Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is a party to, or has a significant relationship to, legal proceedings, lawsuits, and other claims. Except as described below, the Company is not aware of any legal proceedings or claims that it believes may have, individually or taken together, a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company’s policy is to expense legal costs as they are incurred.

Class Action. On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc. (“HCRMC”), and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DoJ”) in a suit against HCRMC arising from the False Claims Act that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff in the class action suit demands compensatory damages (in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or other relief as the Court deems just and proper. On November 28, 2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale Securities GmbH (SGSS Germany) and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief Systems (Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the class action. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on May 21, 2018 and oral arguments were held on October 23, 2018. Subsequently, on December 6, 2018, HCRMC and its officers were voluntarily dismissed from the class action lawsuit without prejudice to such claims being refiled. On November 22, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss. On December 20, 2019, Co-Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the Court's judgment. Defendants' opposition brief is due on February 18, 2020, and Co-Lead Plaintiffs' reply brief is due on March 19, 2020. The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.

Derivative Actions. On June 16, 2016 and July 5, 2016, purported stockholders of the Company filed two derivative actions, Subodh v. HCR ManorCare Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2016-00858497-CU-PT-CXC and Stearns v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2016-00861646-CU-MC-CJC, in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. As both derivative actions contained substantially the same allegations, they have been consolidated into a single action (the “California derivative action”). The consolidated action alleges that the defendants engaged in various acts of wrongdoing, including, among other things, breaching fiduciary duties by publicly making false or misleading statements of fact regarding HCRMC’s finances and prospects, and failing to maintain adequate internal controls. On April 18, 2017, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to stay the case pending disposition of the motion to dismiss the class action litigation.

On April 10, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative action, Weldon v. Martin et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-755, in federal court in the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Weldon complaint asserts similar claims to those asserted in the California derivative action. In addition, the complaint asserts a claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging that the Company made false statements in its 2016 proxy statement by not disclosing that the Company’s performance issues in 2015 were the direct result of alleged billing fraud at HCRMC. On April 18, 2017, the Court re-assigned and transferred this action to the judge presiding over the related federal securities class action. On July 11, 2017, the Court approved a stipulation by the parties to stay the case pending disposition of the motion to dismiss the class action.

On July 21, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed another derivative action, Kelley v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01259, in federal court in the Central District of California, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Kelley complaint asserts similar claims to those asserted in Weldon and in the California derivative action. Like Weldon, the Kelley complaint also additionally alleges that the Company made false statements in its 2016 proxy statement, and asserts a claim for a violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 28, 2017, the federal court in the Central District of California granted Defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of Ohio (i.e., the court where the class action and other federal derivative action are pending). The Court in the Northern District of Ohio is currently considering whether to consolidate the Weldon and Kelley actions, appointment of lead plaintiffs and counsel, and whether the stay in Weldon should continue as to either or both actions.

The Company’s Board of Directors received letters dated August 17, 2016, April 19, 2017, and April 20, 2017 from private law firms acting on behalf of clients who are purported stockholders of the Company, each asserting allegations similar to those made in the California derivative action matters discussed above. Each letter demands that the Board of Directors take action to assert the Company’s rights. The Board of Directors completed its evaluation and rejected the demand letters in December of 2017. One of the law firms has more recently requested that the Board of Directors reconsider its determination after a final ruling on the motion to dismiss in the class action litigation.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs lack standing or the lawsuits and demands are without merit, but cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings or reasonably estimate any potential loss at this time. Accordingly, no loss contingency has been recorded for these matters as of December 31, 2019, as the likelihood of loss is not considered probable or estimable.

DownREIT LLCs

In connection with the formation of certain DownREIT LLCs, members may contribute appreciated real estate to a DownREIT LLC in exchange for DownREIT units. These contributions are generally tax-deferred, so that the pre-contribution gain related to the property is not taxed to the member. However, if a contributed property is later sold by the DownREIT LLC, the unamortized pre-contribution gain that exists at the date of sale is specifically allocated and taxed to the contributing members. In many of the DownREITs, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with those members who contributed appreciated property into the DownREIT LLC. Under these indemnification agreements, if any of the appreciated real estate contributed by the members is sold by the DownREIT LLC in a taxable transaction within a specified number of years, the Company will reimburse the affected members for the federal and state income taxes associated with the pre-contribution gain that is specially allocated to the affected member under the Code (“make-whole payments”). These make-whole payments include a tax gross-up provision. These indemnification agreements have expiration terms that range through 2039 on a total of 27 properties.

Commitments

The following table summarizes the Company’s material commitments, excluding debt service obligations (see Note 10) and obligations as the lessee under operating leases (see Note 6), at December 31, 2019 (in thousands):



	Amount
Construction loan commitments⁽¹⁾	$	25,050
Lease and other contractual commitments⁽²⁾	123,957
Development commitments⁽³⁾	237,295
Total	$	386,302

_______________________________________


(1)	Represents commitments to finance development projects.

(2)

Represents the Company's commitments, as lessor, under signed leases and contracts for operating properties and includes allowances for tenant improvements and leasing commissions. Excludes allowances for tenant improvements related to developments in progress for which the Company has executed an agreement with a general contractor to complete the tenant improvements (recognized in the "Development commitments" line).


(3)	Represents construction and other commitments for developments in progress and includes allowances for tenant improvements of $88 million that the Company has provided as a lessor.

Credit Enhancement Guarantee

At December 31, 2019, certain of the Company’s senior housing facilities serve as collateral for $64 million of debt (maturing May 1, 2025) that is owed by a previous owner of the facilities. This indebtedness is guaranteed by the previous owner who has an investment grade credit rating. These senior housing facilities, which were converted to a RIDEA structure during the first quarter of 2019 (see Note 6), had a carrying value of $334 million as of December 31, 2019.

Environmental Costs

Various environmental laws govern certain aspects of the ongoing management and operation of our facilities, including those related to presence of asbestos-containing materials. The presence of, or the failure to manage and/or remediate, such materials may adversely affect the occupancy and performance of the Company's facilities. The Company monitors its properties for the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances and is not aware of any environmental liability with respect to the properties that would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, or results of operations. The Company carries environmental insurance and believes that the policy terms, conditions, limitations, and deductibles are adequate and appropriate under the circumstances, given the relative risk of loss, the cost of such coverage, and current industry practice.

General Uninsured Losses

The Company obtains various types of insurance to mitigate the impact of property, business interruption, liability, workers' compensation, flood, windstorm, earthquake, environmental, cyber, and terrorism related losses. The Company attempts to obtain appropriate policy terms, conditions, limits, and deductibles considering the relative risk of loss, the cost of such coverage, and current industry practice. There are, however, certain types of extraordinary losses, such as those due to acts of war or other events that may be either uninsurable or not economically insurable. In addition, the Company has a large number of properties that are exposed to earthquake, flood, and windstorm occurrences for which the related insurances carry high deductibles and have limits.