Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Litigation
Litigation	Litigation Litigation Relating to the NHP Acquisition In the weeks following the announcement of our acquisition of NHP on February 28, 2011, purported stockholders of NHP filed seven lawsuits against NHP and its directors. Six of these lawsuits also named Ventas, Inc. as a defendant and five named our subsidiary, Needles Acquisition LLC, as a defendant. On June 9, 2011, we and NHP agreed on a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in the consolidated action pending in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the “Maryland State Court”), which required us and NHP to make certain supplemental disclosures to stockholders concerning the merger. We and NHP made the supplemental disclosures on June 10, 2011. The parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement and Release on April 18, 2012, which was approved by the Maryland State Court on October 30, 2012. Litigation Relating to the Cogdell Acquisition In the weeks following the announcement of our acquisition of Cogdell on December 27, 2011, purported stockholders of Cogdell filed seven lawsuits against Cogdell and its directors. Each of these lawsuits also named Ventas, Inc. as a defendant, and certain of the lawsuits also named our subsidiaries, TH Merger Corp, Inc. and TH Merger Sub, LLC, as defendants. Plaintiffs commenced these actions in two jurisdictions: the Superior Court of the State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County; and the Maryland State Court. Each of these actions was brought as a putative class action and alleges that Cogdell’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cogdell’s stockholders by approving the merger agreement with us. The complaints also allege that Ventas, Inc. and, in some cases, Cogdell, TH Merger Corp, Inc. and TH Merger Sub, LLC aided and abetted those purported breaches. All of the complaints request an injunction of the merger, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other unspecified monetary relief. On February 29, 2012, we and Cogdell agreed on a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in the Maryland and North Carolina actions, pursuant to which Cogdell agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to stockholders concerning the merger. Cogdell made the supplemental disclosures on February 29, 2012. The parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement and Release on December 26, 2012, which is subject to final approval by the Maryland State Court. We believe that each of these actions is without merit. Litigation Relating to the Sunrise REIT Acquisition In May 2007, we filed a lawsuit against HCP in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (the “District Court”), asserting claims of tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage arising out of our 2007 acquisition of Sunrise REIT. Following trial in the District Court, in September 2009, a jury awarded us $101.6 million in compensatory damages from HCP, and following subsequent cross-appeals by both parties, in May 2011, the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed the jury verdict in our favor and ruled that we were entitled to seek punitive damages against HCP. In August 2011, HCP paid us $102.8 million for the judgment plus certain costs and interest, and in November 2011, HCP paid us an additional $125.0 million in final settlement of our outstanding litigation. As part of the settlement, both parties agreed to dismissals of their cases, appeals and petitions, and all aspects of the litigation were terminated. After certain fees and expenses, the contingent fee for our outside legal counsel and donations to the Ventas Charitable Foundation, we recognized approximately $202.3 million in net proceeds from the compensatory damages award and the final settlement in our Consolidated Statements of Income for the year ended December 31, 2011. Proceedings against Tenants, Operators and Managers From time to time, Kindred, Brookdale Senior Living, Atria, Sunrise and our other tenants, operators and managers are parties to certain legal actions, regulatory investigations and claims arising in the conduct of their business and operations. Even though we generally are not party to these proceedings, the unfavorable resolution of any such actions, investigations or claims could, individually or in the aggregate, materially adversely affect such tenants’, operators’ or managers’ liquidity, financial condition or results of operations and their ability to satisfy their respective obligations to us, which, in turn, could have a Material Adverse Effect on us. Proceedings Indemnified and Defended by Third Parties From time to time, we are party to certain legal actions, regulatory investigations and claims for which third parties are contractually obligated to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless. The tenants of our triple-net leased properties and, in some cases, their affiliates are required by the terms of their leases and other agreements with us to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless against certain actions, investigations and claims arising in the course of their business and related to the operations of our triple-net leased properties. In addition, third parties from whom we acquired certain of our assets and, in some cases, their affiliates are required by the terms of the related conveyance documents to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless against certain actions, investigations and claims related to the acquired assets and arising prior to our ownership or related to excluded assets and liabilities. In some cases, a portion of the purchase price consideration is held in escrow for a specified period of time as collateral for these indemnification obligations. We are presently being defended by certain tenants and other obligated third parties in these types of matters. We cannot assure you that our tenants, their affiliates or other obligated third parties will continue to defend us in these matters, that our tenants, their affiliates or other obligated third parties will have sufficient assets, income and access to financing to enable them to satisfy their defense and indemnification obligations to us or that any purchase price consideration held in escrow will be sufficient to satisfy claims for which we are entitled to indemnification. The unfavorable resolution of any such actions, investigations or claims could, individually or in the aggregate, materially adversely affect our tenants’ or other obligated third parties’ liquidity, financial condition or results of operations and their ability to satisfy their respective obligations to us, which, in turn, could have a Material Adverse Effect on us. Proceedings Arising in Connection with Senior Living and MOB Operations; Other Litigation From time to time, we are party to various legal actions, regulatory investigations and claims (some of which may not be insured) arising in connection with our senior living and MOB operations or otherwise in the course of our business. In limited circumstances, the manager of the applicable seniors housing community or MOB may be contractually obligated to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless against such actions, investigations and claims. It is the opinion of management that, except as otherwise set forth in this Note 16, the disposition of any such actions, investigations and claims that are currently pending will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect on us. However, regardless of their merits, these matters may force us to expend significant financial resources. We are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions, investigations and claims, and if management’s assessment of our liability with respect thereto is incorrect, such actions, investigations and claims could have a Material Adverse Effect on us.

Litigation

Litigation Relating to the NHP Acquisition

In the weeks following the announcement of our acquisition of NHP on February 28, 2011, purported stockholders of NHP filed seven lawsuits against NHP and its directors. Six of these lawsuits also named Ventas, Inc. as a defendant and five named our subsidiary, Needles Acquisition LLC, as a defendant.

On June 9, 2011, we and NHP agreed on a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in the consolidated action pending in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the “Maryland State Court”), which required us and NHP to make certain supplemental disclosures to stockholders concerning the merger. We and NHP made the supplemental disclosures on June 10, 2011. The parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement and Release on April 18, 2012, which was approved by the Maryland State Court on October 30, 2012.

Litigation Relating to the Cogdell Acquisition

In the weeks following the announcement of our acquisition of Cogdell on December 27, 2011, purported stockholders of Cogdell filed seven lawsuits against Cogdell and its directors. Each of these lawsuits also named Ventas, Inc. as a defendant, and certain of the lawsuits also named our subsidiaries, TH Merger Corp, Inc. and TH Merger Sub, LLC, as defendants. Plaintiffs commenced these actions in two jurisdictions: the Superior Court of the State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County; and the Maryland State Court.

Each of these actions was brought as a putative class action and alleges that Cogdell’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cogdell’s stockholders by approving the merger agreement with us. The complaints also allege that Ventas, Inc. and, in some cases, Cogdell, TH Merger Corp, Inc. and TH Merger Sub, LLC aided and abetted those purported breaches. All of the complaints request an injunction of the merger, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other unspecified monetary relief.

On February 29, 2012, we and Cogdell agreed on a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in the Maryland and North Carolina actions, pursuant to which Cogdell agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to stockholders concerning the merger. Cogdell made the supplemental disclosures on February 29, 2012. The parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement and Release on December 26, 2012, which is subject to final approval by the Maryland State Court.

We believe that each of these actions is without merit.

Litigation Relating to the Sunrise REIT Acquisition

In May 2007, we filed a lawsuit against HCP in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (the “District Court”), asserting claims of tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business advantage arising out of our 2007 acquisition of Sunrise REIT. Following trial in the District Court, in September 2009, a jury awarded us $101.6 million in compensatory damages from HCP, and following subsequent cross-appeals by both parties, in May 2011, the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed the jury verdict in our favor and ruled that we were entitled to seek punitive damages against HCP.

In August 2011, HCP paid us $102.8 million for the judgment plus certain costs and interest, and in November 2011, HCP paid us an additional $125.0 million in final settlement of our outstanding litigation. As part of the settlement, both parties agreed to dismissals of their cases, appeals and petitions, and all aspects of the litigation were terminated. After certain fees and expenses, the contingent fee for our outside legal counsel and donations to the Ventas Charitable Foundation, we recognized approximately $202.3 million in net proceeds from the compensatory damages award and the final settlement in our Consolidated Statements of Income for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Proceedings against Tenants, Operators and Managers

From time to time, Kindred, Brookdale Senior Living, Atria, Sunrise and our other tenants, operators and managers are parties to certain legal actions, regulatory investigations and claims arising in the conduct of their business and operations. Even though we generally are not party to these proceedings, the unfavorable resolution of any such actions, investigations or claims could, individually or in the aggregate, materially adversely affect such tenants’, operators’ or managers’ liquidity, financial condition or results of operations and their ability to satisfy their respective obligations to us, which, in turn, could have a Material Adverse Effect on us.

Proceedings Indemnified and Defended by Third Parties

From time to time, we are party to certain legal actions, regulatory investigations and claims for which third parties are contractually obligated to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless. The tenants of our triple-net leased properties and, in some cases, their affiliates are required by the terms of their leases and other agreements with us to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless against certain actions, investigations and claims arising in the course of their business and related to the operations of our triple-net leased properties. In addition, third parties from whom we acquired certain of our assets and, in some cases, their affiliates are required by the terms of the related conveyance documents to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless against certain actions, investigations and claims related to the acquired assets and arising prior to our ownership or related to excluded assets and liabilities. In some cases, a portion of the purchase price consideration is held in escrow for a specified period of time as collateral for these indemnification obligations. We are presently being defended by certain tenants and other obligated third parties in these types of matters. We cannot assure you that our tenants, their affiliates or other obligated third parties will continue to defend us in these matters, that our tenants, their affiliates or other obligated third parties will have sufficient assets, income and access to financing to enable them to satisfy their defense and indemnification obligations to us or that any purchase price consideration held in escrow will be sufficient to satisfy claims for which we are entitled to indemnification. The unfavorable resolution of any such actions, investigations or claims could, individually or in the aggregate, materially adversely affect our tenants’ or other obligated third parties’ liquidity, financial condition or results of operations and their ability to satisfy their respective obligations to us, which, in turn, could have a Material Adverse Effect on us.

Proceedings Arising in Connection with Senior Living and MOB Operations; Other Litigation

From time to time, we are party to various legal actions, regulatory investigations and claims (some of which may not be insured) arising in connection with our senior living and MOB operations or otherwise in the course of our business. In limited circumstances, the manager of the applicable seniors housing community or MOB may be contractually obligated to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless against such actions, investigations and claims. It is the opinion of management that, except as otherwise set forth in this Note 16, the disposition of any such actions, investigations and claims that are currently pending will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect on us. However, regardless of their merits, these matters may force us to expend significant financial resources. We are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions, investigations and claims, and if management’s assessment of our liability with respect thereto is incorrect, such actions, investigations and claims could have a Material Adverse Effect on us.