearly estimated share price announced by the Company and by selling shares in the DRP to plaintiffs and members of the putative class at those allegedly inflated prices. On November 18, 2013, the class action complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failing to state a claim that would entitle the plaintiffs to relief. The Court disagreed with the plaintiffs' allegations, noting in its memorandum opinion and order that the Company’s public disclosures fully described the manner in which the board estimated share value for the Company’s stock sold through the DRP. The Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. The plaintiffs appealed the judgment. As of February 26, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their appeal in exchange for a cash settlement from the Company. We believe that the amount of this settlement is not material, and is less than the amount the Defendants would have incurred in defending the appeal.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.


37


PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Market Information

Our shares of common stock are not listed on a national securities exchange and there is not otherwise an established public trading market for our shares. We publish an estimated per share value of our common stock to assist broker dealers that sold our common stock in our initial and follow-on “best efforts” offerings to comply with the rules published by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).  On December 27, 2013, we announced an estimated value of our common stock equal to $6.94 per share.

The audit committee of our board of directors (“Audit Committee”) engaged Real Globe Advisors, LLC (“Real Globe”), an independent third-party real estate advisory firm to estimate the per share value of our common stock on a fully diluted basis as of December 31, 2013. Real Globe has extensive experience estimating the fair values of commercial real estate. The report furnished to the Audit Committee by Real Globe complies with the reporting requirements set forth under Standard Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and is certified by a member of the Appraisal Institute with the MAI designation. The Real Globe report, dated December 17, 2013, reflects values as of December 31, 2013. Real Globe does not have any direct or indirect interests in any transaction with us or in any currently proposed transaction to which we are a party, and there are no conflicts of interest between Real Globe, on one hand, and ourselves, the business manager or any of our directors, on the other.

To estimate our per share value, Real Globe utilized the “net asset value” or “NAV” method which is based on the fair value of real estate, real estate related investments and all other assets, less the fair value of our total liabilities. The fair value estimate of our real estate assets is equal to the sum of the fair value estimates for its individual real estate assets. Generally, Real Globe estimated the value of our wholly owned real estate and real estate-related assets, such as joint ventures, using a discounted cash flow or “DCF” of projected net operating income, less capital expenditures, for each property, for the ten-year period ending December 31, 2023, and applying a “market supported” discount rate and capitalization rate. For all other assets including cash, other current assets and marketable securities, fair value was determined separately. Real Globe also estimated the fair value of our long-term debt obligations, including the current liabilities, by comparing current market interest rates to the contract rates on our long-term debt and discounting to present value the difference in future payments. Real Globe determined NAV in a manner consistent with the definition of fair value under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles set forth in Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820 Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures.

Our business manager analyzed Real Globe’s report, which was based on capitalization and discount rates derived from third quarter 2013 industry published reports. For its analysis, the business manager used fourth quarter 2013 market data, from both third party sources and management’s industry knowledge (including the Company’s recent experience buying and selling real estate assets) to assess current trends and potential values. Based on this analysis, our business manager recommended to our Audit Committee an estimated share value within the Real Globe range, equal to $6.94 per share. On December 19, 2013, the Audit Committee met to review and discuss Real Globe’s report and our business manager’s recommendation. After meeting with each of them, the Audit Committee unanimously adopted a resolution accepting the Real Globe analysis and our business manager’s recommendation. At a full meeting of our board of directors also held on December 19, 2013, the Audit Committee made a recommendation to the board that the Company publish an estimate of share value as of December 31, 2013 equal to $6.94 per share. The board unanimously adopted this recommendation of estimated per share value, which assumes a weighted average exit capitalization rate equal to 7.52% and a discount rate equal to 9.16%. Real Globe considered this reasonable because each fell within the range of values included in its report.
As with any methodology used to estimate value, the methodology employed by Real Globe and the recommendations made by our business manager were based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that may not be accurate or complete. Further, different parties using different assumptions and estimates could derive a different estimated value per share, which could be significantly different from our estimated value per share. The estimated per share value does not represent the: (i) the amount at which our shares would trade at a national securities exchange, (ii) the amount a stockholder would obtain if he or she tried to sell his or her shares or (iii) the amount stockholders would receive if we liquidated our assets and distributed the proceeds after paying all of our expenses and liabilities. Accordingly, with respect to the estimated value per share, we can give no assurance that:

•
a stockholder would be able to resell his or her shares at this estimated value;

38


•
a stockholder would ultimately realize distributions per share equal to our estimated value per share upon liquidation of our assets and settlement of our liabilities or a sale of the Company;
•
our shares would trade at a price equal to or greater than the estimated value per share if we listed them on a national securities exchange; or
•
the methodology used to estimate our value per share would be acceptable to FINRA or that the estimated value per share will satisfy the applicable annual valuation requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) with respect to employee benefit plans subject to ERISA and other retirement plans or accounts subject to Section 4975 of the Code.
 
The estimated value per share was unanimously adopted by our board on December 19, 2013 and reflects the fact that the estimate was calculated at a moment in time. The value of our shares will likely change over time and will be influenced by changes to the value of our individual assets as well as changes and developments in the real estate and capital markets. We currently expect to update our estimated value per share at least every twelve months. Nevertheless, stockholders should not rely on the estimated value per share in making a decision to buy or sell shares of our common stock.
Share Repurchase Program
Our board of directors adopted a share repurchase program, which became effective August 31, 2005 and was suspended as of March 30, 2009. Our board later adopted an Amended and Restated Share Repurchase Program, which was effective from April 11, 2011 through January 31, 2012. Our board subsequently adopted a Second Amended and Restated Share Repurchase Program (the “Second Amended Program”), which became effective February 1, 2012 and was suspended as of February 28, 2014. The board voted to suspend the Second Amended Program on January 29, 2014. We anticipate reinstating the Share Repurchase Program later in the year.
Under the Second Amended Program, we were permitted to repurchase shares of our common stock, on a quarterly basis, from the beneficiary of a stockholder that had died or from stockholders that had a “qualifying disability” or were confined to a “long-term care facility” (together, referred to herein as “hardship repurchases”). We were authorized to repurchase shares at a price per share equal to 100% of the most recently disclosed estimated per share value of our common stock, which was equal to $6.93 per share as of December 19, 2012 and $6.94 per share as of December 27, 2013. Our obligation to repurchase any shares under the Second Amended Program was conditioned upon our having sufficient funds available to complete the repurchase. Our board had initially reserved $10.0 million per calendar quarter for the purpose of funding repurchases associated with death and $15.0 million per calendar quarter for the purpose of funding hardship repurchases. In addition, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, at no time during any consecutive twelve month period may the aggregate number of shares repurchased under the Second Amended Program have exceeded 5.0% of the aggregate number of issued and outstanding shares of our common stock at the beginning of the twelve month period. For any calendar quarter, if the number of shares accepted for repurchase would have caused us to exceed the 5.0% limit, repurchases for death would have taken priority over any hardship repurchases, in each case in accordance with the procedures, and subject to the funding limits, described in the Second Amended Program and summarized herein.
If, on the other hand, the funds reserved for either category of repurchase under the Second Amended Program were insufficient to repurchase all of the shares for which repurchase requests have been received for a particular quarter, or if the number of shares accepted for repurchase would have caused us to exceed the 5.0% limit, we would have repurchased the shares in the following order:
•
for death repurchases, we would repurchase shares in chronological order, based upon the beneficial owner’s date of death; and
•
for hardship repurchases, we would repurchase shares on a pro rata basis, up to, but not in excess of, the limits described herein; provided, that in the event that the repurchase would result in a stockholder owning less than 150 shares, we would repurchase all of that stockholder’s shares.
The table below outlines the shares of common stock we repurchased pursuant to the Second Amended Program during the three months ended December 31, 2013:


39


As of month ended,
Total Number of Share Requests (2)
Total Number of
Shares Repurchased (2)
 
Average Price Paid per Share
 
Total Number of
Shares Purchased
as Part of Publicly
Announced Plans
or Programs (1)
 
Maximum
Number of Shares
That May Yet be
Purchased Under the
Plans or Programs
October 31, 2013 (3)
—

1,731,356

 
$
6.93

 
1,731,356

 
(1
)
November 30, 2013
—

—

 
N/A

 
—

 
(1
)
December 31, 2013 (4)
1,077,829

—

 
N/A

 
—

 
(1
)
(1)
A description of the Second Amended Program, including the date that the program was amended, the dollar amount approved, the expiration date and the maximum number of shares that may be purchased thereunder is included in the narrative preceding this table.
(2)
Beginning in April 2012, shares were repurchased in the subsequent quarter that share requests were received.
(3)
There were 1,731.356 share requests outstanding as of the month ended September 30, 2013, which were repurchased in October 2013 at a price of $6.93 per share.
(4)
All share requests outstanding as of the month ended December 31, 2013 were repurchased in January 2014 at a price of $6.94 per share.
Stockholders
As of March 11, 2014, we had 184,020 stockholders of record.
Distributions
We have been paying monthly cash distributions since October 2005. During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, we declared cash distributions, which are paid monthly in arrears to stockholders, totaling $450.1 million and $440.0 million, respectively, in each case equal to $0.50 per share on an annualized basis. During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, we paid cash distributions of $449.3 million and $439.2 million, respectively. For Federal income tax purposes for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, 0% and 87% of the distributions paid constituted a return of capital in the applicable year, respectively. The remaining portion of the distributions paid constituted ordinary income.

We intend to continue paying regular monthly cash distributions to our stockholders. However, there are many factors that can affect the amount and timing of cash distributions to stockholders. There is no assurance that we will be able to continue paying distributions at the current level or that the amount of distributions will increase, or not decrease further, over time. Even if we are able to continue paying distributions, the actual amount and timing of distributions is determined by our board of directors in its discretion and typically depends on the amount of funds available for distribution, which depends on items such as current and projected cash requirements and tax considerations. As a result, our distribution rate and payment frequency may vary from time to time.

Notification Regarding Payments of Distributions
Shareholders should be aware that the method by which a shareholder has chosen to receive his or her distributions affects the timing of the shareholder's receipt of those distributions. Specifically, under our transfer agent's payment processing procedures, distributions are paid in the following manner:
(1) those shareholders who have chosen to receive their distributions via ACH wire transfers receive their distributions on the distribution payment date (as determined by our Board of Directors);
(2) those shareholders who have chosen to receive their distributions by paper check are typically mailed those checks on the distribution payment date, but sometimes paper checks are mailed on the day following the distribution payment date; and
(3) for those shareholders holding shares through a broker or other nominee, the distributions payments are wired, or paper checks are mailed, to the broker or other nominee on the day following the distribution payment date.
All shareholders who hold shares directly in record name may change at any time the method through which they receive their distributions from our transfer agent, and those shareholders will not have to pay any fees to us or our transfer agent to make such a change. Also, all shareholders are eligible to participate at no cost in our DRP. Accordingly, each shareholder may select the timing of receipt of distributions from our transfer agent by selecting the method above that corresponds to the desired timing for receipt of the distributions. Because all shareholders may elect to have their distributions sent via ACH wire on the distribution payment date or credited on the distribution payment date to their DRP, we treat all of our shareholders,

40


regardless of the method by which they have chosen to receive their distributions, as having constructively received their distributions from us on the distribution payment date for federal income tax purposes.

Shareholders who hold shares directly in record name and who would like to change their distribution payment method should complete a “Change of Distribution Election Form.” Also, shareholders who would like to participate in our DRP should complete the “Change of Distribution Election Form.” The form is available on our website under “Investor Relations-Forms.”

We note that the payment method for shareholders who hold shares through a broker or nominee is determined by the broker or nominee. Similarly, the payment method for shareholders who hold shares in a tax-deferred account, such as an IRA, is generally determined by the custodian for the account. Shareholders that currently hold shares through a broker or other nominee and would like to receive distributions via ACH wire or paper check should contact their broker or other nominee regarding their processes for transferring shares to record name ownership. Similarly, shareholders who hold shares in a tax-deferred account may need to hold shares outside of their tax-deferred accounts to change the method through which they receive their distributions. Shareholders who hold shares through a tax-deferred account and who would like to change the method through which they receive their distributions should contact their custodians regarding the transfer process and should consult their tax advisor regarding the consequences of transferring shares outside of a tax-deferred account.
Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans
The following table provides information regarding our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2013.
Equity Compensation Plan Information
 
Number of securities 
to be issued upon
exercise of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights
 
Weighted-average
exercise price of
outstanding options,
warrants
and rights
 
Number of  securities
remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding
shares reflected in column)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders:
 
 
 
 
 
Independent Director Stock Option Plan
29,000

 
$8.87
 
46,000

Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders
—

 
—

 
—

Total:
29,000

 
$8.87
 
46,000

We have adopted an Independent Director Stock Option Plan, as amended, which, subject to certain conditions, provides for the grant to each independent director of an option to purchase 3,000 shares following their becoming a director and for the grant of additional options to purchase 500 shares on the date of each annual stockholder’s meeting. The options for the initial 3,000 shares are exercisable as follows: 1,000 shares on the date of grant and 1,000 shares on each of the first and second anniversaries of the date of grant. All other options are exercisable on the second anniversary of the date of grant. The exercise price for all options is equal to the fair value of our shares, as defined in the plan, on the date of each grant.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
None.


41


Item 6. Selected Financial Data
The following table shows our consolidated selected financial data relating to our consolidated historical financial condition and results of operations. Such selected data should be read in conjunction with Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this report (dollar amounts are stated in thousands, except per share amounts).
 
As of and for the year ended December 31,
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
 
2010
 
2009
Balance Sheet Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total assets
$
9,662,464

 
$
10,759,884

 
$
10,919,190

 
$
11,391,502

 
$
11,328,211

Debt
$
4,153,099

 
$
6,006,146

 
$
5,902,712

 
$
5,532,057

 
$
5,085,899

Operating Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total income
$
1,321,837

 
$
1,119,023

 
$
920,385

 
$
802,402

 
$
691,322

Total interest and dividend income
$
19,267

 
$
23,386

 
$
22,860

 
$
33,068

 
$
55,161

Net income (loss) attributable to Company
$
244,048

 
$
(69,338
)
 
$
(316,253
)
 
$
(176,431
)
 
$
(397,960
)
Net income (loss) per common share, basic and diluted
$
0.27

 
$
(0.08
)
 
$
(0.37
)
 
$
(0.21
)
 
$
(0.49
)
Common Stock Distributions:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Distributions declared to common stockholders
$
450,104

 
$
440,031

 
$
429,599

 
$
417,885

 
$
405,337

Distributions per weighted average common share
$
0.50

 
$
0.50

 
$
0.50

 
$
0.50

 
$
0.51

Funds from Operations:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Funds from operations (a)
$
459,608

 
$
476,713

 
$
443,460

 
$
321,828

 
$
142,601

Cash Flow Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash flows provided by operating activities
$
422,813

 
$
456,221

 
$
397,949

 
$
356,660

 
$
369,031

Cash flows provided by (used in) investing activities
$
922,624

 
$
(118,162
)
 
$
(286,896
)
 
$
(380,685
)
 
$
(563,163
)
Cash flows provided by (used in) financing activities
$
(1,246,979
)
 
$
(335,443
)
 
$
(160,597
)
 
$
(208,759
)
 
$
(250,602
)
Other Information:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, basic and diluted
899,842,722

 
879,685,949

 
858,637,707

 
835,131,057

 
811,400,035

 
(a)
We consider Funds from Operations, or “FFO” a widely accepted and appropriate measure of performance for a REIT. FFO provides a supplemental measure to compare our performance and operations to other REITs. Due to certain unique operating characteristics of real estate companies, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts or NAREIT, an industry trade group, has promulgated a standard known as FFO, which it believes reflects the operating performance of a REIT. As defined by NAREIT, FFO means net income computed in accordance with GAAP, excluding gains (or losses) from sales of property, plus depreciation and amortization and impairment charges on depreciable property and after adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures in which we hold an interest. In calculating FFO, impairment charges of depreciable real estate assets are added back even though the impairment charge may represent a permanent decline in value due to decreased operating performance of the applicable property. Further, because gains and losses from sales of property are excluded from FFO, it is consistent and appropriate that impairments, which are often early recognition of losses on prospective sales of property, also be excluded. If evidence exists that a loss reflected in the investment of an unconsolidated entity is due to the write-down of depreciable real estate assets, these impairment charges are added back to FFO. The methodology is consistent with the concept of excluding impairment charges of depreciable assets or early recognition of losses on sale of depreciable real estate assets held by the Company.

FFO is neither intended to be an alternative to “net income” nor to “cash flows from operating activities” as determined by GAAP as a measure of our capacity to pay distributions. We believe that FFO is a better measure of our properties’ operating performance because FFO excludes non-cash items from GAAP net income. FFO is calculated as follows (in thousands):
 

42


 
 
Year ended December 31,
 
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
Funds from Operations:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss) attributable to Company
$
244,048

 
$
(69,338
)
 
$
(316,253
)
Add:
Depreciation and amortization related to investment properties
383,969

 
438,755

 
439,077

 
Depreciation and amortization related to investment in unconsolidated entities
34,766

 
48,840

 
63,645

 
Provision for asset impairment
248,230

 
37,830

 
24,051

 
Provision for asset impairment included in discontinued operations
4,476

 
45,485

 
139,590

 
Impairment of investment in unconsolidated entities
6,532

 
9,365

 
113,621

 
Impairment reflected in equity in earnings of unconsolidated entities
—

 
470

 
16,739

 
Gain on sale of property reflected in net income attributed to noncontrolling interest
—

 
5,439

 
—

Less:
Gains from property sales and transfer of assets
456,563

 
40,691

 
16,510

 
Net Gains from property sales reflected in equity in earnings of unconsolidated entities, net
2,792

 
2,399

 
11,141

 
Gains (loss) from sales of investment in unconsolidated entities
3,058

 
(2,957
)
 
7,545

 
Noncontrolling interest share of depreciation and amortization related to investment properties
—

 
—

 
1,814

 
Funds from operations
$
459,608

 
$
476,713

 
$
443,460

Below is additional information related to certain items that significantly impact the comparability of our Funds from Operations and Net Income (Loss) or significant non-cash items from the periods presented (in thousands):
 
 
Year ended December 31,
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
Gain on conversion of note receivable to equity interest
$
—

 
$
—

 
$
(17,150
)
Payment from note receivable previously impaired
—

 
—

 
(2,422
)
Gain on notes receivable
(5,334
)
 
—

 
—

Impairment on securities
1,052

 
1,899

 
24,356

Straight-line rental income
(8,147
)
 
(11,010
)
 
(13,841
)
Amortization of above/below market leases
(2,659
)
 
(2,271
)
 
(1,326
)
Amortization of mark to market debt discounts
5,929

 
6,488

 
7,973

(Gain) loss on extinguishment of debt
18,777

 
(9,478
)
 
(10,848
)
Gain on extinguishment of debt reflected in equity in earnings of unconsolidated entities
(5,709
)
 
(2,176
)
 
—

Acquisition costs
2,987

 
1,644

 
1,680




43

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Certain statements in this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and elsewhere in this Form 10-K constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical, including statements regarding management’s intentions, beliefs, expectations, representations, plans or predictions of the future and are typically identified by words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “should” and “could.” Similarly, statements that describe or contain information related to matters such as management’s intent, belief or expectation with respect to the Company’s financial performance, investment strategy and portfolio, cash flows, growth prospects, legal proceedings, acquisitions and dispositions, amount and timing of anticipated future cash distributions, amount and timing of anticipated cash proceeds from previously announced sale transactions, including from the sale of the Company's core net lease assets, and other matters are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are not historical facts but are the intent, belief or current expectations of the Company’s management based on their knowledge and understanding of the business and industry, the economy and other future conditions. These statements are not guarantees of future performance, and stockholders should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or forecasted in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of risks, uncertainties and other factors, including but not limited to the factors listed and described under “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K . These factors include, but are not limited to: market and economic volatility experienced by the U.S. economy or real estate industry as a whole, and the local economic conditions in the markets in which the Company’s properties are located; the Company’s ability to refinance maturing debt or to obtain new financing on attractive terms; the Company's ability to satisfy closing conditions required for the consummation of acquisitions and dispositions, including the Company's ability to obtain lender consents and other third party consents and the timing of such consents; the availability of cash flow from operating activities to fund distributions; future increases in interest rates; and actions or failures by the Company’s joint venture partners, including development partners. The Company intends that such forward-looking statements be subject to the safe harbors created by Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect changed assumptions, the occurrence of unanticipated events or changes to future operating results.
The following discussion and analysis relates to the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 and as of December 31, 2013 and 2012. You should read the following discussion and analysis along with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes included in this report.
Overview
In 2013, we made significant strides in the execution of our portfolio strategy, focusing our diversified assets in three specific real estate asset classes (retail, lodging and student housing), while maintaining a sustainable distribution rate funded by our operations, distributions from unconsolidated entities, and gain on sale of properties. We disposed of assets we determined to be less strategic and reinvested the capital in real estate assets that we believe will produce attractive current yields and long-term risk-adjusted returns to our stockholders. For our existing portfolio, our property managers for our non-lodging properties actively seek to lease space at favorable rates, control expenses, and maintain strong tenant relationships. We oversee the management of our lodging facilities through active engagement with our third party managers and franchisors to maximize occupancy and daily rates as well as control expenses.
On a consolidated basis, essentially all of our revenues and cash flows from operations for the year ended December 31, 2013 were generated by collecting rental payments from our tenants, room revenues from lodging properties, distributions from unconsolidated entities and dividend income earned from investments in marketable securities. Our largest cash expense relates to the operation of our properties as well as the interest expense on our mortgages. Our property operating expenses include, but are not limited to, real estate taxes, regular repair and maintenance, management fees, utilities and insurance (some of which are recoverable). Our lodging operating expenses include, but are not limited to, rooms, food and beverage, utility, administrative and marketing, payroll, franchise and management fees and repairs and maintenance expenses.
In 2013, we saw total net operating income increase from $513.6 million to $577.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 to 2013. The increase of $64.3 million or 12.5% was primarily due to a full year of operations for our lodging and student housing properties we purchased in 2012 and the approximately $1.2 billion of properties purchased in 2013. The remainder of the increase of $10.0 million or 2.2% was driven by our lodging same store properties' operating performance.

In evaluating our financial condition and operating performance, management focuses on the following financial and non-financial indicators, discussed in further detail herein:
•
Funds from Operations (“FFO”), a supplemental non-GAAP measure to net income determined in accordance with GAAP

44

•
Cash flow from operations as determined in accordance GAAP
•
Property net operating income (NOI), which excludes interest expense, depreciation and amortization, general and administrative expenses, net income of noncontrolling interest and other investment income from corporate investments
•
Economic and physical occupancy and rental rates
•
Leasing activity and lease rollover
•
Managing operating expenses
•
Average daily room rate, revenue per available room, and average occupancy to measure our lodging properties
•
Debt maturities and leverage ratios
•
Liquidity levels
During 2014, we will continue to execute on our strategy of disposing less strategic assets and deploying the capital into segments we believe have opportunity for higher performance, which are multi-tenant retail, lodging, and student housing. For our non-core properties, we strive to improve individual property performance to increase each property’s value. While we believe we will continue to see overall same store operating performance increases in 2014, we could see significant disposition activity in 2014. This disposition activity could cause us to experience dilution in our operating performance during the period we dispose of properties and prior to reinvestment.
We expect to see increased same store operating performance in our lodging and student housing segments in 2014 as we continue to execute our investment strategy in these segment classes. The lodging industry is expected to have continued positive growth for 2014 and rental growth is projected to continue for the student housing properties in 2014. Our retail portfolio is expected to maintain high occupancy and have manageable lease rollover in the next three years. We believe the retail segment same store income will be consistent with 2013 results. In addition, we expect to see similar or slightly decreased operating performance in our non-core portfolio in 2014.
We believe that our debt maturities over the next five years are manageable and although we believe interest rates will rise in the future, we anticipate low interest rates to continue in 2014. We believe we will be maintain our cash distribution in 2014 and anticipate distributions to be funded by cash flow from operations as well as distributions from unconsolidated entities and gains on sales of properties.

Results of Operations
General
Consolidated Results of Operations
This section describes and compares our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. We generate most of our net operating income from property operations. In order to evaluate our overall portfolio, management analyzes the operating performance of all properties from period to period and properties we have owned and operated for the same period during each year. Investment properties owned for the entire years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 and December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, are referred to herein as “same store” properties. Unless otherwise noted, all dollar amounts are stated in thousands (except per share amounts, per square foot amounts, revenue per available room and average daily rate).

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011
 
Year ended
December 31, 2013
 
Year ended
December 31, 2012
 
Year ended
December 31, 2011
Net income (loss) attributable to Company
$
244,048

 
$
(69,338
)
 
$
(316,253
)
Net income (loss) per common share, basic and diluted
$
0.27

 
$
(0.08
)
 
$
(0.37
)
Our net income increased from the year ended December 31, 2012 to 2013 primarily due to the gains on sales of properties for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to 2012. A gain on sale of property of $442,577 was included in our income from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2013. This gain was offset by our asset impairments of $247,372 for the same period.

45

Our net loss decreased from the years ended December 31, 2011 to 2012 primarily due to a decrease in one-time impairment charges to unconsolidated entities and to various properties for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to 2011. Additionally, operating income increase from same store growth as our lodging and multi-family (student housing and apartments) operating performance increased and from a full year of operations for retail and lodging properties acquired in late 2011 and early 2012.
A detailed discussion of our financial performance is outlined below.
Operating Income and Expenses:
 
Year ended
December 31, 
2013
 
Year ended
December 31, 
2012
 
Year ended
December 31, 
2011
 
2013 Increase
(decrease) from 2012
 
2012 Increase
(decrease) from 2011
Income:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rental income
$
361,678

 
$
347,647

 
$
327,052

 
$
14,031

 
$
20,595

Tenant recovery income
71,207

 
73,214

 
66,655

 
(2,007
)
 
6,559

Other property income
7,202

 
5,714

 
8,838

 
1,488

 
(3,124
)
Lodging income
881,750

 
692,448

 
517,840

 
189,302

 
174,608

Operating Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Lodging operating expenses
$
574,224

 
$
449,397

 
$
330,185

 
$
124,827

 
$
119,212

Property operating expenses
84,107

 
77,694

 
77,691

 
6,413

 
3

Real estate taxes
85,597

 
78,348

 
68,255

 
7,249

 
10,093

Provision for asset impairment
242,896

 
37,830

 
24,051

 
205,066

 
13,779

General and administrative expenses
55,549

 
36,815

 
31,026

 
18,734

 
5,789

Business management fee
37,962

 
39,892

 
40,000

 
(1,930
)
 
(108
)
Property Income and Operating Expenses
Rental income for non-lodging properties consists of basic monthly rent, straight-line rent adjustments, amortization of acquired above and below market leases, other property, and percentage rental income recorded pursuant to tenant leases. Tenant recovery income consists of reimbursements for real estate taxes, common area maintenance costs, management fees, and insurance costs. Tenant recovery income generally fluctuates correspondingly with property operating expenses and real estate taxes. Other property income for non-lodging properties consists of lease termination fees and other miscellaneous property income. Property operating expenses for non-lodging properties consist of regular repair and maintenance, management fees, utilities and insurance (some of which are recoverable from the tenant).
•
There was a slight increase in property income for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to 2012. The increase was a result of the full year of operations for the properties acquired in 2012 as well as the operating performance of the properties acquired in 2013. Same store property performance remained stable. Same store property income amounted to $386,588 in 2013 and $387,289 in 2012, which resulted in a 0.2% decrease. Comparatively, same store operating expenses were $143,585 in 2013 and $142,235 in 2012, an increase of 0.9%.
•
There was a slight increase in property income for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to 2011. The increase was a result of the full year of operations for the properties acquired in 2011 as well as the operating performance of the properties acquired in 2012. Same store property performance remained stable. Same store property income amounted to $372,328 in 2012 compared to $371,359 in 2011, which was less than a 1% increase. In correlation, same store property operating expenses amounted to $135,067 in 2012 compared to $133,506 in 2011, which was a 1.2% increase.

Lodging Income and Operating Expenses
Our lodging properties generate revenue through sales of rooms and associated food and beverage services. Lodging operating expenses include the room maintenance, food and beverage, utilities, administrative and marketing, payroll, franchise and management fees, and repairs and maintenance expenses.
•
The $189,302 increase in lodging operating income for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to 2012 was primarily a result of the addition of hotels acquired in 2012 and 2013, which were mostly in the upper-upscale or

46

luxury classification, We acquired fourteen hotels in 2013 and seven hotels in 2012. Additionally, $24,035 of the increase was due to improved same store performance as a result of higher rental rates. Same store average daily rates increased from $131 in 2012 to $136 in 2013. The addition of these upper-upscale and luxury properties to our portfolio resulted in higher operating costs. The increase in lodging expenses of $124,827, or 28%, for 2013 was directly correlated to the percentage increase in income of 27%.
•
The $174,608 increase in lodging operating income for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to 2011 was a result of the addition of hotels acquired in 2012 as well as an increase in our same store properties' performance. We acquired five hotels in the first quarter of 2012 and were able to obtain nine months of operating performance. The remaining $26,303 of the increase was due to improved same store performance as a result of higher rental rates. Same store average daily rates increased from $125 in 2011 to $129 in 2012. The increase in lodging expenses of $119,212, or 36%, for 2012 was directly correlated to the percentage increase in income of 34%.
Provision for Asset Impairment
•
For the year ended December 31, 2013, we identified certain properties which may have a reduction in the expected holding period and reviewed the probability of these assets’ dispositions. As part of our analysis, we identified one property, a large single tenant office property, in which we were exploring a potential disposition. After we began exploring a potential sale of the property, we became aware of circumstances in which the tenant would reduce the space they occupied. Although the lease does not expire until 2016, we analyzed various leasing and sale scenarios for the single tenant property. Based on the probabilities assigned to such scenarios, it was determined the property was impaired and therefore, written down to fair value. As a result, we recorded a provision for asset impairment of $147,480 during the second quarter 2013. Overall, we recorded a provision for asset impairment of $248,230 for continuing operations and $4,476 for discontinued operations, to reduce the book value of certain investment properties to their fair values. Offsetting the impairment charges, due to a change in the amount of an impaired note's expected future cash flows, we reduced the note's impairment allowance, resulting in a gain of $5,334.
•
For the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, we identified certain properties which may have a reduction in the expected holding period and reviewed the probability of these assets’ dispositions. As a result, we recorded a provision for asset impairment of $37,830 and $24,051 in continuing operations, respectively, to reduce the book value of certain investment properties to their new fair values. We disposed of many of the properties impaired in 2012 and 2011 by December 31, 2013. The related impairment charges of $45,485 and $139,590, respectively, are reflected in discontinued operations.
General Administrative Expenses and Business Management Fee
After our stockholders have received a non-cumulative, non-compounded return of 5% per annum on their “invested capital,” we pay our business manager an annual business management fee of up to 1% of the “average invested assets,” payable quarterly in an amount equal to 0.25% of the average invested assets as of the last day of the immediately preceding quarter. Once we have satisfied the minimum return on invested capital, the amount of the actual fee paid to the business manager is requested by the business manager and approved by the board of directors up to the amount permitted by the agreement.
•
We incurred a business management fee of $37,962, $39,892 and $40,000, which is equal to 0.37%, 0.35%, and 0.35% of average invested assets for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
•
The increase in general and administrative expenses of $18,734 from $36,815 to $55,549 for the years ended December 31, 2012 to 2013, respectively, was primarily a result of increased legal costs, increased consulting and professional fees due to our large amount of transaction activity and the execution of our portfolio strategy, as well as increased salary expenses resulting from additional personnel, which is reimbursed to the business manager.
•
The increase in general and administrative expenses of $5,789 from $31,026 to $36,815 for the years ended December 13, 2012 and 2011, respectively, was primarily a result of increased legal costs and increased salary expenses as a result of a shift in personnel from our property managers to our business manager.


47

Non-Operating Income and Expenses:
 
Year ended
December 31, 
2013
 
Year ended
December 31, 
2012
 
Year ended
December 31, 
2011
 
2013 Increase
(decrease) 
from 2012
 
2012 Increase
(decrease) 
from 2011
Non-operating income and expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other income
$
15,335

 
$
2,010

 
$
19,694

 
$
13,325

 
$
(17,684
)
Interest expense
(212,263
)
 
(209,353
)
 
(215,790
)
 
2,910

 
(6,437
)
Equity in income (loss) of unconsolidated entities
11,958

 
1,998

 
(12,802
)
 
9,960

 
14,800

Gain, (loss) and (impairment) of investment in unconsolidated entities, net
(3,473
)
 
(12,322
)
 
(106,023
)
 
(8,849
)
 
93,701

Realized gain, (loss) and (impairment) on securities, net
31,539

 
4,319

 
(16,219
)
 
27,220

 
20,538

Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net
459,588

 
46,780

 
(42,256
)
 
412,808

 
89,036

Other Income
•
The increase in other income for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to 2012 was primarily a result of the gain recognized on fourteen multi-tenant retail properties contributed to the IAGM Retail Fund I, LLC joint venture. We have an equity interest in the IAGM Retail Fund I, LLC joint venture; therefore we have a continued ownership interest in the properties. As such, we treated this disposition as a partial sale, recognizing a gain on sale of $12,783 for the year ended December 31, 2013, and the activity related to the contributed properties remain in continuing operations on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income.
•
The decrease in other income for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to 2011 was primarily due to the gain recognized on the conversion of a note receivable to equity of $17,150 in an unconsolidated entity for the year ended December 31, 2011.
Interest Expense
•
Interest expense from continuing operations remained largely unchanged for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to 2012 with balances of $212,263 and $209,353, respectively. However, additional interest expense of $72,906 and $111,281 was reflected in discontinued operations for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. In total interest expense decreased for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to 2012 with balances of $285,169 and $320,634, respectively. This was primarily due to the decrease in the principal amount of our total debt (including mortgages, line of credit, and mortgages held for sale) as of December 31, 2013 compared to 2012 with balances of $4,920,180 and $5,867,004, respectively.
•
Interest expense from continuing operations decreased for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to 2011 with balances of $209,353 and $215,790, respectively. However, additional interest expense of $111,281 and $101,682 was reflected in discontinued operations for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. In total interest expense increased for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to 2011 with balances of $320,634 and $317,472, respectively. This was primarily due to the increase in the principal amount of our total debt as of December 31, 2012 compared to 2011 with balances of $5,867,004 to $5,781,855.
•
Our weighted average interest rate on total outstanding debt was 4.95%, 5.10%, and 5.20% per annum for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Equity in Income (Loss) of Unconsolidated Entities
Our equity in income of unconsolidated entities includes the income we pick up from each joint venture's operating income or loss. Also included in this figure are any one-time adjustments associated with the transactions of the joint venture.
•
For the year ended December 31, 2013, the equity in income of unconsolidated entities in 2013 was primarily a result of a gain on the property sales of $3,015 in one unconsolidated entity and a gain on the extinguishment of debt of $5,709 in an unconsolidated entity.

48

•
For the year ended December 31, 2012, the equity in income of unconsolidated entities in 2012 was largely a result of a $4,575 gain from our share of property sales and extinguishment of debt in two unconsolidated entities offset by an impairment charge recognized by one unconsolidated entity of which our portion was $470.
•
For the year ended December 31, 2011, the equity in loss of unconsolidated entities was largely a result of impairment charges recognized by two unconsolidated entities of which our portion was $16,739, offset by a $11,141 gain from our share of property sales in two unconsolidated entities.
Gain, (Loss) and (Impairment) of Investment in Unconsolidated Entities, net
•
For the year ended December 31, 2013, we recorded an impairment of $6,532 in two unconsolidated joint ventures. We also recorded a net gain of $3,058 on sales of four unconsolidated entities.
•
For the year ended December 31, 2012, we recorded an impairment of $9,365 on three of our investments in unconsolidated entities. Additionally, we recorded losses on the sales of 100% of our equity in one joint venture of $1,556 and a lodging joint venture of $1,401.
•
For the year ended December 31, 2011, we recorded an impairment of $113,621 on an investment in an unconsolidated entity. The impairment was offset by a $7,545 gain on our investment in unconsolidated entities due to the sale of 100% of our equity in one joint venture.
Realized Gain, (Loss) and (Impairment) on Securities, net
•
For the year ended December 31, 2013, there was a $1,052 impairment charge for equity securities offset by a $32,591 net realized gain.
•
For the year ended December 31, 2012, there was a $1,899 impairment charge for equity securities offset by a $6,218 net realized gain.
•
For the year ended December 31, 2011, the loss was primarily due to a $24,356 impairment charge for equity securities offset by an $8,137 realized gain.
Discontinued Operations
•
For the year ended December 31, 2013 we recorded income of $459,588 from discontinued operations, which primarily included a gain on sale of properties of $442,577, a gain on extinguishment of debt of $18,285, a gain on transfer of assets of $16, and provision for asset impairment of $4,476.
•
For the year ended December 31, 2012, we recorded income of $46,780 from discontinued operations, which primarily included a gain on sale of properties of $39,236, a gain on extinguishment of debt of $9,478, a gain on transfer of assets of $2,175, and provision for asset impairment of $45,485.
•
For the year ended December 31, 2011, we recorded a loss of $42,256 from discontinued operations, which primarily included a gain on sale of properties of $11,457, a gain on extinguishment of debt of $10,848, a gain on transfer of assets of $4,546 and a provision for asset impairment of $139,590.

Segment Reporting

Our long-term portfolio strategy is to focus on three asset classes - retail, lodging, and student housing. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we executed on this strategy by disposing of 313 non-strategic assets as well as classifying 224 non-strategic assets as held for sale.  Therefore, beginning on September 30, 2013, we restated our business segments to: Retail, Lodging, Student Housing, and Non-core.  Net operating income for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 have been restated to reflect the change in business segments. The non-core segment includes office properties, industrial properties, bank branches, retail single tenant properties, and a conventional multi-family property. We have concentrated our efforts on driving portfolio growth in the multi-tenant retail, student housing and lodging segments to enhance the long-term value of each segment's portfolio and respective platforms. For our non-core properties, we strive to improve individual property performance to increase each property’s value. We evaluate segment performance primarily based on net operating income. Net operating income of the segments exclude interest expense, depreciation and amortization, general and administrative expenses, net income of noncontrolling interest and other investment income from corporate investments.
An analysis of results of operations by segment is below. In order to evaluate our overall portfolio, management analyzes the operating performance of all properties from period to period and properties we have owned and operated for the same period during each year. A total of 232 and 226 of our investment properties satisfied the criteria of being owned for the entire years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 and December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, and are referred to herein as “same store” properties. This same store analysis allows management to monitor the operations of our existing properties for comparable

49

periods to determine the effects of our new acquisitions on net income. The tables contained throughout summarize certain key operating performance measures for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. The rental rates reflected in retail, student housing and non-core are inclusive of rent abatements, lease inducements and straight-line rent GAAP adjustments, but exclusive of tenant improvements and lease commissions. Physical occupancy is defined as the percentage of total gross leasable area actually used or occupied by a tenant. Economic occupancy is defined as the percentage of total gross leasable area for which a tenant is obligated to pay rent under the terms of its lease agreement, regardless of the actual use or occupation by that tenant of the area being leased.

Retail Segment
Our retail segment now consists solely of multi-tenant retail properties in order to present information consistent with our long-term portfolio investment strategy. Our retail segment net operating income on a same store basis remained stable for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to the year ended December 31, 2012, slightly down $856 or 0.5%. On a total segment basis, we saw a decrease in total net operating income of $8,950 or 4.4%. This was primarily a result of the 14 properties we contributed to the IAGM Retail Fund I, LLC joint venture. For the year ended December 31, 2012, a full year of operations was included in net operating income, whereas for the year ended December 31, 2013, only operations through the disposition date in early April 2013 are included in net operating income.
Our retail segment net operating income on a same store basis grew slightly for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to the year ended December 31, 2011, up $1,973 or 1.2%. This was a result of stable same store economic occupancy and comparable lease rates year to year. On a total segment basis, we saw an increase in total net operating income of $14,679 or 7.7%. This was due to a full year of operations for our acquisitions in 2011 as well as property operating performance for our 2012 acquisitions.
We believe that fundamentals in the retail segment are slowly improving. Current market outlook indicates well-timed acquisitions as well as divestiture of low-quality assets are essential to sustainable growth. Sustainable growth is also supported by the strong demand for grocery-anchored retail centers, which are part of our retail acquisition strategy due to their resiliency to e-commerce. With limited new development and construction, we have a positive view of this segment long-term. Our retail portfolio strategy is to focus our capital in favorable demographic and geographic locations where rental and net operating income growth is expected. For current properties in the portfolio, we continue to maintain our expense controls and our successful property marketing programs and enhance current tenant relationships. We focus on new consumer trends and reevaluate tenant synergy as leases mature in an effort to guarantee proper tenant diversity at our properties.

 
Total Retail Properties
 
As of December 31,
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
Physical occupancy
90%
 
91%
 
91%
Economic occupancy
91%
 
92%
 
93%
Rent per square foot
$13.57
 
$13.30
 
$13.21
Investment in properties, undepreciated
$2,641,706
 
$3,076,434
 
$3,014,731


50

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012
The table below represents operating information for the retail segment and for the same store retail segment consisting of properties acquired prior to January 1, 2012. The properties in the same store portfolio were owned for the entire years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012. Activity in the non-same store column for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 includes those properties contributed to the IAGM joint venture.
 
Retail
For the year ended
December 31, 2013
 
For the year ended
December 31, 2012
 
Same Store Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Total Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Amount
%
 
Amount
%
Revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rental income
$199,711
$15,423
$215,134
 
$200,698
$25,848
$226,546
 
$(987)
(0.5
)%
 
$(11,412)
(5.0
)%
Straight line adjustment
4,041

1,157

5,198

 
3,904

920

4,824

 
137

3.5
 %
 
374

7.8
 %
Tenant recovery income
59,276

5,654

64,930

 
58,632

7,522

66,154

 
644

1.1
 %
 
(1,224
)
(1.9
)%
Other property income
3,592

230

3,822

 
2,979

(293
)
2,686

 
613

20.6
 %
 
1,136

42.3
 %
Total income
266,620

22,464

289,084

 
266,213

33,997

300,210

 
407

0.2
 %
 
(11,126
)
(3.7
)%
Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Property operating expenses
50,313

3,818

54,131

 
50,901

5,706

56,607

 
588

1.2
 %
 
2,476

4.4
 %
Real estate taxes
36,505

2,990

39,495

 
34,654

4,541

39,195

 
(1,851
)
(5.3
)%
 
(300
)
(0.8
)%
Total operating expenses
86,818

6,808

93,626

 
85,555

10,247

95,802

 
(1,263
)
(1.5
)%
 
2,176

2.3
 %
Net operating income
$179,802
$15,656
$195,458
 
$180,658
$23,750
$204,408
 
$(856)
(0.5
)%
 
$(8,950)
(4.4
)%
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average occupancy for the period
91%
-
91%
 
92%
-
92%
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of Properties
113
6
119
 
113
2
115
 
 
 
 
 
 



51

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2012 and 2011
The table below represents operating information for the retail segment and for the same store retail segment consisting of properties acquired prior to January 1, 2011. The properties in the same store portfolio were owned for the entire years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011. Activity in the non-same store column for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 includes those properties contributed to the IAGM joint venture.
Retail
For the year ended
December 31, 2012
 
For the year ended
December 31, 2011
 
Same Store Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Total Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
  
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Amount
%
 
Amount
%
Revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rental income
$188,996
$37,550
$226,546
 
$188,519
$22,517
$211,036
 
$477
0.3
 %
 
$15,510
7.3
 %
Straight line adjustment
4,114

710

4,824

 
4,933

9

4,942

 
(819
)
(16.6
)%
 
(118
)
(2.4
)%
Tenant recovery income
56,316

9,838

66,154

 
53,732

7,037

60,769

 
2,584

4.8
 %
 
5,385

8.9
 %
Other property income
2,972

(286
)
2,686

 
3,599

1,066

4,665

 
(627
)
(17.4
)%
 
(1,979
)
(42.4
)%
Total income
252,398

47,812

300,210

 
250,783

30,629

281,412

 
1,615

0.6
 %
 
18,798

6.7
 %
Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Property operating expenses
48,887

7,720

56,607

 
49,794

5,359

55,153

 
907

1.8
 %
 
(1,454
)
(2.6
)%
Real estate taxes
33,359

5,836

39,195

 
32,810

3,720

36,530

 
(549
)
(1.7
)%
 
(2,665
)
(7.3
)%
Total operating expenses
82,246

13,556

95,802

 
82,604

9,079

91,683

 
358

0.4
 %
 
(4,119
)
(4.5
)%
Net operating income
$170,152
$34,256
$204,408
 
$168,179
$21,550
$189,729
 
$1,973
1.2
 %
 
$14,679
7.7
 %
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average occupancy for the period
91%
-
92%
 
93%
-
93%
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of Properties
111
4
115
 
111
2
113
 
 
 
 
 
 

Lodging Segment
During 2013, we made significant progress on our lodging portfolio strategy, to move out of certain midscale lodging assets and into more urban, full service properties by acquiring four luxury, nine upper-upscale, and one upscale lodging assets and disposing of three midscale lodging assets. Refining the assets in our lodging portfolio coupled by the significant improvement in the lodging industry has driven the increase in our operating performance for this sector. Our total net operating income for lodging has increased from $164,353 to $212,219 to $272,270, for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2012 and 2013 respectively. In addition, revenue per available room ("RevPAR") grew 8.2% from $96 as of December 31, 2012 to $105 as of December 31, 2013 because the average daily rate ("ADR") grew 6.8% from $133 to $143 while occupancy remained stable at 73.0% for each period. RevPAR grew 7.8% from $90 as of December 31, 2011 to $96 as of December 31, 2012 because ADR grew 5.6% from $125 to $133 and occupancy increased from 72.0% to 73.0%.
Significant growth of RevPAR has occurred in the lodging industry since 2011. RevPAR represents the product of the average daily room rate charged and the average daily occupancy achieved but excludes other revenue generated by a hotel property, such as food and beverage, parking, telephone and other guest service revenues. The lodging industry has seen a recovery in business travelers and leisure transient and our operating managers have been able to push rates which has improved the performance of our lodging segment. On a same store basis, net operating income increased 6.8% for the years ended December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013, from $183,465 to $195,964. The same store properties for the years ended December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2012 also had an increase in net operating income of 7.1%, from $155,973 to $166,977.
We are optimistic our lodging portfolio will continue its strong performance in 2014 with increases in RevPAR and ADR. Our lodging portfolio was presented with certain challenges in select markets related to slowing government business although this was partially offset by strong business and leisure travel. Due to our diverse hotel portfolio, we continued to outperform the total U.S. market as measured by RevPAR growth, and maximize average daily rate, which is the catalyst to our portfolio profitability.  We expect that supply growth will remain below historical levels for the next several years which we believe will

52

support the fundamentals for the lodging segment. Market trends for 2014 also indicate greater gains in average daily rates and occupancy for luxury and upper upscale hotel chains. The increase in our same store growth and the acquisitions of high end lodging properties supports our long-term investment portfolio strategy.
 
Total Lodging Properties
 
For the year ended December 31,
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
Revenue per available room
$105
 
$96
 
$90
Average daily rate
$143
 
$133
 
$125
Occupancy
73%
 
72%
 
72%
Investment in properties, undepreciated, as of December 31
$4,211,699
 
$3,293,305
 
$2,854,577
Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012
The table below represents operating information for the lodging segment and for the same store portfolio for properties acquired prior to January 1, 2012. The properties in the same store portfolio were owned for the entire years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.
 
Lodging
For the year ended
December 31, 2013
 
For the year ended
December 31, 2012
 
Same Store Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Total Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Amount
%
 
Amount
%
Revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lodging operating income
$603,098
$278,652
$881,750
 
$579,063
$113,385
$692,448
 
$24,035
4.2
 %
 
$189,302
27.3
 %
Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lodging operating expenses
380,274

193,950

574,224

 
368,324

81,073

449,397

 
(11,950
)
(3.2
)%
 
(124,827
)
(27.8
)%
Real estate taxes
26,860

8,396

35,256

 
27,274

3,558

30,832

 
414

1.5
 %
 
(4,424
)
(14.3
)%
Total operating expenses
407,134

202,346

609,480

 
395,598

84,631

480,229

 
(11,536
)
(2.9
)%
 
(129,251
)
(26.9
)%
Net operating income
$195,964
$76,306
$272,270
 
$183,465
$28,754
$212,219
 
$12,499
6.8
 %
 
$60,051
28.3
 %
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average occupancy for the period
73%
-
73%
 
73%
-
72%
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of Properties
78
21
99
 
78
7
85
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Room Rev Par
$100
-
$105
 
$95
-
$96
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average Daily Rate
$136
-
$143
 
$131
-
$133
 
 
 
 
 
 


53

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2012 and 2011
The table below represents operating information for the lodging segment and for the same store portfolio consisting of properties acquired prior to January 1, 2011. The properties in the same store portfolio were owned for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011. 
 
Lodging
For the year ended
December 31, 2012
 
For the year ended
December 31, 2011
 
Same Store Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Total Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Amount
%
 
Amount
%
Revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lodging operating income
$509,425
$183,023
$692,448
 
$483,122
$34,718
$517,840
 
$26,303
5.4
 %
 
$174,608
33.7
 %
Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lodging operating expenses
318,377

131,020

449,397

 
304,773

25,412

330,185

 
(13,604
)
(4.5
)%
 
(119,212
)
(36.1
)%
Real estate taxes
24,071

6,761

30,832

 
22,376

926

23,302

 
(1,695
)
(7.6
)%
 
(7,530
)
(32.3
)%
Total operating expenses
342,448

137,781

480,229

 
327,149

26,338

353,487

 
(15,299
)
(4.7
)%
 
(126,742
)
(35.9
)%
Net operating income
$166,977
$45,242
$212,219
 
$155,973
$8,380
$164,353
 
$11,004
7.1
 %
 
$47,866
29.1
 %
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average occupancy for the period
73%
-
72%
 
72%
-
72%
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of Properties
75
10
85
 
75
3
78
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Room Rev Par
$95
-
$96
 
$90
-
$90
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average Daily Rate
$129
-
$133
 
$125
-
$125
 
 
 
 
 
 



Student Housing Segment

Our student housing segment was formerly a part of the historical multi-family segment. It is now being presented as its own segment consistent with our long-term portfolio strategy. Our student housing segment has seen strong growth from 2011. Total net operating income increased from $15,175 to $19,830 to $35,462 from December 31, 2011 to 2012 to 2013, respectively. The increase in net operating income was primarily driven by our acquisitions. In 2013 and 2012, we purchased five and developed three student housing properties to add to our portfolio. Rents per bed also increased from $655 in 2011 to $670 in 2012 to $724 in 2013. Our rental rates in student housing rose significantly in 2013 compared to 2012 due to favorable market conditions as well as the addition of new properties. Occupancy remained stable across each year at 92% , 93% , and 92% for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively.

Our student housing segment continues to perform strongly and in line with market expectations. In 2014, we plan to build on this success through acquisitions and continued development. Assets targeted for acquisition and land planned for development include properties that are within walking distance to campus, near schools that have low acceptance rates, are highly ranked academically, and have large enrollments (over 20,000 students). Our current portfolio and investment strategy targets properties meeting these key criteria. We also aim to increase our occupancy and rents in line with market trends in 2014, and expect this to increase our net operating income for the student housing segment.

 
Total Student Housing Properties
 
As of December 31,
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
Economic occupancy
92%
 
93%
 
92%
End of month scheduled rent per bed per month
$724
 
$670
 
$655
Investment in properties, undepreciated
$710,211
 
$420,555
 
$248,938


54

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012
The table below represents operating information for the student-housing segment and for the same store portfolio consisting of properties acquired prior to January 1, 2012. The properties in the same store portfolio were owned for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.
Student Housing
For the year ended
December 31, 2013
 
For the year ended
December 31, 2012
 
Same Store Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Total Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Amount
%
 
Amount
%
Revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rental income
$26,356
$29,417
$55,773
 
$25,295
$4,939
$30,234
 
$1,061
4.2
 %
 
$25,539
84.5
 %
Straight line adjustment
133

240

373

 
169

—

169

 
(36
)
(21.3
)%
 
204

120.7
 %
Tenant recovery income
455

66

521

 
429

—

429

 
26

6.1
 %
 
92

21.4
 %
Other property income
1,497

1,312

2,809

 
1,400

350

1,750

 
97

6.9
 %
 
1,059

60.5
 %
Total income
28,441

31,035

59,476

 
27,293

5,289

32,582

 
1,148

4.2
 %
 
26,894

82.5
 %
Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Property operating expenses
11,193

8,224

19,417

 
10,952

(50
)
10,902

 
(241
)
(2.20
)%
 
(8,515
)
(78.1
)%
Real estate taxes
1,906

2,691

4,597

 
1,798

52

1,850

 
(108
)
(6.0
)%
 
(2,747
)
(148.5
)%
Total operating expenses
13,099

10,915

24,014

 
12,750

2

12,752

 
(349
)
(2.7
)%
 
(11,262
)
(88.3
)%
Net operating income
$15,342
$20,120
$35,462
 
$14,543
$5,287
$19,830
 
$799
5.5
 %
 
$15,632
78.8
 %
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average occupancy for the period
93%
-
87%
 
91%
-
92%
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of Properties
6
8
14
 
6
4
10
 
 
 
 
 
 


55

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2012 and 2011
The table below represents operating information for the student housing segment and for the same store portfolio consisting of properties acquired prior to January 1, 2011. The properties in the same store portfolio were owned for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011. 
Student Housing
For the year ended
December 31, 2012
 
For the year ended
December 31, 2011
 
Same Store Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Total Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Amount
%
 
Amount
%
Revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rental income
$25,295
$4,939
$30,234
 
$24,706
—

$24,706
 
$589
2.4
 %
 
$5,528
22.4
 %
Straight line adjustment
169

—

169

 
145

—

145

 
24

16.6
 %
 
24

16.6
 %
Tenant recovery income
429

—

429

 
446

—

446

 
(17
)
(3.8
)%
 
(17
)
(3.8
)%
Other property income
1,400

350

1,750

 
1,569

—

1,569

 
(169
)
(10.8
)%
 
181

11.5
 %
Total income
27,293

5,289

32,582

 
26,866

—

26,866

 
427

1.6
 %
 
5,716

21.3
 %
Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Property operating expenses
10,952

(50
)
10,902

 
10,048

—

10,048

 
(904
)
(9.0
)%
 
(854
)
(8.5
)%
Real estate taxes
1,798

52

1,850

 
1,643

—

1,643

 
(155
)
(9.4
)%
 
(207
)
(12.6
)%
Total operating expenses
12,750

2

12,752

 
11,691

—

11,691

 
(1,059
)
(9.1
)%
 
(1,061
)
(9.1
)%
Net operating income
$14,543
$5,287
$19,830
 
$15,175
—

$15,175
 
$(632)
(4.2
)%
 
$4,655
30.7
 %
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average occupancy for the period
91%
-
92%
 
92%
-
92%
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of Properties
6
4
10
 
6
-
6
 
 
 
 
 
 

Non-core Segment
We are executing our long-term portfolio strategy by focusing on three specific real estate asset classes - retail, lodging, and student housing. The remaining assets outside of these asset classes are grouped together in the non-core segment. Our non-core segment consists of 24 industrial properties, ten office properties, ten single tenant retail properties, and one conventional apartment property. On December 31, 2013, the Company entered into a definitive agreement and purchased our partner's interest in D.R. Stephens Institutional Fund, LLC, a joint venture. This resulted in the Company obtaining control of the venture and consolidating ten industrial properties. The ten industrial properties are included in our property count as of December 31, 2013, but we have not reflected income from the properties in 2013 because we acquired the properties on the last day of the year. The segment consists of a diverse portfolio of assets, each with a different performance goal. We continue to focus on long term value for the individual assets in the non-core segment.
A large part of our remaining non-core portfolio are net-lease properties which are expected to have limited lease rollover in the immediate future.
Our non-core same store net operating income decreased by $2,408 or 3%, from $77,127 at December 31, 2012 to $74,719 at December 31, 2013. This decrease was primarily driven by various tenants re-leasing at lower rates for two multi-tenant office properties. Non-core same store net operating income decreased slightly from $76,875 to $76,637, or $238 and 0.3% from December 31, 2011 to 2012.

56

 
Total Non-core Properties
 
As of December 31,
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
Physical occupancy
88%
 
90%
 
92%
Economic occupancy
88%
 
90%
 
92%
Rent per square foot
$14.46
 
$15.57
 
$15.37
End of month scheduled rent per conventional unit per month
$1,173
 
$1,136
 
$1,158
Investment in properties, undepreciated
$968,323
 
$2,884,812
 
$3,700,857

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012
The table below represents operating information for the non-core segment and for the same store portfolio consisting of properties acquired prior to January 1, 2012. The properties in the same store portfolio were owned for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.
Non-core
For the year ended
December 31, 2013
 
For the year ended
December 31, 2012
 
Same Store Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Total Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Amount
%
 
Amount
%
Revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rental income
$85,039
—

$85,039
 
$86,510
—

$86,510
 
$(1,471)
(1.7
)%
 
$(1,471)
(1.7
)%
Straight line adjustment
161

—

161

 
(636
)
—

(636
)
 
797

(125.3
)%
 
797

(125.3
)%
Tenant recovery income
5,756

—

5,756

 
6,631

—

6,631

 
(875
)
(13.2
)%
 
(875
)
(13.2
)%
Other property income
571

—

571

 
1,278

—

1,278

 
(707
)
(55.3
)%
 
(707
)
(55.3
)%
Total income
91,527

—

91,527

 
93,783

—

93,783

 
(2,256
)
(2.4
)%
 
(2,256
)
(2.4
)%
Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Property operating expenses
10,559

—

10,559

 
10,185

—

10,185

 
(374
)
(3.7
)%
 
(374
)
(3.7
)%
Real estate taxes
6,249

—

6,249

 
6,471

—

6,471

 
222

3.4
 %
 
222

3.4
 %
Total operating expenses
16,808

—

16,808

 
16,656

—

16,656

 
(152
)
(0.9
)%
 
(152
)
(0.9
)%
Net operating income
$74,719
—

$74,719
 
$77,127
—

$77,127
 
$(2,408)
(3.1
)%
 
$(2,408)
(3.1
)%
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average occupancy for the period
89%
-
88%
 
90%
-
90%
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of Properties
35
10
45
 
35
-
35
 
 
 
 
 
 


57

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2012 and 2011
The table below represents operating information for the non-core segment and for the same store portfolio consisting of properties acquired prior to January 1, 2011. The properties in the same store portfolio were owned for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011.
 
Non-core
For the year ended
December 31, 2012
 
For the year ended
December 31, 2011
 
Same Store Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Total Change
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Same Store
Non Same Store
Total
 
Amount
%
 
Amount
%
Revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rental Income
$85,783
$727
$86,510
 
$86,593
$262
$86,855
 
$(810)
(0.9
)%
 
$(345)
(0.4
)%
Straight line adjustment
(394
)
(242
)
(636
)
 
(226
)
(406
)
(632
)
 
(168
)
74.3
 %
 
(4
)
0.6
 %
Tenant recovery income
5,994

637

6,631

 
4,781

659

5,440

 
1,213

25.4
 %
 
1,191

21.9
 %
Other property income
1,254

24

1,278

 
2,562

42

2,604

 
(1,308
)
(51.1
)%
 
(1,326
)
(50.9
)%
Total revenues
92,637

1,146

93,783

 
93,710

557

94,267

 
(1,073
)
(1.1
)%
 
(484
)
(0.5
)%
Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Property operating expenses
9,956

229

10,185

 
12,262

228

12,490

 
2,306

18.8
 %
 
2,305

18.5
 %
Real estate taxes
6,044

427

6,471

 
4,573

2,207

6,780

 
(1,471
)
(32.2
)%
 
309

4.6
 %
Total operating expenses
16,000

656

16,656

 
16,835

2,435

19,270

 
835

5.0
 %
 
2,614

13.6
 %
Net operating income
$76,637
$490
$77,127
 
$76,875
$(1,878)
$74,997
 
$(238)
(0.3
)%
 
$2,130
2.8
 %
 






 






 


 


Average occupancy for the period
90%
-
90%
 
92%
-
92%
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of Properties
34
1
35
 
34
1
35
 
 
 
 
 
 


Developments
We have development projects that are in various stages of pre-development and development which are funded by borrowings secured by the properties and our equity investments or contributions. Specifically identifiable direct development and construction costs are capitalized, including, where applicable, salaries and related costs, real estate taxes and interest incurred in developing the property. These developments encompass the retail, lodging, and student housing segments.
The properties under development and all amounts set forth below are as of December 31, 2013. (Dollar amounts stated in thousands.)
Name
Location
(City, State)
Property Type
Square
Feet / Beds / Rooms
Total Costs
Incurred to
Date ($)
(a)
Total
Estimated
Costs ($)
(b)
Remaining
Costs to be
Funded by
Inland
American ($)
(c)
Note
Payable as of
Dec. 31
2013 ($)
Estimated
Placed in
Service Date
(d) (e)
Woodbridge (f)
Wylie, TX
Retail
519,745
$
44,932

$
69,019

$
—

$
18,049

(f)
UH at Charlotte
Charlotte, NC
Student Housing
670 beds
12,063

49,533

8,571

1

Q3 2015
UH Tempe Phase II Development
Tempe, AZ
Student Housing
269 beds
1,938

25,237

3,783

—

Q3 2015
UH at Georgia Tech
Atlanta, GA
Student Housing
706 beds
16,165

75,470

10,249

—

Q3 2015
Grand Bohemian Charleston
Charleston, SC
Lodging
50 rooms
2,935

19,950

4,665

—

Q4 2014
Grand Bohemian Mountain Brook
Mountain Brook, AL
Lodging
100 rooms
4,885

26,250

6,075

—

Q4 2014

58

(a)
The Total Costs Incurred to Date represent total costs incurred for the development, including any costs allocated to parcels placed in service, but excluding capitalized interest.
(b)
The Total Estimated Costs represent 100% of the development’s estimated costs, including the acquisition cost of the land and building, if any, and excluding capitalized interest. The Total Estimated Costs are subject to change upon, or prior to, the completion of the development and include amounts required to lease the property.
(c)
We anticipate funding remaining development, to the extent any remains, through construction financing secured by the properties and equity contributions.
(d)
The Estimated Placed in Service Date represents the date the certificate of occupancy is currently anticipated to be obtained. Subsequent to obtaining the certificate of occupancy, each property (excluding lodging properties) will go through a lease-up period.
(e)
Leasing activities related to student housing properties do not begin until six to nine months prior to the placed in service date.
(f)
Woodbridge is a retail shopping center and development is planned to be completed in phases. As the construction and lease-up of individual phases are completed, the respective phase will be placed in service resulting in a range of estimated placed in service dates through 2016. Of the costs incurred to date, $34,388 relates to phases that have been placed in service as of December 31, 2013.

As part of our restructure and foreclosure of a note receivable, we began overseeing as the secured lender certain roadway and utility infrastructure projects that will provide access to the 240 acre Sacramento Railyards property. The Railyards property is located immediately adjacent to, and to the north of, Sacramento’s central business district. The infrastructure projects were planned, approved and funded prior to the foreclosure of the Stan Thomas note. The Railyards property is the subject of a collaborative planning and infrastructure funding effort of various federal, state and local municipalities, and its development is scheduled to be completed in phases during the years 2013-2030. We are currently engaged in efforts both to either sell parcels within the Railyards or to sell the entire property to a master developer. The current book value, excluding capitalized interest, of the Railyards property is $120,519 as of December 31, 2013.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
General
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions in certain circumstances that affect amounts reported in the accompanying consolidated financial statements and related notes. This section discusses those critical accounting policies and estimates. These judgments often result from the need to make estimates about the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain. GAAP requires information in financial statements about accounting principles, methods used and disclosures pertaining to significant estimates. This discussion addresses our judgment pertaining to known trends, events or uncertainties which were taken into consideration upon the application of those policies.
Acquisitions
We allocate the purchase price of each acquired business between tangible and intangible assets at full fair value at the date of the transaction. Such tangible and intangible assets include land, building and improvements, acquired above market and below market leases, in-place lease value, customer relationships (if any), and any assumed financing that is determined to be above or below market terms. Any additional amounts are allocated to goodwill as required, based on the remaining purchase price in excess of the fair value of the tangible and intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed. The allocation of the purchase price is an area that requires judgment and significant estimates.
We expense acquisition costs of all transactions as incurred. All costs related to finding, analyzing and negotiating a transaction are expensed as incurred as a general and administrative expense, whether or not the acquisition is completed.
Impairment
We assess the carrying values of the respective long-lived assets, whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts of these assets may not be fully recoverable, such as a reduction in the expected holding period of the asset. If it is determined that the carrying value is not recoverable because the undiscounted cash flows do not exceed carrying value, we are required to record an impairment loss to the extent that the carrying value exceeds fair value. The valuation and possible subsequent impairment of investment properties is a significant estimate that can and does change based on our continuous process of analyzing each property and reviewing assumptions about uncertain inherent factors, as well as the economic condition of the property at a particular point in time.

59

We also evaluate our equity method investments for impairment indicators. The valuation analysis considers the investment positions in relation to the underlying business and activities of our investment and identifies potential declines in fair value. An impairment loss should be recognized if a decline in value of the investment has occurred that is considered to be other than temporary, without ability to recover or sustain operations that would support the value of the investment.

Cost Capitalization and Depreciation Policies
Our policy is to review all expenses paid and capitalize any items which are deemed to be an upgrade or a tenant improvement. These costs are capitalized and included in the investment properties classification as an addition to buildings and improvements.
Buildings and improvements are depreciated on a straight-line basis based upon estimated useful lives of 30 years for buildings and improvements, and 5-15 years for site improvements and furniture, fixtures and equipment. Tenant improvements are depreciated on a straight-line basis over the life of the related lease as a component of depreciation and amortization expense. The portion of the purchase price allocated to acquired above market leases and acquired below market leases is amortized on a straight-line basis over the life of the related lease as an adjustment to net rental income. Acquired in-place lease costs, customer relationship value and other leasing costs are amortized on a straight-line basis over the life of the related lease as a component of amortization expense.
Cost capitalization and the estimate of useful lives requires our judgment and includes significant estimates that can and do change based on our process which periodically analyzes each property and on our assumptions about uncertain inherent factors.
Dispositions
The Company accounts for dispositions in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 360-20, Real Estate Sales. The Company recognizes gain in full when real estate is sold, provided (a) the profit is determinable, that is, the collectability of the sales price is reasonably assured or the amount that will not be collectible can be estimated, and (b) the earnings process is virtually complete, that is, the seller is not obliged to perform significant activities after the sale to earn the profit. The Company records the transaction as discontinued operations for all periods presented in accordance with FASB ASC 205-20, Presentation of Financial Statements - Discontinued Operations.
Investment in Marketable Securities
We classify our investment in securities in one of three categories: trading, available-for-sale, or held-to-maturity. Trading securities are bought and held principally for the purpose of selling them in the near term. Held-to-maturity securities are those securities in which we have the ability and intent to hold the security until maturity. All securities not included in trading or held-to-maturity are classified as available-for-sale. Investments in securities at December 31, 2013 and 2012 consists of common and preferred stock investments and investments in real estate related bonds that are all classified as available-for-sale securities and are recorded at fair value. Unrealized holding gains and losses on available-for-sale securities are excluded from earnings and reported as a separate component of other comprehensive income until realized. Realized gains and losses from the sale of available-for-sale securities are determined on a specific identification basis. A decline in the market value of any available-for-sale security below cost that is deemed to be other than temporary, results in a reduction in the carrying amount to fair value. The impairment is charged to earnings and a new cost basis for the security is established. When a security is impaired, management considers whether we have the ability and intent to hold the investment for a time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in market value and considers whether evidence indicating the cost of the investment is recoverable outweighs evidence to the contrary. Evidence considered in this assessment includes the reasons for the impairment, the severity and duration of the impairment, changes in value subsequent to period end and forecasted performance of the investee.
Revenue Recognition
We commence revenue recognition on our leases based on a number of factors. In most cases, revenue recognition under a lease begins when the lessee takes possession of or controls the physical use of the leased asset. Generally, this occurs on the lease commencement date. The determination of who is the owner, for accounting purposes, of the tenant improvements determines the nature of the leased asset and when revenue recognition under a lease begins. If we are the owner, for accounting purposes, of the tenant improvements, then the leased asset is the finished space and revenue recognition begins when the lessee takes possession of the finished space, typically when the improvements are substantially complete. If we conclude we are not the owner, for accounting purposes, of the tenant improvements (the lessee is the owner), then the leased asset is the unimproved space and any tenant improvement allowances funded under the lease are treated as lease incentives

60

which reduces revenue recognized over the term of the lease. In these circumstances, we begin revenue recognition when the lessee takes possession of the unimproved space for the lessee to construct their own improvements. We consider a number of different factors to evaluate whether it or the lessee is the owner of the tenant improvements for accounting purposes. These factors include:
•
whether the lease stipulates how and on what a tenant improvement allowance may be spent;
•
whether the tenant or landlord retains legal title to the improvements;
•
the uniqueness of the improvements;
•
the expected economic life of the tenant improvements relative to the length of the lease; and
•
who constructs or directs the construction of the improvements.
The determination of who owns the tenant improvements, for accounting purposes, is subject to significant judgment. In making that determination, we consider all of the above factors. No one factor, however, necessarily establishes its determination.
We recognize rental income on a straight-line basis over the term of each lease. The difference between rental income earned on a straight-line basis and the cash rent due under the provisions of the lease agreements is recorded as deferred rent receivable and is included as a component of accounts and rents receivable in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Due to the impact of the straight-line basis, rental income generally is greater than the cash collected in the early years and decreases in the later years of a lease. We periodically review the collectability of outstanding receivables. Allowances are taken for those balances that we deem to be uncollectible, including any amounts relating to straight-line rent receivables.
Reimbursements from tenants for recoverable real estate tax and operating expenses are accrued as revenue in the period the applicable expenses are incurred. We make certain assumptions and judgments in estimating the reimbursements at the end of each reporting period. We do not expect the actual results to significantly differ from the estimated reimbursement.
We will recognize lease termination income if there is a signed termination letter agreement, all of the conditions of the agreement have been met, collectability is reasonably assured and the tenant is no longer occupying the property. Upon early lease termination, we will provide for losses related to unrecovered intangibles and other assets.
We recognize lodging operating revenue on an accrual basis consistent with operations.
Consolidation
We evaluate our investments in limited liability companies and partnerships to determine whether such entities may be a variable interest entity (“VIE”). If the entity is a VIE, the determination of whether we are the primary beneficiary must be made. We will consolidate a VIE if we are deemed to be the primary beneficiary, as defined in FASB ASC 810, Consolidation. The equity method of accounting is applied to entities in which we are not the primary beneficiary as defined FASB ASC 810, or the entity is not a VIE and we do not have effective control, but can exercise influence over the entity with respect to its operations and major decisions.

Income Taxes
We operate in a manner intended to enable each entity to qualify as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Code. Under those sections, a REIT that distributes at least 90% of its “REIT taxable income” determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and by excluding any net capital gain to its stockholders each year and that meets certain other conditions will not be taxed on that portion of its taxable income which is distributed to its stockholders. If we fail to distribute the required amount of income to our stockholders, or fail to meet the various REIT requirements, without the benefit of certain relief provisions, we may fail to qualify as a REIT and substantial adverse tax consequences may result. Even if we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain state and local taxes on our income, property, or net worth, and to federal income and excise taxes on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, taxable income from non-REIT activities managed through taxable REIT subsidiaries is subject to federal, state and local income taxes.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
As of December 31, 2013, we had $319.2 million of cash and cash equivalents. We continually evaluate the economic and credit environment and its impact on our business. Maintaining significant capital reserves has become a priority. We believe we are appropriately positioned to have significant cash to utilize in executing our strategy.

61

Short Term Liquidity and Capital Resources
On a short term basis, our principal demands for funds are to pay our corporate and operating expenses, as well as property capital expenditures, make distributions to our stockholders, and pay/make interest and principal payments on our current indebtedness. Our capital expenditures mainly consist of improvements to hotels, in which a portion is reserved for in restricted escrows. We are negotiating refinancing the 2014 debt maturities at terms that will most likely be at lower rates. We expect to meet our short term liquidity requirements from cash flow from operations, proceeds from our dividend reinvestment plan and distributions from our joint venture investments.
Long Term Liquidity and Capital Resources
On a long term basis, our objectives are to maximize revenue generated by our existing properties, to further enhance the value of our segments that produce attractive current yield and long-term risk-adjusted returns to our stockholders and to generate sustainable and predictable cash flow from our operations to distribute to our stockholders. We believe the increased performance of our lodging and student housing segments as well as the repositioning of our retail and lodging properties will increase our operating cash flows.
Our principal demands for funds have been and will continue to be:
•
to pay our expenses and the operating expenses of our properties;
•
to make distributions to our stockholders;
•
to service or pay-down our debt;
•
to fund capital expenditures;
•
to invest in properties;
•
to fund joint ventures and development investments; and
•
to fund our share repurchase program.
Generally, our cash needs have been and will be funded from:
•
income earned on our investment properties;
•
interest income on investments and dividend and gain on sale income earned on our investment in marketable securities;
•
distributions from our joint venture investments;
•
proceeds from sales of properties;
•
proceeds from borrowings on properties; and
•
issuance of shares under our distribution reinvestment plan.

Acquisitions and Dispositions of Real Estate Investments
We acquired 21 and 13 properties during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, which were funded with available cash, disposition proceeds, mortgage indebtedness, and the proceeds from the distribution reinvestment plan. We invested net cash of approximately $1,172.1 million and $447.9 million for these acquisitions. For the year ended December 31, 2013, we sold 313 properties, including 259 bank branches, 48 non-core properties, three multi-tenant retail properties, and three lodging properties, generating net sales proceeds of $2,101.3 million. We also contributed 14 retail properties to the IAGM joint venture. Comparatively for the year ended December 31, 2012 we sold 166 properties, including 143 bank branches, six non-core properties(two industrial properties, and four conventional multi-family properties), four multi-tenant retail properties, 13 lodging properties, generating net sales proceeds of $522.6 million.
Distributions
We declared cash distributions to our stockholders per weighted average number of shares outstanding during the period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 totaling $450.1 million or $0.50 per share, including amounts reinvested through the dividend reinvestment plan. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we paid cash distributions of $449.3 million. These cash distributions were paid with $422.8 million from our cash flow from operations, $20.1 million provided by distributions from unconsolidated entities, as well as $456.6 million from gain on sales of properties.

62

We continue to provide cash distributions to our stockholders from cash generated by our operations, distributions from unconsolidated entities, and gain on sales of properties. The following chart summarizes the sources of our cash used to pay distributions. Our primary source of cash is cash flow provided by operating activities from our investments as presented in our cash flow statement. We also include distributions from unconsolidated entities to the extent that the underlying real estate operations in these entities generate these cash flows. Gain on sales of properties relate to net profits from the sale of certain properties. Our presentation is not intended to be an alternative to our consolidated statements of cash flow and does not present all the sources and uses of our cash.
The following table presents a historical view of our distribution coverage.
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
 
2010
 
2009
Cash flow provided by operations
$
422,813

 
$
456,221

 
$
397,949

 
$
356,660

 
$
369,031

Distributions from unconsolidated entities
20,121

 
31,710

 
33,954

 
31,737

 
32,081

Gain on sales of properties (1)
456,563

 
40,691

 
6,141

 
55,412

 
—

Distributions declared
(450,106
)
 
(440,031
)
 
(429,599
)
 
(417,885
)
 
(405,337
)
Excess (deficiency)
$
449,391

 
$
88,591

 
$
8,445

 
$
25,924

 
$
(4,225
)
(1) Excludes gains reflected on impaired values.

Cash flow provided by operations for the year ended December 31, 2013 included lender pre-payment penalties paid of $17,307 primarily due to the disposition of our conventional multi-family properties. Cash flow provided by operations for the year ended December 31, 2012 included an increase in the accrued interest expense payable of $22,100 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2011. This was a result of a one-time change in timing of debt service payments from 2011 to 2012.

The following table presents a historical summary of distributions declared, distributions paid and distributions reinvested.
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
 
2010
 
2009
Distributions declared
$
450,104

 
$
440,031

 
$
429,599

 
$
417,885

 
$
405,337

Distributions paid
449,253

 
439,188

 
428,650

 
416,935

 
411,797

Distributions reinvested
181,630

 
191,785

 
199,591

 
207,296

 
231,306

Stock Offering
We have completed two public offerings of our common stock on a best efforts basis as well as offerings of common stock under our distribution reinvestment plan, or “DRP.” Under the DRP, as amended, the purchase price per share is equal to 100% of the “market price” of a share of the Company’s common stock until the shares become listed for trading. For reinvestments made after September 21, 2010 until December 29, 2011, the DRP purchase price was equal to $8.03 per share. After December 29, 2011 until December 19, 2012, the DRP purchase price was equal to $7.22 per share. After December 19, 2012 until December 27, 2013, the DRP purchase price was equal to $6.93 per share. After December 27, 2013 and until a new estimated value per share has been established, the DRP purchase price is $6.94 per share. We are permitted to offer shares pursuant to the DRP under the existing registration statement until the earlier of March 16, 2015 or the date we sell all $803.0 million worth of shares in the offering. At that time we would consider filing a new registration statement to permit the continued issuance of DRP shares. As of December 31, 2013, we had raised a total of approximately $8.9 billion of gross offering proceeds as a result of all of our offerings (inclusive of distribution reinvestments and net of redemptions).
During the year ended December 31, 2013, we sold a total of 26,203,500 shares and generated $181.6 million in gross offering proceeds under the DRP, as compared to 26,571,399 shares and $191.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2012. Our average distribution reinvestment plan participation was 40% for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to 44% for the year ended December 31, 2012.
Share Repurchase Program
Our board adopted an Amended and Restated Share Repurchase Program, which was effective from April 11, 2011 through January 31, 2012 (the “First Amended Program”). Our board subsequently adopted a Second Amended and Restated Share Repurchase Program, which was effective from February 1, 2012 through February 28, 2013 (the “Second Amended Program”). The Board of Directors voted to suspend the Second Amended Program on January 29, 2014. We anticipate reinstating the Share Repurchase Program later in the year.
Under the Second Amended Program, we were permitted to repurchase shares of our common stock, on a quarterly basis, from the beneficiary of a stockholder that has died or from stockholders that had a “qualifying disability” or were confined to a

63

“long-term care facility” (together, referred to herein as “hardship repurchases”). We were authorized to repurchase shares at a price per share equal to 100% of the most recently disclosed estimated per share value of our common stock, which was equal to $6.93 per share as of December 19, 2012 and $6.94 per share as of December 27, 2013. Our obligation to repurchase any shares under the Second Amended Program was conditioned upon our having sufficient funds available to complete the repurchase. Our board had initially reserved $10.0 million per calendar quarter for the purpose of funding repurchases associated with death and $15.0 million per calendar quarter for the purpose of funding hardship repurchases. In addition, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, at no time during any consecutive twelve month period may the aggregate number of shares repurchased under the Second Amended Program have exceeded 5.0% of the aggregate number of issued and outstanding shares of our common stock at the beginning of the twelve month period. For any calendar quarter, if the number of shares accepted for repurchase would have caused us to exceed the 5.0% limit, repurchases for death would have taken priority over any hardship repurchases, in each case in accordance with the procedures, and subject to the funding limits, described in the Second Amended Program and summarized herein.
If, on the other hand, the funds reserved for either category of repurchase under the Second Amended Program were insufficient to repurchase all of the shares for which repurchase requests had been received for a particular quarter, or if the number of shares accepted for repurchase caused us to exceed the 5.0% limit set forth therein, we repurchased the shares in the following order: (1) for death repurchases, we repurchased shares in chronological order, based upon the beneficial owner’s date of death; and (2) for hardship repurchases, we repurchased shares on a pro rata basis, up to, but not in excess of, the limits described herein; provided, that in the event that the repurchase would result in a stockholder owning less than 150 shares, we repurchased all of that stockholder’s shares.
For the year ended December 31, 2013, we received requests for the repurchase of 5,516,204 shares of our common stock. Of these requests, we repurchased 5,772,899 shares of common stock for $40.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. In January 2014, we repurchased 1,077,829 shares of common stock for $7.5 million. There were no additional requests outstanding. The price per share for shares repurchased during the year ended December 31, 2013 was $6.93. The price per share for shares repurchased in January 2014 was $6.94. All repurchases were funded from proceeds from our distribution reinvestment plan. The table below summarizes the share repurchases.

Total number of share repurchase requests

Total number of shares repurchased (a)

Price per share at date of redemption

Total value of shares repurchased
 (in thousands)
For the year ended December 31, 2013
5,516,204


5,772,899

$6.93

$40,006
January 2014
—


1,077,829

$6.94

$7,480
(a) Shares are repurchased in the month subsequent to the quarter in which the requests were received. There were 1,334,524 share requests outstanding as of the month ended December 31, 2012, which were repurchased in January 2013 at a price of $6.93 per share. There were 1,077,829 share requests outstanding as of the month ended December 31, 2013, which were repurchased in January 2014 at a price of $6.94 per share.

Borrowings
The table below presents, on a consolidated basis, the principal amount, weighted average interest rates and maturity date (by year) on our mortgage debt as of December 31, 2013 (dollar amounts are stated in thousands). This table includes mortgage debt related to our properties classified as held for sale.
 
2014
 
2015
 
2016
 
2017
 
2018
 
Thereafter
 
Total
Maturing debt :
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fixed rate debt (mortgage loans)
$
138,323

 
303,292

 
698,588

 
1,139,951

 
506,711

 
901,409

 
3,688,274

Variable rate debt (mortgage loans)
$
280,168

 
241,147

 
78,070

 
37,500

 
160,550

 
251,750

 
1,049,185

Weighted average interest rate on debt:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fixed rate debt (mortgage loans)
6.22
%
 
5.72
%
 
5.70
%
 
5.86
%
 
6.01
%
 
5.51
%
 
5.77
%
Variable rate debt (mortgage loans)
2.81
%
 
2.70
%
 
2.83
%
 
3.19
%
 
2.27
%
 
2.75
%
 
2.70
%

64

The debt maturity excludes mortgage discounts associated with debt assumed at acquisition of which a discount of $17.5 million, net of accumulated amortization, is outstanding as of December 31, 2013. Of the total outstanding debt, approximately $261.1 million is recourse to us.
As of December 31, 2013, we had approximately $418 million and $544 million in mortgage debt maturing in 2014 and 2015, respectively. We are negotiating refinancing the remaining 2014 debt maturities at terms that will most likely be at lower rates. We currently anticipate that we will be able to repay or refinance all of our debt on a timely basis, and believe we have adequate sources of funds to meet our short term cash needs. However, there can be no assurance that we can obtain such refinancing on satisfactory terms. Volatility in the capital markets could expose us to the risk of not being able to borrow on terms and conditions acceptable to us for future acquisitions or refinancings.

On May 8, 2013, we entered into a credit agreement with KeyBank National Association, JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association and other financial institutions to provide for a senior unsecured credit facility in the aggregate amount of $275 million. The credit facility consists of a $200 million senior unsecured revolving line of credit and a $75 million unsecured term loan. The line of credit is backed by a pool of unencumbered properties that needs to comply with certain covenants laid out in the credit agreement. The credit facility also contains an accordion feature that allows us to increase the aggregate availability thereunder to up to $600 million in certain circumstances. On November 5, 2013, we exercised the accordion feature and closed on a $100 million increase to our revolving line of credit and a $125 million increase to the term loan. Our total revolving line of credit is now $300 million and the total outstanding term loan is now $200 million. We also increased the accordion feature to $800 million. In all material respects, the terms and conditions of the loan agreements remained unchanged.

As of December 31, 2013, we had borrowed the full amount of the term loan and had $299,820 available under the revolving line of credit. The revolver bears interest at a rate equal to LIBOR plus a margin ranging from 1.60% to 2.45%, while the rate on the term loan is equal to LIBOR plus a margin ranging from 1.50% to 2.45%. As of December 31, 2013, the interest rates of the revolving line of credit and unsecured term loan were 1.60% and 1.67%, respectively. The facility will assist us in bridging the timing of proceeds from disposing of non-strategic assets and acquiring retail, lodging and student housing assets. As of December 31, 2013, we were in compliance with all covenants and default provisions under the credit agreement, and our current business plan, which is based on our expectations of operating performance, indicates that we will be able to operate in compliance with these covenants and provisions for the next twelve months and beyond.
Mortgage loans outstanding as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 were $4.7 billion and $5.8 billion, respectively, and had a weighted average interest rate of 5.09% and 5.10% per annum, respectively. For the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, we paid down, net of borrowings, $79.5 million and borrowed, net of paydowns, $18.3 million, respectively, secured by our portfolio of marketable securities. For the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, we borrowed approximately $1.2 billion and $0.7 billion, respectively, secured by mortgages on our properties and assumed $36.0 million and $232.0 million million, respectively, of debt at acquisition.

Summary of Cash Flows
 
Year ended December 31,
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
Cash provided by operating activities
$
422,813

 
$
456,221

 
$
397,949

Cash provided by (used in) investing activities
922,624

 
(118,162
)
 
(286,896
)
Cash used in financing activities
(1,246,979
)
 
(335,443
)
 
(160,597
)
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
98,458


2,616

 
(49,544
)
Cash and cash equivalents, at beginning of year
220,779

 
218,163

 
267,707

Cash and cash equivalents, at end of year
$
319,237

 
$
220,779


$
218,163

Cash provided by operating activities was $423, $456 and $398 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively, and was generated primarily from operating income from property operations, and interest and dividends. While the acquisition of lodging and student housing properties increased operating performance, the cash flows decreased from the years ended December 31, 2012 to 2013. For the year ended December 31, 2013, cash provided by operations was reduced by lender pre-payment penalties of $17.3 million primarily due to the disposition of our conventional multi-family properties. For the year ended December 31 2012, cash provided by operating activities included an increase in the accrued interest expenses payable of $22.1 million, which was a result of a one-time change in timing of debt service payments from

65

2011 to 2012. The increase in operating cash flows from the years ended December 31, 2011 to December 31, 2012 was primarily due to the improved performance of the lodging and multi-family segments as well as the 2012 increase in the accrued interest expense payable of $22.1 million.
Cash provided by and (used in) investing activities was $923, $(118) and $(287) million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The increase in cash provided by investing activities from the years ended December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013 was primarily due to the proceeds from the sale of 313 properties in 2013. The sales of these properties resulted in gains of $442.6 million. The dispositions were offset by the acquisition of 21 properties in 2013. The decrease in cash used in investing activities from the years ended December 31, 2011 to December 31, 2012 was primarily due to the proceeds from the sale of 166 properties in 2012, offset by the acquisition of 13 properties in 2012.
Cash used in financing activities was $1,247.0, $335.4 and $160.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The increase in cash used in financing activities from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013 was primarily due to the payoffs of mortgage debt of $2.0 billion. The increase in cash used in financing activities from the years ended December 31, 2011 to December 31, 2012 was primarily due to a decrease in proceeds from our mortgage debt of $470 million in 2012, offset by the redemption of noncontrolling interest of $294 million in 2011.
We consider all demand deposits, money market accounts and investments in certificates of deposit and repurchase agreements with a maturity of three months or less, at the date of purchase, to be cash equivalents. We maintain our cash and cash equivalents at financial institutions. The combined account balances at one or more institutions periodically exceed the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) insurance coverage and, as a result, there is a concentration of credit risk related to amounts on deposit in excess of FDIC insurance coverage.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
Contractual Obligations
The table below presents, on a consolidated basis, obligations and commitments to make future payments under debt obligations (including interest), lease agreements, and margin accounts on our marketable securities portfolio as of December 31, 2013 (dollar amounts are stated in thousands).
 
Payments due by period
 
Total
 
Less than
1 year
 
1-3 years
 
3-5 years
 
More than
5 years
Long-Term Debt Obligations
$
6,174,586

 
$
660,036

 
$
3,223,034

 
$
1,029,926

 
$
1,261,590

Ground Lease Payments
34,664

 
780

 
2,340

 
2,340

 
29,204

Margins Payable
59,681

 
59,681

 
—

 
—

 
—


Of the total long-term debt obligations, approximately $261.1 million is recourse to the Company.
In 2013, we acquired two properties subject to the obligation to pay the seller additional monies depending on the operating performance of the properties. These earnout payments are based on a predetermined formula. Each earnout agreement has a time limit regarding the obligation to pay any additional monies. If at the end of the time period, operational performance targets have not been met, we will not have any further obligation. Assuming all the conditions are satisfied, as of December 31, 2013, we would be obligated to pay as much as $11.5 million in the future. The information in the above table does not reflect these contractual obligations.

Unconsolidated Real Estate Joint Ventures
Unconsolidated joint ventures are those where we have substantial influence over but do not control the entity. We account for our interest in these ventures using the equity method of accounting. For additional discussion of our investments in joint ventures. Please refer to Note 5 in our consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which is incorporated by reference into this Item 7. Our ownership percentage and related investment in each joint venture is summarized in the following table. (Dollar amounts stated in thousands.)
 

66

Joint Venture
Ownership %
 
Investment at
December 31, 2013
Cobalt Industrial REIT II
36%
 
$
83,306

Brixmor/IA JV, LLC
(a)
 
77,551

IAGM Retail Fund I, LLC
55%
 
90,509

Other unconsolidated entities
Various
 
12,552

 
 
 
$
263,918

(a) We have preferred membership interest and are entitled to a 11% preferred dividend in Brixmor/IA JV, LLC.
Subsequent Events

Subsequent to December 31, 2013, we purchased two retail assets for $26,150. On February 28, 2014, we purchased one lodging asset for $183,000.

We also disposed of thirty non-core net lease assets on January 8, 2014 for a gross disposition price of $55,303. We then disposed of another twenty-eight non-core net lease assets on February 21, 2014 for a gross disposition price of $451,881. Finally, we disposed of another 151 non-core net lease assets on March 10, 2014 for a gross disposition price of $278,553 These assets were all classified as held for sale as of December 31, 2013.

On March 12, 2014, we began the process of becoming fully self-managed by terminating our business management agreement, hiring all of our business manager’s employees, and acquiring the assets of our business manager necessary to perform the functions previously performed by the business manager. As a first step towards internalizing our property managers, we hired certain of their employees; assumed responsibility for performing certain significant property management functions; and amended our property management agreements to reduce our property management fees as a result of our assumption of such responsibilities. As the second step, on December 31, 2014, we expect to terminate our property management agreements, hire the remaining property manager employees and acquire the assets necessary to conduct the remaining functions performed by our property managers. As a consequence, beginning January 1, 2015, we expect to become fully self-managed. We will not pay an internalization fee or self-management fee in connection with these self-management transactions. These self-management transactions immediately eliminate the management and advisory fees paid to the business manager and at the end of 2014, we expect to eliminate the fees paid to our property managers when we terminate the property management agreements. As part of the self-management transactions, we agreed to reimburse our business manager and property managers for certain transaction and employee related expenses and directly retain affiliates of The Inland Group, Inc. for IT services, customer service and certain back-office services that were provided to us and managed by our business manager prior to the termination of the business management agreement.




67


Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
We are subject to market risk associated with changes in interest rates both in terms of variable-rate debt and the price of new fixed-rate debt upon maturity of existing debt and for acquisitions. We are also subject to market risk associated with our marketable securities investments.
Our interest rate risk management objectives are to limit the impact of interest rate changes on earnings and cash flows and to lower our overall borrowing costs. If market rates of interest on all of the floating rate debt as of December 31, 2013 permanently increased by 1%, the increase in interest expense on the floating rate debt would decrease future earnings and cash flows by approximately $10.5 million. If market rates of interest on all of the floating rate debt as of December 31, 2013 permanently decreased by 1%, the decrease in interest expense on the floating rate debt would increase future earnings and cash flows by approximately $10.5 million.
With regard to our variable rate financing, we assess interest rate cash flow risk by continually identifying and monitoring changes in interest rate exposures that may adversely impact expected future cash flows and by evaluating hedging opportunities. We maintain risk management control systems to monitor interest rate cash flow risk attributable to both of our outstanding or forecasted debt obligations as well as our potential offsetting hedge positions. The risk management control systems involve the use of analytical techniques, including cash flow sensitivity analysis, to estimate the expected impact of changes in interest rates on our future cash flows.
We monitor interest rate risk using a variety of techniques, including periodically evaluating fixed interest rate quotes on all variable rate debt and the costs associated with converting the debt to fixed rate debt. Also, existing fixed and variable rate loans that are scheduled to mature in the next year or two are evaluated for possible early refinancing and or extension due to consideration given to current interest rates. Refer to our Borrowings table in Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for mortgage debt principal amounts and weighted average interest rates by year and expected maturity to evaluate the expected cash flows and sensitivity to interest rate changes.
We may use financial instruments to hedge exposures to changes in interest rates on loans secured by our properties. To the extent we do, we are exposed to credit risk and market risk. Credit risk is the failure of the counterparty to perform under the terms of the derivative contract. When the fair value of a derivative contract is positive, the counterparty owes us, which creates credit risk for us. When the fair value of a derivative contract is negative, we owe the counterparty and, therefore, it does not possess credit risk. In the alternative, we seek to minimize the credit risk in derivative instruments by entering into transactions with what we believe are high-quality counterparties. Market risk is the adverse effect on the value of a financial instrument that results from a change in interest rates. The market risk associated with interest-rate contracts is managed by establishing and monitoring parameters that limit the types and degree of market risk that may be undertaken.
The following table summarizes interest rate swap contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2013 and 2012:
Date Entered
Effective Date
End Date
Pay Fixed Rate
Receive Floating
Rate Index
Notional Amount
Fair Value as of December 31, 2013
Fair Value as of December 31, 2012
March 28, 2008
March 28, 2008
March 27, 2013
3.32%
1 month LIBOR
N/A

$
—

$
(243
)
October 15, 2010
November 1, 2010
April 23, 2013
0.94%
1 month LIBOR
N/A

—

(68
)
January 7, 2011
January 7, 2011
January 2, 2013
0.91%
1 month LIBOR
N/A

(1
)
(1
)
January 7, 2011
January 7, 2011
January 2, 2013
0.91%
1 month LIBOR
N/A

—

—

September 1, 2011
September 29, 2012
September 29, 2014
0.79%
1 month LIBOR
$
55,683

(241
)
(507
)
October 14, 2011
October 14, 2011
October 22, 2013
1.037%
1 month LIBOR
N/A

—

(52
)
July 1, 2008
July 1, 2008
January 1, 2015
4.68%
1 month LIBOR
4,361

(216
)
0

 
 
 
 
 
$
60,044

$
(458
)
$
(871
)
We have, and may in the future enter into, derivative positions that do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment. The gains or losses resulting from marking-to-market, these derivatives at the end of each reporting period are recognized as an increase or decrease in “interest expense” on our consolidated statements of income. In addition, we are, and may in the future be, subject to additional expense based on the notional amount of the derivative positions and a specified spread over LIBOR.
 

Equity Price Risk
We are exposed to equity price risk as a result of our investments in marketable equity securities. Equity price risk is based on volatility of equity prices and the values of corresponding equity indices.

68


Other than temporary impairments on our investments in marketable securities were $1.1, $1.9 and $24.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. We believe that our investments will continue to generate dividend income and we could continue to recognize gains on sale. However, due to general economic and credit market uncertainties it is difficult to project where the REIT market and our portfolio will perform in 2014.
Although it is difficult to project what factors may affect the prices of equity sectors and how much the effect might be, the table below illustrates the impact of a 10% increase and a 10% decrease in the price of the equities held by us would have on the value of the total assets and the book value of the Company as of December 31, 2013 (dollar amounts stated in thousands).
 
 
Cost
 
Fair Value
 
Hypothetical 10%
Decrease in
Market Value
 
Hypothetical 10%
Increase in
Market Value
Equity securities
$
164,472

 
234,760

 
211,284

 
258,236



69
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Index

Item 8. Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
 
 
Page
 
 
Financial Statements:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Schedules not filed:
All schedules other than the ones listed in the Index have been omitted as the required information is inapplicable or the information is presented in the financial statements or related notes.

70



Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc.:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the Company) as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2013. In connection with our audits of the consolidated financial statements, we also have audited the financial statement schedule III. These consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule III are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule III based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2013, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule III, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

/S/ KPMG LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 13, 2014

71
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Consolidated Balance Sheets
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except share amounts)
 
 
December 31,
2013
 
December 31,
2012
Assets:
 
 
 
Investment properties:
 
 
 
Land
$
1,356,331

 
$
1,882,715

Building and other improvements
6,849,321

 
8,679,105

Construction in progress
196,754

 
337,384

Total
8,402,406

 
10,899,204

Less accumulated depreciation
(1,251,454
)
 
(1,581,524
)
Net investment properties
7,150,952

 
9,317,680

Cash and cash equivalents
319,237

 
220,779

Restricted cash and escrows
137,980

 
104,027

Investment in marketable securities
242,819

 
327,655

Investment in unconsolidated entities
263,918

 
253,799

Accounts and rents receivable (net of allowance of $9,378 and $10,348)
65,234

 
121,773

Goodwill and intangible assets, net
176,998

 
298,828

Deferred costs and other assets
108,597

 
115,343

Assets held for sale
1,196,729

 
—

Total assets
$
9,662,464

 
$
10,759,884

Liabilities:
 
 
 
Debt
$
4,153,099

 
$
6,006,146

Accounts payable and accrued expenses
174,751

 
142,835

Distributions payable
37,911

 
37,059

Intangible liabilities, net
59,097

 
80,769

Other liabilities
90,809

 
150,325

Liabilities held for sale
880,156

 
—

Total liabilities
5,395,823

 
6,417,134

Commitments and contingencies


 


Stockholders’ Equity:
 
 
 
Preferred stock, $.001 par value, 40,000,000 shares authorized, none outstanding
—

 
—

Common stock, $.001 par value, 1,460,000,000 shares authorized, 909,855,173 and 889,424,572 shares issued and outstanding
909

 
889

Additional paid in capital
8,063,517

 
7,921,913

Accumulated distributions in excess of net loss
(3,870,649
)
 
(3,664,591
)
Accumulated other comprehensive income
71,128

 
84,414

Total Company stockholders’ equity
4,264,905

 
4,342,625

Noncontrolling interests
1,736

 
125

Total equity
4,266,641

 
4,342,750

Total liabilities and equity
$
9,662,464

 
$
10,759,884

See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

72
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Consolidated Statements of Operations and Other Comprehensive Income
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)
 
Year ended
December 31, 2013
 
Year ended
December 31, 2012
 
Year ended
December 31, 2011
Income:
 
 
 
 
 
  Rental income
$
361,678

 
$
347,647

 
$
327,052

  Tenant recovery income
71,207

 
73,214

 
66,655

  Other property income
7,202

 
5,714

 
8,838

  Lodging income
881,750

 
692,448

 
517,840

Total income
1,321,837

 
1,119,023

 
920,385

Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
  General and administrative expenses
55,549

 
36,815

 
31,026

  Property operating expenses
84,107

 
77,694

 
77,691

  Lodging operating expenses
574,224

 
449,397

 
330,185

  Real estate taxes
85,597

 
78,348

 
68,255

  Depreciation and amortization
314,630

 
311,752

 
311,573

  Business management fee
37,962

 
39,892

 
40,000

  Provision for asset impairment
242,896

 
37,830

 
24,051

Total expenses
1,394,965

 
1,031,728

 
882,781

Operating income (loss)
$
(73,128
)
 
$
87,295

 
$
37,604

Interest and dividend income
19,267

 
23,386

 
22,860

Other income
15,335

 
2,010

 
19,694

Interest expense
(212,263
)
 
(209,353
)
 
(215,790
)
Equity in earnings (loss) of unconsolidated entities
11,958

 
1,998

 
(12,802
)
Gain, (loss) and (impairment) of investment in unconsolidated entities, net
(3,473
)
 
(12,322
)
 
(106,023
)
Realized gain, (loss) and (impairment) on securities, net
31,539

 
4,319

 
(16,219
)
Loss before income taxes
(210,765
)
 
(102,667
)
 
(270,676
)
Income tax (expense) benefit
(4,759
)
 
(7,762
)
 
3,387

Net loss from continuing operations
$
(215,524
)
 
$
(110,429
)
 
$
(267,289
)
Net income (loss) from discontinued operations
459,588

 
46,780

 
(42,256
)
Net income (loss)
$
244,064

 
$
(63,649
)
 
$
(309,545
)
Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests
$
(16
)
 
$
(5,689
)
 
$
(6,708
)
Net income (loss) attributable to Company
$
244,048

 
$
(69,338
)
 
$
(316,253
)
Net loss per common share, from continuing operations, basic and diluted
$
(0.24
)
 
$
(0.13
)
 
$
(0.32
)
Net income (loss) per common share, from discontinued operations, basic and diluted
0.51

 
0.05

 
(0.05
)
Net income (loss) per common share, basic and diluted
0.27

 
(0.08
)
 
(0.37
)
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, basic and diluted
899,842,722

 
879,685,949

 
858,637,707

Other comprehensive income (loss):
 
 
 
 
 
  Unrealized gain (loss) on investment securities
$
17,622

 
$
45,372

 
$
(24,950
)
  Unrealized loss on derivatives
(70
)
 
(913
)
 
(2,799
)
  Reclassification adjustment for amounts recognized in net income
(30,838
)
 
(1,993
)
 
20,267

Comprehensive income (loss) attributable to the Company
$
230,762

 
$
(26,872
)
 
$
(323,735
)

See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

73
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)


Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011
 
 
Number of
Shares
 
Common
Stock
 
Additional
Paid-in
Capital
 
Accumulated
Distributions
in excess of
Net Loss
 
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
 
Non - controlling
Interests
 
Total
 
Non - controlling
Redeemable
Interests
Balance at January 1, 2011
846,406,774

 
$
846

 
$
7,605,105

 
$
(2,409,370
)
 
$
49,430

 
$
17,381

 
$
5,263,392

 
$
264,132

Net income (loss)
—

 
—

 
—

 
(316,253
)
 
—

 
(1,183
)
 
(317,436
)
 
7,891

Unrealized loss on investment securities
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
(24,950
)
 
—

 
(24,950
)
 
—

Unrealized loss on derivatives
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
(2,799
)
 
—

 
(2,799
)
 
—

Reclassification adjustment for amounts recognized in net income
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
20,267

 
—

 
20,267

 
—

Distributions declared
—

 
—

 
—

 
(429,599
)
 
—

 
—

 
(429,599
)
 
—

Distributions to noncontrolling interest
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(660
)
 
(660
)
 
(7,891
)
Adjustment to redemption value for noncontrolling interest
—

 
—

 
(13,793
)
 
—

 
—

 
(15,555
)
 
(29,348
)
 
29,348

Contributions from noncontrolling interests
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
651

 
651

 
—

Redemption of noncontrolling interests
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
(795
)
 
(795
)
 
(293,480
)
Proceeds from distribution reinvestment program
24,855,275

 
25

 
199,566

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
199,591

 
—

Share repurchase program
(2,074,689
)
 
(2
)
 
(14,998
)
 
—

 
—

 
—

 
(15,000
)
 
—

Balance at December 31, 2011
869,187,360

 
$
869

 
$
7,775,880

 
$
(3,155,222
)
 
$
41,948

 
$
(161
)
 
$
4,663,314

 
$
—


See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

74
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)


Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity
(continued)
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011
 
 
Number of
Shares
 
Common
Stock
 
Additional
Paid-in
Capital
 
Accumulated
Distributions
in excess of
Net Loss
 
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
 
Noncontrolling
Interests
 
Total
Balance at January 1, 2012
869,187,360

 
$
869

 
$
7,775,880

 
$
(3,155,222
)
 
$
41,948

 
$
(161
)
 
$
4,663,314

Net income (loss)
—

 
—

 
—

 
(69,338
)
 
—

 
5,689

 
(63,649
)
Unrealized gain on investment securities
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
45,372

 
—

 
45,372

Unrealized loss on derivatives
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
(913
)
 
—

 
(913
)
Reclassification adjustment for amounts recognized in net income
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
(1,993
)
 
—

 
(1,993
)
Distributions declared
—

 
—

 
—

 
(440,031
)
 
—

 
(3,806
)
 
(443,837
)
Disposal of noncontrolling interest
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
(1,597
)
 
(1,597
)
Proceeds from distribution reinvestment program
26,571,399

 
26

 
191,759

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
191,785

Share repurchase program
(6,334,187
)
 
(6
)
 
(45,726
)
 
—

 
—

 
—

 
(45,732
)
Balance at December 31, 2012
889,424,572

 
$
889

 
$
7,921,913

 
$
(3,664,591
)
 
$
84,414

 
$
125

 
$
4,342,750


See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.

75
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)


Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity
(continued)
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011
 
 
Number of
Shares
 
Common
Stock
 
Additional
Paid-in
Capital
 
Accumulated
Distributions
in excess of
Net Loss
 
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
 
Noncontrolling
Interests
 
Total
Balance at January 1, 2013
889,424,572

 
$
889

 
$
7,921,913

 
$
(3,664,591
)
 
$
84,414

 
$
125

 
$
4,342,750

Net income
—

 
—

 
—

 
244,048

 
—

 
16

 
244,064

Unrealized gain in investment securities
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
17,622

 
—

 
17,622

Unrealized loss on derivatives
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
(70
)
 
—

 
(70
)
Reclassification adjustment for amounts recognized in net income
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
(30,838
)
 
—

 
(30,838
)
Distribution declared, net
—

 
—

 
—

 
(450,106
)
 
—

 
—

 
(450,106
)
Contributions from noncontrolling interests, net
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
1,595

 
1,595

Proceeds from distribution reinvestment program
26,203,500

 
26

 
181,604

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
181,630

Share repurchase program
(5,772,899
)
 
(6
)
 
(40,000
)
 
—

 
—

 
—

 
(40,006
)
Balance at December 31, 2013
909,855,173

 
$
909

 
$
8,063,517

 
$
(3,870,649
)
 
$
71,128

 
$
1,736

 
$
4,266,641

    
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.


76
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(Dollar amounts in thousands)


 
Year ended
December 31, 2013
 
Year ended
December 31, 2012
 
Year ended
December 31, 2011
Cash flows from operating activities:
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss)
$
244,064

 
$
(63,649
)
 
$
(309,545
)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
 
 
 
 
 
Depreciation and amortization
383,969

 
438,755

 
439,759

Amortization of above and below market leases, net
(2,659
)
 
(2,271
)
 
(1,326
)
Amortization of debt premiums, discounts, and financing costs
14,730

 
16,107

 
20,430

Straight-line rental income
(8,147
)
 
(11,010
)
 
(13,841
)
(Gain) loss on extinguishment of debt
1,470

 
(9,478
)
 
(10,848
)
Gain on sale of properties, net
(456,563
)
 
(40,691
)
 
(16,510
)
Provision for asset impairment
247,372

 
83,316

 
163,641

Equity in (income) loss of unconsolidated of entities
(11,958
)
 
(1,998
)
 
12,802

Distributions from unconsolidated entities
7,217

 
7,171

 
9,849

(Gain), loss and impairment of investment in unconsolidated entities, net
3,473

 
12,322

 
106,023

Realized (gain) loss on investments in securities
(32,591
)
 
(6,218
)
 
(8,137
)
Impairment of investments in securities
1,052

 
1,899

 
24,356

Other non-cash adjustments, net
(386
)
 
2,019

 
(18,649
)
Changes in assets and liabilities:
 
 
 
 
 
Accounts and rents receivable
(4,404
)
 
(603
)
 
(855
)
Deferred costs and other assets
348

 
(3,005
)
 
(12,138
)
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
40,579

 
33,205

 
7,492

Other liabilities
(4,753
)
 
350

 
5,446

Net cash flows provided by operating activities
422,813

 
456,221

 
397,949

Cash flows from investing activities:
 
 
 
 
 
Purchase of investment properties
(1,172,127
)
 
(447,909
)
 
(446,096
)
Acquired in-place and market-lease intangibles, net
(12,457
)
 
(15,838
)
 
(18,231
)
Acquired goodwill
(10,918
)
 
(23,735
)
 
—

Capital expenditures and tenant improvements
(66,640
)
 
(89,578
)
 
(71,157
)
Investment in development projects
(60,203
)
 
(109,441
)
 
(74,850
)
Proceeds from sale of investment properties
2,101,277

 
522,583

 
246,317

Purchase of investment securities
(3,686
)
 
(23,015
)
 
(79,147
)
Sale of investment securities
106,143

 
30,095

 
33,558

Investment in unconsolidated entities
—

 
—

 
(409
)
Consolidation of joint venture
2,705

 
—

 
—

Proceeds from the sale of and return of capital from unconsolidated entities
40,243

 
13,706

 
100,408

Distributions from unconsolidated entities
20,121

 
31,710

 
33,954

Contributions to unconsolidated entities
(5,225
)
 
—

 
—

Payment of leasing fees and franchise fees
(5,700
)
 
(11,341
)
 
(9,772
)
Payments from notes receivable
10,226

 
26

 
18,443


77
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(Dollar amounts in thousands)

Restricted escrows
$
(12,194
)
 
$
(4,735
)
 
$
(6,567
)
Other assets
(8,941
)
 
9,310

 
(13,347
)
Net cash flows provided by (used in) investing activities
922,624

 
(118,162
)
 
(286,896
)
Cash flows from financing activities:
 
 
 
 
 
Proceeds from the distribution reinvestment program
181,630

 
191,785

 
199,591

Shares repurchased
(40,006
)
 
(45,732
)
 
(15,000
)
Distributions paid
(449,253
)
 
(439,188
)
 
(428,650
)
Proceeds from mortgage debt and notes payable
1,187,646

 
709,280

 
1,179,594

Payoffs of mortgage debt
(1,978,075
)
 
(722,233
)
 
(804,204
)
Principal payments of mortgage debt
(48,931
)
 
(34,735
)
 
(36,036
)
Proceeds from (payoffs of) margin securities debt, net
(79,461
)
 
18,284

 
58,756

Payment of loan fees and deposits
(12,124
)
 
(7,501
)
 
(12,473
)
Distributions paid to noncontrolling interests
(16
)
 
(3,806
)
 
(660
)
Distributions paid to noncontrolling redeemable interests
—

 
—

 
(7,891
)
Contributions from noncontrolling interests
1,611

 
—

 
651

Redemption of noncontrolling interests
—

 
—

 
(294,275
)
   Payments for contingent consideration
(10,000
)
 
—

 
—

Disposal of noncontrolling interests
—

 
(1,597
)
 
—

Net cash flows used in financing activities
(1,246,979
)
 
(335,443
)
 
(160,597
)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
98,458

 
2,616

 
(49,544
)
Cash and cash equivalents, at beginning of year
220,779

 
218,163

 
267,707

Cash and cash equivalents, at end of year
$
319,237

 
$
220,779

 
$
218,163


See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.


78
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(Dollar amounts in thousands)


 
Year ended December 31, 2013
 
Year ended December 31, 2012
 
Year ended December 31, 2011
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
 
 
 
 
 
Purchase of investment properties
$
(1,208,370
)
 
$
(672,125
)
 
$
(448,169
)
Tenant and real estate tax liabilities assumed at acquisition
552

 
492

 
2,073

Assumption of mortgage debt at acquisition
35,963

 
232,017

 
—

Non-cash premium (discount) on assumption of mortgage debt at acquisition
702

 
(3,311
)
 
—

Assumption of lender held escrows
(974
)
 
(4,982
)
 
—

 
$
(1,172,127
)
 
$
(447,909
)
 
$
(446,096
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash paid for interest, net of capitalized interest of $7,607, $10,487, and $10,851 for 2013, 2012, and 2011
$
270,683

 
$
309,478

 
$
296,065

 
 
 
 
 
 
Supplemental schedule of non-cash investing and financing activities:
 
 
 
 
Property surrendered in exchange for extinguishment of debt
$
5,289

 
$
28,655

 
$
35,524

Property acquired through exchange of notes receivable
—

 
—

 
20,000

Conversion of note receivable to equity interest
—

 
—

 
17,150

Redemption value adjustment for noncontrolling redeemable interest
—

 
—

 
29,348

Property acquired through transfer of equity interest
—

 
—

 
8,500

Mortgage assumed by buyer upon disposal of property
7,683

 
60,659

 
—

Properties contributed to an unconsolidated entity, net of related payables
99,092

 
—

 
—

Consolidation of assets from joint venture
89,164

 
—

 
—

Assumption of mortgage debt at consolidation of joint venture
88,503

 
—

 
—

Liabilities assumed at consolidation of joint venture
5,616

 
—

 
—


See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.


79
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2013 and 2011


(1) Organization
Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) was formed on October 4, 2004 (inception) to acquire and manage a diversified portfolio of commercial real estate, primarily retail properties and multi-family (both conventional and student housing), office, industrial and lodging properties, located in the United States. The Company is executing on a long-term portfolio strategy to focus specifically on the retail, lodging, and student housing asset classes. The Business Management Agreement (the “Agreement”) provides for Inland American Business Manager & Advisor, Inc. (the “Business Manager”), an affiliate of the Company’s sponsor, to be the business manager to the Company. On August 31, 2005, the Company commenced an initial public offering (the “Initial Offering”) of up to 500,000,000 shares of common stock (“Shares”) at $10.00 each and the issuance of 40,000,000 shares at $9.50 per share available to be distributed pursuant to the Company’s distribution reinvestment plan. On August 1, 2007, the Company commenced a second public offering (the “Second Offering”) of up to 500,000,000 shares of common stock at $10.00 per share and up to 40,000,000 shares at $9.50 per share available to be distributed through the Company’s distribution reinvestment plan. Effective April 6, 2009, the Company elected to terminate the Second Offering. On March 31, 2009, the Company filed a registration statement to register 50,000,000 shares to be issued under the distribution reinvestment plan or “DRP.” Under the DRP, as amended, the purchase price per share is equal to 100% of the “market price” of a share of the Company’s common stock until the shares become listed for trading.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company, as well as all wholly owned subsidiaries and consolidated joint venture investments. Wholly owned subsidiaries generally consist of limited liability companies (LLCs) and limited partnerships (LPs). The effects of all significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated.
Each property is owned by a separate legal entity which maintains its own books and financial records and each entity's assets are not available to satisfy the liabilities of other affiliated entities, except as otherwise disclosed in Debt Note 10.
At December 31, 2013, the Company owned a portfolio of 277 commercial real estate properties, in which the operating activity is reflected in continuing operations on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income for the year ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. Additionally, at December 31, 2013, the Company classified 224 properties as held for sale, in which the operating activity is reflected in discontinued operations on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. Comparatively, at December 31, 2012, the Company owned 794 properties and there were no properties classified as held for sale.
The breakdown by segment of the 277 owned properties at December 31, 2013 is as follows:
Segment
Property Count
Square Ft /Rooms/ Beds
Retail
119
17,031,497

Square feet
Lodging
99
19,337

Rooms
Student Housing
14
8,290

Beds
Non-core
45
7,257,246

Square feet
(2) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
 
Revenue Recognition
The Company commences revenue recognition on its leases based on a number of factors. In most cases, revenue recognition under a lease begins when the lessee takes possession of or controls the physical use of the leased asset. Generally, this occurs on the lease commencement date. The determination of who is the owner, for accounting purposes, of the tenant improvements

80
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

determines the nature of the leased asset and when revenue recognition under a lease begins. If the Company is the owner, for accounting purposes, of the tenant improvements, then the leased asset is the finished space and revenue recognition begins when the lessee takes possession of the finished space, typically when the improvements are substantially complete. If the Company concludes it is not the owner, for accounting purposes, of the tenant improvements (the lessee is the owner), then the leased asset is the unimproved space and any tenant improvement allowances funded under the lease are treated as lease incentives which reduces revenue recognized over the term of the lease. In these circumstances, the Company begins revenue recognition when the lessee takes possession of the unimproved space for the lessee to construct their own improvements. The Company considers a number of different factors to evaluate whether it or the lessee is the owner of the tenant improvements for accounting purposes. These factors include:
•
whether the lease stipulates how and on what a tenant improvement allowance may be spent;
•
whether the tenant or landlord retains legal title to the improvements;
•
the uniqueness of the improvements;
•
the expected economic life of the tenant improvements relative to the length of the lease; and
•
who constructs or directs the construction of the improvements.
The determination of who owns the tenant improvements, for accounting purposes, is subject to significant judgment. In making that determination, the Company considers all of the above factors. No one factor, however, necessarily establishes its determination.
Rental income is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of each lease. The difference between rental income earned on a straight-line basis and the cash rent due under the provisions of the lease agreements is recorded as deferred rent receivable and is included as a component of accounts and rents receivable in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.
Revenue for lodging facilities is recognized when the services are provided. Additionally, the Company collects sales, use, occupancy and similar taxes at its lodging facilities which it presents on a net basis (excluded from revenues) on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income.
The Company records lease termination income if there is a signed termination agreement, all of the conditions of the agreement have been met, the tenant is no longer occupying the property and amounts due are considered collectible.
The Company defers recognition of contingent rental income (i.e. percentage/excess rent) until the specified target that triggers the contingent rental income is achieved.
Consolidation
The Company evaluates its investments in limited liability companies and partnerships to determine whether such entities may be a variable interest entity (“VIE”). If the entity is a VIE, the determination of whether the Company is the primary beneficiary must be made. The primary beneficiary determination is based on a qualitative assessment as to whether the entity has (i) power to direct significant activities of the VIE and (ii) an obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits that could be potentially significant to the VIE. The Company will consolidate a VIE if it is deemed to be the primary beneficiary, as defined in Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 810, Consolidation. The equity method of accounting is applied to entities in which the Company is not the primary beneficiary as defined in FASB ASC 810, or the entity is not a VIE and the Company does not have effective control, but can exercise influence over the entity with respect to its operations and major decisions.
Reclassifications
Certain reclassifications have been made to the 2012 and 2011 consolidated financial statements to conform to the 2013 presentations. The reclasses primarily represent reclassifications of revenue and expenses to discontinued operations as a result of the sales of investment properties and the reclassification of properties as held for sale in 2013.

81
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

Capitalization and Depreciation
Real estate is reflected at cost less accumulated depreciation. Ordinary repairs and maintenance are expensed as incurred.
Depreciation expense is computed using the straight line method. Building and other improvements are depreciated based upon estimated useful lives of 30 years for building and improvements and 5-15 years for furniture, fixtures and equipment and site improvements.
Tenant improvements are amortized on a straight line basis over the life of the related lease as a component of depreciation and amortization expense.
Leasing fees are amortized on a straight-line basis over the life of the related lease as a component of depreciation and amortization expense.
Loan fees are amortized on a straight-line basis, which approximates the effective interest method, over the life of the related loan as a component of interest expense.
Direct and indirect costs that are clearly related to the construction and improvements of investment properties are capitalized. Costs incurred for property taxes and insurance are capitalized during periods in which activities necessary to get the property ready for its intended use are in progress. Interest costs are also capitalized during such periods. Additionally, the Company treats investments accounted for by the equity method as assets qualifying for interest capitalization provided (1) the investee has activities in progress necessary to commence its planned principal operations and (2) the investee’s activities include the use of such funds to acquire qualifying assets.
Investment Properties Held for Sale
In determining whether to classify an investment property as held for sale, the Company considers whether: (i) management has committed to a plan to sell the investment property; (ii) the investment property is available for immediate sale, in its present condition; (iii) the Company has initiated a program to locate a buyer; (iv) the Company believes that the sale of the investment property is probable; (v) the Company has received a significant non-refundable deposit for the purchase of the property; (vi) the Company is actively marketing the investment property for sale at a price that is reasonable in relation to its fair value; and (vii) actions required for the Company to complete the plan indicate that it is unlikely that any significant changes will be made to the plan.
If all of the above criteria are met, the Company classifies the investment property as held for sale. On the day that these criteria are met, the Company suspends depreciation on the investment properties held for sale, including depreciation for tenant improvements and additions, as well as on the amortization of acquired in-place leases. The investment properties and liabilities associated with those investment properties that are held for sale are classified separately on the consolidated balance sheets for the most recent reporting period and recorded at the lesser of the carrying value or fair value less costs to sell. Additionally, the operations for the periods presented are classified on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income as discontinued operations for all periods presented. As of December 31, 2013, 224 investment properties were classified as held for sale. As of December 31, 2012, no investment properties were classified as held for sale.
Disposition of Real Estate
The Company accounts for dispositions in accordance with FASB ASC 360-20, Real Estate Sales. The Company recognizes gain in full when real estate is sold, provided (a) the profit is determinable, that is, the collectability of the sales price is reasonably assured or the amount that will not be collectible can be estimated, and (b) the earnings process is virtually complete, that is, the seller is not obliged to perform significant activities after the sale to earn the profit. The Company records the transaction as discontinued operations for all periods presented in accordance with FASB ASC 205-20, Presentation of Financial Statements - Discontinued Operations.
Impairment
The Company assesses the carrying values of the respective long-lived assets, whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts of these assets may not be fully recoverable, such as a reduction in the expected holding

82
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

period of the asset. If it is determined that the carrying value is not recoverable because the undiscounted cash flows do not exceed carrying value, the Company records an impairment loss to the extent that the carrying value exceeds fair value. The valuation and possible subsequent impairment of investment properties is a significant estimate that can and does change based on our continuous process of analyzing each property and reviewing assumptions about uncertain inherent factors, as well as the economic condition of the property at a particular point in time.
The use of projected future cash flows and related holding period is based on assumptions that are consistent with the estimates of future expectations and the strategic plan the Company uses to manage its underlying business. However assumptions and estimates about future cash flows and capitalization rates are complex and subjective. Changes in economic and operating conditions and the Company’s ultimate investment intent that occur subsequent to the impairment analyses could impact these assumptions and result in future impairment charges of the real estate properties.
On a periodic basis, management assesses whether there are any indicators that the carrying value of the Company’s investments in unconsolidated entities may be other than temporarily impaired. To the extent impairment has occurred, the loss is measured as the excess of the carrying value of the investment over the fair value of the investment. The fair value of the underlying investment includes a review of expected cash flows to be received from the investee.
Derivative Instruments
In the normal course of business, the Company is exposed to the effect of interest rate changes. The Company limits these risks by following established risk management policies and procedures including the use of derivatives to hedge interest rate risk on debt instruments.
The Company has a policy of only entering into contracts with established financial institutions based upon their credit ratings and other factors. When viewed in conjunction with the underlying and offsetting exposure that the derivatives are designed to hedge, the Company has not sustained a material loss from those instruments nor does it anticipate any material adverse effect on its net income or financial position in the future from the use of derivatives.
 
The Company recognizes all derivatives in the balance sheet at fair value. Additionally, the fair value adjustments will affect either equity or net income depending on whether the derivative instruments qualify as a hedge for accounting purposes and, if so, the nature of the hedging activity. When the terms of an underlying transaction are modified, or when the underlying transaction is terminated or completed, all changes in the fair value of the instrument are marked-to-market with changes in value included in net income each period until the instrument matures. Any derivative instrument used for risk management that does not meet the criteria for hedge accounting is marked-to-market each period in the income statement. The Company does not use derivatives for trading or speculative purposes.
Marketable Securities
The Company classifies its investment in securities in one of three categories: trading, available-for-sale, or held-to-maturity. Trading securities are bought and held principally for the purpose of selling them in the near term. Held-to-maturity securities are those securities in which the Company has the ability and intent to hold the security until maturity. All securities not included in trading or held-to-maturity are classified as available-for-sale. Investment in securities at December 31, 2013 and 2012 consists of common and preferred stock investments and investments in real estate related bonds that are all classified as available-for-sale securities and are recorded at fair value. Unrealized holding gains and losses on available-for-sale securities are excluded from earnings and reported as a separate component of other comprehensive income until realized. Realized gains and losses from the sale of available-for-sale securities are determined on a specific identification basis. A decline in the market value of any available-for-sale security below cost that is deemed to be other than temporary, results in a reduction in the carrying amount to fair value. The impairment is charged to earnings and a new cost basis for the security is established. When a security is impaired, the Company considers whether it has the ability and intent to hold the investment for a time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in market value and considers whether evidence indicating the cost of the investment is recoverable outweighs evidence to the contrary. Evidence considered in this assessment includes the reasons for the impairment, the severity and duration of the impairment, changes in value subsequent to period end and forecasted performance of the investee.

83
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

Acquisition of Real Estate
The Company allocates the purchase price of each acquired business (as defined in the accounting guidance related to business combinations, Accounting Standards Codification 805 - Business Combinations) between tangible and intangible assets at full fair value at the date of the transaction. Such tangible and intangible assets include land, building and improvements, acquired above market and below market leases, in-place lease value, customer relationships (if any), and any assumed financing that is determined to be above or below market terms. Any additional amounts are allocated to goodwill as required, based on the remaining purchase price in excess of the fair value of the tangible and intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed. The allocation of the purchase price is an area that requires judgment and significant estimates.
The Company engages a third party to assist in the allocation of the purchase price to land, building, and other assets as stated above. The Company determines whether any financing assumed is above or below market based upon comparison to similar financing terms for similar investment properties. The Company allocates a portion of the purchase price to the estimated acquired in-place lease costs based on estimated lease execution costs for similar leases as well as lost rent payments during assumed lease up period when calculating as if vacant fair values. The Company also evaluates each acquired lease based upon current market rates at the acquisition date and considers various factors including geographical location, size and location of leased space within the investment property, tenant profile, and the credit risk of the tenant in determining whether the acquired lease is above or below market lease costs. After an acquired lease is determined to be above or below market, the Company allocates a portion of the purchase price to such above or below acquired lease costs based upon the present value of the difference between the contractual lease rate and the estimated market rate. For below market leases with fixed rate renewals, renewal periods are included in the calculation of below market in-place lease values. The determination of the discount rate used in the present value calculation is based upon the “risk free rate” and current interest rates. This discount rate is a significant factor in determining the market valuation which requires judgment of subjective factors such as market knowledge, economics, demographics, location, visibility, age and physical condition of the property.
The Company expenses acquisition costs of all transactions as incurred. All costs related to finding, analyzing and negotiating a transaction are expensed as incurred as a general and administrative expense, whether or not the acquisition is completed.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
The Company considers all demand deposits, money market accounts and investments in certificates of deposit and repurchase agreements purchased with a maturity of three months or less, at the date of purchase, to be cash equivalents. The Company maintains its cash and cash equivalents at financial institutions. The combined account balances at one or more institutions periodically exceed the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) insurance coverage and, as a result, there is a concentration of credit risk related to amounts on deposit in excess of FDIC insurance coverage. The Company believes that the risk is not significant, as the Company does not anticipate the financial institutions’ non-performance.
Restricted Cash and Escrows
Restricted escrows primarily consist of cash held in escrow comprised of lenders’ restricted escrows of $41,112 and $36,278, post acquisition escrows of $6,463 and $12,435, and lodging furniture, fixtures and equipment reserves of $74,667 and $50,041 as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the restricted cash balance was $15,738 and $5,273, respectively.
Goodwill
The excess of the cost of an acquired entity over the net of the amounts assigned to assets acquired (including identified intangible assets) and liabilities assumed was recorded as goodwill. Goodwill has been recognized and allocated to specific properties in our lodging segment since each individual hotel property is an operating segment and considered a reporting unit. The Company tests goodwill for impairment annually or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate impairment.
In accordance with FASB ASC 350, Intangibles - Goodwill and Other, the Company tested goodwill for impairment by making a qualitative assessment of whether it is more likely than not the reporting unit's fair value is less than its carrying amount before application of the two-step goodwill impairment test. The two-step goodwill test was not performed for those assets

84
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

where it was concluded that it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. For those reporting units where this was not the case, the two step procedure detailed below was followed in order to determine goodwill impairment.
In the first step, the Company compared the estimated fair value of each property with goodwill to the carrying value of the property’s assets, including goodwill. The fair value is based on estimated future cash flow projections that utilize discount and capitalization rates, which are generally unobservable in the market place (Level 3 inputs), but approximate the inputs the Company believes would be utilized by market participants in assessing fair value. The estimates of future cash flows are based on a number of factors including the historical operating results, known trends, and market/economic conditions. If the carrying amount of the property’s assets, including goodwill, exceeds its estimated fair value, the second step of the goodwill impairment test is performed to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any. In this second step, if the implied fair value of goodwill is less than the carrying amount of goodwill, an impairment charge is recorded in an amount equal to that excess. The Company tested goodwill for impairment as of December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 resulting in no impairment recorded as of December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011.
Income Taxes
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the estimated future tax consequences attributed to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax basis. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled.


85
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

(3) Acquired Properties
The Company records identifiable assets, liabilities, and goodwill acquired in a business combination at fair value. The Company acquired 21 properties, including 4 retail, 14 lodging, and 3 student housing properties for the year ended December 31, 2013 and 13 properties, including 4 retail, 7 lodging, and 2 student housing properties, for the year ended December 31, 2012, for a gross acquisition price of $1,216,600 and $726,550, respectively. The table below reflects acquisition activity for the year ended December 31, 2013.
 
Segment
Property
Date
Gross Acquisition Price
Square Feet / Rooms
(unaudited)
Retail
Westport Village
2/22/2013
$33,550
169,603

Square Feet
Retail
South Frisco Village Shopping Center
5/9/2013
34,350

227,175

Square Feet
Retail
Walden Park Shopping Center
8/7/2013
9,300

33,637

Square Feet
Retail
West Creek Shopping Center
9/26/2013
15,100

53,338

Square Feet
Retail, subtotal
 
 
$92,300
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lodging
Bohemian Hotel Celebration
2/7/2013
$17,500
115

Rooms
Lodging
Andaz San Diego Hotel
3/4/2013
53,000

159

Rooms
Lodging
Residence Inn Denver Center
4/17/2013
80,000

228

Rooms
Lodging
Westin Galleria Houston
8/22/2013
120,000

487

Rooms
Lodging
Westin Oaks Houston
8/22/2013
100,000

406

Rooms
Lodging
Andaz Savannah
9/10/2013
43,000

151

Rooms
Lodging
Andaz Napa Valley
9/20/2013
72,000

141

Rooms
Lodging
Hyatt Regency Santa Clara
9/20/2013
93,000

501

Rooms
Lodging
Loews New Orleans Hotel
10/11/2013
74,500

285

Rooms
Lodging
Lorien Hotel & Spa
10/24/2013
45,250

107

Rooms
Lodging
Hotel Monaco Chicago
11/1/2013
56,000

191

Rooms
Lodging
Hotel Monaco Denver
11/1/2013
75,000

189

Rooms
Lodging
Hotel Monaco Salt Lake City
11/1/2013
58,000

225

Rooms
Lodging
Hyatt Key West
11/15/2013
76,000

118

Rooms
Lodging, subtotal
 
 
$963,250
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Student Housing
University House at TCU
3/7/2013
$15,850
118

Beds
Student Housing
University House Fayetteville
7/19/2013
42,200

654

Beds
Student Housing
University House Tempe
8/13/2013
103,000

637

Beds
Student Housing, subtotal
 
$161,050
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total
 
 
$1,216,600
 
 
Additionally, during the second quarter 2013, the Company fully placed in service from construction in progress one student housing property, University House Fullerton (1,189 beds) and one non-core property, Cityville Cityplace (Haskell) (356 units), for $130,147 and $65,857, respectively. Subsequently, Cityville Cityplace (Haskell) was sold in the fourth quarter 2013.
For properties acquired during the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded revenue of $108,789 and net operating income of $34,053, not including related expensed acquisition costs in 2013. For properties acquired during the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company recorded revenue of $119,436 and net operating income of $19,207, not including related expensed acquisition costs in 2012. During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Company incurred $2,987, $1,644 and $1,680, respectively, of acquisition and transaction costs that were recorded in general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income.

86
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

(4) Discontinued Operations
The Company sold 313 properties and surrendered one retail property to the lender (in satisfaction of non-recourse debt) for the year ended December 31, 2013 and sold 166 properties and surrendered one lodging property and 19 non-core properties (cross-collateralized by one loan) to the lender (in satisfaction of non-recourse debt) for the year ended December 31, 2012 for a gross disposition price of $2,039,060 and $603,500, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2011 the Company surrendered three properties to the lender and sold 26 properties for a gross disposition price of $242,300. The table below reflects disposition activity for the year ended December 31, 2013.
 
Segment
Property
Date
Gross Disposition Price
Sq Ft/Units/Rooms
(unaudited)
Non-core
Citizens Banks - 8 Properties
Q1 2013
$6,600
23,428

Square Feet
Non-core
Nantucket Apartments
3/13/2013
46,100

394

Units
Non-core
SunTrust - 27 Properties
3/22/2013
50,800

146,851

Square Feet
Non-core
IDS Center
4/25/2013
253,500

1,462,374

Square Feet
Non-core
Medical Office Building- 3 Properties
5/2/2013
36,400

181,703

Square Feet
Non-core
Citizens Banks - 5 Properties
Q2 2013
7,900

27,182

Square Feet
Non-core
SunTrust - 176 Properties
Q2 2013
307,700

883,279

Square Feet
Non-core
Citizens Bank - 1 property
7/23/2013
1,400

4,810

Square Feet
Non-core
Kato/Milmont
8/23/2013
6,900

125,818

Square Feet
Non-core
Logan's Roadhouse
9/6/2013
2,600

7,995

Square Feet
Non-core
SunTrust - 7 properties
Q3 2013
13,700

28,579

Square Feet
Non-core
Triple net portfolio - 56 properties
Q3 2013
602,500

5,435,508

Square Feet
Non-core
Apartment portfolio - 14 properties
Q3 2013
460,000

4,378

Units
Non-core
United Healthcare Green Bay
10/7/2013
67,160

400,000

Square Feet
Non-core
MCP I, II & III
12/6/2013
42,300

336,183

Square Feet
Non-core
Cityville Cityplace (Haskell)
12/20/2013
76,250

356

Units
Non-core
Citizens (CFG) Mellon Bank Bldg.
12/31/2013
3,250

14,567

Square Feet
Non-core, subtotal
 
$1,985,060
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Retail
Middleburg Crossing
12/20/2013
$8,750
74,717

Square Feet
Retail
95th & Cicero
12/27/2013
14,000

76,479

Square Feet
Retail
Stone Creek Crossing
12/31/2013
11,450

62,476

Square Feet
Retail, subtotal
 
 
$34,200
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lodging
Baymont Inn - Jacksonville
2/6/2013
$3,500
118

Rooms
Lodging
Homewood Suites - Durham
3/21/2013
8,300

96

Rooms
Lodging
Fairfield Inn-Ann Arbor
8/15/2013
8,000

109

Rooms
Lodging, subtotal
 
$19,800
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total
 
 
$2,039,060
 
 
The Company classified 224 properties as held for sale as of December 31, 2013, and the operations are reflected in discontinued operations on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income for the year ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. As of December 31, 2012, there were no properties classified as held for sale.
The Company has presented separately as discontinued operations in all periods the results of operations for all disposed and held for sale assets in consolidated operations. The components of the Company’s discontinued operations are presented below

87
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

and include the results of operations for the respective periods that the Company owned such assets or was involved with the operations of such ventures during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011.
 
 
Year ended
December 31, 2013
 
Year ended
December 31, 2012
 
Year ended
December 31, 2011
Revenues
$
227,213

 
$
388,651

 
$
443,188

Depreciation and amortization expense
69,336

 
127,002

 
128,186

Other expenses
45,177

 
109,105

 
142,987

Provision for asset impairment
4,476

 
45,485

 
139,590

Operating income from discontinued operations
108,224

 
107,059

 
32,425

Interest expense and other
(72,912
)
 
(111,168
)
 
(101,532
)
Gain on sale of properties, net
442,577

 
39,236

 
11,457

Gain (loss) on extinguishment of debt
(18,285
)
 
9,478

 
10,848

Gain (loss) on transfer of assets
$
(16
)
 
$
2,175

 
$
4,546

Net income (loss) from discontinued operations
$
459,588

 
$
46,780

 
$
(42,256
)

For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Company had proceeds from the sale of investment properties of $1,999,524, $545,132, and $246,317, respectively.
(5) Investment in Partially Owned Entities
Consolidated Entities
On October 11, 2005, the Company entered into a joint venture with Minto (Delaware), LLC, or Minto Delaware who owned all of the outstanding equity of Minto Builders (Florida), Inc. (“MB REIT”) prior to October 11, 2005. Pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement, the Company purchased 920,000 shares of common stock of MB REIT at a price of $1,276 per share for a total investment of approximately $1,172,000 in MB REIT. MB REIT was not considered a VIE as defined in FASB ASC 810, Consolidation, however the Company had a controlling financial interest in MB REIT, had the direct ability to make major decisions for MB REIT through its voting interests, and held key management positions in MB REIT. Therefore this entity was consolidated by the Company and the outside ownership interests were reflected as noncontrolling redeemable interests in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. On October 4, 2011, the Company bought out the common and preferred stock of the consolidated MB REIT joint venture for $293,480. No gain or loss was recorded due to this transaction because there was no change in control.
 
The Company has ownership interests of 67% in various limited liability companies which own nine shopping centers. These nine shopping centers are considered held for sale as of December 31, 2013. The assets and liabilities associated with these nine shopping centers are classified separately as held for sale on the consolidated balance sheets for the most recent reporting period. The operations for the periods presented are classified on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income as discontinued operations for all periods presented. These entities are considered VIEs as defined in FASB ASC 810, and the Company is considered the primary beneficiary of each of these entities. Therefore, these entities are consolidated by the Company. The entities' agreements contain put/call provisions which grant the right to the outside owners and the Company to require these entities to redeem the ownership interests of the outside owners during future periods. Because the outside ownership interests are subject to a put/call arrangement requiring settlement for a fixed amount, these entities are treated as 100% owned subsidiaries by the Company with the amount of $47,762 as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 due to the outside owners reflected as a financing and included within held for sale other liabilities, in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Interest expense is recorded on these liabilities in an amount generally equal to the preferred return due to the outside owners as provided in the entities agreements.

During the fourth quarter 2013, the Company entered into two joint ventures to each develop a lodging property. The Company has ownership interests of 75% in each joint venture. These entities are considered VIEs as defined in FASB ASC 810. The Company determined that it has the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the VIE’s economic

88
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

performance, as well as the obligation to absorb losses of the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE. As such, the Company has a controlling financial interest and is considered the primary beneficiary of each of these entities. Therefore, these entities are consolidated by the Company.
For these VIEs where the Company is the primary beneficiary, the following are the liabilities of the consolidated VIEs, which are not recourse to the Company, and the assets that can be used only to settle those obligations.
 
December 31, 2013
 
December 31, 2012
Net investment properties
$
123,121

 
$
113,476

Other assets
8,766

 
8,687

Total assets
$
131,887

 
$
122,163

Mortgages, notes and margins payable
$
(77,873
)
 
$
(84,291
)
Other liabilities
(49,904
)
 
(49,648
)
Total liabilities
$
(127,777
)
 
$
(133,939
)
Net assets
$
4,110

 
$
(11,776
)
Unconsolidated Entities
The entities listed below are owned by the Company and other unaffiliated parties in joint ventures. Net income, distributions and capital transactions for these properties are allocated to the Company and its joint venture partners in accordance with the respective partnership agreements. These entities are not consolidated by the Company and the equity method of accounting is used to account for these investments. Under the equity method of accounting, the net equity investment of the Company and the Company’s share of net income or loss from the unconsolidated entity are reflected in the consolidated balance sheets and the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income.
 
Entity
Description
Ownership %
 
Investment at
Dec. 31, 2013
 
Investment at
Dec. 31, 2012
Cobalt Industrial REIT II (a)
Industrial portfolio
36%
 
$
83,306

 
$
102,599

D.R. Stephens Institutional Fund, LLC (b)
Industrial assets
90%
 
—

 
34,541

Brixmor/IA JV, LLC (c)
Retail shopping centers
(c)
 
77,551

 
90,315

IAGM Retail Fund I, LLC (d)
Retail shopping centers
55%
 
90,509

 
—

Other unconsolidated entities (e)
Various real estate investments
Various
 
12,552

 
26,344

 
 
 
 
$
263,918

 
$
253,799

 

(a)
On June 29, 2007, the Company entered into a joint venture, Cobalt Industrial REIT II (“Cobalt”), to invest $149,000 in shares of common beneficial interest. The Company analyzed the venture and determined that it was not a VIE. The Company also considered its participating rights under the joint venture agreement and determined that such participating rights also require the agreement of Cobalt, which equates to shared decision making ability, and therefore do not give the Company control over the venture. As such, the Company has significant influence but does not control Cobalt. Therefore, the Company does not consolidate this entity, rather the Company accounts for its investment in the entity under the equity method of accounting.

(b)
On April 23, 2007, the Company entered into a joint venture, D.R. Stephens Institutional Fund, LLC, between the Company and Stephens Ventures III, LLC (“Stephens Member”) for the purpose of acquiring entities engaged in the acquisition, ownership, and development of real property. The Company’s initial capital contribution was limited to approximately $90,000 and the Stephens Member’s initial contribution was limited to approximately $10,000. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded an other than temporary impairment of $5,528 for this joint

89
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

venture. On December 31, 2013, the Company entered into a definitive agreement and purchased Stephens Member's interest in D.R. Stephens Institutional Fund, LLC, which resulted in the Company obtaining control of the venture. Therefore, as of December 31, 2013, the Company consolidated this entity, recorded the assets and liabilities of the joint venture at fair value, and recorded a loss of $4,411 on the purchase of the investment.

(c)
On December 6, 2010, the Company entered into a Joint Venture with Brixmor Residual Holding LLC (“Brixmor”) (formerly Centro NP Residual Holding LLC), resulting in the creation of Brixmor/IA JV, LLC (formerly Centro/IA JV, LLC). The joint venture structure provides the Company with an equity stake of $121,534, a preferred capital position and preferred return of 11%. The Company analyzed the venture and determined that it was not a VIE. The Company also considered its participating rights under the joint venture agreement and determined that such participating rights also require the agreement of Brixmor, which equates to shared decision making ability, and therefore do not give the Company control over the venture. As such, the Company has significant influence but does not control Brixmor/IA JV, LLC. Therefore, the Company does not consolidate this entity, rather the Company accounts for its investment in the entity under the equity method of accounting.

(d)
On April 17, 2013, the Company entered into a joint venture, IAGM Retail Fund I, LLC ("IAGM"), with PGGM Private Real Estate Fund ("PGGM"), for the purpose of acquiring, owning, managing, supervising, and disposing of properties and sharing in the profits and losses from those properties and its activities. The Company initially contributed 13 multi-tenant retail properties totaling 2,109,324 square feet from its portfolio to IAGM for an equity interest of $96,788, and PGGM contributed $79,190. The gross disposition price was $409,280. On July 1, 2013, the Company contributed another multi-tenant retail property, South Frisco Village, for a gross disposition price of $34,350. The Company treated these dispositions as a partial sale, and the activity related to the disposed properties remains in continuing operations on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income, since the Company has an equity interest in IAGM, and therefore the Company has continued ownership interest in the properties. The Company recognized a gain on sale of $12,783 for the year ended December 31, 2013, which is included in other income on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income, and recorded an equity investment basis adjustment of $15,625. The Company amortizes the basis adjustment over 30 years consistent with the depreciation of the investee's underlying assets.
The Company is the managing member of IAGM, responsible for the day-to-day activities and earns fees for venture management, leasing and other services provided to IAGM. An affiliate of the Company is responsible for and earns fees for property management. The Company analyzed the joint venture agreement and determined that it was not a variable interest entity. The Company also considered PGGM's participating rights under the joint venture agreement and determined that PGGM has the ability to participate in major decisions, which equates to shared decision making ability. As such, the Company has significant influence but does not control IAGM. Therefore, this joint venture is unconsolidated and accounted for using the equity method of accounting.

(e)
On July 7, 2011, a foreclosure sale was held on a hotel property which previously secured one of the Company’s notes receivable. The note had been in default and fully impaired since 2009. A trust, on behalf of the lender group, was the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale and thereby, the Company obtained an equity interest in the trust which is the 100% owner of the hotel property. The Company’s interest is not consolidated and the equity method is used to account for the investment. The Company recorded its equity interest at fair value and recognized a gain of $17,150 in 2011 on the conversion of the note reflected in other income on the consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income. On August 9, 2013, the hotel property was sold and during the fourth quarter 2013, the Company received its proceeds from the sale and recognized a gain of $6,983 Additionally, as of December 31, 2013, the Company recorded an impairment of $1,003 on a lodging joint venture and a gain of $487 on the sale of three lodging joint ventures. Gains and impairments of unconsolidated joint ventures are included in gain, loss and impairment of investment in unconsolidated entities, net, on the consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income.
 
In total, the Company recorded an impairment of $6,532, $9,365 and $113,621 related to two, three and one of its unconsolidated entities for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

90
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

Combined Financial Information
The following table presents the combined financial information for the Company’s investment in unconsolidated entities.
 
Balance Sheet:
Balance as of December 31, 2013
 
Balance as of December 31, 2012
Assets:
 
 
 
Real estate assets, net of accumulated depreciation
$
1,558,312

 
$
1,437,268

Other assets
272,810

 
222,096

Total Assets
$
1,831,122

 
$
1,659,364

Liabilities and Equity:
 
 
 
Mortgage debt
$
1,135,630

 
$
1,062,086

Other liabilities
96,217

 
89,573

Equity
599,275

 
507,705

Total Liabilities and Equity
$
1,831,122

 
$
1,659,364

Company’s share of equity
$
278,745

 
$
252,994

Net excess (deficiency) of cost of investments over (under) the net book value of underlying net assets (net of accumulated depreciation of $783 and $1,714, respectively)
(14,827
)
 
805

Carrying value of investments in unconsolidated entities
$
263,918

 
$
253,799



 
 
For the years ended
Statement of Operations:
December 31,
2013
 
December 31,
2012
 
December 31,
2011
Revenues
$
214,582

 
$
202,155

 
$
283,913

Expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
Interest expense and loan cost amortization
52,349

 
63,233

 
91,965

Depreciation and amortization
70,024

 
83,324

 
111,699

Operating expenses, ground rent and general and administrative expenses
74,510

 
76,149

 
159,539

Impairments
—

 
553

 
21,017

Total expenses
196,883

 
223,259

 
384,220

Net income (loss) before gain on sale of real estate
$
17,699

 
$
(21,104
)
 
$
(100,307
)
Gain on sale of real estate
8,128

 
9,484

 
9,219

Net income (loss)
$
25,827

 
$
(11,620
)
 
$
(91,088
)
Company’s share of:
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss), net of excess basis depreciation of $529, $342, and $5
$
11,958

 
$
1,998

 
$
(12,802
)

91
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

The unconsolidated entities had total third party mortgage debt of $1,135,630 at December 31, 2013 that matures as follows:
Year
Amount
2014
$
74,536

2015
28,478

2016
—

2017
161,580

2018
204,028

Thereafter
667,008

 
$
1,135,630

Of the total outstanding debt, approximately $23,000 is recourse to the Company. It is anticipated that the joint ventures will be able to repay or refinance all of their debt on a timely basis.
(6) Transactions with Related Parties
The following table summarizes the Company’s related party transactions for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011.
 
For the years ended
 
Unpaid amounts as of
 
December 31,
2013
 
December 31,
2012
 
December 31,
2011
 
December 31,
2013
 
December 31,
2012
General and administrative:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
General and administrative reimbursement (a)
$
15,751

 
$
12,189

 
$
9,404

 
$
4,834

 
$
4,017

Loan servicing (b)
—

 
147

 
586

 
—

 
—

Investment advisor fee (c)
1,667

 
1,768

 
1,564

 
115

 
150

Total general and administrative to related parties
$
17,418

 
$
14,104

 
$
11,554

 
$
4,949

 
$
4,167

Property management fees (d)
$
21,818

 
$
27,406

 
$
31,437

 
$
67

 
$
75

Business manager fee (e)
37,962

 
39,892

 
40,000

 
8,836

 
9,910

Loan placement fees (f)
519

 
1,241

 
1,260

 
—

 
—

 
(a)
The Business Manager and its related parties are entitled to reimbursement for general and administrative expenses of the Business Manager and its related parties relating to the Company’s administration. Unpaid amounts as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 are included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on the consolidated balance sheets.
(b)
A related party of the Business Manager provided loan servicing to the Company.
(c)
The Company pays a related party of the Business Manager to purchase and monitor its investment in marketable securities.
(d)
The property managers, entities owned principally by individuals who were related parties of the Business Manager, are entitled to receive property management fees up to a certain percentage of gross operating income (as defined). For the year ended December 31, 2013, the management fees by property type are as follows: (i) for any bank branch facility (office or retail), 2.50% of the gross income generated by the property; (ii) for any multi-tenant industrial property, 4.00% of the gross income generated by the property; (iii) for any multi-family property, 3.75% of the gross income generated by the property; (iv) for any multi-tenant office property, 3.75% of the gross income generated by the property; (v) for any multi-tenant retail property, 4.50% of the gross income generated by the property; (vi) for any single-tenant industrial property, 2.25% of the gross income generated by the property; (vii) for any single-tenant office property, 2.90% of the gross income generated by the property; and (viii) for any single-tenant retail property, 2.90% of the gross income generated by the property.

92
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

In addition to these fees, the property managers receive reimbursements of payroll costs for property level employees. The Company reimbursed the property managers and other affiliates $11,019, $14,055 and $15,752 for the year ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Unpaid amounts as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 are included in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.
(e)
After the Company’s stockholders have received a non-cumulative, non-compounded return of 5.00% per annum on their “invested capital,” the Company pays its Business Manager an annual business management fee of up to 1.00% of the “average invested assets,” payable quarterly in an amount equal to 0.25% of the average invested assets as of the last day of the immediately preceding quarter. For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, average invested assets were $10,742,053, $11,470,745 and $11,515,550. The Company incurred a business management fee of $37,962, $39,892, and $40,000, which is equal to 0.37%, 0.35%, and 0.35% of average invested assets for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Pursuant to the letter agreement dated May 4, 2012, the business management fee shall be reduced in each particular quarter for investigation costs exclusive of legal fees incurred in conjunction with the SEC matter. During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company incurred $2,038 and $108 of investigation costs, resulting in a business management fee expense of $37,962 and $39,892 for the year ended December 31, 2013. In addition, effective July 30, 2013, the Company extended the agreement with the Business Manager through July 30, 2014 and provides that the Company may terminate the Business Manager agreement without cause or penalty upon 30 days' written notice to the Business Manager. Pursuant to the March 12, 2014 self-management transactions, both the Business Manager agreement and the May 4, 2012 letter agreement by the Business Manager have been terminated. Further information on the self-management transactions is included in Subsequent Events Note 17.
(f)
The Company pays a related party of the Business Manager 0.2% of the principal amount of each loan placed for the Company. Such costs are capitalized as loan fees and amortized over the respective loan term.
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company had deposited $376 and $375, respectively, in Inland Bank and Trust, a subsidiary of Inland Bancorp, Inc., an affiliate of The Inland Real Estate Group, Inc.
The Company is party to an agreement with an LLC formed as an insurance association captive (the “Captive”), which is wholly-owned by the Company and three related parties, Inland Real Estate Corporation (“IRC”), Inland Diversified Real Estate Trust, Inc., Inland Real Estate Income Trust, Inc., and a third party, Retail Properties of America ("RPAI"). The Company paid insurance premiums of $12,399, $12,217 and $9,627 for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company held 899,820 shares of IRC valued at $9,466 and $7,540, respectively.
(7) Investment in Marketable Securities
Investment in marketable securities of $242,819 and $327,655 at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, consists primarily of preferred and common stock investments in other REITs and certain real estate related bonds which are classified as available-for-sale securities and recorded at fair value. The cost basis net of impairments of available-for-sale securities was $171,450 and $242,370 at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
Unrealized holding gains and losses on available-for-sale securities are excluded from earnings and reported as a separate component of comprehensive income until realized. The Company has net accumulated other comprehensive income related to its marketable securities portfolio of $71,369, $85,285 and $44,234, which includes gross unrealized losses of $3,189, $2,014 and $9,990 as of December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Securities with gross unrealized losses have a related fair value of $23,394 as of December 31, 2013.
The Company’s policy for assessing recoverability of its available-for-sale securities is to record a charge against net earnings when the Company determines that a decline in the fair value of a security drops below the cost basis and believes that decline to be other-than-temporary. Factors in the assessment of other-than-temporary impairment include determining whether (1) the Company has the ability and intent to hold the security until it recovers, and (2) the length of time and degree to which the security’s price has declined. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded impairment of $1,052 compared to an impairment of $1,899 and $24,356 for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 for other-than-temporary

93
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

declines on certain available-for-sale securities, which is included as a component of realized gain (loss) and (impairment) on securities, net on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income.
Dividend income is recognized when earned. During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, dividend income of $16,926, $20,757 and $18,586 was recognized and is included in interest and dividend income on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income.
(8) Leases
Operating Leases
Minimum lease payments to be received under operating leases, excluding student housing and lodging properties and assuming no expiring leases are renewed, are as follows:
 
Minimum Lease Payments
2014
$
292,558

2015
266,289

2016
222,988

2017
172,661

2018
132,795

2019
96,777

2020
69,445

2021
57,242

2022
43,559

2023
36,354

Thereafter
175,269

Total
$
1,565,937

The remaining lease terms range from one year to eighty-one years. The majority of the revenue from the Company’s properties consists of rents received under long-term operating leases. Some leases provide for the payment of fixed base rent paid monthly in advance, and for the reimbursement by tenants to the Company for the tenant’s pro rata share of certain operating expenses including real estate taxes, special assessments, insurance, utilities, common area maintenance, management fees, and certain building repairs paid by the landlord and recoverable under the terms of the lease. Under these leases, the landlord pays all expenses and is reimbursed by the tenant for the tenant’s pro rata share of recoverable expenses paid. Certain other tenants are subject to net leases which provide that the tenant is responsible for fixed base rent as well as all costs and expenses associated with occupancy. Under net leases where all expenses are paid directly by the tenant rather than the landlord, such expenses are not included in the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income. Under leases where all expenses are paid by the landlord, subject to reimbursement by the tenant, the expenses are included within property operating expenses and reimbursements are included in tenant recovery income on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income.

94
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

(9) Intangible Assets and Goodwill
The following table summarizes the Company’s identified intangible assets, intangible liabilities and goodwill as of December 31, 2013 and 2012.
 
Balance as of
December 31, 2013
 
Balance as of
December 31, 2012
Intangible assets:
 
 
 
Acquired in-place lease
$
305,143

 
$
573,711

Acquired above market lease
37,558

 
41,276

Acquired below market ground lease
13,336

 
10,536

Advance bookings
13,666

 
8,410

Accumulated amortization
(234,818
)
 
(366,301
)
Net intangible assets
134,885

 
267,632

Goodwill, net
42,113

 
31,196

Total intangible assets, net
$
176,998

 
$
298,828

Intangible liabilities:

 
 
Acquired below market lease
$
79,691

 
$
101,430

Acquired above market ground lease
5,839

 
5,839

Accumulated amortization
(26,433
)
 
(26,500
)
Net intangible liabilities
$
59,097

 
$
80,769

The portion of the purchase price allocated to acquired above market lease costs and acquired below market lease costs are amortized on a straight line basis over the life of the related lease, including the respective renewal period for below market lease costs with fixed rate renewals, as an adjustment to rental income. Amortization pertaining to the above market lease costs was applied as a reduction to rental income. Amortization pertaining to the below market lease costs was applied as an increase to rental income. The portion of the purchase price allocated to acquired in-place lease intangibles is amortized on a straight line basis over the life of the related lease.
The following table summarized the amortization related to acquired above and below market lease costs and acquired in-place lease intangibles for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011.
 
For the years ended
 
December 31,
2013
 
December 31,
2012
 
December 31,
2011
Amortization of:
 
 
 
 
 
Acquired above market lease costs
$
(3,098
)
 
$
(3,828
)
 
$
(4,393
)
Acquired below market lease costs
5,493

 
5,800

 
5,781

Net rental income increase
$
2,395

 
$
1,972

 
$
1,388

Acquired in-place lease intangibles
$
33,215

 
$
34,340

 
$
43,386



95
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

The following table presents the amortization during the next five years and thereafter related to intangible assets and liabilities at December 31, 2013. 
 
2014
 
2015
 
2016
 
2017
 
2018
 
Thereafter
 
Total
Amortization of:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acquired above market lease costs
$
(5,767
)
 
$
(5,342
)
 
$
(5,135
)
 
$
(1,530
)
 
$
(1,183
)
 
$
(1,456
)
 
$
(20,413
)
Acquired below market lease costs
4,329

 
4,186

 
4,028

 
3,873

 
3,740

 
34,182

 
54,338

Net rental income increase (decrease)
$
(1,438
)

$
(1,156
)

$
(1,107
)

$
2,343


$
2,557


$
32,726


$
33,925

Acquired in-place lease intangibles
$
28,077

 
$
22,199

 
$
18,108

 
$
9,581

 
$
6,666

 
$
13,530

 
$
98,161

Advance bookings
4,380

 
3,243

 
1,979

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
9,602

Acquired below market ground lease
(206
)
 
(206
)
 
(206
)
 
(206
)
 
(206
)
 
(5,679
)
 
(6,709
)
Acquired above market ground lease
140

 
140

 
140

 
140

 
140

 
4,059

 
4,759

(10) Debt
During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, the following debt transactions occurred:
Balance at December 31, 2011
$
5,902,712

New financings
867,651

Paydown of debt
(409,067
)
Assumed financings, net of discount
228,706

Extinguishment of debt
(590,344
)
Amortization of discount/premium
6,488

Balance at December 31, 2012
$
6,006,146

New financings
1,317,821

Paydown of debt
(797,610
)
Assumed financings, net of discount
127,590

Extinguishment of debt
(1,680,015
)
Amortization of discount/premium
5,929

Debt classified as held for sale
(826,762
)
Balance at December 31, 2013
$
4,153,099


Mortgages Payable
Mortgage loans outstanding as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 were $4,737,459 and $5,894,443 and had a weighted average interest rate of 5.09% and 5.10% per annum, respectively. Of these mortgage loans outstanding at December 31, 2013, approximately $826,762 related to properties held for sale. Mortgage premium and discount, net was a discount of $17,459 and $27,439 as of December 31, 2013 and 2012. As of December 31, 2013, scheduled maturities for the Company’s outstanding mortgage indebtedness had various due dates through December 2041, as follows:

96
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

 
 
As of
December 31, 2013
 
Weighted average
interest rate
2014
 
$
418,491

 
3.94%
2015
 
544,439

 
4.38%
2016
 
776,658

 
5.41%
2017
 
1,177,451

 
5.78%
2018
 
667,261

 
5.11%
Thereafter
 
1,153,159

 
4.90%
Total
 
$
4,737,459

 
 
The Company is negotiating refinancing debt maturing in 2014 with various lenders at terms that will allow us to pay lower interest rates. It is anticipated that the Company will be able to repay, refinance or extend the maturities and the Company believes it has adequate sources of funds to meet short term cash needs related to these refinancings. Of the total outstanding debt, approximately $261,130 is recourse to the Company.
Some of the mortgage loans require compliance with certain covenants, such as debt service ratios, investment restrictions and distribution limitations. As of December 31, 2013, the Company was in compliance with all mortgage loan requirements except six loans with a carrying value of $116,910; none of which are cross collateralized with any other mortgage loans or recourse to the Company. The original stated maturities of the mortgage loans in default are reflected as follows: $12,100 in 2011, $11,000 in 2012, $20,115 in 2016 and $73,695 in 2017.
Line of Credit
On May 8, 2013, the Company entered into a credit agreement with KeyBank National Association, JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association and other financial institutions to provide for a senior unsecured credit facility in the aggregate amount of $275,000. The credit facility consisted of of a $200,000 senior unsecured revolving line of credit and a $75,000 unsecured term loan. On November 5, 2013, the Company closed on a $100,000 increase to its revolving line of credit and a $125,000 increase to the term loan. The total revolving line of credit is now $300,000 and the total outstanding term loan is now $200,000. The Company also increased the accordion feature to $800,000. In all material respects, the terms and conditions of the loan agreements remained unchanged. The senior unsecured revolving line of credit matures on May 7, 2016 and the unsecured term loan matures on May 7, 2017. The Company has a one year extension option on the revolver which it may exercise as long as there is no existing default, it is in compliance with all covenants, a 60-day notice has been provided and it pays an extension fee equal to 0.20% of the commitment amount being extended.
As of December 31, 2013, the terms of the credit agreement stipulate:
•
monthly interest-only payments at a rate of LIBOR plus a margin ranging from 1.60% to 2.45% on the outstanding balance of the revolver depending on leverage levels, and at a rate of LIBOR plus a margin ranging from 1.50% to 2.45% on the outstanding balance of the term loan depending on leverage levels;
•
quarterly unused fees on the revolver ranging from 0.25% to 0.35%, depending on the undrawn amount;
•
the requirement for a pool of unencumbered assets to support the facility, subject to certain covenants and minimum requirements related to the value, debt service coverage, and number of properties included in the collateral pool.
This full recourse credit agreement requires compliance with certain covenants including: a minimum net worth requirement, restrictions on indebtedness, a distribution limitation and investment restrictions. It also contains customary default provisions including the failure to timely pay debt service payable thereunder, the failure to comply with the Company's financial and operating covenants and the failure to pay when amounts outstanding under the credit agreement become due. In the event the lenders declare a default, as defined in the credit agreement, this could result in an acceleration of all outstanding borrowings on the credit facility. As of December 31, 2013, management believes the Company was in compliance with all of the covenants and default provisions under the credit agreement. As of December 31, 2013, the interest rates of the revolving line of credit and unsecured term loan were 1.60% and 1.67%, respectively. Upon closing the credit agreement, and subsequently upon expansion of the line, the Company borrowed the full amount of the term loan which remains outstanding as of December 31, 2013. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had $299,820 available under the revolving line of credit.

97
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

Margins Payable
The Company has purchased a portion of its securities through margin accounts. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company recorded a payable of $59,681 and $139,142, respectively, for securities purchased on margin. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, the interest rate on the margin loans was 0.516% and 0.560%, respectively. Interest expense in the amount of $495, $756 and $473 was recognized in interest expense on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
(11) Fair Value Measurements
In accordance with FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurement and Disclosures, the Company defines fair value based on the price that would be received upon sale of an asset or the exit price that would be paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The Company uses a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes observable and unobservable inputs used to measure fair value. The fair value hierarchy consists of three broad levels, which are described below:
•
Level 1 - Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the entity has the ability to access.
•
Level 2 - Observable inputs, other than quoted prices included in Level 1, such as quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar assets and liabilities in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data.
•
Level 3 - Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets and liabilities. This includes certain pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies and similar techniques that use significant unobservable inputs.
The Company has estimated the fair value of its financial and non-financial instruments using available market information and valuation methodologies the Company believes to be appropriate for these purposes. Considerable judgment and a high degree of subjectivity are involved in developing these estimates and, accordingly, they are not necessarily indicative of amounts that would be realized upon disposition.
 For assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis, quantitative disclosure of the fair value for each major category of assets and liabilities is presented below:
 
 
Fair Value Measurements at December 31, 2013
 
Using Quoted Prices
in Active Markets
for Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Using Significant
Other Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Using Significant
Other Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
Available-for-sale real estate equity securities
$
234,760

 
$
—

 
$
—

Real estate related bonds
—

 
8,059

 
—

Total assets
$
234,760

 
$
8,059

 
$
—

Derivative interest rate instruments
$
—

 
$
(458
)
 
$
—

Total liabilities
$
—

 
$
(458
)
 
$
—

 

98
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

 
Fair Value Measurements at December 31, 2012
 
Using Quoted Prices
in Active Markets
for Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Using Significant
Other Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Using Significant
Other Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
Available-for-sale real estate equity securities
$
304,811

 
$
—

 
$
—

Real estate related bonds
—

 
22,844

 
—

Total assets
$
304,811

 
$
22,844

 
$
—

Derivative interest rate instruments
$
—

 
$
(871
)
 
$
—

Total liabilities
$
—

 
$
(871
)
 
$
—

Level 1
At December 31, 2013 and 2012, the fair value of the available for sale real estate equity securities have been estimated based upon quoted market prices for the same or similar issues when current quoted market prices are available. Unrealized gains or losses on investment are reflected in unrealized gain (loss) on investment securities in other comprehensive income on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income.
Level 2
To calculate the fair value of the real estate related bonds and the derivative interest rate instruments, the Company primarily uses quoted prices for similar securities and contracts. For the real estate related bonds, the Company reviews price histories for similar market transactions. For the derivative interest rate instruments, the Company uses inputs based on data that is observed in the forward yield curve which is widely observable in the marketplace.  The Company also incorporates credit valuation adjustments to appropriately reflect both its own nonperformance risk and the respective counterparty’s nonperformance risk in the fair value measurements which utilizes Level 3 inputs, such as estimates of current credit spreads. However, as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company has assessed that the credit valuation adjustments are not significant to the overall valuation of its derivatives. As a result, the Company has determined that its derivative valuations in their entirety are classified in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had entered into interest rate swap agreements with a notional value of $60,044.
Level 3
Non-Recurring Measurements
The following table summarizes activity for the Company’s assets measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis. The Company recognized certain non-cash gains and impairment charges to reflect the investments at their fair values for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012. The asset groups that were reflected at fair value through this evaluation are:
 
As of December 31, 2013
 
As of December 31, 2012
 
Fair Value
Measurements Using
Significant
Unobservable Inputs
(Level 3)
 
Total Impairment Losses (Gain)
 
Fair Value
Measurements
Using Significant
Unobservable Inputs
(Level 3)
 
Total Impairment Losses
Investment properties
$
248,768

 
$
248,230

 
$
115,776

 
$
37,830

Investment in unconsolidated entities
1,795

 
1,004

 
36,469

 
5,165

Notes receivable
13,108

 
(5,334
)
 
—

 
—

Consolidated investment
29,923

 
4,411

 
—

 
—

Total
$
293,594

 
$
248,311

 
$
152,245

 
$
42,995

 


99
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

Investment Properties

During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company identified certain properties which may have a reduction in the expected holding period and reviewed the probability of these assets' dispositions. The Company’s estimated fair value relating to the investment properties’ impairment analysis was based on a comparison of letters of intent or purchase contracts, broker opinions of value and ten-year discounted cash flow models, which includes contractual inflows and outflows over a specific holding period. The cash flows consist of observable inputs such as contractual revenues and unobservable inputs forecasted revenues and expenses. These unobservable inputs are based on market conditions and the Company’s expected growth rates. Capitalization rates ranging from 6.25% to 10.50% and discount rates ranging from 6.75% to 12.00% were utilized in the model and are based upon observable rates that the Company believes to be within a reasonable range of current market rates.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company also identified one property, a large single tenant office property, in which it was exploring a potential disposition. After the Company began exploring a potential sale of the property, it became aware of circumstances in which the tenant would reduce the space they occupied. Although the lease does not expire until 2016, the Company analyzed various leasing and sale scenarios for the single tenant property. The Company’s estimated fair value relating to the investment properties’ impairment analysis was based on ten-year discounted cash flow models, which includes contractual inflows and outflows over a specific holding period. The cash flows consist of observable inputs such as contractual revenues and unobservable inputs such as forecasted revenues and expenses. These unobservable inputs are based on market conditions and the Company’s expected growth rates. The capitalization rates ranging from 6.25% to 7.75% and discount rates ranging from 7.00% to 8.50% were utilized in this model and are based upon observable rates that the Company believes to be within a reasonable range of current market rates. Based on the probabilities assigned to such scenarios, it was determined the property was impaired and therefore, written down to fair value. An impairment charge of $147,480 was recorded for this asset.

For the years ended, December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Company recorded an impairment of investment properties of $248,230, $37,830 and $24,051, respectively. Certain properties have been disposed and were impaired prior to disposition and the related impairment charge of $4,476, $45,485 and $139,590 was included in discontinued operations for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Investment in Unconsolidated Entities

For the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company identified certain investments in unconsolidated entities that may be other than temporarily impaired. The Company's estimated fair value relating to the investment in unconsolidated entities' impairment analysis was based on analyzing each joint venture partner's respective waterfall distribution, letters of intent or purchase contracts, broker opinions of value, and expected future cash distributions of the Company's interest in the underlying assets of the investment using a net asset value model. The net asset value model utilizes an income capitalization analysis and consists of unobservable inputs such as forecasted net operating income and capitalization rates based on market conditions.  Capitalization rates ranging from 6.50% to 8.25% were utilized in the model and are based upon observable rates that the Company believes to be within a reasonable range of current market rates.

For the years ended, December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Company recorded an impairment of investments in unconsolidated entities of $6,532, $9,365, and $113,621, respectively.
Notes Receivable
For the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company determined that a re-evaluation of its notes receivable impairment allowance was appropriate because there had been a significant change in the amount of an impaired note's expected future cash flows. The Company assessed the note receivable impairment allowance by estimating the value of the underlying collateral using comparable property sales, which are observable in the market. As a result, the Company adjusted its notes receivable impairment allowance and recorded a gain of $5,334 for year ended December 31, 2013. For the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company recorded no impairment of notes receivables. Impairment of notes receivable is included in provision for asset impairment on the consolidated statement of operations and other comprehensive income.

100
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

Consolidated Investment

The Company valued the consolidating properties using broker opinions of value and a discounted cash flow model, including capitalization rates between 7.0% and 7.5% and discount rates between 8.0% and 9.0%, which are based upon observable rates that the Company believes to be within a reasonable range of current market rates. The Company estimated fair value of the debt by discounting the future cash flows of each instrument at rates currently offered for similar debt instruments. These factors resulted in a loss on a consolidated investment of $4,411 for the year ended December 31, 2013.


Financial Instruments not Measured at Fair Value
The table below represents the fair value of financial instruments presented at carrying values in our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012.
 
December 31, 2013
 
December 31, 2012
 
Carrying Value
Estimated Fair Value
 
Carrying Value
Estimated Fair Value
Mortgage and notes payable
$
4,737,459

$
4,748,276

 
$
5,894,443

$
5,790,201

Line of credit
200,180

200,180

 
—

—

Margins payable
59,681

59,681

 
139,142

139,142

The Company estimates the fair value of its debt instruments using a weighted average effective interest rate of 4.95% per annum. The assumptions reflect the terms currently available on similar borrowing terms to borrowers with credit profiles similar to the Company's. The Company has determined that its debt instrument valuations are classified in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.
(12) Income Taxes
The Company is qualified and has elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, for federal income tax purposes commencing with the tax year ending December 31, 2005. Since the Company qualifies for taxation as a REIT, the Company generally will not be subject to federal income tax on taxable income that is distributed to stockholders. A REIT is subject to a number of organizational and operational requirements, including a requirement that it currently distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income (subject to certain adjustments) to its stockholders (the "90% Distribution Requirement"). If the Company fails to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, without the benefit of certain relief provisions, the Company will be subject to federal and state income tax on its taxable income at regular corporate tax rates. Even if the Company qualifies for taxation as a REIT, the Company may be subject to certain state and local taxes on its income, property or net worth and federal income and excise taxes on its undistributed income.
The Company has elected to treat certain of its consolidated subsidiaries, and may in the future elect to treat newly formed subsidiaries, as taxable REIT subsidiaries pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code. Taxable REIT subsidiaries may participate in non-real estate related activities and/or perform non-customary services for tenants and are subject to federal and state income tax at regular corporate tax rates. The Company’s hotels are leased to certain of the Company’s taxable REIT subsidiaries. Lease revenue from these taxable REIT subsidiaries and its wholly-owned subsidiaries is eliminated in consolidation.
The components of income tax expense for the years ended December 31:
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
 
Federal
 
State
 
Total
 
Federal
 
State
 
Total
 
Federal
 
State
 
Total
Current
$
576

 
$
2,477

 
$
3,053

 
$
267

 
$
2,594

 
$
2,861

 
$
110

 
$
588

 
$
698

Deferred
1,522

 
184

 
1,706

 
4,412

 
489

 
4,901

 
(3,837
)
 
(248
)
 
(4,085
)
Total income expense (benefit)
$
2,098

 
$
2,661

 
$
4,759

 
$
4,679

 
$
3,083

 
$
7,762

 
$
(3,727
)
 
$
340

 
$
(3,387
)
 

101
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

Deferred tax assets and liabilities are included within deferred costs and other assets and other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets, respectively. The components of the deferred tax assets and liabilities at December 31, 2013 and 2012 were as follows:
 
2013
 
2012
Net operating loss
$
9,236

 
$
11,618

Deferred income
2,389

 
2,657

Basis difference on property
35,362

 
35,263

Depreciation expense
986

 
879

Miscellaneous
431

 
(190
)
Total deferred tax assets
48,404

 
50,227

Less: Valuation allowance
(42,590
)
 
(42,707
)
Net deferred tax assets
$
5,814

 
$
7,520

Deferred tax liabilities
$
—

 
$
—

Federal net operating loss carryforwards amounting to $9,236 begin to expire in 2023, if not utilized by then.
Deferred tax assets are recognized only to the extent that it is more likely than not that they will be realized based on consideration of available evidence, including future reversal of existing taxable temporary differences, future projected taxable income, and tax-planning strategies. In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets, management considers whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of future taxable income during the periods in which those temporary differences become deductible. The Company has considered various factors, including future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, projected future taxable income and tax-planning strategies in making this assessment.
Based upon tax-planning strategies and projections for future taxable income over the periods in which the deferred tax assets are deductible, management believes it is more likely than not that the Company will realize the benefits of these deductible differences, net of the existing valuation allowance of $42,590 at December 31, 2013. The amount of the deferred tax assets considered realizable, however, could be reduced in the near term if estimates of future taxable income during the carryforward period are reduced.
Uncertain Tax Positions
The Company had no unrecognized tax benefits as of or during the three year period ended December 31, 2013. The Company expects no significant increases or decreases in unrecognized tax benefits due to changes in tax positions within one year of December 31, 2013. The Company has no material interest or penalties relating to income taxes recognized in the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 or in the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2013 and 2012. As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s 2011, 2010, and 2009 tax years remain subject to examination by U.S. and various state tax jurisdictions.
Distributions
For federal income tax purposes, distributions may consist of ordinary income, qualifying dividends, return of capital, capital gains or a combination thereof. Distributions to the extent of the Company’s current and accumulated earnings and profits for federal income tax purposes are taxable to the recipient as ordinary income. Distributions in excess of these earnings and profits will constitute a non-taxable return of capital rather than a dividend and will reduce the recipient’s basis in the shares.

102
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

A summary of the average taxable nature of the Company’s common distributions paid for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2013 is as follows: 
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
Ordinary income
$
0.50

 
$
0.07

 
$
0.19

Return of capital
—

 
0.43

 
0.31

Total distributions per share
$
0.50

 
$
0.50

 
$
0.50



IRS Closing Agreement

The Company has identified certain distribution and shareholder reimbursement practices that may have caused certain dividends to be treated as preferential dividends, which cannot be used to satisfy the 90% Distribution Requirement. The Company has also identified the ownership of certain assets that may have violated a REIT qualification requirement that prohibits a REIT from owning "securities" of any one issuer in excess of 5% of the REIT's total assets at the end of any calendar quarter (the "5% Securities Test"). In order to provide greater certainty with respect to the Company's qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, management concluded that it was in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders to request closing agreements from the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") for both the Company and MB REIT with respect to such matters. Accordingly, on October 31, 2012, MB REIT filed a request for a closing agreement with the IRS. Additionally, the Company filed a separate request for a closing agreement on its own behalf on March 7, 2013.

The Company identified certain aspects of the calculation of certain dividends on MB REIT's preferred stock and also aspects of the operation of certain "set aside" provisions with respect to accrued but unpaid dividends on certain classes of MB REIT's preferred stock that may have caused certain dividends to be treated as preferential dividends. In the case of the Company, management identified certain aspects of the operation of the Company's dividend reinvestment plan and distribution procedures and also certain reimbursements of shareholder expenses that may have caused certain dividends to be treated as preferential dividends. If these practices resulted in preferential dividends, the Company and MB REIT would not have satisfied the 90% Distribution Requirement and thus may not have qualified as REITs, which would result in substantial corporate tax liability for the years in which the Company or MB REIT failed to qualify as a REIT.

In addition, the Company and MB REIT made certain overnight investments in bank commercial paper. While the Internal Revenue Code does not provide a specific definition of “cash item”, the Company believes that overnight commercial paper should be treated as a “cash item”, which is not treated as a “security” for purposes of the 5% Securities Test. If treated as a "security", the bank commercial paper would appear to have represented more than 5% of the Company's and MB REIT's total assets at the end of certain calendar quarters. In the event this commercial paper is treated as a "security", the Company anticipates that it would be required to pay corporate income tax on the income earned with respect to the portion of the commercial paper that violated the 5% Securities Test.

The Company can provide no assurance that the IRS will accept the Company's or MB REIT's closing agreement requests. Even if the IRS accepts those requests, the Company and MB REIT may be required to pay a penalty. The Company cannot predict whether such a penalty would be imposed or, if so, the amount of the penalty. The Company believes that (i) the IRS will enter into closing agreements with the Company and MB REIT and (ii) the Business Manager has agreed to pay any penalty the IRS requires as a condition of granting the closing agreements. As noted above, the Company can provide no assurance that the IRS will enter into closing agreements with the Company and MB REIT or that the Company and MB REIT will not be liable for any penalty imposed in connection with those closing agreements. Management believes based on the currently available information, that such penalty, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on the financial statements of the Company.


103
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

(13) Segment Reporting

The Company's long-term portfolio strategy is to focus on three asset classes - retail, lodging, and student housing. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company has executed on this strategy by disposing of 313 non-strategic assets as well as classifying 224 non-strategic assets as held for sale.  Beginning on September 30, 2013, the Company restated its business segments to: Retail, Lodging, Student Housing, and Non-core.  Net operating income for the year December 31, 2012 and 2011 have been restated to reflect the change in business segments. The non-core segment includes office properties, industrial properties, bank branches, retail single tenant properties, and a conventional multi-family property. The Company has concentrated its efforts on driving portfolio growth in the multi-tenant retail, student housing and lodging segments to enhance the long-term value of each segment's portfolio and respective platforms. For its non-core properties, the Company strives to improve individual property performance to increase each property’s value. The Company evaluates segment performance primarily based on net operating income. Net operating income of the segments exclude interest expense, depreciation and amortization, general and administrative expenses, net income of noncontrolling interest and other investment income from corporate investments. The non-segmented assets primarily include the Company’s cash and cash equivalents, investment in marketable securities, construction in progress, investment in unconsolidated entities and notes receivable.
For the year ended December 31, 2013, approximately 9% of the Company’s rental revenue (excluding lodging and student housing) from continuing operations, included in the non-core segment, was generated by two properties leased to AT&T, Inc. We also own a third property that is leased to AT&T, Inc., but the property is classified as held for sale as of December 31, 2013. As a result of the concentration of revenue generated from these properties, if AT&T were to cease paying rent or fulfilling its other monetary obligations, the Company could have significantly reduced rental revenues or higher expenses until the defaults were cured or the properties were leased to a new tenant or tenants.


104
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

The following table summarizes net operating income by segment as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013.
 
 
Total
 
Retail
 
Lodging
 
Student Housing
 
Non - core
Rental income
$
355,946

 
$
215,134

 
$
—

 
$
55,773

 
$
85,039

Straight line rent adjustment
5,732

 
5,198

 
—

 
373

 
161

Tenant recovery income
71,207

 
64,930

 
—

 
521

 
5,756

Other property income
7,202

 
3,822

 
—

 
2,809

 
571

Lodging income
881,750

 
—

 
881,750

 
—

 
—

Total income
$
1,321,837

 
$
289,084

 
$
881,750

 
$
59,476

 
$
91,527

Operating expenses
$
743,928

 
$
93,626

 
$
609,480

 
$
24,014

 
$
16,808

Net operating income
$
577,909

 
$
195,458

 
$
272,270

 
$
35,462

 
$
74,719

Non allocated expenses (a)
$
(408,141
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other income and expenses (b)
$
(150,881
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Earnings from unconsolidated entities (c)
$
8,485

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Provision for asset impairment (d)
$
(242,896
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net loss from continuing operations
$
(215,524
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income from discontinued operations, net
$
459,588

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Less: net income attributable to noncontrolling interests
$
(16
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income attributable to Company
$
244,048

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Balance Sheet Data:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Real estate assets, net (e)
$
7,131,196

 
$
2,207,062

 
$
3,492,657

 
$
639,848

 
$
791,629

Non-segmented assets (f)
2,531,268

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total Assets
$
9,662,464

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Capital expenditures
$
66,640

 
$
12,736

 
$
49,781

 
$
2,316

 
$
1,807

 
(a)
Non allocated expenses consist of general and administrative expenses, business manager management fee and depreciation and amortization.
(b)
Other income and expenses consist of interest and dividend income, interest expense, other income and expenses, realized gain, (loss) and (impairment) on securities, net, and income tax expense.
(c)
Earnings from unconsolidated entities consists of equity (losses) in earnings of unconsolidated entities as well as gain, (loss) and (impairment) of investment in unconsolidated entities.
(d)
Total provision for asset impairment included $21,179 related to four retail properties, $49,146 related to four lodging properties, and $177,905 related to eleven non-core properties. On December 31, 2013, we also adjusted the impairment allowance for notes receivable for a gain $5,334.
(e)
Real estate assets includes intangible assets, net of amortization.
(f)
Construction in progress is included as non-segmented assets.


105
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

The following table summarizes net operating income by segment as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012.
 
 
Total
 
Retail
 
Lodging
 
Student Housing
 
Non - core
Rental income
$
343,290

 
$
226,546

 
$
—

 
$
30,234

 
$
86,510

Straight line rent adjustment
4,357

 
4,824

 
—

 
169

 
(636
)
Tenant recovery income
73,214

 
66,154

 
—

 
429

 
6,631

Other property income
5,714

 
2,686

 
—

 
1,750

 
1,278

Lodging income
692,448

 
—

 
692,448

 
—

 
—

Total income
$
1,119,023

 
$
300,210

 
$
692,448

 
$
32,582

 
$
93,783

Operating expenses
$
605,439

 
$
95,802

 
$
480,229

 
$
12,752

 
$
16,656

Net operating income
$
513,584

 
$
204,408

 
$
212,219

 
$
19,830

 
$
77,127

Non allocated expenses (a)
$
(388,459
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other income and expenses (b)
$
(187,400
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Loss from unconsolidated entities (c)
$
(10,324
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Provision for asset impairment (d)
$
(37,830
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net loss from continuing operations
$
(110,429
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Income from discontinued operations, net
$
46,780

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests
$
(5,689
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net loss attributable to Company
$
(69,338
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Balance Sheet Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Real estate assets, net (e)
$
9,279,123

 
$
2,690,365

 
$
2,687,180

 
$
374,839

 
$
3,526,739

Non-segmented assets (f)
1,480,761

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total Assets
$
10,759,884

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Capital expenditures
$
88,637

 
$
14,411

 
$
60,373

 
$
162

 
$
13,691

 
(a)
Non allocated expenses consist of general and administrative expenses, business manager management fee and depreciation and amortization.
(b)
Other income and expenses consist of interest and dividend income, interest expense, other income, realized gain, (loss) and (impairment) on securities, net, and income tax benefit.
(c)
Loss from unconsolidated entities consists of equity losses in earnings of unconsolidated entities as well as gain, (loss) and (impairment) of investment in unconsolidated entities.
(d)
Total provision for asset impairment included $16,234 related to three retail properties, and $21,596 related to six non-core properties.
(e)
Real estate assets includes intangible assets, net of amortization.
(f)
Construction in progress is included as non-segmented assets.



106
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

The following table summarizes net operating income by segment as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011.

 
Total
 
Retail
 
Lodging
 
Student Housing
 
Non - core
Rental income
$
322,597

 
$
211,036

 
$
—

 
$
24,706

 
$
86,855

Straight line rent adjustment
4,455

 
4,942

 
—

 
145

 
(632
)
Tenant recovery income
66,655

 
60,769

 
—

 
446

 
5,440

Other property income
8,838

 
4,665

 
—

 
1,569

 
2,604

Lodging income
517,840

 
—

 
517,840

 
—

 
—

Total income
$
920,385

 
$
281,412

 
$
517,840

 
$
26,866

 
$
94,267

Operating expenses
$
476,131

 
$
91,683

 
$
353,487

 
$
11,691

 
$
19,270

Net operating income
$
444,254

 
$
189,729

 
$
164,353

 
$
15,175

 
$
74,997

Non allocated expenses (a)
$
(382,599
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other income and expenses (b)
$
(186,068
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Loss from unconsolidated entities (c)
$
(118,825
)
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Provision for asset impairment (d)
$
(24,051
)
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Net loss from continuing operations
$
(267,289
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Loss from discontinued operations, net
$
(42,256
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests
$
(6,708
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net loss attributable to Company
$
(316,253
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

(a)
Non allocated expenses consist of general and administrative expenses, business manager management fee and depreciation and amortization.
(b)
Other income and expenses consist of interest and dividend income, interest expense, other income and expenses, realized gain, (loss) and (impairment) on securities, net, and income tax benefit.
(c)
Loss from unconsolidated entities consists of equity (losses) in earnings of unconsolidated entities as well as gain, (loss) and (impairment) of investment in unconsolidated entities.
(d)
Total provision for asset impairment included $19,390 related to five retail properties, $2,886 related to one lodging properties, and $1,775 related to two non-core properties.


(14) Earnings (loss) per Share
Basic earnings (loss) per share (“EPS”) are computed by dividing net income (loss) by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period (the “common shares”). Diluted EPS is computed by dividing net income (loss) by the common shares plus potential common shares issuable upon exercising options or other contracts. There are an immaterial amount of potentially dilutive common shares.
The basic and diluted weighted average number of common shares outstanding was 899,842,722, 879,685,949 and 858,637,707 for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011.
(15) Commitments and Contingencies
Certain leases and operating agreements within the lodging segment require the Company to reserve funds relating to replacements and renewals of the hotels' furniture, fixtures and equipment. As of December 31, 2013 the Company has funded $74,667 in reserves for future improvements. This amount is included in restricted cash and escrows on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2013.

107
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

The Company has learned that the SEC is conducting a non-public, formal, fact-finding investigation ("SEC Investigation") to determine whether there have been violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws regarding the business management fees, property management fees, transactions with affiliates, timing and amount of distributions paid to investors, determination of property impairments, and any decision regarding whether the Company might become a self-administered REIT. The Company has not been accused of any wrongdoing by the SEC. The Company also has been informed by the SEC that the existence of this investigation does not mean that the SEC has concluded that anyone has broken the law or that the SEC has a negative opinion of any person, entity, or security. The Company has been cooperating fully with the SEC.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate the timing of the SEC Investigation, nor can the Company predict whether or not the investigation might have a material adverse effect on the business.

The Company also received related demands (“Derivative Demands”) by stockholders to conduct investigations regarding claims that the officers, the board of directors, the former business manager, and affiliates of the former business manager (the “Inland American Parties”) breached their fiduciary duties to Company in connection with the matters that the Company disclosed are subject to the SEC Investigation. The first Derivative Demand claims that the Inland American Parties (i) falsely reported the value of our common stock until September 2010; (ii) caused us to purchase shares of our common stock from stockholders at prices in excess of their value; and (iii) disguised returns of capital paid to stockholders as REIT income, resulting in the payment of fees to the former business manager for which it was not entitled. The three stockholders in that demand contend that legal proceedings should seek recovery of damages in an unspecified amount allegedly sustained by us. The second Derivative Demand by another shareholder makes similar claims and further alleges that the Inland American Parties (i) caused us to engage in transactions that unduly favored related parties, (ii) falsely disclosed the timing and amount of distributions, and (iii) falsely disclosed whether the Company might become a self-administered REIT. The Company also received a letter from another stockholder that fully adopts and joins in the first Derivative Demand, but makes no additional demands on the Company to perform investigation or pursue claims.

Upon receiving the first of the Derivative Demands, the full board of directors responded by authorizing the independent directors to investigate the claims contained in the first Derivative Demand, any subsequent stockholder demands, as well as any other matters the independent directors see fit to investigate, including matters related to the SEC Investigation. Pursuant to this authority, the independent directors have formed a special litigation committee that is comprised solely of independent directors to review and evaluate the matters referred by the full Board to the independent directors, and to recommend to the full Board any further action as is appropriate. The special litigation committee is investigating these claims with the assistance of independent legal counsel and will make a recommendation to the Board of Directors after the committee has completed its investigation.

On March 21, 2013, counsel for the stockholders who made the first Derivative Demand filed a derivative lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on behalf of the Company. The case has been stayed pending completion of the special litigation committee's investigation. The Company cannot predict the timing of the special litigation committee investigation or the Derivative Demands, nor can the Company predict whether or not the special litigation committee investigation or Derivative Demands might have a material adverse impact on our business.

On April 26, 2013, two stockholders of the Company filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, and current members and one former member of its board of directors ("the Defendants"). The complaint sought damages on behalf of plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals who purchased additional shares in the Company pursuant to the Company's Distribution Reinvestment Plan ("DRP") on or after March 30, 2009. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and to members of the putative class by inflating the yearly estimated share price announced by the Company and by selling shares in the DRP to plaintiffs and members of the putative class at those allegedly inflated prices. On November 18, 2013, the class action was dismissed with prejudice for failing to state a claim that would entitle the plaintiffs to relief. The Court disagreed with the plaintiffs' allegations, noting in its memorandum opinion and order that the Company’s public disclosures fully described the manner in which the board estimated share value for the Company’s stock sold through the DRP. The Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. The plaintiffs appealed the judgment. As of February 26, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their appeal in exchange

108
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

for a cash settlement from the Company. We believe that the amount of the settlement is not material and is less than the amount the Defendants would have incurred in defending the appeal.
The Company has also filed a number of eviction actions against tenants and is involved in a number of tenant bankruptcies. The tenants in some of the eviction cases may file counterclaims against the Company in an attempt to gain leverage against the Company in connection with the eviction. In the opinion of the Company, none of these counterclaims is likely to result in any material losses to the Company.

The Company is subject, from time to time, to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. While the resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes, based on currently available information, that the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial statements of the Company.
(16) Assets and Liabilities Held for Sale
In accordance with GAAP, the Company classifies properties as held for sale when certain criteria are met. On the day that the criteria are met, the Company suspends depreciation on the properties held for sale, including depreciation for tenant improvements and additions, as well as the amortization of acquired in-place leases. The assets and liabilities associated with those investment properties that are held for sale are classified separately on the consolidated balance sheets for the most recent reporting period and recorded at the lesser of the carrying value or fair value less costs to sell. At December 31, 2013, these assets were recorded at their carrying value. The operations for the periods presented are classified on the consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive income as discontinued operations for all periods presented.
On August 8, 2013, we entered into a purchase agreement to sell our net lease assets, consisting of 294 retail, office, and industrial properties in a transaction valued at approximately $2.3 billion. In accordance with the terms of the purchase agreement, the buyer elected to “kick-out” of the transaction 13 properties valued at approximately $180.1 million. Excluding the “kicked out” properties, the transaction is valued at approximately $2.1 billion. As of December 31, 2013, the Company closed on the sale of 57 of the net lease portfolio properties for a disposition price of $669,660. The remaining 224 properties are expected to be sold through multiple closings at a gain during the first half of 2014. The 224 properties consist of 181 retail and office bank branches, 12 retail single user properties, 7 office properties, and 24 industrial properties. As of December 31, 2013, the 224 properties met the criteria to be classified as held for sale. The operating activity for the properties has been included within discontinued operations. As of December 31, 2012, there were no properties classified as held for sale.
The major classes of assets and liabilities associated with held for sale properties as of December 31, 2013 are as follows:
 
December 31, 2013
    Land
$
271,870

    Building and other improvements
1,067,039

    Total
1,338,909

    Less accumulated depreciation
(233,907
)
    Net investment properties
1,105,002

    Restricted cash & escrows
1,643

    Accounts and rents receivable
33,888

    Intangible assets, net
48,017

    Deferred cost and other assets
8,179

Total Assets
$
1,196,729

 

    Debt
$
826,762

    Accounts payable and accrued expenses
1,977

    Intangible liabilities, net
1,122

    Other liabilities
50,295

Total Liabilities
$
880,156


109
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

(17) Subsequent Events

Subsequent to December 31, 2013, the Company purchased two retail assets for $26,150 on February 13, 2014. On February 28, 2014, the Company purchased one lodging asset for $183,000.

The Company disposed of thirty non-core net lease assets on January 8, 2014 for a gross disposition price of $55,303. The Company then disposed of another twenty-eight non-core net lease assets on February 21, 2014 for a gross disposition price of $451,881. Finally, the company disposed of another 151 non-core net lease assets on March 10, 2014 for a gross disposition price of $278,553. These assets were all classified as held for sale as of December 31, 2013.

On March 12, 2014, the Company began the process of becoming fully self-managed by terminating its business management agreement, hiring all of its business manager’s employees, and acquiring the assets of its business manager necessary to perform the functions previously performed by the business manager. As a first step towards internalizing our property managers, the Company hired certain of their employees; assumed responsibility for performing certain significant property management functions; and amended its property management agreements to reduce its property management fees as a result of its assumption of such responsibilities. As the second step, on December 31, 2014, the Company expects to terminate its property management agreements, hire the remaining property manager employees and acquire the assets necessary to conduct the remaining functions performed by its property managers. As a consequence, beginning January 1, 2015, the Company expects to become fully self-managed. The Company will not pay an internalization fee or self-management fee in connection with these self-management transactions. These self-management transactions immediately eliminate the management and advisory fees paid to the business manager and at the end of 2014, the Company expects to eliminate the fees paid to its property managers when it terminates the property management agreements. As part of the self-management transactions, the Company agreed to reimburse its business manager and property managers for certain transaction and employee related expenses and directly retain affiliates of The Inland Group, Inc. for IT services, customer service and certain back-office services that were provided to the Company and managed by the business manager prior to the termination of the business management agreement. In addition, in connection with the self-management transactions, the Company and the business manager terminated their letter agreement dated May 4, 2012 pursuant to which the business management fee had been reduced in each particular quarter for investigation costs exclusive of legal fees incurred in conjunction with the SEC matter. As a result of such termination, the Company will no longer be effectively reimbursed for such investigation costs.



110
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011

(18) Quarterly Supplemental Financial Information (unaudited)
The following represents the results of operations, for each quarterly period, during 2013 and 2012.
 
For the quarter ended
 
December 31, 2013
 
September 30, 2013
 
June 30, 2013
 
March 31, 2013
Total income
$
369,978

 
$
326,033

 
$
327,591

 
$
298,235

Net income (loss)
34,788

 
237,541

 
(32,756
)
 
4,491

Net income (loss) attributable to Company
34,788

 
237,533

 
(32,756
)
 
4,483

Net income (loss), per common share, basic and diluted (1)
0.03

 
0.26

 
(0.03
)
 
0.01

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, basic and diluted (1)
907,386,623

 
902,456,636

 
897,233,931

 
892,097,144

 
 
 
For the quarter ended
 
December 31, 2012
 
September 30, 2012
 
June 30, 2012
 
March 31, 2012
Total income
$
290,741

 
$
288,516

 
$
299,302

 
$
240,464

Net loss
(2,731
)
 
(12,917
)
 
(17,791
)
 
(30,210
)
Net loss attributable to Company
(3,569
)
 
(17,576
)
 
(17,910
)
 
(30,283
)
Net loss, per common share, basic and diluted (1)
(0.01
)
 
(0.02
)
 
(0.02
)
 
(0.03
)
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding, basic and diluted (1)
886,849,317

 
881,717,879

 
877,188,933

 
872,886,566

 
(1)
Quarterly income per common share amounts may not total to the annual amounts due to rounding and the changes in the number of weighted common shares outstanding

111

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements 
(D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
Retail
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14th STREET MARKET
Plano, TX
7,712

 
3,500

 
9,241

 
—

 
436

 
3,500

 
9,677

 
13,177

 
2,224

 
2007
ALCOA EXCHANGE
Bryant, AR
11,640

 
4,900

 
15,577

 
—

 
90

 
4,900

 
15,667

 
20,567

 
3,206

 
2008
ALCOA EXCHANGE II
Benton, AR
—

 
1,300

 
5,511

 
—

 
—

 
1,300

 
5,511

 
6,811

 
1,001

 
2009
ANDERSON CENTRAL Anderson, SC
13,653

 
2,800

 
9,961

 
—

 
380

 
2,800

 
10,341

 
13,141

 
1,442

 
2010
ATASCOCITA SHOPPING CENTER
Humble, TX
—

 
1,550

 
7,994

 
(398
)
 
(2,848
)
 
1,152

 
5,146

 
6,298

 
502

 
2005
BARTOW MARKETPLACE
Atlanta, GA
23,298

 
5,600

 
20,154

 
—

 
87

 
5,600

 
20,241

 
25,841

 
2,765

 
2010
BEAR CREEK VILLAGE CENTER
Wildomar, CA
14,163

 
3,523

 
12,384

 
—

 
(73
)
 
3,523

 
12,311

 
15,834

 
2,175

 
2009
BELLERIVE PLAZA
Nicholasville, KY
6,092

 
2,400

 
7,749

 
—

 
214

 
2,400

 
7,963

 
10,363

 
1,885

 
2007
BENT TREE PLAZA
Raleigh, NC
5,375

 
1,983

 
7,093

 
—

 
(65
)
 
1,983

 
7,028

 
9,011

 
1,305

 
2009
BOYNTON COMMONS
Miami, FL
27,854

 
11,400

 
17,315

 
—

 
141

 
11,400

 
17,456

 
28,856

 
2,409

 
2010





112

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements 
(D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
BRANDON CENTRE SOUTH
Brandon, FL
16,133

 
5,720

 
19,500

 
—

 
864

 
5,720

 
20,364

 
26,084

 
4,793

 
2007
BROOKS CORNER
San Antonio, TX
13,761

 
10,600

 
13,648

 
—

 
3,046

 
10,600

 
16,694

 
27,294

 
4,486

 
2006
BUCKHEAD CROSSING
Atlanta, GA
33,215

 
7,565

 
27,104

 
—

 
(954
)
 
7,565

 
26,150

 
33,715

 
4,556

 
2009
BUCKHORN PLAZA
Bloomsburg, PA
9,025

 
1,651

 
11,770

 
—

 
872

 
1,651

 
12,642

 
14,293

 
3,336

 
2006
CAMPUS MARKETPLACE
San Marcos, CA
18,343

 
6,723

 
27,462

 
—

 
(114
)
 
6,723

 
27,348

 
34,071

 
4,697

 
2009
CENTERPLACE OF GREELEY
Greeley, CO
15,308

 
3,904

 
14,715

 
—

 
99

 
3,904

 
14,814

 
18,718

 
2,683

 
2009
CHESAPEAKE COMMONS
Chesapeake, VA
—

 
2,669

 
10,839

 
—

 
62

 
2,669

 
10,901

 
13,570

 
2,691

 
2007
CHEYENNE MEADOWS
Colorado Springs, CO
6,157

 
2,023

 
6,991

 
—

 
(131
)
 
2,023

 
6,860

 
8,883

 
1,270

 
2009
CITY CROSSING
Warner Robins, GA
17,418

 
4,200

 
5,679

 
—

 
20

 
4,200

 
5,699

 
9,899

 
900

 
2010
COWETA CROSSING
Newnan, GA
—

 
1,143

 
4,590

 
—

 
(307
)
 
1,143

 
4,283

 
5,426

 
789

 
2009







113

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
CROSS TIMBERS COURT
Flower Mound, TX
8,193

 
3,300

 
9,939

 
—

 
176

 
3,300

 
10,115

 
13,415

 
2,382

 
2007
CROSSROADS AT CHESAPEAKE SQUARE
Chesapeake, VA
—

 
3,970

 
13,732

 
—

 
1,602

 
3,970

 
15,334

 
19,304

 
3,793

 
2007
CUSTER CREEK VILLAGE
Richardson, TX
10,149

 
4,750

 
12,245

 
—

 
97

 
4,750

 
12,342

 
17,092

 
2,913

 
2007
CYPRESS TOWN CENTER
Houston, TX
—

 
1,850

 
11,630

 
(805
)
 
(6,953
)
 
1,045

 
4,677

 
5,722

 
442

 
2005
DONELSON PLAZA
Nashville, TN
2,315

 
1,000

 
3,147

 
—

 
—

 
1,000

 
3,147

 
4,147

 
778

 
2007
DOTHAN PAVILION
Dothan, AL
33,825

 
8,200

 
38,759

 
—

 
962

 
8,200

 
39,721

 
47,921

 
7,229

 
2009
EAST GATE
Aiken, SC
6,800

 
2,000

 
10,305

 
—

 
459

 
2,000

 
10,764

 
12,764

 
2,553

 
2007
ELDRIDGE TOWN CENTER
Houston, TX
9,000

 
3,200

 
16,663

 
—

 
313

 
3,200

 
16,976

 
20,176

 
5,121

 
2005
FABYAN RANDALL PLAZA
Batavia, IL
—

 
2,400

 
22,198

 
(926
)
 
(13,753
)
 
1,474

 
8,445

 
9,919

 
295

 
2006
FAIRVIEW MARKET
Simpsonville, SC
2,395

 
1,140

 
5,241

 
—

 
(22
)
 
1,140

 
5,219

 
6,359

 
865

 
2009


114

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
FLOWER MOUND CROSSING
Flower Mound, TX
8,342

 
4,500

 
9,049

 
—

 
391

 
4,500

 
9,440

 
13,940

 
2,301

 
2007
FOREST PLAZA
Fond du Lac, WI
1,891

 
3,400

 
14,550

 
—

 
553

 
3,400

 
15,103

 
18,503

 
3,485

 
2007
FURY’S FERRY
Augusta, GA
6,381

 
1,600

 
9,783

 
—

 
576

 
1,600

 
10,359

 
11,959

 
2,524

 
2007
GARDEN VILLAGE
San Pedro, CA
11,519

 
3,188

 
16,522

 
—

 
(174
)
 
3,188

 
16,348

 
19,536

 
2,811

 
2009
GATEWAY MARKET CENTER
Tampa, FL
23,173

 
13,600

 
4,992

 
—

 
322

 
13,600

 
5,314

 
18,914

 
941

 
2010
GATEWAY PLAZA
Jacksonville, NC
10,098

 
4,700

 
6,769

 
—

 
(173
)
 
4,700

 
6,596

 
11,296

 
976

 
2010
GRAFTON COMMONS SHOPPING CENTER
Grafton, WI
—

 
7,200

 
26,984

 
—

 
117

 
7,200

 
27,101

 
34,301

 
4,012

 
2009
GRAVOIS DILLON PLAZA
High Ridge, MO
12,630

 
7,300

 
—

 
—

 
16,266

 
7,300

 
16,266

 
23,566

 
3,969

 
2007
HERITAGE CROSSING
Wilson, NC
—

 
4,400

 
22,921

 
—

 
1,259

 
4,400

 
24,180

 
28,580

 
3,309

 
2010
HERITAGE HEIGHTS
Grapevine, TX
10,719

 
4,600

 
13,502

 
—

 
282

 
4,600

 
13,784

 
18,384

 
3,210

 
2007






115

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
HERITAGE PLAZA—CHICAGO
Carol Stream, IL
10,338

 
5,297

 
8,831

 
(420
)
 
(383
)
 
4,877

 
8,448

 
13,325

 
1,570

 
2009
HIGHLAND PLAZA
Katy, TX
—

 
2,450

 
15,642

 
(520
)
 
(6,215
)
 
1,930

 
9,427

 
11,357

 
1,001

 
2005
HIRAM PAVILION
Hiram, GA
37,609

 
4,600

 
16,832

 
—

 
1,363

 
4,600

 
18,195

 
22,795

 
2,638

 
2010
HUNTER’S GLEN CROSSING
Plano, TX
9,790

 
4,800

 
11,719

 
—

 
652

 
4,800

 
12,371

 
17,171

 
2,833

 
2007
HUNTING BAYOU
Jacinto City, TX
—

 
2,400

 
16,265

 
(518
)
 
(7,709
)
 
1,882

 
8,556

 
10,438

 
86

 
2006
INTECH RETAIL
Indianapolis, IN
2,651

 
819

 
2,038

 
—

 
121

 
819

 
2,159

 
2,978

 
425

 
2009
JAMES CENTER
Tacoma, WA
12,170

 
4,497

 
16,219

 
—

 
(2
)
 
4,497

 
16,217

 
20,714

 
3,005

 
2009
JOSEY OAKS CROSSING
Carrollton, TX
9,346

 
2,620

 
13,989

 
—

 
237

 
2,620

 
14,226

 
16,846

 
3,414

 
2007
LAKEPORT COMMONS
Sioux City, IA
—

 
7,800

 
39,984

 
—

 
3,159

 
7,800

 
43,143

 
50,943

 
9,406

 
2007
LEGACY CROSSING
Marion, OH
10,890

 
4,280

 
13,896

 
—

 
294

 
4,280

 
14,190

 
18,470

 
3,501

 
2007






116

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
LINCOLN MALL
Lincoln, RI
—

 
11,000

 
50,395

 
—

 
4,950

 
11,000

 
55,345

 
66,345

 
14,336

 
2006
LINCOLN VILLAGE
Chicago, IL
22,035

 
13,600

 
25,053

 
—

 
792

 
13,600

 
25,845

 
39,445

 
6,661

 
2006
LORD SALISBURY CENTER
Salisbury, MD
12,600

 
11,000

 
9,567

 
—

 
71

 
11,000

 
9,638

 
20,638

 
2,281

 
2007
MARKET AT MORSE / HAMILTON
Columbus, OH
—

 
4,490

 
8,734

 
(907
)
 
(3,391
)
 
3,583

 
5,343

 
8,926

 
308

 
2007
MARKET AT WESTLAKE
Westlake Hills, TX
4,803

 
1,200

 
6,274

 
—

 
79

 
1,200

 
6,353

 
7,553

 
1,551

 
2007
MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER
McKinney, TX
—

 
16,297

 
22,562

 
—

 
499

 
16,297

 
23,061

 
39,358

 
3,085

 
2007
MERCHANTS CROSSING
Englewood, FL
—

 
3,404

 
11,281

 
—

 
(1,154
)
 
3,404

 
10,127

 
13,531

 
1,991

 
2009
MONADNOCK MARKETPLACE
Keene, NH
—

 
7,000

 
39,008

 
(862
)
 
(15,171
)
 
6,138

 
23,837

 
29,975

 
245

 
2006
NEW FOREST CROSSING II
Houston, TX
—

 
1,490

 
3,922

 
(253
)
 
(978
)
 
1,237

 
2,944

 
4,181

 
294

 
2006
NORTHWEST MARKETPLACE
Houston, TX
19,965

 
2,910

 
30,340

 
—

 
298

 
2,910

 
30,638

 
33,548

 
7,043

 
2007


117

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
PALM HARBOR SHOPPING CENTER
Palm Coast, FL
12,100

 
2,836

 
10,927

 
—

 
(572
)
 
2,836

 
10,355

 
13,191

 
1,854

 
2009
PARADISE PLACE
West Palm Beach, FL
10,149

 
3,975

 
5,912

 
—

 
19

 
3,975

 
5,931

 
9,906

 
811

 
2010
PARADISE SHOPS OF LARGO
Largo, FL
6,451

 
4,640

 
7,483

 
—

 
(7
)
 
4,640

 
7,476

 
12,116

 
2,256

 
2005
PARK WEST PLAZA
Grapevine, TX
7,532

 
4,250

 
8,186

 
—

 
35

 
4,250

 
8,221

 
12,471

 
2,027

 
2007
PARKWAY CENTRE NORTH
Grove City, OH
13,900

 
4,680

 
16,046

 
—

 
1,931

 
4,680

 
17,977

 
22,657

 
4,431

 
2007
PARKWAY CENTRE NORTH
OUTLOT B
Grove City, OH
2,200

 
900

 
2,590

 
—

 
28

 
900

 
2,618

 
3,518

 
644

 
2007
PAVILION AT LAQUINTA
LaQuinta, CA
24,200

 
15,200

 
20,947

 
—

 
97

 
15,200

 
21,044

 
36,244

 
3,595

 
2009
PAVILIONS AT HARTMAN HERITAGE
Independence, MO
23,450

 
9,700

 
28,849

 
—

 
5,157

 
9,700

 
34,006

 
43,706

 
7,638

 
2007
PEACHLAND PROMENADE
Port Charlotte, FL
—

 
1,742

 
6,502

 
—

 
179

 
1,742

 
6,681

 
8,423

 
1,195

 
2009
PENN PARK
Oklahoma City, OK
31,000

 
6,260

 
29,424

 
—

 
1,883

 
6,260

 
31,307

 
37,567

 
7,166

 
2007


118

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
PIONEER PLAZA
Mesquite, TX
2,250

 
373

 
3,099

 
—

 
12

 
373

 
3,111

 
3,484

 
773

 
2007
PLEASANT HILL SQUARE
Duluth, GA
30,459

 
7,950

 
22,651

 
(3,399
)
 
(11,772
)
 
4,551

 
10,879

 
15,430

 
472

 
2010
POPLIN PLACE
Monroe, NC
21,801

 
6,100

 
27,790

 
—

 
1,295

 
6,100

 
29,085

 
35,185

 
5,471

 
2008
PROMENADE FULTONDALE
Fultondale, AL
—

 
5,540

 
22,414

 
(156
)
 
121

 
5,384

 
22,535

 
27,919

 
3,920

 
2009
RIVERSTONE SHOPPING CENTER
Missouri City, TX
18,350

 
12,000

 
26,395

 
—

 
270

 
12,000

 
26,665

 
38,665

 
6,360

 
2007
RIVERVIEW VILLAGE
Arlington, TX
10,121

 
6,000

 
9,649

 
—

 
647

 
6,000

 
10,296

 
16,296

 
2,330

 
2007
ROSE CREEK
Woodstock, GA
4,151

 
1,443

 
5,630

 
—

 
(58
)
 
1,443

 
5,572

 
7,015

 
1,024

 
2009
ROSEWOOD SHOPPING CENTER
Columbia, SC
3,296

 
1,138

 
3,946

 
—

 
(81
)
 
1,138

 
3,865

 
5,003

 
730

 
2009
SARASOTA PAVILION
Sarasota, FL
40,425

 
12,000

 
25,823

 
—

 
353

 
12,000

 
26,176

 
38,176

 
3,623

 
2010
SCOFIELD CROSSING
Austin, TX
8,435

 
8,100

 
4,992

 
—

 
28

 
8,100

 
5,020

 
13,120

 
1,251

 
2007




119

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
SHERMAN PLAZA
Evanston, IL
30,275

 
9,655

 
30,982

 
—

 
8,693

 
9,655

 
39,675

 
49,330

 
9,440

 
2006
SHERMAN TOWN CENTER
Sherman, TX
32,998

 
4,850

 
49,273

 
—

 
199

 
4,850

 
49,472

 
54,322

 
12,705

 
2006
SHERMAN TOWN CENTER II
Sherman, TX
10,000

 
3,000

 
14,805

 
—

 
(20
)
 
3,000

 
14,785

 
17,785

 
1,640

 
2010
SHILOH SQUARE
Garland, TX
3,238

 
1,025

 
3,946

 
—

 
8

 
1,025

 
3,954

 
4,979

 
932

 
2007
SIEGEN PLAZA
East Baton Rouge, LA
16,600

 
9,340

 
20,251

 
—

 
359

 
9,340

 
20,610

 
29,950

 
4,206

 
2008
SILVERLAKE
Erlanger, KY
5,256

 
2,031

 
6,975

 
—

 
(102
)
 
2,031

 
6,873

 
8,904

 
1,277

 
2009
SOUTHGATE VILLAGE
Pelham, AL
4,815

 
1,789

 
6,266

 
—

 
(66
)
 
1,789

 
6,200

 
7,989

 
917

 
2009
SPARKS CROSSING
Sparks, NV
—

 
10,330

 
23,238

 
—

 
216

 
10,330

 
23,454

 
33,784

 
2,413

 
2011
SPRING TOWN CENTER
Spring, TX
—

 
3,150

 
12,433

 
—

 
98

 
3,150

 
12,531

 
15,681

 
3,442

 
2006
SPRING TOWN CENTER III
Spring, TX
—

 
1,320

 
3,070

 
—

 
2,031

 
1,320

 
5,101

 
6,421

 
1,085

 
2007


120

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
STATE STREET MARKET
Rockford, IL
10,202

 
3,950

 
14,184

 
—

 
1,775

 
3,950

 
15,959

 
19,909

 
4,188

 
2006
STONECREST MARKETPLACE
Lithonia, GA
34,516

 
6,150

 
23,321

 
—

 
448

 
6,150

 
23,769

 
29,919

 
3,259

 
2010
STREETS OF CRANBERRY
Cranberry Township, PA
19,568

 
4,300

 
20,215

 
—

 
8,269

 
4,300

 
28,484

 
32,784

 
6,193

 
2007
STREETS OF INDIAN LAKES
Hendersonville, TN
37,500

 
8,825

 
48,679

 
—

 
6,608

 
8,825

 
55,287

 
64,112

 
10,003

 
2008
SUNCREEK VILLAGE
Plano, TX
2,683

 
900

 
3,155

 
—

 
55

 
900

 
3,210

 
4,110

 
802

 
2007
SYCAMORE COMMONS
Matthews, NC
48,382

 
12,500

 
31,265

 
—

 
691

 
12,500

 
31,956

 
44,456

 
4,880

 
2010
THE CENTER AT HUGH HOWELL
Tucker, GA
7,722

 
2,250

 
11,091

 
—

 
685

 
2,250

 
11,776

 
14,026

 
2,914

 
2007
THE HIGHLANDS
Flower Mound, TX
9,745

 
5,500

 
9,589

 
—

 
209

 
5,500

 
9,798

 
15,298

 
2,307

 
2006
THE MARKET AT HILLIARD
Hilliard, OH
11,205

 
4,432

 
13,308

 
—

 
3,236

 
4,432

 
16,544

 
20,976

 
4,216

 
2005
THOMAS CROSSROADS
Newnan, GA
5,394

 
1,622

 
8,322

 
—

 
206

 
1,622

 
8,528

 
10,150

 
1,569

 
2009


121

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
TOMBALL TOWN CETNER
Tomball, TX
9,595

 
1,938

 
14,233

 
360

 
6,070

 
2,298

 
20,303

 
22,601

 
4,922

 
2005
TRIANGLE CENTER
Longview, WA
21,550

 
12,770

 
24,556

 
—

 
2,697

 
12,770

 
27,253

 
40,023

 
7,433

 
2005
TULSA HILLS SHOPPING CENTER
Tulsa, OK
37,727

 
8,000

 
42,272

 
4,770

 
5,417

 
12,770

 
47,689

 
60,459

 
6,087

 
2010
UNIVERSAL PLAZA
Lauderhill, FL
9,887

 
2,900

 
4,950

 
—

 
16

 
2,900

 
4,966

 
7,866

 
681

 
2010
UNIVERSITY OAKS SHOPPING CENTER
Round Rock, TX
27,000

 
7,250

 
25,326

 
—

 
5,824

 
7,250

 
31,150

 
38,400

 
3,981

 
2010
VENTURE POINT
Duluth, GA
25,818

 
10,400

 
12,887

 
(273
)
 
(5,947
)
 
10,127

 
6,940

 
17,067

 
245

 
2013
WALDEN PARK SHOPPING CENTER
Austin, TX
—

 
3,183

 
5,278

 
—

 
—

 
3,183

 
5,278

 
8,461

 
65

 
2013
WARDS CROSSING
Lynchburg, VA
12,904

 
2,400

 
11,417

 
—

 
3

 
2,400

 
11,420

 
13,820

 
1,652

 
2010
WASHINGTON PARK PLAZA
Homewood, IL
30,600

 
6,500

 
33,912

 
—

 
(272
)
 
6,500

 
33,640

 
40,140

 
7,653

 
2005
WEST CREEK SHOPPING CENTER
Austin, TX
—

 
5,151

 
8,659

 
—

 
—

 
5,151

 
8,659

 
13,810

 
80

 
2013




122

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
WESPORT VILLAGE
Louisville, KY
20,641

 
4,775

 
26,950

 
—

 
—

 
4,775

 
26,950

 
31,725

 
795

 
2013
WHITE OAK CROSSING
Garner, NC
52,000

 
19,000

 
70,275

 
—

 
8

 
19,000

 
70,283

 
89,283

 
5,942

 
2011
WILLIS TOWN CENTER
Willis, TX
—

 
1,550

 
1,820

 
(705
)
 
(1,089
)
 
845

 
731

 
1,576

 
9

 
2005
WINCHESTER TOWN CENTER
Houston, TX
—

 
495

 
3,966

 
—

 
48

 
495

 
4,014

 
4,509

 
1,189

 
2005
WINDERMERE VILLAGE
Houston, TX
—

 
1,220

 
6,331

 
—

 
871

 
1,220

 
7,202

 
8,422

 
2,092

 
2005
WOODBRIDGE
Wylie, TX
17,907

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
30,856

 
—

 
30,856

 
30,856

 
3,429

 
2009
WOODLAKE CROSSING
San Antonio, TX
7,575

 
3,420

 
14,153

 
—

 
3,127

 
3,420

 
17,280

 
20,700

 
2,481

 
2009












123

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
Lodging
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ALOFT CHAPEL HILL
Chapel Hill, NC
—

 
6,484

 
16,478

 
45

 
(3
)
 
6,529

 
16,475

 
23,004

 
3,178

 
2010
ANDAZ NAPA VALLEY
Napa, CA
30,500

 
10,150

 
57,012

 
—

 
—

 
10,150

 
57,012

 
67,162

 
825

 
2013
ANDAZ SAN DIEGO
San Diego, CA
26,500

 
6,949

 
43,430

 
—

 
—

 
6,949

 
43,430

 
50,379

 
1,718

 
2013
ANDAZ SAVANNAH
Savannah, GA
21,500

 
2,680

 
36,212

 
—

 
—

 
2,680

 
36,212

 
38,892

 
383

 
2013
BOHEMIAN HOTEL CELEBRATION
Celebration, FL
9,844

 
1,232

 
19,000

 
—

 
—

 
1,232

 
19,000

 
20,232

 
805

 
2013
BOHEMIAN HOTEL SAVANNAH
Savannah, GA
27,480

 
2,300

 
24,240

 
—

 
508

 
2,300

 
24,748

 
27,048

 
2,017

 
2012
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT QUORUM
Addison, TX
18,860

 
4,000

 
26,141

 
—

 
2,218

 
4,000

 
28,359

 
32,359

 
8,100

 
2007
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT
Ann Arbor, MI
11,680

 
4,989

 
18,988

 
—

 
4,290

 
4,989

 
23,278

 
28,267

 
7,493

 
2007
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT DUNN LORING-FAIRFAX
Vienna, VA
30,810

 
12,100

 
40,242

 
—

 
3,156

 
12,100

 
43,398

 
55,498

 
13,795

 
2007
COURTYARD—DOWNTOWN AT UAB
Birmingham, AL
13,909

 
—

 
20,810

 
1,553

 
2,032

 
1,553

 
22,842

 
24,395

 
7,880

 
2008





124

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
COURTYARD—FORT MEADE AT NBP
Annapolis Junction, MD
—

 
1,611

 
22,622

 
—

 
2,058

 
1,611

 
24,680

 
26,291

 
7,769

 
2008
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT -WEST LANDS END
Fort Worth, TX
7,550

 
1,500

 
13,416

 
—

 
1,578

 
1,500

 
14,994

 
16,494

 
4,601

 
2007
COURTYARD—FT WORTH
Fort Worth, TX
—

 
774

 
45,820

 
—

 
4,192

 
774

 
50,012

 
50,786

 
15,779

 
2008
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT
Harlingen, TX
6,790

 
1,600

 
13,247

 
—

 
3,449

 
1,600

 
16,696

 
18,296

 
5,777

 
2007
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT—NORTHWEST
Houston, TX
6,939

 
1,428

 
15,085

 
—

 
1,619

 
1,428

 
16,704

 
18,132

 
5,269

 
2007
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT—WESTCHASE
Houston, TX
16,680

 
4,400

 
22,626

 
—

 
3,230

 
4,400

 
25,856

 
30,256

 
7,716

 
2007
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT WEST UNIVERSITY
Houston, TX
10,980

 
2,200

 
16,408

 
—

 
1,872

 
2,200

 
18,280

 
20,480

 
5,548

 
2007
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT—COUNTRY CLUB PLAZA
Kansas City, MO
12,740

 
3,426

 
16,349

 
—

 
2,295

 
3,426

 
18,644

 
22,070

 
5,340

 
2007
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT
Lebanon, NJ
10,320

 
3,200

 
19,009

 
—

 
2,496

 
3,200

 
21,505

 
24,705

 
6,918

 
2007
COURTYARD—NEWARK ELIZABETH
Elizabeth, NJ
8,830

 
—

 
35,177

 
—

 
3,128

 
—

 
38,305

 
38,305

 
12,947

 
2008






125

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
COURTYARD—PITTSBURGH DOWNTOWN
Pittsburgh, PA
23,851

 
2,700

 
33,086

 
—

 
2,135

 
2,700

 
35,221

 
37,921

 
5,879

 
2010
COURTYARD—PITTSBURGH WEST HOME
Pittsburgh, PA
7,814

 
1,500

 
14,364

 
—

 
905

 
1,500

 
15,269

 
16,769

 
2,489

 
2010
COURTYARD—RICHMOND
Richmond, VA
7,195

 
2,173

 
—

 
—

 
19,708

 
2,173

 
19,708

 
21,881

 
6,577

 
2007
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT—ROANOKE AIRPORT
Roanoke, VA
13,998

 
3,311

 
22,242

 
—

 
2,516

 
3,311

 
24,758

 
28,069

 
7,338

 
2007
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT SEATTLE—FEDERAL WAY
Federal Way, WA
22,830

 
7,700

 
27,167

 
—

 
1,761

 
7,700

 
28,928

 
36,628

 
7,983

 
2007
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT—WILLIAM CENTER
Tucson, AZ
16,030

 
4,000

 
20,942

 
—

 
3,320

 
4,000

 
24,262

 
28,262

 
7,837

 
2007
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT
Wilmington, NC
—

 
2,397

 
18,560

 
—

 
3,544

 
2,397

 
22,104

 
24,501

 
6,854

 
2007
COURTYARD—WEST PALM AIRPORT
Palm Coast, FL
5,532

 
1,900

 
8,703

 
—

 
1,027

 
1,900

 
9,730

 
11,630

 
1,747

 
2010
DOUBLETREE—ATLANTA GALLERIA
Alpharetta, GA
—

 
1,082

 
20,397

 
—

 
2,058

 
1,082

 
22,455

 
23,537

 
7,738

 
2008
DOUBLETREE—WASHINGTON DC
Washington, DC
—

 
25,857

 
56,964

 
—

 
3,366

 
25,857

 
60,330

 
86,187

 
18,160

 
2008






126

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
EMBASSY SUITES—BALTIMORE
Hunt Valley, MD
—

 
2,429

 
38,927

 
—

 
4,845

 
2,429

 
43,772

 
46,201

 
15,334

 
2008
FAIRMONT—DALLAS
Dallas, TX
41,879

 
8,700

 
60,634

 
—

 
11,654

 
8,700

 
72,288

 
80,988

 
10,257

 
2011
HAMPTON INN SUITES—DENVER
Colorado Springs, CO
13,886

 
6,144

 
26,472

 
—

 
2,244

 
6,144

 
28,716

 
34,860

 
9,239

 
2008
HAMPTON INN BALTIMORE-INNER HARBOR
Baltimore, MD
9,000

 
1,700

 
21,067

 
—

 
1,665

 
1,700

 
22,732

 
24,432

 
6,185

 
2007
HAMPTON INN SUITES DULUTH-GWINNETT
Duluth, GA
9,158

 
488

 
12,991

 
(90
)
 
(3,648
)
 
398

 
9,343

 
9,741

 
691

 
2007
HAMPTON INN WHITE PLAINS-TARRYTOWN
Elmsford, NY
14,946

 
3,200

 
26,160

 
—

 
5,848

 
3,200

 
32,008

 
35,208

 
9,244

 
2007
HGI—BOSTON BURLINGTON
Burlington, MA
—

 
4,095

 
25,556

 
—

 
4,226

 
4,095

 
29,782

 
33,877

 
9,274

 
2008
HGI—COLORADO SPRINGS
Colorado Springs, CO
—

 
1,400

 
17,522

 
—

 
2,476

 
1,400

 
19,998

 
21,398

 
6,221

 
2008
HGI—WASHINGTON DC
Washington, DC
57,101

 
18,800

 
64,359

 
—

 
5,225

 
18,800

 
69,584

 
88,384

 
22,041

 
2008
HILTON GARDEN INN TAMPA YBOR
Tampa, FL
9,460

 
2,400

 
16,159

 
—

 
2,275

 
2,400

 
18,434

 
20,834

 
5,274

 
2007

127

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
HILTON GARDEN INN ALBANY AIRPORT
Albany, NY
—

 
1,645

 
20,263

 
—

 
4,932

 
1,645

 
25,195

 
26,840

 
7,801

 
2007
HILTON GARDEN INN
Evanston, IL
19,040

 
2,920

 
27,995

 
—

 
4,090

 
2,920

 
32,085

 
35,005

 
8,677

 
2007
HILTON GARDEN INN RALEIGH -DURHAM
Raleigh, NC
—

 
2,754

 
26,050

 
1,220

 
4,654

 
3,974

 
30,704

 
34,678

 
8,980

 
2007
HILTON GARDEN INN
Westbury, NY
21,680

 
8,900

 
25,156

 
—

 
4,269

 
8,900

 
29,425

 
38,325

 
8,654

 
2007
HILTON GARDEN INN
Wilmington, NC
5,200

 
6,354

 
10,328

 
—

 
405

 
6,354

 
10,733

 
17,087

 
4,047

 
2007
HILTON GARDEN INN HARTFORD NORTH
Windsor, CT
9,921

 
5,606

 
13,892

 
—

 
5,021

 
5,606

 
18,913

 
24,519

 
5,874

 
2007
HILTON GARDEN INN PHOENIX
Phoenix, AZ
—

 
5,114

 
57,105

 
(1,702
)
 
(35,617
)
 
3,412

 
21,488

 
24,900

 
—

 
2008
HILTON - ST LOUIS DOWNTOWN
St Louis, MO
14,690

 
780

 
22,031

 
—

 
1,911

 
780

 
23,942

 
24,722

 
1,986

 
2012
HILTON—UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Gainesville, FL
27,775

 
—

 
50,407

 
—

 
5,927

 
—

 
56,334

 
56,334

 
18,233

 
2007
HOLIDAY INN HARMON MEADOW SECAUCUS
Secaucus, NJ
—

 
—

 
23,291

 
—

 
(16,188
)
 
—

 
7,103

 
7,103

 
65

 
2007

128

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
HOMEWOOD—HOUSTON GALLERIA
Houston, TX
14,690

 
1,655

 
30,587

 
—

 
1,477

 
1,655

 
32,064

 
33,719

 
11,284

 
2008
HOMEWOOD SUITES
Albuquerque, NM
10,160

 
2,400

 
18,071

 
—

 
2,919

 
2,400

 
20,990

 
23,390

 
7,337

 
2007
HOMEWOOD SUITES
Baton Rouge, LA
12,930

 
4,300

 
15,629

 
—

 
2,866

 
4,300

 
18,495

 
22,795

 
6,413

 
2007
HOMEWOOD SUITES
Cary, NC
12,179

 
1,478

 
19,404

 
—

 
6,944

 
1,478

 
26,348

 
27,826

 
8,967

 
2007
HOMEWOOD SUITES
Princeton, NJ
11,405

 
3,203

 
21,300

 
—

 
2,509

 
3,203

 
23,809

 
27,012

 
7,550

 
2007
HOMEWOOD SUITES CLEVELAND SOLON
Solon, OH
5,490

 
1,900

 
10,757

 
—

 
1,792

 
1,900

 
12,549

 
14,449

 
4,460

 
2007
HOMEWOOD SUITES COLORADO SPRINGS NORTH
Colorado Springs, CO
7,830

 
2,900

 
14,011

 
—

 
2,755

 
2,900

 
16,766

 
19,666

 
6,304

 
2007
HOTEL MONACO - CHICAGO
Chicago, IL
—

 
15,056

 
40,841

 
—

 
—

 
15,056

 
40,841

 
55,897

 
156

 
2013
HOTEL MONACO - DENVER
Denver, CO
—

 
5,742

 
69,158

 
—

 
—

 
5,742

 
69,158

 
74,900

 
208

 
2013
HOTEL MONACO - SALT LAKE CITY
Salt Lake City, UT
—

 
1,777

 
56,156

 
—

 
—

 
1,777

 
56,156

 
57,933

 
161

 
2013

129

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
HYATT KEY WEST
Key West, FL
—

 
40,986

 
34,529

 
—

 
—

 
40,986

 
34,529

 
75,515

 
210

 
2013
HYATT REGENCY—OC
Orange County, CA
64,254

 
18,688

 
93,384

 
—

 
26,783

 
18,688

 
120,167

 
138,855

 
34,987

 
2008
HYATT REGENCY SANTA CLARA
Santa Clara, CA
46,500

 
—

 
100,227

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
100,227

 
100,227

 
1,274

 
2013
HYATT—BOSTON/MEDFORD
Medford, MA
14,511

 
2,766

 
29,141

 
—

 
459

 
2,766

 
29,600

 
32,366

 
10,372

 
2008
GRAND BOHEMIAN HOTEL ORLANDO
Orlando, FL
51,116

 
7,739

 
75,510

 
—

 
519

 
7,739

 
76,029

 
83,768

 
3,800

 
2012
LOEWS NEW ORLEANS
New Orleans, LA
37,500

 
3,529

 
70,652

 
—

 
—

 
3,529

 
70,652

 
74,181

 
409

 
2013
LORIEN HOTEL & SPA
Alexandira, VA
—

 
4,365

 
40,888

 
—

 
—

 
4,365

 
40,888

 
45,253

 
251

 
2013
MARRIOTT—ATL CENTURY CENTER
Atlanta, GA
—

 
—

 
36,571

 
—

 
3,537

 
—

 
40,108

 
40,108

 
15,827

 
2008
MARRIOTT—CHICAGO—MED DIST UIC
Chicago, IL
8,382

 
8,831

 
17,911

 
—

 
5,314

 
8,831

 
23,225

 
32,056

 
8,995

 
2008
MARRIOTT—CHARLESTON
Charleston, SC
17,107

 
—

 
26,647

 
—

 
7,705

 
—

 
34,352

 
34,352

 
5,993

 
2008


130

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
MARRIOTT—DALLAS
Dallas, TX
34,000

 
6,300

 
45,158

 
—

 
16,336

 
6,300

 
61,494

 
67,794

 
12,461

 
2010
MARRIOTT - GRIFFIN GATE RESORT
Lexington, KY
35,712

 
8,638

 
54,960

 
1,498

 
4,598

 
10,136

 
59,558

 
69,694

 
5,361

 
2012
MARRIOTT—NAPA VALLEY
Napa Valley, CA
39,262

 
14,800

 
57,223

 
—

 
1,854

 
14,800

 
59,077

 
73,877

 
6,340

 
2011
MARRIOT - SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT
San Francisco, CA
54,374

 
36,700

 
72,370

 
—

 
982

 
36,700

 
73,352

 
110,052

 
6,371

 
2012
MARRIOTT—WOODLANDS WATERWAY
Woodlands, TX
75,313

 
5,500

 
98,886

 
—

 
26,832

 
5,500

 
125,718

 
131,218

 
35,939

 
2007
MARRIOTT—WEST DES MOINES
Des Moines, IA
10,257

 
3,410

 
15,416

 
—

 
5,299

 
3,410

 
20,715

 
24,125

 
3,800

 
2010
QUALITY SUITES
Charleston, SC
9,889

 
1,331

 
13,709

 
(79
)
 
(2,943
)
 
1,252

 
10,766

 
12,018

 
101

 
2007
RENAISSANCE - ATLANTA WAVERLY
Atlanta, GA
97,000

 
6,834

 
90,792

 
—

 
4,796

 
6,834

 
95,588

 
102,422

 
7,948

 
2012
RENAISSANCE ARBORETUM
Austin, TX
83,000

 
10,656

 
97,960

 
—

 
6,257

 
10,656

 
104,217

 
114,873

 
8,386

 
2012
RESIDENCE INN—BALTIMORE
Baltimore, MD
—

 
—

 
55,410

 
—

 
3,962

 
—

 
59,372

 
59,372

 
18,825

 
2008

131

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
RESIDENCE INN
Brownsville, TX
6,900

 
1,700

 
12,629

 
—

 
1,210

 
1,700

 
13,839

 
15,539

 
4,164

 
2007
RESIDENCE INN—CAMBRIDGE
Cambridge, MA
31,152

 
10,346

 
72,735

 
—

 
2,702

 
10,346

 
75,437

 
85,783

 
21,826

 
2008
RESIDENCE INN SOUTH BRUNSWICK-CRANBURY
Cranbury, NJ
10,000

 
5,100

 
15,368

 
—

 
2,688

 
5,100

 
18,056

 
23,156

 
5,977

 
2007
RESIDENCE INN CYPRESS—LOS ALAMITS
Cypress, CA
20,650

 
9,200

 
25,079

 
—

 
3,421

 
9,200

 
28,500

 
37,700

 
9,485

 
2007
RESIDENCE INN DFW AIRPORT NORTH
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
9,560

 
2,800

 
14,782

 
—

 
1,103

 
2,800

 
15,885

 
18,685

 
4,619

 
2007
RESIDENCE INN DENVER CENTER
Denver, CO
40,000

 
5,291

 
74,638

 
—

 
—

 
5,291

 
74,638

 
79,929

 
2,097

 
2013
RESIDENCE INN PARK CENTRAL
Dallas , TX
8,970

 
2,600

 
17,322

 
—

 
2,931

 
2,600

 
20,253

 
22,853

 
7,045

 
2007
RESIDENCE INN SOMERSET-FRANKLIN
Franklin , NJ
9,890

 
3,100

 
14,322

 
—

 
2,380

 
3,100

 
16,702

 
19,802

 
5,460

 
2007
RESIDENCE INN
Hauppauge, NY
10,810

 
5,300

 
14,632

 
—

 
2,561

 
5,300

 
17,193

 
22,493

 
5,642

 
2007
RESIDENCE INN WESTCHASE
Westchase, TX
12,550

 
4,300

 
16,969

 
—

 
3,096

 
4,300

 
20,065

 
24,365

 
5,702

 
2007

132

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
RESIDENCE INN WEST UNIVERSITY
Houston, TX
13,100

 
3,800

 
18,834

 
—

 
1,002

 
3,800

 
19,836

 
23,636

 
5,852

 
2007
RESIDENCE INN NASHVILLE AIRPORT
Nashville, TN
12,120

 
3,500

 
14,147

 
—

 
3,204

 
3,500

 
17,351

 
20,851

 
5,071

 
2007
RESIDENCE INN—POUGHKEEPSIE
Poughkeepsie, NY
11,494

 
1,003

 
24,590

 
—

 
2,333

 
1,003

 
26,923

 
27,926

 
8,704

 
2008
RESIDENCE INN ROANOKE AIRPORT
Roanoke, VA
5,800

 
500

 
9,499

 
—

 
286

 
500

 
9,785

 
10,285

 
3,198

 
2007
RESIDENCE INN WILLIAMS CENTRE
Tucson, AZ
12,770

 
3,700

 
17,601

 
—

 
2,268

 
3,700

 
19,869

 
23,569

 
5,850

 
2007
RESIDENCE INN -NEWARK ELIZABETH
Elizabeth, NJ
10,145

 
—

 
41,096

 
—

 
2,317

 
—

 
43,413

 
43,413

 
15,087

 
2008
SPRINGHILL SUITES
Danbury, CT
9,130

 
3,200

 
14,833

 
—

 
1,549

 
3,200

 
16,382

 
19,582

 
4,625

 
2007
WESTIN GALLERIA HOUSTON
Houston, TX
60,000

 
7,842

 
112,850

 
—

 
—

 
7,842

 
112,850

 
120,692

 
1,731

 
2013
WESTIN OAKS HOUSTON
Houston, TX
50,000

 
4,260

 
96,087

 
—

 
—

 
4,260

 
96,087

 
100,347

 
1,535

 
2013


133

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
Student Housing
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14th STREET—UAB
Birmingham, AL
—

 
4,250

 
27,458

 
—

 
142

 
4,250

 
27,600

 
31,850

 
6,553

 
2007
ASU POLYTECHNIC STUDENT HOUSING
Mesa, AZ
7,838

 
—

 
12,122

 
—

 
(403
)
 
—

 
11,719

 
11,719

 
717

 
2012
FIELDS APARTMENT HOMES
Bloomington, IN
18,700

 
1,850

 
29,783

 
—

 
101

 
1,850

 
29,884

 
31,734

 
7,466

 
2007
THE RADIAN (PENN)
Radian, PA
56,592

 
—

 
79,997

 
—

 
11,949

 
—

 
91,946

 
91,946

 
17,931

 
2007
UNIV HOUSE AT CENTRAL FL
Orlando, FL
44,812

 
13,319

 
51,478

 
—

 
3

 
13,319

 
51,481

 
64,800

 
2,956

 
2012
UNIV HOUSE AT FAYETTEVILLE
Fayetteville, AR
21,075

 
3,957

 
37,485

 
—

 
—

 
3,957

 
37,485

 
41,442

 
792

 
2013
UNIV HOUSE FULLERTON
Fullerton, CA
72,748

 
29,324

 
100,832

 
—

 
—

 
29,324

 
100,832

 
130,156

 
2,442

 
2013
UNIV HOUSE AT GAINESVILLE
Gainesville, FL
—

 
6,561

 
36,879

 
—

 
902

 
6,561

 
37,781

 
44,342

 
8,142

 
2007
UNIV HOUSE AT HUNTSVILLE
Huntsville, TX
—

 
1,351

 
26,308

 
—

 
1,260

 
1,351

 
27,568

 
28,919

 
6,619

 
2007
UNIV HOUSE AT LAFAYETTE
Lafayette, AL
—

 
—

 
16,357

 
—

 
1,765

 
—

 
18,122

 
18,122

 
4,308

 
2007



134

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
UNIV HOUSE AT TCU
Forth Worth, TX
7,925

 
2,010

 
13,166

 
—

 
—

 
2,010

 
13,166

 
15,176

 
428

 
2013
UNIV HOUSE AT TEMPE
Tempe, AZ
53,400

 
5,757

 
91,998

 
—

 
—

 
5,757

 
91,998

 
97,755

 
1,545

 
2013
UNIV HOUSE AT THE RETREAT RALEIGH
Raleigh, NC
24,360

 
2,200

 
36,364

 
—

 
7

 
2,200

 
36,371

 
38,571

 
1,370

 
2012
UNIV HOUSE AT THE RETREAT TALLAHASSEE
Tallahassee, FL
32,227

 
4,075

 
48,636

 
—

 
6

 
4,075

 
48,642

 
52,717

 
1,917

 
2012
Non-core
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11500 MARKET STREET
Jacinto City, TX
—

 
140

 
346

 
(35
)
 
(159
)
 
105

 
187

 
292

 
19

 
2005
ANHEUSER BUSCH
Devens, MA
—

 
2,200

 
13,598

 
—

 
1

 
2,200

 
13,599

 
15,799

 
3,014

 
2007
AT&T CLEVELAND
Cleveland, OH
24,529

 
870

 
40,033

 
—

 
193

 
870

 
40,226

 
41,096

 
9,637

 
2005
ATLAS - ST PAUL
St Paul, MN
—

 
3,890

 
10,093

 
—

 
—

 
3,890

 
10,093

 
13,983

 
2,208

 
2007
ATLAS-NEW ULM
New Ulm, MN
—

 
900

 
9,359

 
—

 
—

 
900

 
9,359

 
10,259

 
2,051

 
2007
BLOCK 121
Birmingham, AL

15,133

 
3,360

 
32,087

 
(150
)
 
2,424

 
3,210

 
34,511

 
37,721

 
3,996

 
2010



135

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
BRIDGESIDE POINT OFFICE BLDG
Pittsburgh, PA
15,939

 
1,525

 
28,609

 
—

 
37

 
1,525

 
28,646

 
30,171

 
8,093

 
2006
CHILI'S - HUNTING BAYOU
Jacinto City, TX
—

 
400

 
—

 
(115
)
 
—

 
285

 
—

 
285

 
—

 
2005
CINEMARK - JACINTO CITY
Jacinto City, TX
—

 
1,160

 
10,540

 
(377
)
 
(5,774
)
 
783

 
4,766

 
5,549

 
54

 
2005
CITIZENS (CFG) NEW HAMPSHIRE
Manchester, NH
—

 
9,620

 
15,633

 
(5,170
)
 
(11,886
)
 
4,450

 
3,747

 
8,197

 
77

 
2007
CITIZENS (CFG) NEW YORK
Plattsburgh, NY
—

 
70

 
1,342

 
(69
)
 
(1,263
)
 
1

 
79

 
80

 
—

 
2007
CITIZENS (CFG) PENNSYLVANIA
Dallastown, PA
—

 
150

 
962

 
(113
)
 
(816
)
 
37

 
146

 
183

 
7

 
2007
CITIZENS (CFG) PENNSYLVANIA
York, PA
—

 
400

 
3,016

 
(276
)
 
(2,513
)
 
124

 
503

 
627

 
20

 
2007
CITIZENS (CFG) RHODE ISLAND
Providence, RI
—

 
1,278

 
3,817

 
(702
)
 
(2,950
)
 
576

 
867

 
1,443

 
18

 
2007
DENVER HIGHLANDS
Highlands Ranch, CO
—

 
1,700

 
11,839

 
—

 
37

 
1,700

 
11,876

 
13,576

 
3,002

 
2006

136

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
DULLES EXECUTIVE PLAZA
Herndon, VA
68,750

 
15,500

 
96,083

 
—

 
3,167

 
15,500

 
99,250

 
114,750

 
27,657

 
2006
FREMONT
Fremont, CA

11,400

 
2,984

 
4,767

 
—

 
—

 
2,984

 
4,767

 
7,751

 
—

 
2013
HASKELL-ROLLING PLAINS FACILITY
Haskell, TX
—

 
45

 
19,733

 
—

 
1

 
45

 
19,734

 
19,779

 
4,396

 
2008
HUDSON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Hudson, Co
—

 
1,382

 
—

 
—

 
93,137

 
1,382

 
93,137

 
94,519

 
16,961

 
2009
IA ORLANDO SAND
Orlando, FL
—

 
19,388

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
19,388

 
—

 
19,388

 
—

 
2011
IMAGINE AVONDALE
Avondale, AZ
—

 
1,195

 
5,731

 
—

 
—

 
1,195

 
5,731

 
6,926

 
834

 
2010
IMAGINE COOLIDGE
Coolidge, AZ
—

 
2,260

 
3,895

 
(1,490
)
 
1,017

 
770

 
4,912

 
5,682

 
662

 
2010
IMAGINE COOLIDGE II
Coolidge, AZ
—

 
1,490

 
4,857

 
—

 
1,025

 
1,490

 
5,882

 
7,372

 
435

 
2011
IMAGINE DISCOVERY
Baltimore, MD
—

 
590

 
7,117

 
—

 
—

 
590

 
7,117

 
7,707

 
1,033

 
2010
IMAGINE FIRESTONE
Firestone, CO
—

 
680

 
6,439

 
—

 
—

 
680

 
6,439

 
7,119

 
935

 
2010

137

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
IMAGINE HOPE LAMOND
Washington, DC
—

 
775

 
9,706

 
—

 
—

 
775

 
9,706

 
10,481

 
1,407

 
2010
IMAGINE INDIGO RANCH
Colorado Springs, CO
—

 
1,150

 
7,304

 
—

 
—

 
1,150

 
7,304

 
8,454

 
1,061

 
2010
IMAGINE TOWN CENTER
Palm Coast, FL
—

 
1,175

 
7,309

 
—

 
2,606

 
1,175

 
9,915

 
11,090

 
1,241

 
2010
LAS PLUMAS
San Jose, CA
19,394

 
9,885

 
1,389

 
—

 
—

 
9,885

 
1,389

 
11,274

 
—

 
2013
NORTH FIRST
San Jose, CA
8,191

 
7,888

 
1,108

 
—

 
—

 
7,888

 
1,108

 
8,996

 
—

 
2013
NORTH POINTE PARK
Hanahan, SC

—

 
2,350

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
2,350

 
—

 
2,350

 
—

 
2011
NTB ELDRIDGE
Houston, TX
500

 
960

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
960

 
—

 
960

 
—

 
2005
OAK PARK II
Dallas, TX
—

 
8,499

 
—

 
(4,180
)
 
—

 
4,319

 
—

 
4,319

 
—

 
2011
OAK PARK TRS
Dallas, TX
—

 
19,030

 
—

 
(9,349
)
 
—

 
9,681

 
—

 
9,681

 
—

 
2011
PALAZZO DEL LAGO
Orlando, FL
—

 
8,938

 
—

 
—

 
—

 
8,938

 
—

 
8,938

 
—

 
2010




138

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
RALEIGH HILLSBOROUGH
Raleigh, NC
—

 
2,605

 
—

 
(1,930
)
 
—

 
675

 
—

 
675

 
—

 
2007
SALTGRASS RESTAURANT-HUNTING BAYOU
Jacinto City, TX
—

 
540

 
—

 
(242
)
 
—

 
298

 
—

 
298

 
—

 
2005
SBC CENTER
Hoffman Estates, IL
157,704

 
35,800

 
287,424

 
(16,297
)
 
(207,645
)
 
19,503

 
79,779

 
99,282

 
1,606

 
2007
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC
Loves Park, IL
11,000

 
2,150

 
14,720

 
(581
)
 
(6,935
)
 
1,569

 
7,785

 
9,354

 
294

 
2007
SONORA
Sunnyvale, CA
4,335

 
4,294

 
1,665

 
—

 
—

 
4,294

 
1,665

 
5,959

 
—

 
2013
SOUTHPOINT
Petaluma, CA
—

 
3,218

 
4,744

 
—

 
—

 
3,218

 
4,744

 
7,962

 
—

 
2013
SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Concord, NC
—

 
550

 
757

 
—

 
—

 
550

 
757

 
1,307

 
169

 
2007
SUNTRUST OFFICE I NC
Winston-Salem, NC
—

 
400

 
1,471

 
—

 
(1
)
 
400

 
1,470

 
1,870

 
328

 
2007
SYCAMORE
Mipitas, CA
2,730

 
2,009

 
382

 
—

 
—

 
2,009

 
382

 
2,391

 
—

 
2013
TECH I
Fremont, CA
3,027

 
2,305

 
2,295

 


 


 
2,305

 
2,295

 
4,600

 
—

 
2013


139

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
TECH II
Fremont, CA
14,400

 
5,349

 
7,918

 
—

 
—

 
5,349

 
7,918

 
13,267

 
—

 
2013
TIMBER
Fremont, CA
10,158

 
4,921

 
4,707

 


 


 
4,921

 
4,707

 
9,628

 
—

 
2013
TRIMBLE
San Jose, CA
14,868

 
12,732

 
10,045

 
—

 
—

 
12,732

 
10,045

 
22,777

 
—

 
2013
UNITED HEALTH - FREDERICK
Frederick, MD
—

 
5,100

 
26,303

 
—

 
2

 
5,100

 
26,305

 
31,405

 
4,603

 
2008
WASHINGTON MUTUAL - ARLINGTON
Arlington, TX
20,115

 
4,867

 
30,925

 
(1,549
)
 
(17,387
)
 
3,318

 
13,538

 
16,856

 
265

 
2007
WORLDGATE PLAZA
Herndon, VA
59,950

 
14,000

 
79,048

 
—

 
3,854

 
14,000

 
82,902

 
96,902

 
20,095

 
2007
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Totals
3,904,947

 
1,401,523

 
6,657,719

 
(45,192
)
 
191,602

 
1,356,331

 
6,849,321

 
8,205,652

 
1,251,454

 
 





140

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
Properties Classified as Held for Sale
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BI-LO - GREENVILLE
Greenville, SC
3,480

 
1,400

 
5,503

 
—

 
—

 
1,400

 
5,503

 
6,903

 
1,408

 
2006
 GLENDALE HEIGHTS I, II, III
Glendale Heights, IL
4,705

 
2,220

 
6,399

 
—

 
172

 
2,220

 
6,571

 
8,791

 
1,700

 
2006
 LEXINGTON ROAD
Athens, GA
5,454

 
1,980

 
7,105

 
—

 
—

 
1,980

 
7,105

 
9,085

 
1,797

 
2006
 NEWTOWN ROAD
Virginia Beach, VA
968

 
574

 
877

 
—

 
(876
)
 
574

 
1

 
575

 
—

 
2006
 STOP & SHOP - SICKLERVILLE
Sicklerville, NJ
8,064

 
2,200

 
11,559

 
—

 
—

 
2,200

 
11,559

 
13,759

 
2,959

 
2006
 STOP N SHOP - BRISTOL
Bristol, RI
8,089

 
1,700

 
11,830

 
—

 
—

 
1,700

 
11,830

 
13,530

 
3,028

 
2006
 STOP N SHOP - CUMBERLAND
Cumberland, RI
10,435

 
2,400

 
16,196

 
—

 
—

 
2,400

 
16,196

 
18,596

 
4,146

 
2006
 STOP N SHOP - FRAMINGHAM
Framingham, MA
8,987

 
6,500

 
8,517

 
—

 
—

 
6,500

 
8,517

 
15,017

 
2,180

 
2006
 STOP N SHOP - HYDE PARK
Hyde Park, NY
—

 
2,000

 
12,274

 
—

 
—

 
2,000

 
12,274

 
14,274

 
3,316

 
2006
 STOP N SHOP - MALDEN
Malden, MA
12,321

 
6,700

 
13,828

 
—

 
—

 
6,700

 
13,828

 
20,528

 
3,539

 
2006


141

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 STOP N SHOP - SOUTHINGTON
Southington, CT
10,020

 
4,000

 
13,938

 
—

 
—

 
4,000

 
13,938

 
17,938

 
3,568

 
2006
 STOP N SHOP - SWAMPSCOTT
Swampscott, MA
10,727

 
4,200

 
13,613

 
—

 
—

 
4,200

 
13,613

 
17,813

 
3,484

 
2006
 SUNTRUST BANK I AL
Muscle Shoals, AL
966

 
675

 
1,018

 
—

 
(1
)
 
675

 
1,017

 
1,692

 
217

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I AL
Killen, AL
426

 
633

 
449

 
—

 
—

 
633

 
449

 
1,082

 
96

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Panama City, FL
839

 
1,200

 
603

 
—

 
—

 
1,200

 
603

 
1,803

 
129

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Bayonet Point, FL
819

 
1,285

 
584

 
—

 
—

 
1,285

 
584

 
1,869

 
124

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Daytona Beach, FL
940

 
600

 
681

 
—

 
—

 
600

 
681

 
1,281

 
145

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Sarasota, FL
737

 
900

 
534

 
—

 
—

 
900

 
534

 
1,434

 
114

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Pensacola, FL
499

 
725

 
359

 
—

 
—

 
725

 
359

 
1,084

 
76

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Clearwater, FL
1,308

 
1,700

 
933

 
—

 
—

 
1,700

 
933

 
2,633

 
199

 
2007

142

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Daytona Beach, FL
829

 
1,218

 
601

 
—

 
—

 
1,218

 
601

 
1,819

 
128

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Deltona, FL
812

 
950

 
579

 
—

 
—

 
950

 
579

 
1,529

 
123

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Boca Raton, FL
1,172

 
1,900

 
849

 
—

 
—

 
1,900

 
849

 
2,749

 
181

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Clearwater, FL
1,124

 
900

 
802

 
—

 
—

 
900

 
802

 
1,702

 
171

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Ocala, FL
804

 
1,476

 
574

 
—

 
—

 
1,476

 
574

 
2,050

 
122

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Palm Coast, FL
748

 
1,100

 
534

 
—

 
—

 
1,100

 
534

 
1,634

 
114

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Fort Meade, FL
982

 
1,400

 
712

 
—

 
—

 
1,400

 
712

 
2,112

 
152

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Fruitland Park, FL
446

 
575

 
321

 
—

 
—

 
575

 
321

 
896

 
68

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Ocala, FL
703

 
953

 
509

 
—

 
—

 
953

 
509

 
1,462

 
109

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Ormond Beach, FL
1,063

 
950

 
771

 
—

 
—

 
950

 
771

 
1,721

 
164

 
2007


143

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL Gainesville, FL
740

 
1,100

 
537

 
—

 
—

 
1,100

 
537

 
1,637

 
114

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL Lakeland, FL
509

 
625

 
366

 
—

 
—

 
625

 
366

 
991

 
78

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Hobe Sound, FL
884

 
950

 
641

 
—

 
—

 
950

 
641

 
1,591

 
137

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL Mulberry, FL
433

 
600

 
314

 
—

 
—

 
600

 
314

 
914

 
67

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Indian Harbour Beach, FL
764

 
1,060

 
553

 
—

 
—

 
1,060

 
553

 
1,613

 
118

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL Inverness, FL
986

 
500

 
715

 
—

 
—

 
500

 
715

 
1,215

 
152

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Lake Mary, FL
1,993

 
2,100

 
1,422

 
—

 
—

 
2,100

 
1,422

 
3,522

 
303

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL Melbourne, FL
906

 
910

 
656

 
—

 
—

 
910

 
656

 
1,566

 
140

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
St. Petersburg, FL
724

 
1,000

 
525

 
—

 
—

 
1,000

 
525

 
1,525

 
112

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Lutz, FL
653

 
1,100

 
474

 
—

 
—

 
1,100

 
474

 
1,574

 
101

 
2007




144

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Marianna, FL
1,179

 
275

 
841

 
—

 
—

 
275

 
841

 
1,116

 
179

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Gainesville, FL
469

 
730

 
340

 
—

 
—

 
730

 
340

 
1,070

 
72

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Vero Beach, FL
1,361

 
900

 
979

 
—

 
—

 
900

 
979

 
1,879

 
209

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Mount Dora, FL
1,065

 
500

 
772

 
—

 
—

 
500

 
772

 
1,272

 
165

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Sarasota, FL
1,172

 
1,800

 
850

 
—

 
—

 
1,800

 
850

 
2,650

 
181

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
New Smyrna Beach, FL
556

 
300

 
403

 
—

 
—

 
300

 
403

 
703

 
86

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Lakeland, FL
972

 
1,700

 
705

 
—

 
—

 
1,700

 
705

 
2,405

 
150

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Port St. Lucie, FL
761

 
900

 
552

 
—

 
—

 
900

 
552

 
1,452

 
118

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Okeechobee, FL
861

 
1,200

 
620

 
—

 
—

 
1,200

 
620

 
1,820

 
132

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Ormond Beach, FL
1,186

 
650

 
859

 
—

 
—

 
650

 
859

 
1,509

 
183

 
2007

145

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Osprey, FL
999

 
1,100

 
719

 
—

 
—

 
1,100

 
719

 
1,819

 
153

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
New Port Richey, FL
634

 
975

 
459

 
—

 
—

 
975

 
459

 
1,434

 
98

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Pembroke Pines, FL
993

 
1,750

 
708

 
—

 
—

 
1,750

 
708

 
2,458

 
151

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Orlando, FL
992

 
1,023

 
719

 
—

 
—

 
1,023

 
719

 
1,742

 
153

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Pompano Beach, FL
1,237

 
1,800

 
896

 
—

 
—

 
1,800

 
896

 
2,696

 
191

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Jacksonville, FL
647

 
1,030

 
469

 
—

 
—

 
1,030

 
469

 
1,499

 
100

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Miami, FL
1,938

 
2,803

 
1,394

 
—

 
—

 
2,803

 
1,394

 
4,197

 
297

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Rockledge, FL
796

 
490

 
577

 
—

 
—

 
490

 
577

 
1,067

 
123

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Tampa, FL
561

 
812

 
406

 
—

 
—

 
812

 
406

 
1,218

 
87

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Seminole, FL
1,586

 
1,565

 
1,141

 
—

 
—

 
1,565

 
1,141

 
2,706

 
243

 
2007

146

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Orlando, FL
985

 
1,430

 
714

 
—

 
—

 
1,430

 
714

 
2,144

 
152

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Jacksonville, FL
594

 
861

 
431

 
—

 
—

 
861

 
431

 
1,292

 
92

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Ocala, FL
1,071

 
1,500

 
764

 
—

 
—

 
1,500

 
764

 
2,264

 
163

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Brooksville, FL
462

 
600

 
335

 
—

 
—

 
600

 
335

 
935

 
71

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Spring Hill, FL
1,067

 
600

 
761

 
—

 
—

 
600

 
761

 
1,361

 
162

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
St. Augustine, FL
1,062

 
1,000

 
758

 
—

 
—

 
1,000

 
758

 
1,758

 
161

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Port St. Lucie, FL
951

 
1,050

 
689

 
—

 
—

 
1,050

 
689

 
1,739

 
147

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Vero Beach, FL
609

 
850

 
441

 
—

 
—

 
850

 
441

 
1,291

 
94

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Gulf Breeze, FL
795

 
1,150

 
576

 
—

 
—

 
1,150

 
576

 
1,726

 
123

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Casselberry, FL
1,259

 
2,400

 
913

 
—

 
—

 
2,400

 
913

 
3,313

 
194

 
2007

147

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Winter Park, FL
1,494

 
2,700

 
1,075

 
—

 
—

 
2,700

 
1,075

 
3,775

 
229

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Plant City, FL
633

 
600

 
456

 
—

 
—

 
600

 
456

 
1,056

 
97

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
St. Petersburg, FL
913

 
1,540

 
662

 
—

 
—

 
1,540

 
662

 
2,202

 
141

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Ormond Beach, FL
911

 
580

 
661

 
—

 
—

 
580

 
661

 
1,241

 
141

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
West St. Cloud, FL
1,085

 
1,840

 
786

 
(26
)
 
—

 
1,814

 
786

 
2,600

 
168

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I FL
Tamarac, FL
899

 
1,450

 
652

 
—

 
—

 
1,450

 
652

 
2,102

 
139

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Brunswick, GA
676

 
1,050

 
584

 
—

 
—

 
1,050

 
584

 
1,634

 
124

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Kennesaw, GA
1,114

 
2,100

 
955

 
—

 
—

 
2,100

 
955

 
3,055

 
203

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Columbus, GA
1,003

 
675

 
852

 
—

 
—

 
675

 
852

 
1,527

 
182

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Atlanta, GA
3,857

 
7,184

 
3,329

 
—

 
—

 
7,184

 
3,329

 
10,513

 
710

 
2007


148

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Chambleee, GA
890

 
1,375

 
756

 
—

 
—

 
1,375

 
756

 
2,131

 
161

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Conyers, GA
912

 
525

 
787

 
—

 
—

 
525

 
787

 
1,312

 
168

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Atlanta, GA
1,414

 
1,750

 
1,211

 
—

 
—

 
1,750

 
1,211

 
2,961

 
258

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Savannah, GA
560

 
300

 
483

 
—

 
—

 
300

 
483

 
783

 
103

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Douglasville, GA
720

 
800

 
617

 
—

 
—

 
800

 
617

 
1,417

 
131

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Albany, GA
293

 
325

 
253

 
—

 
—

 
325

 
253

 
578

 
54

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Athens, GA
540

 
865

 
466

 
—

 
—

 
865

 
466

 
1,331

 
99

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Macon, GA
472

 
250

 
408

 
—

 
—

 
250

 
408

 
658

 
87

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Duluth, GA
1,366

 
1,275

 
1,171

 
—

 
—

 
1,275

 
1,171

 
2,446

 
250

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Madison, GA
723

 
90

 
614

 
—

 
—

 
90

 
614

 
704

 
131

 
2007

149

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Marietta, GA
1,298

 
2,025

 
1,120

 
—

 
—

 
2,025

 
1,120

 
3,145

 
239

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Marietta, GA
1,149

 
1,200

 
992

 
—

 
—

 
1,200

 
992

 
2,192

 
211

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Cartersville, GA
1,322

 
1,000

 
1,141

 
—

 
—

 
1,000

 
1,141

 
2,141

 
243

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Atlanta, GA
2,617

 
4,539

 
2,259

 
—

 
—

 
4,539

 
2,259

 
6,798

 
482

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Lithonia, GA
539

 
300

 
465

 
—

 
—

 
300

 
465

 
765

 
99

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Peachtree City, GA
1,197

 
1,500

 
1,034

 
—

 
—

 
1,500

 
1,034

 
2,534

 
220

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Stone Mountain, GA
797

 
575

 
688

 
—

 
—

 
575

 
688

 
1,263

 
147

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Atlanta, Ga
1,832

 
1,600

 
1,581

 
—

 
—

 
1,600

 
1,581

 
3,181

 
337

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Union City, GA
402

 
475

 
347

 
—

 
—

 
475

 
347

 
822

 
74

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Savannah, GA
535

 
650

 
462

 
—

 
—

 
650

 
462

 
1,112

 
98

 
2007

150

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Morrow, GA
1,017

 
525

 
878

 
—

 
—

 
525

 
878

 
1,403

 
187

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Norcross, GA
462

 
575

 
396

 
—

 
—

 
575

 
396

 
971

 
84

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Stockbridge, GA
699

 
869

 
603

 
—

 
—

 
869

 
603

 
1,472

 
129

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Stone Mountain, GA
529

 
250

 
449

 
—

 
—

 
250

 
449

 
699

 
96

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Sylvester, GA
450

 
575

 
388

 
—

 
—

 
575

 
388

 
963

 
83

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Evans, GA
1,233

 
1,100

 
1,065

 
—

 
—

 
1,100

 
1,065

 
2,165

 
227

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I GA
Thomson, GA
340

 
200

 
294

 
—

 
—

 
200

 
294

 
494

 
63

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I MD
Avondale, MD
1,015

 
600

 
1,414

 
—

 
(1
)
 
600

 
1,413

 
2,013

 
301

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I MD
Cambridge, MD
1,050

 
800

 
1,462

 
—

 
(1
)
 
800

 
1,461

 
2,261

 
311

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I MD
Cockeysville, MD
1,139

 
800

 
1,575

 
—

 
(1
)
 
800

 
1,574

 
2,374

 
336

 
2007

151

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I MD
Glen Burnie, MD
1,600

 
700

 
2,229

 
—

 
(1
)
 
700

 
2,228

 
2,928

 
475

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I MD
Annapolis, MD
1,776

 
100

 
2,473

 
—

 
(1
)
 
100

 
2,472

 
2,572

 
527

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I MD
Prince Frederick, MD
1,267

 
1,100

 
1,737

 
—

 
(1
)
 
1,100

 
1,736

 
2,836

 
370

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Greensboro, NC
608

 
600

 
844

 
—

 
—

 
600

 
844

 
1,444

 
180

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Greensboro, NC
510

 
550

 
719

 
—

 
—

 
550

 
719

 
1,269

 
153

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Apex, NC
640

 
190

 
896

 
—

 
—

 
190

 
896

 
1,086

 
191

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Arden, NC
341

 
450

 
477

 
—

 
—

 
450

 
477

 
927

 
102

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Asheboro, NC
490

 
400

 
690

 
—

 
—

 
400

 
690

 
1,090

 
147

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Bessemer City, NC
428

 
75

 
604

 
—

 
—

 
75

 
604

 
679

 
129

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Durham, NC
315

 
500

 
444

 
—

 
—

 
500

 
444

 
944

 
95

 
2007

152

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Charlotte, NC
506

 
550

 
701

 
—

 
—

 
550

 
701

 
1,251

 
150

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Charlotte, NC
632

 
200

 
891

 
—

 
—

 
200

 
891

 
1,091

 
190

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Greensboro, NC
654

 
425

 
915

 
—

 
—

 
425

 
915

 
1,340

 
195

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Creedmoor, NC
369

 
320

 
512

 
—

 
—

 
320

 
512

 
832

 
109

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Durham, NC
565

 
280

 
796

 
(162
)
 
—

 
118

 
796

 
914

 
170

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Dunn, NC
583

 
400

 
821

 
—

 
—

 
400

 
821

 
1,221

 
175

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Harrisburg, NC
276

 
550

 
389

 
—

 
—

 
550

 
389

 
939

 
83

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Hendersonville, NC
659

 
450

 
929

 
—

 
—

 
450

 
929

 
1,379

 
198

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Mebane, NC
734

 
300

 
1,034

 
—

 
—

 
300

 
1,034

 
1,334

 
221

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Lenoir, NC
1,689

 
175

 
2,380

 
—

 
1

 
175

 
2,381

 
2,556

 
507

 
2007

153

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Roxboro, NC
539

 
130

 
747

 
—

 
—

 
130

 
747

 
877

 
159

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Winston-Salem, NC
438

 
300

 
617

 
—

 
—

 
300

 
617

 
917

 
132

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Oxford, NC
826

 
280

 
1,164

 
—

 
—

 
280

 
1,164

 
1,444

 
248

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Pittsboro, NC
294

 
25

 
408

 
—

 
—

 
25

 
408

 
433

 
87

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Charlotte, NC
753

 
500

 
1,061

 
—

 
—

 
500

 
1,061

 
1,561

 
226

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Greensboro, NC
401

 
500

 
561

 
—

 
—

 
500

 
561

 
1,061

 
120

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Stanley, NC
291

 
350

 
410

 
—

 
—

 
350

 
410

 
760

 
87

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Salisbury, NC
273

 
275

 
382

 
—

 
—

 
275

 
382

 
657

 
81

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Sylva, NC
317

 
600

 
446

 
—

 
—

 
600

 
446

 
1,046

 
95

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Lexington, NC
168

 
150

 
237

 
—

 
—

 
150

 
237

 
387

 
51

 
2007

154

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Walnut Cove, NC
478

 
140

 
674

 
—

 
—

 
140

 
674

 
814

 
144

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Yadkinville, NC
668

 
250

 
941

 
—

 
—

 
250

 
941

 
1,191

 
201

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I NC
Rural Hall, NC
252

 
275

 
356

 
—

 
—

 
275

 
356

 
631

 
76

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I SC
Greenville, SC
836

 
260

 
1,255

 
—

 
(1
)
 
260

 
1,254

 
1,514

 
267

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I SC
Liberty, SC
513

 
80

 
758

 
—

 
—

 
80

 
758

 
838

 
162

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I SC
Mauldin, SC
590

 
350

 
878

 
—

 
(1
)
 
350

 
877

 
1,227

 
187

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I SC
Greenville, SC
543

 
160

 
816

 
—

 
—

 
160

 
816

 
976

 
174

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I SC
Greenville, SC
411

 
360

 
618

 
—

 
—

 
360

 
618

 
978

 
132

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I SC
Greenville, SC
794

 
800

 
1,192

 
—

 
(1
)
 
800

 
1,191

 
1,991

 
254

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Kingsport, TN
343

 
240

 
319

 
—

 
—

 
240

 
319

 
559

 
68

 
2007

155

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Morristown, TN
251

 
370

 
234

 
—

 
—

 
370

 
234

 
604

 
50

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Brentwood, TN
1,112

 
1,110

 
1,036

 
—

 
(1
)
 
1,110

 
1,035

 
2,145

 
221

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Brentwood, TN
1,001

 
1,100

 
932

 
—

 
(1
)
 
1,100

 
931

 
2,031

 
198

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Nashville, TN
1,104

 
1,450

 
1,028

 
—

 
(1
)
 
1,450

 
1,027

 
2,477

 
219

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
East Ridge, TN
433

 
250

 
400

 
—

 
—

 
250

 
400

 
650

 
85

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Nashville, TN
952

 
735

 
872

 
—

 
(1
)
 
735

 
871

 
1,606

 
186

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Lebanon, TN
925

 
675

 
848

 
—

 
(1
)
 
675

 
847

 
1,522

 
180

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Chattanooga, TN
677

 
425

 
630

 
—

 
(1
)
 
425

 
629

 
1,054

 
134

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Chattanooga, TN
531

 
185

 
491

 
—

 
—

 
185

 
491

 
676

 
105

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Loudon, TN
411

 
410

 
383

 
—

 
—

 
410

 
383

 
793

 
82

 
2007

156

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Nashville, TN
726

 
1,400

 
671

 
—

 
(1
)
 
1,400

 
670

 
2,070

 
143

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Soddy Daisy, TN
423

 
150

 
394

 
—

 
—

 
150

 
394

 
544

 
84

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Signal Mountain, TN
403

 
550

 
375

 
—

 
—

 
550

 
375

 
925

 
80

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Smyrna, TN
636

 
870

 
593

 
—

 
(1
)
 
870

 
592

 
1,462

 
126

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Murfreesboro, TN
570

 
1,000

 
530

 
—

 
(1
)
 
1,000

 
529

 
1,529

 
113

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Murfreesboro, TN
285

 
391

 
265

 
—

 
—

 
391

 
265

 
656

 
57

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Johnson City, TN
184

 
180

 
168

 
—

 
—

 
180

 
168

 
348

 
36

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Chattanooga, TN
298

 
453

 
278

 
—

 
—

 
453

 
278

 
731

 
59

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I TN
Nashville, TN
488

 
620

 
454

 
—

 
—

 
620

 
454

 
1,074

 
97

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Accomac, VA
232

 
30

 
260

 
—

 
—

 
30

 
260

 
290

 
55

 
2007

157

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Richmond, VA
273

 
300

 
306

 
—

 
—

 
300

 
306

 
606

 
65

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Fairfax, VA
1,471

 
1,000

 
1,647

 
—

 
—

 
1,000

 
1,647

 
2,647

 
351

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Fredericksburg, VA
911

 
1,000

 
1,012

 
—

 
—

 
1,000

 
1,012

 
2,012

 
216

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Richmond, VA
261

 
500

 
292

 
—

 
—

 
500

 
292

 
792

 
62

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Collinsville, VA
349

 
140

 
384

 
—

 
—

 
140

 
384

 
524

 
82

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Lynchburg, VA
889

 
380

 
988

 
—

 
—

 
380

 
988

 
1,368

 
210

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Stafford, VA
1,323

 
2,200

 
1,482

 
—

 
—

 
2,200

 
1,482

 
3,682

 
316

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Gloucester, VA
1,036

 
760

 
1,142

 
—

 
—

 
760

 
1,142

 
1,902

 
243

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Chesapeake, VA
653

 
450

 
726

 
—

 
—

 
450

 
726

 
1,176

 
155

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Lexington, VA
204

 
310

 
228

 
—

 
—

 
310

 
228

 
538

 
49

 
2007

158

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Radford, Va
165

 
90

 
185

 
—

 
—

 
90

 
185

 
275

 
39

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Williamsburg, VA
489

 
530

 
547

 
—

 
—

 
530

 
547

 
1,077

 
117

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Roanoke, VA
1,212

 
1,170

 
1,357

 
—

 
—

 
1,170

 
1,357

 
2,527

 
289

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Onancock, VA
892

 
200

 
999

 
—

 
—

 
200

 
999

 
1,199

 
213

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Painter, VA
157

 
120

 
176

 
—

 
—

 
120

 
176

 
296

 
37

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Stuart, VA
840

 
260

 
926

 
—

 
—

 
260

 
926

 
1,186

 
197

 
2007
 SUNTRUST BANK I VA
Roanoke, VA
445

 
450

 
498

 
—

 
—

 
450

 
498

 
948

 
106

 
2007
 AT&T - ST LOUIS
St Louis, MO
112,695

 
8,000

 
170,169

 
—

 
173

 
8,000

 
170,342

 
178,342

 
40,097

 
2007
 COMMONS DRIVE
Aurora, IL
3,663

 
1,600

 
5,746

 
—

 
3,320

 
1,600

 
9,066

 
10,666

 
1,962

 
2007

159

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 HOUSTON LAKES
Houston, TX
8,988

 
3,000

 
12,950

 
—

 
644

 
3,000

 
13,594

 
16,594

 
3,296

 
2006
 KINROSS LAKES
Richfield, OH
10,065

 
825

 
14,639

 
(468
)
 
(11,368
)
 
357

 
3,271

 
3,628

 
89

 
2005
 REGIONAL ROAD
Greensboro, NC
8,679

 
950

 
10,501

 
—

 
122

 
950

 
10,623

 
11,573

 
2,673

 
2006
 SANOFI AVENTIS
Bridgewater, NJ
190,000

 
16,900

 
192,987

 
—

 
2,621

 
16,900

 
195,608

 
212,508

 
31,953

 
2009
 SANTEE - CIVIC CENTER
Santee, CA
12,023

 
—

 
17,838

 
—

 
802

 
—

 
18,640

 
18,640

 
4,446

 
2005
 SUNTRUST OFFICE I FL
Bushnell, FL
578

 
315

 
363

 
—

 
(1
)
 
315

 
362

 
677

 
77

 
2007
 SUNTRUST OFFICE I FL
Melbourne, FL
1,046

 
1,260

 
662

 
—

 
(1
)
 
1,260

 
661

 
1,921

 
141

 
2007
 SUNTRUST OFFICE I GA
Douglas, GA
495

 
275

 
675

 
—

 
—

 
275

 
675

 
950

 
144

 
2007
 SUNTRUST OFFICE I MD
Bethesda, MD
2,651

 
650

 
4,617

 
—

 
(2
)
 
650

 
4,615

 
5,265

 
983

 
2007
 SUNTRUST OFFICE I NC
Raleigh, NC
1,098

 
500

 
1,700

 
—

 
(1
)
 
500

 
1,699

 
2,199

 
362

 
2007


160

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 SUNTRUST OFFICE I VA
Richmond, VA
3,826

 
1,360

 
6,272

 
—

 
(3
)
 
1,360

 
6,269

 
7,629

 
1,336

 
2007
 11500 MELROSE AVE -294 TOLLWAY
Franklin Park, IL
4,561

 
2,500

 
5,071

 
—

 
—

 
2,500

 
5,071

 
7,571

 
1,142

 
2006
 1800 BRUNING
Itasca, IL
10,156

 
10,000

 
7,971

 
—

 
87

 
10,000

 
8,058

 
18,058

 
2,008

 
2006
 500 HARTLAND
Hartland, WI
5,860

 
1,200

 
7,459

 
—

 
150

 
1,200

 
7,609

 
8,809

 
1,899

 
2006
 55th STREET
Kenosha, WI
7,351

 
1,600

 
11,115

 
—

 
—

 
1,600

 
11,115

 
12,715

 
2,811

 
2007
 BAYMEADOW - GLEN BURNIE
Glen Burnie, MD
13,824

 
1,225

 
23,407

 
—

 
24

 
1,225

 
23,431

 
24,656

 
5,587

 
2006
 C&S - ABERDEEN
Aberdeen, MD
22,720

 
4,650

 
33,276

 
(10
)
 
13

 
4,640

 
33,289

 
37,929

 
7,842

 
2006
 C&S - BIRMINGHAM
Birmingham, AL
24,521

 
3,400

 
40,373

 
—

 
—

 
3,400

 
40,373

 
43,773

 
7,391

 
2008
 C&S - NORTH HATFIELD
Hatfield, MA
20,280

 
4,800

 
30,103

 
—

 
14

 
4,800

 
30,117

 
34,917

 
7,094

 
2006

161

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 C&S - SOUTH HATFIELD
Hatfield, MA
10,000

 
2,500

 
15,251

 
—

 
11

 
2,500

 
15,262

 
17,762

 
3,595

 
2006
 C&S - WESTFIELD
Westfield, MA
29,500

 
3,850

 
45,906

 
—

 
13

 
3,850

 
45,919

 
49,769

 
10,817

 
2006
 CLARION
Clarion, IA
3,172

 
87

 
4,790

 
—

 
90

 
87

 
4,880

 
4,967

 
1,159

 
2007
 COLOMA
Coloma, MI
10,017

 
410

 
17,110

 
—

 
772

 
410

 
17,882

 
18,292

 
3,792

 
2006
 DEER PARK SEACO
Deer Park, TX
2,965

 
240

 
5,271

 
—

 
—

 
240

 
5,271

 
5,511

 
1,333

 
2007
 DORAL - WAUKESHA
Waukesha, WI
1,364

 
240

 
2,013

 
—

 
76

 
240

 
2,089

 
2,329

 
511

 
2006
 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE
Horican, WI
3,709

 
200

 
6,812

 
—

 
—

 
200

 
6,812

 
7,012

 
1,644

 
2007
 KINSTON
Kinston, NC
8,930

 
460

 
14,837

 
—

 
250

 
460

 
15,087

 
15,547

 
3,299

 
2006
 KIRK ROAD
St. Charles, IL
7,863

 
2,200

 
11,413

 
—

 
42

 
2,200

 
11,455

 
13,655

 
2,895

 
2007
 LIBERTYVILLE ASSOCIATES
Libertyville, IL
14,807

 
3,600

 
20,563

 
—

 
9

 
3,600

 
20,572

 
24,172

 
4,784

 
2005

162

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


 
 
 
Initial Cost (A)
 
 
 
 
 
Gross amount at which carried at end of period
 
Encumbrance
 
Land
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 
Adjustments
to Land
Basis
(C)
 
Adjustments
to Basis (C)
 
Land and
Improvements
 
Buildings and
Improvements
 (D)
 
Total (D,E)
 
Accumulated
Depreciation 
(D,F)
 
Date of
Completion of
Construction or
Acquisition
 MOUNT ZION ROAD
Lebanon, IN
24,632

 
2,570

 
41,667

 
—

 
—

 
2,570

 
41,667

 
44,237

 
9,693

 
2007
 OTTAWA
Ottawa, IL
1,768

 
200

 
2,905

 
—

 
—

 
200

 
2,905

 
3,105

 
717

 
2007
 TRI-STATE HOLDINGS I
Wood Dale, IL
4,665

 
4,700

 
3,973

 
—

 
—

 
4,700

 
3,973

 
8,673

 
968

 
2007
 TRI-STATE HOLDINGS II
Houston, TX
6,372

 
1,630

 
11,252

 
—

 
—

 
1,630

 
11,252

 
12,882

 
2,618

 
2007
 TRI-STATE HOLDINGS III
Mosinee, WI
4,334

 
650

 
8,083

 
—

 
—

 
650

 
8,083

 
8,733

 
1,880

 
2007
 WESTPORT - MECHANICSBURG
Mechanicsburg, PA
4,029

 
1,300

 
6,183

 
—

 
486

 
1,300

 
6,669

 
7,969

 
1,642

 
2006
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Held for Sale Properties, total
826,762

 
272,536

 
1,069,418

 
(666
)
 
(2,379
)
 
271,870

 
1,067,039

 
1,338,909

 
(233,907
)
 
 




163

INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
(A Maryland Corporation)
Schedule III
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
December 31, 2013


Notes:
(A)
The initial cost to the Company represents the original purchase price of the property, including amounts incurred subsequent to acquisition which were contemplated at the time the property was acquired.
(B)
The aggregate cost of real estate owned at December 31, 2013 for Federal income tax purposes was approximately $10,234,045 (unaudited).
(C)
Cost capitalized subsequent to acquisition includes payments under master lease agreements as well as additional tangible costs associated with investment properties, including any earnout of tenant space.
(D)
Reconciliation of real estate owned:
 
2013
 
2012
 
2011
Balance at January 1,
$
10,561,820

 
10,404,239

 
10,295,107

Acquisitions and capital improvements
1,550,992

 
885,768

 
618,923

Disposals and write-offs
(2,568,251
)
 
(728,187
)
 
(509,791
)
Properties classified as held for sale
$
(1,338,909
)
 
—

 
—

Balance at December 31,
$
8,205,652

 
10,561,820

 
10,404,239

 
(E)
Reconciliation of accumulated depreciation:
Balance at January 1,
$
1,581,524

 
1,301,899

 
1,038,829

Depreciation expense, continuing operations
275,699

 
361,974

 
361,450

Depreciation expense, properties classified as held for sale
27,855

 
—

 
—

Accumulated depreciation expense, properties classified as held for sale
(233,907
)
 
—

 
—

Disposal and write-offs
(399,717
)
 
(82,349
)
 
(98,380
)
Balance at December 31,
$
1,251,454

 
1,581,524

 
1,301,899

 
(F)
Depreciation is computed based upon the following estimated lives:
Buildings and improvements
30 years
Tenant improvements
Life of the lease
Furniture, fixtures & equipment
5
-
15 years



164


Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
Not applicable.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures
As required by Rule 13a-15(b) and Rule 15d-15(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), our management, including our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer evaluated as of December 31, 2013, the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and Rule 15d-15(e). Based on that evaluation, our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures, as of December 31, 2013, were effective for the purpose of ensuring that information required to be disclosed by us in this report is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified by the rules and forms of the Exchange Act and is accumulated and communicated to management, including the principal executive officer and our principal financial officer as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.
Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, evaluated as of December 31, 2013, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (1992). Based on its evaluation, our management has concluded that we maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013.
This annual report does not include an attestation report of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to the permanent deferral adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit the Company to provide only management’s report in this annual report.
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
There has been no change in our internal control over financial reporting during the fourth quarter of 2013 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
Item 9B. Other Information
None.


Part III
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
The information required by this Item will be presented in our definitive proxy statement for the 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, which is expected to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission no later than April 30, 2014, and is incorporated herein by reference.

Code of Ethics
We have adopted a code of ethics applicable to our directors, officers and employees, which is available on our website free of charge at http://www.inlandamerican.com. We will provide the code of ethics free of charge upon request to our customer relations group.

Item 11. Executive Compensation
The information required by this Item will be presented in our definitive proxy statement for the 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, which is expected to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission no later than April 30, 2014, and is incorporated herein by reference.



165

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
The information required by this Item will be presented in our definitive proxy statement for the 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, which is expected to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission no later than April 30, 2014, and is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
The information required by this Item will be presented in our definitive proxy statement for the 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, which is expected to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission no later than April 30, 2014, and is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.
The information required by this Item will be presented in our definitive proxy statement for the 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, which is expected to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission no later than April 30, 2014, and is incorporated herein by reference.

Part IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
(a)
List of documents filed:

(b)
Financial Statements:
 
 
Report of Independent Registered Public Account Firm
 
 
The consolidated financial statements of the Company are set forth in the report in Item 8.
(2)
Financial Statement Schedules:
 
 
Financial statement schedule for the year ended December 31, 2013 is submitted herewith.
 
 
Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation (Schedule III)
(3)
Exhibits:
 
 
The list of exhibits filed as part of this Annual Report is set forth on the Exhibit Index attached hereto.
(b)
Exhibits:
 
 
The exhibits filed in response to Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed on the Exhibit Index attached hereto.
(c)
Financial Statement Schedules
All schedules other than those indicated in the index have been omitted as the required information is inapplicable or the information is presented in the consolidated financial statements or related notes.


166

SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
INLAND AMERICAN REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC.
 
 
 
/s/ Thomas P. McGuinness
By:
 
Thomas P. McGuinness
 
 
President
Date:
 
March 13, 2014
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
 
  
 
Signature
 
Title
 
Date
 
 
 
 
By:
 
/s/ Robert D. Parks
 
Director and chairman of the board
 
March 13, 2014
Name:
 
Robert D. Parks
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By:
 
/s/ Thomas P. McGuinness
 
President (principal executive officer)
 
March 13, 2014
Name:
 
Thomas P. McGuinness
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By:
 
/s/ Jack Potts
 
Treasurer and principal financial officer
 
March 13, 2014
Name:
 
Jack Potts
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By:
 
/s/ Anna N. Fitzgerald
 
Principal accounting officer
 
March 13, 2014
Name:
 
Anna N. Fitzgerald
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By:
 
/s/ J. Michael Borden
 
Director
 
March 13, 2014
Name:
 
J. Michael Borden
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By:
 
/s/ Thomas F. Meagher
 
Director
 
March 13, 2014
Name:
 
Thomas F. Meagher
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By:
 
/s/ Paula Saban
 
Director
 
March 13, 2014
Name:
 
Paula Saban
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By:
 
/s/ William J. Wierzbicki
 
Director
 
March 13, 2014
Name:
 
William J. Wierzbicki
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By:
 
/s/ Thomas F. Glavin
 
Director
 
March 13, 2014
Name:
 
Thomas F. Glavin
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By:
 
/s/ Brenda G. Gujral
 
Director
 
March 13, 2014
Name:
 
Brenda G. Gujral
 
 
 
 

167


EXHIBIT INDEX

 
 
 
EXHIBIT
NO.
 
DESCRIPTION
 
 
3.1
 
Sixth Articles of Amendment and Restatement of Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on August 26, 2010)
 
 
3.2
 
Amended and Restated Bylaws of Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc., effective as of April 1, 2008 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on April 1, 2008), as amended by the Amendment to the Amended and Restated Bylaws of Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc., effective as of January 20, 2009 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on January 23, 2009)
 
 
4.1
 
Second Amended and Restated Distribution Reinvestment Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on September 23, 2010)
 
 
4.2
 
Statement regarding restrictions on transferability of shares of common stock (to appear on stock certificate or to be sent upon request and without charge to stockholders issued shares without certificates) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.4 to the Registrant’s Amendment No. 1 to Form S-11 Registration Statement, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on July 31, 2007 (file number 333-139504))
 
 
10.1
 
First Amended and Restated Business Management Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2007, by and between Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. and Inland American Business Manager & Advisor, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on August 3, 2009)
 
 
10.1.1
 
Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Business Management Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant's Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on August 2, 2013)

 
 
10.2.2
 
Master Management Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2012, by and between Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. and Inland American Industrial Management LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on July 6, 2012)
 
 
10.2.3
 
Master Management Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2012, by and between Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. and Inland American Office Management LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on July 6, 2012)

168

EXHIBIT
NO.
 
DESCRIPTION
 
 
10.2.4
 
Fourth Master Management Agreement and Property Management Agreement Amendment Agreement, dated as of October 30, 2013, by and among Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. and Inland American Industrial Management LLC, Inland American Office Management LLC and Inland American Retail Management LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2013)
 
 
10.2.5
 
Fifth Master Management Agreement and Property Management Agreement Amendment Agreement, dated as of November 29, 2013, by and among Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. and Inland American Industrial Management LLC, Inland American Office Management LLC and Inland American Retail Management LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2013)
 
 
10.2.6
 
Sixth Master Management Agreement and Property Management Agreement Amendment Agreement, dated as of December 30, 2013, by and among Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. and Inland American Industrial Management LLC, Inland American Office Management LLC and Inland American Retail Management LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2014)
 
 
10.3
 
First Amended and Restated Property Acquisition Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2007, by and between Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. and Inland American Real Estate Acquisitions, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3.1 to the Registrant’s Amendment No. 1 to Form S-11 Registration Statement, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on July 31, 2007 (file number 333-139504))
 
 
10.4
 
Form of Indemnification Agreement (previously filed and incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the Registrant’s Amendment No. 4 to Form S-11 Registration Statement, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on August 18, 2005 (file number 333-122743))
 
 
10.5
 
Indemnity Agreement, dated as of June 9, 2008, by Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. in favor of and for the benefit of Inland Real Estate Acquisitions, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.177 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on June 13, 2008)
 
 
10.6
 
Amended and Restated Independent Director Stock Option Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on July 26, 2010)
 
 
10.7
 
Articles of Association of Oak Real Estate Association by and among Inland Real Estate Corporation, Inland Real Estate Trust, Inc., Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. and Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc., dated September 29, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.139 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on November 7, 2006)
 
 
10.8
 
Operating Agreement of Oak Property and Casualty L.L.C. by and among Inland Real Estate Corporation, Inland Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc., Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. and Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc, dated September 29, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.140 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on November 7, 2006)
 
 
10.9
 
Oak Property and Casualty L.L.C. Membership Participation Agreement by and among Inland Real Estate Corporation, Inland Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc., Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc., Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc., and Oak Property and Casualty L.L.C. dated September 29, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.141 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on November 7, 2006)
 
 
10.10
 
Letter Agreement, dated May 4, 2012, from Inland American Business Manager & Advisor, Inc. to Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on May 7, 2012)
 
 
 
14.1
 
Code of Ethics*
 
 
 
21.1
 
Subsidiaries of the Registrant*
 
 
23.1
 
Consent of KPMG LLP*

169

EXHIBIT
NO.
 
DESCRIPTION
 
 
31.1
 
Certification by Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002*
 
 
31.2
 
Certification by Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002*
 
 
32.1
 
Certification by Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002*
 
 
32.2
 
Certification by Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002*
 
 
99.1
 
Non-Retaliation Policy (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to the Registrant’s Form S-11 Registration Statement, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on February 11, 2005 (file number 333-122743))
 
 
99.2
 
Responsibilities of the Compliance Officer of the Company (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2 to the Registrant’s Form S-11 Registration Statement, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on February 11, 2005 (file number 333-122743))
 
 
99.3
 
First Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Minto Builders (Florida), Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on October 17, 2005)
 
 
99.4
 
Articles of Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Minto Builders (Florida), Inc. with Respect to 3.5% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on October 17, 2005)
 
 
99.5
 
Second Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Minto Builders (Florida), Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on October 17, 2005)
 
 
99.6
 
Articles of Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Minto Builders (Florida), Inc. with Respect to Convertible Special Voting Stock (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.4 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on October 17, 2005)
 
 
99.7
 
Articles of Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Minto Builders (Florida), Inc. with Respect to 125 Shares of 12.5% Series B Cumulative Non-Voting Preferred Stock (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.5 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on October 17, 2005)
 
 
99.8
 
Second Amended and Restated Share Repurchase Program, effective February 1, 2012 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2 to the Registrant’s Form 8-K, as filed by the Registrant with the SEC on December 29, 2011)
 
 
 
 
101
  
The following financial information from our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2014, is formatted in Extensible Business Reporting Language (“XBRL”): (i) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (ii) Consolidated Statements of Operations and Other Comprehensive Income, (iii) Consolidated Statements of Equity, (iv) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (v) Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (tagged as blocks of text).
*
Filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
 

170