Whitestone REIT - Quarter Report: 2008 March (Form 10-Q)
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
FORM 10-Q
x
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
|
|
For the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2008
|
|
OR
|
c
|
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 000-50256
WHITESTONE
REIT
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Maryland
|
76-0594970
|
(State
or other jurisdiction of
|
(IRS
Employer
|
incorporation
or organization)
|
Identification
No.)
|
2600 South Gessner, Suite
500
Houston, Texas
77063
(Address
of principal executive offices)
(713) 827-9595
(Registrant’s
telephone number, including area code)
Indicate by
check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed
by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required
to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for
the past 90 days.
Yes x
|
No
o
|
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See
the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller
reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check
one):
Large accelerated filer o
|
Accelerated filer o
|
Non-accelerated filer (Do not
check if a smaller reporting company) x
|
Smaller reporting company o
|
Indicate
by checkmark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act).
Yes
o
|
No x
|
The number of the registrant’s Common Shares of Beneficial Interest outstanding at April 30,2008, was 10,001,269.
Page
|
||
PART I--FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
|
||
Item 1.
|
Financial
Statements
|
2
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of
March 31, 2008 (unaudited) and December 31, 2007
|
2
|
|
Consolidated Statements of
Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the
|
||
Three Months Ended March 31, 2008
and 2007 (unaudited)
|
3
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Changes
in Shareholders' Equity for the Three Months Ended
|
||
March 31, 2008
(unaudited)
|
4
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash
Flows for the Three Months Ended
|
||
March 31, 2008 and 2007
(unaudited)
|
5
|
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements (unaudited)
|
6
|
|
Item 2.
|
Management’s Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
20
|
Item 3.
|
Quantitative and Qualitative
Disclosures About Market Risk
|
29
|
Item 4T.
|
Controls and
Procedures
|
29
|
PART II--OTHER
INFORMATION
|
||
Item 1.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
29
|
Item 1A.
|
Risk
Factors
|
31
|
Item 2.
|
Unregistered Sales of Equity
Securities and Use of Proceeds
|
31
|
Item 3.
|
Defaults Upon Senior
Securities
|
31
|
Item 4.
|
Submission of Matters to a Vote of
Security Holders
|
31
|
Item 5.
|
Other
Information
|
31
|
Item 6.
|
Exhibits
|
32
|
PART
I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item
1. Financial Statements
WHITESTONE REIT AND
SUBSIDIARY
|
||||||||
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEETS
|
||||||||
( in thousands, except share
data)
|
||||||||
March 31,
|
December
31,
|
|||||||
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
(unaudited)
|
||||||||
Assets
|
||||||||
Property
|
$ | 182,336 | $ | 181,809 | ||||
Accumulated
depreciation
|
(28,070 | ) | (27,417 | ) | ||||
Property,
net
|
154,266 | 154,392 | ||||||
Cash and cash
equivalents
|
10,511 | 10,811 | ||||||
Accrued rent and accounts
receivable, net of allowance for
|
||||||||
doubtful
accounts
|
5,151 | 5,611 | ||||||
Unamortized lease commissions and
loan costs
|
3,747 | 2,958 | ||||||
Prepaid expenses and other
assets
|
1,472 | 1,372 | ||||||
Total
Assets
|
$ | 175,147 | $ | 175,144 | ||||
Liabilities and Shareholders'
Equity
|
||||||||
Notes
payable
|
$ | 88,532 | $ | 83,461 | ||||
Accounts payable and accrued
expenses
|
4,734 | 6,766 | ||||||
Tenants' security
deposits
|
1,702 | 1,664 | ||||||
Dividends and distributions
payable
|
2,371 | 2,371 | ||||||
Total
liabilities
|
97,339 | 94,262 | ||||||
Minority interests of unit holders
in Operating Partnership;
|
||||||||
5,808,337 units at March 31, 2008
and December 31, 2007
|
26,904 | 28,039 | ||||||
Commitments and
Contingencies
|
- | - | ||||||
Shareholders'
equity
|
||||||||
Preferred shares, $0.001 par value
per share; 50,000,000
|
||||||||
shares authorized; none issued and
outstanding
|
||||||||
at March 31, 2008 and December 31,
2007
|
- | - | ||||||
Common shares, $0.001 par value
per share; 400,000,000
|
||||||||
shares authorized; 10,001,269
issued and
|
||||||||
outstanding at March 31, 2008 and
December 31, 2007
|
10 | 10 | ||||||
Additional paid-in
capital
|
72,273 | 72,273 | ||||||
Accumulated
deficit
|
(20,779 | ) | (19,210 | ) | ||||
Accumulated other comprehensive
loss
|
(600 | ) | (230 | ) | ||||
Total shareholders'
equity
|
50,904 | 52,843 | ||||||
Total Liabilities and
Shareholders' Equity
|
$ | 175,147 | $ | 175,144 |
See notes
to consolidated financial statements
2
WHITESTONE REIT AND
SUBSIDIARY
|
||||||||
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
|
||||||||
(in thousands, except per share
data)
|
||||||||
(unaudited)
|
||||||||
Three Months ended March
31,
|
||||||||
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
Revenues
|
||||||||
Rental
income
|
$ | 6,503 | $ | 6,095 | ||||
Tenants'
reimbursements
|
1,507 | 1,355 | ||||||
Other
income
|
115 | 95 | ||||||
Total revenues
|
8,125 | 7,545 | ||||||
Operating
expenses
|
||||||||
Property operation and
maintenance
|
2,190 | 2,059 | ||||||
Real estate
taxes
|
1,054 | 903 | ||||||
General and
administrative
|
1,963 | 2,034 | ||||||
Depreciation and
amortization
|
1,623 | 1,612 | ||||||
Total operating
expenses
|
6,830 | 6,608 | ||||||
Operating
income
|
1,295 | 937 | ||||||
Other income
(expense)
|
||||||||
Interest
income
|
85 | 136 | ||||||
Interest
expense
|
(1,402 | ) | (1,275 | ) | ||||
Provision for income
taxes
|
(57 | ) | - | |||||
Loss on sale or disposal of
assets
|
(32 | ) | - | |||||
Change in fair value of derivative
instrument
|
- | (20 | ) | |||||
Loss before minority
interests
|
(111 | ) | (222 | ) | ||||
Minority interests in Operating
Partnership
|
42 | 84 | ||||||
Net loss
|
$ | (69 | ) | $ | (138 | ) | ||
Loss per common share - basic and
diluted
|
$ | (0.007 | ) | $ | (0.014 | ) | ||
Comprehensive
loss:
|
||||||||
Net loss
|
$ | (69 | ) | $ | (138 | ) | ||
Other comprehensive
loss:
|
||||||||
Unrealized loss on
derivatives
|
(370 | ) | - | |||||
Other comprehensive
loss
|
(370 | ) | - | |||||
Comprehensive
loss
|
$ | (439 | ) | $ | (138 | ) | ||
Weighted-average shares
outstanding
|
10,001 | 9,992 | ||||||
See notes
to consolidated financial statements
3
WHITESTONE REIT AND
SUBSIDIARY
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES
IN SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
(in
thousands)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Accumulated
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional
|
Other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Common
Shares
|
Paid-in
|
Accumulated
|
Comprehensive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Shares
|
Amount
|
Capital
|
Deficit
|
Loss
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Balance, December 31,
2007
|
10,001 | $ | 10 | $ | 72,273 | $ | (19,210 | ) | $ | (230 | ) | $ | 52,843 | |||||||||||
Net loss
|
- | - | - | (69 | ) | - | (69 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Unrealized loss on change in
fair
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
value of cash flow
hedges
|
(370 | ) | (370 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Dividends
|
- | - | - | (1,500 | ) | - | (1,500 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Balance, March 31, 2008
(unaudited)
|
10,001 | $ | 10 | $ | 72,273 | $ | (20,779 | ) | $ | (600 | ) | $ | 50,904 |
See notes
to consolidated financial statements
4
WHITESTONE REIT AND
SUBSIDIARY
|
||||||||
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH
FLOWS
|
||||||||
(in
thousands)
|
||||||||
Three Months ended March
31,
|
||||||||
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
(unaudited)
|
||||||||
Cash flows from operating
activities:
|
||||||||
Net loss
|
$ | (69 | ) | $ | (138 | ) | ||
Adjustments to reconcile net loss
to
|
||||||||
net cash used in operating
activities:
|
||||||||
Depreciation and
amortization
|
1,623 | 1,612 | ||||||
Minority interests in Operating
Partnership
|
(42 | ) | (84 | ) | ||||
Loss on sale or disposal of
assets
|
32 | - | ||||||
Bad debt
expense
|
165 | 169 | ||||||
Change in fair value of derivative
instrument
|
- | 20 | ||||||
Changes in operating assets and
liabilities:
|
||||||||
Escrows and acquisition
deposits
|
334 | 114 | ||||||
Receivables
|
295 | (631 | ) | |||||
Deferred
costs
|
(271 | ) | (148 | ) | ||||
Prepaid expenses and other
assets
|
(434 | ) | (272 | ) | ||||
Accounts payable and accrued
expenses
|
(2,885 | ) | (3,170 | ) | ||||
Due to
affiliates
|
- | (103 | ) | |||||
Tenants' security
deposits
|
38 | 30 | ||||||
Prepaid
rent
|
260 | (150 | ) | |||||
Net cash used in operating
activities
|
(954 | ) | (2,751 | ) | ||||
Cash flows from investing
activities:
|
||||||||
Additions to real
estate
|
(1,130 | ) | (140 | ) | ||||
Repayment of note
receivable
|
- | 7 | ||||||
Net cash used in investing
activities
|
(1,130 | ) | (133 | ) | ||||
Cash flows from financing
activities:
|
||||||||
Dividends
paid
|
(1,500 | ) | (1,505 | ) | ||||
Distributions paid to OP unit
holders
|
(871 | ) | (905 | ) | ||||
Proceeds from issuance of common
shares
|
- | 262 | ||||||
Proceeds from notes
payable
|
11,404 | 14,469 | ||||||
Repayments of notes
payable
|
(6,333 | ) | (5,176 | ) | ||||
Payments of loan origination
costs
|
(916 | ) | (147 | ) | ||||
Net cash provided by financing
activities
|
1,784 | 6,998 | ||||||
Net increase (decrease) in cash
and cash equivalents
|
(300 | ) | 4,114 | |||||
Cash and cash equivalents at
beginning of period
|
10,811 | 8,298 | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents at end
of period
|
$ | 10,511 | $ | 12,412 | ||||
Supplemental disclosure of cash
flow information
|
||||||||
Disposal of fully depreciated real
estate
|
$ | 571 | $ | - | ||||
Cash paid for
interest
|
$ | 1,445 | $ | 1,364 | ||||
Financed insurance
premiums
|
$ | 391 | $ | 458 |
See notes
to consolidated financial statements
5
WHITESTONE
REIT AND SUBSIDIARY
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
March
31, 2008
1. Interim
Financial Statements
The
consolidated financial statements included in this report are unaudited;
however, amounts presented in the balance sheet as of December 31, 2007 are
derived from the audited consolidated financial statements of Whitestone REIT at
that date. The unaudited financial statements at March 31, 2008 have
been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
for interim financial information on a basis consistent with the annual audited
consolidated financial statements and with the instructions to Form
10-Q. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and
notes required by U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for complete
financial statements. The consolidated financial statements presented
herein reflect all adjustments which, in the opinion of management, are
necessary for a fair presentation of the financial position of Whitestone REIT
(“Whitestone”, “us”, “we”, and “our”), and our subsidiary as of March
31, 2008 and results of operations and cash flows for the three month periods
ended March 31, 2008 and 2007. All of these adjustments are of a
normal recurring nature. The results of operations for the interim
period are not necessarily indicative of the results expected for a full
year. The statements should be read in conjunction with the audited
consolidated financial statements and notes which are included in our Annual
Report on Form 10-K.
Business
Whitestone
was formed as a real estate investment trust, pursuant to the Texas Real Estate
Investment Trust Act on August 20, 1998. In July 2004, Whitestone
changed its state of organization from Texas to Maryland pursuant to a merger of
Whitestone directly with and into a Maryland real estate investment trust formed
for the sole purpose of the reorganization and the conversion of each
outstanding common share of beneficial interest of the Texas entity into 1.42857
common shares of beneficial interest of the Maryland
entity. Whitestone serves as the general partner of Whitestone REIT
Operating Partnership, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership” or “WROP” or “OP”),
which was formed on December 31, 1998 as a Delaware limited
partnership. Whitestone currently conducts substantially all of its
operations and activities through the Operating Partnership. As the
general partner of the Operating Partnership, Whitestone has the exclusive power
to manage and conduct the business of the Operating Partnership, subject to
certain customary exceptions. As of March 31, 2008 and December 31,
2007, we owned and operated 37 retail, warehouse and office properties in and
around Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Phoenix.
2. Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
Basis
of Consolidation
We are
the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership and possess full legal
control and authority over the operations of the Operating
Partnership. As of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, we owned a
majority of the partnership interests in the Operating
Partnership. Consequently, the accompanying consolidated financial
statements include the accounts of the Operating Partnership. All
significant inter-company balances have been eliminated. Minority
interest in the accompanying consolidated financial statements represents the
share of equity and earnings of the Operating Partnership allocable to holders
of partnership interests other than us. Net income or loss is
allocated to minority interests based on the weighted-average percentage
ownership of the Operating Partnership during the year. Issuance of
additional common shares of beneficial interest in Whitestone (“common shares”)
and units of limited partnership interest in the Operating Partnership that are
convertible into common shares on a one for one basis (“OP Units”) changes the
ownership interests of both the minority interests and Whitestone.
6
WHITESTONE
REIT AND SUBSIDIARY
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
March
31, 2008
Basis
of Accounting
Our
financial records are maintained on the accrual basis of accounting whereby
revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when
incurred.
Use
of Estimates
The preparation of
financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles requires 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 financial statements and the reported amounts
of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Significant
estimates that we use include the estimated useful lives for depreciable and
amortizable assets and costs, the estimated allowance for doubtful accounts, and
the estimated fair value of interest rate swaps. Actual results could
differ from those estimates.
Reclassifications
We have
reclassified certain prior fiscal year amounts in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements in order to be consistent with the current fiscal year
presentation. These reclassifications had no effect on net loss or
shareholders’ equity.
Revenue
Recognition
All
leases on our properties are classified as operating leases, and the related
rental income is recognized on a straight-line basis over the terms of the
related leases. Differences between rental income earned and amounts
due per the respective lease agreements are capitalized or charged, as
applicable, to accrued rent receivable. Percentage rents are
recognized as rental income when the thresholds upon which they are based have
been met. Recoveries from tenants for taxes, insurance, and other
operating expenses are recognized as revenues in the period the corresponding
costs are incurred. We have established an allowance for doubtful
accounts against the portion of tenant accounts receivable which is estimated to
be uncollectible.
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
We
consider all highly liquid debt instruments purchased with an original maturity
of three months or less to be cash equivalents. Cash and cash
equivalents at March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007 consist of demand deposits
at commercial banks and money market funds.
Real
Estate
Development
Properties. Land, buildings and improvements are recorded at
cost. Expenditures related to the development of real estate are carried at cost
which includes capitalized carrying charges, acquisition costs and development
costs. Carrying charges, primarily interest, real estate taxes and loan
acquisition costs, and direct and indirect development costs related to
buildings under construction, are capitalized as part of construction in
progress. The capitalization of such costs ceases when the property, or any
completed portion, becomes available for occupancy. The Company capitalizes
acquisition costs once the acquisition of the property becomes probable. Prior
to that time, we expense these costs as acquisition expense. During the three
months ended March 31, 2008, interest in the amount of $0.1 million was
capitalized on properties under development. No such amounts were
capitalized in the three months ended March 31, 2007.
7
WHITESTONE
REIT AND SUBSIDIARY
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
March
31, 2008
Acquired Properties and Acquired
Lease Intangibles. We account for real estate acquisitions
pursuant to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 141, “Business Combinations.”
Accordingly, we allocate the purchase price of the acquired properties to land,
building and improvements, identifiable intangible assets and to the acquired
liabilities based on their respective fair values. Identifiable intangibles
include amounts allocated to acquired out-of-market leases, the value of
in-place leases and customer relationship value, if any. We determine fair value
based on estimated cash flow projections that utilize appropriate discount and
capitalization rates and available market information. Estimates of future cash
flows are based on a number of factors including the historical operating
results, known trends and specific market and economic conditions that may
affect the property. Factors considered by management in our analysis of
determining the as-if-vacant property value include an estimate of carrying
costs during the expected lease-up periods considering market conditions, and
costs to execute similar leases. In estimating carrying costs, management
includes real estate taxes, insurance and estimates of lost rentals at market
rates during the expected lease-up periods, tenant demand and other economic
conditions. Management also estimates costs to execute similar leases including
leasing commissions, tenant improvements, legal and other related expenses.
Intangibles related to out-of-market leases and in-place lease value are
recorded as acquired lease intangibles and are amortized as an adjustment to
rental revenue or amortization expense, as appropriate, over the remaining terms
of the underlying leases. Premiums or discounts on acquired out-of-market debt
are amortized to interest expense over the remaining term of such
debt.
Depreciation. Depreciation
is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of 5
to 39 years for the buildings and improvements. Tenant improvements
are depreciated using the straight-line method over the life of the improvement
or remaining term of the lease, whichever is shorter.
Impairment. We
review our properties for impairment annually or whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the assets, including accrued
rental income, may not be recoverable through operations. We
determine whether an impairment in value has occurred by comparing the estimated
future cash flows (undiscounted and without interest charges), including the
estimated residual value of the property, with the carrying cost of the
property. If impairment is indicated, a loss will be recorded for the
amount by which the carrying value of the property exceeds its fair
value. No impairment in value has been recorded for the either of the
three month periods ended March 31, 2008 and 2007.
Accrued
Rent and Accounts Receivable
Included
in accrued rent and accounts receivable are base rents, tenant reimbursements
and receivables attributable to recording rents on a straight-line basis. An
allowance for the uncollectible portion of accrued rents and accounts receivable
is determined based upon customer credit-worthiness (including expected recovery
of our claim with respect to any tenants in bankruptcy), historical bad debt
levels, and current economic trends. As of March 31, 2008
and December 31, 2007, we had an allowance for uncollectible accounts of $1.2
million and $1.1 million, respectively. During the three months ended March 31,
2008 and 2007, we recorded bad debt expense in the amount of $0.2
million and $0.2 million, respectively, related to tenant receivables that we
specifically identified as potentially uncollectible based on our assessment of
the tenant’s credit-worthiness. Bad debt expenses and any related
recoveries are included in property operation and maintenance expense in the
consolidated statements of operations.
Unamortized
Lease Commissions and Loan Costs
Leasing
commissions are amortized using the straight-line method over the terms of the
related lease agreements. Loan costs are amortized on the
straight-line method over the terms of the loans, which approximates the
interest method. Costs allocated to in-place leases whose terms
differ from market terms related to acquired properties are amortized over the
remaining life of the respective leases.
8
WHITESTONE
REIT AND SUBSIDIARY
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
March
31, 2008
Prepaids
and Other Assets
Prepaids
and other assets include escrows established pursuant to certain mortgage
financing arrangements for real estate taxes and insurance.
Income
Taxes
Federal -
We are qualified as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the “Code”) and are therefore not subject to
Federal income taxes provided we meet all conditions specified by the Internal
Revenue Code for retaining our REIT status. We believe we have
continuously met these conditions since reaching 100 shareholders in
1999.
State -
In May 2006, the State of Texas adopted House Bill 3, which modified the state’s
franchise tax structure, replacing the previous tax based on capital or earned
surplus with one based on margin (often referred to as the “Texas Margin Tax”)
effective with franchise tax reports filed on or after January 1, 2008. The
Texas Margin Tax is computed by applying the applicable tax rate (1% for us) to
the profit margin, which, generally, will be determined for us as total revenue
less a 30% standard deduction. Although House Bill 3 states that the
Texas Margin Tax is not an income tax, SFAS No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes,”
(“SFAS No. 109”) applies to the Texas Margin Tax. We have
recorded a margin tax provision of $0.06 million for the Texas Margin Tax for
the three months ended March 31, 2008. No such amount was recorded in
the three months ended March 31, 2007.
Derivative
Instruments
We have
initiated a program designed to manage exposure to interest rate fluctuations by
entering into financial derivative instruments. The primary objective
of this program is to comply with debt covenants on a credit
facility. We entered into an interest rate swap agreement with
respect to amounts borrowed under certain of our credit facilities, which
effectively exchanges existing obligations to pay interest based on floating
rates for obligations to pay interest based on fixed LIBOR rates.
We have
adopted SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities,” (“SFAS No. 133”) as subsequently amended by SFAS No. 138,
“Accounting for Certain
Derivative Instruments and Certain Hedging Activities,” and SFAS No. 149,
“Amendment of Statement 133 on
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” which require for items
appropriately classified as cash flow hedges that changes in the market value of
the instrument and in the market value of the hedged item be recorded as other
comprehensive income or loss with the exception of the portion of the hedged
items that are considered ineffective. The derivative instruments are
reported at fair value as other assets or other liabilities as
applicable. As of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, we have a $70
million dollar interest rate swap which has been designated as a cash flow
hedge. The fair value of this interest rate swap is approximately
($1.0) million and ($0.4) million, at March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007,
respectively, and is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the
consolidated balance sheets. Additionally, for a previous interest
rate swap which was not designated as a cash flow hedge, approximately ($0.02)
million is included in other expense and other income on the consolidated
statement of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2007.
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
Our
financial instruments consist primarily of cash, cash equivalents, accounts
receivable, derivative instruments, accounts payable and notes
payable. The carrying value of cash, cash equivalents, accounts
receivable and accounts payable are representative of their respective fair
values due to the short-term nature of these instruments. The
fair value of our debt obligations is representative of its carrying value based
upon current rates offered for similar types of borrowing
arrangements. The fair value of interest rate swaps (used for hedging
purposes) is the estimated amount that the financial institution would receive
or pay to terminate the swap agreements at the reporting date, taking into
account current interest rates and the current credit worthiness of the swap
counterparties.
9
WHITESTONE
REIT AND SUBSIDIARY
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
March
31, 2008
Comprehensive
Loss
We follow
SFAS No. 130, “Reporting
Comprehensive Income,” which establishes standards for reporting and
display of comprehensive income and its components. In October 2007
we entered into an interest rate swap which was designated as a cash flow
hedge. The fair value of this cash flow hedge was ($1.0) million and
($0.4) million at March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007,
respectively. This amount has been recorded as a reduction to
minority interest and to other comprehensive loss.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In
February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial
Assets and Financial Liabilities—Including an amendment of FASB Statement No.
115” (“SFAS No. 159”). SFAS No. 159 permits entities to choose
to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value. The
objective is to improve financial reporting by providing entities with the
opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring
related assets and liabilities differently without having to apply complex hedge
accounting provisions. SFAS No. 159 is effective for financial
statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and interim
periods within those fiscal years. We currently do not plan to
measure any eligible financial assets and liabilities at fair value under the
provisions of SFAS No. 159.
In
September 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) ratified
Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) Issue No. 07-6, “Accounting for the Sale of Real
Estate Subject to the Requirements of FASB Statement No. 66 When the
Agreement Includes a Buy-Sell Clause,”(“EIFT No. 07-6”) which
clarifies that a buy-sell clause, in and of itself, does not constitute a
prohibited form of continuing involvement that would preclude partial sale
treatment under SFAS No. 66. EITF No. 07-6 applies prospectively to new
arrangements entered into in fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2007.
In
December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R), “Business Combinations,”
(“SFAS No. 141(R)”) which replaces SFAS
No. 141, “ Business
Combinations,” which, among other things, establishes principles and
requirements for how an acquiring entity recognizes and measures in its
financial statements the identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed
(including intangibles) and any noncontrolling interests in the acquired entity.
SFAS No. 141(R) applies prospectively to business combinations for which
the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting
period beginning on or after December 15, 2008.
In
December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, “Noncontrolling Interests in
Consolidated Financial Statements, an amendment of ARB No. 51”
(“SFAS No. 160”). SFAS No. 160
amends ARB 51 to establish accounting and reporting standards for the
noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a
subsidiary. It also amends certain of ARB 51’s consolidation procedures for
consistency with the requirements of SFAS No. 141(R). SFAS No. 160 is
effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years,
beginning on or after December 15, 2008. We are currently evaluating what
impact our adoption of SFAS No. 160 will have on our consolidated financial
statements.
In March
2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, “Disclosures about Derivative Instruments
and Hedging Activities—an amendment of FASB Statement No. 133” (“SFAS No.
161”). SFAS No. 161 changes the disclosure requirements for derivative
instruments and hedging activities. Entities are required to provide enhanced
disclosures about (a) how and why an entity uses derivative instruments, (b) how
derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under SFAS No.
133 and its related interpretations, and (c) how derivative instruments and
related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position, financial
performance, and cash flows. SFAS No. 161 is effective for financial
statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008, and
interim periods within those fiscal years. We are currently
evaluating the impact of SFAS No. 161 on our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
10
WHITESTONE
REIT AND SUBSIDIARY
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
March
31, 2008
3. Derivatives
and Hedging
On
September 28, 2007, we entered into an interest rate swap transaction which we
have designated as a cash flow hedge. The effective date of the swap
transaction is October 1, 2007, has a total notional amount of $70 million, and
fixes the swap rate at 4.77% plus the LIBOR margin (see Note 7) through October
1, 2008. The purpose of this swap is to mitigate the risk of future fluctuations
in interest rates on our variable rate debt. We have determined that
this swap is highly effective in offsetting future variable interest cash flows
on variable rate debt.
As of
March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, the balance in accumulated other
comprehensive loss relating to derivatives was $0.6 million and $0.2 million,
respectively. The balance in accumulated other comprehensive loss is
expected to be fully amortized to interest expense by October 1,
2008.
The
Company elected to implement SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements”
with the one-year deferral permitted by FASB Staff Position No. FAS
157-2, “Effective Date of FASB
Statement No. 157”, issued February 2008, which defers the effective date
of SFAS No. 157 for one year for certain nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial
liabilities measured at fair value, except those that are recognized or
disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring
basis.
SFAS No.
157 establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy for disclosure of fair value
measurements. The valuation hierarchy categorizes assets and
liabilities measured at fair value into one of three different levels depending
on the observability of the inputs employed in the measurement. The
three levels are defined as follows:
|
·
|
Level
1 – Observable inputs such as quoted prices in active markets at the
measurement date for identical, unrestricted assets or
liabilities.
|
|
·
|
Level
2 – Other inputs that are observable directly or indirectly such as quoted
prices in markets that are not active, or inputs which are observable,
either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the
asset or liability.
|
|
·
|
Level
3 – Unobservable inputs for which there is little or no market data and
which the Company makes its own assumptions about how market participants
would price the assets and
liabilities.
|
All of
our derivative instruments which fall under the fair value requirements fall
under the level 2 criteria. Interest rate swaps are valued by a
third-party consultant using modeling techniques that include market inputs such
as interest rate yield curves.
4. Real
Estate
At March
31, 2008, we owned 37 commercial properties in the the Houston, Dallas, San
Antonio, and Phoenix areas comprising approximately 3,126,000 square feet of
total area, of which approximately 33,400 is under development at March 31,
2008.
11
WHITESTONE
REIT AND SUBSIDIARY
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
March
31, 2008
5. Accrued
Rent and Accounts Receivable, net
Accrued
rent and accounts receivable, net, consists of amounts accrued, billed and due
from tenants, amounts due from insurance claims, allowance for doubtful accounts
and other receivables as follows (in thousands):
March 31,
|
December
31,
|
|||||||
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
Tenant
receivables
|
$ | 2,607 | $ | 2,517 | ||||
Accrued
rent
|
3,558 | 3,319 | ||||||
Allowance for doubtful
accounts
|
(1,219 | ) | (1,094 | ) | ||||
Insurance claim
receivables
|
- | 550 | ||||||
Other
receivables
|
205 | 319 | ||||||
Totals
|
$ | 5,151 | $ | 5,611 |
6. Unamortized
Leasing Commissions and Loan Costs
Costs
which have been deferred consist of the following (in thousands):
March 31,
|
December
31,
|
|||||||
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
Leasing
commissions
|
$ | 4,917 | $ | 4,733 | ||||
Deferred financing
costs
|
3,012 | 2,096 | ||||||
7,929 | 6,829 | |||||||
Less: accumulated
amortization
|
(4,182 | ) | (3,871 | ) | ||||
Totals
|
$ | 3,747 | $ | 2,958 |
7. Debt
Mortgages
and other notes payable consist of the following (in thousands):
March 31,
|
December
31,
|
|||||||
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
Mortgages and other notes
payable
|
$ | 16,637 | $ | 9,936 | ||||
Revolving loan secured by
properties
|
71,895 | 73,525 | ||||||
Totals
|
$ | 88,532 | $ | 83,461 | ||||
12
WHITESTONE
REIT AND SUBSIDIARY
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
March
31, 2008
As of
March 31, 2008, we have three active loans which are described
below:
Revolving
Credit Facility
We have a
$75 million revolving credit facility with a consortium of banks. The
credit facility is secured by a pledge of the partnership interests in
Whitestone REIT Operating Partnership III LP (“WROP III”), a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Operating Partnership that was formed to hold title to the
properties comprising the borrowing base pool for the facility. At
March 31, 2008, WROP III owns 35 properties.
As of
March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, the balance outstanding under the credit
facility was $71.9 million and $73.5 million, respectively, and the availability
to draw was $3.1 million and $1.5 million, respectively.
Interest
only is payable monthly with the total amount of principal due at maturity on
October 1, 2008. The outstanding balance may be prepaid at any time
in part or in whole, provided that the credit facility is not in
default.
Mortgage
Loan on Windsor Park Centre
On March
1, 2007, we obtained a $10.0 million loan to pay off the loan obtained upon the
acquisition of the Windsor Park property and to provide funds for future
acquisitions. The mortgage loan is secured by the Windsor Park
property which is owned by Whitestone REIT Operating Company IV LLC (“WROC IV”),
a wholly owned subsidiary of the Operating Partnership that was formed to hold
title to the Windsor Park property. On March 1, 2007, we conveyed
ownership of the Windsor Park property from the Operating Partnership to WROC IV
in order to secure the $10.0 million mortgage loan.
The note
is payable in equal monthly installments of principal and interest of $60,212,
with interest at the rate of 6.04% per annum. The balance of the note
is payable in full on March 1, 2014. The loan balance is
approximately $9.9 million at March 31, 2008.
Term
Loan on Pima Norte
On
January 25, 2008 we entered into a $6.4 million term loan agreement with
KeyBank, the lead bank of the consortium of banks in the revolving credit
facility. The term loan is secured by a pledge of the partnership
interests in WROP III, and Whitestone Pima Norte LLC (“WPN”), a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Operating Partnership that was formed to hold title to our
Pima Norte property that was purchased in October 2007. At March 31,
2008, WROP III owns 35 properties and WPN owns one property.
Outstanding
amounts under the term loan accrue interest computed at the LIBOR Rate on the
basis of a 360 day year, plus 2%. Interest only is payable monthly
under the loan with the total amount of principal due at maturity in July
2009. The covenants of this agreement mirror those in our $75 million
revolving credit agreement.
We expect
to obtain long term financing on this property upon lease
stabilization.
13
WHITESTONE
REIT AND SUBSIDIARY
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
March
31, 2008
Annual
maturities of notes payable as of March 31, 2008, including the revolving loan,
are due during the following years (in thousands):
Year
|
|||||
2008
|
$ | 72,264 | |||
2009
|
6,400 | ||||
2014
|
9,868 | ||||
Total
|
$ | 88,532 |
8. Earnings
Per Share
Basic earnings per share is computed
using net loss available to common shareholders and the weighted average number
of common shares outstanding. Diluted earnings per share reflects
common shares issuable from the assumed conversion of OP Units. Only
those items that have a dilutive impact on basic earnings per share are included
in the diluted earnings per share. Accordingly, excluded from the
earnings per share calculation for each of the three months ended March 31, 2008
and 2007 are 5,808,337 OP Units as their inclusion would be
anti-dilutive.
Three Months Ended March
31,
|
||||||||
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
Basic and diluted loss per
share:
|
(in
thousands)
|
|||||||
Net loss (in
thousands)
|
$ | (69 | ) | $ | (138 | ) | ||
Basic and diluted
loss
|
||||||||
per
share
|
$ | (0.007 | ) | $ | (0.014 | ) | ||
Weighted average
common
|
||||||||
shares
outstanding (in thousands)
|
10,001 | 9,992 |
9. Income
Taxes
Federal
income taxes are not provided because we intend to and believe we qualify as a
REIT under the provisions of the Code. Our shareholders include their
proportionate taxable income in their individual tax returns. As a
REIT, we must distribute at least 90% of its ordinary taxable income to our
shareholders and meet certain income sources and investment restriction
requirements. In addition, REITs are subject to a number of
organizational and operational requirements. If we fail to qualify as
a REIT in any taxable year, we will be subject to federal income tax (including
any applicable alternative minimum tax) on our taxable income at regular
corporate tax rates.
Taxable
income differs from net income for financial reporting purposes principally due
to differences in the timing of recognition of interest, real estate taxes,
depreciation and rental revenue.
In May
2006, the State of Texas adopted the Texas Margin Tax effective with
franchise tax reports filed on or after January 1, 2008. The Texas Margin Tax is
computed by applying the applicable tax rate (1% for us) to the profit margin,
which, generally, will be determined for us as total revenue less a 30% standard
deduction. Although House Bill 3 states that the Texas Margin Tax is
not an income tax, SFAS No. 109, applies to the Texas Margin Tax. We
have recorded a margin tax provision of $0.06 million for the Texas Margin Tax
for the three months ended March 31, 2008. No such amount was
recorded in the three months ended March 31, 2007.
14
WHITESTONE
REIT AND SUBSIDIARY
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
March
31, 2008
10. Related-Party
Transactions
Prior to
November 14, 2006, our day-to-day operations and portfolio of properties were
managed by Hartman Management, LP (the “External Manager”) through property
management and advisory agreements. Mr. Hartman, our former President,
Secretary, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board, is the sole
limited partner of our former External Manager, as well as the President,
Secretary, sole trustee and sole shareholder of the general partner of the
External Manager.
Mr.
Hartman was removed by the board of trustees of Whitestone (“Board”) as our
President, Secretary, and Chief Executive Officer on October 2, 2006, and he
resigned from our Board on October 27, 2006.
In
October 2006, our Board terminated for cause our property management agreement
with our former External Manager. Our former External Manager turned
over all property management functions to us on November 14, 2006.
In
addition, our Board elected not to renew our advisory agreement, dated August
31, 2004, with our former External Manager. This agreement had been
extended on a month-to-month basis and ultimately expired on September 30,
2006.
Transactions
between us, our former External Manager, and Mr. Hartman have previously been
considered related party transactions.
The
advisory agreement, effective September 1, 2004, provided for the payment
of a deferred performance fee, payable in certain events, including termination
of the advisory agreement, based upon appreciation in the value of certain of
our real estate assets. We believe that no deferred performance fees
are due.
In
connection with our public offering described in Note 11, our former External
Manager has historically received an acquisition fee equal to 2% of the gross
selling price of all common shares sold for services in connection with the
selection, purchase, development or construction of properties for
us. The advisory agreement expired by its terms on September 30,
2006. On September 30, 2006, $0.2 million of acquisition fees paid to
our former External Manager had been capitalized and not yet allocated to the
purchase price of a property. In accordance with the advisory
agreement, our former External Manager is obligated to reimburse us for any
acquisition fee that has not been allocated to the purchase price of our
properties as provided for in our declaration of trust. A letter
demanding payment was sent to our former External Manager on December 21, 2006,
and $0.2 million is included in accrued rent and accounts receivables on our
consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007.
Mr.
Hartman our former President, Secretary, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman
was owed $0.04 million in dividends payable on his common shares at March 31,
2008 and December 31, 2007. Mr. Hartman owned 2.9% of our issued and
outstanding common shares as of March 31, 2008 and December 31,
2007.
15
WHITESTONE
REIT AND SUBSIDIARY
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
March
31, 2008
11. Shareholders
Equity
Dividends
and distributions
The
following tables summarize the cash dividends/distributions paid to holders of
common shares and holders of OP Units (after giving effect to the
recapitalization) during the year ended December 31, 2007 and the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.
Whitestone
Shareholders
|
||||||||
Dividend
|
Date
Dividend
|
Total
Amount
|
||||||
per Common
Share
|
Paid
|
Paid (in
thousands)
|
||||||
0.1500
|
Qtr ended
03/31/07
|
1,522
|
||||||
0.1500
|
Qtr ended
06/30/07
|
1,500
|
||||||
0.1500
|
Qtr ended
09/30/07
|
1,500
|
||||||
0.1500
|
Qtr ended
12/31/07
|
1,500
|
||||||
0.1500
|
Qtr ended
03/31/08
|
1,500
|
||||||
OP Unit Holders Including Minority
Unit Holders
|
||||||||
Distribution
|
Date
Distribution
|
Total
Amount
|
||||||
per OP Unit
|
Paid
|
Paid (in
thousands)
|
||||||
0.1500
|
Qtr ended
03/31/07
|
2,314
|
||||||
0.1500
|
Qtr ended
06/30/07
|
2,317
|
||||||
0.1500
|
Qtr ended
09/30/07
|
2,317
|
||||||
0.1500
|
Qtr ended
12/31/07
|
2,317
|
||||||
0.1500
|
Qtr ended
03/31/08
|
2,317
|
16
WHITESTONE
REIT AND SUBSIDIARY
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
March
31, 2008
12. Commitments
and Contingencies
The
nature of our business exposes us to the risk of lawsuits for damages or
penalties relating to, among other things, breach of contract and employment
disputes. We are currently involved in the following
litigation:
Hartman
Commercial Properties REIT and Hartman REIT Operating Partnership, L.P. v. Allen
R. Hartman and Hartman Management, L.P., in the 333rd
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas
In
October 2006, we terminated our Chief Executive Officer, Allen R. Hartman, and
our former manager and advisor, Hartman Management, L.P. and we filed this
lawsuit seeking damages for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and
breach of fiduciary duties. Our new management approached Mr. Hartman
about cooperatively turning over operations of the Company but Mr. Hartman
ousted them from his offices. We then sought an emergency court order
requiring Mr. Hartman to turn over control to new management. Mr.
Hartman opposed this legal relief. The court issued an order
requiring him to turn over control of the Company.
As part
of the change from Mr. Hartman to new management, the Company asked Mr. Hartman
to agree to a timeline for turning over specific operations and bank
accounts. Mr. Hartman refused, so we had to file another request with
the court to require Mr. Hartman’s compliance. Only after we filed
the request with the court did Mr. Hartman relent and agree to a turnover
timeline. During the turnover process, however, Mr. Hartman denied
the Company access to its own books and records and we had to go back to court
to enforce the previously entered order that turned over the Company to present
management.
In
November 2006, Mr. Hartman and Hartman Management filed a counterclaim against
us, the individual members of our Board, our Chief Operating Officer, John J.
Dee, and our prior outside law firm and one of its partners. The
counterclaims claimed that we had breached our contracts with Mr. Hartman and
Hartman Managment and committed tortious interference with the contracts,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy. We
prepared defenses to these counterclaims.
Subsequent
to our preparations, Mr. Hartman and Hartman Management retained new
attorneys. The new attorneys filed amended counterclaims on behalf of
Mr. Hartman and Hartman Management and dropped the claims against the individual
members of our Board, with the exception of our Chairman, James C.
Mastandrea. The amended counterclaims now also alleged negligence,
fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. We proceeded to prepare defenses
in response to these amended counterclaims.
Mr.
Hartman then hired a different set of attorneys and amended the counterclaims
again to drop all of the claims against our prior outside law firm and its
partner, many of the claims against us, and all of the claims, without
prejudice, against Mr. Mastandrea and Mr. Dee. The amended
counterclaim now asserts claims against us only for breach of contract and
alleges that we owe Mr. Hartman and Hartman Management a fee for the termination
of an advisory agreement. In communications to shareholders, Mr.
Hartman represented that the termination fee, as calculated by him, could be in
excess of $20 million.
We filed
a motion for summary judgment on Mr. Hartman’s and Hartman Management’s claims
that we breached our contracts with Hartman Management. On March 25,
2008, the court granted our motion, in part, and stated that the termination fee
allegedly due under the advisory agreement was subject to the cap on total
operating expenses described in Section IV.D.1 of the North American Securities
Administrators Association’s Statement of Policy on Real Estate Investment
Trusts. Mr. Hartman requested the court to reconsider its ruling on
this motion and filed additional documents with the court to support his
request. These filings necessitated our preparing responses and then
appearing for a hearing in court. The court’s decision on the
reconsideration is pending.
17
WHITESTONE
REIT AND SUBSIDIARY
Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements
March
31, 2008
The
parties have each submitted reports of experts as to the amount of the fee due
for the termination of the advisory agreement, other fees and expense
reimbursements, and damages. Discovery is complete and trial is set
for May 19, 2008. Mr. Hartman filed an affidavit with the court
from his chief financial officer stating that the cap would allow for a $1.1
million termination fee payment, whereas our calculation shows that the maximum
cap on operating expenses has previously been reached. Before the court’s March
25, 2008 ruling that capped the advisory agreement termination fee, Mr. Hartman
and Hartman Management claimed damages of either $4.8 million or $6.4 million
plus prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees; Whitestone maintains that no
amounts are due for fees, expenses and damages and we intend to vigorously
defend against those claims and vigorously prosecute our affirmative
claims.
Hartman
Commercial Properties REIT v. Allen R. Hartman, et al; in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas
In
November 2006, we learned that Mr. Hartman was soliciting written consents from
shareholders and had sought approval from the SEC to distribute a consent
solicitation to replace our Board. We asked Mr. Hartman to refrain
from distributing the consent solicitation until the false and misleading
information was removed. He refused, so we initiated this lawsuit and sought a
temporary injunction to stop Mr. Hartman from distributing the consent
solicitation.
Mr.
Hartman and Hartman Management filed a counterclaim, alleging that certain
changes to our bylaws and declaration of trust were invalid and that their
enactment was a breach of fiduciary duty. Mr. Hartman sought a
temporary injunction to prevent these changes from taking
effect. These changes, among other things, staggered the terms of our
Board members over three years, required a two-thirds vote of the outstanding
common shares to remove a Board member and provided that our secretary may call
a special meeting of shareholders only on the written request of a majority of
outstanding common shares.
With Mr.
Hartman's encouragement, a group of shareholders filed a motion to intervene and
bring claims against us in this lawsuit. The interveners’ claims were
similar to the counterclaims filed by Mr. Hartman and Hartman
Management. The shareholders eventually dismissed their request to
intervene with prejudice, though not before we were required to prepare defenses
to their claims and move to block their intervention.
The court
ordered Mr. Hartman to refrain from distributing the consent solicitation while
the parties exchanged discovery and took depositions in preparation for a full
hearing on the competing requests for temporary injunctions. On April
6, 2007, the court ruled in our favor and Mr. Hartman was ordered not to
distribute the consent solicitation. Also on April 6, 2007, the court
denied Mr. Hartman’s request for a temporary injunction challenging the changes
to our bylaws and declaration of trust and the court upheld the changes to our
bylaws and declaration of trust as valid exercises of the Board’s
powers. The court also granted our motion to dismiss, dismissing many
of Mr. Hartman’s and Hartman Management’s remaining claims against
us.
Mr.
Hartman appealed the court’s April 6, 2007 rulings to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. After considering the parties’ written briefs and oral
arguments held in New Orleans, the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court’s
rulings. We still have securities law claims against Mr. Hartman and
Hartman Management and his remaining counterclaims are still pending against us,
though no monetary damages are being sought by either side. Trial is
currently set for November 2008.
Other
We are a
participant in various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the
ordinary course of our business. While the resolution of these
matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the final outcome of
these matters will not have a material effect on our financial position, results
of operations or cash flows.
13. Segment
Information
Our
management historically has not differentiated results of operations by property
type nor location and therefore does not present segment
information.
18
Unless
the context otherwise requires, all references in this report to “Whitestone,”
“we,” “us” or “our” are to Whitestone REIT and our subsidiary.
Forward-Looking
Statements
This
quarterly report contains forward-looking statements, including discussion and
analysis of our financial condition, anticipated capital expenditures required
to complete projects, amounts of anticipated cash distributions to our
shareholders in the future and other matters. These forward-looking
statements are not historical facts but are the intent, belief or current
expectations of our management based on its knowledge and understanding of our
business and industry. Forward-looking statements are typically
identified by the use of terms such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “potential,”
“predicts,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,”
“estimates” or the negative of such terms and variations of these words and
similar expressions. These statements are not guarantees of future
performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, some of
which are beyond our control, are difficult to predict and could cause actual
results to differ materially from those expressed or forecasted in the
forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking
statements that were true at the time made may ultimately prove to be incorrect
or false. You are cautioned to not place undue reliance on
forward-looking statements, which reflect our management’s view only as of the
date of this Form 10-Q. We undertake no obligation to update or
revise forward-looking statements to reflect changed assumptions, the occurrence
of unanticipated events or changes to future operating
results. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially
from any forward-looking statements made in this Form 10-Q include:
|
·
|
changes
in general economic conditions;
|
|
·
|
changes
in real estate conditions;
|
|
·
|
construction
costs that may exceed estimates;
|
|
·
|
construction
delays;
|
|
·
|
increases
in interest rates;
|
|
·
|
availability
of credit;
|
|
·
|
litigation
risks;
|
|
·
|
lease-up
risks;
|
|
·
|
inability
to obtain new tenants upon the expiration of existing leases;
and
|
|
·
|
the
potential need to fund tenant improvements or other capital expenditures
out of operating cash flow.
|
The
forward-looking statements should be read in light of these factors and the
factors identified in the “Risk Factors” sections of our Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as previously filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).
19
Item
2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations
You should read the following
discussion of our financial condition and results of operations in conjunction
with our financial statements and the notes thereto included in this
report. For more detailed information regarding the basis of
presentation for the following information, you should read the notes to the
consolidated financial statements included in this report.
Overview
We are a
real estate investment trust (“REIT”) engaged in owning and operating
income-producing real properties. Our investments include retail,
office and warehouse properties located in the Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and
Phoenix metropolitan areas. Whitestone serves as the general partner
of Whitestone REIT Operating Partnership, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership” or
“WROP” or “OP”), which was formed on December 31, 1998 as a Delaware
limited partnership. Whitestone currently conducts substantially all
of its operations and activities through the Operating
Partnership. As the general partner of the Operating Partnership,
Whitestone has the exclusive power to manage and conduct the business of the
Operating Partnership, subject to certain customary exceptions. Our
properties consist of:
|
·
|
19
retail properties containing approximately 1.3 million square feet of
leasable space and having a total carrying amount (net of accumulated
depreciation) of $66.8 million.
|
|
·
|
Six
office properties containing approximately 0.6 million square feet of
leasable space and having a total carrying amount (net of accumulated
depreciation) of $36.3 million.
|
|
·
|
11
office/warehouse properties containing approximately 1.2 million square
feet of leasable space and having a total carrying amount (net of
accumulated depreciation) of $42.6
million.
|
|
·
|
One
office property under development having a total carrying amount of $8.6
million, which will contain approximately 0.03 million square feet of
leasable space upon completion.
|
Our
primary source of income and cash is rents associated with commercial
leases. Our business objective is to increase shareholder value by
employing a value-add investment strategy. This strategy is focused
on owning and renovating commercial real estate assets in markets with positive
demographic trends, achieving diversification by property type and location, and
acquiring properties within our targeted returns.
As of
March 31, 2008, we had 708 total tenants. We have a diversified
tenant base with our largest tenant compromising only 1.5% of our total revenues
for the three months ended March 31, 2008. Lease terms for our
properties range from less than one year for smaller tenants to over 15 years
for larger tenants. Our leases generally include minimum monthly
lease payments and tenant reimbursements for payment of taxes, insurance and
maintenance.
We are a
self-managed REIT, employing 49 full-time employees as of March 31,
2008. As a self-managed REIT, we bear our own expenses of operations,
including the salaries, benefits and other compensation of our employees, office
expenses, legal, accounting and investor relations expenses and other
overhead.
Prior to
November 14, 2006, our properties and day-to-day operations were externally
managed by Hartman Management, LP (“the External Manager”) under an advisory
agreement and a management agreement. Under this arrangement we were
charged fees based on percentages of gross revenues, asset values, capital
raised, and expenses submitted for reimbursement. Our advisory agreement expired
at the end of September 2006 and our Board terminated our property management
agreement in October 2006. The External Manager turned over all
property management functions to us on November 14, 2006.
20
We
believe that one of the key measures of our performance is property
occupancy. Occupancy for the total portfolio was 86% at March
31, 2008, compared to 82% at March 31, 2007. We completed 56 new and
renewal leases during the three months ended March 31, 2008 totaling 0.2 million
square feet and $6.9 million in total lease value.
In the
fourth quarter of 2006, our Board approved our five year business
plan. The key elements of the plan are as follows:
|
·
|
Maximize
value in current properties through operational focus and
redevelopment
|
|
·
|
Grow
through strategic acquisitions of commercial properties in high potential
markets, including properties outside of
Texas
|
|
·
|
Dispose
of non-core properties and reinvest the capital in redevelopment of
existing properties or acquisition of core properties in high potential
markets
|
|
·
|
Pare
down from three current product lines (retail, office and warehouse) and
focus on one or possibly two product
lines
|
|
·
|
Raise
capital using a combination of the private and public equity and debt
markets, as well as joint ventures
|
|
·
|
Bring
liquidity to our stock by listing on a national stock
exchange
|
A summary
of our progress on the execution of this five year plan as described in the
following sections on redevelopment, acquisitions and dispositions.
Redevelopment
We began
redevelopment in late 2007 to add 5,000 square feet of office space and upgrade
the Westchase Plaza Retail and Office Center located in Houston,
Texas. The total redevelopment of this center is projected to cost
approximately $1.7 million and be completed by late 2008.
Acquisitions
In
October of 2007, we acquired a 33,400 square foot commercial property in
Carefree, Arizona which is adjacent to North Scottsdale, for approximately $8.3
million. The property, Pima Norte, is a newly constructed one and two
story class “A” executive medical office building. The property is
currently under development and is expected to be leasable by mid
2008. We expect to invest approximately $2.0 million to complete the
construction.
Dispositions
We have
had no dispositions of property in 2008.
Critical
Accounting Policies
In
preparing the consolidated financial statements, we have made estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial
statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reported
periods. Actual results may differ from these estimates. A summary of
our critical accounting policies is included in our Form 10-K, in Management’s Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. There have
been no significant changes to these policies during the first three months of
2008. For disclosure regarding recent accounting pronouncements and
the anticipated impact they will have on our operations, please refer to Note 2
of the consolidated financial statements.
21
Results
of Operations
Comparison
of the Three Month Periods Ended March 31, 2008 and 2007
The following tables provide a general
comparison of our results of operations for the three months ended March 31,
2008 and 2007:
March 31,
2008
|
March 31,
2007
|
|||||
Number of properties owned and
operated
|
37
|
36
|
||||
Aggregate gross leasable area (sq.
ft.) (1)
|
3,093,063
|
3,093,063
|
||||
Ending occupancy
rate
|
86
|
% |
82
|
% | ||
(in thousands, except per
share data)
|
||||||
Total
revenues
|
$
|
8,125
|
$ |
7,545
|
||
Total operating
expenses
|
6,830
|
6,608
|
||||
Operating
income
|
1,295
|
937
|
||||
Other expense,
net
|
(1,406
|
) |
(1,159
|
) | ||
Loss before minority
interests
|
(111
|
)
|
(222
|
) | ||
Minority interests in the
Operating Partnership
|
42
|
84
|
||||
Net loss
|
$ |
(69
|
) | $ |
(138)
|
|
Funds from operations (2)
|
$
|
1,373
|
$ |
1,332
|
||
Dividends paid on common shares
and OP Units
|
2,371
|
2,371
|
||||
Per common share and OP
unit
|
$
|
0.60
|
$ |
0.60
|
||
Dividends paid as a % of
FFO
|
173
|
% |
178
|
% |
(1) At March 31, 2008, we own commercial
real estate with total square footage of 3,126,463, of which 33,400 is under
construction and therefore not included in gross leasable
area
(2) For a reconciliation of Funds from
operations to Net Income, see "Funds From Operations"
below.
Revenues
Substantially
all of our revenue is derived from rents received for the use of our
properties. We had
rental income and tenant reimbursements of approximately $8.1 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2008, as compared to $7.5 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2007, an increase of $0.6 million or 8%. The
increase is primarily attributable to (1) an increase in our occupancy rate to
86% as of March 31, 2008 as compared to 82% as of March 31, 2007 and (2) an
increase in our annualized rent per occupied square foot to $ 12.27 for the
three months ended March 31, 2008 as compared to $11.85 for the three months
ended March 31, 2007.
22
Operating
Expenses
Our total operating
expenses were $6.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as
compared to $6.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007, an increase
of $0.2 million, or 3%. The primary components of operating expense
are detailed in the table below (in thousands):
Three Months Ended March
31,
|
||||||||
2008
|
2007
|
|||||||
Property operation and
maintanence
|
$ | 2,190 | $ | 2,059 | ||||
Real estate
taxes
|
1,054 | 903 | ||||||
General and
administrative
|
1,963 | 2,034 | ||||||
Depreciation and
amortization
|
1,623 | 1,612 | ||||||
Total operating
expenses
|
$ | 6,830 | $ | 6,608 |
Property operations and maintenance.
The increase in property operations and maintenance expenses for the
three months ended March 31, 2008, as compared to the three months ended March
31, 2007, is primarily the result of increased utility costs in our office
properties.
Real estate
taxes. The increase in real estate taxes is primarily a result
of increases in appraised value of our properties by the various governmental
appraisal districts in which we own properties.
Operating
Income
Operating
income was $1.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as compared
to $0.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007, an increase of $0.4
million or 44%. The primary reasons for the increase are
detailed above in Revenues and Operating
Expenses.
Other
expense, net
Other
expense, net was $1.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as
compared to $1.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007, and increase
of $0.2 million or 17%. The primary reason for the increase was (1)
$0.1 million more interest expense in 2008 due to higher debt levels, (2) $0.05
million less in interest income in 2008 due to lower interest rates, and (3)
$0.06 million more in tax expense in 2008 related to the Texas Margin Tax which
was implemented in 2007. For further discussion of the Texas Margin
Tax see Note 7 of the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Net
loss
Loss
before minority interests was $0.1 million and $0.2 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Net income loss was $0.1
million and $0.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007,
respectively.
23
Funds
From Operations and Adjusted Funds From Operations
The
National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“NAREIT”) defines funds
from operations (“FFO”) as net income (loss) available to common shareholders
computed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”),
excluding gains or losses from sales of operating real estate assets and
extraordinary items, plus depreciation and amortization of operating properties,
including our share of unconsolidated real estate joint ventures and
partnerships. We calculate FFO in a manner consistent with the NAREIT
definition.
Management
uses FFO as a supplemental measure to conduct and evaluate our business because
there are certain limitations associated with using GAAP net income by itself as
the primary measure of our operating performance. Historical cost
accounting for real estate assets in accordance with GAAP implicitly assumes
that the value of real estate assets diminishes predictably over
time. Since real estate values instead have historically risen or
fallen with market conditions, management believes that the presentation of
operating results for real estate companies that uses historical cost accounting
is insufficient by itself. There can be no assurance that FFO
presented by us is comparable to similarly titled measures of other
REITs.
FFO
should not be considered as an alternative to net income or other measurements
under GAAP as an indicator of our operating performance or to cash flows from
operating, investing or financing activities as a measure of
liquidity. FFO does not reflect working capital changes, cash
expenditures for capital improvements or principal payments on
indebtedness.
Below is
the calculation of FFO and the reconciliation to net income, which we believe is
the most comparable GAAP financial measure (in thousands):
Reconciliation of Non-GAAP
Financial Measures
|
|||||||||
Three Months Ended March
31,
|
|||||||||
2008
|
2007
|
||||||||
Net loss
|
$ | (69 | ) | $ | (138 | ) | |||
Minority interest in loss of
operating partnership
|
(42 | ) | (84 | ) | |||||
Depreciation and amortization of
real estate assets
|
1,452 | 1,554 | |||||||
Loss on sale or disposal of
assets
|
32 | - | |||||||
FFO
|
$ | 1,373 | $ | 1,332 |
24
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Overview
Our
primary liquidity demands are distributions to the holders of our common shares
and holders of units of limited partnership interest in the Operating
Partnership (“OP Units”), capital improvements and repairs and maintenance for
our properties, acquisition of additional properties, tenant improvements and
debt repayments.
Primary
sources of capital for funding our acquisitions and redevelopment programs are
our $75 million revolving credit facility, cash generated from sales of
properties that no longer meet investment criteria, cash flow generated from
operating activities and bank debt.
Our
capital structure also includes non-recourse secured debt that we assumed or
originated on certain properties. We hedge the future cash flows of
certain debt transactions principally through interest rate swaps with major
financial institutions.
During
the three months ended March 31, 2008, our cash used in operating activities was
$1.0 million and our total distributions were $2.4 million. The
primary use of cash from operating activities in the first quarter was the
payment of annual property taxes of approximately $4.0 million on January 31,
2008. As a result, we had distributions in excess of cash flow from
operations of approximately $3.4 million. Our primary funding for paying
dividends in excess of cash flow from operations was borrowing from our credit
facility.
During
the three months ended March 31, 2008, we incurred approximately $0.6 million in
legal costs as a result of the ongoing litigation with Mr. Hartman and Hartman
Management, LP. For a full discussion of the litigation with Mr. Hartman and
Hartman Management see Part II, Item 1 – Legal
Proceedings. We do not know when this litigation will be fully
resolved. The continued legal cost associated with this litigation
may have a significant impact on our cash flow.
We
anticipate that cash flows from operating activities and our borrowing capacity
will provide adequate capital for our working capital requirements, anticipated
capital expenditures, litigation costs and scheduled debt payments during the
next 12 months. We also believe that cash flows from operating
activities and our borrowing capacity will allow us to make all distributions
required for us to continue to qualify to be taxed as a REIT.
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
We had
cash and cash equivalents of $10.5 million at March 31, 2008, as compared to
$10.8 million on December 31, 2007. The decrease of $0.3 million was
primarily the result of the following:
Sources of
Cash
|
·
|
Net
proceeds of $5.1 million from our credit facility and term loan on our
Pima Norte property.
|
Uses of
Cash
|
·
|
Cash
used in operating activities of $1.0
million.
|
|
·
|
Payment
of dividends and distributions to common shareholders and OP Unit holders
of $2.4 million.
|
|
·
|
Payment
of loan origination costs of $0.9
million.
|
|
·
|
Additions
to real estate of $1.1 million.
|
We place
all cash in short-term, highly liquid investments that we believe provide
appropriate safety of principal.
25
Debt
As of
March 31, 2008, we had three active loans:
Revolving
Credit Facility
We have a
revolving credit facility with a consortium of banks. The credit
facility is secured by a pledge of the partnership interests in Whitestone REIT
Operating Partnership III L.P. (“WROP III”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Operating Partnership that was formed to hold title to the properties comprising
the borrowing base pool for the credit facility. At March 31, 2008,
WROP III owned 35 properties.
As of
March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, the balance outstanding under the credit
facility was $71.9 million and $73.5 million, respectively, and the availability
to draw was $ 3.1 million and $1.5 million, respectively.
Mortgage
Loan on Windsor Park Centre
On March
1, 2007, we obtained a $10.0 million loan to pay off the loan obtained upon the
acquisition of the Windsor Park property and to provide funds for future
acquisitions. The mortgage loan is secured by the Windsor Park
property which is owned by Whitestone REIT Operating Company IV LLC (“WROC IV”),
a wholly owned subsidiary of the Operating Partnership that was formed to hold
title to the Windsor Park property. On March 1, 2007, we conveyed
ownership of the Windsor Park property from the Operating Partnership to WROC IV
in order to secure the $10.0 million mortgage loan.
The note
is payable in equal monthly installments of principal and interest of $60,212,
with interest at the rate of 6.04% per annum. The balance of the note
is payable in full on March 1, 2014. The loan balance is
approximately $9.9 million at March 31, 2008.
Term
Loan on Pima Norte
On
January 25, 2008 we entered into a $6.4 million term loan agreement with
KeyBank, the lead bank of the consortium of banks in the revolving credit
facility. The term loan is secured by a pledge of the partnership
interests in WROP III, and Whitestone Pima Norte LLC (“WPN”), a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Operating Partnership that was formed to hold title to our
Pima Norte property that was purchased in October 2007. At March 31,
2008, WROP III owns 35 properties and WPN owns one property.
Outstanding
amounts under the term loan accrue interest computed at the LIBOR Rate on the
basis of a 360 day year, plus 2%. Interest only is payable monthly
under the loan with the total amount of principal due at maturity in July
2009. The covenants of this agreement mirror those in our $75 million
revolving credit agreement.
We expect
to obtain long term financing on this property upon lease
stabilization.
For
further discussion regarding specific terms of our debt, see Note 7 of the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Capital
Expenditures
We
continually evaluate our properties performance and value. We may
determine it is best to invest capital in properties we believe have potential
for increasing value. We also may have unexpected capital
expenditures or improvements for our existing assets. Additionally,
we intend to invest in similar properties outside of Texas in cities with
exceptional demographics to diversify market risk, and we may incur significant
capital expenditures or make improvements in connection with any properties we
may acquire.
26
Contractual
Obligations
As of
March 31, 2008, we had the following contractual debt obligations (see Note 7 of
the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion regarding the
specific terms of our debt) (in thousands):
Payment due by
period
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Less than
|
1 to 3
|
3 to 5
|
More than
|
|||||||||||||||||
Contractual
Obligations
|
Total
|
1 Year
|
Years
|
Years
|
5 Years
|
|||||||||||||||
Long-Term Debt
Obligations
|
$ | 88,532 | $ | 72,264 | $ | 6,400 | $ | - | $ | 9,868 | ||||||||||
Capital Lease
Obligations
|
- | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
Operating Lease
Obligations
|
- | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
Purchase
Obligations
|
- | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
Other Long-Term
Liabilities
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Reflected on
Whitestone's
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Balance Sheet under
GAAP
|
- | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
Total
|
$ | 88,532 | $ | 72,264 | $ | 6,400 | $ | - | $ | 9,868 |
Distributions
The
following distributions for common shares of beneficial interests in Whitestone
and units of limited partnership interest in the Operating Partnership were paid
or declared payable during the three months end March 31, 2008 and 2007 (in
thousands):
2008
|
Per Share
|
2007
|
Per Share
|
||||||||||||||||
Period
|
Status
|
Amount
|
/OP Unit
|
Amount
|
/OP Unit
|
||||||||||||||
January
-March
|
Paid
|
$ | 2,371 | $ | 0.15 | $ | 2,371 | $ | 0.15 | ||||||||||
April -
June
|
Payable
|
$ | 2,371 | $ | 0.15 | $ | 2,371 | $ | 0.15 |
Taxes
We elected to be taxed as a REIT under
the Code beginning with our taxable year ended December 31, 1999. As
a REIT, we generally are not subject to federal income tax on income that we
distribute to our shareholders. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in
any taxable year, we will be subject to federal income tax on our taxable income
at regular corporate rates. We believe that we are organized and
operate in such a manner as to qualify to be taxed as a REIT, and we intend to
operate so as to remain qualified as a REIT for federal income tax
purposes.
Inflation
We anticipate that our leases will
continue to be triple-net leases or otherwise provide that tenants pay for
increases in operating expenses and will contain provisions that we believe will
mitigate the effect of inflation. In addition, many of our leases are
for terms of less than five years, which allows us to adjust rental rates to
reflect inflation and other changing market conditions when the leases
expire. Consequently, increases due to inflation, as well as ad
valorem tax rate increases, generally do not have a significant adverse effect
upon our operating results.
27
Environmental
Matters
Our
properties are subject to environmental laws and regulations adopted by various
governmental authorities in the jurisdictions in which our operations are
conducted. From our inception, we have incurred no significant
environmental costs, accrued liabilities or expenditures to mitigate or
eliminate future environmental contamination.
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
We have no significant off-balance
sheet arrangements as of March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007.
Item
3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risk
Market
risk is the risk of loss arising from adverse changes in market rates and
prices. The principal market risk to which we are exposed is the risk
related to interest rate fluctuations. Based upon the nature of our
operations, we are not subject to foreign exchange or commodity
risk. We will be exposed to changes in interest rates as a result of
our credit facilities that have floating interest rates. As of March
31, 2008, we had $8.3 million of indebtedness outstanding under facilities with
floating interest rates. The impact of a 1% increase in interest
rates on our debt would result in an increase in interest expense and a decrease
in income before minority interests of approximately $0.08 million
annually.
Item
4T. Controls and Procedures
Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
We
maintain disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that
information required to be disclosed pursuant to Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the “Exchange Act”) is
recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified
in the SEC’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and
communicated to the Company’s management, including its Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding
required disclosure. Management necessarily applied its judgment in assessing
the costs and benefits of such controls and procedures which, by their nature,
can provide only reasonable assurance regarding management’s control
objectives.
Our
management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal
control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act
Rule 13a-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of our
management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
we conducted an evaluation of 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. Based on our evaluation under the framework in Internal Control—Integrated
Framework, our management concluded that our internal control over
financial reporting was effective as of March 31, 2008.
28
PART
II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item
1. Legal Proceedings
The
nature of our business exposes us to the risk of lawsuits for damages or
penalties relating to, among other things, breach of contract and employment
disputes. We are currently involved in the following
litigation:
Hartman
Commercial Properties REIT and Hartman REIT Operating Partnership, L.P. v. Allen
R. Hartman and Hartman Management, L.P., in the 333rd
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas
In
October 2006, we terminated our Chief Executive Officer, Allen R. Hartman, and
our former manager and advisor, Hartman Management, L.P. The same
day, we filed this lawsuit seeking damages for breach of contract, fraudulent
inducement, and breach of fiduciary duties. Our new management
approached Mr. Hartman about cooperatively turning over operations of the
company but Mr. Hartman ousted them from his offices. We then sought
an emergency court order requiring Mr. Hartman to turn over control to new
management. Mr. Hartman opposed this legal relief. The
court issued an order requiring him to turn over control of the
Company.
As part
of the change from Mr. Hartman to new management, the Company asked Mr. Hartman
to agree to a timeline for turning over specific operations and bank
accounts. Mr. Hartman refused, so we had to file another request with
the court to require Mr. Hartman’s compliance. Only after we filed
the request with the court did Mr. Hartman relent and agree to a turnover
timeline. During the turnover process, however, Mr. Hartman denied
the Company access to its own books and records and we had to go back to court
to enforce the previously entered order that turned over the Company to present
management.
In
November 2006, Mr. Hartman and Hartman Management filed a counterclaim against
us, the individual members of our Board, our Chief Operating Officer, John J.
Dee, and our prior outside law firm and one of its partners. The
counterclaims claimed that we had breached our contracts with Mr. Hartman and
Hartman Managment and committed tortious interference with the contracts,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy. We
prepared defenses to these counterclaims.
Subsequent
to our preparations, Mr. Hartman and Hartman Management retained new
attorneys. The new attorneys filed amended counterclaims on behalf of
Mr. Hartman and Hartman Management and dropped the claims against the individual
members of our Board, with the exception of our Chairman, James C.
Mastandrea. The amended counterclaims now also alleged negligence,
fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. We proceeded to prepare defenses
in response to these amended counterclaims.
Mr.
Hartman then hired a different set of attorneys and amended the counterclaims
again to drop all of the claims against our prior outside law firm and its
partner, many of the claims against us, and all of the claims, without
prejudice, against Mr. Mastandrea and Mr. Dee. The amended
counterclaim now asserts claims against us only for breach of contract and
alleges that we owe Mr. Hartman and Hartman Management a fee for the termination
of an advisory agreement. In communications to shareholders, Mr.
Hartman represented that the termination fee, as calculated by him, could be in
excess of $20 million.
We filed
a motion for summary judgment on Mr. Hartman’s and Hartman Management’s claims
that we breached our contracts with Hartman Management. On March 25,
2008, the court granted our motion, in part, and stated that the termination fee
allegedly due under the advisory agreement was subject to the cap on total
operating expenses described in Section IV.D.1 of the North American Securities
Administrators Association’s Statement of Policy on Real Estate Investment
Trusts. Mr. Hartman requested the court to reconsider its ruling on
this motion and filed additional documents with the court to support his
request. These filings necessitated our preparing responses and then
appearing for a hearing in court. The court’s decision on the
reconsideration is pending.
29
The
parties have each submitted reports of experts as to the amount of the fee due
for the termination of the advisory agreement, other fees and expense
reimbursements, and damages. Discovery is being conducted for this
case, which has a court date of May 19, 2008. Mr. Hartman filed an
affidavit with the court from his chief financial officer stating that the cap
would allow for a $1.1 million termination fee payment, whereas our calculation
shows that the maximum cap on operating expenses has previously been
reached.
Before
the court’s March 25, 2008 ruling that capped the advisory agreement termination
fee, Mr. Hartman and Hartman Management claimed damages of either $4.8 million
or $6.4 million plus prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees; Whitestone
maintains that no amounts are due for fees, expenses and damages and we intend
to vigorously defend against those claims and vigorously prosecute our
affirmative claims.
Hartman
Commercial Properties REIT v. Allen R. Hartman, et al; in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas
In
November 2006, we learned that Mr. Hartman was soliciting written consents from
shareholders and had sought approval from the SEC to distribute a consent
solicitation to replace our Board. We asked Mr. Hartman to refrain
from distributing the consent solicitation until the false and misleading
information was removed. He refused, so we initiated this lawsuit and sought a
temporary injunction to stop Mr. Hartman from distributing the consent
solicitation.
Mr.
Hartman and Hartman Management filed a counterclaim, alleging that certain
changes to our bylaws and declaration of trust were invalid and that their
enactment was a breach of fiduciary duty. Mr. Hartman sought a
temporary injunction to prevent these changes from taking
effect. These changes, among other things, staggered the terms of our
Board members over three years, required a two-thirds vote of the outstanding
common shares to remove a Board member and provided that our secretary may call
a special meeting of shareholders only on the written request of a majority of
outstanding common shares.
With Mr.
Hartman's encouragement, a group of shareholders filed a motion to intervene and
bring claims against us in this lawsuit. The interveners’ claims were
similar to the counterclaims filed by Mr. Hartman and Hartman
Management. The shareholders eventually dismissed their request to
intervene with prejudice, though not before we were required to prepare defenses
to their claims and move to block their intervention.
The court
ordered Mr. Hartman to refrain from distributing the consent solicitation while
the parties exchanged discovery and took depositions in preparation for a full
hearing on the competing requests for temporary injunctions. On April
6, 2007, the court ruled in our favor and Mr. Hartman was ordered not to
distribute the consent solicitation. Also on April 6, 2007, the court
denied Mr. Hartman’s request for a temporary injunction challenging the changes
to our bylaws and declaration of trust and the court upheld the changes to our
bylaws and declaration of trust as valid exercises of the Board’s
powers. The court also granted our motion to dismiss, dismissing many
of Mr. Hartman’s and Hartman Management’s remaining claims against
us.
Mr.
Hartman appealed the court’s April 6, 2007 rulings to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. After considering the parties’ written briefs and oral
arguments held in New Orleans, the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court’s
rulings. We still have securities law claims against Mr. Hartman and
Hartman Management and his remaining counterclaims are still pending against us,
though no monetary damages are being sought by either side. Trial is
currently set for November 2008.
Other
We are a
participant in various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the
ordinary course of our business. These matters are generally covered
by insurance. While the resolution of these matters cannot be
predicted with certainty, we believe that the final outcome of these matters
will not have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.
30
Item
1A. Risk Factors
As of March 31, 2008, there have been
no material changes to the risk factors set forth in our Form 10-K.
Item
2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
Market
Information
There is
no established trading market for our common shares of beneficial interest. As
of April 30, 2008, we had 10,001,269 common shares of beneficial interest
outstanding held by a total of approximately 1,417 shareholders.
Item
3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities
None.
Item
4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
None
Item
5. Other Information
None.
31
Item
6. Exhibits
Exhibit
No. Description
|
3.1
|
Declaration
of Trust of Whitestone REIT, a Maryland real estate investment trust
(previously filed as and incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the
Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-11/A, Commission File No.
333-111674, filed on May 24, 2004)
|
|
3.2
|
Articles
of Amendment and Restatement of Declaration of Trust of Whitestone REIT
(previously filed as and incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the
Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-11/A, Commission File No.
333-111674, filed on July 29, 2004)
|
|
3.3
|
Articles
Supplementary (previously filed as and incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3(i).1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, Commission
File No. 000-50256, filed on December 6,
2006)
|
|
3.4
|
Bylaws
(previously filed as and incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to the
Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-11, Commission File No.
333-111674, filed on December 31,
2003)
|
|
3.5
|
First
Amendment to Bylaws (previously filed as and incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3(ii).1 to the Registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K, Commission
File No. 000-50256, filed on December 6,
2006)
|
|
4.1
|
Specimen
certificate for common shares of beneficial interest, par value $.001
(previously filed as and incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the
Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-11, Commission File No.
333-111674, filed on December 31,
2003)
|
|
10.28
|
Amendment
No.6, dated March 11, 2008, between Whitestone REIT Operating Partnership,
L.P., Whitestone REIT Operating Partnership III, L.P., and KeyBank
National Association, as agent for the consortium of
lenders
|
|
10.29
|
Term
Loan Agreement among Whitestone REIT Operating Partnership, L.P.,
Whitestone Pima Norte LLC, and KeyBank National Association, dated January
25, 2008
|
|
31.1*
|
Certification
of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
31.2*
|
Certification
of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
32.1*
|
Certificate
of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
32.2*
|
Certificate
of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
________________________
* Filed
herewith.
+ Denotes
management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.
32
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to
be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly
authorized.
Whitestone
REIT
Date:
May 15, 2008
|
/s/
James C. Mastandrea
|
|
James
C. Mastandrea
|
||
Chief
Executive Officer
|
||
(Principal
Executive Officer)
|
Date:
May 15, 2008
|
/s/
David K. Holeman
|
|
David
K. Holeman
|
||
Chief
Financial Officer
|
||
(Principal
Financial and Principal Accounting
Officer)
|
33