Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Lessee Arrangements - Ground Leases

The Company is a lessee in ground lease agreements for eight of its properties. The ground leases have lease durations, including assumed renewals, ranging from 18.0 years to 44.8 years as of December 31, 2019. On January 1, 2019, the Company

adopted ASC 842 and recorded ROU assets and lease liabilities related to these ground leases, which are classified as operating leases under the lease standard (see Note 3 — Summary of Significant Accounting Polices for additional information on the impact of adopting the new standard).

As of December 31, 2019, the Company’s balance sheet includes operating lease right-of-use assets and operating lease liabilities of $19.0 million and $19.3 million, respectively. In determining operating ROU assets and lease liabilities for the Company’s existing operating leases upon the adoption of the new lease guidance as well as for new operating leases in the current period, the Company estimated an appropriate incremental borrowing rate on a fully-collateralized basis for the terms of the leases. Because the terms of the Company’s ground leases are significantly longer than the terms of borrowings available to the Company on a fully-collateralized basis, the Company’s estimate of this rate required significant judgment.

The Company’s operating ground leases have a weighted-average remaining lease term, including assumed renewals, of 28.9 years and a weighted-average discount rate of 7.5% as of December 31, 2019. For the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company paid cash of $1.5 million, for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities and recorded expense of $2.7 million, on a straight-line basis in accordance with the standard which included an out-of-period adjustment of $0.9 million (see Note 3 — Summary of Significant Accounting Polices for additional information). The lease expense is recorded in property operating expenses in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss). The Company did not enter into any additional ground leases during the nine months ended December 31, 2019.

The following table reflects the base cash rental payments due from the Company as of December 31, 2019:



(In thousands)	Future Base Rent Payments
2020	$	1,498
2021	1,537
2022	1,554
2023	1,555
2024	1,566
Thereafter	46,055
Total lease payments	53,765
Less: Effects of discounting	$	(34,447	)
Total present value of lease payments	$	19,318

Litigation and Regulatory Matters

On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of RCA filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland a putative class action lawsuit against RCA, the Company, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson, Edward G. Rendell (Weil, Michelson and Rendell, the “Director Defendants”), and AR Global, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by RCA and the Director Defendants, violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by AR Global and the Director Defendants, breaches of fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by AR Global and the Company in connection with the negotiation of and proxy solicitation for a shareholder vote on what was at the time the proposed Merger and an amendment to RCA’s charter. The complaint sought on behalf of the putative class rescission of the Merger, which was voted on and approved by RCA stockholders on February 13, 2017, and closed on February 16, 2017, together with unspecified rescissory damages, unspecified actual damages, and costs and disbursements of the action. RCA was sponsored and advised by affiliates of the Advisor. On April 26, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff, along with other stockholders of RCA, filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2017. The amended complaint named additional individuals and entities as defendants (David Gong, Stanley Perla, Lisa Kabnick, all of whom were independent directors of the Company at the time of the Merger (“Additional Director Defendants”), Nicholas Radesca, the Company’s chief financial officer at the time of the Merger and RCA’s advisor), added counts alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with the Registration Statement for the proposed merger, under Section 13(e) of the Exchange Act, and counts for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Company, RCA, the Director Defendants, the Additional Director Defendants and Nicholas Radesca deny wrongdoing and liability and intend to vigorously defend the action. On August 14, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 29, 2018, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint. On April 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order. On March 11, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint.

On March 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was subsequently denied on April 9, 2019. Due to the stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonable possible losses are determinable at this time. No provisions for such losses have been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2019.

On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch and William M. Kahane. On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among other things, assert some claims on the plaintiff’s own behalf and other claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated shareholders of the Company as a class. On April 26, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the proxy materials used to solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the Company’s 2017 annual meeting were materially incomplete and misleading. The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, as well as control person liability against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane under 20(a). It also asserts state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and abetting such breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR Global and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission of the Company’s advisory agreement (or severable portions thereof) which became effective when the Merger became effective, and a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the Company’s advisory agreement are void. The Company believes the second amended complaint is without merit and intends to defend vigorously. On June 22, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 1, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss. Defendants filed reply papers on August 22, 2018, and oral argument was held on September 26, 2018. On September 23, 2019, the Court granted defendants’ motions and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff has appealed that order. Appellate briefing is ongoing and oral argument on the appeal is not yet scheduled. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this time.

On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D. Kabnick. The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to which RCA shareholders acquired shares of the Company during the Merger contained materially incomplete and misleading information. The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla, and Ms. Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane under Section 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the Company’s sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement. The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to defend vigorously. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this time.

On March 6, 2019, Susan Bracken, Michael P. Miller and Jamie Beckett, purported stockholders of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, on behalf of themselves and others who purchased shares of common stock through the Pre-Listing DRIP, against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D. Kabnick. The complaint alleges that the April and December 2016 registration statements pursuant to which class members purchased shares contained materially incomplete and misleading information. The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against the Company, Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong and Perla, and Ms. Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane under Section 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and either rescission of the Company’s sale of stock or rescissory damages. The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to defend vigorously. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this time.

On April 30, 2019, Lynda Callaway, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D. Kabnick. The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to which plaintiff and other class members acquired shares of the Company during the Merger contained materially incomplete and misleading information. The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against the Company, Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla, and Ms. Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the Company’s sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this time.

On July 11, 2019, the New York State Supreme Court issued an order consolidating the three above-mentioned cases: Terry Hibbard, Bracken, and Callaway (the “Consolidated Cases”). The Court also stayed the Consolidated Cases pending a decision on the motions to dismiss in the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following the federal court’s decision on the motions to dismiss in the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation, on October 31, 2019 plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint in the Consolidated Cases seeking substantially similar remedies from the same defendants. The Company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on December 31, 2019. The briefing with respect to the motion to dismiss is ongoing, and the Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

There are no other material legal or regulatory proceedings pending or known to be contemplated against the Company.

During the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company incurred legal costs related to the above litigation of approximately $1.3 million and $1.9 million, respectively. A portion of these litigation costs are subject to a claim for reimbursement under the insurance policies maintained by the Company, and during the year ended December 31, 2019, reimbursements of $2.3 million were received and recorded in other income in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. The Company may receive additional reimbursements in the future.

Environmental Matters

In connection with the ownership and operation of real estate, the Company may potentially be liable for costs and damages related to environmental matters. The Company maintains environmental insurance for its properties that provides coverage for potential environmental liabilities, subject to the policy’s coverage conditions and limitations. The Company has not been notified by any governmental authority of any non-compliance, liability or other claim, and is not aware of any other environmental condition that it believes will have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.