The Company is the lessee under several ground lease agreements and its executive office lease agreement. The executive office lease agreement was terminated during the third quarter of 2022. As of December 31, 2022, the Company’s weighted average remaining lease term is approximately 49.0 years and the weighted average discount rate used to calculate the Company’s lease liability is approximately 8.6%. Rent expense under the Company’s ground lease and executive office lease agreements was approximately $0.3 million, $0.5 million and $0.8 million for 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

The following table represents a reconciliation of the Company’s undiscounted future minimum lease payments for its ground lease and executive office lease agreements applicable to lease liabilities as of December 31, 2022:


2023	$	179,000
2024		179,000
2025		179,000
2026		179,000
2027		179,000
Thereafter		7,852,000
Total undiscounted future minimum lease payments		8,747,000
Future minimum lease payments, discount		(6,685,000	)
Lease liabilities	$	2,062,000

The Company carries comprehensive liability, fire, extended coverage, business interruption and rental loss insurance covering all of the properties in its portfolio under an insurance policy, in addition to other coverages, such as trademark and pollution coverage that may be appropriate for certain of its properties. Additionally, the Company carries a directors’, officers’, entity and employment practices liability insurance policy that covers such claims made against the Company and its directors and officers. The Company believes the policy specifications and insured limits are appropriate and adequate for its properties given the relative risk of loss, the cost of the coverage and industry practice; however, its insurance coverage may not be sufficient to fully cover its losses.

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. Generally, the Company’s tenants must comply with environmental laws and meet any remediation requirements. In addition, leases typically impose obligations on tenants to indemnify the Company from any compliance costs the Company may incur as a result of environmental conditions on the property caused by the tenant. However, if a lease does not require compliance, or if a tenant fails to or cannot comply, the Company could be forced to pay these costs. Management is unaware of any environmental matters that would have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

The Company is involved in various legal proceedings in the ordinary course of its business, including, but not limited to commercial disputes. The Company believes that such litigation, claims and administrative proceedings will not have a material adverse impact on its financial position or its results of operations. The Company records a liability when it considers the loss probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. In addition, the below legal proceedings are in process:

As described in Note 1, on March 2, 2022, the Company entered into definitive agreements for the Transactions, which provided for the sale of the Company and its assets in a series of related all-cash transactions. On April 5, 2022, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint against the Company and the Board of Directors prior to the Merger in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled Stein v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. et. al., Civil Action No. 22-cv-1944. On April 6, 2022, another purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint against the Company and the former Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled Wang v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. et. al., Civil Action No. 22-cv-1975. On April 18, 2022, another purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint against the Company and the former Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled Whitfield v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. et. al., Civil Action No. 22-cv-02204. Also on April 18, 2022, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint against the Company and the former Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled Waterman v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. et. al., Civil Action No. 22-cv-01489. On April 22, 2022, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint against the Company and the former Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled Thornburgh v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. et. al., Civil Action No. 22-cv-02304. In each action, the complaint alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) in connection with the proposed Transactions. The complaints generally allege that the preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by the Company

with the SEC on April 5, 2022 omitted material information regarding financial projections, the financial analysis conducted by JLL Securities in connection with its fairness opinion, conflicts of interest on behalf of JLL Securities and BofA Securities, and the terms of BofA Securities’ engagement. The complaints sought, among other things, an injunction preventing the consummation of the Transactions, or, in the event the Transactions are consummated, damages resulting from Defendants’ alleged violations of the Exchange Act. The lawsuits were each voluntarily dismissed in July, August or September 2022.

On April 8, 2022, several purported holders of the Company’s outstanding preferred stock filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, the Board of Directors prior to the Merger, and WHLR in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Maryland entitled Sydney, et al. v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al., (Case No. C-15-CV-22-001527). The original complaint alleged on behalf of a putative class of holders of the Company’s preferred stock, among other things, against the Company and the former Board of Directors, claims for breach of contract with respect to the articles supplementary governing the terms of the Company’s preferred stock, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against WHLR. The original complaint sought, among other things, a declaration that holders of the Company’s preferred stock are entitled to a liquidation preference as set forth in the articles supplementary governing the terms of the Company’s preferred stock, compensatory damages, and an injunction enjoining the merger with WHLR, and an injunction enjoining the distribution to the Company’s common shareholders of the proceeds of any of the Transactions pending a determination of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.

On May 6, 2022, Plaintiffs in the Sydney action filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged on behalf of a putative class of holders of the Company’s preferred stock, among other things, against the Company and the former Board of Directors, claims for breach of contract with respect to the articles supplementary governing the terms of the Company’s preferred stock and breach of fiduciary duty, and, against WHLR, tortious interference and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The Sydney amended complaint sought, among other things, (i) a declaration that holders of the Company’s preferred stock are entitled to exercise either their liquidation rights or conversion rights as set forth in the articles supplementary, (ii) compensatory damages, (iii) an injunction enjoining the distribution to the Company’s common shareholders of the proceeds of the Grocery-Anchored Portfolio Sale, and (iv) an injunction enjoining the merger with WHLR. On May 6, 2022, the Plaintiffs in Sydney filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to temporarily enjoin, until the final resolution of the litigation (i) the distribution of the gross proceeds from the Grocery-Anchored Portfolio Sale to the common stockholders, (ii) the closing of the merger with WHLR, and (iii) the imposition of a constructive trust over the gross proceeds from both the Grocery Anchored Portfolio Sale and the merger with WHLR. Also on May, 6, 2022, a purported holder of the Company’s outstanding preferred stock filed a putative class action complaint against the Company and the Board of Directors prior to the Merger in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, entitled Kim v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 22-cv-01103. The original complaint alleged on behalf of a putative class of holders of the Company’s preferred stock, among other things, claims for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the articles supplementary governing the terms of the Company’s preferred stock and breach of fiduciary duty. On May 11, 2022, the Company, the former Board of Directors of the Company and WHLR removed the Sydney action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. 8:22-cv-01142-GLR. On May 16, 2022, the court ordered that a hearing on the Sydney Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction will be held on June 22, 2022. On June 2, 2022, the Plaintiffs in Kim filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (i) to require that the Company provide preferred shareholders with a vote to approve the Grocery-Anchored Portfolio Sale and the Merger, and (ii) requiring Cedar disclose to preferred shareholders that the Grocery-Anchored Portfolio Sale and Merger entitled the preferred stockholders to exercise their change of control conversion right. The court agreed to consolidate the Kim Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction with the Sydney Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, and to hear arguments on both motions at the hearing on June 22, 2022.

On June 23, 2022, following a hearing on both the Sydney and Kim motions for preliminary injunction, the court issued an order denying both motions for preliminary injunction, holding that the Plaintiffs in both cases were unlikely to succeed on the merits of any of their contractual or fiduciary duty claims, and that Plaintiffs had not established that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was denied. By order dated July 11, 2022, the Court consolidated the Sydney and Kim cases and set an August 24, 2022 deadline for the Plaintiffs in both cases to file a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on August 24, 2022, and, on October 7, 2022, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on November 21, 2022 and Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motions to dismiss on December 21, 2022. On February 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a question of law to the Maryland Supreme Court, and Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff's motion was filed on February 24, 2023. At this juncture, the outcome of the litigation is uncertain.

On July 11, 2022, a purported holder of the Company's outstanding preferred stock filed a complaint against the Company and the Board of Directors prior to the Merger in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled High Income Securities Fund v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al., No. 2:22-cv-4031. The complaint alleged that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions, and that

the former Board of Directors are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On August 12, 2022, Defendants requested permission to file a motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ request on September 7, 2022. The court granted Defendants’ request to file a motion to dismiss on October 25, 2022. Defendants served their motion to dismiss on December 23, 2022, which Plaintiff opposed on January 27, 2023. Defendants filed a reply brief on the motion to dismiss on February 17, 2023. At this juncture, the outcome of the litigation is uncertain.

On October 14, 2022, a purported holder of the Company's outstanding preferred stock filed a putative class action against the Company, the Board of Directors prior to the Merger, and WHLR in Nassau County Supreme Court entitled Krasner v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al., (Case No. 613985/2022). The complaint alleges on behalf of a putative class of holders of the Company's preferred stock, among other things, against the Company and the former Board of Directors, claims for breach of contract with respect to the articles supplementary governing the terms of the Company's preferred stock, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against WHLR. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and expert fees. Defendants removed the case to a federal court on November 14, 2022. On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff moved to remand the case, Defendants opposed Plaintiff's remand motion on December 28, 2022, and Plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of his remand motion on January 4, 2023. Defendants' deadline to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the complaint is 30 days after a ruling on Plaintiff's remand motion. At this juncture, the outcome of the litigation is uncertain.