CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

The Company is currently involved in certain litigation that arises in the ordinary course of business, most of which is expected to be covered by liability insurance. Management makes assumptions and estimates concerning the likelihood and amount of any potential loss relating to these matters using the latest information available. The Company records a liability for litigation if an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. If an unfavorable outcome is probable and a reasonable estimate of the loss is a range, the Company accrues the best estimate within the range. If no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company accrues the minimum amount within the range. If an unfavorable outcome is probable but the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, the Company discloses the nature of the litigation and indicates that an estimate of the loss or range of loss cannot be made. If an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and the estimated loss is material, the Company discloses the nature and estimate of the possible loss of the litigation. The Company does not disclose information with respect to litigation where an unfavorable outcome is considered to be remote or where the estimated loss would not be material. Based on current expectations, such matters, both individually and in the aggregate, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the liquidity, results of operations, business or financial condition of the Company.

On March 11, 2010, TPD, a subsidiary of the Company, filed the Mississippi Case, against M Hanna, Gallet & Associates, Inc., LA Ash, Inc., EMJ and JEA (f/k/a Jacksonville Electric Authority), seeking damages for alleged property damage and related damages occurring at a shopping center development in D'Iberville, Mississippi. EMJ filed an answer and counterclaim denying liability and seeking to recover from TPD the retainage of approximately $327 allegedly owed under the construction contract. Kohl's was granted permission to intervene in the Mississippi Case and, on April 13, 2011, filed a cross-claim against TPD alleging that TPD is liable to Kohl's for unspecified damages resulting from the actions of the defendants and for the failure to perform the obligations of TPD under a Site Development Agreement with Kohl's. Kohl's also made a claim against the Company based on the Company's guarantee of the performance of TPD under the Site Development Agreement. Although, based on information currently available, the Company believes the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome related to the claims made by EMJ and Kohl's against the Company in connection with the Mississippi case is remote, the Company is providing disclosure of this litigation due to the related party relationship between the Company and EMJ described below. In August 2013, TPD received a partial settlement of $8,240 from certain of the defendants in the Mississippi Case described above. Litigation continues with other defendants in the matter, and trial is scheduled for the September 2014 jury term. See Note 19 for information on a partial settlement received subsequent to December 31, 2013.

TPD also has filed claims under several insurance policies in connection with this matter, and there are three pending lawsuits relating to insurance coverage. On October 8, 2010, First Mercury filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against M Hanna and TPD seeking a declaratory judgment concerning coverage under a liability insurance policy issued by First Mercury to M Hanna. That case was dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction and refiled in Texas state court. On June 13, 2011, TPD filed the Tennessee Case against National Union and EMJ seeking a declaratory judgment regarding coverage under a liability insurance policy issued by National Union to EMJ and recovery of damages arising out of National Union's breach of its obligations. In March 2012, Zurich American and Zurich American of Illinois, which also have issued liability insurance policies to EMJ, intervened in the Tennessee Case and the case was set for trial on October 29, 2013 but, currently, the trial date has been extended while the parties mediate the case. The first mediation session took place on January 14-15, 2014, and the second session is scheduled for March 18-19, 2014. On February 14, 2012, TPD filed claims in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against Factory Mutual Insurance Company and Federal Insurance Company seeking a declaratory judgment concerning coverage under certain builders risk and property insurance policies issued by those respective insurers to the Company.

Certain executive officers of the Company and members of the immediate family of Charles B. Lebovitz, Chairman of the Board of the Company, collectively have a significant noncontrolling interest in EMJ, a major national construction company that the Company engaged to build a substantial number of the Company's Properties. EMJ is one of the defendants in the Mississippi Case and in the Tennessee Case described above.

Environmental Contingencies

The Company evaluates potential loss contingencies related to environmental matters using the same criteria described above related to litigation matters. Based on current information, an unfavorable outcome concerning such environmental matters, both individually and in the aggregate, is considered to be reasonably possible. However, the Company believes its maximum potential exposure to loss would not be material to its results of operations or financial condition. The Company has a master insurance policy that provides coverage through 2022 for certain environmental claims up to $10,000 per occurrence and up to$50,000 in the aggregate, subject to deductibles and certain exclusions.

Other Contingencies

In September 2013, the Company redeemed all outstanding perpetual PJV units of its joint venture, CWJV with Westfield using borrowings from the Company's lines of credit. The PJV units, originally issued in 2007 as part of the acquisition of four malls in St. Louis, MO by CWJV, were redeemed for $412,986, which consisted of $408,577 for the PJV units and $4,409 for accrued and unpaid preferred returns. In accordance with the joint venture agreement, the redemption amount represented a $10,000 reduction to the preferred liquidation value of the PJV units of $418,577. The $10,000 reduction has been recorded as an increase in additional paid-in capital of the Company and as an increase to partners' capital of the Operating Partnership.

Prior to the September 2013 redemption, the terms of the joint venture agreement required that CWJV pay an annual preferred distribution at a rate of 5.0% on the preferred liquidation value of the PJV units of CWJV that were held by Westfield. Westfield had the right to have all or a portion of the PJV units redeemed by CWJV with either cash or property owned by CWJV, in each case for a net equity amount equal to the preferred liquidation value of the PJV units. At any time after January 1, 2013, Westfield could propose that CWJV acquire certain qualifying property that would be used to redeem the PJV units at their preferred liquidation value. If CWJV did not redeem the PJV units with such qualifying property, then the annual preferred distribution rate on the PJV units would increase to 9.0% beginning July 1, 2013. The Company had the right, but not the obligation, to offer to redeem the PJV units from January 31, 2013 through January 31, 2015 at their preferred liquidation value, plus accrued and unpaid distributions. The Company amended the joint venture agreement with Westfield in September 2012 to provide that, if the Company exercised its right to offer to redeem the PJV units on or before August 1, 2013, then the preferred liquidation value would be reduced by $10,000 so long as Westfield did not reject the offer and the redemption closed on or before September 30, 2013.

Guarantees

The Company may guarantee the debt of a joint venture primarily because it allows the joint venture to obtain funding at a lower cost than could be obtained otherwise. This results in a higher return for the joint venture on its investment, and a higher return on the Company’s investment in the joint venture. The Company may receive a fee from the joint venture for providing the guaranty. Additionally, when the Company issues a guaranty, the terms of the joint venture agreement typically provide that the Company may receive indemnification from the joint venture or have the ability to increase its ownership interest.

The Company owned a parcel of land in Lee's Summit, MO that it ground leased to a third party development company that developed and operates a shopping center on the land parcel. The Company had guaranteed 27% of the third party’s loans of which the maximum guaranteed amount represented 27% of the loans' capacity. The Company included an obligation of $192 in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2012 to reflect the estimated fair value of the guaranty. In November 2013, the Company sold the land parcel to the third party development company for $22,430. The Company received $15,000 in cash and a promissory note of $7,430 from the third party development company's parent. See Note 10 for additional information about the note receivable. In conjunction with the land sale, the Company's ground lease with the third party development company terminated, releasing the Company from its 27% guaranty, and the Company removed the $192 obligation from its consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2013.

The Company has guaranteed construction and land loans for Phases I and II of West Melbourne, an unconsolidated affiliate in which the Company owns a 50% interest. West Melbourne developed and operates Hammock Landing, a community center in West Melbourne, FL. Both loans were extended and modified in December 2013 and have maturity dates of November 2015 with two one-year extensions. The guaranty on the Phase I construction loan was reduced from 100% to 25% in the fourth quarter of 2013. The total amount outstanding on the Phase I loan at December 31, 2013 was $41,011, of which $10,253 represents the maximum guaranteed amount. The guaranty on the Phase II land loan will be reduced from 100% to 25% once the construction of a Carmike Cinema is complete and the theater is operational. The total amount outstanding on the Phase II loan at December 31, 2013 was $4,530 and the maximum guaranteed amount on the loan is $10,757. The guarantees will expire upon repayment of the debt. In the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, the Company reduced its obligation of $478 as of December 31, 2012 to $130 as of December 31, 2013 to reflect the estimated fair value of these guarantees.

The Company has guaranteed the construction loan of Port Orange, an unconsolidated affiliate in which the Company owns a 50% interest. Port Orange developed and operates The Pavilion at Port Orange, a community center in Port Orange, FL. In the fourth quarter of 2013, the guaranty was reduced from 100% to 25%. In December 2013, the loan was modified and extended to mature in November 2015 and has two one-year extension options available. The total amount outstanding at December 31, 2013 on the loan was $62,559, of which the maximum guaranteed amount is $15,640 . The guaranty will expire upon repayment of the debt. In the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, the Company reduced its obligation of $961 as of December 31, 2012 to $157 as of December 31, 2013 to reflect the estimated fair value of this guaranty.

The Company has guaranteed the lease performance of YTC, an unconsolidated affiliate in which it owns a 50% interest, under the terms of an agreement with a third party that owns property as part of York Town Center. Under the terms of that agreement, YTC is obligated to cause performance of the third party’s obligations as landlord under its lease with its sole tenant, including, but not limited to, provisions such as co-tenancy and exclusivity requirements. Should YTC fail to cause performance, then the tenant under the third party landlord’s lease may pursue certain remedies ranging from rights to terminate its lease to receiving reductions in rent. The Company has guaranteed YTC’s performance under this agreement up to a maximum of $22,000, which decreases by $800 annually until the guaranteed amount is reduced to $10,000. The guaranty expires on December 31, 2020. The maximum guaranteed obligation was $16,400 as of December 31, 2013. The Company entered into an agreement with its joint venture partner under which the joint venture partner has agreed to reimburse the Company 50% of any amounts it is obligated to fund under the guaranty. The Company did not record an obligation for this guaranty because it determined that the fair value of the guaranty was not material as of December 31, 2013 and 2012.

In July 2012, the Company guaranteed 100% of a term loan for Gulf Coast, an unconsolidated affiliate in which the Company owns a 50% interest, of which the maximum guaranteed amount is $6,258. The loan is for the third phase expansion of Gulf Coast Town Center, a shopping center located in Ft. Myers, FL. The total amount outstanding as of December 31, 2013 on the loan was $6,258. The guaranty will expire upon repayment of the debt. The loan matures in July 2015. The Company did not record an obligation for this guaranty because it determined that the fair value of the guaranty was not material as of December 31, 2013 and 2012.

In March 2013, the Company guaranteed 100% of a construction loan for Fremaux, an unconsolidated affiliate in which the Company owns a 65% interest, of which the maximum guaranteed amount is $46,000. The loan is for the development of Fremaux Town Center, a community center located in Slidell, LA. The total amount outstanding at December 31, 2013 on the loan was $25,800. The guaranty will expire upon repayment of the debt. The loan matures in March 2016 and has two one-year extension options for an outside maturity date of March 2018. The Company received a 1% fee for this guaranty when the loan was issued in March 2013 and has included an obligation of $460 in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2013 to reflect the estimated fair value of this guaranty.

See Note 19 for subsequent event related to Fremaux.

Performance Bonds

The Company has issued various bonds that it would have to satisfy in the event of non-performance. The total amount outstanding on these bonds was $23,513 and $29,211 at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

Ground Leases

The Company is the lessee of land at certain of its Properties under long-term operating leases, which include scheduled increases in minimum rents. The Company recognizes these scheduled rent increases on a straight-line basis over the initial lease terms. Most leases have initial terms of at least 20 years and contain one or more renewal options, generally for a minimum of 5- or 10-year periods. Lease expense recognized in the consolidated statements of operations for 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $1,371, $1,169 and $1,967, respectively.

The future obligations under these operating leases at December 31, 2013, are as follows:



2014	$	766
2015	772
2016	789
2017	789
2018	798
Thereafter	27,657
	$	31,571