Table of Contents

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

 

 

FORM 10-K

 

x

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

OR

 

¨

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: 001-31817

 

 

CEDAR REALTY TRUST, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Maryland   42-1241468

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

 

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification Number)

 

44 South Bayles Avenue, Port Washington, NY   11050-3765
(Address of principal executive offices)   (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (516) 767-6492

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

 

Title of each class

 

Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, $0.06 par value

8-7/8% Series A Cumulative Redeemable

  New York Stock Exchange
Preferred Stock, $25.00 Liquidation Value   New York Stock Exchange

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

None

 

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See 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

 

¨

  

Accelerated filer

 

x

Non-accelerated filer

 

¨  (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

  

Smaller reporting company

 

¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

Based on the closing sales price on June 30, 2011 of $5.15 per share, the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $345,676,000.

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s Common Stock $.06 par value was 69,315,860 on February 29, 2012.

 

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement relating to its 2012 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated herein by reference.

 

 

 


Table of Contents

CEDAR REALTY TRUST, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

September 30, September 30,

Item No.

     

        Page No.        

 
PART I   

1and 2.

  Business and Properties     3   

1A.

  Risk Factors     16   

1B.

  Unresolved Staff Comments     25   

3.

  Legal Proceedings     25   

4.

  Mine Safety Disclosures     25   
PART II   

5.

  Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities     28   

6.

  Selected Financial Data     31   

7.

  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations     33   

7A.

  Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk     50   

8.

  Financial Statements and Supplementary Data     51   

9.

  Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure     103   

9A.

  Controls and Procedures, including Management Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting     103   

9B.

  Other Information     105   
PART III   

10.

  Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance     105   

11.

  Executive Compensation     105   

12.

  Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters     105   

13.

  Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence     105   

14.

  Principal Accountant Fees and Services     105   
PART IV   

15

  Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules     106   

 

2


Table of Contents

Part I.

 

Items 1 and  2. Business and Properties

General

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. (the “Company”), organized in 1984, is a fully-integrated real estate investment trust which focuses primarily on ownership and operation of supermarket-anchored shopping centers straddling the Washington DC to Boston corridor. At December 31, 2011, the Company owned and managed a portfolio of 70 operating properties (excluding properties “held for sale/conveyance”) totaling approximately 9.6 million square feet of gross leasable area (“GLA”). In addition, the Company has an ownership interest in 22 operating properties, with approximately 3.7 million square feet of GLA, through its Cedar/RioCan joint venture in which the Company has a 20% interest. The entire managed portfolio, including the Cedar/RioCan properties, was approximately 93.1% leased at December 31, 2011.

During 2011, in keeping with its stated goal of reducing overall leverage to an appropriate level by selling non-core and limited growth potential assets, the Company determined (1) to completely exit the Ohio market, principally the Discount Drug Mart portfolio of drugstore/convenience centers, and concentrate on the mid-Atlantic and Northeast coastal regions (10 properties sold in 2011 and four properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011), (2) to concentrate on grocery-anchored strip centers, by disposing of its mall and single-tenant/triple-net-lease properties (three properties sold in 2011 and 11 properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011), and (3) to focus on improving operations and performance at the Company’s remaining properties, and to reduce development activities, by disposing of certain development projects, land acquired for development, and other non-core assets (four properties sold in 2011 and five properties “held for sale/conveyance” as of December 31, 2011). In addition, discontinued operations reflect the anticipated consummation of the Homburg joint venture buy/sell transactions (seven properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011).

The Company has elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) under applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). To qualify as a REIT under those provisions, the Company must have a preponderant percentage of its assets invested in, and income derived from, real estate and related sources. The Company’s objectives are to provide to its shareholders a professionally-managed real estate portfolio consisting primarily of supermarket-anchored shopping centers straddling the Washington DC to Boston corridor, which will provide substantial cash flow, currently and in the future, taking into account an acceptable modest risk profile, and which will present opportunities for additional growth in income and capital appreciation.

The Company, organized as a Maryland corporation, has established an umbrella partnership structure through the contribution of substantially all of its assets to Cedar Realty Trust Partnership L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”), organized as a limited partnership under the laws of Delaware. The Company conducts substantially all of its business through the Operating Partnership. At December 31, 2011, the Company owned 98.0% of the Operating Partnership and is its sole general partner. The approximately 1.4 million limited Operating Partnership Units (“OP Units”) are economically equivalent to the Company’s common stock and are convertible into the Company’s common stock at the option of the holders on a one-to-one basis.

 

3


Table of Contents

The Company derives substantially all of its revenues from rents and operating expense reimbursements received pursuant to long-term leases. The Company’s operating results therefore depend on the ability of its tenants to make the payments required by the terms of their leases. The Company focuses its investment activities on supermarket-anchored community shopping centers. The Company believes that, because of the need of consumers to purchase food and other staple goods and services generally available at such centers, its type of “necessities-based” properties should provide relatively stable revenue flows even during difficult economic times.

The Company, the Operating Partnership, their subsidiaries and affiliated partnerships are separate legal entities. For ease of reference, the terms “we”, “our”, “us”, “Company” and “Operating Partnership” (including their respective subsidiaries and affiliates) refer to the business and properties of all these entities, unless the context otherwise requires. The Company’s executive offices are located at 44 South Bayles Avenue, Port Washington, New York 11050-3765 (telephone 516-767-6492). The Company also maintains property management, construction management and/or leasing offices at several of its shopping-center properties. The Company’s website can be accessed at www.cedarrealtytrust.com, where a copy of the Company’s Forms 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) can be obtained free of charge. These SEC filings are added to the website as soon as reasonably practicable. The Company’s Code of Ethics, corporate governance guidelines and committee charters are also available on the website.

The Company’s Properties

Consolidated Portfolio

The following tables summarize information relating to the Company’s consolidated portfolio as of December 31, 2011:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Number of                 Percentage  

State

     properties        GLA        of GLA  

Pennsylvania

       34           5,309,000           55.3

Connecticut

       6           1,054,000           11.0

Massachusetts

       7           1,005,000           10.5

Maryland

       7           836,000           8.7

Virginia

       11           816,000           8.5

New Jersey

       3           373,000           3.9

New York

       2           200,000           2.1
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Total consolidated portfolio

       70           9,593,000           100.0
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

4


Table of Contents

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Number                                Annualized        Percentage  

Tenant

     of
stores
       GLA        % of GLA     Annualized
base rent
       base rent
per sq. ft.
       annualized
base rents
 

Top twenty tenants (a):

                          

Giant Foods

       16           981,000           10.2   $ 14,144,000         $ 14.42           13.9

LA Fitness

       6           251,000           2.6     4,028,000           16.05           4.0

Farm Fresh

       6           364,000           3.8     3,909,000           10.74           3.9

Shaw’s

       3           180,000           1.9     2,323,000           12.91           2.3

Food Lion

       7           243,000           2.5     1,925,000           7.92           1.9

Dollar Tree

       19           194,000           2.0     1,908,000           9.84           1.9

Stop & Shop

       3           196,000           2.0     1,802,000           9.19           1.8

Shop Rite

       2           118,000           1.2     1,695,000           18.80           1.7

Staples

       5           104,000           1.1     1,682,000           16.17           1.7

Redner’s

       4           202,000           2.1     1,514,000           7.50           1.5

United Artists

       1           78,000           0.8     1,456,000           18.67           1.4

Shoppers Food Warehouse

       2           120,000           1.3     1,237,000           10.31           1.2

Ukrop’s

       1           63,000           0.7     1,098,000           17.43           1.1

Carmike Cinema

       1           45,000           0.5     1,034,000           22.98           1.0

Rite Aid

       7           83,000           0.9     995,000           11.99           1.0

Giant Eagle

       1           84,000           0.9     922,000           10.98           0.9

Marshalls

       4           114,000           1.2     819,000           7.18           0.8

Dick’s Sporting Goods

       1           56,000           0.6     812,000           14.50           0.8

Home Depot

       1           103,000           1.1     773,000           7.50           0.8

Acme Markets

       3           172,000           1.8     756,000           4.40           0.7
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

   

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Sub-total top twenty tenants

       93           3,751,000           39.1     44,832,000           11.95           44.2

Remaining tenants

       779           5,039,000           52.5     56,604,000           11.23           55.8
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

   

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Sub-total all tenants (b)

       872           8,790,000           91.6   $ 101,436,000         $ 11.54           100.0
                

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Vacant space

       N/A           803,000           8.4            
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

             

Total

       872           9,593,000           100.0            
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

             

 

(a)

Several of the tenants listed above share common ownership with other tenants including, without limitation, (1) Giant Foods, Stop & Shop, and Martins at Glen Allen (GLA of 63,000; annualized base rent of $418,000), (2) Farm Fresh, Shaw’s , Shop ‘n Save (GLA of 53,000; annualized base rent of $532,000) , Shoppers Food Warehouse, and Acme Markets.

 

(b)

Comprised of large tenants (greater than 15,000 sq. ft.) and small tenants as follows:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
                               Annualized        Percentage  
                      Annualized        base rent        annualized  
       GLA        % of GLA     base rent        per sq. ft.        base rents  

Large tenants

       6,224,000           70.8   $ 61,853,000         $ 9.94           61.0

Small tenants

       2,566,000           29.2     39,583,000           15.43           39.0
    

 

 

      

 

 

   

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Total

       8,790,000           100.0   $ 101,436,000         $ 11.54           100.0
    

 

 

      

 

 

   

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

5


Table of Contents

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,

Year of lease

expiration

     Number
of leases
expiring
       GLA
expiring
       Percentage
of GLA
expiring
    Annualized
expiring

base rents
       Annualized
expiring  base

rents per sq. ft.
       Percentage
of  annualized
expiring

base rents
 

Month-To-Month

       18           47,000           0.5   $ 562,000         $ 11.96           0.6

2012

       107           377,000           4.3     4,364,000           11.58           4.3

2013

       119           520,000           5.9     6,985,000           13.43           6.9

2014

       132           1,185,000           13.5     10,642,000           8.98           10.5

2015

       135           1,267,000           14.4     13,465,000           10.63           13.3

2016

       117           1,025,000           11.7     11,112,000           10.84           11.0

2017

       67           815,000           9.3     9,712,000           11.92           9.6

2018

       36           480,000           5.5     6,478,000           13.50           6.4

2019

       25           330,000           3.8     3,745,000           11.35           3.7

2020

       32           884,000           10.1     8,123,000           9.19           8.0

2021

       29           404,000           4.6     5,698,000           14.10           5.6

2022

       6           40,000           0.5     540,000           13.50           0.5

Thereafter

       49           1,416,000           16.1     20,010,000           14.13           19.7
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

   

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

All tenants

       872           8,790,000           100.0   $ 101,436,000         $ 11.54           100.0
         

 

 

        

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Vacant space

       N/A           803,000           N/A               
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

             

Total

       872           9,593,000           N/A               
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

             

 

6


Table of Contents

 

Property description

     Percent
owned
    Year
acquired
       GLA        %
occupied
    Average
base rent per
leased sq. ft.
      

Major tenants (a)

Connecticut (6 properties)

                       

Groton Shopping Center

       100     2007           117,986           90.8   $ 10.96         TJ Maxx

Jordan Lane

       100     2005           181,730           97.7     10.87        

Stop & Shop

CW Price

Retro Fitness

New London Mall

       40     2009           259,293           96.9     13.98        

Shoprite

Marshalls

Homegoods

Petsmart

AC Moore

Oakland Commons

       100     2007           89,850           100.0     11.02        

Shaw’s

Bristol Ten Pin

Southington Shopping Center

       100     2003           155,842           98.7     6.72        

Wal-Mart

NAMCO

The Brickyard

       100     2004           249,553           59.7     8.39        

Home Depot

Syms

           

 

 

             

Total Connecticut

              1,054,254           88.1     10.65        
           

 

 

             

Maryland (7 properties)

                       

Kenley Village

       100     2005           51,894           76.6     9.00         Food Lion

Metro Square

       100     2008           71,896           100.0     18.68         Shoppers Food Warehouse

Oakland Mills

       100     2005           58,224           100.0     13.30         Food Lion

San Souci Plaza

       40     2009           264,134           86.9     10.21        

Shoppers Food Warehouse

Marshalls

Maximum Health and Fitness

St. James Square

       100     2005           39,903           100.0     11.38         Food Lion

Valley Plaza

       100     2003           190,939           97.2     4.75        

K-Mart

Ollie’s Bargain Outlet

Tractor Supply

Yorktowne Plaza

       100     2007           158,982           96.8     13.85         Food Lion
           

 

 

             

Total Maryland

              835,972           93.2     10.64        
           

 

 

             

 

7


Table of Contents

 

Property description

     Percent
owned
    Year
acquired
       GLA        %
occupied
    Average
base rent per
leased sq. ft.
    

Major tenants (a)

Massachusetts (7 properties)

                     

Fieldstone Marketplace

       20     2005           193,970           95.8     11.09      

Shaw’s

Flagship Cinema

New Bedford Wine and Spirits

Kings Plaza

       100     2007           168,243           95.2     6.22      

Work Out World

CW Price

Ocean State Job Lot

Savers

Norwood Shopping Center

       100     2006           102,459           98.2     7.71      

Hannaford Brothers

Rocky’s Ace Hardware

Dollar Tree

Price Chopper Plaza

       100     2007           101,824           91.1     10.87       Price Chopper

The Shops at Suffolk Downs

       100     2005           121,251           86.8     12.64       Stop & Shop

Timpany Plaza

       100     2007           183,775           91.8     6.60      

Stop & Shop

Big Lots

Gardner Theater

West Bridgewater Plaza

       100     2007           133,039           96.9     8.55      

Shaw’s

Big Lots

Planet Fitness

           

 

 

           

Total Massachusetts

              1,004,561           93.8     8.90      
           

 

 

           

New Jersey (3 properties)

                     

Carll’s Corner

       100     2007           129,582           88.5     8.92      

Acme Markets

Peebles

Pine Grove Plaza

       100     2003           86,089           94.4     10.44       Peebles

Washington Center Shoppes

       100     2001           157,394           95.6     8.86      

Acme Markets

Planet Fitness

           

 

 

           

Total New Jersey

              373,065           92.9     9.25      
           

 

 

           

New York (2 properties)

                     

Carman’s Plaza

       100     2007           194,806           91.1     17.12      

Pathmark

Extreme Fitness

Home Goods Department of Motor Vehicle

Kingston Plaza

       100     2006           5,324           100.0     26.67       Taco Bell
           

 

 

           

Total New York

              200,130           91.4     17.40      
           

 

 

           

 

8


Table of Contents

 

Property description

     Percent
owned
    Year
acquired
       GLA        %
occupied
    Average
base rent per
leased sq. ft.
   

Major tenants (a)

Pennsylvania (34 properties)

                    

Academy Plaza

       100     2001           151,977           81.3     13.20     

Acme Markets

Camp Hill

       100     2002           472,717           98.8     13.44     

Boscov’s

Giant Foods

LA Fitness

Orthopedic Inst of PA

Barnes & Noble

Staples

Carbondale Plaza

       100     2004           121,135           91.8     6.97     

Weis Markets

Peebles

Circle Plaza

       100     2007           92,171           100.0     2.74      K-Mart

Colonial Commons

       100     2011           474,765           84.1     12.60     

Giant Foods

Dick’s Sporting Goods

L.A. Fitness

Ross Dress For Less

Marshalls

JoAnn Fabrics

David’s Furniture

Office Max

Crossroads II

       60 % (b)      2008           133,188           91.4     19.51      Giant Foods

East Chestnut

       100     2005           21,180           100.0     15.42      Rite Aid

Fairview Commons

       100     2007           59,578           68.9     6.87      Giant Foods

Fairview Plaza

       100     2003           69,579           100.0     12.31      Giant Foods

Fort Washington

       100     2002           41,000           100.0     19.90      LA Fitness

Gold Star Plaza

       100     2006           71,720           82.2     8.91      Redner’s

Golden Triangle

       100     2003           202,943           97.4     12.30     

LA Fitness

Marshalls

Staples

Just Cabinets

Aldi

Halifax Plaza

       100     2003           51,510           100.0     11.77      Giant Foods

Hamburg Commons

       100     2004           99,580           97.3     6.59     

Redner’s

Peebles

Huntingdon Plaza

       100     2004           142,845           68.1     5.49     

Sears

Peebles

Lake Raystown Plaza

       100     2004           140,159           95.6     12.51     

Giant Foods

Tractor Supply

Liberty Marketplace

       100     2005           68,200           91.2     17.45      Giant Foods

Meadows Marketplace

       20     2004           91,518           100.0     15.28      Giant Foods

Mechanicsburg Giant

       100     2005           51,500           100.0     21.78      Giant Foods

 

9


Table of Contents

 

Property description

     Percent
owned
    Year
acquired
       GLA        %
occupied
    Average
base rent per
leased sq. ft.
   

Major tenants (a)

Pennsylvania (continued)

                    

Newport Plaza

       100     2003           64,489           100.0     11.51      Giant Foods

Northside Commons

       100     2008           64,710           96.1     9.88      Redner’s Market

Palmyra Shopping Center

       100     2005           110,970           89.3     5.60     

Weis Markets

Rite Aid

Port Richmond Village

       100     2001           154,908           96.1     12.33     

Thriftway

Pep Boys

City Stores, Inc.

River View Plaza I, II and III

       100     2003           244,034           83.1     18.44     

United Artists

Avalon Carpet

Pep Boys

Staples

South Philadelphia

       100     2003           283,415           82.3     14.02     

Shop Rite

Ross Dress For Less

Bally’s Total Fitness

Modell’s

Swede Square

       100     2003           100,816           95.0     15.51      LA Fitness

The Commons

       100     2004           203,426           87.5     9.84     

Bon-Ton

Shop’n Save

TJ Maxx

The Point

       100     2000           268,037           99.0     12.30     

Burlington Coat Factory

Giant Foods

AC Moore

Staples

Townfair Center

       100     2004           218,662           99.1     8.56     

Lowe’s Home Centers

Giant Eagle

Michael’s Store

Trexler Mall

       100     2005           339,363           98.5     8.67     

Kohl’s

Bon-Ton

Giant Foods

Lehigh Wellness Partners

Trexlertown Fitness Club

Trexlertown Plaza

       100     2006           316,143           78.1     13.18     

Giant Foods

Redner’s

Big Lots

Tractor Supply

Sears

Upland Square

       60 % (b)      2007           382,578           93.6     16.55     

Giant Foods

Carmike Cinema

LA Fitness

Best Buy

TJ Maxx

Bed, Bath & Beyond

A.C. Moore

Staples

           

 

 

          

Total Pennsylvania

              5,308,816           91.1     12.37     
           

 

 

          

 

10


Table of Contents

 

Property description

  Percent
owned
    Year
acquired
    GLA     %
occupied
    Average
base rent per
leased sq. ft.
   

Major tenants (a)

Virginia (11 properties)

           

Annie Land Plaza

    100     2006        42,500        97.18     9.30      Food Lion

Coliseum Marketplace

    100     2005        103,069        80.74     15.59      Farm Fresh

Elmhurst Square

    100     2006        66,250        89.10     9.26      Food Lion

General Booth Plaza

    100     2005        73,320        95.09     12.53      Farm Fresh

Kempsville Crossing

    100     2005        94,477        98.68     11.13      Farm Fresh

Martin’s at Glen Allen

    100     2005        63,328        100.00     6.61      Martin’s

Oak Ridge Shopping Center

    100     2006        38,700        100.00     10.62      Food Lion

Smithfield Plaza

    100     2005/2008        134,664        95.32     9.25     

Farm Fresh

Maxway Peebles

Suffolk Plaza

    100     2005        67,216        100.00     9.40      Farm Fresh

Ukrop’s at Fredericksburg

    100     2005        63,000        100.00     17.42      Ukrop’s Supermarket

Virginia Little Creek

    100     2005        69,620        100.00     11.12      Farm Fresh
     

 

 

       

Total Virginia

        816,144        95.2     11.15     
     

 

 

       

Total Consolidated Portfolio (70 Properties)

      9,592,942        91.6   $ 11.54     
     

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

(a)

Major tenants are determined as tenants with 15,000 or more sq. ft. of GLA, tenants at single-tenant properties, or the largest tenant at a property.

The terms of the Company’s retail leases generally vary from tenancies at will to 25 years, excluding renewal options. Anchor tenant leases are typically for 10 to 25 years, with one or more renewal options available to the lessee upon expiration of the initial lease term. By contrast, smaller store leases are typically negotiated for five-year terms. The longer terms of major tenant leases serve to protect the Company against significant vacancies and to assure the presence of strong tenants which draw consumers to its centers. The shorter terms of smaller store leases allow the Company under appropriate circumstances to adjust rental rates periodically for non-major store space and, where possible, to upgrade or adjust the overall tenant mix.

Most leases contain provisions requiring tenants to pay their pro rata share of real estate taxes, insurance and certain operating costs. Some leases also provide that tenants pay percentage rent based upon sales volume generally in excess of certain negotiated minimums.

Giant Food Stores, LLC (“Giant Foods”), which is owned by Ahold N.V., a Netherlands corporation, leased approximately 10%, 8% and 8% of the Company’s GLA at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and accounted for approximately 13%, 11% and 10% of the Company’s total revenues during 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Giant Foods, in combination with Stop & Shop, Inc., which is also owned by Ahold N.V., accounted for approximately 16%, 13% and 14% of the Company’s total revenues during 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. No other tenant leased more than 10% of GLA at December 31, 2011, 2010 or 2009, or contributed more than 10% of total revenues during 2011, 2010 or 2009.

 

11


Table of Contents

Cedar/RioCan Joint Venture Portfolio

The following tables summarize information relating to the Cedar/RioCan joint venture portfolio as of December 31, 2011:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Number of                 Percentage  

State

     properties        GLA        of GLA  

Pennsylvania

       12           2,142,000           57.8

Massachusetts

       3           641,000           17.3

New Jersey

       2           409,000           11.1

Virginia

       2           276,000           7.4

Connecticut

       2           172,000           4.6

Maryland

       1           68,000           1.8
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Total Cedar/RioCan joint venture portfolio

       22           3,708,000           100.0
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

12


Table of Contents

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Percent                    Average         
       owned              %     base rent per         

Property description

     by Cedar     GLA        occupied     leased sq. ft.        Major tenants (a)

Connecticut (2 properties)

                  

Montville Commons

       20     117,916           97.5   $ 15.00         Stop & Shop

Stop & Shop Plaza

       20     54,510           100.0     16.69         Stop & Shop
      

 

 

             

Total Connecticut

         172,426           98.3     15.54        
      

 

 

             

Maryland (1 property)

                  

Marlboro Crossroads

       20     67,975           100.0     15.07         Giant Foods
      

 

 

             

Massachusetts (3 properties)

                  

Franklin Village Plaza

       20     304,347           93.2     19.72         Stop & Shop
                   Marshalls
                   Team Fitness

Northwoods Crossing

       20     159,562           100.0     11.70         BJ’s Wholesale Club
                   Tractor Supply

Raynham Commons

       20     176,609           97.7     11.57         Shaw’s
                   Marshall’s
                   JoAnn Fabrics
      

 

 

             

Total Massachusetts

         640,518           96.2     15.36        
      

 

 

             

New Jersey (2 properties)

                  

Cross Keys Place

       20     148,173           100.0     16.21         Sports Authority
                   Bed Bath & Beyond
                   AC Moore
                   Old Navy
                   Petco

Sunrise Plaza

       20     261,060           97.1     7.63         Home Depot
                   Kohl’s Department Store
                   Staples
      

 

 

             

Total New Jersey

         409,233           98.2     10.79        
      

 

 

             

Pennsylvania (12 properties)

                  

Blue Mountain Commons

       20     123,353           92.6     25.50         Giant Foods

Columbus Crossing

       20     142,166           100.0     17.21         Super Fresh
                   Old Navy
                   AC Moore

Creekview Plaza

       20     136,423           100.0     15.36         Giant Foods
                   L.A. Fitness
                   Bed Bath & Beyond

 

13


Table of Contents

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Percent                    Average         
       owned              %     base rent per         

Property description

     by Cedar     GLA        occupied     leased sq. ft.        Major tenants (a)

Pennsylvania (continued)

                  

Exeter Commons

       20     361,321           97.9     12.84         Lowe’s
                   Giant Foods
                   Staples

Gettysburg Marketplace

       20     82,784           93.9     20.23         Giant Foods

Loyal Plaza

       20     293,825           98.3     8.06         K-Mart
                   Giant Foods
                   Staples

Monroe Marketplace

       20     340,930           96.2     10.52         Giant Food
                   Kohl’s Department Store
                   Dick’s Sporting Goods
                   Best Buy
                   Bed Bath & Beyond
                   Michael’s
                   Pet Smart

Northland Center

       20     108,260           97.6     9.83         Giant Foods

Pitney Road Plaza

       20     45,915           100.0     19.75         Best Buy

Sunset Crossing

       20     74,142           88.7     14.52         Giant Foods

Town Square Plaza

       20     127,678           100.0     13.01         Giant Foods
                   A.C. Moore
                   Pet Smart

York Marketplace

       20     305,410           96.1     8.53         Lowe’s
                   Giant Foods
                   Office Max
                   Super Shoes
      

 

 

             

Total Pennsylvania

         2,142,207           97.1     12.70        
      

 

 

             

Virginia (2 properties)

                  

New River Valley

       20     164,663           96.1     13.78         Best Buy
                   Ross Stores
                   Bed Bath & Beyond
                   Staples
                   Petsmart
                   Old Navy

Towne Crossing

       20     111,016           90.6     15.29         Bed Bath & Beyond
                   Michael’s
      

 

 

             

Total Virginia

         275,679           93.9     14.37        
      

 

 

             

Total Cedar/RioCan Joint Venture (22 properties)

         3,708,038           96.9   $ 13.24        
      

 

 

             

 

(a)

Major tenants are determined as tenants with 15,000 or more sq.ft of GLA.

 

14


Table of Contents

Executive Offices

The Company’s executive offices are located at 44 South Bayles Avenue, Port Washington, New York, in which it presently occupies approximately 14,700 square feet leased from a partnership owned 44.9% by the Company’s former Chairman. The Company believes that the terms of its lease, which expires in February 2020, are at market.

Competition

The Company believes that competition for the acquisition and operation of retail shopping and convenience centers is highly fragmented. It faces competition from institutional investors, public and private REITs, owner-operators engaged in the acquisition, ownership and leasing of shopping centers, as well as from numerous local, regional and national real estate developers and owners in each of its markets. It also faces competition in leasing available space at its properties to prospective tenants. Competition for tenants varies depending upon the characteristics of each local market in which the Company owns and manages properties. The Company believes that the principal competitive factors in attracting tenants in its market areas are location, price and other lease terms, the presence of anchor tenants, the mix, quality and sales results of other tenants, and maintenance, appearance, access and traffic patterns of its properties.

Environmental Matters

Under various federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulations, an owner or operator of real estate may be required to investigate and clean up hazardous or toxic substances or other contaminants at property owned, leased, managed or otherwise operated by such person, and may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, and for investigation and cleanup costs in connection with such contamination. The cost of investigation, remediation or removal of such substances may be substantial, and the presence of such substances, or the failure to properly remediate such conditions, may adversely affect the owner’s, lessor’s or operator’s ability to sell or rent such property or to arrange financing using such property as collateral. In connection with the ownership, operation and management of real estate, the Company may potentially become liable for removal or remediation costs, as well as certain other related costs and liabilities, including governmental fines and injuries to persons and/or property.

The Company believes that environmental studies conducted at the time of acquisition with respect to all of its properties have not revealed environmental liabilities that would have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or liquidity. However, no assurances can be given that existing environmental studies with respect to any of the properties reveal all environmental liabilities, that any prior owner of or tenant at a property did not create a material environmental condition not known to the Company, or that a material environmental condition does not otherwise exist at any one or more of its properties. If a material environmental condition does in fact exist, it could have an adverse impact upon the Company’s financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

 

15


Table of Contents

Employees

As of December 31, 2011, the Company had 115 employees (109 full-time and 6 part-time). The Company believes that its relations with its employees are good.

 

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Although improving somewhat in recent months, economic conditions in the U.S. economy in general, and specifically uncertainty in the credit markets and retail environment, could adversely affect our ability to continue to pay dividends or cause us to reduce further the amount of our dividends.

As a result of the then state of the U.S. economy, constrained capital markets and the difficult retail environment, on April 2, 2009 our Board of Directors suspended the payment of dividends. The Board reinstituted dividends at the annual rate of $.36 per share as of January 20, 2010. Subsequently, the Board determined to reduce the quarterly dividend for 2012 to a target annual rate of $.20 per share. However, there can be no assurance that as a result of economic conditions the Company will not be forced, once again, to suspend or reduce the payment of dividends.

Any volatility and instability in the credit markets could adversely affect our ability to obtain new financing or to refinance existing indebtedness.

Any continued uncertainty in the credit markets may negatively impact our ability to access debt financing, to arrange property-specific financing or to refinance our existing debt as it matures on favorable terms or at all. As a result, we may be forced to seek potentially less attractive financings, including equity investments on terms that may not be favorable to us. In doing so, the Company may be compelled to dilute the interests of existing shareholders that could also adversely reduce the trading price of our common stock.

Our properties consist primarily of supermarket-anchored community shopping centers. Our performance therefore is linked to economic conditions in the market for retail space generally.

Our properties consist primarily of supermarket-anchored community shopping centers, and our performance therefore is linked to economic conditions in the market for retail space generally. This also means that we are subject to the risks that affect the retail environment generally, including the levels of consumer spending, the willingness of retailers to lease space in our shopping centers, tenant bankruptcies, changes in economic conditions and consumer confidence. A downturn in the U.S. economy and reduced consumer spending could impact our tenants’ ability to meet their lease obligations due to poor operating results, lack of liquidity or other reasons, and therefore decrease the revenue generated by our properties and/or the value of our properties. Our ability to lease space and negotiate and maintain favorable rents could also be negatively impacted by the state of the U.S. economy. Moreover, the demand for leasing space in our shopping centers could also significantly decline during a significant downturn in the U.S. economy that could result in a decline in our occupancy percentage and reduction in rental revenues. The U.S. economy has experienced, and is expected to continue to experience, substantial unemployment at rates which approach their highest levels in the country’s history. Such levels of reported unemployment may in fact mask more serious

 

16


Table of Contents

unemployment issues, such as persons who have not sought to re-enter the labor force after having been unemployed for substantial periods of time and, further, may not fairly reflect persons who are under-employed or temporarily employed. Sustained levels of high unemployment can be expected to have a serious negative impact on consumer spending in affected areas. While unemployment levels may vary considerably in different areas of the country, and within the markets in which we presently operate, any sustained unemployment may have a continuing negative impact on sales by our tenants at our various shopping centers.

There has been ongoing pressure on prices of petroleum products resulting from actual or potential dislocations in the world’s supply caused by political turmoil in countries which are major sources or distribution links for such products. This has tended to adversely impact the pricing of gasoline, among other products, in this country, which may cause shoppers to restrict their trips by automobile to shopping centers, reduce their purchases of gasoline and other products from the fuel service stations affiliated with the supermarkets at several of our properties, as well as reduce their levels of discretionary spending, all of which, in turn, could adversely affect sales at our properties.

Our performance and value are subject to risks associated with real estate assets and with the real estate industry.

Our performance and value are subject to risks associated with real estate assets and with the real estate industry, including, among other things, risks related to adverse changes in national, regional and local economic and market conditions. Our continued ability to make expected distributions to our shareholders depends on our ability to generate sufficient revenues to meet operating expenses, future debt service and capital expenditure requirements. Events and conditions generally applicable to owners and operators of real property that are beyond our control may decrease cash available for distribution and the value of our properties. These events and conditions include, but may not be limited to, the following:

 

  1.

local oversupply, increased competition or declining demand for real estate;

 

  2.

local economic conditions, which may be adversely impacted by plant closings, business layoffs, industry slow-downs, weather conditions, natural disasters and other factors;

 

  3.

non-payment or deferred payment of rent or other charges by tenants, either as a result of tenant-specific financial ills, or general economic events or circumstances adversely affecting consumer disposable income or credit;

 

  4.

vacancies or an inability to rent space on acceptable terms;

 

  5.

increased operating costs, including real estate taxes, insurance premiums, utilities, and repairs and maintenance;

 

17


Table of Contents
  6.

volatility and/or increases in interest rates, or the non-availability of funds in the credit markets in general;

 

  7.

increased costs of complying with current, new or expanded governmental regulations;

 

  8.

the relative illiquidity of real estate investments;

 

  9.

changing market demographics;

 

  10.

changing traffic patterns;

 

  11.

an inability to arrange property-specific replacement financing for maturing mortgage loans in acceptable amounts and/or on acceptable terms.

Our substantial indebtedness and any constraints on credit may impede our operating performance, and put us at a competitive disadvantage.

Our substantial debt may harm our business and operating results by (i) requiring us to use a substantial portion of our available liquidity to pay required debt service and/or repayments or establish additional reserves, which would reduce amounts available for distributions, (ii) placing us at a competitive disadvantage compared to competitors that have less debt or debt at more favorable terms, (iii) making us more vulnerable to economic and industry downturns and reducing our flexibility in responding to changing business and economic conditions, and (iv) limiting our ability to borrow more money for operations or capital expenditures. In addition, increases in interest rates may impede our operating performance and put us at a competitive disadvantage. Further, payments of required debt service or amounts due at maturity, or creation of additional reserves under loan agreements, could adversely affect our liquidity.

If we fail to dispose of properties presently held for sale or reduce our outstanding indebtedness, our financial condition may be adversely affected.

We have announced plans to dispose of certain shopping centers owned by us and to use the proceeds from the dispositions to reduce our outstanding indebtedness. If we fail to dispose of these properties in a timely fashion or if we do not realize the proceeds presently anticipated from such sales, we will not be able to reduce our outstanding debt as presently planned, which may adversely affect our financial condition.

As substantially all of our revenues are derived from rental income, failure of tenants to pay rent or delays in arranging leases and occupancy at our properties could seriously harm our operating results and financial condition.

Substantially all of our revenues are derived from rental income from our properties. Our tenants may experience a downturn in their respective businesses and/or in the economy generally at any time that may weaken their financial condition. As a result, any such tenants may delay lease commencement, fail to make rental payments when due, decline to extend a lease upon its expiration, become insolvent, or declare bankruptcy. Any leasing delays, failure to make rental or other payments when due, or tenant bankruptcies, could result in the termination of tenants’ leases, which would have a negative impact on our operating results. In addition, adverse market and economic conditions and competition may impede our ability to renew leases or re-let space as leases expire, which could harm our business and operating results.

 

18


Table of Contents

Our business may be seriously harmed if a major tenant fails to renew its lease(s) or vacates one or more properties and prevents us from re-leasing such premises by continuing to pay base rent for the balance of the lease terms. In addition, the loss of such a major tenant could result in lease terminations or reductions in rent by other tenants at the affected properties, as provided in their respective leases.

We may be restricted from re-leasing space based on existing exclusivity lease provisions with some of our tenants. In these cases, the leases contain provisions giving the tenant the exclusive right to sell particular types of merchandise or provide specific types of services within the particular retail center, which limits the ability of other tenants within that center to sell such merchandise or provide such services. When re-leasing space after a vacancy by one of such other tenants, such lease provisions may limit the number and types of prospective tenants for the vacant space. The failure to re-lease space or to re-lease space on satisfactory terms could harm operating results.

Any bankruptcy filings by, or relating to, one of our tenants or a lease guarantor would generally bar efforts by us to collect pre-bankruptcy debts from that tenant, or lease guarantor, unless we receive an order permitting us to do so from the bankruptcy court. A bankruptcy by a tenant or lease guarantor could delay efforts to collect past due balances, and could ultimately preclude full or, in fact, any collection of such sums. If a lease is affirmed by the tenant in bankruptcy, all pre-bankruptcy balances due under the lease must generally be paid in full. However, if a lease is disaffirmed by a tenant in bankruptcy, we would have only an unsecured claim for damages, which would be paid normally only to the extent that funds are available, and only in the same percentage as is paid to all other members of the same class of unsecured creditors. It is possible, and indeed likely, that we would recover substantially less than, or in fact no portion of, the full value of any unsecured claims we hold, which may in turn harm our financial condition.

“New Technology” developments may impact customer traffic at certain tenants’ stores and ultimately sales at such stores.

We may be adversely affected by developments of new technology which may cause the business of certain of our tenants to become substantially diminished or functionally obsolete, with the result that such tenants may be unable to pay rent, become insolvent, file for bankruptcy protection, close their stores, or terminate their leases. Examples of the potentially adverse effects of new technology on retail businesses include, amongst other things, the advent of on-line movie rentals on video stores, the effect of “e-books” and small screen readers on book stores, and increased sales of electronic products “on-line”.

Substantial recent annual increases in on-line sales have also caused many retailers to sell products on line on their websites with pick-ups at a store or warehouse or through deliveries. With special reference to our principal tenants, on-line grocery orders are available and especially useful in urban areas, but have not yet become a major factor affecting supermarkets in our portfolio.

 

19


Table of Contents

Competition may impede our ability to renew leases or re-let spaces as leases expire, which could harm our business and operating results.

We also face competition from similar retail centers within our respective trade areas that may affect our ability to renew leases or re-let space as leases expire. Certain national retail chain bankruptcies and resulting store closings/lease disaffirmations have generally resulted in increased available retail space which, in turn, has resulted in increased competitive pressure to renew tenant leases upon expiration and to find new tenants for vacant space at such properties. In addition, any new competitive properties that are developed within the trade areas of our existing properties may result in increased competition for customer traffic and creditworthy tenants. Increased competition for tenants may require us to make tenant and/or capital improvements to properties beyond those that we would otherwise have planned to make. Any unbudgeted tenant and/or capital improvements we undertake may reduce cash that would otherwise be available for distributions to shareholders. Ultimately, to the extent we are unable to renew leases or re-let space as leases expire, our business and operations could be negatively impacted.

Our current and future joint venture investments could be adversely affected by the lack of sole decision-making authority, reliance on joint venture partners’ financial condition, and any disputes that may arise between our joint venture partners and us.

We presently own a significant number of our properties in joint venture, and in the future we may continue to co-invest with third parties through joint ventures and/or contribute some of our properties to joint ventures. We are generally not in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the properties owned through joint ventures. Investments in joint ventures may, under certain circumstances, involve risks not present when a third party is not involved, including the possibility that joint venture partners might file for bankruptcy protection or fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Joint venture partners may have business interests or goals that are inconsistent with our business interests or goals, and may be in a position to take actions contrary to our policies or objectives. Such investments also may have the potential risk of impasses on decisions, such as a sale, because neither the joint venture partner nor we would have full control over the joint venture. Any disputes that may arise between joint venture partners and us may result in litigation or arbitration that would increase our expenses and prevent our officers and/or directors from focusing their time and effort on our business. Consequently, actions by or disputes with joint venture partners might result in subjecting properties owned by the joint venture to additional risk. In addition, we may in certain circumstances be liable for the actions of our third-party joint venture partners. Our joint venture partner(s) or we may not be in a position to respond to capital calls, and such calls could thus adversely affect our ownership or profits interest through subordination, dilution or super priorities. Also, the triggering of buy/sell provisions in the respective joint venture agreements could adversely affect our ownership interests.

As indicated, we have entered into joint venture arrangements with respect to a number of our properties. The applicable joint venture agreements generally include so-called “buy/sell” provisions pursuant to which, after a specified period of years, either party may initiate a “buy/sell” arrangement pursuant to which the initiating party can designate a value for the relevant property or properties, and the other party, after a specified notice period, may then elect either to sell its proportionate ownership interest in the joint venture based on that value for the entire property or to purchase the initiating party’s ownership interest based on such valuation for the entire property, subject to certain time limits for closing and other closing conditions where applicable. On February 15, 2011, Homburg Invest Inc., our co-venturer in nine supermarket-anchored shopping centers, initiated a “buy/sell” option under the joint venture agreement. For more information, see Notes 4 and 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements elsewhere in this report.

 

20


Table of Contents

The risk to us is that we may not be in a position financially, by virtue of lack of access to funds at an acceptable cost and within prescribed time limits, to purchase the co-venturer’s interest in the event of such “triggering” of the buy/sell provision by the co-venturer. Accordingly, we may be forced to sell our interest in the relevant property or properties on terms and at a time when such sale might not be considered in our best interests. In the event of such sale, we might also lose the benefit of various fees payable to us by the joint venture for property management, leasing and other services, as well as the benefit, where applicable, of a “promote” structure in such joint venture arrangement pursuant to which we could realize an additional share of profits, gains, cash flow, or proceeds of a sale, financing, refinancing or other capital transactions. Among other things, such sale could adversely affect on-going rental revenues, income from joint ventures, market penetration, relationships with tenants, and overall credit metrics.

The financial covenants in our loan agreements may restrict our operating or acquisition activities, which may harm our financial condition and operating results.

The financial covenants in our loan agreements may restrict our operating or acquisition activities, which may harm our financial condition and operating results. The mortgages on our properties contain customary negative covenants, such as those that limit our ability, without the prior consent of the lender, to sell or otherwise transfer any ownership interest, to further mortgage the applicable property, to enter into leases, or to discontinue insurance coverage. Our ability to borrow under our secured revolving credit facilities is subject to compliance with these financial and other covenants, including restrictions on property eligible for collateral, the payment of dividends, and overall restrictions on the amount of indebtedness we can incur. If we breach covenants in our debt agreements, the lenders could declare a default and require us to repay the debt immediately and, if the debt is secured, could take possession of the property or properties securing the loan.

A substantial portion of our properties straddle the Washington DC to Boston corridor, which exposes us to greater economic risks than if our properties were owned in several geographic regions.

Our properties are located largely in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast coastal regions, which exposes us to greater economic risks than if we owned properties in more geographic regions (in particular, 34 of our properties are located in Pennsylvania). Any adverse economic or real estate developments resulting from the regulatory environment, business climate, fiscal problems or weather in such regions could have an adverse impact on our prospects. In addition, the economic condition of each of our markets may be dependent on one or more industries. An economic downturn in one of these industry sectors may result in an increase in tenant vacancies, which may harm our performance in the affected markets. High barriers to entry in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast due to mature economies, road patterns, density of population, restrictions on development, and high land costs, coupled with large numbers of often overlapping government jurisdictions, may make it difficult for the Company to continue to grow in these areas.

Our success depends on key personnel whose continued service is not guaranteed.

Our success depends on the efforts of key personnel, whose continued service is not guaranteed. Key personnel could be lost because we could not offer, among other things, competitive compensation programs. The loss of services of key personnel could materially and adversely affect our operations because of diminished relationships with lenders, sources of equity capital, construction companies, and existing and prospective tenants, and the ability to conduct our business and operations without material disruption.

 

21


Table of Contents

Potential losses may not be covered by insurance.

Potential losses may not be covered by insurance. We carry comprehensive liability, fire, flood, extended coverage and rental loss insurance under a blanket policy covering all of our properties. We believe the policy specifications and insured limits are appropriate and adequate given the relative risk of loss, the cost of the coverage and industry practice. We do not carry insurance for losses such as from war, nuclear accidents, and nuclear, biological and chemical occurrences from terrorist’s acts. Some of the insurance, such as that covering losses due to floods and earthquakes, is subject to limitations involving large deductibles or co-payments and policy limits that may not be sufficient to cover losses. Additionally, certain tenants have termination rights in respect of certain casualties. If we receive casualty proceeds, we may not be able to reinvest such proceeds profitably or at all, and we may be forced to recognize taxable gain on the affected property. If we experience losses that are uninsured or that exceed policy limits, we could lose the capital invested in the damaged properties as well as the anticipated future cash flows from those properties. In addition, if the damaged properties are subject to recourse indebtedness, we would continue to be liable for the indebtedness, even if these properties were irreparably damaged.

Future terrorist attacks could harm the demand for, and the value of, our properties.

Future terrorist attacks, such as the attacks that occurred in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, DC on September 11, 2001, and other acts of terrorism or war, could harm the demand for, and the value of, our properties. Terrorist attacks could directly impact the value of our properties through damage, destruction, loss or increased security costs, and the availability of insurance for such acts may be limited or may be subject to substantial cost increases. To the extent that our tenants are impacted by future attacks, their ability to continue to honor obligations under their existing leases could be adversely affected.

If we fail to continue as a REIT, our distributions will not be deductible, and our income will be subject to taxation, thereby reducing earnings available for distribution.

If we do not continue to qualify as a REIT, our distributions will not be deductible, and our income will be subject to taxation, reducing earnings available for distribution. We have elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Code. A REIT will generally not be subject to federal income taxation on that portion of its income that qualifies as REIT taxable income, to the extent that it distributes at least 90% of its taxable income to its shareholders and complies with certain other requirements. In addition, if we did not continue to qualify as a REIT, we may also be subject to state and local income taxes in certain of the jurisdictions in which our properties are located.

We intend to make distributions to shareholders to comply with the requirements of the Code. However, differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash could require us to sell assets, borrow funds or pay a portion of the dividend in common stock to meet the 90% distribution requirement of the Code. Certain assets generate substantial differences between

 

22


Table of Contents

taxable income and income recognized in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”). Such assets include, without limitation, operating real estate that was acquired through structures that may limit or completely eliminate the depreciation deduction that would otherwise be available for income tax purposes. As a result, the Code requirement to distribute a substantial portion of our otherwise net taxable income in order to maintain REIT status could cause us to (i) distribute amounts that could otherwise be used for future acquisitions, capital expenditures or repayment of debt, (ii) borrow on unfavorable terms, (iii) sell assets on unfavorable terms or (iv) pay a portion of our common dividend in common stock. If we fail to obtain debt or equity capital in the future, it could limit our operations and our ability to grow, which could have a material adverse effect on the value of our common stock.

Dividends payable by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates under tax legislation which reduced the maximum tax rate for dividends payable to individuals from 35% to 15% (through 2012). Although this legislation does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends paid by REITs, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause investors to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stock of corporations that pay dividends qualifying for reduced rates of tax, which in turn could adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs.

We could incur significant costs related to government regulation and litigation over environmental matters and various other federal, state and local regulatory requirements.

We could incur significant costs related to government regulations and litigation over environmental matters. Under various federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, an owner or operator of real estate may be required to investigate and clean up hazardous or toxic substances or other contaminants at property owned, leased, managed or otherwise operated by such person, and may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, and for investigation and cleanup costs in connection with such contamination. The cost of investigation, remediation or removal of such substances may be substantial, and the presence of such substances, or the failure to properly remediate such conditions, may adversely affect the owner’s, lessor’s or operator’s ability to sell or rent such property or to arrange financing using such property as collateral. In connection with the ownership, operation and management of real properties, we are potentially liable for removal or remediation costs, as well as certain other related costs and liabilities, including governmental fines, injuries to persons, and damage to property.

We may incur significant costs complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and similar laws, which require that all public accommodations meet federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons, and with various other federal, state and local regulatory requirements, such as state and local fire and life safety requirements.

The Company believes environmental studies conducted at the time of acquisition with respect to all of our properties did not reveal any material environmental liabilities, and we are unaware of any subsequent environmental matters that would have created a material liability. We believe that our properties are currently in material compliance with applicable environmental, as well as non-environmental, statutory and regulatory requirements. If one or more of our properties were not in compliance with such federal, state and local laws, we could be required to incur additional costs to

 

23


Table of Contents

bring the property into compliance. If we incur substantial costs to comply with such requirements, our business and operations could be adversely affected. If we fail to comply with such requirements, we might incur governmental fines or private damage awards. We cannot presently determine whether existing requirements will change or whether future requirements will require us to make significant unanticipated expenditures that will adversely impact our business and operations.

Our charter and Maryland law contain provisions that may delay, defer or prevent a change of control transaction and depress our stock price.

Our charter and Maryland law contain provisions that may delay, defer or prevent a change of control transaction and depress the price of our common stock. The charter, subject to certain exceptions, authorizes directors to take such actions as are necessary and desirable relating to qualification as a REIT, and to limit any person to beneficial ownership of no more than 9.9% of the outstanding shares of our common stock. Our Board of Directors, in its sole discretion, may exempt a proposed transferee from the ownership limit, but may not grant an exemption from the ownership limit to any proposed transferee whose direct or indirect ownership could jeopardize our status as a REIT. These restrictions on transferability and ownership will not apply if our Board of Directors determines that it is no longer in our best interests to continue to qualify as, or to be, a REIT. This ownership limit may delay or impede a transaction or a change of control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interests of shareholders. Our Board of Directors has waived the ownership limit to permit each of Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc. and RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust to acquire up to 14% and 16%, respectively, of our stock; provided, however, that each of them has agreed to various voting restrictions and standstill provisions.

We may authorize and issue stock and OP Units without shareholder approval. Our charter authorizes the Board of Directors to issue additional shares of common or preferred stock, to issue additional OP Units, to classify or reclassify any unissued shares of common or preferred stock, and to set the preferences, rights and other terms of such classified or unclassified shares. In connection with obtaining shareholder approval to increase the number of authorized shares of preferred stock, we have agreed not to use our preferred stock for anti-takeover purposes or in connection with a shareholder rights plan unless we obtain shareholder approval. Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law (the “MGCL”) may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or of impeding a change of control under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of shares of our common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of such shares, including:

 

  1.

“business combination” provisions that, subject to limitations, prohibit certain business combinations between us and an “interested stockholder” (defined generally as any person or an affiliate thereof who beneficially owns 10% or more of the voting power of our shares) for five years after the most recent date on which the stockholder becomes an interested stockholder, and thereafter imposes special appraisal rights and special stockholder voting requirements on these combinations; and

 

  2.

“control share” provisions that provide that our “control shares” (defined as shares that, when aggregated with other shares controlled by the stockholder, entitle the stockholder to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in electing directors) acquired in a “control

 

24


Table of Contents

share acquisition” (defined as the direct or indirect acquisition of ownership or control of control shares) have no voting rights except to the extent approved by our shareholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding all interested shares.

We have opted out of these provisions of the MGCL. However, the Board of Directors may, by resolution, elect to opt in to the business combination provisions of the MGCL, and we may, by amendment to our bylaws, opt in to the control share provisions of the MGCL.

 

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments: None

 

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

The Company is not presently involved in any litigation, nor, to its knowledge, is any litigation threatened against the Company or its subsidiaries, which is either not covered by the Company’s liability insurance, or, in management’s opinion, would result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

 

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures: Not applicable

Directors and Executive Officers of the Company

Information regarding the Company’s directors and executive officers is set forth below:

 

Name

  

Age

  

Position

Bruce J. Schanzer

   43    Chief Executive Officer and President, Director

Roger M. Widmann

   72    Chairman of the Board of Directors

James J. Burns

   72    Director

Raghunath Davloor

   50    Director

Pamela N. Hootkin

   64    Director

Paul G. Kirk Jr.

   74    Director

Everett B. Miller III

   66    Director

Philip R. Mays

   44    Chief Financial Officer

Brenda J. Walker

   59    Vice President - Chief Operating Officer

Bruce J. Schanzer joined the Company in June 2011 as President, Chief Executive Officer and as a director. Prior thereto, Mr. Schanzer was employed by Goldman Sachs & Co. since 2007, with his most recent position being a managing director in the real estate investment banking group. From 2001 to 2007, he was employed by Merrill Lynch, with his last position being vice president in their real estate investment banking group. Earlier in his career, Mr. Schanzer practiced real estate law for six years in New York. Mr. Schanzer received a B.A. from Yeshiva University, an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago, and a J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where he was a member of the Law Review.

 

25


Table of Contents

Roger M. Widmann, a director since October 2003, the non-executive Chairman of the Board since June 2011, and a member of the Compensation and Nominating/Corporate Governance Committees, is an investment banker. He was a principal of the investment banking firm of Tanner & Co., Inc. from 1997 to 2004. From 1986 to 1995, Mr. Widmann was a senior managing director of Chemical Securities, Inc., a subsidiary of Chemical Banking Corporation (now JPMorgan Chase Corporation). Prior to joining Chemical Securities, Inc., Mr. Widmann was a founder and managing director of First Reserve Corporation, the largest independent energy investing firm in the U.S. Previously, he was senior vice president with the investment banking firm of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, responsible for the firm’s domestic and international investment banking business. He had also been a vice president with New Court Securities (now Rothschild, Inc.). He was a director of Lydall, Inc. (listed on the New York Stock Exchange), a manufacturer of thermal, acoustical and filtration materials, from 1974 to 2004, and its chairman from 1998 to 2004. He is a director of Standard Motor Products, Inc. (listed on the New York Stock Exchange), a manufacturer of automobile replacement parts, is Chairman of Keystone National Group, a fund of private equity funds, and is Chairman and CEO of Cutwater Associates LLC, a corporate advisory firm. He is also a senior moderator of the Aspen Seminar at The Aspen Institute and Vice Chairman of Oxfam America. Mr. Widmann received an A.B. from Brown University and a J.D. from the Columbia University School of Law.

James J. Burns, a director since 2001 and a member of the Audit (Chair) and Nominating/Corporate Governance Committees, was chief financial officer and senior vice president of Reis, Inc. (formerly Wellsford Real Properties, Inc.) from December 2000 until March 2006, and vice chairman from April 2006 until March 2009, when he entered into a consulting role at that company (where he continues to have the primary responsibility for income tax reporting and compliance). He joined Reis in October 1999 as chief accounting officer upon his retirement from Ernst & Young LLP in September 1999. At Ernst & Young LLP, Mr. Burns was a senior audit partner in the E&Y Kenneth Leventhal Real Estate Group for 22 years. Since 2000, Mr. Burns has also served as a director of One Liberty Properties, Inc., a real estate investment trust listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Mr. Burns is a certified public accountant and a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Mr. Burns received a B.A. and M.B.A. from Baruch College of the City University of New York.

Raghunath Davloor, a director since October 2009, is currently Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust, Canada’s largest real estate investment trust. RioCan, headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, is involved in the ownership, development, management, leasing, acquisition and redevelopment of retail properties across Canada. RioCan, through a subsidiary, owns an investment in the Company, and is a partner with the Company in several joint venture properties in the U.S. Prior to joining RioCan in February 2008, Mr. Davloor spent two years as Vice-President and Director of Investment Banking at TD Securities, covering the real estate sector. For ten years prior thereto, he was with O&Y Properties Corporation and O&Y REIT in a number of progressive positions, ultimately becoming Chief Financial Officer. Prior to joining O&Y, Mr. Davloor was a Senior Tax Manager at Arthur Andersen in the real estate advisory services group, specializing in real estate and international taxation. He is a chartered accountant and a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario. Mr. Davloor holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of Manitoba.

 

26


Table of Contents

Pamela N. Hootkin, a director since June 2008 and a member of the Audit and Compensation Committees, has been senior vice president at PVH Corp. (formerly Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation) since May 2010. She joined PVH Corp. in 1988 as vice president, treasurer and corporate secretary; in 1999 she became vice president, treasurer and director of investor relations, and in June 2007 she became senior vice president, treasurer and director of investor relations. From 1986 to 1988, Ms. Hootkin was vice president and chief financial officer of Yves Saint Laurent Parfums, Inc. From 1975 to 1986, she was employed by Squibb Corporation in various capacities, with her last position being vice president and treasurer of a division of Squibb. Ms. Hootkin is a board member of Safe Horizon, New York (a not-for-profit organization) where she also serves on the executive and finance committees. Ms. Hootkin received a B.A. from the State University of New York at Binghamton and a M.A. from Boston University.

Paul G. Kirk, Jr., a director from 2005 to September 2009, when he resigned as the result of his appointment as a United States Senator for Massachusetts to the seat previously held by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and re-elected to the Board in June 2010, is a member of the Compensation and Nominating/Corporate Governance (Chair) Committees, and is a retired partner of the law firm of Sullivan & Worcester, LLP of Boston, MA. He was a member of the firm from 1977 through 1990. He also serves as Chairman and CEO of Kirk & Associates, Inc., a business advisory and consulting firm. Mr. Kirk currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and the Advisory Board of Bloomberg Government. He served on the Board of Directors of Rayonier, Incorporated (a real estate investment trust listed on the New York Stock Exchange) from 1994 to 2011. He has previously served on the Boards of Directors of ITT Corporation (1989-1997) and of Bradley Real Estate, Inc. (1991-2000), a real estate investment trust that was subsequently acquired by Heritage Property Investment Trust, Inc. Mr. Kirk was a founding Director of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and served as its Chairman from 1992 to 2009. He was a founding Director of the Commission on Presidential Debates and served as its Co-Chairman from 1987 to 2009. From 1985 to 1989, Mr. Kirk served as Chairman of the Democratic Party of the U.S., and from 1983-1985 as its Treasurer. A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Mr. Kirk is past-Chairman of the Harvard Board of Overseers’ Nominating Committee and of the Harvard Board of Overseers’ Committee to Visit the Department of Athletics. He has received many awards for civic leadership and public service, including honorary doctors of law degrees from Stonehill College and the Southern New England School of Law.

Everett B. Miller, III, a director since 1998 and a member of the Audit and Compensation (Chair) Committees, retired at the end of 2011 from his position as vice president of alternative investments at the YMCA Retirement Fund, a position he held since September 2003. Mr. Miller is a member of the Real Estate Advisory Committee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, a position he has held since March 2003. Prior to his retirement in May 2002 from Commonfund Realty, Inc., a registered investment advisor, Mr. Miller was the chief operating officer of that company from 1997 until May 2002. From January 1995 through March 1997, Mr. Miller was the Principal Investment Officer for Real Estate and Alternative Investment at the Office of the Treasurer of the State of Connecticut. Prior thereto, Mr. Miller was employed for eighteen years at affiliates of Travelers Realty Investment Co., at which his last position was senior vice president. Mr. Miller received a B.S. from Yale University.

 

27


Table of Contents

Philip R. Mays joined the Company in June 2011 as Chief Financial Officer. From May 2005 until June 2011, Mr. Mays was with Federal Realty Investment Trust, a publicly-traded equity REIT specializing in shopping centers, where he initially served as Controller, was subsequently promoted to Chief Accounting Officer in September 2006, and again to Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer in February 2007. Prior to joining Federal Realty, he was Vice President of Finance and Corporate Controller for CRIIMI MAE, Inc. from June 2004 until May 2005. Earlier in his career, Mr. Mays held various accounting and finance positions, including seven years as an accountant at Ernst & Young, LLP, with his last position being senior manager, where he supervised audits and assisted clients in the real estate, construction and hospitality industries, including publicly-traded REITs. Mr. Mays is a certified public accountant and a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Mr. Mays received a B.S. degree from Jacksonville University, Florida.

Brenda J. Walker has been a vice president of the Company since 1998, was elected Chief Operating Office in 2009, was a director from 1998 until June 2008, and was treasurer from April 1998 until November 1999. She was an executive officer since 1992 of the real estate management companies, and their respective predecessors and affiliates, which were merged into the Company in 2003. Ms. Walker has been involved in real estate-related finance, property and asset management for more than thirty-five years. Ms. Walker received a B.A. from Lincoln University, Pennsylvania.

Part II.

 

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

Dividend Information

A corporation electing REIT status is required to distribute at least 90% of its “REIT taxable income”, as defined in the Code, to continue qualification as a REIT. The Company paid dividends totaling $0.36 per share during 2011. However, in keeping with its stated goal of reducing overall leverage, and in order to maximize financial flexibility, the Company’s Board of Directors determined to reduce the quarterly dividend for 2012 to a target rate of $0.05 per share (an annual rate of $0.20 per share). While the Company intends to continue paying regular quarterly dividends, future dividend declarations will continue to be at the discretion of the Board of Directors, and will depend on the cash flow and financial condition of the Company, capital requirements, annual distribution requirements under the REIT provisions of the Code, and such other factors as the Board of Directors may deem relevant.

Market Information

The Company had 67,928,337 shares of common stock outstanding held by approximately 700 shareholders of record at December 31, 2011. The Company believes it has more than 6,000 beneficial holders of its common stock. The Company’s shares trade on the NYSE under the symbol “CDR”. The following table sets forth, for each quarter for the last two years, (i) the high, low, and closing prices of the Company’s common stock, and (ii) dividends paid:

 

28


Table of Contents

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,

Quarter ended

     Market price range        Dividends  
       High        Low        Close        paid  

2011

                   

March 31

     $ 6.58         $ 5.26         $ 6.03         $ 0.09   

June 30

       6.27           4.82           5.15         $ 0.09   

September 30

       5.44           3.01           3.11         $ 0.09   

December 31

       4.71           2.65           4.31         $ 0.09   

2010

                   

March 31

     $ 8.20         $ 6.26         $ 7.91         $ —     

June 30

       8.39           5.85           6.02         $ 0.09   

September 30

       6.67           4.91           6.08         $ 0.09   

December 31

       6.81           5.81           6.29         $ 0.09   

Stockholder Return Performance Presentation

The following line graph sets forth for the period January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2011 a comparison of the percentage change in the cumulative total stockholder return on the Company’s common stock compared to the cumulative total return of the Russell 2000 index and the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts Equity REIT Total Return Index.

The graph assumes that the shares of the Company’s common stock were bought at the price of $100 per share and that the value of the investment in each of the Company’s common stock and the indices was $100 at the beginning of the period. The graph further assumes the reinvestment of dividends when paid.

 

29


Table of Contents

 

LOGO

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
                 Period Ending  

Index

     01/01/07        12/31/07        12/31/08        12/31/09        12/31/10        12/31/11  

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

       100.00           68.55           51.51           50.95           49.11           36.46   

Russell 2000

       100.00           98.43           65.18           82.89           105.14           100.75   

NAREIT All Equity REIT Index

       100.00           84.31           52.50           67.20           85.98           93.10   

 

30


Table of Contents
Item 6. Selected Financial Data (a)

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Years ended December 31,  
       2011      2010      2009      2008      2007  

Operations data:

                

Total revenues

     $ 135,413,000       $ 131,572,000       $ 140,395,000       $ 127,005,000       $ 111,784,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Expenses:

                

Property operating expenses

       44,236,000         41,783,000         40,457,000         35,056,000         28,523,000   

General and administrative

       11,085,000         9,537,000         10,158,000         8,586,000         9,041,000   

Management transition charges

       6,530,000         —           —           —           —     

Impairments

       7,148,000         2,493,000         23,636,000         —           —     

Acquisition transaction costs and terminated projects

       1,436,000         3,958,000         4,367,000         855,000         —     

Depreciation and amortization

       43,250,000         34,872,000         42,853,000         37,097,000         30,914,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total expenses

       113,685,000         92,643,000         121,471,000         81,594,000         68,478,000   

Operating income

       21,728,000         38,929,000         18,924,000         45,411,000         43,306,000   

Non-operating income and expense:

                

Interest expense and amortization/write-off of deferred financing costs

       (41,870,000      (45,690,000      (41,669,000      (36,667,000      (30,947,000

Equity in (loss) income of unconsolidated joint ventures

       (6,290,000      484,000         1,098,000         956,000         634,000   

Gain on sale

       130,000         —           521,000         —           —     

Interest income

       349,000         21,000         63,000         271,000         769,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total non-operating income and expense

       (47,681,000      (45,185,000      (39,987,000      (35,440,000      (29,544,000

(Loss) income before discontinued operations

       (25,953,000      (6,256,000      (21,063,000      9,971,000         13,762,000   

(Loss) income from discontinued operations

       (83,445,000      (38,098,000      3,495,000         10,827,000         10,105,000   

Gain on sales of discontinued operations

       884,000         170,000         557,000         —           —     
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net (loss) income

       (108,514,000      (44,184,000      (17,011,000      20,798,000         23,867,000   

Less, net loss (income) attributable to noncontrolling interests

                

Minority interests in consolidated joint ventures

       2,507,000         1,613,000         (772,000      (2,157,000      (1,415,000

Limited partners’ interest in Operating Partnership

       2,446,000         1,282,000         912,000         (468,000      (627,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net (loss) income attributable to Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

       (103,561,000      (41,289,000      (16,871,000      18,173,000         21,825,000   

Preferred distribution requirements

       (14,200,000      (10,196,000      (7,876,000      (7,877,000      (7,877,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net (loss) income attributable to common shareholders

     $ (117,761,000    $ (51,485,000    $ (24,747,000    $ 10,296,000       $ 13,948,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Per common share (basic and diluted) attributable to common shareholders:

                

Continuing operations

     $ (0.61    $ (0.24    $ (0.60    $ (0.01    $ 0.09   

Discontinued operations

       (1.18      (0.57      0.06         0.24         0.23   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 
     $ (1.79    $ (0.81    $ (0.54    $ 0.23       $ 0.32   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Amounts attributable to Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. common shareholders, net of limited partners’ interest

                

(Loss) income from continuing operations

     $ (39,236,000    $ (15,504,000    $ (27,630,000    $ (65,000    $ 4,278,000   

(Loss) income from discontinued operations

       (78,525,000      (35,981,000      2,883,000         10,361,000         9,670,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net (loss) income

     $ (117,761,000    $ (51,485,000    $ (24,747,000    $ 10,296,000       $ 13,948,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Dividends to common shareholders

     $ 24,705,000       $ 17,749,000       $ 9,742,000       $ 40,027,000       $ 39,775,000   

Per common share

     $ 0.3600       $ 0.2700       $ 0.2025       $ 0.9000       $ 0.9000   

Weighted average number of common shares—basic

       66,387,000         63,843,000         46,234,000         44,475,000         44,193,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Weighted average number of common shares—diluted

       66,387,000         63,862,000         46,234,000         44,475,000         44,197,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

31


Table of Contents
Item 6. Selected Financial Data (a) (continued)

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Years ended December 31,  
       2011     2010     2009     2008     2007  

Balance sheet data:

            

Real estate, net

     $ 1,171,513,000      $ 1,132,313,000      $ 1,146,939,000      $ 1,045,046,000      $ 946,659,000   

Real estate to be transferred to a joint venture

       —          —          139,743,000        194,952,000        165,277,000   

Real estate held for sale/conveyance

       206,674,000        348,743,000        392,649,000        419,717,000        403,768,000   

Investment in unconsolidated joint ventures

       44,743,000        52,466,000        14,113,000        4,976,000        3,757,000   

Other assets

       89,233,000        88,965,000        91,674,000        70,337,000        83,634,000   
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total assets

     $ 1,512,163,000      $ 1,622,487,000      $ 1,785,118,000      $ 1,735,028,000      $ 1,603,095,000   
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Mortgages and loans payable

     $ 755,344,000      $ 683,122,000      $ 799,667,000      $ 771,991,000      $ 605,177,000   

Mortgage loans payable—real estate to be transferred to a joint venture

       —          —          94,018,000        77,307,000        70,458,000   

Mortgage loans payable—real estate held for sale/conveyance

       122,604,000        156,991,000        158,762,000        164,175,000        175,879,000   

Other liabilities

       73,827,000        76,850,000        106,269,000        116,361,000        105,654,000   
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total liabilities

       951,775,000        916,963,000        1,158,716,000        1,129,834,000        957,168,000   

Noncontrolling interest—limited partners’ mezzanine OP Units

       4,616,000        7,053,000        12,638,000        14,257,000        15,570,000   

Equity:

            

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. shareholders’ equity

       493,843,000        630,066,000        538,456,000        523,521,000        557,849,000   

Noncontrolling interests

       61,929,000        68,405,000        75,308,000        67,416,000        72,508,000   
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total equity

       555,772,000        698,471,000        613,764,000        590,937,000        630,357,000   
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total liabilities and equity

     $ 1,512,163,000      $ 1,622,487,000      $ 1,785,118,000      $ 1,735,028,000      $ 1,603,095,000   
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Weighted average number of common shares:

            

Basic earnings per share

       66,387,000        63,843,000        46,234,000        44,475,000        44,193,000   
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Diluted earnings per share

       66,387,000        63,862,000        46,234,000        44,475,000        44,197,000   
    

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Other data:

            

Funds From Operations (“FFO”) (b)

     $ 26,717,000      $ 29,510,000      $ 51,776,000      $ 56,859,000      $ 56,190,000   

Cash flows provided by (used in):

            

Operating activities

     $ 39,246,000      $ 41,702,000      $ 51,942,000      $ 60,815,000      $ 53,503,000   

Investing activities

     $ (64,241,000   $ (29,834,000   $ (70,026,000   $ (151,390,000   $ (192,432,000

Financing activities

     $ 22,899,000      $ (14,866,000   $ 27,017,000      $ 75,517,000      $ 143,735,000   

Square feet of GLA

       9,593,000        9,015,000        8,809,000        7,853,000        7,698,000   

Percent leased

       92     90     91     92     92

Average annualized base rent per leased square foot

     $ 11.54      $ 11.34      $ 10.92      $ 10.68      $ 10.47   

 

(a)

The data presented reflect certain reclassifications of prior period amounts to conform to the 2011 presentation, principally to reflect the sale and/or treatment as “held for sale/conveyance” of certain operating properties and the treatment thereof as “discontinued operations”. The reclassifications had no impact on the previously-reported net income attributable to common shareholders or earnings per share.

 

(b)

See Item 7—“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” for a reconciliation of FFO to net (loss) attributable to common shareholders. FFO has been restated for prior years based on a recent NAREIT clarification with respect to the computation of FFO.

 

32


Table of Contents
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto included elsewhere in this report.

Executive Summary

The Company is a fully-integrated real estate investment trust which currently focuses primarily on ownership and operation of supermarket-anchored shopping centers straddling the Washington DC to Boston corridor. At December 31, 2011, the Company owned and managed a portfolio of 70 operating properties (excluding properties “held for sale/conveyance”) totaling approximately 9.6 million square feet of GLA. In addition, the Company has an ownership interest in 22 operating properties, with approximately 3.7 million square feet of GLA, through its Cedar/RioCan joint venture in which the Company has a 20% interest. The entire managed portfolio, including the Cedar/RioCan properties, was approximately 93.1% leased at December 31, 2011.

During 2011, in keeping with its stated goal of reducing overall leverage to an appropriate level by selling non-core and limited growth potential assets, the Company determined (1) to completely exit the Ohio market, principally the Discount Drug Mart portfolio of drugstore/convenience centers, and concentrate on the mid-Atlantic and Northeast coastal regions (four properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011), (2) to concentrate on grocery-anchored strip centers, by disposing of its mall and single-tenant/triple-net-lease properties (11 properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011), and (3) to focus on improving operations and performance at the Company’s remaining properties, and to reduce development activities, by disposing of certain development projects, land acquired for development, and other non-core assets (five properties “held for sale/conveyance” as of December 31, 2011). In addition, discontinued operations reflect the anticipated consummation of the Homburg joint venture buy/sell transactions (seven properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011).

The Company, organized as a Maryland corporation, has established an umbrella partnership structure through the contribution of substantially all of its assets to the Operating Partnership, organized as a limited partnership under the laws of Delaware. The Company conducts substantially all of its business through the Operating Partnership. At December 31, 2011, the Company owned 98.0% of the Operating Partnership and is its sole general partner. The approximately 1.4 million OP Units are economically equivalent to the Company’s common stock and are convertible into the Company’s common stock at the option of the holders on a one-to-one basis.

The Company derives substantially all of its revenues from rents and operating expense reimbursements received pursuant to long-term leases. The Company’s operating results therefore depend on the ability of its tenants to make the payments required by the terms of their leases. The Company focuses its investment activities on supermarket-anchored community shopping centers. The Company believes that, because of the need of consumers to purchase food and other staple goods and services generally available at such centers, its type of “necessities-based” properties should provide relatively stable revenue flows even during difficult economic times.

 

33


Table of Contents

The Cedar/RioCan joint venture has acquired primarily stabilized supermarket-anchored properties in the Company’s primary market areas. The Company believes it gains additional benefits with tenants and vendors by having an interest in managing these additional properties within its primary markets.

Significant Transactions

On January 26, 2012, the Company entered into a $300 million secured credit facility (the “Credit Facility”). The Credit Facility amends, restates and consolidates the Company’s prior $185 million stabilized property revolving credit facility ($74,035,000 outstanding at December 31, 2011, bearing interest at 5.5% per annum) and its $150 million development property credit facility ($92,282,000 outstanding at December 31, 2011, bearing interest at 2.5% per annum) that were due to expire on January 31, 2012 and June 13, 2012, respectively. In anticipation of the new Credit Facility, the Company determined to forego its one-year extension option applicable to the stabilized property credit revolving facility.

 

34


Table of Contents

The table below details 2011 acquisitions and dispositions:

Acquisitions

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
              GLA /        Date        Purchase  

Property

     Location      Acreage        Acquired        Price  

Consolidated

                   

Colonial Commons

     Lower Paxton Township, PA        474,765           1/14/2011         $ 49,100,000   

Unconsolidated Cedar/RioCan Joint Venture

                   

Northwoods Crossing

     Taunton, MA        159,562           4/15/2011         $ 23,400,000   

Dispositions

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
              GLA/        Date        Sales  

Property

     Location      Acreage        Sold        Price  

Consolidated

                   

Bergstrasse Land

     Ephrata, PA        7.7 acres           2/14/2011         $ 1,900,000   

Enon Discount Drug Mart Plaza

     Enon, OH        42,876           3/30/2011           2,125,000   

Hills & Dales Discount Drug Mart Plaza

     Canton, OH        33,553           3/30/2011           1,907,000   

Fairfield Plaza

     Fairfield, CT        72,279           4/15/2011           10,840,000   

CVS at Kingston

     Kingston, NY        13,013           11/14/2011           5,250,000   

CVS at Kinderhook

     Kinderhook, NY        13,225           12/8/2011           4,000,000   

Shoppes at Salem Run

     Fredericksburg, VA        15,100           12/12/2011           1,675,000   

Virginia Center Commons

     Glen Allen, VA        9,763           12/21/2011           3,550,000   

Centerville Discount Drug Mart Plaza

     Centerville, OH        49,287           12/28/2011           2,743,000   

Clyde Discount Drug Mart Plaza

     Clyde, OH        34,592           12/28/2011           1,903,000   

FirstMerit Bank at Cuyahoga Falls

     Cuyahoga Falls, OH        3,200           12/28/2011           915,000   

Lodi Discount Drug Mart Plaza

     Lodi, OH        38,576           12/28/2011           2,319,000   

Mason Discount Drug Mart Plaza

     Mason, OH        52,896           12/28/2011           4,653,000   

Ontario Discount Drug Mart Plaza

     Ontario, OH        38,623           12/28/2011           2,141,000   

Pickerington Discount Drug Mart Plaza

     Pickerington, OH        47,810           12/28/2011           4,072,000   

Polaris Discount Drug Mart Plaza

     Polaris, OH        50,283           12/28/2011           4,370,000   

Shelby Discount Drug Mart Plaza

     Shelby, OH        36,596           12/28/2011           2,141,000   
                   

 

 

 

Total

                    $ 56,504,000   
                   

 

 

 

 

35


Table of Contents

Discontinued operations, land dispositions and write-off of investment in unconsolidated joint venture

In connection with management’s review of the Company’s real estate investments, the Company determined (1) to completely exit the Ohio market, principally the Discount Drug Mart portfolio of drugstore/convenience centers, and concentrate on the mid-Atlantic and Northeast coastal regions (four properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011), (2) to concentrate on grocery-anchored strip centers, by disposing of its mall and single-tenant/triple-net-lease properties (11 properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011), and (3) to focus on improving operations and performance at the Company’s remaining properties, and to reduce development activities, by disposing of certain development projects, land acquired for development, and other non-core assets (five properties “held for sale/conveyance” as of December 31, 2011). In addition, discontinued operations reflect the anticipated consummation of the Homburg joint venture buy/sell transactions (seven properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011).

The carrying values of the assets and liabilities of these properties, principally the net book values of the real estate and the related mortgage loans payable to be assumed by the buyers (or conveyed to the mortgagee), have been reclassified as “held for sale/conveyance” on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010. In addition, the properties’ results of operations have been classified as “discontinued operations” for all periods presented. Impairment charges relating to operating properties are included in discontinued operations in the accompanying statements of operations; impairment charges relating to land parcels are included in operating income in the accompanying statements of operations. The impairment charge amounts included in operating income for 2010 and 2009 relate to properties transferred to the Cedar/RioCan joint venture. The following is a summary of these charges:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Years ended December 31,  
       2011        2010        2009  

Impairment charges—land parcels and properties transferred to Cedar/RioCan joint venture

     $ 7,148,000         $ 2,493,000         $ 23,636,000   
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Write-off of investment in unconsolidated joint venture

     $ 7,961,000         $ —           $ —     
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Impairment charges—properties held for sale/conveyance

     $ 88,458,000         $ 39,822,000         $ 3,559,000   
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Impairment charges included in discontinued operations for 2011 included $11.1 million related to the Discount Drug Mart portfolio, $33.1 million related to malls, $5.3 million related to single-tenant/triple-net-lease properties, $36.6 million related to development projects and other non-core properties, and $2.4 million related to the Homburg joint venture properties. Impairment charges included in discontinued operations for 2010 included $26.8 million related to the Discount Drug Mart portfolio, $12.6 million related to malls, $0.1 million related to a single-tenant/triple-net-lease property, and $0.3 million related to a development project. Impairment charges included in discontinued operations for 2009 included $2.4 million related to the Discount Drug Mart portfolio and $1.2 million related to single-tenant/triple-net-lease properties.

 

36


Table of Contents

Summary of Critical Accounting Policies

The preparation of the consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires the Company to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. On an ongoing basis, management evaluates its estimates, including those related to revenue recognition and the allowance for doubtful accounts receivable, real estate investments and purchase accounting allocations related thereto, asset impairment, and derivatives used to hedge interest-rate risks. Management’s estimates are based both on information that is currently available and on various other assumptions management believes to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results could differ from those estimates and those estimates could be different under varying assumptions or conditions.

The Company has identified the following critical accounting policies, the application of which requires significant judgments and estimates:

Revenue Recognition

Rental income with scheduled rent increases is recognized using the straight-line method over the respective terms of the leases. The aggregate excess of rental revenue recognized on a straight-line basis over base rents under applicable lease provisions is included in straight-line rents receivable on the consolidated balance sheet. Leases also generally contain provisions under which the tenants reimburse the Company for a portion of property operating expenses and real estate taxes incurred; such income is recognized in the periods earned. In addition, certain operating leases contain contingent rent provisions under which tenants are required to pay a percentage of their sales in excess of a specified amount as additional rent. The Company defers recognition of contingent rental income until those specified targets are met.

The Company must make estimates as to the collectability of its accounts receivable related to base rent, straight-line rent, expense reimbursements and other revenues. Management analyzes accounts receivable by considering tenant creditworthiness, current economic conditions, and changes in tenants’ payment patterns when evaluating the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts receivable. These estimates have a direct impact on net income, because a higher bad debt allowance would result in lower net income, whereas a lower bad debt allowance would result in higher net income.

Real Estate Investments

Real estate investments are carried at cost less accumulated depreciation. The provision for depreciation is calculated using the straight-line method based on estimated useful lives. Expenditures for maintenance, repairs and betterments that do not materially prolong the normal useful life of an asset are charged to operations as incurred. Expenditures for betterments that substantially extend the useful lives of real estate assets are capitalized.

 

37


Table of Contents

Real estate investments include costs of development and redevelopment activities, and construction in progress. Capitalized costs, including interest and other carrying costs during the construction and/or renovation periods, are included in the cost of the related asset and charged to operations through depreciation over the asset’s estimated useful life. The Company is required to make subjective estimates as to the useful lives of its real estate assets for purposes of determining the amount of depreciation to reflect on an annual basis. These assessments have a direct impact on net income. A shorter estimate of the useful life of an asset would have the effect of increasing depreciation expense and lowering net income, whereas a longer estimate of the useful life of an asset would have the effect of reducing depreciation expense and increasing net income.

A variety of costs are incurred in the acquisition, development and leasing of a property, such as pre-construction costs essential to the development of the property, development costs, construction costs, interest costs, real estate taxes, salaries and related costs, and other costs incurred during the period of development. After a determination is made to capitalize a cost, it is allocated to the specific component of a project that is benefited. The Company ceases capitalization on the portions substantially completed and occupied, or held available for occupancy, and capitalizes only those costs associated with the portions under construction. The Company considers a construction project as substantially completed and held available for occupancy upon the completion of tenant improvements, but not later than one year from cessation of major development activity. Determination of when a development project is substantially complete and capitalization must cease involves a degree of judgment. The effect of a longer capitalization period would be to increase capitalized costs and would result in higher net income, whereas the effect of a shorter capitalization period would be to reduce capitalized costs and would result in lower net income.

The Company allocates the fair value of real estate acquired to land, buildings and improvements. In addition, the fair value of in-place leases is allocated to intangible lease assets and liabilities. The fair value of the tangible assets of an acquired property is determined by valuing the property as if it were vacant, which value is then allocated to land, buildings and improvements based on management’s determination of the relative fair values of such assets. In valuing an acquired property’s intangibles, factors considered by management include an estimate of carrying costs during the expected lease-up periods, such as real estate taxes, insurance, other operating expenses, and estimates of lost rental revenue during the expected lease-up periods based on its evaluation of current market demand. Management also estimates costs to execute similar leases, including leasing commissions, tenant improvements, legal and other related costs.

The values of acquired above-market and below-market leases are recorded based on the present values (using discount rates which reflect the risks associated with the leases acquired) of the differences between the contractual amounts to be received and management’s estimate of market lease rates, measured over the terms of the respective leases that management deemed appropriate at the time of the acquisitions. Such valuations include a consideration of the non-cancellable terms of the respective leases as well as any applicable renewal period(s). The fair values associated with below-market rental renewal options are determined based on the Company’s experience and the relevant facts and circumstances that existed at the time of the acquisitions. The values of above-market leases are amortized to rental income over the terms of the respective non-cancelable lease periods. The portion of the values of below-market leases associated with the original non-cancelable lease terms are amortized

 

38


Table of Contents

to rental income over the terms of the respective non-cancelable lease periods. The portion of the values of the leases associated with below-market renewal options that are likely of exercise are amortized to rental income over the respective renewal periods. The value of other intangible assets (including leasing commissions, tenant improvements, etc.) is amortized to expense over the applicable terms of the respective leases. If a lease were to be terminated prior to its stated expiration or not renewed, all unamortized amounts relating to that lease would be recognized in operations at that time.

Management is required to make subjective assessments in connection with its valuation of real estate acquisitions. These assessments have a direct impact on net income, because (i) above-market and below-market lease intangibles are amortized to rental income, and (ii) the value of other intangibles is amortized to expense. Accordingly, higher allocations to below-market lease liability and other intangibles would result in higher rental income and amortization expense, whereas lower allocations to below-market lease liability and other intangibles would result in lower rental income and amortization expense.

Management reviews each real estate investment for impairment whenever events or circumstances indicate that the carrying value of a real estate investment may not be recoverable. The review of recoverability is based on an estimate of the future cash flows that are expected to result from the real estate investment’s use and eventual disposition. These estimates of cash flows consider factors such as expected future operating income, trends and prospects, as well as the effects of leasing demand, competition and other factors. If an impairment event exists due to the projected inability to recover the carrying value of a real estate investment, an impairment loss is recorded to the extent that the carrying value exceeds estimated fair value. A real estate investment held for sale is carried at the lower of its carrying amount or estimated fair value, less the cost of a potential sale. Depreciation and amortization are suspended during the period the property is held for sale. Management is required to make subjective assessments as to whether there are impairments in the value of its real estate properties. These assessments have a direct impact on net income, because an impairment loss is recognized in the period that the assessment is made.

New Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 below for information relating to new accounting pronouncements.

Results of Operations

Differences in results of operations between 2011 and 2010, and between 2010 and 2009, respectively, were primarily due to the Company’s property disposition program resulting from its determination (1) to completely exit the Ohio market, principally the Discount Drug Mart portfolio of drugstore/convenience centers, and concentrate on the mid-Atlantic and Northeast coastal regions (10 properties sold in 2011 and four properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011), (2) to concentrate on grocery-anchored strip centers, by disposing of its mall and single-tenant/triple-net-lease properties (three properties sold in 2011 and 11 properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011), and (3) to focus on improving operations and performance at the Company’s remaining properties, and to reduce development activities, by disposing of certain development projects, land acquired for development, and other non-core assets (four properties sold in 2011 and five properties “held for sale/conveyance” as

 

39


Table of Contents

of December 31, 2011). In addition, the Company determined not to proceed with the redevelopment of two vacant single-tenant, adjacent land parcels in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (one owned in joint venture and the other 100%-owned by the Company). Since January 1, 2009, the Company has sold, or has treated as “held for sale/conveyance”, 64 properties aggregating approximately 3.3 million square feet of GLA. Properties “held for sale/conveyance” also reflect the anticipated consummation of the Homburg joint venture buy/sell transactions. As a result, in addition to an $8.0 million write-off of its redevelopment joint venture investment in June 2011, the Company has recorded impairment charges related to discontinued operations of $88.5 million, $39.8 million and $3.6 million during 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Results for 2011 also include management transition charges of approximately $6.5 million. Differences in results of operations between 2011 and 2010, and 2010 and 2009 also reflect increased results from a greater number of properties owned by the unconsolidated Cedar/RioCan joint venture, as well as more ground-up development and redevelopment projects coming on line.

Net (loss) attributable to common shareholders was ($117.8) million, ($51.5) million and ($24.7) million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Comparison of 2011 to 2010

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
                                               Properties  
                         Increase      Percent              held in  
       2011        2010        (decrease)      change     Other        both periods  

Total revenues

     $ 135,413,000         $ 131,572,000         $ 3,841,000         3   $ 2,607,000         $ 1,234,000   

Property operating expenses

       44,236,000           41,783,000           2,453,000         6     997,000           1,456,000   

Depreciation and amortization

       43,250,000           34,872,000           8,378,000         24     2,223,000           6,155,000   

General and administrative

       11,085,000           9,537,000           1,548,000         16       

Management transition charges

       6,530,000           —             6,530,000             

Impairments

       7,148,000           2,493,000           4,655,000             

Acquisition transaction costs and terminated projects

       1,436,000           3,958,000           (2,522,000          

Interest expense, including amortization of deferred financing costs

       41,870,000           43,138,000           (1,268,000      -3       

Accelerated write-off of deferred financing costs

       —             2,552,000           (2,552,000          

Unconsolidated joint ventures:

                        

Equity in income

       1,671,000           484,000           1,187,000             

Write off of investment

       7,961,000           —             7,961,000             

Gain on sale

       130,000           —             130,000             

Discontinued operations:

                        

Income from operations

       5,013,000           1,724,000           3,289,000             

Impairment charges

       88,458,000           39,822,000           48,636,000             

Gain on sales

       884,000           170,000           714,000             

 

40


Table of Contents

Properties held in both periods. The Company held 67 properties (excluding “held for sale/conveyance”, ground-up and redevelopment properties) throughout 2011 and 2010.

Total revenues were higher primarily as a result of increases in (i) base rent and tenant recoveries at ground-up development properties ($1.3 million), (ii) base rent and tenant recoveries at operating properties ($1.3 million), (iii) base rent and tenant recoveries at redevelopment properties ($1.0 million), and (iv) percentage rent ($0.1 million), which are partially off-set by decreases in (v) amortization of intangible lease liabilities ($1.2 million), (vi) joint venture fee income ($0.8 million), and (vii) straight-line rents ($0.5 million).

Property operating expenses were higher primarily as a result of increases in (i) payroll and related expenses ($0.8 million), (ii) real estate taxes ($0.3 million), (iii) snow removal costs ($0.3 million), (iv) billable tenant utilities ($0.1 million), (v) repairs and maintenance ($0.1 million), (vi) insurance expense ($0.1 million), and (vii) other operating expenses ($0.2 million), which are partially off-set by decreases in (viii) the provision for doubtful accounts ($0.2 million) and (ix) utility expense ($0.2 million).

Depreciation and amortization expenses increased primarily as a result of the change in use of a building, at a redevelopment project, which is scheduled to be demolished in 2012. Other factors contributing to the increase included additional depreciation expense at ground-up and redevelopment properties as improvements have been placed into service, and increases related to capital improvements at operating properties.

General and administrative expenses were higher primarily as a result of increases in (i) payroll and payroll related expenses ($0.3 million), (ii) a legal settlement received in the Company’s favor in 2010 in excess of a legal settlement received in the Company’s favor in 2011 ($0.5 million), (iii) accounting and other professional fees ($0.2 million), (iv) information technology costs ($0.2 million), (v) rent expense ($0.1 million) and (vi) other costs ($0.2 million).

Management transition charges in 2011 relate to the retirement of the Company’s then Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President, and the end of the employment of the Company’s then Chief Financial Officer, and include (i) an aggregate of approximately $3.7 million in cash severance payments (including the cost of related payroll taxes and benefits), (ii) the write off of all amounts related to the vesting of restricted share grants (an aggregate of approximately $2.0 million), and (iii) approximately $0.8 million of other non-recurring costs, primarily professional fees and expenses related to the hiring of a new President/Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

Impairments for 2011 relate principally to land parcels treated as “held for sale”, as more fully discussed elsewhere in this report. Impairments for 2010 relate principally to properties initially transferred to the Cedar/RioCan joint venture.

Acquisition transaction costs and terminated projects were lower in 2011 primarily due to fees accrued in 2010 to the Company’s advisor related to the RioCan joint venture transactions.

 

41


Table of Contents

Interest expense, including amortization of deferred financing costs decreased primarily as a result of (i) lower amortization of deferred financing costs, principally related to the accelerated write-off of deferred financing costs in September 2010 ($1.4 million), (ii) lower outstanding borrowings under the Company’s credit facilities ($1.1 million), and (iii) higher capitalized interest ($0.3 million), which are partially off-set by (iv) an increase in mortgage interest expense as a result of property acquisitions and property-specific financings ($1.5 million).

Accelerated write-off of deferred financing costs in 2010 resulted from the Company, at its option, reducing the commitments under the stabilized property credit facility from $285.0 million to $185.0 million.

Equity in income of unconsolidated joint ventures was higher in 2011 as a result of an increase in operating results from the Cedar/RioCan joint venture, primarily lower acquisition transaction costs in 2011 compared to those incurred in 2010, offset by nominal operating results in 2011 as compared with 2010 from the joint venture redevelopment property in Philadelphia (as more fully discussed elsewhere in this report).

Write-off of investment in unconsolidated joint venture relates to the aforementioned redevelopment joint venture, as more fully discussed elsewhere in this report.

Discontinued operations for 2011 and 2010 include the results of operations, impairment charges and gain on sales for properties sold or treated as “held for sale/conveyance”, as more fully discussed elsewhere in this report.

The “Other” column includes results for the following properties:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Total      Property      Depreciation and  
       revenues      operating expenses      amortization  

Properties acquired after January 1, 2010

     $ 5,911,000       $ 1,937,000         $2,223,000   

Properties prior to transfer to Cedar/RioCan joint venture

       (3,304,000      (940,000      —     
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 
     $ 2,607,000       $ 997,000         $2,223,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

42


Table of Contents

Comparison 2010 to 2009

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
                                             Properties  
                         Increase      Percent            held in  
       2010        2009        (decrease)      change     Other      both periods  

Total revenues

     $ 131,572,000         $ 140,395,000         $ (8,823,000      -6   $ (14,369,000      5,546,000   

Property operating expenses

       41,783,000           40,457,000           1,326,000         3     (3,496,000      4,822,000   

Depreciation and amortization

       34,872,000           42,853,000           (7,981,000      -19     (1,997,000      (5,984,000

General and administrative

       9,537,000           10,158,000           (621,000      -6     

Impairments

       2,493,000           23,636,000           (21,143,000        

Acquisition transaction costs and terminated projects

       3,958,000           4,367,000           (409,000        

Interest expense, including amortization of deferred financing costs

       43,138,000           41,669,000           1,469,000         4     

Accelerated write-off of deferred financing costs

       2,552,000           —             2,552,000           

Equity in income of unconsolidated joint ventures:

       484,000           1,098,000           (614,000        

Gain on sale

       —             521,000           (521,000        

Discontinued operations:

                      

Income from operations

       1,724,000           7,054,000           (5,330,000        

Impairment charges

       39,822,000           3,559,000           36,263,000           

Gain on sales

       170,000           557,000           (387,000        

Properties held in both periods. The Company held 65 properties (excluding “held for sale/conveyance”, ground-up and redevelopment properties) throughout 2010 and 2009.

Total revenues were higher primarily as a result of increases in (i) base rent and recovery income at ground-up development properties ($6.6 million), (ii) joint venture fee income ($3.5 million), and (iii) base rent and recovery income at operating properties ($0.8 million), which are partially off-set by decreases in (iv) amortization of intangible lease liabilities ($3.6 million), (v) base rent and recovery income at redevelopment properties ($1.3 million), (vi) straight-line rents ($0.4 million), and (vii) percentage rent and other income ($0.1 million).

Property operating expenses were higher primarily as a result of increases in (i) real estate tax expense ($1.7 million), (ii) payroll and related expenses ($1.4 million), (iii) management fees paid to third parties ($0.6 million), (iv) other operating expenses ($0.4 million), (v) utility expense ($0.2 million), (vi) non-billable expenses ($0.2 million), (vii) snow removal costs ($0.2 million), (viii) provision for doubtful accounts ($0.2 million), and (ix) professional fees ($0.1 million), which are partially off-set by a decrease in (x) insurance expense ($0.2 million).

 

43


Table of Contents

Depreciation and amortization expenses decreased primarily as a result of completion of scheduled depreciation and amortization at certain properties and the razing of a building at a redevelopment project in 2009.

General and administrative expenses were lower primarily as a result of a legal settlement received in the Company’s favor in 2010 ($0.7 million).

Impairments for 2010 and 2009 relate to the properties initially transferred to the Cedar/RioCan joint venture.

Acquisition transaction costs and terminated projects for 2010 include (i) an acquisition fee paid to the Company’s investment advisor related to the Cedar/RioCan joint venture ($2.7 million), and (ii) the write off of costs incurred in the prior years related to (a) a potential development project in Milford, Delaware that the Company determined would not go forward ($1.3 million), and (b) a cancelled acquisition ($0.1 million). Acquisition transaction costs and terminated projects for 2009 include (i) the costs associated with the acquisitions of San Souci Plaza and New London Mall (net of minority interest share) and the costs primarily associated with a cancelled acquisition (an aggregate of $1.5 million), (ii) the decision to terminate potential development opportunities in Williamsport, Pennsylvania and Ephrata, Pennsylvania (an aggregate of $2.8 million), and (iii) the costs primarily associated with a cancelled acquisition.

Interest expense, including amortization of deferred financing costs increased primarily as a result of (i) lower capitalized interest ($3.6 million), (ii) higher amortization of deferred financing costs, related principally to the closing of the stabilized property credit facility in November 2009 ($1.1 million), and (iii) increased borrowings under the Company’s credit facilities ($0.4 million), which are partially off-set by (iv) lower balances of mortgage loans payable, related principally to the initial transfers of properties to the Cedar/RioCan joint venture ($3.5 million).

Accelerated write-off of deferred financing costs in 2010 resulted from the Company, at its option, reducing the commitments under the stabilized property credit facility from $285.0 million to $185.0 million.

Equity in income of unconsolidated joint ventures was lower in 2010 as a result of higher acquisition transaction costs in 2010 compared to those incurred in 2009.

Discontinued operations for 2010 and 2009 include the results of operations, impairment charges and gain on sales for properties sold or treated as “held for sale/conveyance”, as more fully discussed elsewhere in this report.

 

44


Table of Contents

The “Other” column includes the results for the following properties:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Total      Property      Depreciation and  
       revenues      operating expenses      amortization  

Properties acquired after January 1, 2009

     $ 716,000       $ 300,000       $ 2,190,000   

Properties prior to transfer to Cedar/RioCan joint venture

       (15,085,000      (3,796,000      (4,187,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 
     $ (14,369,000    $ (3,496,000    $ (1,997,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Liquidity and Capital Resources

The Company funds operating expenses and other short-term liquidity requirements, including debt service, tenant improvements, leasing commissions, preferred and common dividend distributions, if made, and distributions to minority interest partners, if made, primarily from its operations and distributions received from the Cedar/RioCan joint venture. The Company may also use its revolving credit facilities for these purposes. The Company expects to fund long-term liquidity requirements for property acquisitions, redevelopment costs, remaining development costs, capital improvements, joint venture contributions, and maturing debt initially with its credit facilities, and ultimately through a combination of issuing and/or assuming additional mortgage debt, the sale of equity securities, the issuance of additional OP Units, and the sale of properties or interests therein (including joint venture arrangements). Although the Company believes it has access to secured financing, there can be no assurance that the Company will have the availability of mortgage financing on completed development projects, additional construction financing, net proceeds from the contribution of properties to joint ventures, or proceeds from the refinancing of existing debt.

Debt is comprised of the following at December 31, 2011:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
                Interest rates
       Balance        Weighted      

Description

     outstanding        average    

Range

Fixed-rate mortgages

     $ 525,259,000           5.8   5.0% -7.6%

Variable-rate mortgage

       63,768,000           3.0  
    

 

 

      

 

 

   

Total property-specific mortgages

       589,027,000           5.5  

Stabilized property credit facility

       74,035,000           5.5  

Development property credit facility

       92,282,000           2.5  
    

 

 

      

 

 

   
     $ 755,344,000           5.2  
    

 

 

      

 

 

   

On January 26, 2012, the Company entered into a new $300 million amended, restated and consolidated credit facility. The Credit Facility is comprised of a four-year $75 million term loan and a three-year $225 million revolving credit facility, subject to collateral in place (the Company has pledged 27 of its shopping center properties as collateral for such borrowings, including seven properties which are being treated as “real estate held for sale/conveyance”). Borrowings under the new facility are initially priced at LIBOR plus 275 bps (a total of 3.0% per annum at closing) and can range from LIBOR plus 200 to 300 bps based on the Company’s leverage ratio. Subject to customary conditions, the

 

45


Table of Contents

term loan and the revolving credit facility may both be extended for one additional year at the Company’s option. Under an accordion feature, the Credit Facility can be increased to $500 million, subject to customary conditions, collateral in place and lending commitments from participating banks. The Credit Facility contains financial covenants including, but not limited to, maximum debt leverage, minimum interest coverage, minimum fixed charge coverage, and minimum net worth. In addition, the Credit Facility contains restrictions including, but not limited to, limits on indebtedness, certain investments and distributions. The Credit Facility is available to fund acquisitions, redevelopment and remaining development activities, capital expenditures, mortgage repayments, dividend distributions, working capital and other general corporate purposes. Based on covenant measurements and collateral in place at the closing, the Company was permitted to draw up to approximately $232.8 million, of which approximately $62.8 million remained available as of that date (after payment of closing costs, fees and expenses).

The variable-rate mortgage represents a $70.7 million construction facility, as amended in November 2011, pursuant to which the Company has pledged its joint venture ground-up development property in Pottsgrove, Pennsylvania as collateral for borrowings thereunder. The facility is guaranteed by the Company and will expire in October 2013, subject to a one-year extension option. Borrowings under the facility bear interest the Company’s option at either LIBOR plus a spread of 275 bps or the agent bank’s prime rate plus a spread of 125 bps, with principal payable based on a 30-year amortization schedule. Borrowings outstanding under the facility aggregated $63.8 million at December 31, 2011, and such borrowings bore interest at a rate of 3.5% per annum.

Other property-specific mortgage loans payable at December 31, 2011 consisted of fixed-rate notes totaling $525.3 million, with a weighted average interest rate of 5.8%. For 2012, the Company has approximately $9.3 million of scheduled debt principal amortization payments and $29.6 million of scheduled balloon payments.

Total mortgage loans payable and secured credit facilities have an overall weighted average interest rate of 5.2% and mature at various dates through 2029. The terms of several of the Company’s mortgage loans payable require the Company to deposit certain replacement and other reserves with its lenders. Such “restricted cash” is generally available only for property-level requirements for which the reserves have been established, and is not available to fund other property-level or Company-level obligations.

In order to continue qualifying as a REIT, the Company is required to distribute at least 90% of its “REIT taxable income”, as defined in the Code. The Company paid dividends totaling $0.36 per share during 2011. However, in keeping with its stated goal of reducing overall leverage, and in order to maximize financial flexibility, the Company’s Board of Directors determined to reduce the quarterly dividend for 2012 to a target rate of $0.05 per share (an annual rate of $0.20 per share). While the Company intends to continue paying regular quarterly dividends, future dividend declarations will continue to be at the discretion of the Board of Directors, and will depend on the cash flow and financial condition of the Company, capital requirements, annual distribution requirements under the REIT provisions of the Code, and such other factors as the Board of Directors may deem relevant.

 

46


Table of Contents

Contractual obligations and commercial commitments

The following table sets forth the Company’s significant debt repayment, interest and operating lease obligations at December 31, 2011:

 

Septem Septem Septem Septem Septem Septem Septem
    Maturity Date  
    2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     Thereafter     Total  

Debt: (i)

             

Mortgage loans payable (ii)

  $ 38,980,000      $ 125,328,000      $ 106,436,000      $ 77,325,000      $ 98,937,000      $ 142,021,000      $ 589,027,000   

Credit facilities (iii)

    —          —          —          91,317,000        75,000,000        —          166,317,000   

Interest payments (iv)

    32,506,000        27,058,000        21,335,000        14,385,000        12,558,000        12,838,000        120,680,000   

Operating lease obligations

    1,539,000        1,553,000        1,567,000        1,583,000        1,596,000        11,787,000        19,625,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

  $ 73,025,000      $ 153,939,000      $ 129,338,000      $ 184,610,000      $ 188,091,000      $ 166,646,000      $ 895,649,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

(i)

Does not include amounts applicable to unconsolidated joint ventures or discontinued operations.

 

(ii)

Mortgage loans payable for 2013 includes $62.2 million applicable to property-specific construction financing which is subject to a one-year extension option.

 

(iii)

Reflects the amended, restated and consolidated credit facility concluded on January 26, 2012; each of the 2015 and 2016 amounts are subject to a one-year extension option.

 

(iv)

Represents interest payments expected to be incurred on the Company’s consolidated debt obligations as of December 31, 2011, including capitalized interest. For variable-rate debt, the rate in effect at December 31, 2011 ( or the initial pricing of the new credit facility ) is assumed to remain in effect until the maturities of the respective obligations.

In addition, the Company plans to spend between $20 million and $25 million during 2012 in connection with redevelopment and remaining development activities in process as of December 31, 2011.

Net Cash Flows

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
        2011      2010      2009  

Cash flows provided by (used in):

          

Operating activities

     $ 39,246,000       $ 41,702,000       $ 51,942,000   

Investing activities

     $ (64,241,000    $ (29,834,000    $ (70,026,000

Financing activities

     $ 22,899,000       $ (14,866,000    $ 27,017,000   

Operating Activities

The comparative changes in net cash flows provided by operating activities during 2011, 2010 and 2009 were primarily the result of the impact of the Cedar/RioCan joint venture transactions, the Company’s property acquisition/disposition program, and continuing development/redevelopment activities.

 

 

47


Table of Contents

Investing Activities

Net cash flows used in investing activities were primarily the result of the Cedar/RioCan joint venture transactions and the Company’s acquisition/disposition activities. During 2011, the Company acquired a grocery-anchored shopping center and incurred expenditures for property improvements (an aggregate of $92.1 million), had an increase in loans and other receivables and construction escrows ($6.2 million) and made investments in the Cedar/RioCan joint venture ($4.3 million), offset by proceeds from sales of properties treated as discontinued operations ($30.6 million), net proceeds relating to the properties transferred to the Cedar/RioCan joint venture ($3.5 million) and distribution of capital from the Cedar/RioCan joint venture ($4.3 million). During 2010, the Company made investments in the Cedar/RioCan joint venture ($51.4 million), acquired a single-tenant office property and incurred expenditures for property improvements (an aggregate of $30.2 million), and had an increase in other receivables and construction escrows (an aggregate of $3.4 million), offset by proceeds from the transfers of five properties to the Cedar/RioCan joint venture ($31.0 million), distributions of capital from the Cedar/RioCan joint venture ($21.5 million), and the sales of properties treated as discontinued operations ($2.7 million). During 2009, the Company acquired two shopping and convenience centers and incurred expenditures for property improvements, an aggregate of $108.3 million. The Company realized proceeds from the transfers of two properties to the RioCan joint venture ($32.1 million) and from the sales of properties treated as discontinued operations ($6.8 million).

Financing Activities

During 2011, the Company received proceeds from mortgage refinancings ($45.8 million), net advances from its revolving credit facilities ($33.7 million), proceeds from the sale of common stock ($4.3 million), and had a contribution from a consolidated joint venture minority interest ($0.3 million), offset by preferred and common stock distributions ($38.9 million), repayment of mortgage obligations ($17.4 million), distributions to noncontrolling interest (minority interest and limited partners—$3.8 million), and the payment of debt financing costs ($1.1 million). During 2010, the Company had net repayments to its revolving credit facilities ($125.1 million), preferred and common stock distributions ($31.9 million), repayment of mortgage obligations ($20.9 million, including $11.0 million of mortgage balloon payments), termination payments relating to interest rate swaps ($5.5 million), distributions paid to noncontrolling interests (minority interest and limited partners—$4.2 million), redemptions of OP Units ($3.4 million), and the payment of debt financing costs ($2.0 million), offset by the proceeds from sales of preferred and common stock ($141.2 million), the proceeds of mortgage financings ($27.0 million), and the proceeds from the exercise of the RioCan warrant ($10.0 million). During 2009, the Company received proceeds of mortgage financings of $60.9 million, proceeds from sales of common stock of $40.9 million, $12.2 million in contributions from noncontrolling interests (minority interest partners), and $5.0 million in proceeds from a standby equity advance (not settled as of December 31, 2009), offset by net repayments to its revolving credit facilities of $46.8 million, repayment of mortgage obligations of $18.2 million (including $8.9 million of mortgage balloon payments), preferred and common stock distributions of $12.9 million, the payment of financing costs of $10.0 million, and distributions paid to noncontrolling interests (minority and limited partner interests) of $4.1 million.

 

48


Table of Contents

Funds From Operations

Funds From Operations “FFO” is a widely-recognized non-GAAP financial measure for REITs that the Company believes, when considered with financial statements determined in accordance with GAAP, is useful to investors in understanding financial performance and providing a relevant basis for comparison among REITs. In addition, FFO is useful to investors as it captures features particular to real estate performance by recognizing that real estate generally appreciates over time or maintains residual value to a much greater extent than do other depreciable assets. Investors should review FFO, along with GAAP net income, when trying to understand a REIT’s operating performance. The Company considers FFO an important supplemental measure of its operating performance and believes that it is frequently used by securities analysts, investors and other interested parties in the evaluation of REITs.

The Company computes FFO in accordance with the “White Paper” published by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“NAREIT”), which defines FFO as net income applicable to common shareholders (determined in accordance with GAAP), excluding gains or losses from debt restructurings and sales of properties, plus real estate-related depreciation and amortization, and after adjustments for partnerships and joint ventures (which are computed to reflect FFO on the same basis). In addition, NAREIT has recently clarified its computation of FFO so as to exclude impairment charges for all periods presented. FFO does not represent cash generated from operating activities and should not be considered as an alternative to net income applicable to common shareholders or to cash flow from operating activities. FFO is not indicative of cash available to fund ongoing cash needs, including the ability to make cash distributions. Although FFO is a measure used for comparability in assessing the performance of REITs, as the NAREIT White Paper only provides guidelines for computing FFO, the computation of FFO may vary from one company to another. The following table sets forth the Company’s calculations of FFO for 2011, 2010 and 2009:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       2011      2010      2009  

Net loss attributable to common shareholders

     $ (117,761,000    $ (51,485,000    $ (24,747,000

Add (deduct):

          

Real estate depreciation and amortization

       48,353,000         46,279,000         55,391,000   

Limited partners’ interest

       (2,446,000      (1,282,000      (912,000

Impairment charges and write-off of joint venture interest

       103,567,000         42,315,000         27,195,000   

Gain on sales

       (884,000      (170,000      (557,000

Consolidated minority interest:

          

Share of income

       (2,507,000      (1,613,000      772,000   

Share of FFO

       (5,918,000      (6,846,000      (5,787,000

Unconsolidated joint venture:

          

Share of income

       (1,671,000      (484,000      (1,098,000

Share of FFO

       5,984,000         2,796,000         1,519,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

FFO

     $ 26,717,000       $ 29,510,000       $ 51,776,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

49


Table of Contents

Inflation

Inflation has been relatively low in recent years and has not had a significant detrimental impact on the Company’s results of operations. Should inflation rates increase in the future, substantially all of the Company’s tenant leases contain provisions designed to partially mitigate the negative impact of inflation in the near term. Such lease provisions include clauses that require tenants to reimburse the Company for real estate taxes and many of the operating expenses it incurs. Significant inflation rate increases over a prolonged period of time may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business.

 

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

One of the principal market risks facing the Company is interest rate risk on its credit facilities. The Company may, when advantageous, hedge its interest rate risk by using derivative financial instruments. The Company is not subject to foreign currency risk.

The Company is exposed to interest rate changes primarily through (i) the variable-rate credit facilities used to maintain liquidity, fund capital expenditures, ground-up development/redevelopment activities, and expand its real estate investment portfolio, (ii) property-specific variable-rate construction financing, and (iii) other property-specific variable-rate mortgages. The Company’s objectives with respect to interest rate risk are to limit the impact of interest rate changes on operations and cash flows, and to lower its overall borrowing costs. To achieve these objectives, the Company may borrow at fixed rates and may enter into derivative financial instruments such as interest rate swaps, caps, etc., in order to mitigate its interest rate risk on a related variable-rate financial instrument. The Company does not enter into derivative or interest rate transactions for speculative purposes. At December 31, 2011, the Company had approximately $32.1 million of mortgage loans payable subject to interest rate swaps which converted LIBOR-based variable rates to fixed annual rates ranging from 5.2% and 6.5% per annum. At that date, the Company had accrued liabilities of $2.1 million (included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on the consolidated balance sheet) relating to the fair value of interest rate swaps applicable to these mortgage loans payable.

At December 31, 2011, long-term debt consisted of fixed-rate mortgage loans payable and variable-rate debt (principally the Company’s variable-rate credit facilities). The average interest rate on the $525.3 million of fixed-rate indebtedness outstanding was 5.8%, with maturities at various dates through 2029. The average interest rate on the $230.1 million of variable-rate debt (including $166.3 million in advances under the Company’s revolving credit facilities) was 3.6% (3.0% reflecting the amended, restated and consolidated credit facility concluded January 26, 2012). The $75 million term loan segment of the new facility matures in January 2016, and the $91.3 million revolving credit segment matures in January 2015, each subject to a one-year extension option. With respect to the $230.1 million of variable-rate debt outstanding at December 31, 2011, if interest rates either increase or decrease by 1%, the Company’s interest cost would increase or decrease respectively by approximately $2.3 million per annum.

 

50


Table of Contents
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

     52   

Consolidated Balance Sheets, December 31, 2011 and 2010

     53   

Consolidated Statements of Operations, years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009

     54   

Consolidated Statements of Equity, years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009

     55-56   

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009

     57   

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

     58-97   

Schedule Filed As Part Of This Report

  

Schedule III – Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation, December 31, 2011

     98-102   

All other schedules have been omitted because the required information is not present, is not present in amounts sufficient to require submission of the schedule, or is included in the consolidated financial statements or notes thereto.

 

51


Table of Contents

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 8. These financial statements and schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our audits.

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

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. at December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated March 6, 2012 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York

March 6, 2012

 

52


Table of Contents

CEDAR REALTY TRUST, INC.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

 

September 30, September 30,
       December 31      December 31,  
       2011      2010  

Assets

       

Real estate:

       

Land

     $ 269,479,000       $ 261,673,000   

Buildings and improvements

       1,099,642,000         1,028,443,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 
       1,369,121,000         1,290,116,000   

Less accumulated depreciation

       (197,608,000      (157,803,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Real estate, net

       1,171,513,000         1,132,313,000   

Real estate held for sale/conveyance

       206,674,000         348,743,000   

Investment in unconsolidated joint ventures

       44,743,000         52,466,000   

Cash and cash equivalents

       12,070,000         14,166,000   

Restricted cash

       14,707,000         12,493,000   

Receivables:

       

Rents and other tenant receivables, net

       6,882,000         7,048,000   

Straight-line rents

       13,572,000         12,471,000   

Other (including joint venture settlements of $1.2 million and $6.0 million)

       5,810,000         6,868,000   

Other assets

       12,358,000         9,411,000   

Deferred charges, net

       21,535,000         24,456,000   

Assets relating to real estate held for sale/conveyance

       2,299,000         2,052,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total assets

     $ 1,512,163,000       $ 1,622,487,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Liabilities and equity

       

Mortgage loans payable

     $ 589,027,000       $ 550,525,000   

Mortgage loans payable—real estate held for sale/conveyance

       122,604,000         156,991,000   

Secured revolving credit facilities

       166,317,000         132,597,000   

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities

       32,404,000         29,026,000   

Unamortized intangible lease liabilities

       35,017,000         40,253,000   

Liabilities relating to real estate held for sale/conveyance

       6,406,000         7,571,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total liabilities

       951,775,000         916,963,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Noncontrolling interest—limited partners’ mezzanine OP Units

       4,616,000         7,053,000   

Commitments and contingencies

       —           —     

Equity:

       

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. shareholders’ equity:

       

Preferred stock ($.01 par value, $25.00 per share liquidation value, 12,500,000 shares authorized, 6,400,000 shares issued and outstanding)

       158,575,000         158,575,000   

Common stock ($.06 par value, 150,000,000 shares authorized 67,928,000 and 66,520,000 shares, respectively, issued and outstanding)

       4,076,000         3,991,000   

Treasury stock (1,313,000 and 1,120,000 shares, respectively, at cost)

       (10,528,000      (10,367,000

Additional paid-in capital

       718,974,000         712,548,000   

Cumulative distributions in excess of net income

       (373,741,000      (231,275,000

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

       (3,513,000      (3,406,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. shareholders’ equity

       493,843,000         630,066,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Noncontrolling interests:

       

Minority interests in consolidated joint ventures

       56,511,000         62,050,000   

Limited partners’ OP Units

       5,418,000         6,355,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total noncontrolling interests

       61,929,000         68,405,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total equity

       555,772,000         698,471,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total liabilities and equity

     $ 1,512,163,000       $ 1,622,487,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

53


Table of Contents

CEDAR REALTY TRUST, INC.

Consolidated Statements of Operations

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Years ended December 31,  
       2011      2010      2009  

Revenues:

          

Rents

     $ 105,452,000       $ 102,070,000       $ 113,041,000   

Expense recoveries

       26,947,000         25,716,000         27,066,000   

Other

       3,014,000         3,786,000         288,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total revenues

       135,413,000         131,572,000         140,395,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Expenses:

          

Operating, maintenance and management

       27,608,000         25,632,000         24,732,000   

Real estate and other property-related taxes

       16,628,000         16,151,000         15,725,000   

General and administrative

       11,085,000         9,537,000         10,158,000   

Management transition charges

       6,530,000         —           —     

Impairment charges

       7,148,000         2,493,000         23,636,000   

Acquisition transaction costs and terminated projects

       1,436,000         3,958,000         4,367,000   

Depreciation and amortization

       43,250,000         34,872,000         42,853,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total expenses

       113,685,000         92,643,000         121,471,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Operating income

       21,728,000         38,929,000         18,924,000   

Non-operating income and expense:

          

Interest expense, including amortization of deferred financing costs

       (41,870,000      (43,138,000      (41,669,000

Accelerated write-off of deferred financing costs

       —           (2,552,000      —     

Interest income

       349,000         21,000         63,000   

Unconsolidated joint ventures:

          

Equity in income

       1,671,000         484,000         1,098,000   

Write-off of investment

       (7,961,000      —           —     

Gain on sales

       130,000         —           521,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total non-operating income and expense

       (47,681,000      (45,185,000      (39,987,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Loss before discontinued operations

       (25,953,000      (6,256,000      (21,063,000

Discontinued operations:

          

Income from operations

       5,013,000         1,724,000         7,054,000   

Impairment charges

       (88,458,000      (39,822,000      (3,559,000

Gain on sales

       884,000         170,000         557,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total discontinued operations

       (82,561,000      (37,928,000      4,052,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net loss

       (108,514,000      (44,184,000      (17,011,000

Less, net loss (income) attributable to noncontrolling interests:

          

Minority interests in consolidated joint ventures

       2,507,000         1,613,000         (772,000

Limited partners’ interest in Operating Partnership

       2,446,000         1,282,000         912,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total net loss attributable to noncontrolling interests

       4,953,000         2,895,000         140,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net loss attributable to Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

       (103,561,000      (41,289,000      (16,871,000

Preferred distribution requirements

       (14,200,000      (10,196,000      (7,876,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net loss attributable to common shareholders

     $ (117,761,000    $ (51,485,000    $ (24,747,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Per common share attributable to common shareholders (basic and diluted):

          

Continuing operations

     $ (0.61    $ (0.24    $ (0.60

Discontinued operations

       (1.18      (0.57      0.06   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 
     $ (1.79    $ (0.81    $ (0.54
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Amounts attributable to Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. common shareholders, net of limited partners’ interest:

          

Loss from continuing operations

     $ (39,236,000    $ (15,504,000    $ (27,630,000

(Loss) income from discontinued operations

       (79,391,000      (36,147,000      2,347,000   

Gain on sales of discontinued operations

       866,000         166,000         536,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net loss

     $ (117,761,000    $ (51,485,000    $ (24,747,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Weighted average number of common shares — basic and diluted

       66,387,000         63,843,000         46,234,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

54


Table of Contents

CEDAR REALTY TRUST, INC.

Consolidated Statements of Equity

Years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009

 

Sep 30 Sep 30 Sep 30 Sep 30 Sep 30 Sep 30 Sep 30 Sep 30 Sep 30
    Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. Shareholders  
    Preferred stock     Common stock                 Cumulative     Accumulated        
          $25.00                 Treasury     Additional     distributions     other        
          Liquidation           $0.06     stock,     paid-in     in excess of     comprehensive        
    Shares     value     Shares     Par value     at cost     capital     net income     (loss)     Total  

Balance, December 31, 2008

    3,550,000      $ 88,750,000        44,468,000      $ 2,668,000      $ (9,175,000   $ 576,086,000      $ (127,552,000   $ (7,256,000   $ 523,521,000   

Net loss

    —          —          —          —          —          —          (16,871,000     —          (16,871,000

Unrealized gain on change in fair value of cash flow hedges

    —          —          —          —          —          —          —          4,264,000        4,264,000   
                 

 

 

 

Total other comprehensive loss

                    (12,607,000
                 

 

 

 

Share-based compensation, net

    —          —          570,000        34,000        (513,000     3,070,000        —          —          2,591,000   

Net proceeds from the sales of common stock and issuance of warrants

    —          —          7,089,000        425,000        —          40,465,000        —          —          40,890,000   

Conversion of OP units into common stock

    —          —          12,000        1,000        —          130,000        —          —          131,000   

Preferred distribution requirements

    —          —          —          —          —          —          (7,876,000     —          (7,876,000

Distributions to common shareholders/noncontrolling interests

    —          —          —          —          —          —          (9,742,000     —          (9,742,000

Reallocation adjustment of limited partners’ interest

    —          —          —          —          —          1,548,000        —          —          1,548,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Balance, December 31, 2009

    3,550,000        88,750,000        52,139,000        3,128,000        (9,688,000     621,299,000        (162,041,000     (2,992,000     538,456,000   

Net loss

    —          —          —          —          —          —          (41,289,000     —          (41,289,000

Unrealized loss on change in fair value of cash flow hedges

    —          —          —          —          —          —          —          (414,000     (414,000
                 

 

 

 

Total other comprehensive loss

                    (41,703,000
                 

 

 

 

Share-based compensation, net

    —          —          436,000        27,000        (679,000     3,604,000        —          —          2,952,000   

Net proceeds from the sale of preferred and common stock

    2,850,000        69,825,000        12,455,000        747,000        —          77,433,000        —          —          148,005,000   

Net proceeds from dividend reinvestment and direct stock purchase plan

    —          —          1,451,000        87,000        —          8,144,000        —          —          8,231,000   

Preferred distribution requirements

    —          —          —          —          —          —          (10,196,000     —          (10,196,000

Distributions to common shareholders/noncontrolling interests

    —          —          —          —          —          —          (17,749,000     —          (17,749,000

Conversion of OP Units into common stock

    —          —          39,000        2,000        —          401,000        —          —          403,000   

Reallocation adjustment of limited partners’ interest

    —          —          —          —          —          1,667,000        —          —          1,667,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Balance, December 31, 2010

    6,400,000        158,575,000        66,520,000        3,991,000        (10,367,000     712,548,000        (231,275,000     (3,406,000     630,066,000   

Net loss

    —          —          —          —          —          —          (103,561,000     —          (103,561,000

Unrealized gain on change in fair value of cash flow hedges

    —          —          —          —          —          —          —          11,000        11,000   

Unrealized loss on change in fair value of cash flow hedge—unconsolidated joint venture

      —          —          —          —          —          —          (118,000     (118,000
                 

 

 

 

Total other comprehensive loss

                    (103,668,000
                 

 

 

 

Share-based compensation, net

    —          —          676,000        41,000        (161,000     1,753,000        —          —          1,633,000   

Net proceeds from sale of common stock

    —          —          39,000        2,000        —          223,000        —          —          225,000   

Net proceeds from dividend reinvestment and direct stock purchase plan

    —          —          693,000        42,000        —          4,038,000        —          —          4,080,000   

Preferred distribution requirements

    —          —          —          —          —          —          (14,200,000     —          (14,200,000

Distributions to common shareholders/noncontrolling interests

    —          —          —          —          —          —          (24,705,000     —          (24,705,000

Contribution from minority interest partners

    —          —          —          —          —          —          —          —          —     

Reallocation adjustment of limited partners’ interest

    —          —          —          —          —          412,000        —          —          412,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Balance, December 31, 2011

    6,400,000      $ 158,575,000        67,928,000      $ 4,076,000      $ (10,528,000   $ 718,974,000      $ (373,741,000   $ (3,513,000   $ 493,843,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

55


Table of Contents

CEDAR REALTY TRUST, INC.

Consolidated Statements of Equity

Years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009

(continued)

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
    Noncontrolling Interests        
    Minority     Limited              
    interests in     partners’              
    consolidated     mezzanine           Total  
    joint ventures     OP Units     Total     equity  

Balance, December 31, 2008

  $ 58,150,000      $ 9,266,000      $ 67,416,000      $ 590,937,000   

Net loss

    772,000        (361,000     411,000        (16,460,000

Unrealized gain on change in fair value of cash flow hedges

    —          79,000        79,000        4,343,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total other comprehensive loss

    772,000        (282,000     490,000        (12,117,000
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Share-based compensation, net

    —          —          —          2,591,000   

Net proceeds from the sales of common stock and issuance of warrants

    —          —          —          40,890,000   

Conversion of OP units into common stock

    —          (131,000     (131,000     —     

Preferred distribution requirements

    —          —          —          (7,876,000

Distributions to common shareholders/noncontrolling interests

    (3,905,000     (167,000     (4,072,000     (13,814,000

Reallocation adjustment of limited partners’ interest

    —          (607,000     (607,000     941,000   

Additional noncontrolling interests’ shares

    12,212,000        —          12,212,000        12,212,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Balance, December 31, 2009

    67,229,000        8,079,000        75,308,000        613,764,000   

Net (loss) income

    (1,613,000     (642,000     (2,255,000     (43,544,000

Unrealized gain on change in fair value of cash flow hedges

    —          (22,000     (22,000     (436,000
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total other comprehensive loss

    (1,613,000     (664,000     (2,277,000     (43,980,000
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Share-based compensation, net

    —          —          —          2,952,000   

Net proceeds from the sale of preferred and common stock

    —          —          —          148,005,000   

Net proceeds from dividend reinvestment and direct stock purchase plan

    —          —          —          8,231,000   

Preferred distribution requirements

    —          —          —          (10,196,000

Distributions to common shareholders/noncontrolling interests

    (3,566,000     (209,000     (3,775,000     (21,524,000

Conversion of OP Units into common stock

    —          (194,000     (194,000     209,000   

Reallocation adjustment of limited partners’ interest

    —          (657,000     (657,000     1,010,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Balance, December 31, 2010

    62,050,000        6,355,000        68,405,000        698,471,000   

Net loss

    (2,507,000     (1,320,000     (3,827,000     (107,388,000

Unrealized gain on change in fair value of cash flow hedges

    —          (5,000     (5,000     6,000   

Unrealized loss on change in fair value of cash flow hedge—unconsolidated joint venture

    —          —          —          (118,000
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total other comprehensive loss

    (2,507,000     (1,325,000     (3,832,000     (107,500,000
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Share-based compensation, net

    —          —          —          1,633,000   

Net proceeds from the sale of common stock

    —          —          —          225,000   

Net proceeds from dividend reinvestment and direct stock purchase plan

    —          —          —          4,080,000   

Preferred distribution requirements

    —          —          —          (14,200,000

Distributions to common shareholders/noncontrolling interests

    (3,301,000     (276,000     (3,577,000     (28,282,000

Contribution from minority interest partners

    269,000        —          269,000        269,000   

Reallocation adjustment of limited partners’ interest

    —          664,000        664,000        1,076,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Balance, December 31, 2011

  $ 56,511,000      $ 5,418,000      $ 61,929,000      $ 555,772,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

56


Table of Contents

CEDAR REALTY TRUST, INC.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Years ended December 31,  
       2011      2010      2009  

Cash flow from operating activities:

          

Net loss

     $ (108,514,000    $ (44,184,000    $ (17,011,000

Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by operating activities:

          

Equity in income of unconsolidated joint ventures

       (1,671,000      (484,000      (1,098,000

Distributions from unconsolidated joint ventures

       1,399,000         819,000         921,000   

Write-off of investment in unconsolidated joint venture

       7,961,000         —           —     

Impairment charges

       7,148,000         2,493,000         23,636,000   

Acquisition transaction costs and terminated projects

       1,436,000         1,302,000         3,094,000   

Impairments charges—discontinued operations

       88,458,000         39,527,000         3,559,000   

Gain on sale

       (1,014,000      (170,000      (1,078,000

Straight-line rents

       (1,611,000      (1,854,000      (2,874,000

Provision for doubtful accounts

       3,270,000         3,952,000         3,859,000   

Depreciation and amortization

       48,606,000         46,464,000         55,391,000   

Amortization of intangible lease liabilities

       (6,524,000      (9,154,000      (13,522,000

Amortization (including accelerated write-off) and market price adjustments relating to share-based compensation

       4,890,000         2,979,000         2,433,000   

Amortization (including accelerated write-off) of deferred financing costs

       4,138,000         8,109,000         3,648,000   

Increases/decreases in operating assets and liabilities:

          

Rents and other receivables, net

       (3,374,000      (4,561,000      (6,414,000

Prepaid expenses and other

       (2,774,000      (2,029,000      (5,168,000

Accounts payable and accrued expenses

       (2,578,000      (1,507,000      2,566,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net cash provided by operating activities

       39,246,000         41,702,000         51,942,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Cash flow from investing activities:

          

Expenditures for real estate and improvements

       (92,152,000      (30,155,000      (108,300,000

Net proceeds from sales of real estate

       30,586,000         2,661,000         6,752,000   

Net proceeds from transfers to unconsolidated Cedar/RioCan joint venture, less cash at dates of transfer

       3,545,000         31,013,000         32,089,000   

Investments in and advances to unconsolidated joint ventures

       (4,300,000      (51,441,000      (350,000

Distributions of capital from unconsolidated joint ventures

       4,315,000         21,502,000         —     

Increase in other receivables

       (3,268,000      (2,563,000      —     

Construction escrows and other

       (2,967,000      (851,000      (217,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net cash used in investing activities

       (64,241,000      (29,834,000      (70,026,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Cash flow from financing activities:

          

Net advances/(repayments) from/(to) revolving credit facilities

       33,720,000         (125,088,000      (46,805,000

Proceeds from mortgage financings

       45,791,000         26,984,000         60,950,000   

Mortgage repayments

       (17,404,000      (20,944,000      (18,203,000

Payments of debt financing costs

       (1,068,000      (2,025,000      (9,973,000

Termination payment related to interest rate swaps

       —           (5,476,000      —     

Noncontrolling interests:

          

Contribution from consolidated joint venture minority interests

       269,000         —           12,212,000   

Distributions to consolidated joint venture minority interests

       (3,301,000      (3,566,000      (3,905,000

Redemptions of Operating Partnership Units

       —           (3,443,000      —     

Distributions to limited partners

       (508,000      (654,000      (227,000

Net proceeds from the sales of common stock

       4,305,000         141,248,000         40,890,000   

Exercise of warrant

       —           10,000,000         —     

Preferred stock distributions

       (14,200,000      (9,457,000      (7,876,000

Distributions to common shareholders

       (24,705,000      (22,445,000      (5,046,000

Proceeds from standby equity advance not settled

       —           —           5,000,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

       22,899,000         (14,866,000      27,017,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents

       (2,096,000      (2,998,000      8,933,000   

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period

       14,166,000         17,164,000         8,231,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period

     $ 12,070,000       $ 14,166,000       $ 17,164,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

57


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

Note 1. Business and Organization

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. (formerly known as Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc.—the “Company”) is a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) that focuses primarily on ownership and operation of supermarket-anchored shopping centers straddling the Washington DC to Boston corridor. At December 31, 2011, the Company owned and managed 92 operating properties (excluding properties “held for sale/conveyance”), including 22 properties in the unconsolidated Cedar/RioCan joint venture.

During the third quarter of 2011, the Company determined (1) to completely exit the Ohio market, principally the Discount Drug Mart portfolio of drugstore/convenience centers, and concentrate on the mid-Atlantic and Northeast coastal regions (10 properties sold in 2011 and four properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011), (2) to concentrate on grocery-anchored strip centers, by disposing of its mall and single-tenant/triple-net-lease properties (three properties sold in 2011 and 11 properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011), and (3) to focus on improving operations and performance at the Company’s remaining properties, and to reduce development activities, by disposing of certain development projects, land acquired for development, and other non-core assets (four properties sold in 2011 and five properties “held for sale/conveyance” as of December 31, 2011). In addition, discontinued operations reflect the anticipated consummation of the Homburg joint venture buy/sell transactions (seven properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011).

Cedar Realty Trust Partnership, L.P. (formerly known as Cedar Shopping Centers Partnership, L.P.—the “Operating Partnership”) is the entity through which the Company conducts substantially all of its business and owns (either directly or through subsidiaries) substantially all of its assets. At December 31, 2011 the Company owned a 98.0% economic interest in, and was the sole general partner of, the Operating Partnership. The limited partners’ interest in the Operating Partnership (2.0% at December 31, 2011) is represented by Operating Partnership Units (“OP Units”). The carrying amount of such interest is adjusted at the end of each reporting period to an amount equal to the limited partners’ ownership percentage of the Operating Partnership’s net equity. The approximately 1.4 million OP Units outstanding at December 31, 2011 are economically equivalent to the Company’s common stock. The holders of OP Units have the right to exchange their OP Units for the same number of shares of the Company’s common stock or, at the Company’s option, for cash.

As used herein, the “Company” refers to Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis, including the Operating Partnership or, where the context so requires, Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. only.

 

58


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Principles of Consolidation/ Basis of Preparation

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts and operations of the Company, the Operating Partnership, its subsidiaries, and certain joint venture partnerships in which it participates. The Company consolidates all variable interest entities (“VIEs”) for which it is the primary beneficiary. Generally, a VIE is an entity with one or more of the following characteristics: (a) the total equity investment at risk is not sufficient to permit the entity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support, (b) as a group, the holders of the equity investment at risk (i) lack the power to make decisions about the entity’s activities that significantly impacts the entity’s performance through voting or similar rights, (ii) have no obligation to absorb the expected losses of the entity, or (iii) have no right to receive the expected residual returns of the entity, or (c) the equity investors have voting rights that are not proportional to their economic interests, and substantially all of the entity’s activities either involve, or are conducted on behalf of, an investor that has disproportionately few voting rights. A VIE is required to be consolidated by its primary beneficiary. The primary beneficiary of a VIE has (i) the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance, and (ii) the obligation to absorb losses of the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the VIE that could be significant to the VIE. Significant judgments related to these determinations include estimates about the current and future fair values and performance of real estate held by these VIEs and general market conditions.

With respect to its 13 consolidated joint ventures, the Company has general partnership interests of 20% in nine properties, 40% in two properties, 50% in one property, and 75% in one property. As (i) such entities are not VIEs, and (ii) the Company is the sole general partner and exercises substantial operating control over these entities, the Company has determined that such entities should be consolidated for financial statement purposes. Current accounting guidance provides a framework for determining whether a general partner controls, and should consolidate, a limited partnership or similar entity in which it owns a minority interest. Seven of the nine 20%-owned properties, and the 50%-owned and 75%-owned properties are treated as “held for sale/conveyance” at December 31, 2011 (see note 5 – “Discontinued operations, land dispositions and write-off of investment in unconsolidated joint venture”).

The Company’s has three 60%-owned joint ventures originally formed to develop the projects known as Upland Square, Heritage Crossings and Crossroads II. These joint ventures are consolidated as they are deemed to be VIEs and the Company is the primary beneficiary. In each case, the Company guarantees all related debt, the Company’s partners are not required to fund additional capital requirements, the Company has an economic interest greater than its voting proportion, and the Company participates in the management activities that significantly impact the performance of these joint ventures. At December 31, 2011, these VIEs owned real estate with a carrying value of $143.6 million. At December 31, 2011, one of the VIEs had a property-

 

59


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

specific mortgage loan payable aggregating $63.8 million, and the real estate owned by the other two VIEs partially collateralized the development property credit facility to the extent of $28.1 million. Heritage Crossings is treated as “held for sale/conveyance” at December 31, 2011 (see note 5 – “Discontinued operations, land dispositions and write-off of investment in unconsolidated joint venture”).

At December 31, 2011, the Company had a deposit of $0.6 million on a land parcel to be purchased for future development. Although the entity holding the deposit is considered a VIE, the Company has not consolidated it as the Company is not the primary beneficiary.

With respect to its remaining unconsolidated joint venture, the Company has a 20% interest in a joint venture with RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust of Toronto, Canada, a publicly-traded Canadian real estate investment trust (“RioCan”), formed initially for the acquisition of seven shopping center properties owned by the Company; all seven properties had been transferred to the joint venture by May 2010 and, as of December 31, 2011, the joint venture owned 22 properties. Although the Company provides management and other services, RioCan has significant management participation rights. The Company has determined that this joint venture is not a VIE and, accordingly, the Company accounts for its investment in this joint venture under the equity method. The accounting treatment presentation on the accompanying consolidated statements of operations for 2010 and 2009 reflects the results of the properties’ operations through the respective dates of transfer in current operations and, prospectively following their transfer to the joint venture, as “equity in income of unconsolidated joint ventures”. Accordingly, the accompanying statements of operations for 2010 and 2009 include revenues of $3.3 million and $18.6 million, respectively, applicable to the periods prior to the dates of transfer.

Until June 2011, the Company had an approximate 85% limited partner’s interest in an unconsolidated joint venture (increased in the second quarter of 2011 from approximately 76% for a payment of $745,000) which owned a single-tenant property in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Company had determined that this joint venture was not a VIE, as the Company had no control over the entity, did not provide any management or other services to the entity, and had no substantial participating or “kick out” rights. The Company had accounted for its investment in this joint venture under the equity method. In exchange for a payment by the Company of $838,000 to its joint venture partners, the Company (a) obtained appropriate releases, (b) assigned its limited partnership interest to other partners of the joint venture, and (c) wrote off its investment in the joint venture (all as more fully discussed note 5 – “Discontinued operations, land dispositions and write-off of investment in unconsolidated joint venture”).

The accompanying financial statements are prepared on the accrual basis in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”), which requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities, the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the periods covered by the financial statements. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

 

60


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The consolidated financial statements reflect certain reclassifications of prior period amounts to conform to the 2011 presentation, principally to reflect the sale and/or treatment as “held for sale/conveyance” of certain operating properties and the treatment thereof as “discontinued operations”. The reclassifications had no impact on previously-reported net income attributable to common shareholders or earnings per share.

Real Estate Investments

Real estate investments are carried at cost less accumulated depreciation. The provision for depreciation is calculated using the straight-line method based upon the estimated useful lives of the respective assets of between 3 and 40 years. Depreciation expense amounted to $40.0 million, $32.3 million and $36.0 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Expenditures for betterments that substantially extend the useful lives of the assets are capitalized. Expenditures for maintenance, repairs, and betterments that do not substantially prolong the normal useful life of an asset are charged to operations as incurred.

Real estate investments include costs of ground-up development and redevelopment activities, and construction in progress. Capitalized costs, including interest and other carrying costs during the construction and/or renovation periods, are included in the cost of the related asset and charged to operations through depreciation over the asset’s estimated useful life. A variety of costs are incurred in the acquisition, development and leasing of a property, such as pre-construction costs essential to the development of the property, development costs, construction costs, interest costs, real estate taxes, salaries and related costs, and other costs incurred during the period of development. After a determination is made to capitalize a cost, it is allocated to the specific component of a project that is benefited. The Company ceases capitalization on the portions substantially completed and occupied, or held available for occupancy, and capitalizes only those costs associated with the portions under development. The Company considers a construction project to be substantially completed and held available for occupancy upon the completion of tenant improvements, but not later than one year from cessation of major construction activity.

The Company allocates the fair value of real estate acquired to land, buildings and improvements. In addition, the fair value of in-place leases is allocated to intangible lease assets and liabilities. The fair value of the tangible assets of an acquired property is determined by valuing the property as if it were vacant, which value is then allocated to land, buildings and improvements based on management’s determination of the relative fair values of these assets. In valuing an acquired property’s intangibles, factors considered by management include an estimate of carrying costs during the expected lease-up periods, such as real estate taxes, insurance, other operating expenses, and estimates of lost rental revenue during the expected lease-up periods based on its evaluation of current market demand. Management also estimates costs to execute similar leases, including leasing commissions, tenant improvements, legal and other related costs.

 

61


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The values of acquired above-market and below-market leases are recorded based on the present values (using discount rates which reflect the risks associated with the leases acquired) of the differences between the contractual amounts to be received and management’s estimate of market lease rates, measured over the terms of the respective leases that management deemed appropriate at the time of the acquisitions. Such valuations include a consideration of the non-cancellable terms of the respective leases as well as any applicable renewal period(s). The fair values associated with below-market rental renewal options are determined based on the Company’s experience and the relevant facts and circumstances that existed at the time of the acquisitions. The values of above-market leases are amortized to rental income over the terms of the respective non-cancelable lease periods. The portion of the values of below-market leases associated with the original non-cancelable lease terms are amortized to rental income over the terms of the respective non-cancelable lease periods. The portion of the values of the leases associated with below-market renewal options that are likely of exercise are amortized to rental income over the respective renewal periods. The value of other intangible assets (including leasing commissions, tenant improvements, etc.) is amortized to expense over the applicable terms of the respective leases. If a lease were to be terminated prior to its stated expiration or not renewed, all unamortized amounts relating to that lease would be recognized in operations at that time.

Management reviews each real estate investment for impairment whenever events or circumstances indicate that the carrying value of a real estate investment may not be recoverable. The review of recoverability of real estate investments held for use is based on an estimate of the future cash flows that are expected to result from the real estate investment’s use and eventual disposition. These cash flows consider factors such as expected future operating income, trends and prospects, as well as the effects of leasing demand, capital expenditures, competition and other factors. If an impairment event exists due to the projected inability to recover the carrying value of a real estate investment, an impairment loss is recorded to the extent that the carrying value exceeds estimated fair value. Real estate investments held for sale/conveyance are carried at the lower of their respective carrying amounts or estimated fair values, less costs to sell. Depreciation and amortization are suspended during the periods held for sale/conveyance.

Sales of real estate are recognized only when sufficient down payments have been obtained, possession and other attributes of ownership have been transferred to the buyer and the Company has no significant continuing involvement. The Company believes these criteria were met for all real estate sold during 2011, 2010 and 2009.

During 2011, 2010, and 2009, the Company expensed acquisition transaction costs of $0.9 million, $0 and $1.6 million, respectively, related to the properties the Company acquired.

 

62


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

During 2011, 2010 and 2009, the Company wrote-off costs incurred for potential development projects that the Company determined would not go forward $0.5 million, $1.3 million and $2.8 million, respectively.

During 2010, the Company incurred fees to its investment advisor of $2.7 million related to the Cedar/RioCan joint venture.

Cash and Cash Equivalents / Restricted Cash

Cash and cash equivalents consist of cash in banks and short-term investments with original maturities of less than ninety days, and include cash at consolidated joint ventures of $7.7 million and $6.7 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The terms of several of the Company’s mortgage loans payable require the Company to deposit certain replacement and other reserves with its lenders. Such “restricted cash” is generally available only for property-level requirements for which the reserves have been established.

Fair Value Measurements

The fair value measurement accounting guidance establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes observable and unobservable inputs used to measure fair value into three levels:

 

   

Level 1 – Inputs to the valuation methodology are quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical assets or liabilities in active markets.

 

   

Level 2 – Inputs to the valuation methodology include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, and inputs that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the financial instrument.

 

   

Level 3 – Inputs to the valuation methodology are unobservable and significant to the fair value measurement.

The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to Level 1 inputs and the lowest priority to Level 3 inputs. In determining fair value, the Company utilizes valuation techniques that maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs to the extent possible while also considering counterparty credit risk in the assessment of fair value. Financial liabilities measured at fair value in the consolidated financial statements consist of interest rate swaps. The fair values of interest rate swaps are determined using widely accepted valuation techniques, including discounted cash flow analysis, on the expected cash flows of each derivative. The analysis reflects the contractual terms of the swaps, including the period to maturity, and uses observable market-based inputs, including interest rate curves (“significant other observable inputs”). The fair value calculation also includes an amount for risk of non-performance

 

63


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

using “significant unobservable inputs” such as estimates of current credit spreads to evaluate the likelihood of default. The Company has concluded, as of December 31, 2011, that the fair value associated with the “significant unobservable inputs” relating to the Company’s risk of non-performance was insignificant to the overall fair value of the interest rate swap agreements and, as a result, the Company has determined that the relevant inputs for purposes of calculating the fair value of the interest rate swap agreements, in their entirety, were based upon “significant other observable inputs”. Nonfinancial assets and liabilities measured at fair value in the consolidated financial statements consists of real estate held for sale/conveyance- discontinued operations.

Revenue Recognition and Receivables

Management has determined that all of the Company’s leases with its various tenants are operating leases. Rental income with scheduled rent increases is recognized using the straight-line method over the respective non-cancelable terms of the leases. The aggregate excess of rental revenue recognized on a straight-line basis over the contractual base rents is included in straight-line rents on the consolidated balance sheet. Leases also generally contain provisions under which the tenants reimburse the Company for a portion of property operating expenses and real estate taxes incurred, generally attributable to their respective allocable portions of gross leasable area. Such income is recognized in the periods earned. In addition, a limited number of operating leases contain contingent rent provisions under which tenants are required to pay, as additional rent, a percentage of their sales in excess of a specified amount. The Company defers recognition of contingent rental income until those specified sales targets are met.

The Company must make estimates as to the collectability of its accounts receivable related to base rent, straight-line rent, percentage rent, expense reimbursements and other revenues. When management analyzes accounts receivable and evaluates the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts, it considers such things as historical bad debts, tenant creditworthiness, current economic trends, current developments relevant to a tenant’s business specifically and to its business category generally, and changes in tenants’ payment patterns. The allowance for doubtful accounts was $5.8 million and $5.4 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The provision for doubtful accounts (included in operating, maintenance and management expenses) was $1.9 million, $2.1 million and $2.0 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Income Taxes

The Company has elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). A REIT will generally not be subject to federal income taxation on that portion of its income that qualifies as REIT taxable income, to the extent that it distributes at least 90% of such REIT taxable income to its shareholders and complies with certain other requirements. As of December 30, 2011, the Company was in compliance with all REIT requirements.

 

64


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The Company follows a two-step approach for evaluating uncertain federal, state and local tax positions. Recognition (step one) occurs when an enterprise concludes that a tax position, based solely on its technical merits, is more-likely-than-not to be sustained upon examination. Measurement (step two) determines the amount of benefit that more-likely-than-not will be realized upon settlement. Derecognition of a tax position that was previously recognized would occur when a company subsequently determines that a tax position no longer meets the more-likely-than-not threshold of being sustained. The Company has not identified any uncertain tax positions which would require an accrual.

Derivative Financial Instruments

The Company occasionally utilizes derivative financial instruments, principally interest rate swaps, to manage its exposure to fluctuations in interest rates. The Company has established policies and procedures for risk assessment, and the approval, reporting and monitoring of derivative financial instruments. Derivative financial instruments must be effective in reducing the Company’s interest rate risk exposure in order to qualify for hedge accounting. When the terms of an underlying transaction are modified, or when the underlying hedged item ceases to exist, all changes in the fair value of the instrument are marked-to-market with changes in value included in net income for each period until the derivative financial instrument matures or is settled. Any derivative financial instrument used for risk management that does not meet the hedging criteria is marked-to-market with the changes in value included in net income. The Company has not entered into, and does not plan to enter into, derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes.

Noncontrolling Interest — Limited Partners’ Mezzanine OP Units

The Company follows the accounting guidance related to noncontrolling interests in consolidated financial statements, which clarifies that a noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary (minority interests or certain limited partners’ interest, in the case of the Company), subject to the classification and measurement of redeemable securities, is an ownership interest in a consolidated entity which should be reported as equity in the parent company’s consolidated financial statements. The guidance requires a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances of equity attributable to noncontrolling interests and disclosure, on the face of the consolidated income statement, of those amounts of consolidated net income attributable to the noncontrolling interests. The Company classifies the balances related to minority interests in consolidated joint ventures and limited partners’ interest in the Operating Partnership into the consolidated equity accounts, as appropriate. Certain noncontrolling interests of the Company are classified in the mezzanine section of the balance sheet (the “mezzanine OP Units”) as such OP Units do not meet the requirements for equity classification (certain of the holders of such OP Units have registration rights that provide such holders with the right to demand registration under the

 

65


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

federal securities laws of the common stock of the Company issuable upon conversion of such OP Units). The Company adjusts the carrying value of the mezzanine OP Units each period to equal the greater of its historical carrying value or its redemption value. Through December 31, 2011, there have been no cumulative net adjustments recorded to the carrying amounts of the mezzanine OP Units.

Share-Based Compensation

The Company’s 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Incentive Plan”) establishes the procedures for the granting of incentive stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted shares, performance units and performance shares. The maximum number of shares of the Company’s common stock that may be issued pursuant to the Incentive Plan is 4,850,000 (including a 2,100,000 share increase approved by shareholders on June 15, 2011), and the maximum number of shares that may be granted to a participant in any calendar year may not exceed 250,000. All grants issued pursuant to the Incentive Plan are “restricted stock grants” which generally vest (i) at the end of designated time periods for time-based grants, or (ii) upon the completion of a designated period of performance for performance-based grants and satisfaction of performance criteria. Time–based grants are valued according to the market price for the Company’s common stock at the date of grant. For performance-based grants, the Company generally engages an independent appraisal company to determine the value of the shares at the date of grant, taking into account the underlying contingency risks associated with the performance criteria. The value of all grants is being expensed on a straight-line basis over the respective vesting periods (irrespective of achievement of the performance-based grants) adjusted, as applicable, for forfeitures. For restricted share grants subject to graded vesting, the amounts expensed are at least equal to the measured expense of each vested tranche. Based on the current terms of the Incentive Plan, those grants of restricted shares that are transferred to Rabbi Trusts are classified as treasury stock on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet.

 

66


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

Supplemental Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows Information

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Years ended December 31,  
       2011      2010      2009  

Supplemental disclosure of cash activities:

          

Cash paid for interest

     $ 47,611,000       $ 46,247,000       $ 50,413,000   

Supplemental disclosure of non-cash activities:

          

Assumption of mortgage loans payable—acquisitions

       —           (12,967,000      (56,214,000

Assumption of mortgage loans payable upon disposition

       24,273,000         12,358,000         9,932,000   

Conversion of OP Units into common stock

       —           403,000         131,000   

Issuance of warrants

       —           —           1,643,000   

Capitalization of interest costs

       1,979,000         1,889,000         4,800,000   

Capitalization of deferred financing costs

       650,000         652,000         1,486,000   

Purchase accounting allocations:

          

Intangible lease and other assets

       6,810,000         —           7,057,000   

Intangible lease liabilities

       (725,000      (2,600,000      (3,215,000

Deconsolidation of properties transferred to joint venture:

          

Real estate, net

       —           139,743,000         42,829,000   

Mortgage loans payable

       —           (94,018,000      —     

Other assets/liabilities, net

       —           (3,574,000      1,277,000   

Investment in and advances to unconsolidated joint venture

       —           9,423,000         8,610,000   

Recently-Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued ASU No. 2011-04, “Fair Value Measurement: Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S GAAP and IFRS”. This update defines fair value, clarifies a framework to measure fair value, and requires specific disclosures of fair value measurements. The guidance is effective for the Company’s interim and annual reporting periods beginning January 1, 2012 and is required to be applied prospectively. The Company does not expect adoption of this guidance to have a material impact on its financial condition or results of operations.

In June 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2011-05, “Presentation of Comprehensive Income”. This standard eliminates the current requirement to report other comprehensive income and its components in the statement of equity and instead requires the components of other comprehensive income to be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. The guidance

 

67


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

is effective for the Company’s interim and annual reporting periods beginning January 1, 2012 and is required to be applied retrospectively. Other than presentation in the financial statements, the adoption of this guidance will have no effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Note 3. Real Estate

Real estate at December 31, 2011 and 2010 is comprised of the following:

 

September 30, September 30,
       Years ended December 31,  
       2011      2010  

Cost

       

Balance, beginning of year

     $ 1,290,116,000       $ 1,273,395,000   

Property acquired

       46,863,000         —     

Improvements and betterments

       32,373,000         17,631,000   

Write-off of fully-depreciated assets

       (231,000      (910,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Balance, end of the year

     $ 1,369,121,000       $ 1,290,116,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Accumulated depreciation

       

Balance, beginning of the year

     $ (157,803,000    $ (126,456,000

Depreciation expense

       (40,036,000      (32,257,000

Write-off of fully-depreciated assets

       231,000         910,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Balance, end of the year

     $ (197,608,000    $ (157,803,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net book value

     $ 1,171,513,000       $ 1,132,313,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

On January 14, 2011, the Company acquired Colonial Commons, a shopping center located in Lower Paxton Township, Pennsylvania. The purchase price for the property was approximately $49.1 million (in addition, the Company incurred transactions costs of $0.6 million). At closing, the Company entered into a first mortgage in the amount of $28.1 million, which bears interest at 5.6% per annum and matures in February 2021.

At December 31, 2011, substantially all of the Company’s real estate was pledged as collateral for mortgage loans payable and the secured revolving credit facilities.

Note 4. Investment in Cedar/RioCan Joint Venture

The Company and RioCan have entered into an 80% (RioCan) and 20% (Cedar) joint venture (i) initially for the purchase of seven supermarket-anchored properties previously owned by the Company (completed in May 2010), and (ii) then to acquire additional primarily supermarket-anchored properties in the Company’s primary market areas, in the same joint venture format. At December 31, 2011, the joint venture owned 22 properties.

 

68


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The Company earned fees from the joint venture of approximately $2.8 million and $3.6 million for 2011 and 2010, respectively, representing accounting fees, management fees, acquisition fees and financing fees. Such fees are included in other revenues in the accompanying statements of operations.

In connection with the formation of the joint venture and the agreement to transfer the seven properties which were reclassified as “held for sale”, the Company recorded impairment charges of $2.5 million and $23.6 million in 2010 and 2009, respectively. Such charges were based on a comparison of the arms-length negotiated transfer amounts set forth in the contract with the carrying values of the properties transferred. In 2010, the Company incurred fees to its investment advisor as it relates to the Cedar/RioCan joint venture of $2.7 million. The joint venture agreement provides that, any time after December 10, 2012, either the Company or RioCan may initiate a “buy/sell” arrangement pursuant to which the initiating party can designate a value for all the joint venture’s properties (in the aggregate), and the other party may then elect either to sell its proportionate ownership interest in the joint venture based on that value or to purchase the initiating party’s ownership interest based on such valuation.

 

 

69


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The following summarizes certain financial information related to the Company’s investment in the Cedar/RioCan unconsolidated joint venture:

 

September 30, September 30,

Balance Sheets

     December 31,  
       2011      2010  

Assets:

       

Real estate, net

     $ 532,071,000       $ 524,447,000   

Cash and cash equivalents

       12,797,000         5,934,000   

Restricted cash

       3,689,000         4,464,000   

Rent and other receivables

       2,419,000         2,074,000   

Straight-line rent

       2,743,000         1,000,000   

Deferred charges, net

       12,682,000         13,269,000   

Other assets

       5,549,000         8,514,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total assets

     $ 571,950,000       $ 559,702,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Liabilities and partners’ capital:

       

Mortgage loans payable

     $ 317,293,000       $ 293,400,000   

Due to the Company

       1,203,000         6,036,000   

Unamortized lease liability

       22,182,000         24,573,000   

Other liabilities

       8,248,000         7,738,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total liabilities

       348,926,000         331,747,000   

Preferred stock

       97,000         97,000   

Accumulated other comprehensive (loss)

       (590,000      —     

Partners’ capital:

       

RioCan

       178,774,000         181,239,000   

The Company

       44,743,000         46,619,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total partners’ capital

       223,517,000         227,858,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total liabilities and partners’ capital

     $ 571,950,000       $ 559,702,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

70


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The following table summarizes details of the acquisitions of the joint venture during 2011 and 2010:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
                                  Mortgage           
                Acquisition        Purchase        Loans        Int.  

Property Description

     State        date        price        Payable (a)        rate  

2011 Acquisition

                        

Northwoods Crossing

       MA           4/15/2011         $ 23,450,000         $ 14,429,000           5.2

2010 Acquisitions

                        

Creekview Plaza

       PA           9/29/2010           26,240,000           14,432,000           4.8

Cross Keys Place

       NJ           10/13/2010           26,336,000           14,600,000           5.1

Exeter Commons

       PA           8/3/2010           53,000,000           30,000,000           5.3

Gettysburg Marketplace

       PA           10/21/2010           19,850,000           10,918,000           5.0

Marlboro Crossroads

       MD           10/21/2010           12,500,000           6,875,000           5.1

Monroe Marketplace

       PA           9/29/2010           41,990,000           23,095,000           4.8

Montville Commons

       CT           9/29/2010           18,900,000           10,500,000           5.8

New River Valley

       VA           9/29/2010           27,970,000           15,163,000           4.8

Northland Center

       PA           10/21/2010           10,248,000           6,298,000           5.0

Pitney Road Plaza

       PA           9/29/2010           11,060,000           6,083,000           4.8

Sunrise Plaza

       NJ           9/29/2010           26,460,000           13,728,000           4.8

Town Square Plaza

       PA           1/26/2010           18,854,000           11,000,000           5.0

Towne Crossings

       VA           10/21/2010           19,000,000           10,450,000           5.0

York Marketplace

       PA           10/21/2010           29,200,000           16,060,000           5.0

 

(a)

Mortgage loans payable represents the loan amount on the dates of borrowing and/or assumption.

The joint venture’s property-specific mortgage loans payable are collateralized by all of the joint venture’s real estate, and bear interest at rates ranging from 4.1% to 6.4% per annum, a weighted average of 5.0% per annum.

In June 2011, the joint venture refinanced a $12.3 million, 7.2% fixed-rate mortgage originally due in June 2011. The new $14.8 million fixed-rate mortgage bears interest at 5.0% per annum, with principal and interest payments based on a 30-year amortization schedule, and matures in July 2021.

In August 2011, the joint venture refinanced a $43.3 million, 4.8% fixed-rate mortgage originally due in November 2011. The new $44.0 million fixed-rate mortgage bears interest at 4.1% per annum, with principal and interest payments based on a 30-year amortization schedule, and matures in August 2016.

 

71


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

Scheduled principal payments on mortgage loans payable at December 31, 2011 are as follows:

 

September 30,

2012

       4,856,000   

2013

       5,105,000   

2014

       34,903,000   

2015

       101,736,000   

2016

       55,192,000   

Thereafter

       115,501,000   
    

 

 

 
       317,293,000   
    

 

 

 

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Years ended December 31,  

Statements of Operations

     2011      2010      2009  

Revenues

     $ 62,500,000       $ 30,194,000       $ 282,000   

Property operating and other expenses

       (6,631,000      (2,636,000      (57,000

Management fees to the Company

       (2,006,000      (973,000      (8,000

Real estate taxes

       (7,214,000      (3,286,000      (10,000

Acquisition transaction costs (a)

       (917,000      (7,119,000      —     

General and administrative

       (308,000      (622,000      —     

Depreciation and amortization

       (20,616,000      (9,523,000      (71,000

Interest and other non-operating expenses, net

       (18,078,000      (7,903,000      —     
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net income (loss)

     $ 6,730,000       $ (1,868,000    $ 136,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

RioCan

       5,384,000         (1,493,000      109,000   

The Company

       1,346,000         (375,000      27,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 
     $ 6,730,000       $ (1,868,000    $ 136,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

(a)

Includes $0.6 and $2.8 million, respectively, paid to former owners of certain acquired properties representing the values assigned for the post-closing leasing of vacant spaces in excess of the fair value amounts estimated at closing.

Note 5 — Discontinued operations, land dispositions and write-off of investment in unconsolidated joint venture

In connection with management’s review of the Company’s real estate investments, the Company determined (1) to completely exit the Ohio market, principally the Discount Drug Mart portfolio of drugstore/convenience centers, and concentrate on the mid-Atlantic and Northeast

 

72


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

coastal regions (four properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011), (2) to concentrate on grocery-anchored strip centers, by disposing of its mall and single-tenant/triple-net-lease properties (11 properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011), and (3) to focus on improving operations and performance at the Company’s remaining properties, and to reduce development activities, by disposing of certain development projects, land acquired for development, and other non-core assets (five properties “held for sale/conveyance” as of December 31, 2011). In addition, discontinued operations reflect the anticipated consummation of the Homburg joint venture buy/sell transactions (seven properties “held for sale” as of December 31, 2011).

The carrying values of the assets and liabilities of these properties, principally the net book values of the real estate and the related mortgage loans payable to be assumed by the buyers (or conveyed to the mortgagee), have been reclassified as “held for sale/conveyance” on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The Company anticipates that sales of all such properties classified as “held for sale” will be concluded during 2012. In addition, the properties’ results of operations have been classified as “discontinued operations” for all periods presented. Impairment charges relating to operating properties are included in discontinued operations in the accompanying statements of operations; impairment charges relating to land parcels are included in operating income in the accompanying statements of operations. The impairment charge amounts included in operating income for 2010 and 2009 relate to properties transferred to the Cedar/RioCan joint venture. The following is a summary of these charges:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Years ended December 31,  
       2011        2010        2009  

Impairment charges—land parcels and properties transferred to Cedar/RioCan joint venture

     $ 7,148,000         $ 2,493,000         $ 23,636,000   
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Write-off of investment in unconsolidated joint venture

     $ 7,961,000         $ —           $ —     
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Impairment charges—properties held for sale/conveyance

     $ 88,458,000         $ 39,822,000         $ 3,559,000   
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Impairment charges included in discontinued operations for 2011 included $11.1 million related to the Discount Drug Mart portfolio, $33.1 million related to malls, $5.3 million related to single-tenant/triple-net-lease properties, $36.6 million related to development projects and other non-core properties, and $2.4 million related to the Homburg joint venture properties. Impairment charges included in discontinued operations for 2010 included $26.8 million related to the Discount Drug Mart portfolio, $12.6 million related to malls, $0.1 million related to a single-tenant/triple-net-lease property, and $0.3 million related to a development project. Impairment charges included in discontinued operations for 2009 included $2.4 million related to the Discount Drug Mart portfolio and $1.2 million related to single-tenant/triple-net-lease properties.

 

73


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The impairment charges were based on a comparison of the carrying values of the properties with either (1) the actual sales price less costs to sell for the properties sold or contract amounts for properties in the process of being sold, (2) estimated sales prices based on discounted cash flow analyses, if no contract amounts were as yet being negotiated, as discussed in more detail in Note 6 — “Fair Value Measurements”, (3) an “as is” appraisal with respect to the single-tenant property in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to be conveyed to the mortgagee, or (4) with respect to the land parcels, estimated sales prices. Prior to the Company’s plan to dispose of properties reclassified to “held for sale/conveyance”, the Company performed recoverability analyses based on the estimated undiscounted cash flows that were expected to result from the real estate investments’ use and eventual disposal. The projected undiscounted cash flows of each property reflected that the carrying value of each real estate investment would be recovered. However, as a result of the properties’ meeting the “held for sale” criteria, such properties were written down to the lower of their carrying value and estimated fair values less costs to sell as described above.

The following is a summary of the components of (loss) income from discontinued operations:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Years ended December 31,  
       2011      2010      2009  

Revenues:

          

Rents

     $ 26,986,000       $ 30,287,000       $ 34,944,000   

Expense recoveries

       6,531,000         7,093,000         8,626,000   

Other

       527,000         81,000         1,127,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total revenues

       34,044,000         37,461,000         44,697,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Expenses:

          

Operating, maintenance and management

       9,045,000         10,108,000         10,181,000   

Real estate and other property-related taxes

       5,375,000         5,411,000         5,888,000   

Depreciation and amortization

       5,356,000         11,571,000         12,559,000   

Interest expense

       9,255,000         8,647,000         9,015,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 
       29,031,000         35,737,000         37,643,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Income from discontinued operations before impairment charges

       5,013,000         1,724,000         7,054,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Impairment charges

       (88,458,000      (39,822,000      (3,559,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

(Loss) income from discontinued operations

     $ (83,445,000    $ (38,098,000    $ 3,495,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Gain on sales of discontinued operations

     $ 884,000       $ 170,000       $ 557,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

74


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

During 2011, the Company completed the following transactions related to properties “held for sale/conveyance”:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
              Date        Sales        Gain on  

Property

     Location      Sold        Price        Sale  

Bergstrasse Land

     Ephrata, PA        2/14/2011         $ 1,900,000         $ 33,000   

Two properties

     OH        3/30/2011           4,032,000           —     

Fairfield Plaza

     Fairfield, CT        4/15/2011           10,840,000           470,000   

CVS at Kingston

     Kingston, NY        11/14/2011           5,250,000           185,000   

CVS at Kinderhook

     Kinderhook, NY        12/8/2011           4,000,000           196,000   

Shoppes at Salem Run

     Fredericksburg, VA        12/12/2011           1,675,000           —     

Virginia Center Commons

     Glen Allen, VA        12/21/2011           3,550,000           —     

Nine properties

     OH        12/28/2011           25,257,000           —     

The Company is also planning to arrange conveyances of three other Ohio properties to their respective mortgagees by deed-in-lieu of foreclosure processes, whereby the Company’s subsidiaries would be released from all obligations, including any unpaid principal and interest. No payments have been made on these mortgages subsequent to December 31, 2011.

During 2010, the Company completed the following transactions related to properties “held for sale/conveyance”:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
              Date        Sales        Gain on  

Property

     Location      Sold        Price        Sale  

Carrollton Discount Drug Mart Plaza

     Carrollton, OH        1/28/2010         $ 3,300,000         $ —     

Pondside Plaza

     Geneseo, NY        2/4/2010           1,600,000           —     

Family Dollar at Zanesville

     Zanesville, OH        2/25/2010           575,000           170,000   

Powell Discount Drug Mart Plaza

     Powell, OH        3/23/2010           5,150,000           —     

Long Reach Village

     Columbia, MD        10/29/2010           5,500,000           —     

Homburg Joint Venture. In February 2011, Homburg Invest Inc. (“HII”) exercised its buy/sell option pursuant to the terms of the joint venture agreements for each of the nine properties owned by the venture. The offered values for the properties, in the aggregate, amounted to approximately $55.0 million over existing property-specific financing (approximately $100.9 million at December 31, 2011). Currently, the Company has made elections to purchase HII’s 80% interest in two of the nine properties, Meadows Marketplace, located in Hershey, Pennsylvania and Fieldstone Marketplace, located in New Bedford,

 

75


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

Massachusetts. At the closing, the Company will pay approximately $5.5 million to HII for its 80% interest in the two properties; the outstanding balances of the mortgage loans payable on the properties were approximately $27.7 million at December 31, 2011. The Company also determined not to meet HII’s buy/sell offers for each of the remaining seven properties, which are now being treated as “held for sale/conveyance”. At the closing, the Company will receive proceeds of approximately $8.3 million from HII for its 20% interest in the seven properties; the outstanding balances of the mortgage loans payable on the properties aggregated approximately $73.2 million at December 31, 2011. The Company’s property management agreements for the seven properties will terminate upon the closing of the sale. Although there are still uncertainties with respect to the obtaining of the required approvals of the lenders holding mortgages on the properties, the Company anticipates that the contemplated transactions will close in 2012.

Philadelphia Redevelopment Property. The tenant at two properties, one owned in an unconsolidated joint venture and the other owned 100% by the Company (acquired in October 2010), vacated both premises in April 2011, at which time both the joint venture and the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary had CMBS non-recourse first mortgage loans secured by the properties in the amounts of $14.7 million due for payment in May 2011 and $12.9 million due for payment in March 2012, respectively ($250,000 of the $12.9 million loan is guaranteed by the Company). The Company reviewed its investment alternatives and determined that it would not be prudent to proceed with the development, sale or lease of the properties, or to advance the funds necessary to pay off the mortgages. Such determination was based on the uncertainty in obtaining favorable revisions to zoning, difficult existing deed restrictions, the uncertainty in achieving required economic returns given the extensive additional capital investments required, and uncertain current market conditions for sale or lease. Accordingly, the Company wrote off its investment in the joint venture ($8.0 million—see Note 2—“Summary of Significant Accounting Policies – Principles of Consolidation/Basis of Preparation”), and recorded an impairment charge related to the value of the 100%-owned property ($9.1 million, included in discontinued operations). No payments have been made on the 100%-owned property mortgage since May 2011, although the Company has been accruing interest expense and will pay certain property-related maintenance/security expenses as they become due. The Company is negotiating a conveyance of the property to the mortgagee by a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure process, whereby the Company’s subsidiary would be released from all obligations, including any unpaid principal and interest (other than the aforementioned $250,000 guaranty). At the time of such conveyance, the Company would recognize a gain based on the excess of the carrying amount of the liabilities (mortgage principal and any accrued property-related expenses) over the carrying amount of the property (approximately $6.8 million as of December 31, 2011).

Ohio Properties. Impairment charges related to these properties recorded in 2011 included additional charges of approximately $10.5 million, principally representing adjustments to the net realizable values of certain of the properties treated as “held for sale/conveyance” as of December 31, 2010. The additional charges were based principally on changes in the structure of previously-negotiated transactions, whereby (1) the Company terminated a contract to swap three

 

76


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

properties for certain land parcels in Ohio and instead entered into a new agreement to sell the properties for cash and assumption of existing debt, and (2) as a result of amending its contract for the sale of the 12 properties discussed below, the Company revalued the properties on an individual, and not portfolio, basis (the buyers in both cases being members of the group from which the Company originally acquired substantially all of its drug store/convenience centers).

On April 27, 2011, the Company made a two-year $4.1 million loan to the developers of a site located in Columbus, Ohio (the developers are certain other members of the group from which the Company acquired substantially all of its drug store/convenience centers). The loan was made in consideration of the borrowers facilitating (but not being parties to) the contract for the sale of the 12 properties. The loan (which may be increased, under certain conditions, by an additional $300,000) bears interest at 6.25% per annum and is collateralized by a first mortgage on the development parcel. The balance of the loan and accrued interest aggregated $4.3 million as of December 31, 2011.

On April 29, 2011, the Company entered into a contract, as subsequently amended, for the sale of 12 properties, subject to the obtaining of approvals of the lenders holding mortgages on the properties. The $28.0 million net aggregate sales price for the properties, after reflecting estimated closing costs and expenses, includes mortgage loans payable to be assumed and approximates the properties’ carrying values. The sales of nine of the properties closed on December 28, 2011. Two of the remaining properties were sold in early 2012, with the remaining property expected to be sold during 2012.

Note 6. Fair Value Measurements

The carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, rents and other receivables, certain other assets, accounts payable and accrued expenses approximate fair value. The fair value of the Company’s investments and liabilities related to deferred compensation plans were determined to be a Level 1 within the valuation hierarchy, and were based on independent values provided by financial institutions. The valuation of the liability for the Company’s interest rate swaps, which is measured on a recurring basis, was determined to be a Level 2 within the valuation hierarchy, and was based on independent values provided by financial institutions. The valuation of the assets for the Company’s real estate held for sale/conveyance – discontinued operations, which is measured on a nonrecurring basis, have been determined to be (i) a Level 2 within the valuation hierarchy, based on the respective contracts of sale or (ii) Level 3 within the valuation hierarchy, where applicable, based on estimated sales prices determined by discounted cash flow analyses if no contract amounts were as yet being negotiated. The discounted cash flow analyses included all estimated cash inflows and outflows over a specific holding period and where applicable, any estimated debt premiums. These cash flows were comprised of unobservable inputs which included contractual rental revenues and forecasted rental revenues and expenses based upon market conditions and expectations for growth. Capitalization rates and discount rates utilized in these analyses were based upon observable rates that the Company believed to be within a reasonable range of current market rates for the respective properties.

 

77


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The following tables show the hierarchy for those assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively:

 

Septemb Septemb Septemb Septemb
    Assets/Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a  
    Recurring Basis  
    December 31, 2011  

Description

  Level 1     Level 2     Level 3     Total  

Investments

  $ 3,562,000      $ —        $ —        $ 3,562,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Liabilities relating to deferred compensation plans

  $ 3,562,000      $ —        $ —        $ 3,562,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Interest rate swaps liability

  $ —        $ 2,053,000      $ —        $ 2,053,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 
    Assets/Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a  
          Recurring Basis        
    December 31, 2010  

Description

  Level 1     Level 2     Level 3     Total  

Interest rate swaps liability

  $ —        $ 1,642,000      $ —        $ 1,642,000   
 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

The fair value of the Company’s fixed rate mortgage loans was estimated using available market information and discounted cash flows analyses based on borrowing rates the Company believes it could obtain with similar terms and maturities. As of December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the aggregate fair values of the Company’s fixed rate mortgage loans were approximately $529.0 million and $490.1 million, respectively; the carrying values of such loans were $525.3 million and $488.0 million, respectively, at those dates.

 

78


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The following tables show the hierarchy for those assets measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis as of December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Assets Measured at Fair Value on a  
       Non-Recurring Basis  
       December 31, 2011  

Asset Description

     Level 1        Level 2        Level 3        Total  

Real estate held for sale/conveyance

     $ —           $ 124,154,000         $ 82,520,000         $ 206,674,000   
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Assets Measured at Fair Value on a  
       Non-Recurring Basis  
       December 31, 2010  

Asset Description

     Level 1        Level 2        Level 3        Total  

Real estate held for sale/conveyance

     $         $ 22,773,000         $ 47,186,000         $ 69,959,000  (a) 
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

(a)

Excludes $278.8 million relating to properties subsequently treated as “held for sale/conveyance” as of December 31, 2011 and recorded at fair value as of that date.

Note 7. Concentration of Credit Risk

Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents in excess of insured amounts and tenant receivables. The Company places its cash and cash equivalents with high quality financial institutions. Management performs ongoing credit evaluations of its tenants and requires certain tenants to provide security deposits and/or suitable guarantees.

Excluding properties treated as discontinued operations, Giant Food Stores, LLC (“Giant Foods”), which is owned by Ahold N.V., a Netherlands corporation, accounted for approximately 13%, 11% and 10% of the Company’s total revenues in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Giant Foods, in combination with Stop & Shop, Inc., which is also owned by Ahold N.V., accounted for approximately 16%, 13% and 14% of the Company’s total revenues in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

The Company’s properties are located largely in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast coastal regions, which exposes it to greater economic risks than if the properties it owned were located in a greater number of geographic regions (in particular, 34 of the Company’s properties are located in Pennsylvania).

 

79


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

Note 8. Other Assets

Other assets at December 31, 2011and 2010 are comprised of the following:

 

September 30, September 30,
       December 31,  
       2011        2010  

Prepaid expenses

     $ 5,857,000         $ 5,258,000   

Investments and cumulative mark-to-market adjustments related to share-based compensation

       3,562,000           2,101,000   

Property and other deposits

       1,430,000           1,527,000   

Leasehold improvements, furniture and fixtures

       1,035,000           525,000   

Other

       474,000           —     
    

 

 

      

 

 

 
     $ 12,358,000         $ 9,411,000   
    

 

 

      

 

 

 

Note 9. Deferred Charges, Net

Deferred charges at December 31, 2011 and 2010 are net of accumulated amortization and are comprised of the following:

 

September 30, September 30,
       December 31,  
       2011        2010  

Lease origination costs (a)

     $ 14,336,000         $ 13,282,000   

Financing costs (b)

       6,268,000           9,623,000   

Other

       931,000           1,551,000   
    

 

 

      

 

 

 
     $ 21,535,000         $ 24,456,000   
    

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

(a)

Lease origination costs include the unamortized balance of intangible lease assets resulting from purchase accounting allocations of $6.6 million (cost of $16.8 million and accumulated amortization of $10.2 million) and $5.9 million (cost of $14.5 million and accumulated amortization of $8.6 million), respectively.

 

(b)

In September 2010, the Company elected to reduce the total commitments under its then stabilized property revolving credit facility by $100.0 million. In this connection, the Company accelerated the write-off of approximately $2.6 million of deferred financing costs.

 

80


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

Deferred charges are amortized over the terms of the related agreements. Amortization expense related to deferred charges (including amortization of deferred financing costs included in non-operating income and expense) amounted to $7.4 million, $10.8 million and $7.5 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The unamortized balances of deferred lease origination costs and deferred financing costs are net of accumulated amortization of $15.7 million and $23.5 million, respectively, and will be charged to future operations as follows (lease origination costs through 2033, and financing costs through 2029):

 

September 30, September 30,
       Lease           
       origination        Financing  
       costs        costs  

2012

     $ 2,509,000         $ 3,827,000  (a) 

2013

       2,250,000           848,000   

2014

       1,931,000           452,000   

2015

       1,621,000           300,000   

2016

       1,316,000           227,000   

Thereafter

       4,709,000           614,000   
    

 

 

      

 

 

 
     $ 14,336,000         $ 6,268,000   
    

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

(a)

Includes $2.8 million relating to the stabilized property and development property credit facilities which were refinanced in January 2012.

 

81


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

Note 10. Mortgage Loans Payable and Secured Revolving Credit Facilities

Secured debt is comprised of the following at December 31, 2011 and 2010:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
       December 31, 2011      December 31, 2010 (a)
                Interest rates               Interest rates
       Balance        Weighted            Balance        Weighted      

Description

     outstanding        average    

Range

     outstanding        average    

Range

Fixed-rate mortgages

     $ 525,259,000           5.8   5.0% - 7.6%      $ 487,957,000           5.9   5.0% - 7.6%

Variable-rate mortgage

       63,768,000           3.0          62,568,000           2.5  
    

 

 

      

 

 

        

 

 

      

 

 

   

Total property-specific mortgages

       589,027,000           5.5          550,525,000           5.6  

Stabilized property credit facility

       74,035,000           5.5          29,535,000           5.5  

Development property credit facility

       92,282,000           2.5          103,062,000           2.5  
    

 

 

      

 

 

        

 

 

      

 

 

   
     $ 755,344,000           5.2        $ 683,122,000           5.1  
    

 

 

      

 

 

        

 

 

      

 

 

   
Mortgage loans payable related to real estate held for sale/conveyance — discontinued operations (a)

Fixed-rate mortgages

     $ 103,704,000           5.7   5.0% - 6.5%      $ 135,991,000           5.6   5.0% - 6.5%

Variable-rate mortgage

       18,900,000           5.9          21,000,000           5.9  
    

 

 

      

 

 

        

 

 

      

 

 

   
     $ 122,604,000           5.7        $ 156,991,000           5.6  
    

 

 

      

 

 

        

 

 

      

 

 

   

 

(a)

Restated to reflect the reclassifications of properties subsequently treated as “held for sale/conveyance”.

Mortgage loans payable

Mortgage loan activity for 2011 and 2010 is summarized as follows:

 

September 30, September 30,
       Years ended December 31,  
       2011      2010  

Balance, beginning of year

     $ 550,525,000       $ 541,979,000   

New mortgage borrowings and assumptions

       45,791,000         26,984,000   

Repayments

       (7,289,000      (18,438,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Balance, end of the year

     $ 589,027,000       $ 550,525,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

On July 6, 2011, the Company refinanced a property that had collateralized the development property credit facility. The new fixed-rate mortgage, aggregating $16.5 million, bears interest at 5.2% per annum, with principal payments based on a 25-year amortization schedule, and maturing in July 2021. The proceeds reduced the balances under the development property credit facility and the stabilized property credit facility by $10.8 million and $5.7 million, respectively.

 

82


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

During 2010, the Company completed a $10.6 million fixed-rate mortgage loan payable on a previously unencumbered property, with an interest rate of 5.5% per annum. The property was previously included in the collateral pool for the Company’s secured revolving stabilized property credit facility. In addition, the Company refinanced three properties in 2010. The new fixed-rate mortgage loans payable aggregated $15.0 million and bear interest at a weighted average of 6.2% per annum.

The variable-rate mortgage represents a $70.7 million construction facility, as amended in November 2011, pursuant to which the Company has pledged its joint venture ground-up development property in Pottsgrove, Pennsylvania as collateral for borrowings thereunder. The facility is guaranteed by the Company and will expire in October 2013, subject to a one-year extension option. Borrowings under the facility bear interest at the Company’s option at either LIBOR plus a spread of 275 bps or the agent bank’s prime rate plus a spread of 125 bps, with principal payable based on a 30-year amortization schedule. Borrowings outstanding under the facility aggregated $63.8 million at December 31, 2011, and such borrowings bore interest at a rate of 3.0% per annum.

Amended, Restated and Consolidated Credit Facility

On January 26, 2012, the Company entered into a $300 million secured credit facility (“Credit Facility”). The Credit Facility amends, restates and consolidates the Company’s prior $185 million stabilized property revolving credit facility ($74,035,000 outstanding at December 31, 2011, bearing interest at 5.5% per annum) and its $150 million development property credit facility ($92,282,000 outstanding at December 31, 2011, bearing interest at 2.5% per annum) that were due to expire on January 31, 2012 and June 13, 2012, respectively. In anticipation of the new Credit Facility, the Company determined to forego its one-year extension option applicable to the stabilized property credit revolving facility.

The new Credit Facility is comprised of a four-year $75 million term loan and a three-year $225 million revolving credit facility, subject to collateral in place (the Company has pledged 27 of its shopping center properties as collateral for such borrowings, including seven properties which are being treated as “real estate held for sale/conveyance”). In connection with the new Credit Facility, the Company paid participating lender fees, and closing and transaction costs of approximately $3.7 million.

Borrowings under the new Credit Facility are initially priced at LIBOR plus 275 bps (a total of 3.0% per annum at closing) and can range from LIBOR plus 200 to 300 bps based on the Company’s leverage ratio. Subject to customary conditions, the term loan and the revolving credit facility may both be extended for one additional year at the Company’s option. Under an accordion feature, the Credit Facility can be increased to $500 million, subject to customary conditions, collateral in place and lending commitments from participating banks.

 

83


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The Credit Facility contains financial covenants including, but not limited to, maximum debt leverage, minimum interest coverage, minimum fixed charge coverage, and minimum net worth. In addition, the Credit Facility contains restrictions including, but not limited to, limits on indebtedness, certain investments and distributions. The Company’s failure to comply with these covenants or the occurrence of an event of default under the Credit Facility could result in the acceleration of the Company’s debt and other financial obligations under the Credit Facility. The Credit Facility will be available to fund acquisitions, redevelopment and remaining development activities, capital expenditures, mortgage repayments, dividend distributions, working capital and other general corporate purposes.

Based on covenant measurements and collateral in place at the closing, the Company was permitted to draw up to approximately $232.8 million, of which approximately $62.8 million remained available as of that date (after payment of closing costs, fees and expenses).

Scheduled Principal Payments

Scheduled principal payments on mortgage loans payable and secured revolving credit facilities at December 31, 2011, due on various dates from 2012 to 2029, are as follows (reflecting the amended, restated and consolidated credit facility concluded on January 26, 2012):

 

September 30,

2012

       38,980,000    

2013

       125,328,000  (a) 

2014

       106,436,000    

2015

       168,642,000  (b) 

2016

       173,937,000  (c) 

Thereafter

       142,021,000    
    

 

 

 
     $ 755,344,000    
    

 

 

 

 

(a)

Includes $62.2 million subject to a one-year extension option.

 

(b)

Includes $91.3 million subject to a one-year extension option.

 

(c)

Includes $75.0 million subject to a one-year extension option.

Note 11. Derivative Financial Instruments

At December 31, 2011, the Company had approximately $32.1 million of mortgage loans payable subject to interest rate swaps. Such interest rate swaps converted LIBOR-based variable rates to fixed annual rates of 5.2% and 6.5% per annum. At that date, the Company had accrued liabilities of $2.1 million (included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on the consolidated balance sheet) relating to the fair value of interest rate swaps applicable to existing

 

84


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

mortgage loans payable. Charges and/or credits relating to the changes in fair values of such interest rate swaps are made to accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income, noncontrolling interests (minority interests in consolidated joint ventures and limited partners’ interest), or operations (included in interest expense), as appropriate.

The following is a summary of the derivative financial instruments held by the Company and the Cedar/RioCan joint venture at December 31, 2011 and 2010:

 

Septemb Septemb Septemb Septemb Septemb Septemb Septemb Septemb Septemb
              Notional values           Balance   Fair value  
Designation/             December 31,           December 31,     Maturity     sheet   December 31,     December 31,  

Cash flow

 

Derivative

  Count     2011     Count     2010     dates    

location

  2011     2010  
  Interest rate swaps             Accrued liabilities    

Qualifying

  Consolidated     3      $ 32,091,000        2      $ 20,218,000        2013-2018      Consolidated   $ 2,053,000      $ 1,642,000   
     

 

 

     

 

 

       

 

 

   

 

 

 
 

Cedar/RioCan

           

Cedar/RioCan

   

Qualifying

  Joint Venture     1      $ 14,182,000        —        $ —          2016      Joint Venture   $ 2,419,000      $ —     
     

 

 

     

 

 

       

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

85


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The following presents the effect of the Company’s derivative financial instruments on the consolidated statements of operations and the consolidated statements of equity for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
                Amount of gain (loss) recognized in other  
                comprehensive (loss) income (effective portion)  
Designation/               Year ended December 31,  

Cash flow

     Derivative        2011      2010      2009  
       Interest rate swaps              

Non-qualifying

       Consolidated         $ —         $ —           106,000   
         

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Qualifying

       Consolidated         $ (398,000    $ (670,000    $ 4,237,000   
         

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 
       Cedar/RioCan              

Qualifying

       Joint Venture         $ (118,000    $ —         $ —     
         

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

The above table does not include amortization and adjustments related to the terminated Crossroads II swap which were recorded as a reduction of other comprehensive income and as a reduction of interest expense in the amount of $409,000 and $252,000 in 2011 and 2010, respectively.

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
                Amount of gain recognized in interest expense  
                (ineffective portion)  
                Year ended December 31,  
                2011        2010        2009  

Non-qualifying

       Interest rate swaps         $ —           $ —           $ 107,000   
         

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Qualifying

       Interest rate swaps         $ —           $ —           $ 67,000   
         

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

As of December 31, 2011, the Company believes it has no significant risk associated with non-performance of the financial institutions which are the counterparties to its derivative contracts. Additionally, based on the rates in effect as of December 31, 2011, if a counterparty were to default, the Company would receive a net interest benefit. On January 20, 2010, the Company paid approximately $5.5 million to terminate interest rate swaps applicable to the financing for its development joint venture project in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

Note 12. Intangible Lease Asset/Liability

Unamortized intangible lease liabilities that relate to below-market leases amounted to $35.0 million and $40.3 million at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Unamortized intangible lease assets that relate to above-market leases amounted to $0.5 million and $0 at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.

 

 

86


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The unamortized balance of intangible lease liabilities at December 31, 2011 is net of accumulated amortization of $51.8 million, and will be credited to future operations through 2043 as follows:

 

September 30,

2012

     $ 5,097,000   

2013

       4,668,000   

2014

       4,207,000   

2015

       3,093,000   

2016

       1,911,000   

Thereafter

       16,041,000   
    

 

 

 
     $ 35,017,000   
    

 

 

 

Note 13. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is a party to certain legal actions arising in the normal course of business. Management does not expect there to be adverse consequences from these actions that would be material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Under various federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, an owner or operator of real estate may be required to investigate and clean up hazardous or toxic substances, or petroleum product releases, at its properties. The owner may be liable to governmental entities or to third parties for property damage, and for investigation and cleanup costs incurred by such parties in connection with any contamination. Management is unaware of any environmental matters that would have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

The Company’s executive offices are located at 44 South Bayles Avenue, Port Washington, New York, which it leased from a partnership owned 44.9% by the Company’s former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The terms of the lease, as amended, will expire in February 2020. Future minimum rents payable under the terms of the lease, as amended, amount to $495,000, $509,000, $523,000, $537,000, $552,000 and $1.8 million during the years 2012 through 2016, and thereafter, respectively. In addition, several of the Company’s properties and portions of several others are owned subject to operating leases which provide for annual payments subject, in certain cases, to cost-of-living or fair market value adjustments, as follows: 2012—$1.0 million, 2013—$1.0 million, 2014—$1.0 million, 2015—$1.0 million, 2016—$1.0 million and thereafter—$9.9 million.

Rent expense was $1.3 million, $1.0 million and $0.8 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

 

87


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The Company has entered into joint venture arrangements with respect to a number of its properties. The applicable joint venture agreements generally include buy/sell provisions pursuant to which, after a specified period of years, either party may initiate a buy/sell arrangement pursuant to which the initiating party can designate a value for the relevant property or properties, and the other party may then elect either to sell its proportionate ownership interest in the joint venture based on that value for the entire property or to purchase the initiating party’s ownership interest based on such valuation for the entire property.

Note 14. Preferred and Common Stock

The Company has a Dividend Reinvestment and Direct Stock Purchase Plan (“DRIP”) which offers a convenient method for shareholders to invest cash dividends and/or make optional cash payments to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock. Such purchases are at 100% of market value (increased in March 2011 from 98% of market value). During 2011, the Company issued 693,000 shares of its common stock at an average price of $6.02 per share and realized proceeds after expenses of approximately $4.1 million. During 2010, the Company issued 1,451,000 shares of its common stock at an average price of $5.79 per share and realized proceeds after expenses of approximately $8.2 million. At December 31, 2011, there remained 2,856,000 shares authorized under the DRIP.

In connection with litigation settlements in the Company’s favor, the Company received cash payments of $975,000 ($225,000 and $750,000, respectively, in 2011 and 2010). In addition, the defendants acquired 133,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (39,000 shares at an average price of $5.78 per share in 2011 and 94,000 shares at an average price of $8.01 per share in 2010) from which the Company realized net proceeds of an additional $975,000 ($225,000 and $750,000, respectively, in 2011 and 2010).

In February 2010, the Company concluded a public offering of 7,500,000 shares of its common stock at $6.60 per share, and realized net proceeds, after offering expenses, of approximately $47.0 million. In March 2010, the underwriters exercised their over-allotment option to the extent of 698,000 shares, and the Company realized additional net proceeds of $4.4 million. In connection with the offering, RioCan purchased 1,350,000 shares of the Company’s common stock and the Company realized additional net proceeds of $8.9 million.

In connection with the RioCan transactions, the Company issued to RioCan warrants to purchase 1,428,570 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $7.00 per share. RioCan exercised its warrant in April 2010 and the Company realized net proceeds of $10.0 million.

In August 2010, the Company concluded a public offering of 2,850,000 shares of its 8-7/8% Series A Cumulative Redeemable preferred stock at $24.50 per share, and realized net proceeds, after offering expenses, of approximately $67.4 million. In connection with the sale, the Company’s investment advisor received an underwriter’s discount of approximately $2.4 million. The Company’s 8-7/8% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock has no stated

 

88


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

maturity, is not convertible into any other security of the Company, and is redeemable at the Company’s option at a price of $25.00 per share, plus accrued and unpaid distributions. There were $1.6 million of accrued preferred stock distributions at both December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The Company had a Standby Equity Purchase Agreement (the “SEPA Agreement”) with an investment company for sales of its shares of common stock at a discount to market of 1.75% plus a placement agent fee 0.75% (paid to an investment advisor). In addition, the Agreement provided that Company could request advances from time to time up to $5.0 million each (with respect to such advances, the common stock sales were at a discount to market of 2.75% and the placement agent fee was 1.25%). Such advances were initially recorded as a liability and, as shares were sold on a daily basis and the advances were settled, such liability was thereafter reflected in equity. At December 31, 2009, there was an unsettled advance liability of $5.0 million which was settled in January and February 2010 by the sale of 718,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an average selling price of $6.97 per share. Through the remainder of 2010, an additional 667,000 shares were sold pursuant to the SEPA Agreement, at an average price of $7.52 per share, and the Company realized net proceeds, after allocation of issuance expenses, of approximately $4.9 million. There have been no additional SEPA Agreement transactions and the Agreement expired in September 2011.

During 2010, the Company, at its option, elected to redeem for cash approximately 552,000 OP Units that had been offered for conversion by the holders thereof, for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $3.4 million. Such OP Units had been issued to certain members of the group from which the Company had acquired the major portion of its Ohio drug store/convenience center properties.

In connection with an acquisition of a shopping center in 2002, the Operating Partnership issued warrants to purchase approximately 83,000 OP Units to a then minority interest partner in the property. Such warrants have an exercise price of $13.50 per unit, subject to certain anti-dilution adjustments, are fully vested, and will expire on May 31, 2012.

 

89


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

Note 15. Rental Revenues

Rental revenues for 2011, 2010 and 2009 are comprised of the following:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       2011        2010        2009  

Base rents

     $ 97,437,000         $ 93,493,000         $ 98,216,000   

Percentage rent

       1,058,000           906,000           998,000   

Straight-line rents

       1,221,000           1,577,000           2,593,000   

Amortization of intangible lease liabilities

       5,736,000           6,094,000           11,234,000   
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 
     $ 105,452,000         $ 102,070,000         $ 113,041,000   
    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Annual future base rents due to be received under non-cancelable operating leases in effect at December 31, 2011 are approximately as follows (excluding those base rents applicable to properties treated as discontinued operations):

 

September 30,

2012

     $ 98,863,000   

2013

       94,271,000   

2014

       84,973,000   

2015

       74,732,000   

2016

       62,253,000   

Thereafter

       319,301,000   
    

 

 

 
     $ 734,393,000   
    

 

 

 

Total future minimum rents do not include expense recoveries for real estate taxes and operating costs, or percentage rents based upon tenants’ sales volume. Such additional revenue amounts aggregated approximately $28.0 million, $26.6 million and $28.3 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. In addition, such amounts do not include amortization of intangible lease liabilities.

Note 16. 401(k) Retirement Plan

The Company has a 401(k) retirement plan (the “Plan”), which permits all eligible employees to defer a portion of their compensation under the Code. Pursuant to the provisions of the Plan, the Company may make discretionary contributions on behalf of eligible employees. The Company made contributions to the Plan of $275,000, $266,000 and $248,000 in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

 

90


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

Note 17. Management Transition Charges

In June 2011, the Company’s then Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President retired, and the employment of the Company’s then Chief Financial Officer ended. Pursuant to their respective employment and/or separation agreements, (a) they are to receive an aggregate of approximately $3.7 million in cash severance payments (including the cost of related payroll taxes and benefits, and substantially all of which has been funded), and (b) all of their unvested restricted share grants became vested and all related amounts were written off (an aggregate of approximately $2.0 million – see “Stock-Based Compensation” below). Together with approximately $0.8 million of other non-recurring costs, primarily professional fees and expenses related to the hiring of a new President/Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the Company recorded an aggregate of approximately $6.5 million as “management transition charges”.

Note 18. Share-Based Compensation

The following tables set forth certain share-based compensation information for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Years ended December 31,  
       2011      2010      2009  

Share-based compensation:

          

Expense relating to share grants

     $ 5,665,000       $ 3,260,000       $ 2,921,000   

Adjustments to reflect changes in market price of certain share grants

       (775,000      (281,000      (488,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total charged to operations (a)

     $ 4,890,000       $ 2,979,000       $ 2,433,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

September 30, September 30,
              Weighted average  
       Shares      grant date value  

Unvested shares, December 31, 2010

       1,280,000       $ 6.28   

Restricted share grants (b)

       961,000         5.40   

Vested during period (c)

       (1,038,000      6.51   

Forfeitures/cancellations

       (97,000      5.70   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Unvested shares, December 31, 2011

       1,106,000       $ 5.31   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

(a)

Includes $1,980,000 applicable to the accelerated vestings discussed below.

 

(b)

Does not include the equity or liability award shares discussed below.

 

(c)

Includes 706,000 shares ($5.35 weighted average grant date fair value) applicable to the accelerated vestings discussed below.

 

91


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

The per share weighted average grant date fair values of shares granted during 2011, 2010 and 2009 were $5.40, $6.54, and $4.95, respectively. The total fair values of shares vested during 2011, 2010 and 2009 were $5,507,000, $996,000 and $569,000, respectively (the 2011 amount includes $3,569,000 applicable to the accelerated vestings discussed below).

At December 31, 2011, 2.3 million shares remained available for grants pursuant to the Incentive Plan (excluding the 1,750,000 shares and 500,000 shares, respectively, applicable to the equity and liability awards discussed below). At December 31, 2011, there remained an aggregate of approximately $13.0 million applicable to all such grants and awards to be expensed over a weighted average period of 5.8 years.

In connection with the retirement of the Company’s Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President, and the end of the employment of the Company’s Chief Financial Officer (see Note – 17 “Management Transition Charges”), all of their outstanding restricted share grants, consisting of time-based grants (284,000 shares) and performance-based grants (422,000 shares) became vested (an aggregate of 706,000 shares), and were expensed in full at the then market value of the shares (an aggregate of approximately $2.0 million).

The Company’s new President and Chief Executive Officer is to receive restricted share grants totaling 2.5 million shares, one-half of which are to be time-based, vesting upon the seventh anniversary of the date of grant (vesting on June 15, 2018), and the other half to be performance-based, to be earned if the total annual return on an investment in the Company’s common stock (“TSR”) is at least an average of 6.5% per year for the seven years ending June 15, 2018. An independent appraisal determined the value of the performance-based award to be $4.39 per share compared to a market price at the date of grant of $4.98 per share. As a result of existing limitations within the Incentive Plan, only 250,000 shares have been issued, 1,750,000 shares are being accounted for as an “equity award”, and 500,000 shares are being accounted for as a “liability award”. The values of the equity and liability awards are being expensed on a straight-line basis over the vesting period. Consistent with such awards to other recipients, dividends are paid on all the shares, including the equity and liability award shares, with the dividends paid on the equity award shares treated as distributions to common shareholders and included in the statement of equity, and the dividends paid on the liability award shares treated as compensation and included in the statement of operations. In addition, with respect to the liability award, adjustments to reflect changes in the fair value of the award (based on changes in the market price of the Company’s common stock) are also charged to operations. It is the Company’s intention to seek a modification of the terms of the Incentive Plan (or to adopt a new stock incentive plan) so as to permit the grant of the entire 2.5 million shares. Until such changes are effectuated, the Company will issue 250,000 shares each calendar year, thereby reducing the liability established for the equity award. If, by June 15, 2018, the entire 2.5 million shares have not been issued, the parties have agreed to satisfy any remaining Company obligations on a mutually-agreeable economic basis.

 

92


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

In January 2009, 2010 and 2011, the Company issued shares of common stock as performance-based grants, with vesting to be based on the TSR over the three calendar years commencing with the dates of grant. Portions of each grant are to vest (a) if the TSR on the Company’s common stock is equal to or greater than a specified average return per year (the “Absolute TSR”), and (b) if there is a positive comparison of the TSR on the Company’s common stock to the Company’s peer group (the “Relative TSR”). The Company obtained independent appraisals to determine the values of each category of the performance-based shares issued. The following table summarizes information relating to the performance-based grants:

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
                         Absolute TSR        Relative TSR  
                Grant date              Annual                       
Grant      Shares        market        Portion of     average     Appraisal        Portion of     Appraisal  

year

     granted        price        grant     return     value        grant     value  

2009

       218,000         $ 7.02           75     6   $ 5.44           25   $ 6.48   

2010

       227,000           6.70           50     6     4.56           50     6.00   

2011

       275,000           6.54           50     8     4.40           50     5.91   

After the accelerated vestings in June 2011 of certain of these shares, as discussed above, there remained 82,000 shares, 84,000 shares and 123,000 shares, respectively, of the 2009, 2010 and 2011 performance-based awards. However, as the Company did not achieve either TSR measure for the three years ended December 31, 2011, none of the shares granted in 2009 vested.

In addition to the above, there were other time-based restricted shares issued, which amount to 436,000 shares, 279,000 shares and 397,000 shares, for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

 

93


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

Note 19. Noncontrolling interest—Limited Partners’ Mezzanine OP Units

The following summarizes the activity relating to the limited partners’ mezzanine OP Units:

 

September 30, September 30,
       December 31,  
       2011      2010  

Balance, beginning of year

     $ 7,053,000       $ 12,638,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net loss

       (1,126,000      (640,000

Unrealized gain on change in fair value of cash flow hedges

       (3,000      (18,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Total other comprehensive loss

       (1,129,000      (658,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Distributions

       (232,000      (266,000

Reallocation adjustment of limited partners’ interest and conversions and redemptions of OP Units

       (1,076,000      (4,661,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Balance, end of year

     $ 4,616,000       $ 7,053,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

 

See note 22 for information relating to 2012 conversions of mezzanine OP Units.

Note 20. Earnings/Dividends Per Share

Basic earnings per share (“EPS”) is calculated by dividing net income (loss) attributable to the Company’s common shareholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period including participating securities (restricted shares issued pursuant to the Company’s stock-based compensation program are considered participating securities, as such shares have non-forfeitable rights to receive dividends). Unvested restricted shares are not allocated net losses and/or any excess of dividends declared over net income, as such amounts are allocated entirely to the common shareholders. For 2011, the Company had 2.3 million weighted average unvested restricted shares outstanding (including the weighted average impact of the 2.0 million shares awarded to the Company’s new President/Chief Executive Officer in June 2011). EPS for the 2010 and 2009 is calculated based on the data presented on the face of the consolidated statements of operations for those periods. The following table provides a reconciliation of the numerator and denominator of the EPS calculations for 2011:

 

94


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

 

September 30,

Numerator

    

(Loss) from continuing operations

     $ (25,953,000

Preferred distribution requirements

       (14,200,000

Plus, net income attributable to noncontrolling interests

       917,000   

Less, earnings allocated to unvested shares

       (810,000
    

 

 

 

Loss from continuing operations available for common shareholders

       (40,046,000

Results from discontinued operations

       (78,525,000
    

 

 

 

Net (loss) available for common shareholders, basic and diluted

     $ (118,571,000
    

 

 

 

Denominator

    

Weighted average number of vested common shares outstanding

       66,387,000   
    

 

 

 

Earnings (loss) per common share, basic and diluted

    

Continuing operations

     $ (0.61

Discontinued operations

     $ (1.18
    

 

 

 
     $ (1.79
    

 

 

 

Fully-diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur if securities or other contracts to issue common stock were exercised or converted into shares of common stock. The net loss attributable to noncontrolling interests of the Operating Partnership has been excluded from the numerator and the related OP Units have been excluded from the denominator for the purpose of calculating diluted EPS as there would have been no effect had such amounts been included. The weighted average number of OP Units outstanding for 2011, 2010 and 2009 were 1,415,000, 1,814,000 and 2,014,000, respectively. In addition, warrants for the purchase of OP Units (83,000 for all periods) have been excluded as they were anti-dilutive for all periods presented.

Dividends to common shareholders in 2011, 2010 and 2009 were $24,705,000 ($0.36 per share), $17,749,000 ($0.27 per share), and $9,742,000 ($0.2025 per share), respectively.

 

95


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

Note 21. Selected Quarterly Financial Data (unaudited)

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
       Quarter ended  

Year

     March 31      June 30      September 30      December 31  

2011

             

Revenues as previously reported

     $ 41,620,000       $ 38,299,000       $ 33,460,000       $ 34,334,000   

Revenues from discontinued operations and reclassifications (a)

       (7,030,000      (5,690,000      420,000         —     
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Revenues

     $ 34,590,000       $ 32,609,000       $ 33,880,000       $ 34,334,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net loss

     $ (9,093,000    $ (24,729,000    $ (71,265,000    $ (3,427,000

Net loss attributable to common shareholders

     $ (12,309,000    $ (27,668,000    $ (70,105,000    $ (7,679,000

Per common share (basic and diluted) (b)

     $ (0.18    $ (0.41    $ (1.05    $ (0.12

2010

             

Revenues as previously reported

     $ 41,786,000       $ 37,989,000       $ 31,710,000       $ 39,230,000   

Revenues from discontinued operations and reclassifications (a)

       (6,308,000      (6,030,000      —           (6,805,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Revenues

     $ 35,478,000       $ 31,959,000       $ 31,710,000       $ 32,425,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net loss

     $ (1,160,000    $ (2,547,000    $ (4,491,000    $ (35,986,000

Net loss attributable to common shareholders

     $ (3,490,000    $ (4,251,000    $ (6,780,000    $ (36,964,000

Per common share (basic and diluted) (b)

     $ (0.06    $ (0.07    $ (0.10    $ (0.56

 

(a)

Represents revenues from discontinued operations which were previously included in revenues as previously reported.

 

(b)

Differences between the sum of the four quarterly per share amounts and the annual per share amounts are attributable to the effect of the weighted average outstanding share calculations for the respective periods.

Note 22. Subsequent Events

In determining subsequent events, management reviewed all activity from January 1, 2012 through the date of filing this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

On January 26, 2012, the Company’s Board of Directors declared a dividend of $0.05 per share with respect to its common stock as well as an equal distribution per unit on its outstanding OP Units. At the same time, the Board declared a dividend of $0.5546875 per share with respect to the Company’s 8-7/8% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock. The distributions are payable on February 21, 2012 to shareholders of record on February 10, 2012.

 

96


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011

 

In January and February 2012, holders of 851,000 OP Units (including 554,000 mezzanine OP Units) converted their holdings to shares of the Company’s common stock. In connection therewith, approximately $3.5 million of the December 31, 2011 carrying value of mezzanine OP Units will be reclassified to equity.

 

 

97


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Schedule III

Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

Year ended December 31, 2011

 

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
                           Year built/      Gross        Initial cost to the Company  
              Year      Percent     Year last      leasable                 Building and  

Property

     State      acquired      owned     renovated      area        Land        Improvements  

Academy Plaza

     PA      2001        100   1965/1998        151,977         $ 2,406,000         $ 9,623,000   

Annie Land Plaza

     VA      2006        100   1999        42,500           809,000           4,015,000   

Camp Hill

     PA      2002        100   1958/2005        472,717           4,460,000           17,857,000   

Carbondale Plaza

     PA      2004        100   1972/2005        121,135           1,586,000           7,289,000   

Carll’s Corner

     NJ      2007        100   1960’s-1999/        129,582           3,034,000           15,293,000   

Carmans Plaza

     NY      2007        100   1954/2007        194,806           8,539,000           35,804,000   

Circle Plaza

     PA      2007        100   1979/1991        92,171           561,000           2,884,000   

Coliseum Marketplace

     VA      2005        100   1987/2005        103,069           2,924,000           14,416,000   

Colonial Commons

     PA      2011        100   2011        474,765           9,367,000           37,496,000   

Crossroads II

     PA      2008        60   2009        133,188           15,383,000           —     

East Chestnut

     PA      2005        100   1996        21,180           800,000           3,699,000   

Elmhurst Square

     VA      2006        100   1961-1983        66,250           1,371,000           5,994,000   

Fairview Plaza

     PA      2003        100   1992        69,579           2,128,000           8,483,000   

Fairview Commons

     PA      2007        100   1976/2003        59,578           858,000           3,568,000   

Fieldstone Marketplace

     MA      2005        20   1988/2003        193,970           5,229,000           21,440,000   

Fort Washington

     PA      2002        100   2003        41,000           2,462,000           —     

General Booth Plaza

     VA      2005        100   1985        73,320           1,935,000           9,493,000   

Gold Star Plaza

     PA      2006        100   1988        71,720           1,644,000           6,519,000   

Golden Triangle

     PA      2003        100   1960/2005        202,943           2,320,000           9,713,000   

Groton Shopping Center

     CT      2007        100   1969        117,986           3,070,000           12,320,000   

Halifax Plaza

     PA      2003        100   1994        51,510           1,412,000           5,799,000   

Hamburg Commons

     PA      2004        100   1988-1993        99,580           1,153,000           4,678,000   

Huntingdon Plaza

     PA      2004        100   1972 -2003        142,845           933,000           4,129,000   

Jordan Lane

     CT      2005        100   1969/1991        181,730           4,291,000           21,176,000   

Kempsville Crossing

     VA      2005        100   1985        94,477           2,207,000           11,000,000   

Kenley Village

     MD      2005        100   1988        51,894           726,000           3,512,000   

Kings Plaza

     MA      2007        100   1970/1994        168,243           2,413,000           12,604,000   

Kingston Plaza

     NY      2006        100   2006        5,324           1,644,000           —     

Lake Raystown Plaza

     PA      2004        100   1995        140,159           2,231,000           6,735,000   

Liberty Marketplace

     PA      2005        100   2003        68,200           2,665,000           12,639,000   

Martins’s at Glen Allen

     VA      2005        100   2000        63,328           6,769,000           683,000   

Meadows Marketplace

     PA      2004        20   2005        91,518           1,914,000           —     

Mechanicsburg Giant

     PA      2005        100   2003        51,500           2,709,000           12,159,000   

Metro Square

     MD      2008        100   1999        71,896           3,121,000           12,341,000   

Newport Plaza

     PA      2003        100   1996        64,489           1,721,000           7,758,000   

New London Mall

     CT      2009        40   1967/1997        259,293           14,891,000           24,967,000   

Northside Commons

     PA      2008        100   2009        64,710           3,332,000           —     

 

98


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Schedule III

Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

Year ended December 31, 2011

(continued)

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
              Gross amount at which carried at                    
       Subsequent      December 31, 2011                    
       cost               Building and                 Accumulated        Amount of  

Property

     capitalized      Land        improvements        Total        depreciation (4)        Encumbrance  

Academy Plaza

     $ 1,696,000       $ 2,406,000         $ 11,319,000         $ 13,725,000         $ 2,987,000         $ 8,894,000   

Annie Land Plaza

       54,000         809,000           4,069,000           4,878,000           773,000           (3

Camp Hill

       43,504,000         4,424,000           61,397,000           65,821,000           11,312,000           65,000,000   

Carbondale Plaza

       4,883,000         1,586,000           12,172,000           13,758,000           2,736,000           4,864,000   

Carll’s Corner

       (1,425,000      2,898,000           14,004,000           16,902,000           2,166,000           5,656,000   

Carmans Plaza

       (645,000      8,421,000           35,277,000           43,698,000           5,190,000           33,391,000   

Circle Plaza

       65,000         546,000           2,964,000           3,510,000           351,000           (3

Coliseum Marketplace

       3,739,000         3,586,000           17,493,000           21,079,000           3,810,000           11,703,000   

Crossroads II

       28,440,000         17,671,000           26,152,000           43,823,000           1,433,000           (3

Colonial Commons

       312,000         9,367,000           37,808,000           47,175,000           1,827,000           27,729,000   

East Chestnut

       3,000         800,000           3,702,000           4,502,000           917,000           1,773,000   

Elmhurst Square

       256,000         1,371,000           6,250,000           7,621,000           1,261,000           3,892,000   

Fairview Plaza

       270,000         2,129,000           8,752,000           10,881,000           2,082,000           5,254,000   

Fairview Commons

       —           858,000           3,568,000           4,426,000           693,000           (3

Fieldstone Marketplace

       593,000         5,167,000           22,095,000           27,262,000           4,504,000           17,900,000   

Fort Washington

       5,176,000         2,462,000           5,176,000           7,638,000           1,194,000           5,535,000   

General Booth Plaza

       187,000         1,935,000           9,680,000           11,615,000           2,441,000           5,136,000   

Gold Star Plaza

       266,000         1,644,000           6,785,000           8,429,000           1,371,000           2,009,000   

Golden Triangle

       9,796,000         2,320,000           19,509,000           21,829,000           4,980,000           20,387,000   

Groton Shopping Center

       342,000         3,073,000           12,659,000           15,732,000           2,256,000           11,412,000   

Halifax Plaza

       224,000         1,347,000           6,088,000           7,435,000           1,341,000           4,175,000   

Hamburg Commons

       5,402,000         1,153,000           10,080,000           11,233,000           1,776,000           5,017,000   

Huntingdon Plaza

       1,892,000         933,000           6,021,000           6,954,000           1,035,000           (3

Jordan Lane

       973,000         4,291,000           22,149,000           26,440,000           4,638,000           12,628,000   

Kempsville Crossing

       140,000         2,207,000           11,140,000           13,347,000           2,974,000           5,799,000   

Kenley Village

       120,000         726,000           3,632,000           4,358,000           1,109,000           (3

Kings Plaza

       337,000         2,408,000           12,946,000           15,354,000           2,141,000           7,538,000   

Kingston Plaza

       (962,000      496,000           186,000           682,000           30,000           511,000   

Lake Raystown Plaza

       6,829,000         2,231,000           13,564,000           15,795,000           2,882,000           (3

Liberty Marketplace

       294,000         2,695,000           12,903,000           15,598,000           2,462,000           8,840,000   

Martins’s at Glen Allen

       3,000         5,367,000           2,088,000           7,455,000           495,000           (3

Meadows Marketplace

       11,402,000         1,914,000           11,402,000           13,316,000           1,685,000           10,002,000   

Mechanicsburg Giant

       —           2,709,000           12,159,000           14,868,000           2,137,000           9,075,000   

Metro Square

       (301,000      5,250,000           9,911,000           15,161,000           1,066,000           8,750,000   

Newport Plaza

       236,000         1,682,000           8,033,000           9,715,000           1,671,000           5,471,000   

New London Mall

       999,000         8,827,000           32,030,000           40,857,000           4,431,000           26,388,000   

Northside Commons

       10,001,000         3,379,000           9,954,000           13,333,000           552,000           (3

 

99


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Schedule III

Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

Year ended December 31, 2011

(continued)

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
                  Year built/   Gross     Initial cost to the Company  
        Year   Percent     Year last   leasable           Building and  

Property

  State   acquired   owned     renovated   area     Land     Improvements  

Norwood Shopping Center

  MA   2006     100   1965/2006     102,459      $ 1,874,000      $ 8,453,000   

Oak Ridge

  VA   2006     100   2000     38,700        960,000        4,254,000   

Oakland Commons

  CT   2007     100   1962/1995     89,850        2,504,000        15,662,000   

Oakland Mills

  MD   2005     100   1960’s/2004     58,224        1,611,000        6,292,000   

Palmyra Shopping Center

  PA   2005     100   1960/1995     110,970        1,488,000        6,566,000   

Pine Grove Plaza

  NJ   2003     100   2001/2002     86,089        2,010,000        6,489,000   

Port Richmond Village

  PA   2001     100   1988     154,908        2,942,000        11,769,000   

Price Chopper Plaza

  MA   2007     100   1960’s-2004     101,824        3,551,000        18,412,000   

River View Plaza I, II and III

  PA   2003     100   1991/1998     244,034        9,718,000        40,356,000   

San Souci Plaza

  MD   2009     40   1985 - 1997     264,134        14,849,000        18,445,000   

Smithfield Plaza

  VA   2005-2008     100   1987/1996     134,664        2,947,000        12,737,000   

South Philadelphia

  PA   2003     100   1950/2003     283,415        8,222,000        36,314,000   

Southington Shopping Center

  CT   2003     100   1972/2000     155,842        —          11,834,000   

St. James Square

  MD   2005     100   2000     39,903        688,000        3,838,000   

Suffolk Plaza

  VA   2005     100   1984     67,216        1,402,000        7,236,000   

Swede Square

  PA   2003     100   1980/2004     100,816        2,268,000        6,232,000   

The Brickyard

  CT   2004     100   1990     249,553        7,632,000        29,308,000   

The Commons

  PA   2004     100   2003     203,426        3,098,000        14,047,000   

The Point

  PA   2000     100   1972/2001     268,037        2,700,000        10,800,000   

The Shops at Suffolk Downs

  MA   2005     100   2005     121,251        7,580,000        11,089,000   

Timpany Plaza

  MA   2007     100   1970’s-1989     183,775        3,412,000        19,240,000   

Townfair Center

  PA   2004     100   2002     218,662        3,022,000        13,786,000   

Trexler Mall

  PA   2005     100   1973/2004     339,363        6,932,000        32,815,000   

Trexlertown Plaza

  PA   2006     100   1990/2005     316,143        13,349,000        23,867,000   

Ukrop’s at Fredericksburg

  VA   2005     100   1997     63,000        3,213,000        12,758,000   

Valley Plaza

  MD   2003     100   1975/1994     190,939        1,950,000        7,766,000   

Virginia Little Creek

  VA   2005     100   1996/2001     69,620        1,650,000        8,350,000   

Washington Center Shoppes

  NJ   2001     100   1979/1995     157,394        2,061,000        7,314,000   

West Bridgewater Plaza

  MA   2007     100   1970/2007     133,039        2,823,000        14,901,000   

Upland Square

  PA   2007     60   2009     382,578        28,187,000        —     

Yorktowne Plaza

  MD   2007     100   1970/2000     158,982        5,940,000        25,505,000   
         

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total Consolidated Portfiolio

            9,592,942      $ 275,601,000      $ 812,521,000   
         

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

100


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Schedule III

Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

Year ended December 31, 2011

(continued)

 

September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30, September 30,
              Gross amount at which carried at                    
       Subsequent      December 31, 2011                    
       cost               Building and                 Accumulated        Amount of  

Property

     capitalized      Land        improvements        Total        depreciation (4)        Encumbrance  

Norwood Shopping Center

     $ 460,000       $ 1,874,000         $ 8,913,000         $ 10,787,000         $ 1,741,000           (3

Oak Ridge

       27,000         960,000           4,281,000           5,241,000           695,000           3,351,000   

Oakland Commons

       (525,000      2,504,000           15,137,000           17,641,000           2,253,000           (3

Oakland Mills

       32,000         1,611,000           6,324,000           7,935,000           1,516,000           4,748,000   

Palmyra Shopping Center

       1,048,000         1,488,000           7,614,000           9,102,000           1,659,000           (3

Pine Grove Plaza

       125,000         2,010,000           6,614,000           8,624,000           1,443,000           5,574,000   

Port Richmond Village

       712,000         2,843,000           12,580,000           15,423,000           3,316,000           14,156,000   

Price Chopper Plaza

       (552,000      4,082,000           17,329,000           21,411,000           2,383,000           (3

River View Plaza I, II and III

       4,091,000         9,718,000           44,447,000           54,165,000           9,908,000           (3

San Souci Plaza

       1,559,000         13,406,000           21,447,000           34,853,000           4,169,000           27,200,000   

Smithfield Plaza

       323,000         2,919,000           13,088,000           16,007,000           2,366,000           10,115,000   

South Philadelphia

       2,606,000         8,222,000           38,920,000           47,142,000           10,236,000           (3

Southington Shopping Center

       35,000         —             11,869,000           11,869,000           2,481,000           5,577,000   

St. James Square

       644,000         688,000           4,482,000           5,170,000           1,160,000           (3

Suffolk Plaza

       —           1,402,000           7,236,000           8,638,000           1,948,000           4,353,000   

Swede Square

       5,419,000         2,272,000           11,647,000           13,919,000           3,089,000           10,453,000   

The Brickyard

       1,401,000         7,648,000           30,693,000           38,341,000           12,547,000           (3

The Commons

       2,871,000         3,098,000           16,918,000           20,016,000           3,895,000           (3

The Point

       14,546,000         2,996,000           25,050,000           28,046,000           5,847,000           16,277,000   

The Shops at Suffolk Downs

       8,548,000         7,580,000           19,637,000           27,217,000           2,579,000           (3

Timpany Plaza

       102,000         3,368,000           19,386,000           22,754,000           2,965,000           7,996,000   

Townfair Center

       7,453,000         3,022,000           21,239,000           24,261,000           3,136,000           16,371,000   

Trexler Mall

       3,924,000         6,932,000           36,739,000           43,671,000           6,705,000           20,637,000   

Trexlertown Plaza

       21,133,000         13,351,000           44,998,000           58,349,000           3,865,000           (3

Ukrop’s at Fredericksburg

       —           3,213,000           12,758,000           15,971,000           2,267,000           (3

Valley Plaza

       870,000         1,950,000           8,636,000           10,586,000           1,847,000           (3

Virginia Little Creek

       (10,000      1,639,000           8,351,000           9,990,000           2,068,000           5,035,000   

Washington Center Shoppes

       3,754,000         2,000,000           11,129,000           13,129,000           3,032,000           8,321,000   

West Bridgewater Plaza

       (700,000      2,630,000           14,394,000           17,024,000           1,989,000           10,659,000   

Upland Square

       65,708,000         27,112,000           66,783,000           93,895,000           3,444,000           63,768,000   

Yorktowne Plaza

       294,000         5,853,000           25,886,000           31,739,000           4,350,000           19,707,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

Tota Consolidated Portfiolio

     $ 280,999,000       $ 269,479,000         $ 1,099,642,000         $ 1,369,121,000         $ 197,608,000         $ 589,027,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

101


Table of Contents

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

Schedule III

Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

Year ended December 31, 2011

(continued)

The changes in real estate and accumulated depreciation for the three years ended December 31, 2011 are as follows (1):

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,
        2011      2010      2009  

Cost

          

Balance, beginning of the year

     $ 1,290,116,000       $ 1,273,395,000       $ 1,141,623,000   

Properties acquired

       46,863,000         —           73,152,000   

Improvements and betterments

       32,373,000         17,631,000         64,767,000   

Write-off fully-depreciated assets

       (231,000      (910,000      (6,147,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Balance, end of the year (2)

     $ 1,369,121,000       $ 1,290,116,000       $ 1,273,395,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

September 30, September 30, September 30,

Accumulated depreciation

          

Balance, beginning of the year

     $ 157,803,000       $ 126,456,000       $ 96,593,000   

Depreciation expense

       40,036,000         32,257,000         36,010,000   

Write-off fully-depreciated assets

       (231,000      (910,000      (6,147,000
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Balance, end of the year

     $ 197,608,000       $ 157,803,000       $ 126,456,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

Net book value

     $ 1,171,513,000       $ 1,132,313,000       $ 1,146,939,000   
    

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

(1)

Restated to reflect the reclassifications of properties to “real estate held for sale/conveyance” during 2011.

 

(2)

At December 31, 2011, the aggregate cost for federal income tax purposes was approximately $17.4 million less than the Company’s recorded values.

 

(3)

The total net book value of properties pledged as collateral under the Company’s secured revolving credit facilities was $374.8 million at December 31, 2011 (in addition, $24.5 million relating to properties treated as “real estate held for sale/conveyance” was also pledged as collateral under the Company’s secured revolving credit facility); the total amount outstanding under the secured revolving credit facilities was $166,317,000.

 

(4)

Depreciation is provided over the estimated useful lives of the buildings and improvements, which range from 3 to 40 years.

 

102


Table of Contents

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

The Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in its filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is reported within the time periods specified in the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). In this regard, the Company has formed a Disclosure Committee currently comprised of several of the Company’s executive officers as well as certain other employees with knowledge of information that may be considered in the SEC reporting process. The Committee has responsibility for the development and assessment of the financial and non-financial information to be included in the reports filed with the SEC, and assists the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer in connection with their certifications contained in the Company’s SEC filings. The Committee meets regularly and reports to the Audit Committee on a quarterly or more frequent basis. The Company’s principal executive and financial officers have evaluated its disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2011, and have determined that such disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

There have been no changes in the internal controls over financial reporting or in other factors that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, these internal controls over financial reporting during the last quarter of 2011.

Management Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

The Company’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. The Company’s internal control system was designed to provide reasonable assurance to the Company’s management and Board of Directors regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.

The Company’s management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011. In making this assessment, it used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”) in “Internal Control – Integrated Framework”. Based on such assessment, management believes that, as of December 31, 2011, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective based on those criteria.

Ernst & Young LLP, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, which appears elsewhere in this report.

 

103


Table of Contents

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of

Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.

We have audited Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.’s (the “Company”) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (the COSO criteria). Cedar Realty Trust, Inc.’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the accompanying Item 9A. Controls and Procedures –”Management Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting”. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on the COSO criteria.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the 2011 consolidated financial statements of Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. and our report dated March 6, 2012 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York

March 6, 2012

 

104


Table of Contents
Item 9B. Other Information

Effective March 1, 2012, the Board of Directors of the Company amended the Company’s By-Laws to add a new Section 2.11 relating to nomination of directors. Section 2.11 requires that nominations of persons by stockholders to serve on the Board of Directors must be made not less than 90 days nor more than 120 days prior to the first anniversary of the preceding year’s annual meeting of stockholders; provided, however, that with respect to the annual meeting to be held in 2012, such notice must be received not less than 60 days before the date of the annual meeting.

The By-Laws, as amended, are filed as an exhibit to this Annual Report on Form 10-K and reference is made to such exhibit for the full provisions of new Section 2.11.

Part III.

 

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

This item is incorporated by reference to the definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A.

 

Item 11. Executive Compensation

This item is incorporated by reference to the definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A.

 

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

This item is incorporated by reference to the definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A.

 

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence

This item is incorporated by reference to the definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A.

 

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services

This item is incorporated by reference to the definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A.

 

105


Table of Contents

Part IV

 

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

 

  (a)

1. Financial Statements

    The response to this portion of Item 15 is included in Item 8 of this report

2. Financial Statement Schedules

    The response to this portion of Item 15 is included in Item 8 of this report.

3. Exhibits

 

Item

  

Title or Description

3.1    Articles of Incorporation of Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., including all amendments and articles supplementary previously filed.
3.2    By-laws of Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., including all amendments previously filed.
3.3.a    Agreement of Limited Partnership of Cedar Shopping Centers Partnership, L.P., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.4 of the Registration Statement on Form S-11 filed on August 20, 2003, as amended.
3.3.b    Amendment No. 1 to Agreement of Limited Partnership of Cedar Shopping Centers Partnership, L.P., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.5 of the Registration Statement on Form S-11 filed on August 20, 2003, as amended.
3.3.c    Amendment No. 2 to Agreement of Limited Partnership of Cedar Shopping Centers Partnership, L.P., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.3.c of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.
3.3.d    Amendment No. 3 to Agreement of Limited Partnership of Cedar Shopping Centers Partnership, L.P. , incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.3.d of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.
3.3.e    Amendment No. 4 to Agreement of Limited Partnership of Cedar Shopping Centers Partnership, L.P. , incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010.
10.1.a*    Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. Senior Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of October 29, 2003, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6.a of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.
10.1.b*    Amendment No. 1 to the Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. Senior Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of October 29, 2003, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6.b of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.
10.1.c*    Amendment No. 2 to the Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. Senior Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of August 9, 2004, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6.c of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.
10.1.d*    Amendment No. 3 to the Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. Senior Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of December 19, 2005, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of Form 8-K filed on December 22, 2005.

 

106


Table of Contents

Item

  

Title or Description

10.1.e*    Amendment No. 4 to the Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. Senior Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of December 21, 2006, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1.e of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.
10.1.f*    Amendment No. 5 to the Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. Senior Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of December 11, 2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1.f of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.
10.1.g*    Amendment No. 6 to the Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. Senior Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of December 14, 2011.
10.2.a*    2005 Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Form 8-K filed on December 22, 2005.
10.2.b*    Amendment No. 1 to the 2005 Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of December 21, 2006, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2.b of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.
10.2.c*    Amendment No. 2 to the 2005 Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of December 11, 2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2.c of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.
10.2.d*    Amendment No. 3 to the 2005 Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of December 16, 2008, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2.d of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.
10.2.e*    Amendment No. 4 to the 2005 Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of June 30, 2011, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.
10.2.f*    Amendment No. 5 to the 2005 Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of December 14, 2011.
10.3.a*    Employment Agreement between Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. and Philip R. Mays, dated as of May 24, 2011, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.
10.3.b*    Employment Agreement between Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. and Bruce J. Schanzer, dated as of May 31, 2011, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.
10.3.c*    Letter Agreement between Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. and Lawrence E. Kreider, Jr., dated as of June 1, 2011, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.
10.3.d*    Letter Agreement between Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. and Leo S. Ullman, dated as of June 9, 2011, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.
10.3.e*    Amended and Restated Employment Agreement between Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. and Brenda J. Walker, dated as of September 28, 2011, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011.
10.3.f*    Consulting Agreement between Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. and Frank C. Ullman, dated as of January 13, 2011, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Form 8-K filed on January 20, 2011.
10.3.g*    Termination of Consulting Agreement between Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. and Frank C. Ullman, dated August 24, 2011.
10.4    Amended, Restated and Consolidated Loan Agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) by and among Cedar Realty Trust Partnership, L.P., KeyBank, National Association, the other lending institutions which are or may become parties to the Loan Agreement (the “Lenders”), and KeyBank National Association (as Administrative Agent), dated as of January 26, 2012.
10.5.a    Agreement Regarding Purchase of Partnership Interests By and Between Cedar Shopping Centers Partnership, L.P. and Homburg Holdings (U.S.) Inc. dated as of March 26, 2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010.

 

107


Table of Contents

Item

  

Title or Description

10.5.b    First Amendment to Agreement Regarding Purchase of Partnership Interests dated as of June 29, 2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of Form 8-K filed on December 12, 2007.
10.5.c    Second Amendment to Agreement Regarding Purchase of Partnership Interests dated as of October 31, 2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of Form 8-K filed on December 12, 2007.
10.6    Voting Agreement dated February 13, 2008 among Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc., Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc., Inland Investment Advisors, Inc. Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation and The Inland Group, Inc., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.
10.7.a    Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of October 26, 2009, by and among Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc., Cedar Shopping Centers Partnership L.P., RioCan Holdings USA Inc. and RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6.a of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010.
10.7.a.i    Amendment to Securities Purchase Agreement dated February 5, 2010, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6.b of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010.
10.7.a.ii    Amendment to Securities Purchase Agreement dated February 26, 2010, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6.c of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010.
10.7.b    Agreement regarding purchase of Partnership Interests dated October 26, 2009 between Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc. and RioCan Holdings USA Inc., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 of Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010.
21.1    List of Subsidiaries of the Registrant
23.1    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
31.1    Section 302 Chief Executive Officer Certification
31.2    Section 302 Chief Financial Officer Certification
32.1    Section 906 Chief Executive Officer Certification
32.2    Section 906 Chief Financial Officer Certification
101.INS    XBRL Instance Document
101.SCH    XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document
101.CAL    XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document
101.DEF    XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document
101.LAB    XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document
101.PRE    XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document

 

* Management contracts or compensatory plans required to be filed pursuant to Rule 601 of Regulation S-K.

 

(b) Exhibits

The response to this portion of Item 15 is included in Item 15(a) (3) above.

 

(c) The following financial statement schedules are filed as part of the report:

The response to this portion of Item 15 is included in Item 15(a) (2) above.

 

108


Table of Contents

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) 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.

CEDAR REALTY TRUST, INC.

 

/s/ BRUCE J. SCHANZER

   

/s/ PHILIP R. MAYS

Bruce J. Schanzer

   

Philip R. Mays

President

   

Chief Financial Officer

(principal executive officer)

   

(principal financial officer)

/s/ GASPARE J. SAITTA, II

   

Gaspare J. Saitta, II

   

Chief Accounting Officer

(principal accounting officer)

   

March 6, 2012

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and as of the date indicated.

 

/s/ JAMES J. BURNS

   

/s/ RAGHUNATH DAVLOOR

James J. Burns

   

Raghunath Davloor

Director

   

Director

 

/s/ PAMELA N. HOOTKIN

   

/s/ PAUL G. KIRK, JR

Pamela N. Hootkin

   

Paul G. Kirk, Jr.

Director

   

Director

 

/s/ EVERETT B. MILLER, III

   

/s/ BRUCE J. SCHANZER

Everett B. Miller, III

   

Bruce J. Schanzer

Director

   

Director

/s/ ROGER M. WIDMANN

   

Roger M. Widmann

Director

   

March 6, 2012

 

109