Item 1 - Business
Overview
We were incorporated in the State of Maryland on March 31, 1992. We are a self-administered real estate investment trust (“REIT”), investing in income-producing healthcare facilities, principally long-term care facilities located in the United States. We provide lease or mortgage financing to qualified operators of skilled nursing facilities (“SNFs”) and, to a lesser extent, assisted living facilities (“ALFs”), rehabilitation and acute care facilities. We have historically financed investments through borrowings under our revolving credit facilities, private placements or public offerings of debt or equity securities, the assumption of secured indebtedness, or a combination of these methods.
Our portfolio of investments, as of December 31, 2006, consisted of 239 healthcare facilities, located in 27 states and operated by 32 third-party operators. This portfolio was made up of:
•
long-term healthcare facilities and two rehabilitation hospitals owned and leased to third parties; and
•
fixed rate mortgages on 9 long-term healthcare facilities.
As of December 31, 2006, our gross investments in these facilities, net of impairments and before reserve for uncollectible loans, totaled approximately $1.3 billion. In addition, we also held miscellaneous investments of approximately $22 million at December 31, 2006, consisting primarily of secured loans to third-party operators of our facilities.
Our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), including our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports are accessible free of charge on our website at www.omegahealthcare.com.
Summary of Financial Information
The following tables summarize our revenues and real estate assets by asset category for 2006, 2005 and 2004. (See Item 7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Note 3 - Properties and Note 4 - Mortgage Notes Receivable).
Revenues by Asset Category
(in thousands)
Real Estate Assets by Asset Category
(in thousands)
Description of the Business
Investment Strategy. We maintain a diversified portfolio of long-term healthcare facilities and mortgages on healthcare facilities located throughout the United States. In making investments, we generally have focused on established, creditworthy, middle-market healthcare operators that meet our standards for quality and experience of management. We have sought to diversify our investments in terms of geographic locations and operators.
In evaluating potential investments, we consider such factors as:
•
the quality and experience of management and the creditworthiness of the operator of the facility;
•
the facility's historical and forecasted cash flow and its ability to meet operational needs, capital expenditure requirements and lease or debt service obligations, providing a competitive return on our investment;
•
the construction quality, condition and design of the facility;
•
the geographic area of the facility;
•
the tax, growth, regulatory and reimbursement environment of the jurisdiction in which the facility is located;
•
the occupancy and demand for similar healthcare facilities in the same or nearby communities; and
•
the payor mix of private, Medicare and Medicaid patients.
One of our fundamental investment strategies is to obtain contractual rent escalations under long-term, non-cancelable, "triple-net" leases and fixed-rate mortgage loans, and to obtain substantial liquidity deposits. Additional security is typically provided by covenants regarding minimum working capital and net worth, liens on accounts receivable and other operating assets, and various provisions for cross-default, cross-collateralization and corporate/personal guarantees, when appropriate.
We prefer to invest in equity ownership of properties. Due to regulatory, tax or other considerations, we sometimes pursue alternative investment structures, including convertible participating and participating mortgages, which can achieve returns comparable to equity investments. The following summarizes the primary investment structures we typically use. Average annualized yields reflect existing contractual arrangements. However, in view of the ongoing financial challenges in the long-term care industry, we cannot assure you that the operators of our facilities will meet their payment obligations in full or when due. Therefore, the annualized yields as of January 1, 2007 set forth below are not necessarily indicative of or a forecast of actual yields, which may be lower.
Purchase/Leaseback. In a Purchase/Leaseback transaction, we purchase the property from the operator and lease it back to the operator over terms typically ranging from 5 to 15 years, plus renewal options. The leases originated by us generally provide for minimum annual rentals which are subject to annual formula increases based upon such factors as increases in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). The average annualized yield from leases was approximately 11.3% at January 1, 2007.
Convertible Participating Mortgage. Convertible participating mortgages are secured by first mortgage liens on the underlying real estate and personal property of the mortgagor. Interest rates are usually subject to annual increases based upon increases in the CPI. Convertible participating mortgages afford us the option to convert our mortgage into direct ownership of the property, generally at a point five to ten years from inception. If we exercise our purchase option, we are obligated to lease the property back to the operator for the balance of the originally agreed term and for the originally agreed participations in revenues or CPI adjustments. This allows us to capture a portion of the potential appreciation in value of the real estate. The operator has the right to buy out our option at prices based on specified formulas. At December 31, 2006, we did not have any convertible participating mortgages.
Participating Mortgage. Participating mortgages are similar to convertible participating mortgages except that we do not have a purchase option. Interest rates are usually subject to annual increases based upon increases in the CPI. At December 31, 2006, we did not have any participating mortgages.
Fixed-Rate Mortgage. These mortgages have a fixed interest rate for the mortgage term and are secured by first mortgage liens on the underlying real estate and personal property of the mortgagor. The average annualized yield on these investments was approximately 11.4% at January 1, 2007.
The table set forth in Item 2 - Properties contains information regarding our real estate properties, their geographic locations, and the types of investment structures as of December 31, 2006.
Borrowing Policies. We may incur additional indebtedness and have historically sought to maintain an annualized total debt-to-EBITDA ratio in the range of 4 to 5 times. Annualized EBITDA is defined as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization for a twelve month period. We intend to periodically review our policy with respect to our total debt-to-EBITDA ratio and to modify the policy as our management deems prudent in light of prevailing market conditions. Our strategy generally has been to match the maturity of our indebtedness with the maturity of our investment assets and to employ long-term, fixed-rate debt to the extent practicable in view of market conditions in existence from time to time.
We may use proceeds of any additional indebtedness to provide permanent financing for investments in additional healthcare facilities. We may obtain either secured or unsecured indebtedness and may obtain indebtedness that may be convertible into capital stock or be accompanied by warrants to purchase capital stock. Where debt financing is available on terms deemed favorable, we generally may invest in properties subject to existing loans, secured by mortgages, deeds of trust or similar liens on properties.
If we need capital to repay indebtedness as it matures, we may be required to liquidate investments in properties at times which may not permit realization of the maximum recovery on these investments. This could also result in adverse tax consequences to us. We may be required to issue additional equity interests in our company, which could dilute your investment in our company. (See Item 7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Liquidity and Capital Resources).
Federal Income Tax Considerations. We intend to make and manage our investments, including the sale or disposition of property or other investments, and to operate in such a manner as to qualify as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Internal Revenue Code”), unless, because of changes in circumstances or changes in the Internal Revenue Code, our Board of Directors determines that it is no longer in our best interest to qualify as a REIT. So long as we qualify as a REIT, we generally will not pay federal income taxes on the portion of our taxable income that is distributed to stockholders (See Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition - Results of Operations; 2006 Taxes).
During the fourth quarter of 2006, we determined that certain terms of the Advocat Inc. (“Advocat”) Series B non-voting, redeemable convertible preferred stock held by us until October 20, 2006 could be interpreted as affecting our compliance with federal income tax rules applicable to REITs regarding related party tenant income. As such, Advocat, one of our lessees, may be deemed to be a “related party tenant” under applicable federal income tax rules. In such event, our rental income from Advocat would not be qualifying income under the gross income tests that are applicable to REITs. In order to maintain qualification as a REIT, we annually must satisfy certain tests regarding the source of our gross income. The applicable federal income tax rules provide a “savings clause” for REITs that fail to satisfy the REIT gross income tests if such failure is due to reasonable cause. A REIT that qualifies for the savings clause will retain its REIT status but will pay a tax under section 857(b)(5) and related interest. On December 15, 2006, we submitted to the IRS a request for a closing agreement to resolve the “related party tenant” issue. Since that time, we have had additional conversations with the IRS, who has encouraged us to move forward with the process of obtaining a closing agreement, and we have submitted additional documentation in support of the issuance of a closing agreement with respect to this matter. While we believe there are valid arguments that Advocat should not be deemed a “related party tenant,” the matter is not free from doubt, and we believe it is in our best interest to request a closing agreement in order to resolve the matter, minimize potential penalties and obtain assurances regarding our continuing REIT status. By submitting a request for a closing agreement, we intend to establish that any failure to satisfy the gross income tests was due to reasonable cause. In the event that it is determined that the “savings clause” described above does not apply, we could be treated as having failed to qualify as a REIT for one or more taxable years. If we fail to qualify for taxation as a REIT for any taxable year, our income will be taxed at regular corporate rates, and we could be disqualified as a REIT for the following four taxable years.
As a result of the potential related party tenant issue described above, we have recorded a $2.3 million and $2.4 million provision for income taxes, including related interest expense, for the year ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The amount accrued represents the estimated liability and interest, which remains subject to final resolution and therefore is subject to change. In addition, in October 2006, we restructured our Advocat relationship and have been advised by tax counsel that we will not receive any non-qualifying related party tenant income from Advocat in future fiscal years. Accordingly, we do not expect to incur tax expense associated with related party tenant income in future periods commencing January 1, 2007, assuming we enter into a closing agreement with the IRS that recognizes that reasonable cause existed for any failure to satisfy the REIT gross income tests as explained above.
Policies With Respect To Certain Activities. If our Board of Directors determines that additional funding is required, we may raise such funds through additional equity offerings, debt financing, and retention of cash flow (subject to provisions in the Internal Revenue Code concerning taxability of undistributed REIT taxable income) or a combination of these methods.
Borrowings may be in the form of bank borrowings, secured or unsecured, and publicly or privately placed debt instruments, purchase money obligations to the sellers of assets, long-term, tax-exempt bonds or financing from banks, institutional investors or other lenders, or securitizations, any of which indebtedness may be unsecured or may be secured by mortgages or other interests in our assets. Holders of such indebtedness may have recourse to all or any part of our assets or may be limited to the particular asset to which the indebtedness relates.
We have authority to offer our common stock or other equity or debt securities in exchange for property and to repurchase or otherwise reacquire our shares or any other securities and may engage in such activities in the future.
Subject to the percentage of ownership limitations and gross income and asset tests necessary for REIT qualification, we may invest in securities of other REITs, other entities engaged in real estate activities or securities of other issuers, including for the purpose of exercising control over such entities.
We may engage in the purchase and sale of investments. We do not underwrite the securities of other issuers.
Our officers and directors may change any of these policies without a vote of our stockholders.
In the opinion of our management, our properties are adequately covered by insurance.
Executive Officers of Our Company
As of February 21, 2007, the executive officers of our company were:
C. Taylor Pickett (45) is the Chief Executive Officer and has served in this capacity since June 2001. Mr. Pickett is also a Director and has served in this capacity since May 30, 2002. Mr. Pickett’s term as a Director expires in 2008. Prior to joining our company, Mr. Pickett served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from January 1998 to June 2001 of Integrated Health Services, Inc., a public company specializing in post-acute healthcare services. He also served as Executive Vice President of Mergers and Acquisitions from May 1997 to December 1997 of Integrated Health Services, Inc. Prior to his roles as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of Mergers and Acquisitions, Mr. Pickett served as the President of Symphony Health Services, Inc. from January 1996 to May 1997.
Daniel J. Booth (43) is the Chief Operating Officer and has served in this capacity since October 2001. Prior to joining our company, Mr. Booth served as a member of Integrated Health Services’ management team since 1993, most recently serving as Senior Vice President, Finance. Prior to joining Integrated Health Services, Mr. Booth was Vice President in the Healthcare Lending Division of Maryland National Bank (now Bank of America).
R. Lee Crabill, Jr. (53) is the Senior Vice President of Operations of our company and has served in this capacity since July 2001. Mr. Crabill served as a Senior Vice President of Operations at Mariner Post-Acute Network, Inc. from 1997 through 2000. Prior to that, he served as an Executive Vice President of Operations at Beverly Enterprises.
Robert O. Stephenson (43) is the Chief Financial Officer and has served in this capacity since August 2001. Prior to joining our company, Mr. Stephenson served from 1996 to July 2001 as the Senior Vice President and Treasurer of Integrated Health Services, Inc. Prior to Integrated Health Services, Mr. Stephenson held various positions at CSX Intermodal, Inc., Martin Marietta Corporation and Electronic Data Systems.
As of December 31, 2006, we had 18 full-time employees, including the four executive officers listed above.
Item 1A
Item 1A - Risk Factors
You should carefully consider the risks described below. These risks are not the only ones that we may face. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we currently deem immaterial, also may become important factors that affect us. If any of the following risks occurs, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Risks Related to the Operators of Our Facilities
Our financial position could be weakened and our ability to fulfill our obligations under our indebtedness could be limited if any of our major operators were unable to meet their obligations to us or failed to renew or extend their relationship with us as their lease terms expire, or if we were unable to lease or re-lease our facilities or make mortgage loans on economically favorable terms. These adverse developments could arise due to a number of factors, including those listed below.
The bankruptcy, insolvency or financial deterioration of our operators could delay our ability to collect unpaid rents or require us to find new operators for rejected facilities.
We are exposed to the risk that our operators may not be able to meet their obligations, which may result in their bankruptcy or insolvency. Although our leases and loans provide us the right to terminate an investment, evict an operator, demand immediate repayment and other remedies, title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1330, as amended and supplemented, (the “Bankruptcy Code”), affords certain protections to a party that has filed for bankruptcy that would probably render certain of these remedies unenforceable, or, at the very least, delay our ability to pursue such remedies. In addition, an operator in bankruptcy may be able to restrict our ability to collect unpaid rent or mortgage payments during the bankruptcy case.
Furthermore, the receipt of liquidation proceeds or the replacement of an operator that has defaulted on its lease or loan could be delayed by the approval process of any federal, state or local agency necessary for the transfer of the property or the replacement of the operator licensed to manage the facility. In addition, some significant expenditures associated with real estate investment, such as real estate taxes and maintenance costs, are generally not reduced when circumstances cause a reduction in income from the investment. In order to protect our investments, we may take possession of a property or even become licensed as an operator, which might expose us to successor liability under government programs (or otherwise) or require us to indemnify subsequent operators to whom we might transfer the operating rights and licenses. Third-party payors may also suspend payments to us following foreclosure until we receive the required licenses to operate the facilities. Should such events occur, our income and cash flow from operations would be adversely affected.
A debtor may have the right to assume or reject a lease with us under bankruptcy law and his or her decision could delay or limit our ability to collect rents thereunder.
If one or more of our lessees files bankruptcy relief, the Bankruptcy Code provides that a debtor has the option to assume or reject the unexpired lease within a certain period of time. However, our lease arrangements with operators that operate more than one of our facilities are generally made pursuant to a single master lease covering all of that operator’s facilities leased from us, and consequently, it is possible that in bankruptcy the debtor-lessee may be required to assume or reject the master lease as a whole, rather than making the decision on a facility by facility basis, thereby preventing the debtor-lessee from assuming only the better performing facilities and terminating the leasing arrangement with respect to the poorer performing facilities. The Bankruptcy Code generally requires that a debtor must assume or reject a contract in its entirety. Thus, a debtor cannot choose to keep the beneficial provisions of a contract while rejecting the burdensome ones; the contract must be assumed or rejected as a whole. However, where under applicable law a contract (even though it is contained in a single document) is determined to be divisible or severable into different agreements, or similarly where a collection of documents are determined to constitute separate agreements instead of a single, integrated contract, then in those circumstances a debtor/trustee may be allowed to assume some of the divisible or separate agreements while rejecting the others. Whether a master lease agreement would be determined to be a single contract or a divisible agreement, and hence whether a bankruptcy court would require a master lease agreement to be assumed or rejected as a whole, would depend on a number of factors some of which may include, but may not necessarily be limited to, the following:
·
applicable state law;
·
the parties’ intent;
·
whether the master lease agreement and related documents were executed contemporaneously;
·
the nature and purpose of the relevant documents;
·
whether the obligations in various documents are independent;
·
whether the leases are coterminous;
·
whether a single check is paid for all properties;
·
whether rent is apportioned among the leases;
·
whether termination of one lease constitutes termination of all;
·
whether the leases may be separately assigned or sublet;
·
whether separate consideration exists for each lease; and
·
whether there are cross-default provisions.
The Bankruptcy Code provides that a debtor has the power and the option to assume, assume and assign to a third party, or reject the unexpired lease. In the event that the unexpired lease is assumed on behalf of the debtor-lessee, obligations under the lease generally would be entitled to administrative priority over other unsecured pre-bankruptcy claims. If the debtor chooses to assume the lease (or assume and assign the lease), then the debtor is required to cure all monetary defaults, or provide adequate assurance that it will promptly cure such defaults. However, the debtor-lessee may not have to cure historical non-monetary defaults under the lease to the extent that they have not resulted in an actual pecuniary loss, but the debtor-lessee must cure non-monetary defaults under the lease from the time of assumption going forward. A debtor must generally pay all rent payments coming due under the lease after the bankruptcy filing but before the assumption or rejection of the lease. The Bankruptcy Code provides that the debtor-lessee must make the decision regarding assumption, assignment or rejection within a certain period of time. For cases filed on or after October 17, 2005, the time period to make the decision is days, subject to one extension ‘‘for cause.’’ A bankruptcy court may only further extend this period for 90 days unless the lessor consents in writing.
If a tenant rejects a lease under the Bankruptcy Code, it is deemed to be a pre-petition breach of the lease, and the lessor’s claim arising therefrom may be limited to any unpaid rent already due plus an amount equal to the rent reserved under the lease, without acceleration, for the greater of one year, and 15%, not to exceed three years, of the remaining term of such lease, following the earlier of the petition date and repossession or surrender of the leased property. If the debtor rejects the lease, the facility would be returned to us. In that event, if we were unable to re-lease the facility to a new operator on favorable terms or only after a significant delay, we could lose some or all of the associated revenue from that facility for an extended period of time.
With respect to our mortgage loans, the imposition of an automatic stay under bankruptcy law could negatively impact our ability to foreclose or seek other remedies against a mortgagor.
Generally, with respect to our mortgage loans, the imposition of an automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code precludes us from exercising foreclosure or other remedies against the debtor without first obtaining stay relief from the bankruptcy court. Pre-petition creditors generally do not have rights to the cash flows from the properties underlying the mortgages unless their security interest in the property includes such cash flows. Mortgagees may, however, receive periodic payments from the debtor/mortgagors. Such payments are referred to as adequate protection payments. The timing of adequate protection payments and whether the mortgagees are entitled to such payments depends on negotiating an acceptable settlement with the mortgagor (subject to approval of the bankruptcy court) or on the order of the bankruptcy court in the event a negotiated settlement cannot be achieved.
A mortgagee also is treated differently from a landlord in three key respects. First, the mortgage loan is not subject to assumption, assumption and assignment, or rejection. Second, the mortgagee’s loan may be divided into a secured claim for the portion of the mortgage debt that does not exceed the value of the property securing the debt and a general unsecured claim for the portion of the mortgage debt that exceeds the value of the property. A secured creditor such as our company is entitled to the recovery of interest and reasonable fees, costs and charges provided for under the agreement under which such claim arose only if, and to the extent that, the value of the collateral exceeds the amount owed. If the value of the collateral exceeds the amount of the debt, interest as well as reasonable fees, costs, and charges are not necessarily required to be paid during the progress of the bankruptcy case, but they will accrue until confirmation of a plan of reorganization/liquidation and are generally paid at confirmation or such other time as the court orders unless the debtor voluntarily makes a payment. If the value of the collateral held by a secured creditor is less than the secured debt (including such creditor’s secured debt and the secured debt of any creditor with a more senior security interest in the collateral), interest on the loan for the time period between the filing of the case and confirmation may be disallowed. Finally, while a lease generally would either be assumed, assumed and assigned, or rejected with all of its benefits and burdens intact, the terms of a mortgage, including the rate of interest and the timing of principal payments, may be modified under certain circumstances if the debtor is able to effect a ‘‘cram down’’ under the Bankruptcy Code. Before such a ‘‘cram down’’ is allowed, the Bankruptcy Court must conclude that the treatment of the secured creditor’s claim is ‘‘fair and equitable.’’
If an operator files bankruptcy, our leases with the debtor could be recharacterized as a financing agreement, which could negatively impact our rights under the lease.
Another risk regarding our leases is that in an operator’s bankruptcy the leases could be re-characterized as a financing agreement. In making such a determination, a bankruptcy court may consider certain factors, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
·
whether rent is calculated to provide a return on investment rather than to compensate the lessor for loss, use and possession of the property;
·
whether the property is purchased specifically for the lessee’s use or whether the lessee selected, inspected, contracted for, and received the property;
·
whether the transaction is structured solely to obtain tax advantages;
·
whether the lessee is entitled to obtain ownership of the property at the expiration of the lease, and whether any option purchase price is unrelated to the value of the land; and
·
whether the lessee assumed many of the obligations associated with outright ownership of the property, including responsibility for maintenance, repair, property taxes and insurance.
If an operator defaults under one of our mortgage loans, we may have to foreclose on the mortgage or protect our interest by acquiring title to the property and thereafter making substantial improvements or repairs in order to maximize the facility’s investment potential. Operators may contest enforcement of foreclosure or other remedies, seek bankruptcy protection against our exercise of enforcement or other remedies and/or bring claims for lender liability in response to actions to enforce mortgage obligations. If an operator seeks bankruptcy protection, the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code would preclude us from enforcing foreclosure or other remedies against the operator unless relief is first obtained from the court having jurisdiction over the bankruptcy case. High ‘‘loan to value’’ ratios or declines in the value of the facility may prevent us from realizing an amount equal to our mortgage loan upon foreclosure.
Operators that fail to comply with the requirements of governmental reimbursement programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, licensing and certification requirements, fraud and abuse regulations or new legislative developments may be unable to meet their obligations to us.
Our operators are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations that are subject to frequent and substantial changes (sometimes applied retroactively) resulting from legislation, adoption of rules and regulations, and administrative and judicial interpretations of existing law. The ultimate timing or effect of these changes cannot be predicted. These changes may have a dramatic effect on our operators’ costs of doing business and on the amount of reimbursement by both government and other third-party payors. The failure of any of our operators to comply with these laws, requirements and regulations could adversely affect their ability to meet their obligations to us. In particular:
·
Medicare and Medicaid. A significant portion of our SNF operators’ revenue is derived from governmentally-funded reimbursement programs, primarily Medicare and Medicaid, and failure to maintain certification and accreditation in these programs would result in a loss of funding from such programs. Loss of certification or accreditation could cause the revenues of our operators to decline, potentially jeopardizing their ability to meet their obligations to us. In that event, our revenues from those facilities could be reduced, which could in turn cause the value of our affected properties to decline. State licensing and Medicare and Medicaid laws also require operators of nursing homes and assisted living facilities to comply with extensive standards governing operations. Federal and state agencies administering those laws regularly inspect such facilities and investigate complaints. Our operators and their managers receive notices of potential sanctions and remedies from time to time, and such sanctions have been imposed from time to time on facilities operated by them. If they are unable to cure deficiencies, which have been identified or which are identified in the future, such sanctions may be imposed and if imposed may adversely affect our operators’ revenues, potentially jeopardizing their ability to meet their obligations to us.
·
Licensing and Certification. Our operators and facilities are subject to regulatory and licensing requirements of federal, state and local authorities and are periodically audited by them to confirm compliance. Failure to obtain licensure or loss or suspension of licensure would prevent a facility from operating or result in a suspension of reimbursement payments until all licensure issues have been resolved and the necessary licenses obtained or reinstated. Our SNFs require governmental approval, in the form of a certificate of need that generally varies by state and is subject to change, prior to the addition or construction of new beds, the addition of services or certain capital expenditures. Some of our facilities may be unable to satisfy current and future certificate of need requirements and may for this reason be unable to continue operating in the future. In such event, our revenues from those facilities could be reduced or eliminated for an extended period of time or permanently.
·
Fraud and Abuse Laws and Regulations. There are various extremely complex and largely uninterpreted federal and state laws governing a wide array of referrals, relationships and arrangements and prohibiting fraud by healthcare providers, including criminal provisions that prohibit filing false claims or making false statements to receive payment or certification under Medicare and Medicaid, or failing to refund overpayments or improper payments. Governments are devoting increasing attention and resources to anti-fraud initiatives against healthcare providers. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Balanced Budget Act expanded the penalties for healthcare fraud, including broader provisions for the exclusion of providers from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Furthermore, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in cooperation with other federal and state agencies continues to focus on the activities of SNFs in certain states in which we have properties. In addition, the federal False Claims Act allows a private individual with knowledge of fraud to bring a claim on behalf of the federal government and earn a percentage of the federal government’s recovery. Because of these incentives, these so-called ‘‘whistleblower’’ suits have become more frequent. The violation of any of these laws or regulations by an operator may result in the imposition of fines or other penalties that could jeopardize that operator’s ability to make lease or mortgage payments to us or to continue operating its facility.
·
Legislative and Regulatory Developments. Each year, legislative proposals are introduced or proposed in Congress and in some state legislatures that would affect major changes in the healthcare system, either nationally or at the state level. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, or Medicare Modernization Act, which is one example of such legislation, was enacted in late 2003. The Medicare reimbursement changes for the long term care industry under this Act are limited to a temporary increase in the per diem amount paid to SNFs for residents who have AIDS. The significant expansion of other benefits for Medicare beneficiaries under this Act, such as the expanded prescription drug benefit, could result in financial pressures on the Medicare program that might result in future legislative and regulatory changes with impacts for our operators. Other proposals under consideration include efforts by individual states to control costs by decreasing state Medicaid reimbursements, efforts to improve quality of care and reduce medical errors throughout the health care industry and cost-containment initiatives by public and private payors. We cannot accurately predict whether any proposals will be adopted or, if adopted, what effect, if any, these proposals would have on operators and, thus, our business.
Regulatory proposals and rules are released on an ongoing basis that may have major impacts on the healthcare system generally and the skilled nursing and long-term care industries in particular.
Our operators depend on reimbursement from governmental and other third-party payors and reimbursement rates from such payors may be reduced.
Changes in the reimbursement rate or methods of payment from third-party payors, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs, or the implementation of other measures to reduce reimbursements for services provided by our operators has in the past, and could in the future, result in a substantial reduction in our operators’ revenues and operating margins. Additionally, net revenue realizable under third-party payor agreements can change after examination and retroactive adjustment by payors during the claims settlement processes or as a result of post-payment audits. Payors may disallow requests for reimbursement based on determinations that certain costs are not reimbursable or reasonable or because additional documentation is necessary or because certain services were not covered or were not medically necessary. There also continue to be new legislative and regulatory proposals that could impose further limitations on government and private payments to healthcare providers. In some cases, states have enacted or are considering enacting measures designed to reduce their Medicaid expenditures and to make changes to private healthcare insurance. We cannot assure you that adequate reimbursement levels will continue to be available for the services provided by our operators, which are currently being reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid or private third-party payors. Further limits on the scope of services reimbursed and on reimbursement rates could have a material adverse effect on our operators’ liquidity, financial condition and results of operations, which could cause the revenues of our operators to decline and potentially jeopardize their ability to meet their obligations to us.
Our operators may be subject to significant legal actions that could subject them to increased operating costs and substantial uninsured liabilities, which may affect their ability to pay their lease and mortgage payments to us.
As is typical in the healthcare industry, our operators are often subject to claims that their services have resulted in resident injury or other adverse effects. Many of these operators have experienced an increasing trend in the frequency and severity of professional liability and general liability insurance claims and litigation asserted against them. The insurance coverage maintained by our operators may not cover all claims made against them nor continue to be available at a reasonable cost, if at all. In some states, insurance coverage for the risk of punitive damages arising from professional liability and general liability claims and/or litigation may not, in certain cases, be available to operators due to state law prohibitions or limitations of availability. As a result, our operators operating in these states may be liable for punitive damage awards that are either not covered or are in excess of their insurance policy limits. We also believe that there has been, and will continue to be, an increase in governmental investigations of long-term care providers, particularly in the area of Medicare/Medicaid false claims, as well as an increase in enforcement actions resulting from these investigations. Insurance is not available to cover such losses. Any adverse determination in a legal proceeding or governmental investigation, whether currently asserted or arising in the future, could have a material adverse effect on an operator’s financial condition. If an operator is unable to obtain or maintain insurance coverage, if judgments are obtained in excess of the insurance coverage, if an operator is required to pay uninsured punitive damages, or if an operator is subject to an uninsurable government enforcement action, the operator could be exposed to substantial additional liabilities.
Increased competition as well as increased operating costs have resulted in lower revenues for some of our operators and may affect the ability of our tenants to meet their payment obligations to us.
The healthcare industry is highly competitive and we expect that it may become more competitive in the future. Our operators are competing with numerous other companies providing similar healthcare services or alternatives such as home health agencies, life care at home, community-based service programs, retirement communities and convalescent centers. We cannot be certain the operators of all of our facilities will be able to achieve occupancy and rate levels that will enable them to meet all of their obligations to us. Our operators may encounter increased competition in the future that could limit their ability to attract residents or expand their businesses and therefore affect their ability to pay their lease or mortgage payments.
The market for qualified nurses, healthcare professionals and other key personnel is highly competitive and our operators may experience difficulties in attracting and retaining qualified personnel. Increases in labor costs due to higher wages and greater benefits required to attract and retain qualified healthcare personnel incurred by our operators could affect their ability to pay their lease or mortgage payments. This situation could be particularly acute in certain states that have enacted legislation establishing minimum staffing requirements.
Risks Related to Us and Our Operations
In addition to the operator related risks discussed above, there are a number of risks directly associated with us and our operations.
We rely on external sources of capital to fund future capital needs, and if we encounter difficulty in obtaining such capital, we may not be able to make future investments necessary to grow our business or meet maturing commitments.
In order to qualify as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code, we are required, among other things, to distribute each year to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income. Because of this distribution requirement, we may not be able to fund, from cash retained from operations, all future capital needs, including capital needs to make investments and to satisfy or refinance maturing commitments. As a result, we rely on external sources of capital, including debt and equity financing. If we are unable to obtain needed capital at all or only on unfavorable terms from these sources, we might not be able to make the investments needed to grow our business, or to meet our obligations and commitments as they mature, which could negatively affect the ratings of our debt and even, in extreme circumstances, affect our ability to continue operations. Our access to capital depends upon a number of factors over which we have little or no control, including general market conditions and the market’s perception of our growth potential and our current and potential future earnings and cash distributions and the market price of the shares of our capital stock. Generally speaking, difficult capital market conditions in our industry during the past several years and our need to stabilize our portfolio have limited our access to capital. The “related party tenant” issue discussed in “Note 10 - Taxes” may make it more difficult for us to raise additional capital unless and until we enter into a closing agreement with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), or otherwise resolve such issue. While we currently have sufficient cash flow from operations to fund our obligations and commitments, we may not be in position to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities for growth in the event that we are unable to access the capital markets on a timely basis or we are only able to obtain financing on unfavorable terms.
Our ability to raise capital through sales of equity is dependent, in part, on the market price of our common stock, and our failure to meet market expectations with respect to our business could negatively impact the market price of our common stock and limit our ability to sell equity.
As with other publicly-traded companies, the availability of equity capital will depend, in part, on the market price of our common stock which, in turn, will depend upon various market conditions and other factors that may change from time to time including:
·
the extent of investor interest;
·
the general reputation of REITs and the attractiveness of their equity securities in comparison to other equity securities, including securities issued by other real estate-based companies;
·
our financial performance and that of our operators;
·
the contents of analyst reports about us and the REIT industry;
·
general stock and bond market conditions, including changes in interest rates on fixed income securities, which may lead prospective purchasers of our common stock to demand a higher annual yield from future distributions;
·
our failure to maintain or increase our dividend, which is dependent, to a large part, on growth of funds from operations which in turn depends upon increased revenues from additional investments and rental increases; and
·
other factors such as governmental regulatory action and changes in REIT tax laws.
The market value of the equity securities of a REIT is generally based upon the market’s perception of the REIT’s growth potential and its current and potential future earnings and cash distributions. Our failure to meet the market’s expectation with regard to future earnings and cash distributions would likely adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
We are subject to risks associated with debt financing, which could negatively impact our business, limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders and to repay maturing debt.
Financing for future investments and our maturing commitments may be provided by borrowings under our revolving senior secured credit facility, as amended (“New Credit Facility”), private or public offerings of debt, the assumption of secured indebtedness, mortgage financing on a portion of our owned portfolio or through joint ventures. We are subject to risks normally associated with debt financing, including the risks that our cash flow will be insufficient to make timely payments of interest, that we will be unable to refinance existing indebtedness and that the terms of refinancing will not be as favorable as the terms of existing indebtedness. If we are unable to refinance or extend principal payments due at maturity or pay them with proceeds from other capital transactions, our cash flow may not be sufficient in all years to pay distributions to our stockholders and to repay all maturing debt. Furthermore, if prevailing interest rates, changes in our debt ratings or other factors at the time of refinancing result in higher interest rates upon refinancing, the interest expense relating to that refinanced indebtedness would increase, which could reduce our profitability and the amount of dividends we are able to pay. Moreover, additional debt financing increases the amount of our leverage.
Certain of our operators account for a significant percentage of our real estate investment and revenues.
At December 31, 2006, approximately 25% of our real estate investments were operated by two public companies: Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. (“Sun”) (17%) and Advocat (8%). Our largest private company operators (by investment) were CommuniCare Health Services, Inc. (“CommuniCare”) (15%), Haven Eldercare, LLC (“Haven”) (9%), Home Quality Management, Inc. (“HQM”) (8%), Guardian LTC Management, Inc. (“Guardian”) (7%), Nexion Health, Inc. (“Nexion”) (6%) and Essex Healthcare Corporation (6%). No other operator represents more than 4% of our investments. The three states in which we had our highest concentration of investments were Ohio (22%), Florida (14%) and Pennsylvania (9%) at December 31, 2006.
For the year ended December 31, 2006, our revenues from operations totaled $135.7 million, of which approximately $25.1 million were from Sun (19%), $20.3 million from CommuniCare (15%) and $15.3 million from Advocat (11%). No other operator generated more than 9% of our revenues from operations for the year ended December 31, 2006.
The failure or inability of any of these operators to pay their obligations to us could materially reduce our revenues and net income, which could in turn reduce the amount of dividends we pay and cause our stock price to decline.
Unforeseen costs associated with the acquisition of new properties could reduce our profitability.
Our business strategy contemplates future acquisitions that may not prove to be successful. For example, we might encounter unanticipated difficulties and expenditures relating to any acquired properties, including contingent liabilities, or newly acquired properties might require significant management attention that would otherwise be devoted to our ongoing business. If we agree to provide funding to enable healthcare operators to build, expand or renovate facilities on our properties and the project is not completed, we could be forced to become involved in the development to ensure completion or we could lose the property. These costs may negatively affect our results of operations.
Our assets may be subject to impairment charges.
We periodically, but not less than annually, evaluate our real estate investments and other assets for impairment indicators. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based on factors such as market conditions, operator performance and legal structure. If we determine that a significant impairment has occurred, we would be required to make an adjustment to the net carrying value of the asset, which could have a material adverse affect on our results of operations and funds from operations in the period in which the write-off occurs. During the year ended December 31, 2006, we recognized an impairment loss associated with three facilities for approximately $0.5 million.
We may not be able to sell certain closed facilities for their book value.
From time to time, we close facilities and actively market such facilities for sale. To the extent we are unable to sell these properties for our book value, we may be required to take a non-cash impairment charge or loss on the sale, either of which would reduce our net income.
Our substantial indebtedness could adversely affect our financial condition.
We have substantial indebtedness and we may increase our indebtedness in the future. As of December 31, 2006, we had total debt of approximately $676 million, of which $150 million consisted of borrowings under our New Credit Facility, $310 million of which consisted of our 7% senior notes due 2014, $175 million of which consisted of our 7% senior notes due 2016 and $39 million of non-recourse debt to us resulting from the consolidation of a variable interest entity (“VIE”) in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, (“FIN 46R”). Our level of indebtedness could have important consequences to our stockholders. For example, it could:
·
limit our ability to satisfy our obligations with respect to holders of our capital stock;
·
increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;
·
limit our ability to obtain additional financing to fund future working capital, capital expenditures and other general corporate requirements, or to carry out other aspects of our business plan;
·
require us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to payments on indebtedness, thereby reducing the availability of such cash flow to fund working capital, capital expenditures and other general corporate requirements, or to carry out other aspects of our business plan;
·
require us to pledge as collateral substantially all of our assets;
·
require us to maintain certain debt coverage and financial ratios at specified levels, thereby reducing our financial flexibility;
·
limit our ability to make material acquisitions or take advantage of business opportunities that may arise;
·
expose us to fluctuations in interest rates, to the extent our borrowings bear variable rates of interests;
·
limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and industry; and
·
place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that have less debt.
Our real estate investments are relatively illiquid.
Real estate investments are relatively illiquid and, therefore, tend to limit our ability to vary our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions. All of our properties are ‘‘special purpose’’ properties that could not be readily converted to general residential, retail or office use. Healthcare facilities that participate in Medicare or Medicaid must meet extensive program requirements, including physical plant and operational requirements, which are revised from time to time. Such requirements may include a duty to admit Medicare and Medicaid patients, limiting the ability of the facility to increase its private pay census beyond certain limits. Medicare and Medicaid facilities are regularly inspected to determine compliance and may be excluded from the programs-in some cases without a prior hearing-for failure to meet program requirements. Transfers of operations of nursing homes and other healthcare-related facilities are subject to regulatory approvals not required for transfers of other types of commercial operations and other types of real estate. Thus, if the operation of any of our properties becomes unprofitable due to competition, age of improvements or other factors such that our lessee or mortgagor becomes unable to meet its obligations on the lease or mortgage loan, the liquidation value of the property may be substantially less, particularly relative to the amount owing on any related mortgage loan, than would be the case if the property were readily adaptable to other uses. The receipt of liquidation proceeds or the replacement of an operator that has defaulted on its lease or loan could be delayed by the approval process of any federal, state or local agency necessary for the transfer of the property or the replacement of the operator with a new operator licensed to manage the facility. In addition, certain significant expenditures associated with real estate investment, such as real estate taxes and maintenance costs, are generally not reduced when circumstances cause a reduction in income from the investment. Should such events occur, our income and cash flows from operations would be adversely affected.
As an owner or lender with respect to real property, we may be exposed to possible environmental liabilities.
Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, a current or previous owner of real property or a secured lender, such as us, may be liable in certain circumstances for the costs of investigation, removal or remediation of, or related releases of, certain hazardous or toxic substances at, under or disposed of in connection with such property, as well as certain other potential costs relating to hazardous or toxic substances, including government fines and damages for injuries to persons and adjacent property. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner knew of, or was responsible for, the presence or disposal of such substances and liability may be imposed on the owner in connection with the activities of an operator of the property. The cost of any required investigation, remediation, removal, fines or personal or property damages and the owner’s liability therefore could exceed the value of the property and/or the assets of the owner. In addition, the presence of such substances, or the failure to properly dispose of or remediate such substances, may adversely affect our operators’ ability to attract additional residents, the owner’s ability to sell or rent such property or to borrow using such property as collateral which, in turn, would reduce the owner’s revenues.
Although our leases and mortgage loans require the lessee and the mortgagor to indemnify us for certain environmental liabilities, the scope of such obligations may be limited. For instance, most of our leases do not require the lessee to indemnify us for environmental liabilities arising before the lessee took possession of the premises. Further, we cannot assure you that any such mortgagor or lessee would be able to fulfill its indemnification obligations.
The industry in which we operate is highly competitive. This competition may prevent us from raising prices at the same pace as our costs increase.
We compete for additional healthcare facility investments with other healthcare investors, including other REITs. The operators of the facilities compete with other regional or local nursing care facilities for the support of the medical community, including physicians and acute care hospitals, as well as the general public. Some significant competitive factors for the placing of patients in skilled and intermediate care nursing facilities include quality of care, reputation, physical appearance of the facilities, services offered, family preferences, physician services and price. If our cost of capital should increase relative to the cost of capital of our competitors, the spread that we realize on our investments may decline if competitive pressures limit or prevent us from charging higher lease or mortgage rates.
We are named as defendants in litigation arising out of professional liability and general liability claims relating to our previously owned and operated facilities that if decided against us, could adversely affect our financial condition.
We and several of our wholly-owned subsidiaries have been named as defendants in professional liability and general liability claims related to our owned and operated facilities. Other third-party managers responsible for the day-to-day operations of these facilities have also been named as defendants in these claims. In these suits, patients of certain previously owned and operated facilities have alleged significant damages, including punitive damages, against the defendants. The lawsuits are in various stages of discovery and we are unable to predict the likely outcome at this time. We continue to vigorously defend these claims and pursue all rights we may have against the managers of the facilities, under the terms of the management agreements. We have insured these matters, subject to self-insured retentions of various amounts. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in our defense of these matters or in asserting our claims against various managers of the subject facilities or that the amount of any settlement or judgment will be substantially covered by insurance or that any punitive damages will be covered by insurance.
We are subject to significant anti-takeover provisions.
Our articles of incorporation and bylaws contain various procedural and other requirements which could make it difficult for stockholders to effect certain corporate actions. Our Board of Directors is divided into three classes and the members of our Board of Directors are elected for terms that are staggered. Our Board of Directors also has the authority to issue additional shares of preferred stock and to fix the preferences, rights and limitations of the preferred stock without stockholder approval. We have also adopted a stockholders rights plan which provides for share purchase rights to become exercisable at a discount if a person or group acquires more than 9.9% of our common stock or announces a tender or exchange offer for more than 9.9% of our common stock. These provisions could discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or make it more difficult for a third party to gain control of us, which could adversely affect the market price of our securities.
We may change our investment strategies and policies and capital structure.
Our Board of Directors, without the approval of our stockholders, may alter our investment strategies and policies if it determines in the future that a change is in our stockholders’ best interests. The methods of implementing our investment strategies and policies may vary as new investments and financing techniques are developed.
If we fail to maintain our REIT status, we will be subject to federal income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates.
We were organized to qualify for taxation as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code. Except with respect to the potential Advocat “related party tenant” issue discussed below, we believe we have conducted, and we intend to continue to conduct, our operations so as to qualify as a REIT. Qualification as a REIT involves the satisfaction of numerous requirements, some on an annual and some on a quarterly basis, established under highly technical and complex provisions of the Internal Revenue Code for which there are only limited judicial and administrative interpretations and involve the determination of various factual matters and circumstances not entirely within our control. We cannot assure you that we will at all times satisfy these rules and tests.
If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, as a result of a determination that we failed to meet the annual distribution requirement or otherwise, we would be subject to federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates with respect to each such taxable year for which the statute of limitations remains open. Moreover, unless entitled to relief under certain statutory provisions, we also would be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification is lost. This treatment would significantly reduce our net earnings and cash flow because of our additional tax liability for the years involved, which could significantly impact our financial condition.
In connection with exploring the potential disposition of the Advocat Series B preferred stock, we were advised by our tax counsel that due to the structure of the Series B preferred stock issued by Advocat to us in 2000 in connection with a prior restructuring, Advocat may be deemed to be a “related party tenant” under applicable federal income tax rules and, in such event, rental income from Advocat would not be qualifying income under the gross income tests that are applicable to REITs. In order to maintain qualification as a REIT, we annually must satisfy certain tests regarding the source of our gross income. The applicable federal income tax rules provide a “savings clause” for REITs that fail to satisfy the REIT gross income tests, if such failure is due to reasonable cause. A REIT that qualifies for the savings clause will retain its REIT status but will pay a tax. On December 15, 2006, we submitted to the IRS a request for a closing agreement to resolve the “related party tenant” issue. Since that time, we have had additional conversations with the IRS, who has encouraged us to move forward with the process of obtaining a closing agreement, and we have submitted additional documentation in support of the issuance of a closing agreement with respect to this matter. While we believe there are valid arguments that Advocat should not be deemed a “related party tenant,” the matter is still not free from doubt, and we believe it is in our best interest to move forward with the request for a closing agreement in order to resolve the matter, minimize potential penalties and obtain assurances regarding our continuing REIT status. If we are able to enter into the closing agreement with the IRS, the closing agreement will conclude that any failure to satisfy the gross income tests was due to reasonable cause. In the event that it is determined that the “savings clause” described above does not apply and we are unable to conclude a closing agreement with the IRS, we could be treated as having failed to qualify as a REIT for one or more taxable years. If we fail to qualify for taxation as a REIT for any taxable year, our income will be taxed at regular corporate rates, and we could be disqualified as a REIT for the following four taxable years.
To maintain our REIT status, we must distribute at least 90% of our taxable income each year.
We generally must distribute annually at least 90% of our taxable income to our stockholders to maintain our REIT status. To the extent that we do not distribute all of our net capital gain or do distribute at least 90%, but less than 100% of our “REIT taxable income,” as adjusted, we will be subject to tax thereon at regular ordinary and capital gain corporate tax rates.
Even if we remain qualified as a REIT, we may face other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow.
Even if we remain qualified for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, tax on income from some activities conducted as a result of a foreclosure, and state or local income, property and transfer taxes. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for the payment of our debt obligations. In addition, we may derive income through Taxable REIT Subsidiaries (“TRS”), which will then be subject to corporate level income tax at regular rates.
Complying with REIT requirements may affect our profitability.
To qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the nature and diversification of our assets, the sources of our income and the amounts we distribute to our stockholders. Thus we may be required to liquidate otherwise attractive investments from our portfolio in order to satisfy the asset and income tests or to qualify under certain statutory relief provisions. We may also be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution (e.g., if we have assets which generate mismatches between taxable income and available cash). Then, having to comply with the distribution requirement could cause us to: (i) sell assets in adverse market conditions; (ii) borrow on unfavorable terms; or (iii) distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions, capital expenditures or repayment of debt. As a result, satisfying the REIT requirements could have an adverse effect on our business results and profitability.
We depend upon our key employees and may be unable to attract or retain sufficient numbers of qualified personnel.
Our future performance depends to a significant degree upon the continued contributions of our executive management team and other key employees. Accordingly, our future success depends on our ability to attract, hire, train and retain highly skilled management and other qualified personnel. Competition for qualified employees is intense, and we compete for qualified employees with companies that may have greater financial resources than we have. Our employment agreements with our executive officers provide that their employment may be terminated by either party at any time. Consequently, we may not be successful in attracting, hiring, and training and retaining the people we need, which would seriously impede our ability to implement our business strategy.
In the event we are unable to satisfy regulatory requirements relating to internal controls, or if these internal controls over financial reporting are not effective, our business could suffer.
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires companies to do a comprehensive evaluation of their internal controls. As a result, each year we evaluate our internal controls over financial reporting so that our management can certify as to the effectiveness of our internal controls and our auditor can publicly attest to this certification. Our efforts to comply with Section 404 and related regulations regarding our management’s required assessment of internal control over financial reporting and our independent auditors’ attestation of that assessment has required, and continues to require, the commitment of significant financial and managerial resources. If for any period our management is unable to ascertain the effectiveness of our internal controls or if our auditors cannot attest to management’s certification, we could be subject to regulatory scrutiny and a loss of public confidence, which could have an adverse effect on our business.
In connection with the restatement of our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2005, we identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, which could materially and adversely affect our business and financial condition.
In connection with the restatement of our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2005, our management identified a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting. Our management determined that as of December 31, 2005, we lacked sufficient internal control processes, procedures and personnel resources necessary to address accounting for certain complex and/or non-routine transactions. This material weakness resulted in errors in accounting for financial instruments, income taxes and straight-line rental revenue and could result in a material misstatement to our consolidated financial statements that would not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Due to this material weakness, management concluded that we did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005.
While we have engaged in, and continue to engage in, substantial efforts to address the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, as of December 31, 2006, we have concluded that our internal control over financial reporting is not effective. We cannot be certain that any remedial measures we have taken or plan to take will ensure that we design, implement and maintain adequate controls over our financial processes and reporting in the future or will be sufficient to address and eliminate the material weakness. Our inability to remedy this identified material weakness or any additional deficiencies or material weaknesses that may be identified in the future, could, among other things, cause us to fail to file our periodic reports with the SEC in a timely manner or require us to incur additional costs or to divert management resources. Due to its inherent limitations, even effective internal control over financial reporting can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. These limitations may not prevent or detect all misstatements or fraud, regardless of their effectiveness.
Risks Related to Our Stock
The market value of our stock could be substantially affected by various factors.
The share price of our stock will depend on many factors, which may change from time to time, including:
·
the market for similar securities issued by REITs;
·
changes in estimates by analysts;
·
our ability to meet analysts’ estimates;
·
general economic and financial market conditions; and
·
our financial condition, performance and prospects.
Our issuance of additional capital stock, warrants or debt securities, whether or not convertible, may reduce the market price for our shares.
We cannot predict the effect, if any, that future sale of our capital stock, warrants or debt securities, or the availability of our securities for future sale, will have on the market price of our shares, including our common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock or preferred shares, warrants or debt securities convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for common stock in the public market or the perception that such sales might occur could reduce the market price of our stock and the terms upon which we may obtain additional equity financing in the future.
In addition, we may issue additional capital stock in the future to raise capital or as a result of the following:
·
The issuance and exercise of options to purchase our common stock. As of December 31, 2006, we had outstanding options to acquire approximately 0.1 million shares of our common stock. In addition, we may in the future issue additional options or other securities convertible into or exercisable for our common stock under our 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, our 2000 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, or other remuneration plans we establish in the future. We may also issue options or convertible securities to our employees in lieu of cash bonuses or to our directors in lieu of director’s fees.
·
The issuance of shares pursuant to our dividend reinvestment and direct stock purchase plan.
·
The issuance of debt securities exchangeable for our common stock.
·
The exercise of warrants we may issue in the future.
·
Lenders sometimes ask for warrants or other rights to acquire shares in connection with providing financing. We cannot assure you that our lenders will not request such rights.
There are no assurances of our ability to pay dividends in the future.
In 2001, our Board of Directors suspended dividends on our common stock and all series of preferred stock in an effort to generate cash to address then impending debt maturities. In 2003, we paid all accrued but unpaid dividends on all series of preferred stock and reinstated dividends on our common stock and all series of preferred stock. However, our ability to pay dividends may be adversely affected if any of the risks described above were to occur. Our payment of dividends is subject to compliance with restrictions contained in our New Credit Facility, the indenture relating to our outstanding 7% senior notes due 2014, the indenture relating to our outstanding 7% senior notes due 2016 and our preferred stock. All dividends will be paid at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend upon our earnings, our financial condition, maintenance of our REIT status and such other factors as our Board may deem relevant from time to time. There are no assurances of our ability to pay dividends in the future. In addition, our dividends in the past have included, and may in the future include, a return of capital.
Holders of our outstanding preferred stock have liquidation and other rights that are senior to the rights of the holders of our common stock.
Our Board of Directors has the authority to designate and issue preferred stock that may have dividend, liquidation and other rights that are senior to those of our common stock. As of the date of this filing, 4,739,500 shares of our 8.375% Series D cumulative redeemable preferred stock were issued and outstanding. The aggregate liquidation preference with respect to this outstanding preferred stock is approximately $118.5 million, and annual dividends on our outstanding preferred stock are approximately $9.9 million. Holders of our preferred stock are generally entitled to cumulative dividends before any dividends may be declared or set aside on our common stock. Upon our voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution or winding up, before any payment is made to holders of our common stock, holders of our preferred stock are entitled to receive a liquidation preference of $25 per share with respect to the Series D preferred stock, plus any accrued and unpaid distributions. This will reduce the remaining amount of our assets, if any, available to distribute to holders of our common stock. In addition, holders of our preferred stock have the right to elect two additional directors to our Board of Directors if six quarterly preferred dividends are in arrears.
Legislative or regulatory action could adversely affect purchasers of our stock.
In recent years, numerous legislative, judicial and administrative changes have been made in the provisions of the federal income tax laws applicable to investments similar to an investment in our stock. Changes are likely to continue to occur in the future, and we cannot assure you that any of these changes will not adversely affect our stockholder’s stock. Any of these changes could have an adverse effect on an investment in our stock or on market value or resale potential. Stockholders are urged to consult with their own tax advisor with respect to the impact that recent legislation may have on their investment and the status of legislative, regulatory or administrative developments and proposals and their potential effect.
Recent changes in taxation of corporate dividends may adversely affect the value of our stock.
The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 that was enacted into law May 28, 2003, among other things, generally reduces to 15% the maximum marginal rate of tax payable by individuals on dividends received from a regular C corporation. This reduced tax rate, however, will not apply to dividends paid to individuals by a REIT on its shares, except for certain limited amounts. While the earnings of a REIT that are distributed to its stockholders still generally will be subject to less combined federal income taxation than earnings of a non-REIT C corporation that are distributed to its stockholders net of corporate-level tax, this legislation could cause individual investors to view the stock of regular C corporations as more attractive relative to the shares of a REIT than was the case prior to the enactment of the legislation. Individual investors could hold this view because the dividends from regular C corporations will generally be taxed at a lower rate while dividends from REITs will generally be taxed at the same rate as the individual’s other ordinary income. We cannot predict what effect, if any, the enactment of this legislation may have on the value of the shares of REITs in general or on the value of our stock in particular, either in terms of price or relative to other investments.
Tax Risks
We have submitted to the Internal Revenue Service a request for a closing agreement and may not be able to obtain a closing agreement on satisfactory terms.
Management believes that certain of the terms of the Advocat Series B preferred stock previously held by us could be interpreted as affecting our compliance with federal income tax rules applicable to REITs regarding related party tenant income. See Note 10 - Taxes.
On December 15, 2006, we submitted to the IRS a request for a closing agreement, which would provide that, in the event that our ownership of Advocat stock gave rise to disqualified “related party tenant” income, we are eligible for relief under a “savings clause set forth in the Internal Revenue Code because our actions with respect to the ownership of the Advocat stock were due to “reasonable cause.” Since that time, we have had additional conversations with the IRS, who has encouraged us to move forward with the process of obtaining a closing agreement, and we have submitted additional documentation in support of the issuance of a closing agreement with respect to this matter. While we believe there are valid arguments that Advocat should not be deemed a “related party tenant,” the matter still is not free from doubt, and we believe it is in our best interest to proceed with the request for a closing agreement with the IRS in order to resolve the matter, minimize potential interest charges and obtain assurances regarding its continuing REIT status. If obtained, a closing agreement will establish that any failure to satisfy the gross income tests was due to reasonable cause. In the event that it is determined that the “savings clause” described above does not apply, we could be treated as having failed to qualify as a REIT for one or more taxable years.
As noted above, we have completed the Second Advocat Restructuring and have been advised by tax counsel that we will not receive any non-qualifying related party tenant income from Advocat in future fiscal years. Accordingly, we do not expect to incur tax expense associated with related party tenant income in future periods commencing January 1, 2007, assuming we enter into a closing agreement with the IRS that recognizes that reasonable cause existed for any failure to satisfy the REIT gross income tests as explained above.
If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT for any taxable year, we would be subject to federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates for such year, and distributions to stockholders would not be deductible by us in computing our taxable income. Any such corporate tax liability could be substantial and, unless we were indemnified against such tax liability, would reduce the amount of cash we have available for distribution to our stockholders, which in turn could have a material adverse impact on the value of, and trading prices for, our securities. In addition, we would not be able to re-elect REIT status until the fifth taxable year following the initial year of disqualification unless we were to qualify for relief under applicable Internal Revenue Code provisions. Thus, for example, if the IRS successfully challenges our status as a REIT solely for our taxable year ended December 31, 2005 based on our ownership of the Advocat Series B preferred stock, we would not be able to re-elect REIT status until our taxable year which began January 1, 2010, unless we were to qualify for relief.
We have accrued for a potential tax liability arising from our ownership of the Advocat securities and we believe, but can provide no assurance, that we currently have sufficient assets to pay any such tax liabilities. The ultimate resolution of any controversy over potential tax liabilities covered by the closing agreement may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, including if we are required to distribute deficiency dividends to our stockholders and/or pay additional taxes, interest and penalties to the IRS in amounts that exceed the amount of our reserves for potential tax liabilities. There can be no assurance that the IRS will not assess us with substantial taxes, interest and penalties above the amount for which we have reserved. For further discussion, see Note 10 - Taxes.
Item 1B
Item 1B - Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2
Item 2 - Properties
At December 31, 2006, our real estate investments included long-term care facilities and rehabilitation hospital investments, either in the form of purchased facilities which are leased to operators, mortgages on facilities which are operated by the mortgagors or their affiliates and facilities subject to leasehold interests. The facilities are located in 27 states and are operated by 32 unaffiliated operators. The following table summarizes our property investments as of December 31, 2006:
(1) Represents the most recent data provided by our operators.
(2) Certain of our lease agreements contain purchase options that permit the lessees to purchase the underlying properties from us.
(3) In general, many of our mortgages contain prepayment provisions that permit prepayment of the outstanding principal amounts thereunder.
The following table presents the concentration of our facilities by state as of December 31, 2006:
Number of
Facilities
Number of
Beds
Gross
Investment
(in thousands
)
% of
Total
Investment
Ohio
4,574
$
278,253
21.9
Florida
3,125
172,029
13.5
Pennsylvania
1,597
110,123
8.6
Texas
3,144
83,598
6.6
California
1,277
60,665
4.8
Louisiana
1,668
55,639
4.4
Colorado
52,930
4.1
Arkansas
1,281
42,889
3.4
Massachusetts
38,884
3.1
Rhode Island
38,740
3.0
Alabama
1,152
35,982
2.8
Connecticut
35,453
2.8
West Virginia
34,575
2.7
Kentucky
27,485
2.2
North Carolina
22,709
1.8
Idaho
21,776
1.7
New Hampshire
21,620
1.7
Arizona
19,289
1.5
Indiana
17,525
1.4
Tennessee
17,484
1.4
Washington
17,473
1.4
Iowa
15,703
1.2
Illinois
14,531
1.1
Vermont
14,227
1.1
Missouri
12,152
0.9
Georgia
10,000
0.8
Utah
0.1
Total
27,302
$
1,272,619
100.0
Geographically Diverse Property Portfolio. Our portfolio of properties is broadly diversified by geographic location. We have healthcare facilities located in 27 states. Only two states comprised more than 10% of our rental and mortgage income in 2006. In addition, the majority of our 2006 rental and mortgage income was derived from facilities in states that require state approval for development and expansion of healthcare facilities. We believe that such state approvals may limit competition for our operators and enhance the value of our properties.
Large Number of Tenants. Our facilities are operated by 32 different public and private healthcare providers. Except for Sun and CommuniCare, which together hold approximately 32% of our portfolio (by investment), no single tenant holds greater than 10% of our portfolio (by investment).
Significant Number of Long-term Leases and Mortgage Loans. A large portion of our core portfolio consists of long-term lease and mortgage agreements. At December 31, 2006, approximately 92% of our leases and mortgages had primary terms that expire in 2010 or later. Our leased real estate properties are leased under provisions of single facility leases or master leases with initial terms typically ranging from 5 to 15 years, plus renewal options. Substantially all of the leases and master leases provide for minimum annual rentals that are subject to annual increases based upon increases in the CPI or increases in revenues of the underlying properties, with certain limits. Under the terms of the leases, the lessee is responsible for all maintenance, repairs, taxes and insurance on the leased properties.
Item 3
Item 3 - Legal Proceedings
We are subject to various legal proceedings, claims and other actions arising out of the normal course of business. While any legal proceeding or claim has an element of uncertainty, management believes that the outcome of each lawsuit, claim or legal proceeding that is pending or threatened, or all of them combined, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.
We and several of our wholly-owned subsidiaries have been named as defendants in professional liability claims related to our former owned and operated facilities. Other third-party managers responsible for the day-to-day operations of these facilities have also been named as defendants in these claims. In these suits, patients of certain previously owned and operated facilities have alleged significant damages, including punitive damages against the defendants. The majority of these lawsuits representing the most significant amount of exposure were settled in 2004. There currently is one lawsuit pending that is in the discovery stage, and we are unable to predict the likely outcome of this lawsuit at this time.
In 1999, we filed suit against a former tenant seeking damages based on claims of breach of contract. The defendants denied the allegations made in the lawsuit. In settlement of our claim against the defendants, we agreed in the fourth quarter of 2005 to accept a lump sum cash payment of $2.4 million. The cash proceeds were offset by related expenses incurred of $0.8 million, resulting in a net gain of $1.6 million paid December 22, 2005.
In 2005, we accrued $1.1 million for potential obligations relating to disputed capital improvement requirements associated with a lease that expired June 30, 2005. Although no formal complaint for damages was filed against us, in February 2006, we agreed to settle this dispute for approximately $1.0 million.
Item 4
Item 4 - Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
No matters were submitted to stockholders during the fourth quarter of the year covered by this report.
PART II
Item 5
Item 5 - Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Our shares of common stock are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “OHI.” The following table sets forth, for the periods shown, the high and low prices as reported on the New York Stock Exchange Composite for the periods indicated and cash dividends per share:
The closing price on February 21, 2007 was $19.04 per share. As of February 21, there were 60,098,865 shares of common stock outstanding with 2,979 registered holders.
The following table provides information about all equity awards under our company’s 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, 2000 Stock Incentive Plan and 1993 Amended and Restated Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan as of December 31, 2006.
Equity Compensation Plan Information
(1) Reflects 105,832 shares of restricted common stock issued January 4, 2007 and 317,500 shares of common stock issuable January 1, 2008 associated with performance restricted stock units which vested on September 30, 2006.
During the fourth quarter of 2006, no shares of our common stock were purchased from employees to pay the withholding taxes associated with employee exercising of stock options.
(1) Represents shares purchased from employees to pay the withholding taxes related to the exercise of employee stock options. The shares were not part of a publicly announced repurchase plan or program.
We expect to continue our policy of paying regular cash dividends, although there is no assurance as to future dividends because they depend on future earnings, capital requirements and our financial condition. In addition, the payment of dividends is subject to the restrictions described in Note 14 to our consolidated financial statements.
Item 6
Item 6 - Selected Financial Data
The following table sets forth our selected financial data and operating data for our company on a historical basis. The following data should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included elsewhere herein. Our historical operating results may not be comparable to our future operating results.
(1)
Dividends per share are those declared and paid during such period.
(2)
Dividends per share are those declared during such period, based on the number of shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the outstanding Series C preferred stock.
Item 7
Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Forward-looking Statements, Reimbursement Issues and Other Factors Affecting Future Results
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this document. This document contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws, including statements regarding potential financings and potential future changes in reimbursement. These statements relate to our expectations, beliefs, intentions, plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events, performance and underlying assumptions and other statements other than statements of historical facts. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the use of forward-looking terminology including, but not limited to, terms such as “may,” “will,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “believes,” “intends,” “should” or comparable terms or the negative thereof. These statements are based on information available on the date of this filing and only speak as to the date hereof and no obligation to update such forward-looking statements should be assumed. Our actual results may differ materially from those reflected in the forward-looking statements contained herein as a result of a variety of factors, including, among other things:
(i)
those items discussed under “Risk Factors” in Item 1A herein;
(ii)
uncertainties relating to the business operations of the operators of our assets, including those relating to reimbursement by third-party payors, regulatory matters and occupancy levels;
(iii)
the ability of any operators in bankruptcy to reject unexpired lease obligations, modify the terms of our mortgages and impede our ability to collect unpaid rent or interest during the process of a bankruptcy proceeding and retain security deposits for the debtors’ obligations;
(iv)
our ability to sell closed assets on a timely basis and on terms that allow us to realize the carrying value of these assets;
(v)
our ability to negotiate appropriate modifications to the terms of our credit facility;
(vi)
our ability to manage, re-lease or sell any owned and operated facilities;
(vii)
the availability and cost of capital;
(viii)
competition in the financing of healthcare facilities;
(ix)
regulatory and other changes in the healthcare sector;
(x)
the effect of economic and market conditions generally and, particularly, in the healthcare industry;
(xi)
changes in interest rates;
(xii)
the amount and yield of any additional investments;
(xiii)
changes in tax laws and regulations affecting real estate investment trusts;
(xiv)
our ability to maintain our status as a real estate investment trust; and
(xv)
changes in the ratings of our debt and preferred securities.
Overview
Our portfolio of investments at December 31, 2006, consisted of 239 healthcare facilities, located in 27 states and operated by 32 third-party operators. Our gross investment in these facilities totaled approximately $1.3 billion at December 31, 2006, with 98% of our real estate investments related to long-term healthcare facilities. This portfolio is made up of 228 long-term healthcare facilities and two rehabilitation hospitals owned and leased to third parties and fixed rate mortgages on nine long-term healthcare facilities. At December 31, 2006, we also held other investments of approximately $22 million, consisting primarily of secured loans to third-party operators of our facilities.
Restatement
On December 14, 2006, we filed a Form 10-K/A, which amended our previously filed Form 10-K for fiscal year 2005. Contained within that Form 10-K/A were restated consolidated financial statements for the three years ended December 31, 2005. The restatements corrected errors in previously reported amounts related to income tax matters and to certain debt and equity investments in Advocat, as well as to the recording of certain straight-line rental income. Amounts reflected herein were derived from the restated financial information rather than the Form 10-K, which had been filed with the SEC on February 17, 2006 and mailed to stockholders shortly thereafter. Similarly, on December 14, 2006, we filed Forms 10-Q/A amending our previously filed consolidated financial statements for the first and second quarters of fiscal 2006 to correct errors in previously recorded amounts as discussed previously. Amounts reflected in Note 16 - Summary of Quarterly Results (Unaudited) to our audited consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2006 were derived from the restated financial information rather than the Form 10-Q as of March 31, 2006 and June 30, 2006. See also Note 10 - Taxes.
Medicare Reimbursement
All of our properties are used as healthcare facilities; therefore, we are directly affected by the risk associated with the healthcare industry. Our lessees and mortgagors, as well as any facilities that may be owned and operated for our own account from time to time, derive a substantial portion of their net operating revenues from third-party payors, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These programs are highly regulated by federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations and are subject to frequent and substantial change.
In 1997, the Balanced Budget Act significantly reduced spending levels for the Medicare and Medicaid programs, in part because the legislation modified the payment methodology for skilled nursing facilities “(SNFs”) by shifting payments for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries from a reasonable cost basis to a prospective payment system. Under the prospective payment system, SNFs are paid on a per diem prospective case-mix adjusted basis for all covered services. Implementation of the prospective payment system has affected each long-term care facility to a different degree, depending upon the amount of revenue such facility derives from Medicare patients.
Legislation adopted in 1999 and 2000 provided for a few temporary increases to Medicare payment rates, but these temporary increases have since expired. Specifically, in 1999 the Balanced Budget Refinement Act included a 4% across-the-board increase of the adjusted federal per diem payment rates for all patient acuity categories (known as “Resource Utilization Groups” or “RUGs”) that were in effect from April 2000 through September 30, 2002. In 2000, the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act included a 16.7% increase in the nursing component of the case-mix adjusted federal periodic payment rate, which was implemented in April 2000 and also expired October 1, 2002. The October 1, expiration of these temporary increases has had an adverse impact on the revenues of the operators of SNFs and has negatively impacted some operators’ ability to satisfy their monthly lease or debt payments to us.
The Balanced Budget Refinement Act and the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act also established temporary increases, beginning in April 2001, to Medicare payment rates to SNFs that were designated to remain in place until the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), implemented refinements to the existing RUG case-mix classification system to more accurately estimate the cost of non-therapy ancillary services. The Balanced Budget Refinement Act provided for a 20% increase for 15 RUG categories until CMS modified the RUG case-mix classification system. The Benefits Improvement and Protection Act modified this payment increase by reducing the 20% increase for three of the 15 RUGs to a 6.7% increase and instituting an additional 6.7% increase for eleven other RUGs.
On August 4, 2005, CMS published a final rule, effective October 1, 2005, establishing Medicare payments for SNFs under the prospective payment system for federal fiscal year 2006 (October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006). The final rule modified the RUG case-mix classification system and added nine new categories to the system, expanding the number of RUGs from 44 to 53. The implementation of the RUG refinements triggered the expiration of the temporary payment increases of 20% and 6.7% established by the Balanced Budget Refinement Act and the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act, respectively.
Additionally, CMS announced updates in the final rule to reimbursement rates for SNFs in federal fiscal year 2006 based on an increase in the “full market-basket” of 3.1%. In the August 4, 2005 notice, CMS estimated that the increases in Medicare reimbursements to SNFs arising from the refinements to the prospective payment system and the market basket update under the final rule would offset the reductions stemming from the elimination of the temporary increases during federal fiscal year 2006. CMS estimated that there would be an overall increase in Medicare payments to SNFs totaling $20 million in fiscal year 2006 compared to 2005.
On July 27, 2006, CMS posted a notice updating the payment rates to SNFs for fiscal year 2007 (October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007). The market basket increase factor is 3.1% for 2007. CMS estimates that the payment update will increase aggregate payments to SNFs nationwide by approximately $560 million in fiscal year 2007 compared to 2006.
Nonetheless, we cannot accurately predict what effect, if any, these changes will have on our lessees and mortgagors in 2007 and beyond. These changes to the Medicare prospective payment system for SNFs, including the elimination of temporary increases, could adversely impact the revenues of the operators of nursing facilities and could negatively impact the ability of some of our lessees and mortgagors to satisfy their monthly lease or debt payments to us.
A 128% temporary increase in the per diem amount paid to SNFs for residents who have AIDS took effect on October 1, 2004. This temporary payment increase arose from the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, or the Medicare Modernization Act. Although CMS also noted that the AIDS add-on was not intended to be permanent, the July 2006 notice updating payment rates for SNFs for fiscal year 2007 indicated that the increase will continue to remain in effect for fiscal year 2007.
A significant change enacted under the Medicare Modernization Act is the creation of a new prescription drug benefit, Medicare Part D, which went into effect January 1, 2006. The significant expansion of benefits for Medicare beneficiaries arising under the expanded prescription drug benefit could result in financial pressures on the Medicare program that might result in future legislative and regulatory changes with impacts for our operators. As part of this new program, the prescription drug benefits for patients who are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid are being transitioned from Medicaid to Medicare, and many of these patients reside in long-term care facilities. The Medicare program experienced significant operational difficulties in transitioning prescription drug coverage for this population when the benefit went into effect on January 1, 2006, although it is unclear whether or how issues involving Medicare Part D might have any direct financial impacts on our operators.
On February 8, 2006, the President signed into law a $39.7 billion budget reconciliation package called the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (“Deficit Reduction Act”), to lower the federal budget deficit. The Deficit Reduction Act included estimated net savings of $8.3 billion from the Medicare program over years.
The Deficit Reduction Act contained a provision reducing payments to SNFs for allowable bad debts. Previously, Medicare reimbursed SNFs for 100% of beneficiary bad debt arising from unpaid deductibles and coinsurance amounts. In 2003, CMS released a proposed rule seeking to reduce bad debt reimbursement rates for certain providers, including SNFs, by 30% over a three-year period. Subsequently, in early 2006 the Deficit Reduction Act reduced payments to SNFs for allowable bad debts by 30% effective October 1, 2005 for those individuals not dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Bad debt payments for the dually eligible population will remain at 100%. Consistent with this legislation, CMS finalized its 2003 proposed rule on August 18, 2006, and the regulations became effective on October 1, 2006. CMS estimates that implementation of this bad debt provision will result in a savings to the Medicare program of $490 million from FY 2006 to FY 2010. These reductions in Medicare payments for bad debt could have a material adverse effect on our operators’ financial condition and operations, which could adversely affect their ability to meet their payment obligations to us.
The Deficit Reduction Act also contained a provision governing the therapy caps that went into place under Medicare on January 1, 2006. The therapy caps limit the physical therapy, speech-language therapy and occupation therapy services that a Medicare beneficiary can receive during a calendar year. The therapy caps were in effect for calendar year 1999 and then suspended by Congress for three years. An inflation-adjusted therapy limit ($1,590 per year) was implemented in September of 2002, but then once again suspended in December of 2003 by the Medicare Modernization Act. Under the Medicare Modernization Act, Congress placed a two-year moratorium on implementation of the caps, which expired at the end of 2005.
The inflation-adjusted therapy caps are set at $1,780 for calendar year 2007. These caps do not apply to therapy services covered under Medicare Part A in a SNF, although the caps apply in most other instances involving patients in SNFs or long-term care facilities who receive therapy services covered under Medicare Part B. The Deficit Reduction Act permitted exceptions in 2006 for therapy services to exceed the caps when the therapy services are deemed medically necessary by the Medicare program. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, signed into law on December 20, 2006, extends these exceptions through December 31, 2007. Future and continued implementation of the therapy caps could have a material adverse effect on our operators’ financial condition and operations, which could adversely affect their ability to meet their payment obligations to us.
In general, we cannot be assured that federal reimbursement will remain at levels comparable to present levels or that such reimbursement will be sufficient for our lessees or mortgagors to cover all operating and fixed costs necessary to care for Medicare and Medicaid patients. We also cannot be assured that there will be any future legislation to increase Medicare payment rates for SNFs, and if such payment rates for SNFs are not increased in the future, some of our lessees and mortgagors may have difficulty meeting their payment obligations to us.
Medicaid and Other Third-Party Reimbursement
Each state has its own Medicaid program that is funded jointly by the state and federal government. Federal law governs how each state manages its Medicaid program, but there is wide latitude for states to customize Medicaid programs to fit the needs and resources of their citizens. Currently, Medicaid is the single largest source of financing for long-term care in the United States. Rising Medicaid costs and decreasing state revenues caused by recent economic conditions have prompted an increasing number of states to cut or consider reductions in Medicaid funding as a means of balancing their respective state budgets. Existing and future initiatives affecting Medicaid reimbursement may reduce utilization of (and reimbursement for) services offered by the operators of our properties.
In recent years, many states have announced actual or potential budget shortfalls. As a result of these budget shortfalls, many states have announced that they are implementing or considering implementing “freezes” or cuts in Medicaid reimbursement rates, including rates paid to SNF and long-term care providers, or reductions in Medicaid enrollee benefits, including long-term care benefits. We cannot predict the extent to which Medicaid rate freezes, cuts or benefit reductions ultimately will be adopted, the number of states that will adopt them or the impact of such adoption on our operators. However, extensive Medicaid rate cuts, freezes or benefit reductions could have a material adverse effect on our operators’ liquidity, financial condition and operations, which could adversely affect their ability to make lease or mortgage payments to us.
The Deficit Reduction Act included $4.7 billion in estimated savings from Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program over five years. The Deficit Reduction Act gave states the option to increase Medicaid cost-sharing and reduce Medicaid benefits, accounting for an estimated $3.2 billion in federal savings over five years. The remainder of the Medicaid savings under the Deficit Reduction Act comes primarily from changes to prescription drug reimbursement ($3.9 billion in savings over five years) and tightened policies governing asset transfers ($2.4 billion in savings over five years).
Asset transfer policies, which determine Medicaid eligibility based on whether a Medicaid applicant has transferred assets for less than fair value, became more restrictive under the Deficit Reduction Act, which extended the look-back period to five years, moved the start of the penalty period and made individuals with more than $500,000 in home equity ineligible for nursing home benefits (previously, the home was excluded as a countable asset for purposes of Medicaid eligibility). These changes could have a material adverse effect on our operators’ financial condition and operations, which could adversely affect their ability to meet their payment obligations to us.
Additional reductions in federal funding are expected for some state Medicaid programs as a result of changes in the percentage rates used for determining federal assistance on a state-by-state basis. Legislation has been introduced in Congress that would partially mitigate the reductions for some states that would experience significant reductions in federal funding, although whether Congress will enact this or other legislation remains uncertain.
Finally, private payors, including managed care payors, increasingly are demanding discounted fee structures and the assumption by healthcare providers of all or a portion of the financial risk of operating a healthcare facility. Efforts to impose greater discounts and more stringent cost controls are expected to continue. Any changes in reimbursement policies that reduce reimbursement levels could adversely affect the revenues of our lessees and mortgagors, thereby adversely affecting those lessees’ and mortgagors’ abilities to make their monthly lease or debt payments to us.
Fraud and Abuse Laws and Regulations
There are various extremely complex and largely uninterpreted federal and state laws governing a wide array of referrals, relationships and arrangements and prohibiting fraud by healthcare providers, including criminal provisions that prohibit filing false claims or making false statements to receive payment or certification under Medicare and Medicaid, and failing to refund overpayments or improper payments. The federal and state governments are devoting increasing attention and resources to anti-fraud initiatives against healthcare providers. Penalties for healthcare fraud have been increased and expanded over recent years, including broader provisions for the exclusion of providers from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG-HHS”), has described a number of ongoing and new initiatives for 2007 to study instances of potential overbilling and/or fraud in SNFs and nursing homes under both Medicare and Medicaid. The OIG-HHS, in cooperation with other federal and state agencies, also continues to focus on the activities of SNFs in certain states in which we have properties.
In addition, the federal False Claims Act allows a private individual with knowledge of fraud to bring a claim on behalf of the federal government and earn a percentage of the federal government’s recovery. Because of these monetary incentives, these so-called ‘‘whistleblower’’ suits have become more frequent. Some states currently have statutes that are analogous to the federal False Claims Act. The Deficit Reduction Act encourages additional states to enact such legislation and may encourage increased enforcement activity by permitting states to retain 10% of any recovery for that state’s Medicaid program if the enacted legislation is at least as rigorous as the federal False Claims Act. The violation of any of these laws or regulations by an operator may result in the imposition of fines or other penalties that could jeopardize that operator’s ability to make lease or mortgage payments to us or to continue operating its facility.
Legislative and Regulatory Developments
Each year, legislative and regulatory proposals are introduced or proposed in Congress and state legislatures as well as by federal and state agencies that, if implemented, could result in major changes in the healthcare system, either nationally or at the state level. In addition, regulatory proposals and rules are released on an ongoing basis that may have major impacts on the healthcare system generally and the industries in which our operators do business. Legislative and regulatory developments can be expected to occur on an ongoing basis at the local, state and federal levels that have direct or indirect impacts on the policies governing the reimbursement levels paid to our facilities by public and private third-party payors, the costs of doing business and the threshold requirements that must be met for facilities to continue operation or to expand.
The Medicare Modernization Act, which is one example of such legislation, was enacted in December 2003. The significant expansion of other benefits for Medicare beneficiaries under this Act, such as the prescription drug benefit, could create financial pressures on the Medicare program that might result in future legislative and regulatory changes with impacts on our operators. Although the creation of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries was expected to generate fiscal relief for state Medicaid programs, the structure of the benefit and costs associated with its implementation may mitigate the relief for states that originally was anticipated.
The Deficit Reduction Act is another example of such legislation. The provisions in the legislation designed to create cost savings from both Medicare and Medicaid could diminish reimbursement for our operators under both Medicare and Medicaid.
CMS also launched, in 2002, the Nursing Home Quality Initiative program in 2002, which requires nursing homes participating in Medicare to provide consumers with comparative information about the quality of care at the facility. In the fall of 2007, CMS plans to initiate a new quality campaign, Advancing Excellence for America’s Nursing Home Residents, to be conducted over the next two years with the ultimate goal being improvement in quality of life and efficiency of care delivery. In the event any of our operators do not maintain the same or superior levels of quality care as their competitors, patients could choose alternate facilities, which could adversely impact our operators’ revenues. In addition, the reporting of such information could lead to reimbursement policies that reward or penalize facilities on the basis of the reported quality of care parameters.
In late 2005, CMS began soliciting public comments regarding a demonstration to examine pay-for-performance approaches in the nursing home setting that would offer financial incentives for facilities delivering high quality care. In June 2006, Abt Associates published recommendations for CMS on how to design this demonstration project. The two-year demonstration is slated to begin in October 2007 and will run through September 2009. Other proposals under consideration include efforts by individual states to control costs by decreasing state Medicaid reimbursements in the current or future fiscal years and federal legislation addressing various issues, such as improving quality of care and reducing medical errors throughout the health care industry. We cannot accurately predict whether specific proposals will be adopted or, if adopted, what effect, if any, these proposals would have on operators and, thus, our business.
Significant Highlights
The following significant highlights occurred during the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2006.
Financing
·
In January 2006, we redeemed the remaining 20.7% of our $100 million aggregate principal amount of 6.95% notes due 2007 that were not otherwise tendered in 2005.
Dividends
·
In 2006, we paid common stock dividends of $0.23, $0.24, $0.24 and $0.25 per share, for stockholders of record on January 31, 2006, April 28, 2006, July 31, 2006 and November 3, 2006, respectively.
New Investments
·
In August 2006, we closed on $171 million of new investments and leased them to existing third-party operators.
·
In September 2006, we closed on $25.0 million of investments with an existing third-party operator.
·
On October 20, 2006, we restructured our relationship with Advocat, which restructuring included a rent increase of $0.7 million annually and a term extension to September 30, 2018.
Asset Sales and Other
·
In August 2006, we sold our common stock investment in Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. (“Sun”) for $7.6 million of cash proceeds.
·
In June 2006, a $10 million mortgage was paid-off in full.
·
In March 2006, Haven Eldercare, LLC. (“Haven”) paid $39 million on a $62 million mortgage it has with us.
·
Throughout 2006, in various transactions, we sold three SNFs and one assisted living facility (“ALF”) for cash proceeds of approximately $1.6 million.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Our significant accounting policies are described in Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements. These policies were followed in preparing the consolidated financial statements for all periods presented. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
We have identified four significant accounting policies that we believe are critical accounting policies. These critical accounting policies are those that have the most impact on the reporting of our financial condition and those requiring significant assumptions, judgments and estimates. With respect to these critical accounting policies, we believe the application of judgments and assessments is consistently applied and produces financial information that fairly presents the results of operations for all periods presented. The four critical accounting policies are:
Revenue Recognition
Rental income and mortgage interest income are recognized as earned over the terms of the related master leases and mortgage notes, respectively. Substantially all of our leases contain provisions for specified annual increases over the rents of the prior year and are generally computed in one of three methods depending on specific provisions of each lease as follows: (i) a specific annual increase over the prior year’s rent, generally 2.5%; (ii) an increase based on the change in pre-determined formulas from year to year (i.e., such as increases in the CPI); or (iii) specific dollar increases over prior years. Revenue under lease arrangements with specific determinable increases is recognized over the term of the lease on a straight-line basis. SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101 “Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements” (“SAB 101”) does not provide for the recognition of contingent revenue until all possible contingencies have been eliminated. We consider the operating history of the lessee, the general condition of the industry and various other factors when evaluating whether all possible contingencies have been eliminated. We have historically not included, and generally expect in the future not to include, contingent rents as income until received. We follow a policy related to rental income whereby we typically consider a lease to be non-performing after 90 days of non-payment of past due amounts and do not recognize unpaid rental income from that lease until the amounts have been received.
In the case of rental revenue recognized on a straight-line basis, we will generally discontinue recording rent on a straight-line basis if the lessee becomes delinquent in rent owed under the terms of the lease. Reserves are taken against earned revenues from leases when collection becomes questionable or when negotiations for restructurings of troubled operators result in significant uncertainty regarding ultimate collection. The amount of the reserve is estimated based on what management believes will likely be collected. Once the recording of straight-line rent is suspended, we will evaluate the collectibility of the related straight-line rent asset. If it is determined that the delinquency is temporary, we will resume booking rent on a straight-line basis once payment is received for past due rents, after taking into account application of security deposits. If it appears that we will not collect future rent due under our leases, we will record a provision for loss related to the straight-line rent asset.
Recognizing rental income on a straight-line basis results in recognized revenue exceeding contractual amounts due from our tenants. Such cumulative excess amounts are included in accounts receivable and were $20.0 million and $13.8 million, net of allowances, at December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
Gains on sales of real estate assets are recognized pursuant to the provisions of SFAS No. 66, Accounting for Sales of Real Estate. The specific timing of the recognition of the sale and the related gain is measured against the various criteria in SFAS No. 66 related to the terms of the transactions and any continuing involvement associated with the assets sold. To the extent the sales criteria are not met, we defer gain recognition until the sales criteria are met.
Depreciation and Asset Impairment
Under GAAP, real estate assets are stated at the lower of depreciated cost or fair value, if deemed impaired. Depreciation is computed on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of 25 to 40 years for buildings and improvements and 3 to 10 years for furniture, fixtures and equipment. Management periodically, but not less than annually, evaluates our real estate investments for impairment indicators, including the evaluation of our assets’ useful lives. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based on factors such as, but not limited to, market conditions, operator performance and legal structure. If indicators of impairment are present, management evaluates the carrying value of the related real estate investments in relation to the future undiscounted cash flows of the underlying facilities. Provisions for impairment losses related to long-lived assets are recognized when expected future undiscounted cash flows are determined to be permanently less than the carrying values of the assets. An adjustment is made to the net carrying value of the leased properties and other long-lived assets for the excess of historical cost over fair value. The fair value of the real estate investment is determined by market research, which includes valuing the property as a nursing home as well as other alternative uses. All impairments are taken as a period cost at that time, and depreciation is adjusted going forward to reflect the new value assigned to the asset.
If we decide to sell rental properties or land holdings, we evaluate the recoverability of the carrying amounts of the assets. If the evaluation indicates that the carrying value is not recoverable from estimated net sales proceeds, the property is written down to estimated fair value less costs to sell. Our estimates of cash flows and fair values of the properties are based on current market conditions and consider matters such as rental rates and occupancies for comparable properties, recent sales data for comparable properties, and, where applicable, contracts or the results of negotiations with purchasers or prospective purchasers.
For the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004, we recognized impairment losses of $0.5 million, $9.6 million and $0.0 million, respectively, including amounts classified within discontinued operations.
Loan Impairment
Management, periodically but not less than annually, evaluates our outstanding loans and notes receivable. When management identifies potential loan impairment indicators, such as non-payment under the loan documents, impairment of the underlying collateral, financial difficulty of the operator or other circumstances that may impair full execution of the loan documents, and management believes these indicators are permanent, then the loan is written down to the present value of the expected future cash flows. In cases where expected future cash flows cannot be estimated, the loan is written down to the fair value of the collateral. The fair value of the loan is determined by market research, which includes valuing the property as a nursing home as well as other alternative uses. We recorded loan impairments of $0.9 million, $0.1 million and $0.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
In accordance with FASB Statement No. 114, Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan and FASB Statement No. 118, Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan - Income Recognition and Disclosures, we currently account for impaired loans using the cost-recovery method applying cash received against the outstanding principal balance prior to recording interest income (see Note 5 - Other Investments).
Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations
Pursuant to the provisions of SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, the operating results of specified real estate assets that have been sold, or otherwise qualify as held for disposition (as defined by SFAS No. 144), are reflected as discontinued operations in the consolidated statements of operations for all periods presented. We had six assets held for sale as of December 31, 2006 with a combined net book value of $3.6 million.
Results of Operations
The following is our discussion of the consolidated results of operations, financial position and liquidity and capital resources, which should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes.
Year Ended December 31, 2006 compared to Year Ended December 31,
Operating Revenues
Our operating revenues for the year ended December 31, 2006 totaled $135.7 million, an increase of $26.0 million, over the same period in 2005. The $26.0 million increase was primarily a result of new investments made throughout and 2006. The increase in operating revenues from new investments was partially offset by a reduction in mortgage interest income and one-time contractual interest revenue associated with the payoff of a mortgage during the first quarter of 2005.
Detailed changes in operating revenues for the year ended December 31, 2006 are as follows:
·
Rental income was $127.1 million, an increase of $31.6 million over the same period in 2005. The increase was due to new leases entered into throughout 2006 and 2005, as well as rental revenue from the consolidation of a variable interest entity (“VIE”).
·
Mortgage interest income totaled $4.4 million, a decrease of $2.1 million over the same period in 2005. The decrease was primarily the result of normal amortization, a $60 million loan payoff that occurred in the first quarter of 2005 and a $10 million loan payoff that occurred in the second quarter of 2006.
·
Other investment income totaled $3.7 million, an increase of $0.5 million over the same period in 2005. The primary reason for the increase was due to dividends and accretion income associated with the Advocat securities.
·
Miscellaneous revenue was $0.5 million, a decrease of $4.0 million over the same period in 2005. The decrease was due to contractual revenue owed to us resulting from a mortgage note prepayment that occurred in the first quarter of 2005.
Operating Expenses
Operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2006 totaled $46.6 million, an increase of approximately $13.0 million over the same period in 2005. The increase was primarily due to $8.3 million of increased depreciation expense, $3.3 million of incremental restricted stock expense and a $0.8 million provision for uncollectible notes receivable, partially offset by a 2005 leasehold termination expense for $1.1 million.
Detailed changes in our operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2006 versus the same period in 2005 are as follows:
·
Our depreciation and amortization expense was $32.1 million, compared to $23.9 million for the same period in 2005. The increase is due to new investments placed throughout 2005 and 2006, as well as depreciation from the consolidation of a VIE.
·
Our general and administrative expense, when excluding restricted stock amortization expense and compensation expense related to the performance restricted stock units, was $9.2 million, compared to $7.4 million for the same period in 2005. The increase was primarily due to $1.2 million of restatement related expenses and normal inflationary increases in goods and services.
·
For the year ended December 31, 2006, in accordance with FAS No. 123R, we recorded approximately $3.3 million (included in general and administrative expense) of compensation expense associated with the performance restricted stock units (see Note 12 - Stockholders’ Equity and Stock Based Compensation).
·
In 2006, we recorded a $0.8 million provision for uncollectible notes receivable.
·
In 2005, we recorded a $1.1 million lease expiration accrual relating to disputed capital improvement requirements associated with a lease that expired June 30, 2005.
Other Income (Expense)
For the year ended December 31, 2006, our total other net expenses were $31.8 million as compared to $36.3 million for the same period in 2005. The significant changes are as follows:
·
Our interest expense, excluding amortization of deferred costs and refinancing related interest expenses, for the year ended December 31, 2006 was $42.2 million, compared to $29.9 million for the same period in 2005. The increase of $13.3 million was primarily due to higher debt on our balance sheet versus the same period in 2005 and from consolidation of interest expense from a VIE in 2006.
·
For the year ended December 31, 2006, we sold our remaining 760,000 shares of Sun’s common stock for approximately $7.6 million, realizing a gain on the sale of these securities of approximately $2.7 million.
·
For the year ended December 31, 2006, in accordance with FAS No. 133, we recorded a $9.1 million fair value adjustment to reflect the change in fair value during 2006 of our derivative instrument (i.e., the conversion feature of a redeemable convertible preferred stock security in Advocat, a publicly traded company; see Note 5 - Other Investments).
·
For the year ended December 31, 2006, we recorded a $3.6 million gain on Advocat securities (see Note 5 - Other Investments).
·
For the year ended December 31, 2006, we recorded a $0.8 million non-cash charge associated with the redemption of the remaining 20.7% of our $100 million aggregate principal amount of 6.95% unsecured notes due 2007 not otherwise tendered in 2005.
·
For the year ended December 31, 2006, we recorded a one time, non-cash charge of approximately $2.7 million relating to the write-off of deferred financing costs associated with the termination of our prior credit facility.
·
During the year ended December 31, 2005, we recorded a $3.4 million provision for impairment of an equity security. In accordance with FASB No. 115, the $3.4 million provision for impairment was to write-down our 760,000 share investment in Sun’s common stock to its then current fair market value.
·
For the year ended December 31, 2005, we recorded $1.6 million in net cash proceeds resulting from settlement of a lawsuit filed suit filed by us against a former tenant.
Taxes
So long as we qualify as a REIT and, among other things, we distribute 90% of our taxable income, we will not be subject to Federal income taxes on our income, except as described below. For tax year 2006, preferred and common dividend payments of approximately $67 million made throughout 2006 satisfy the 2006 REIT requirements relating to qualifying income. We are permitted to own up to 100% of a “taxable REIT subsidiary” (“TRS”). Currently, we have two TRSs that are taxable as corporations and that pay federal, state and local income tax on their net income at the applicable corporate rates. These TRSs had net operating loss carry-forwards as of December 31, 2006 of $12 million. These loss carry-forwards were fully reserved with a valuation allowance due to uncertainties regarding realization.
During the fourth quarter of 2006, we determined that certain terms of the Advocat Series B non-voting, redeemable convertible preferred stock held by us could be interpreted as affecting our compliance with federal income tax rules applicable to REITs regarding related party tenant income. As such, Advocat, one of our lessees, may be deemed to be a “related party tenant” under applicable federal income tax rules. In such event, our rental income from Advocat would not be qualifying income under the gross income tests that are applicable to REITs. In order to maintain qualification as a REIT, we annually must satisfy certain tests regarding the source of our gross income. The applicable federal income tax rules provide a “savings clause” for REITs that fail to satisfy the REIT gross income tests if such failure is due to reasonable cause. A REIT that qualifies for the savings clause will retain its REIT status but will pay a tax under section 857(b)(5) and related interest. On December 15, 2006, we submitted to the IRS a request for a closing agreement to resolve the “related party tenant” issue. Since that time, we have had additional conversations with the IRS, who has encouraged us to move forward with the process of obtaining a closing agreement, and we have submitted additional documentation in support of the issuance of a closing agreement with respect to this matter. While we believe there are valid arguments that Advocat should not be deemed a “related party tenant,” the matter still is not free from doubt, and we believe it is in our best interest to proceed with the request for a closing agreement with the IRS in order to resolve the matter, minimize potential interest charges and obtain assurances regarding its continuing REIT status. If obtained, a closing agreement will establish that any failure to satisfy the gross income tests was due to reasonable cause. In the event that it is determined that the “savings clause” described above does not apply, we could be treated as having failed to qualify as a REIT for one or more taxable years.
As a result of the potential related party tenant issue described above and further discussed in Note 10 - Taxes, we have recorded a $2.3 million and $2.4 million provision for income taxes, including related interest expense, for the year ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The amount accrued represents the estimated liability and interest, which remains subject to final resolution and therefore is subject to change. In addition, in October 2006, we restructured our Advocat relationship and have been advised by tax counsel that we will not receive any non-qualifying related party tenant income from Advocat in future fiscal years. Accordingly, we do not expect to incur tax expense associated with related party tenant income in future periods commencing January 1, 2007, assuming we enter into a closing agreement with the IRS that recognizes that reasonable cause existed for any failure to satisfy the REIT gross income tests as explained above.
Loss from Discontinued Operations
Discontinued operations relate to properties we disposed of in 2006 or are currently held-for-sale and are accounted for as discontinued operations under SFAS No. 144. For the year ended December 31, 2006, we sold three SNFs and one ALF resulting in an accounting gain of approximately $0.2 million.
At December 31, 2006, we had six assets held for sale with a net book value of approximately $3.6 million.
During the three months ended March 31, 2006, a $0.1 million provision for impairment charge was recorded to reduce the carrying value to its sales price of one facility that was under contract to be sold that was subsequently sold during the second quarter of 2006. During the three months ended December 31, 2006, a $0.4 million impairment charge was recorded to reduce the carrying value of two facilities, currently under contract to be sold in the first quarter of 2007, to their respective sales price.
In accordance with SFAS No. 144, the $0.2 million realized net gain is reflected in our consolidated statements of operations as discontinued operations. See Note 18 - Discontinued Operations.
Funds From Operations
Our funds from operations available to common stockholders (“FFO”), for the year ended December 31, 2006, was $76.7 million, compared to $42.7 million for the same period in 2005.
We calculate and report FFO in accordance with the definition and interpretive guidelines issued by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“NAREIT”), and, consequently, FFO is defined as net income available to common stockholders, adjusted for the effects of asset dispositions and certain non-cash items, primarily depreciation and amortization. We believe that FFO is an important supplemental measure of our operating performance. Because the historical cost accounting convention used for real estate assets requires depreciation (except on land), such accounting presentation implies that the value of real estate assets diminishes predictably over time, while real estate values instead have historically risen or fallen with market conditions. The term FFO was designed by the real estate industry to address this issue. FFO herein is not necessarily comparable to FFO of other REITs that do not use the same definition or implementation guidelines or interpret the standards differently from us.
We use FFO as one of several criteria to measure the operating performance of our business. We further believe that by excluding the effect of depreciation, amortization and gains or losses from sales of real estate, all of which are based on historical costs and which may be of limited relevance in evaluating current performance, FFO can facilitate comparisons of operating performance between periods and between other REITs. We offer this measure to assist the users of our financial statements in evaluating our financial performance under GAAP, and FFO should not be considered a measure of liquidity, an alternative to net income or an indicator of any other performance measure determined in accordance with GAAP. Investors and potential investors in our securities should not rely on this measure as a substitute for any GAAP measure, including net income.
The following table presents our FFO results for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005:
(1)
The deduction of the gain from real estate dispositions includes the facilities classified as discontinued operations in our consolidated financial statements. The gain deducted includes $1.2 million from a distribution from an investment in a limited partnership in 2006 and $0.2 million gain and $8.0 million gain related to facilities classified as discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
(2)
The add back of depreciation and amortization includes the facilities classified as discontinued operations in our consolidated financial statements. FFO for 2006 and 2005 includes depreciation and amortization of $0.2 million and $1.4 million, respectively, related to facilities classified as discontinued operations.
Year Ended December 31, 2005 compared to Year Ended December 31,
Operating Revenues
Our operating revenues for the year ended December 31, 2005 totaled $109.6 million, an increase of $22.7 million, over the same period in 2004. The $22.7 million increase was primarily a result of new investments made throughout and 2005, contractual interest revenue associated with the payoff of a mortgage note, re-leasing and restructuring activities completed throughout 2004 and 2005. The increase in operating revenues from new investments was partially offset by a reduction in mortgage interest income.
Detailed changes in operating revenues for the year ended December 31, 2005 are as follows:
·
Rental income was $95.4 million, an increase of $25.7 million over the same period in 2004. The increase was primarily due to new leases entered into throughout 2004 and 2005, re-leasing and restructuring activities.
·
Mortgage interest income totaled $6.5 million, a decrease of $6.7 million over the same period in 2004. The decrease is primarily the result of normal amortization and a $60 million loan payoff that occurred in the first quarter of 2005.
·
Other investment income totaled $3.2 million, an increase of $0.1 million over the same period in 2004. The primary reason for the increase was due to dividends and accretion income associated with the Advocat securities.
·
Miscellaneous revenue was $4.5 million, an increase of $3.6 million over the same period in 2004. The increase was due to contractual revenue owed to us as a result of a mortgage note prepayment.
Operating Expenses
Operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2005 totaled $33.6 million, an increase of approximately $5.9 million over the same period in 2004. The increase was primarily due to $5.0 million of increased depreciation expense and a $1.1 million lease expiration accrual recorded in 2005.
Detailed changes in our operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2005 are as follows:
·
Our depreciation and amortization expense was $23.9 million, compared to $18.8 million for the same period in 2004. The increase is due to new investments placed throughout 2004 and 2005.
·
Our general and administrative expense, when excluding restricted stock amortization expense, was $7.4 million, compared to $7.7 million for the same period in 2004.
·
A $0.1 million provision for uncollectible notes receivable was recorded in 2005.
·
A $1.1 million lease expiration accrual was recorded in 2005 relating to disputed capital improvement requirements associated with a lease that expired June 30, 2005.
Other Income (Expense)
For the year ended December 31, 2005, our total other net expenses were $36.3 million as compared to $45.5 million for the same period in 2004. The significant changes are as follows:
·
Our interest expense, excluding amortization of deferred costs and refinancing related interest expenses, for the year ended December 31, 2005 was $29.9 million, compared to $23.1 million for the same period 2004. The increase of $6.8 million was primarily due to higher debt on our balance sheet versus the same period in 2004.
·
For the year ended December 31, 2005, we recorded a $2.8 million non-cash charge associated with the tender and purchase of 79.3% of our $100 million aggregate principal amount of 6.95% unsecured notes due 2007.
·
For the year ended December 31, 2005, we recorded a $3.4 million provision for impairment on an equity security. In accordance with FASB Statement No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, we recorded the provision for impairment to write-down our 760,000 share investment in Sun common stock to its then current fair market value of $4.9 million.
·
For the year ended December 31, 2004, we recorded $19.1 million of refinancing-related charges associated with refinancing our capital structure. The $19.1 million consists of a $6.4 million exit fee paid to our old bank syndication and a $6.3 million non-cash deferred financing cost write-off associated with the termination of our $225 million credit facility and our $50 million acquisition facility, and a loss of approximately $6.5 million associated with the sale of an interest rate cap.
·
For the year ended December 31, 2004, we recorded a $1.1 million fair value adjustment to reflect the change in fair value during 2004 of our derivative instrument (i.e., the conversion feature of a redeemable convertible preferred stock security in Advocat, a publicly traded company; see Note 5 - Other Investments).
·
For the year ended December 31, 2004, we recorded a $3.0 million charge associated with professional liability claims made against our former owned and operated facilities.
Taxes
As a result of the possible related party tenant issue discussed in Note 10 - Taxes, we have recorded a $2.4 million and $0.4 million provision for income tax for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The amount accrued represents the estimated liability and interest, which remains subject to final resolution and therefore is subject to change. In addition, in October 2006, we restructured our Advocat relationship and have been advised by tax counsel that we will not receive any non-qualifying related party tenant income from Advocat in future fiscal years. Accordingly, we do not expect to incur tax expense associated with related party tenant income in future periods commencing January 1, 2007, assuming we enter into a closing agreement with the IRS that recognizes that reasonable cause existed for any failure to satisfy the REIT gross income tests as explained above.
In addition, for tax year 2005, preferred and common dividend payments of approximately $56 million made throughout 2005 satisfy the 2005 REIT requirements relating to qualifying income (which states we must distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income for the taxable year and meet certain other conditions). We are permitted to own up to 100% of a TRS. Currently we have two TRSs that are taxable as corporations and that pay federal, state and local income tax on their net income at the applicable corporate rates. These TRSs had net operating loss carry-forwards as of December 31, 2005 of $14.4 million. These loss carry-forwards were fully reserved with a valuation allowance due to uncertainties regarding realization.
Income from Discontinued Operations
Discontinued operations relate to properties we disposed of in 2005 or are currently held-for-sale and are accounted for as discontinued operations under SFAS No. 144. For the year ended December 31, 2005, we sold eight SNFs, six ALFs and 50.4 acres of undeveloped land for combined cash proceeds of approximately $53 million, net of closing costs and other expenses, resulting in a combined accounting gain of approximately $8.0 million.
During the year ended December 31, 2005, a combined $9.6 million provision for impairment charge was recorded to reduce the carrying value on several facilities, some of which were subsequently closed, to their estimated fair values.
In accordance with SFAS No. 144, the $8.0 million realized net gain as well as the combined $9.6 million impairment charge is reflected in our consolidated statements of operations as discontinued operations.
Funds From Operations
Our FFO for the year ended December 31, 2005, was $42.7 million, compared to a deficit of $18.5 million, for the same period in 2004.
We calculate and report FFO in accordance with the definition and interpretive guidelines issued by NAREIT, and, consequently, FFO is defined as net income available to common stockholders, adjusted for the effects of asset dispositions and certain non-cash items, primarily depreciation and amortization. We believe that FFO is an important supplemental measure of our operating performance. Because the historical cost accounting convention used for real estate assets requires depreciation (except on land), such accounting presentation implies that the value of real estate assets diminishes predictably over time, while real estate values instead have historically risen or fallen with market conditions. The term FFO was designed by the real estate industry to address this issue. FFO herein is not necessarily comparable to FFO of other REITs that do not use the same definition or implementation guidelines or interpret the standards differently from us.
We use FFO as one of several criteria to measure operating performance of our business. We further believe that by excluding the effect of depreciation, amortization and gains or losses from sales of real estate, all of which are based on historical costs and which may be of limited relevance in evaluating current performance, FFO can facilitate comparisons of operating performance between periods and between other REITs. We offer this measure to assist the users of our financial statements in evaluating our financial performance under GAAP, and FFO should not be considered a measure of liquidity, an alternative to net income or an indicator of any other performance measure determined in accordance with GAAP. Investors and potential investors in our securities should not rely on this measure as a substitute for any GAAP measure, including net income.
In February 2004, NAREIT informed its member companies that it was adopting the position of the SEC with respect to asset impairment charges and would no longer recommend that impairment write-downs be excluded from FFO. In the tables included in this disclosure, we have applied this interpretation and have not excluded asset impairment charges in calculating our FFO. As a result, our FFO may not be comparable to similar measures reported in previous disclosures. According to NAREIT, there is inconsistency among NAREIT member companies as to the adoption of this interpretation of FFO. Therefore, a comparison of our FFO results to another company's FFO results may not be meaningful.
The following table presents our FFO results for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004:
(1)
The deduction of the gain from real estate dispositions includes the facilities classified as discontinued operations in our consolidated financial statements. The gain deducted includes $8.0 million gain and $3.3 million gain related to facilities classified as discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
(2)
The add back of depreciation and amortization includes the facilities classified as discontinued operations in our consolidated financial statements. FFO for 2005 and 2004 includes depreciation and amortization of $1.4 million and $2.7 million, respectively, related to facilities classified as discontinued operations.
Portfolio Developments, New Investments and Recent Developments
The partial expiration of certain Medicare rate increases has had an adverse impact on the revenues of the operators of nursing home facilities and has negatively impacted some operators’ ability to satisfy their monthly lease or debt payment to us. In several instances, we hold security deposits that can be applied in the event of lease and loan defaults, subject to applicable limitations under bankruptcy law with respect to operators seeking protection under title of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1330, as amended and supplemented, (the “Bankruptcy Code”).
Below is a brief description, by third-party operator, of new investments or operator related transactions that occurred during the year ended December 31, 2006.
New Investments and Re-leasing Activities
Advocat, Inc.
On October 20, 2006, we restructured our relationship with Advocat (the “Second Advocat Restructuring”) by entering into a Restructuring Stock Issuance and Subscription Agreement with Advocat (the “2006 Advocat Agreement”). Pursuant to the 2006 Advocat Agreement, we exchanged the Advocat Series B preferred stock and subordinated note issued to us in November 2000 in connection with a restructuring because Advocat was in default on its obligations to us (the “Initial Advocat Restructuring”) for 5,000 shares of Advocat’s Series C non-convertible, redeemable (at our option after September 30, 2010) preferred stock with a face value of approximately $4.9 million and a dividend rate of 7% payable quarterly, and a secured non-convertible subordinated note in the amount of $2.5 million maturing September 30, 2007 and bearing interest at 7% per annum. As part of the Second Advocat Restructuring, we also amended our Consolidated Amended and Restated Master Lease by and between one of its subsidiaries, as lessor, and a subsidiary of Advocat, as lessee, to commence a new 12-year lease term through September 30, 2018 (with a renewal option for an additional 12 year term) and Advocat agreed to increase the master lease annual rent by approximately $687,000 to approximately $14 million commencing on January 1, 2007.
The Second Advocat Restructuring has been accounted for as a new lease in accordance with FASB Statement No. 13, Accounting for Leases (“FAS No. 13”) and FASB Technical Bulletin No. 88-1, Issues Relating to Accounting for Leases (“FASB TB No. 88-1”). The fair value of the assets exchanged in the restructuring (i.e., the Series B non-voting redeemable convertible preferred stock and the secured convertible subordinated note, with a fair value of $14.9 million and $2.5 million, respectively, at October 20, 2006) in excess of the fair value of the assets received (the Advocat Series C non-convertible redeemable preferred stock and the secured non-convertible subordinated note, with a fair value of $4.1 million and $2.5 million, respectively, at October 20, 2006) have been recorded as a lease inducement asset of approximately $10.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2006. The $10.8 million lease inducement asset is included in accounts receivable-net on our consolidated balance sheet and will be amortized as a reduction to rental income on a straight-line basis over the term of the new master lease. The exchange of securities also resulted in a gain in 2006 of approximately $3.6 million representing: (i) the fair value of the secured convertible subordinated note of $2.5 million, previously reserved and (ii) the realization of the gain on investments previously classified as other comprehensive income of approximately $1.1 million relating to the Series B non-voting redeemable convertible preferred stock.
Guardian LTC Management, Inc.
On September 1, 2006, we completed a $25.0 million investment with subsidiaries of Guardian LTC Management, Inc. (“Guardian”), an existing operator of ours. The transaction involved the purchase and leaseback of a SNF in Pennsylvania and termination of a purchase option on a combination SNF and rehabilitation hospital in West Virginia owned by us. The facilities were included in an existing master lease with Guardian with an increase in contractual annual rent of approximately $2.6 million in the first year. The master lease now includes 17 facilities. In addition, the master lease term was extended from October through August 2016.
In accordance with FAS No. 13 and FASB TB No. 88-1 $19.2 million of the $25.0 million transaction amount will be accounted for as a lease inducement and is classified within accounts receivable - net on our consolidated balance sheets. The lease inducement will be amortized as a reduction to rental income on a straight-line basis over the term of the new master lease. The remaining payment to Guardian of $5.8 million will be allocated to the purchase of the Pennsylvania SNF.
Litchfield Transaction
On August 1, 2006, we completed a transaction with Litchfield Investment Company, LLC and its affiliates (“Litchfield”) to purchase 30 SNFs and one independent living center for a total investment of approximately $171 million. The facilities total 3,847 beds and are located in the states of Colorado (5), Florida (7), Idaho (1), Louisiana (13), and Texas (5). The facilities were subject to master leases with three national healthcare providers, which are existing tenants of the Company. The tenants are Home Quality Management, Inc. (“HQM”), Nexion Health, Inc. (“Nexion”), and Peak Medical Corporation, which was acquired by Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. (“Sun”) in December of 2005.
Simultaneously with the close of the purchase transaction, the seven HQM facilities were combined into an Amended and Restated Master Lease containing 13 facilities between us and HQM. In addition, the 18 Nexion facilities were combined into an Amended and Restated Master Lease containing 22 facilities between us and Nexion.
We entered into a Master Lease, Assignment and Assumption Agreement with Litchfield on the six Sun facilities. These six facilities are currently under a master lease that expires on September 30, 2007.
Haven Eldercare, LLC
During the three months ending March 31, 2006, Haven Eldercare, LLC (“Haven”), an existing operator of ours, entered into a $39 million first mortgage loan with General Electric Capital Corporation (“GE Loan”). Haven used the $39 million of proceeds to partially repay on a $62 million mortgage it has with us. Simultaneously, we subordinated the payment of our remaining $23 million on the mortgage note, due in October 2012, to that of the GE Loan. As a result of this transaction, the interest rate on our remaining mortgage note to Haven rose from 10% to approximately 15%, with annual escalators.
In conjunction with the above transactions and the application of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, (“FIN 46R”), we consolidated the financial statements and related real estate of this Haven entity into our financial statements. The consolidation resulted in the following changes to our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2006: (1) an increase in total gross investments of $39.0 million; (2) an increase in accumulated depreciation of $1.6 million; (3) an increase in accounts receivable-net of $0.1 million relating to straight-line rent; (4) an increase in other long-term borrowings of $39.0 million; and (5) a reduction of $1.5 million in cumulative net earnings for the year ended December 31, 2006 due to the increased depreciation expense offset by straight-line rental revenue. General Electric Capital Corporation and Haven’s other creditors do not have recourse to our assets. We have an option to purchase the mortgaged facilities for a fixed price in 2012. Our results of operations reflect the effects of the consolidation of this entity, which is being accounted for similarly to our other purchase-leaseback transactions.
Assets Held for Sale
·
We had six assets held for sale as of December 31, 2006 with a net book value of approximately $3.6 million. We had eight assets held for sale as of December 31, 2005 with a combined net book value of $5.8 million, which includes a reclassification of five assets with a net book value of $4.6 million that were sold or reclassified as held for sale during 2006.
·
During the three months ended March 31, 2006, a $0.1 million provision for impairment charge was recorded to reduce the carrying value to its sales price of one facility that was under contract to be sold that was subsequently sold during the second quarter of 2006. During the three months ended December 31, 2006, a $0.4 million impairment charge was recorded to reduce the carrying value of two facilities, currently under contract to be sold in the first quarter of 2007, to their respective sales price.
Asset Dispositions and Mortgage Payoffs in 2006
Hickory Creek Healthcare Foundation, Inc.
On June 16, 2006, we received approximately $10 million in proceeds on a mortgage loan payoff. We held mortgages on 15 facilities located in Indiana, representing beds.
Other Asset Sales
·
For the three-month period ended December 31, 2006, we sold an ALF in Ohio resulting in an accounting gain of approximately $0.4 million.
·
For the three-month period ended June 30, 2006, we sold two SNFs in California resulting in an accounting loss of approximately $0.1 million.
·
For the three-month period ended March 31, 2006, we sold a SNF in Illinois resulting in an accounting loss of approximately $0.2 million.
In accordance with SFAS No. 144, all related revenues and expenses as well as the $0.2 million realized net gain from the above mentioned facility sales are included within discontinued operations in our consolidated statements of operations for their respective time periods.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
At December 31, 2006, we had total assets of $1.2 billion, stockholders’ equity of $465.5 million and debt of $676.1 million, representing approximately 59.2% of total capitalization.
The following table shows the amounts due in connection with the contractual obligations described below as of December 31, 2006.
(1)
The $676.4 million includes $310 million aggregate principal amount of 7.0% Senior Notes due 2014, $175 million principal amount of 7.0% Senior Notes due 2016, $150.0 million borrowings under the new $200 million revolving secured credit facility (“New Credit Facility”), which matures in March 2010 and Haven’s $39 million first mortgage loan with General electric Capital Corporation that expires in 2012.
Financing Activities and Borrowing Arrangements
Bank Credit Agreements
At December 31, 2006, we had $150.0 million outstanding under our $200 million revolving senior secured credit facility (the “New Credit Facility”) and $2.5 million was utilized for the issuance of letters of credit, leaving availability of $47.5 million. The $150.0 million of outstanding borrowings had a blended interest rate of 6.60% at December 31, 2006. The New Credit Facility, entered into on March 31, 2006, is being provided by Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, UBS Securities LLC, General Electric Capital Corporation, LaSalle Bank N.A., and Citicorp North America, Inc. and will be used for acquisitions and general corporate purposes.
The New Credit Facility replaced our previous $200 million senior secured credit facility (the “Prior Credit Facility”), that was terminated on March 31, 2006. The New Credit Facility matures on March 31, 2010, and includes an “accordion feature” that permits us to expand our borrowing capacity to $300 million during our first two years. For the year ended December 31, 2006, we recorded a one-time, non-cash charge of approximately $2.7 million relating to the write-off of deferred financing costs associated with the termination of our Prior Credit Facility.
Our long-term borrowings require us to meet certain property level financial covenants and corporate financial covenants, including prescribed leverage, fixed charge coverage, minimum net worth, limitations on additional indebtedness and limitations on dividend payouts. As of December 31, 2006, we were in compliance with all property level and corporate financial covenants.
$100 Million Aggregate Principal Amount of 6.95% Unsecured Notes Tender and Redemption
On December 16, 2005, we initiated a tender offer and consent solicitation for all of our outstanding $100 million aggregate principal amount 6.95% notes due (the “2007 Notes”). On December 30, 2005, we accepted for purchase 79.3% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2007 Notes outstanding that were tendered. On December 30, 2005, our Board of Directors also authorized the redemption of all outstanding 2007 Notes that were not otherwise tendered. On December 30, 2005, upon our irrevocable funding of the full redemption price for the 2007 Notes and certain other acts required by the Indenture governing the 2007 Notes, the Trustee of the 2007 Notes certified in writing to us (the “Certificate of Satisfaction and Discharge”) that the Indenture was satisfied and discharged as of December 30, 2005, except for certain provisions. In accordance with FASB Statement No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishment of Liabilities, we removed 79.3% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2007 Notes, which were tendered in our tender offer and consent solicitation, and the corresponding portion of the funds held in trust by the Trustee to pay the tender price from our balance sheet and recognized $2.8 million of additional interest expense associated with the tender offer. On January 18, 2006, we completed the redemption of the remaining 2007 Notes not otherwise tendered. In connection with the redemption and in accordance with FASB No. 140, we recognized $0.8 million of additional interest expense in the first quarter of 2006. As of January 18, 2006, none of the 2007 Notes remained outstanding.
$175 Million Aggregate Principal Amount of 7% Unsecured Notes Issuance
On December 30, 2005, we closed on a private offering of $175 million of 7% senior unsecured notes due 2016 (“2016 Notes”) at an issue price of 99.109% of the principal amount of the notes (equal to a per annum yield to maturity of approximately 7.125%), resulting in gross proceeds to us of approximately $173.4 million. The 2016 Notes are unsecured senior obligations to us, which have been guaranteed by our subsidiaries. The 2016 Notes were issued in a private placement to qualified institutional buyers under Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). A portion of the proceeds of this private offering was used to pay the tender price and redemption price of the 2007 Notes. On February 24, 2006, we filed a registration statement on Form S-4 under the Securities Act with the SEC offering to exchange up to $175 million aggregate principal amount of our registered 7% Senior Notes due 2016 (the “2016 Exchange Notes”), for all of our outstanding unregistered 2016 Notes. The terms of the 2016 Exchange Notes are identical to the terms of the 2016 Notes, except that the 2016 Exchange Notes are registered under the Securities Act and therefore freely tradable (subject to certain conditions). The 2016 Exchange Notes represent our unsecured senior obligations and are guaranteed by all of our subsidiaries with unconditional guarantees of payment that rank equally with existing and future senior unsecured debt of such subsidiaries and senior to existing and future subordinated debt of such subsidiaries. In April 2006, upon the expiration of the 2016 Notes Exchange Offer, $175 million aggregate principal amount of 2016 Notes were exchanged for the 2016 Exchange Notes.
$50 Million Aggregate Principal Amount of 7% Unsecured Notes Issuance
On December 2, 2005, we completed a privately placed offering of an additional $50 million aggregate principal amount of 7% senior notes due 2014 (the “2014 Add-on Notes”) at an issue price of 100.25% of the principal amount of the notes (equal to a per annum yield to maturity of approximately 6.95%), resulting in gross proceeds to us of approximately $50.1 million. The terms of the 2014 Add-on Notes offered were substantially identical to our existing $200 million aggregate principal amount of 7% senior notes due 2014 issued in March 2004. The 2014 Add-on Notes were issued through a private placement to qualified institutional buyers under Rule 144A under the Securities Act. After giving effect to the issuance of the $50 million aggregate principal amount of this offering, we had outstanding $310 million aggregate principal amount of 7% senior notes due 2014. On February 24, 2006, we filed a registration statement on Form S-4 under the Securities Act with the SEC offering to exchange up to $50 million aggregate principal amount of our registered 7% Senior Notes due 2014 (the “2014 Add-on Exchange Notes”), for all of our outstanding unregistered 2014 Add-on Notes. The terms of the 2014 Add-on Exchange Notes are identical to the terms of the 2014 Add-on Notes, except that the 2014 Add-on Exchange Notes are registered under the Securities Act and therefore freely tradable (subject to certain conditions). The 2014 Add-on Exchange Notes represent our unsecured senior obligations and are guaranteed by all of our subsidiaries with unconditional guarantees of payment that rank equally with existing and future senior unsecured debt of such subsidiaries and senior to existing and future subordinated debt of such subsidiaries. In May 2006, upon the expiration of the 2014 Add-on Notes Exchange Offer, $50 million aggregate principal amount of Add-on Notes were exchanged for the 2014 Add-on Exchange Notes.
5.175 Million Common Stock Offering
On November 21, 2005, we closed an underwritten public offering of 5,175,000 shares of our common stock at $11.80 per share, less underwriting discounts. The sale included 675,000 shares sold in connection with the exercise of an over-allotment option granted to the underwriters. We received approximately $58 million in net proceeds from the sale of the shares, after deducting underwriting discounts and before estimated offering expenses.
8.625% Series B Preferred Redemption
On May 2, 2005, we fully redeemed our 8.625% Series B Cumulative Preferred Stock (NYSE:OHI PrB) (“Series B Preferred Stock”). We redeemed the 2.0 million shares of Series B at a price of $25.55104, comprising the $25 liquidation value and accrued dividend. Under FASB-EITF Issue D-42, The Effect on the Calculation of Earnings per Share for the Redemption or Induced Conversion of Preferred Stock, the repurchase of the Series B Preferred Stock resulted in a non-cash charge to net income available to common shareholders of approximately $2.0 million reflecting the write-off of the original issuance costs of the Series B Preferred Stock.
Other Long-Term Borrowings
During the three months ended March 31, 2006, Haven used the $39 million of proceeds from the GE Loan to partially repay a portion of a $62 million mortgage it has with us. Simultaneously, we subordinated the payment of its remaining $23 million on the mortgage note to that of the GE Loan. In conjunction with the above transactions and the application of FIN 46R, we consolidated the financial statements of this Haven entity into our financial statements, which contained the long-term borrowings with General Electric Capital Corporation of $39.0 million. The loan has an interest rate of approximately seven percent and is due in 2012. The lender of the $39.0 million does not have recourse to our assets. See Note - 3 Properties; Leased Property.
Dividends
In order to qualify as a REIT, we are required to distribute dividends (other than capital gain dividends) to our stockholders in an amount at least equal to (A) the sum of (i) 90% of our "REIT taxable income" (computed without regard to the dividends paid deduction and our net capital gain), and (ii) 90% of the net income (after tax), if any, from foreclosure property, minus (B) the sum of certain items of non-cash income. In addition, if we dispose of any built-in gain asset during a recognition period, we will be required to distribute at least 90% of the built-in gain (after tax), if any, recognized on the disposition of such asset. Such distributions must be paid in the taxable year to which they relate, or in the following taxable year if declared before we timely file our tax return for such year and paid on or before the first regular dividend payment after such declaration. In addition, such distributions are required to be made pro rata, with no preference to any share of stock as compared with other shares of the same class, and with no preference to one class of stock as compared with another class except to the extent that such class is entitled to such a preference. To the extent that we do not distribute all of our net capital gain or do distribute at least 90%, but less than 100% of our "REIT taxable income," as adjusted, we will be subject to tax thereon at regular ordinary and capital gain corporate tax rates. In addition, our New Credit Facility has certain financial covenants that limit the distribution of dividends paid during a fiscal quarter to no more than 95% of our aggregate cumulative funds from operations (“FFO”) as defined in the loan agreement governing the New Credit Facility (the “Loan Agreement”), unless a greater distribution is required to maintain REIT status. The Loan Agreement defines FFO as net income (or loss) plus depreciation and amortization and shall be adjusted for charges related to: (i) restructuring our debt; (ii) redemption of preferred stock; (iii) litigation charges up to $5.0 million; (iv) non-cash charges for accounts and notes receivable up to $5.0 million; (v) non-cash compensation related expenses; (vi) non-cash impairment charges; and (vii) tax liabilities in an amount not to exceed $8.0 million.
Common Dividends
On January 16, 2007, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of $0.26 per share, an increase of $0.01 per common share compared to the prior quarter. The common dividend was paid February 15, 2007 to common stockholders of record on January 31, 2007.
On October 24, 2006, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of $0.25 per share, an increase of $0.01 per common share compared to the prior quarter. The common dividend was paid November 15, 2006 to common stockholders of record on November 3, 2006.
On July 17, 2006, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of $0.24 per share. The common dividend was paid August 15, 2006 to common stockholders of record on July 31, 2006.
On April 18, 2006, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of $0.24 per share, an increase of $0.01 per common share compared to the prior quarter. The common dividend was paid May 15, 2006 to common stockholders of record on April 28, 2006.
On January 17, 2006, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of $0.23 per share, an increase of $0.01 per common share compared to the prior quarter. The common stock dividend was paid February 15, 2006 to common stockholders of record on January 31, 2006.
Series D Preferred Dividends
On January 16, 2007, the Board of Directors declared regular quarterly dividends of approximately $0.52344 per preferred share on its 8.375% Series D cumulative redeemable preferred stock (the “Series D Preferred Stock”), that were paid February 15, 2007 to preferred stockholders of record on January 31, 2007. The liquidation preference for our Series D Preferred Stock is $25.00 per share. Regular quarterly preferred dividends for the Series D Preferred Stock represent dividends for the period November 1, 2006 through January 31, 2007.
On October 24, 2006, the Board of Directors declared the regular quarterly dividends of approximately $0.52344 per preferred share on the Series D Preferred Stock that were paid November 15, 2006 to stockholders of record on November 3, 2006.
On July 17, 2006, the Board of Directors declared regular quarterly dividends of approximately $0.52344 per preferred share on the Series D Preferred Stock that were paid August 15, 2006 to preferred stockholders of record on July 31, 2006.
On April 18, 2006, the Board of Directors declared regular quarterly dividends of approximately $0.52344 per preferred share on the Series D Preferred Stock that were paid May 15, to preferred stockholders of record on April 28, 2006.
On January 17, 2006, the Board of Directors declared regular quarterly dividends of approximately $0.52344 per preferred share on the Series D Preferred Stock that were paid February 15, 2006 to preferred stockholders of record on January 31, 2006.
Liquidity
We believe our liquidity and various sources of available capital, including cash from operations, our existing availability under our Credit Facility and expected proceeds from mortgage payoffs are more than adequate to finance operations, meet recurring debt service requirements and fund future investments through the next twelve months.
We regularly review our liquidity needs, the adequacy of cash flow from operations, and other expected liquidity sources to meet these needs. We believe our principal short-term liquidity needs are to fund:
· normal recurring expenses;
· debt service payments;
· preferred stock dividends;
· common stock dividends; and
· growth through acquisitions of additional properties.
The primary source of liquidity is our cash flows from operations. Operating cash flows have historically been determined by: (i) the number of facilities we lease or have mortgages on; (ii) rental and mortgage rates; (iii) our debt service obligations; and (iv) general and administrative expenses. The timing, source and amount of cash flows provided by financing activities and used in investing activities are sensitive to the capital markets environment, especially to changes in interest rates. Changes in the capital markets environment may impact the availability of cost-effective capital and affect our plans for acquisition and disposition activity.
Cash and cash equivalents totaled $0.7 million as of December 31, 2006, a decrease of $3.2 million as compared to the balance at December 31, 2005. The following is a discussion of changes in cash and cash equivalents due to operating, investing and financing activities, which are presented in our Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows.
Operating Activities - Net cash flow from operating activities generated $62.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, as compared to $74.1 million for the same period in 2005. The $11.2 million decrease is due primarily to: (i) an investment made with Guardian that is classified as a lease inducement asset and (ii) one-time contractual revenue associated with a mortgage note prepayment in 2005. The decrease was partially offset by (i) incremental revenue associated with acquisitions completed throughout 2005 and 2006 and (ii) normal working capital fluctuations during the period.
Investing Activities - Net cash flow from investing activities was an outflow of $161.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2006, as compared to an outflow of $195.3 million for the same period in 2005. The decrease in outflows of $34.0 million was primarily due to: (i) $70 million of fewer acquisitions completed in 2006 versus 2005; (ii) $50 million of fewer proceeds received from the sale of real estate assets and the sale of Sun common stock in 2006 versus 2005; and (iii) a $10 million mortgage payoff in 2006 versus a $60 million mortgage payoff in 2005.
Financing Activities - Net cash flow from financing activities was an inflow of $95.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 as compared to an inflow of $113.1 million for the same period in 2005. The change in financing cash flow was primarily a result of: (i) $50 million of additional net borrowings under our credit facility in 2006 compared to 2005; (ii) no common equity offerings in 2006 compared to a public issuance of 5.2 million shares of our common stock at a price of $11.80 per share in 2005; (iii) no debt offerings in 2006 compared to private offerings of a combined $225 million of senior unsecured notes in 2005; (iv) a $50 million redemption of Series B Preferred Stock in 2005; (v) a tender offer and purchase of our 2007 Notes in 2005; (vi) $26 million of incremental DRIP proceeds in 2006; (vii) $39 million in proceeds in 2006 due to the consolidation of a VIE; and (viii) $11 million of additional payments of common and preferred dividend payments in 2006.
Effects of Recently Issued Accounting Standards
In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued FAS No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (“FAS No. 123R”), which is a revision of FAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. FAS No. 123R supersedes Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and amends FAS No. 95, Statement of Cash Flows. We adopted FAS No. 123R at the beginning of our 2006 fiscal year using the modified prospective transition method. The additional expense recorded in 2006 as a result of this adoption was approximately $3 thousand.
FIN 48 Evaluation
In July 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes (“FIN 48”). FIN 48 is an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes, and it seeks to reduce the diversity in practice associated with certain aspects of measurement and recognition in accounting for income taxes. In addition, FIN will require expanded disclosure with respect to the uncertainty in income taxes and is effective as of the beginning of our 2007 fiscal year. We are currently evaluating the impact of adoption of FIN 48 on our financial statements.
FAS 157 Evaluation
In September 2006, the FASB issued FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value Measurements (“FAS No. 157”). This standard defines fair value, establishes a methodology for measuring fair value and expands the required disclosure for fair value measurements. FAS No. 157 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those years. Provisions of FAS No. 157 are required to be applied prospectively as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which FAS No. 157 is applied. We are evaluating the impact that FAS No. 157 will have on our financial statements.
Item 7A
Item 7A - Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure about Market Risk
We are exposed to various market risks, including the potential loss arising from adverse changes in interest rates. We do not enter into derivatives or other financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes, but we seek to mitigate the effects of fluctuations in interest rates by matching the term of new investments with new long-term fixed rate borrowing to the extent possible.
The following disclosures of estimated fair value of financial instruments are subjective in nature and are dependent on a number of important assumptions, including estimates of future cash flows, risks, discount rates and relevant comparable market information associated with each financial instrument. The use of different market assumptions and estimation methodologies may have a material effect on the reported estimated fair value amounts. Accordingly, the estimates presented below are not necessarily indicative of the amounts we would realize in a current market exchange.
Mortgage notes receivable - The fair value of mortgage notes receivable is estimated by discounting the future cash flows using the current rates at which similar loans would be made to borrowers with similar credit ratings and for the same remaining maturities.
Notes receivable - The fair value of notes receivable is estimated by discounting the future cash flows using the current rates at which similar loans would be made to borrowers with similar credit ratings and for the same remaining maturities.
Borrowings under lines of credit arrangement - The carrying amount approximates fair value because the borrowings are interest rate adjustable.
Senior unsecured notes - The fair value of the senior unsecured notes is estimated by discounting the future cash flows using the current borrowing rate available for the similar debt.
The market value of our long-term fixed rate borrowings and mortgages is subject to interest rate risks. Generally, the market value of fixed rate financial instruments will decrease as interest rates rise and increase as interest rates fall. The estimated fair value of our total long-term borrowings at December 31, 2006 was approximately $693.7 million. A one percent increase in interest rates would result in a decrease in the fair value of long-term borrowings by approximately $30.7 million at December 31, 2006. The estimated fair value of our total long-term borrowings at December 31, 2005 was approximately $568.7 million, and a one percent increase in interest rates would have resulted in a decrease in the fair value of long-term borrowings by approximately $31 million.
While we currently do not engage in hedging strategies, we may engage in such strategies in the future, depending on management’s analysis of the interest rate environment and the costs and risks of such strategies.
Item 8
Item 8 - Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
The consolidated financial statements and the report of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, on such financial statements are filed as part of this report beginning on page. The summary of unaudited quarterly results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 is included in Note 16 to our audited consolidated financial statements, which is incorporated herein by reference in response to Item 302 of Regulation S-K.
Item 9
Item 9 - Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
None.
Item 9A
Item 9A - Controls and Procedures
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) are controls and other procedures that are designed to provide reasonable assurance that the information that we are required to disclose in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
In connection with the preparation of our Form 10-K as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006, we evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2006. In making this evaluation, our management considered the matters relating to the previous restatement of our financial statements as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and for the three years ended December 31, 2005 (the “Restatement”) and the material weakness as of December 31, 2005 identified during the Restatement. Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2006.
In light of the material weakness described below, we performed additional analyses and other procedures to ensure that our consolidated financial statements included in this Form 10-K were prepared in accordance with GAAP. These measures included, among other things, expansion of our document review procedures and dedication of significant internal resources to scrutinize account analyses. As a result, we concluded that the consolidated financial statements included in this Form 10-K present fairly, in all material respects, our financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented in conformity with GAAP.
Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Internal control over financial reporting is defined in Rule 13a-15(f) or 15d-15(f) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as a process designed by, or under the supervision of, a company’s principal executive and principal financial officers and effected by a company’s board of directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with GAAP and includes those policies and procedures that:
·
Pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company;
·
Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and
·
Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within our company have been detected. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.
In connection with the preparation of our Form 10-K, our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006. In making that assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control-Integrated Framework. Based on management’s assessment, management believes that, as of December 31, 2006, our internal control over financial reporting was not effective based on those criteria.
In connection with management’s assessment of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 related to the Restatement, management determined that a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting existed as of December 31, 2005, as described in our Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2005, filed on December 14, 2006. In connection with management’s assessment of our internal control over financial reporting related to the preparation of the Form 10-K, management has determined that as of December 31, 2006, the material weakness existing as of December 31, 2005 had not yet been remediated and thus, as of December 31, 2006, we lacked sufficient internal control processes, procedures and personnel resources necessary to address accounting for certain complex and/or non-routine transactions. This material weakness resulted in errors in accounting for financial instruments, income taxes, and rental revenues. These errors were recorded and disclosed in the restated quarterly consolidated financial statements for the three-month period ended March 31, 2006 and the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2006 included in Form 10-Q/A, and in the restated consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2005 included in Form 10-K/A, filed on December 14, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This material weakness could result in a material misstatement to our annual or interim consolidated financial statements that would not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. As a result of this material weakness, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that as of December 31, 2006, we did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting based on the criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework, issued by the COSO.
Our independent auditors have issued an audit report on our assessment of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006. This report appears on page of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Plan for Remediation of Material Weakness
In response to the identified material weakness, our management, with oversight from our audit committee, is taking steps to remediate the aforementioned material weakness. As of the date of this Form 10-K, we are continuing to develop formal processes, review procedures and documentation standards for the accounting and monitoring of non-routine and complex transactions and provide additional training for our accounting personnel. In addition, we, along with our advisors, have reviewed prior acquisition and investment agreements and documentation to confirm assets are appropriately recorded and will implement procedures to have agreements and documentation reviewed by our tax counsel and financial advisors. We continue to evaluate other measures, including expanding the personnel in our accounting department with the appropriate technical skills, to enhance the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.
Design and Evaluation of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we have included above a report of management's assessment of the design and effectiveness of our internal controls as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. Our independent registered public accounting firm also attested to, and reported on, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. The independent registered public accounting firm's attestation report is included in our 2006 financial statements under the caption entitled "Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" and is incorporated herein by reference.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
During the year ended December 31, 2006, we continued to develop formal processes, review procedures and documentation standards for the accounting and monitoring of non-routine and complex transactions and expanding our accounting personnel, which we expect to improve our internal control over financial reporting.
Item 9B
Item 9B - Other Information
Increase in Credit Facility
Pursuant to Section 2.01 of our Credit Agreement, dated as of March 31, 2006, as amended, by and among OHI Asset, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, OHI Asset (ID), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, OHI Asset (LA), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, OHI Asset (TX), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, OHI Asset (CA), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Delta Investors I, LLC a Maryland limited liability company, Delta Investors II, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and Texas Lessor - Stonegate, LP, a Maryland limited partnership, the Lenders identified therein, and Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent (the “Credit Agreement”), we are permitted under certain circumstances to increase our available borrowing base under the Credit Agreement from $200 million up to an aggregate of $300 million.. Effective as of February 22, 2007, we exercised our right to increase our available revolving commitment under Section 2.01 of the Credit Agreement from $200 million to $255 million and we consented to the addition of 18 our properties to the borrowing base assets under the Credit Agreement. As of the date of this report, we have borrowings outstanding of $156.0 million and letters of credit for $2.5 million under the Credit Agreement. For additional information regarding our Credit Agreement, see Item 7 Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Financing Activities and Borrowing Arrangements.
Appointment of Chief Accounting Officer
On February 19, 2007, we hired Michael Ritz, 38, to serve as our Chief Accounting Officer. Mr. Ritz will commence employment with us effective February 28, 2007. While we have not entered into a written employment agreement with Mr. Ritz, we have agreed to pay to Mr. Ritz an annual base salary of $170,000 plus an annual performance bonus of up to 35 percent of his annual base salary. Mr. Ritz will also be permitted to participate in our health and welfare plans, 401(k) program and similar plans and programs available to all of our employees. Prior to joining us, Mr. Ritz served as the Vice President, Accounting & Assistant Corporate Controller from April 2005 until February 2007 and the Director, Financial Reporting from August 2002 until April 2005 for Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (NYSE:NWL). Mr. Ritz also served as the Director of Accounting and Controller of Novavax, Inc. (Nasdaq:NVAX) from July 2001 through August 2002.
The foregoing disclosure is intended to satisfy the requirements of Form 8-K. The disclosure entitled “Increase in Credit Facility” is intended to comply with Items 2.03 of Form 8-K, and the disclosure entitled “Appointment of Chief Accounting Officer” is intended to comply with Item 5.02 of Form 8-K.
PART III
Item 10
Item 10 - Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
Information Regarding Directors
Directors
Year First
Became a
Director
Business Experience During Past 5 Years
Term to Expire in
Thomas F. Franke (76)
Mr. Franke is a Director and has served in this capacity since March 31, 1992. Mr. Franke is Chairman and a principal owner of Cambridge Partners, Inc., an owner, developer and manager of multifamily housing in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is also a principal owner of Laurel Healthcare (a private healthcare firm operating in the United States) and is a principal owner of Abacus Hotels LTD. (a private hotel firm in the United Kingdom). Mr. Franke was a founder and previously a director of Principal Healthcare Finance Limited and Omega Worldwide, Inc.
Bernard J. Korman (75)
Mr. Korman is Chairman of the Board and has served in this capacity since March 8, 2004. He has served as a director since October 19, 1993. Mr. Korman has been Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Philadelphia Health Care Trust, a private healthcare foundation, since December 1995. Mr. Korman is also a director of The New America High Income Fund, Inc. (NYSE:HYB) (financial services), Medical Nutrition USA, Inc. (OTC:MDNU.OB) (develops and distributes nutritional products) and NutraMax Products, Inc. (OTC:NUTP) (consumer health care products). He was formerly President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of MEDIQ Incorporated (OTC:MDDQP) (health care services) from 1977 to 1995. Mr. Korman served as a director of Kramont Realty Trust (NYSE:KRT) (real estate investment trust) from June 2000 until its merger in April 2005 and of The Pep Boys, Inc. (NYSE:PBY) and also served as The Pep Boys, Inc.’s Chairman of the Board from May 28, 2003 until his retirement from such board in September 2004. Mr. Korman was previously a director of Omega Worldwide, Inc.
Harold J. Kloosterman (64)
Mr. Kloosterman is a Director and has served in this capacity since September 1, 1992. Mr. Kloosterman has served as President since 1985 of Cambridge Partners, Inc., a company he formed in 1985. He has been involved in the development and management of commercial, apartment and condominium projects in Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor, Michigan and in the Chicago area. Mr. Kloosterman was formerly a Managing Director of Omega Capital from 1986 to 1992. Mr. Kloosterman has been involved in the acquisition, development and management of commercial and multifamily properties since 1978. He has also been a senior officer of LaSalle Partners, Inc. (now Jones Lang LaSalle).
Edward Lowenthal (62)
Mr. Lowenthal is a Director and has served in this capacity since October 17, 1995. From January 1997 to March 2002, Mr. Lowenthal served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Wellsford Real Properties, Inc. (AMEX:WRP) (a real estate merchant bank), and was President of the predecessor of Wellsford Real Properties, Inc. since 1986. Mr. Lowenthal also serves as a director of WRP, REIS, Inc. (a private provider of real estate market information and valuation technology), Ark Restaurants (Nasdaq:ARKR) (a publicly traded owner and operator of restaurants), American Campus Communities (NYSE:ACC) (a public developer, owner and operator of student housing at the university level), Desarrolladora Homex (NYSE: HXM) (a Mexican homebuilder) and serves as a trustee of the Manhattan School of Music.
C. Taylor Pickett (45)
Mr. Pickett is the Chief Executive Officer of our company and has served in this capacity since June, 2001. Mr. Pickett is also a Director and has served in this capacity since May 30, 2002. Prior to joining our company, Mr. Pickett served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from January 1998 to June 2001 of Integrated Health Services, Inc., a public company specializing in post-acute healthcare services. He also served as Executive Vice President of Mergers and Acquisitions from May 1997 to December 1997 of Integrated Health Services. Prior to his roles as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of Mergers and Acquisitions, Mr. Pickett served as the President of Symphony Health Services, Inc. from January 1996 to May 1997.
Stephen D. Plavin (47)
Mr. Plavin is a Director and has served in this capacity since July 17, 2000. Mr. Plavin has been Chief Operating Officer of Capital Trust, Inc., (NYSE:CT) a New York City-based mortgage real estate investment trust (“REIT”) and investment management company and has served in this capacity since 1998. In this role, Mr. Plavin is responsible for all of the lending, investing and portfolio management activities of Capital Trust, Inc.
-49/50-
Information Regarding Directors
For information regarding our executive officers, see Item 1 - Business - Executive Officers of Our Company.
Board of Directors and Committees of the Board
The members of the Board of Directors on the date of this annual report on Form 10-K, and the committees of the Board on which they serve, are identified below.
Audit
Compensation
Investment
Nominating and Corporate
Director
Committee
Committee
Committee
Governance Committee
Thomas F. Franke
XX
X
Harold J. Kloosterman
X
X
XX
XX
Bernard J. Korman *
X
X
X
Edward Lowenthal
X
X
X
C. Taylor Pickett
X
Stephen D. Plavin
XX
X
X
*
Chairman of the Board
XX
Chairman of the Committee
X
Member
Audit Committee
Each of the members of the Audit Committee is financially literate, as required of audit committee members by the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), and independent as is required under the Exchange Act and the NYSE rules. The Board has determined that Mr. Plavin is qualified to serve as an “audit committee financial expert” as such term is defined in Item 401 (h) of Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC. The Board made a qualitative assessment of Mr. Plavin’s level of knowledge and experience based on a number of factors, including his formal education and his experience as Chief Operating Officer of Capital Trust, Inc., a New York City-based mortgage REIT and investment management company, where he is responsible for all lending and portfolio management activities. Mr. Plavin holds an M.B.A. from J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University.
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our executive officers, directors and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of our company common stock to file initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership with the SEC. SEC regulations require these individuals to give us copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file.
Based solely on our review of forms that were furnished to us and written representations from reporting persons, we believe that the executive officers, directors and more than 10% stockholders complied with all filing requirements related to Section 16(a). In making these statements, we have relied on the representations of the persons involved and on copies of their reports filed with the SEC.
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. We have adopted a written Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (“Code of Ethics”) that applies to all of our directors and employees, including our chief executive officer, chief financial officer and controller. A copy of our Code of Ethics is available on our website at www.omegahealthcare.com and print copies are available upon request without charge. You can request print copies by contacting our Chief Financial Officer in writing at Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., 9690 Deereco Road, Suite 100, Timonium, Maryland 21093 or by telephone at 410-427-1700. Any amendment to our Code of Ethics or any waiver of our Code of Ethics will be disclosed on our website at www.omegahealthcare.com promptly following the date of such amendment or waiver.
Item 11
Item 11 - Executive Compensation
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Our Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) addresses the following topics:
·
the members and role of our Compensation Committee (the “Committee”);
·
our compensation-setting process;
·
our compensation philosophy and policies regarding executive compensation;
·
the components of our executive compensation program; and
·
our compensation decisions for fiscal year 2006 and for the first quarter of 2007.
In this Compensation Discussion and Analysis section, the terms “we,” “our,” “us” and the “Committee” refer to the Compensation Committee of Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.’s Board of Directors.
The Compensation Committee
Committee Members and Independence
Thomas F. Franke, Harold J. Kloosterman, Bernard J. Korman, Edward Lowenthal, and Stephen D. Plavin are the members of the Committee. Mr. Franke, who has served on the Company’s Board of Directors since 1992, is the Chairman of the Committee. Each member of the Committee qualifies as an independent director under the New York Stock Exchange listing standards and under the Company’s Board of Directors’ standards of independence.
Role of the Committee
The Committee’s responsibilities and function are governed by its charter, which the Board of Directors has adopted and a copy of which is available at our website. The Committee administers our 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, our 2000 Stock Incentive Plan and our 1993 Deferred Compensation Plan and has responsibility for other incentive and benefit plans. The Committee determines the compensation of our executive officers and reviews with the Board of Directors all aspects of compensation for our executive officers.
The Committee is responsible to the Board for the following activities:
·
The Committee determines and approves the compensation for the Chief Executive Officer and our other executive officers. In doing so, the Committee evaluates their performance in light of goals and objectives reviewed by the Committee and such other factors as the Committee deems appropriate in our best interests and in satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the New York Stock Exchange and any other legal or regulatory requirements.
·
The Committee reviews and recommends for Board approval (or approves, where applicable) the adoption and amendment of our director and executive officer incentive compensation and equity-based plans. The Committee has the responsibility for recommending to the Board the level and form of compensation and benefits for directors.
·
The Committee may administer our incentive compensation and equity-based plans and may approve such awards thereunder as the Committee deems appropriate.
·
The Committee reviews and monitors succession plans for the Chief Executive Officer and our other senior executives.
·
The Committee meets to review and discuss with management the CD&A required by the SEC rules and regulations. The Committee recommends to the Board whether the CD&A should be included in our proxy statement or other applicable SEC filings. The Committee prepares a Compensation Committee Report for inclusion in our applicable filings with the SEC. Such reports state whether the Committee reviewed and discussed with management the CD&A, and whether, based on such review and discussion, the Committee recommended to the Board that the CD&A be included in our proxy statement or other applicable SEC filings.
·
The Committee should be consulted with respect to any employment agreements, severance agreements or change of control agreements that are entered into between us and any executive officer.
·
To the extent not otherwise inconsistent with its obligations and responsibilities, the Committee may form subcommittees (which shall consist of one or more members of the Committee) and delegate authority to such subcommittees hereunder as it deems appropriate.
·
The Committee reports to the Board as it deems appropriate and as the Board may request.
·
The Committee performs such other activities consistent with its charter, our Bylaws, governing law, the rules and regulations of the New York Stock Exchange and such other requirements applicable to the Company as the Committee or the Board deems necessary or appropriate.
The responsibilities of a member of the Committee are in addition to those responsibilities set out for a member of the Board.
Committee Meetings
The Committee meets as often as necessary to perform its duties and responsibilities. The Committee met four times during the year ended December 31, 2006 and thus far has held three meetings in 2007. Mr. Franke works, from time to time, with Mr. Pickett and other members of the Committee to establish the agenda. The Committee typically meets in executive sessions without management and meets with the Company’s legal counsel and outside advisors when necessary.
The Committee receives and reviews materials in advance of its meetings. These materials include information that management believes will be helpful to the Committee as well as materials the Committee has requested. Depending upon the agenda for the particular meeting, these materials may include, among other things:
·
reports from compensation consultants or legal counsel;
·
a comparison of the compensation of our executives and directors compared to its competitors prepared by members of the Committee, by management at the Committee’s request or by a compensation consultant engaged by the Committee;
·
financial reports on year-to-date performance versus budget and compared to prior year performance, as well as other financial data regarding us and our performance;
·
reports on our strategic plan and budgets for future periods;
·
information on the executive officers’ stock ownership and option holdings; and
·
reports on the levels of achievement of individual and corporate objectives.
The Compensation Committee Process
Committee Advisors
The Compensation Committee Charter grants the Committee the sole and direct authority to engage and terminate advisors and compensation consultants and to approve their fees and retention terms. These advisors and consultants report directly to the Committee and we are responsible for paying their fees.
The Committee had previously engaged a consulting group in 2004, The Schonbraun McCann Group LLP (“Schonbraun”), in connection with determining the compensation of our executive officers for the current fiscal year, and the Committee also retained Schonbraun in late 2006 in connection with determining the compensation and incentive arrangements for our executive officers for fiscal year 2007. Schonbraun has not performed and has agreed not to perform in the future any work for us other than work for which it is engaged by the Committee. During late 2006 and early 2007, Schonbraun presented to the Committee analysis that included, but was not limited to, the status of our current compensation scheme as compared to our peer companies, the methodologies behind the research and analysis it used to determine the comparisons, the techniques it used to standardize the compensation schemes of peer companies in order to permit more accurate comparisons against our policies, and a proposed incentive compensation plan for executive officers. The Committee also requested that Schonbraun evaluate our current director compensation and prepare a proposal with respect to compensation for our directors in 2007.
Peer companies included in Schonbraun’s 2006/2007 analysis were Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., BioMed Realty Trust, Corporate Office Properties Trust Inc., Digital Realty Trust, Inc., First Potomac Realty Trust, Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated, Health Care REIT, Inc., Healthcare Realty Trust, LTC Properties, Inc., Medical Properties Trust Inc., Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., Parkway Properties, Inc., Republic Property Trust, Ventas, Inc., Washington Real Estate Investment Trust and Windrose Medical Properties Trust. Analyses performed included a comparison of the total return to the stockholders of the respective companies, a comparison of salaries of comparable officers for each company and a comparison of the terms of officer employment agreements.
Also, our Chief Executive Officer meets with the Committee upon the Committee’s request to provide information to the Committee regarding management’s views regarding its performance as well as other factors the Chief Executive Officer believes should impact the compensation of our executive officers. In addition, the Chief Executive Officer provides his recommendation to the Committee regarding the compensation of the executive officers and the business and performance targets for incentive awards and bonuses.
Annual Evaluation
The Committee meets in one or more executive sessions each year to evaluate the performance of our named executive officers, to determine their bonuses for the prior year, to establish bonus metrics for the current year, to set their salaries for the current year, and to approve any grants to them of equity incentive compensation, as the case may be.
The Committee also performs an annual evaluation of its performance and the adequacy of its charter and reports to our Board of Directors regarding this evaluation.
Compensation Policy
Historically, the policy and the guidelines followed by the Committee have been directed toward providing compensation and incentives to our executive officers in order to achieve the following objectives:
1)
Assist in attracting and retaining talented and well-qualified executives;
2)
Reward performance and initiative;
3)
Be competitive with other healthcare real estate investment trusts;
4)
Be significantly related to accomplishments and our short-term and long-term successes, particularly measured in terms of growth in funds from operations on a per share basis;
5)
Align the interests of our executive officers with the interests of our stockholders; and
6)
Encourage executives to achieve meaningful levels of ownership of our stock.
Elements of Compensation
The following is a discussion of each element of our executive compensation:
Annual Base Salary
Our approach to base compensation levels has been to offer competitive salaries in comparison with prevailing market practices. The Committee examined market compensation levels and trends in connection with the issuance of the executive employment contracts during 2004. Additionally, in connection with the issuance of these contracts, the Committee hired Schonbraun in 2004 to conduct a review and analysis of our peer group companies and to provide the Committee with executive base salaries of individuals then employed in similar positions in such companies. The employment agreements for each of the executive officers established a base annual salary and provided that the base salary should be reviewed on an annual basis to determine if increases are warranted.
In and 2007, the Committee evaluated and established the annual executive officer salaries for each fiscal year in connection with its annual review of management’s performance and based on input from our Chairman of the Board of Directors and our Chief Executive Officer. The Committee undertook this evaluation and determination at the beginning of fiscal year 2006 and 2007 so that it could have available data for the recently completed prior fiscal year and so that it could set expectations for the beginning fiscal year. In undertaking the annual review, the Committee considered the decision-making responsibilities of each position and the experience, work performance and team-building skills of each incumbent officer, as well as our overall performance and the achievement of our strategic objectives and budgets. The Committee viewed work performance as the single most important measurement factor, followed by team-building skills and decision-making responsibilities.
We accrue salaries as they are earned by our officers, and thus all salaries earned during the year are expensed in the year earned. Each officer must include his salary in his taxable income in the year during which he receives it. We withhold appropriate tax withholdings from the salaries of the respective officers.
Annual Cash Bonus
Our historical compensation practices have embodied the principle that annual cash bonuses should be based primarily on achieving objectives that enhance long-term stockholder value is desirable in aligning stockholder and management interests.
The Committee has considered our overall financial performance for the fiscal year and the performance of the specific areas of our company under each incumbent officer’s direct control. It was the Committee’s view that this balance supported the accomplishment of overall objectives and rewarded individual contributions by executive officers. Individual annual bonuses for each named executive have been consistent with market practices for positions with comparable decision-making responsibilities and have been awarded in accordance with the terms of each executive officer’s employment agreement.
In 2006, the executive officers were eligible for a cash bonus at the Committee’s discretion based on the objective, subjective and personal performance goals set by the Committee. This bonus is in addition to any special bonus that may be paid at the discretion of the Board. In determining the amount of the annual cash bonuses, the Committee considered a variety of factors, including the individual performance of each executive officer along with our achievement of certain financial benchmarks, the successful implementation of asset management initiatives, control of expenses and satisfaction of our strategic objectives. Considering these factors, the Committee set annual cash bonuses related to fiscal year 2006 for Messrs. Pickett, Booth, Stephenson, and Crabill at $463,500, $158,500, $114,750 and $123,000, respectively.
We accrue estimated bonuses for our executive officers throughout the year service is performed relating to such bonuses, and thus bonuses are expensed in the year they are earned, assuming they are approved by our Board of Directors. Each officer must include his bonus in his taxable income in the year during which he receives it, which is generally in the year following the year it is earned. We withhold appropriate tax withholdings from the bonus amounts awarded.
Restricted Stock Incentives
In 2004, we entered into restricted stock agreements with four executive officers under the Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan. A total of 317,500 shares of restricted stock were granted, which equated to approximately $3.3 million of deferred compensation. The shares vest thirty-three and one-third percent (33 ⅓%) on each of January 1, 2005, January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007 so long as the executive officer remains employed on the vesting date, with vesting accelerating upon a qualifying termination of employment, upon the occurrence of a change of control (as defined in the restricted stock agreements), death or disability. In addition, we also entered into performance restricted stock unit agreements with our four executive officers. A total of 317,500 performance restricted stock units were granted under the Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan. The performance restricted stock units were fully vested as December 31, 2006 following our attaining $0.30 per share of common stock per fiscal quarter in “Adjusted Funds from Operations” (as defined in the agreement) for two (2) consecutive quarters. Dividend equivalents (plus an interest factor based on our company’s cost of borrowing) accrued on unvested shares and were paid, according to the terms of the stock grant, because the performance restricted stock units vested. Dividend equivalents on vested performance restricted stock units are paid currently. Pursuant to the terms of the performance restricted stock unit agreements, each of the executive officers will not receive the vested shares attributable to the performance restricted stock units until the earlier of January 1, 2008, such executive officer is terminated without cause or quits for good reason (as defined in the performance restricted stock unit agreement), or the death or disability (as defined in performance restricted stock unit agreement) of the executive officer.
In 2006, the Committee did not make any grants under the 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, Stock Incentive Plan or 1993 Deferred Compensation Plan to any executive officer or employee.
We account for all stock and option awards in accordance with Statement of FAS No. 123R. Executive officers recognize taxable income from stock option awards when a vested option is exercised. We generally receive a corresponding tax deduction for compensation expense in the year of exercise. The amount included in the executive officer’s wages and the amount we may deduct is equal to the most recent closing common stock price on the date the stock options are exercised less the exercise price multiplies by the number of stock options exercised. We do not pay or reimburse any executive officer for any taxes due upon exercise of a stock option or upon vesting of an award.
Retirement Savings Opportunities
All employees may participate in our 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (“401(k) Plan”). We provide this plan to help our employees save some amount of their cash compensation for retirement in a tax efficient manner. Under the 401(k) Plan, employees are eligible to make contributions, and we, at our discretion, may match contributions and make a profit sharing contribution. We do not provide an option for our employees to invest in our stock in the 401(k) plan.
Health and Welfare Benefits
We provide a competitive benefits package to all full-time employees which includes health and welfare benefits, such as medical, dental, disability insurance, and life insurance benefits. The plans under which these benefits are offered do not discriminate in scope, terms or operation in favor of officers and directors and are available to all salaried employees. We have no structured executive perquisite benefits (e.g., club memberships or company vehicles) for any executive officer, including the named executive officers, and we currently do not provide supplemental pensions to our employees, including the named executive officers.
Chief Executive Officer Compensation
In connection with retaining the services of Mr. Pickett to act as our Chief Executive Officer, we entered into an employment Agreement dated September 1, 2004 with Mr. Pickett. The Committee believes that the terms of the employment agreement are consistent with the duties and scope of responsibilities assigned to Mr. Pickett as Chief Executive Officer. In order to align Mr. Pickett’s interests with our long-term interests, Mr. Pickett’s compensation package includes significant equity-based compensation, including stock options and restricted stock. For a detailed description of the terms of the Employment Agreement, see “Compensation and Severance Agreements - C. Taylor Pickett Employment Agreement” below.
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, the Committee awarded Mr. Pickett an annual cash bonus of $463,500. This bonus was determined by the Committee substantially in accordance with the policies described above relating to all of our executive officers.
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT
The Committee reviewed and discussed the CD&A with management, and based on this review and discussion, the Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the CD&A be included in this prospectus, in the company’s annual proxy statement and the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.
Tax Deductibility of Executive Compensation
The SEC requires that this report comment upon our policy with respect to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 162(m) disallows a federal income tax deduction for compensation over $1.0 million to any of the named executive officers unless the compensation is paid pursuant to a plan that is performance-related, non-discretionary and has been approved by our stockholders. We did not pay any compensation during 2006 that would be subject to Section 162(m). We believe that, because we qualify as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code and therefore are not subject to federal income taxes on our income to the extent distributed, the payment of compensation that does not satisfy the requirements of Section 162(m) will not generally affect our net income, although to the extent that compensation does not qualify for deduction under Section 162(m), a larger portion of stockholder distributions may be subject to federal income taxation as dividend income rather than return of capital. We do not believe that Section 162(m) will materially affect the taxability of stockholder distributions, although no assurance can be given in this regard due to the variety of factors that affect the tax position of each stockholder. For these reasons, Section 162(m) does not directly govern the Compensation Committee’s compensation policy and practices.
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors
/s/ Thomas F. Franke
/s/ Harold J. Kloosterman
/s/ Bernard J. Korman
/s/ Edward Lowenthal
/s/ Stephen D. Plavin
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
Thomas F. Franke, Harold J. Kloosterman, Bernard J. Korman, Edward Lowenthal and Stephen D. Plavin were members of the Compensation Committee for the year ended December 31, 2006 and during such period, there were no Compensation Committee interlocks or insider participation in compensation decisions.
Summary Compensation Table
Name and Principal Position
(A)
Year
(B
)
Salary
($
(C
)
)
Bonus
($
(1
(D
)
)
)
Stock Awards
($
(2
(E
)
)
)
Option
Awards
($
(F
)
)
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation ($
(G
)
)
Change in Pension Value and Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Earnings
(H
)
All Other Compen-
sation ($
(3
(I
)
)
)
Total
($
(J
)
)
Taylor Pickett
$
515,000
$
463,500
$
1,317,500
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
343,211
$
2,639,211
Robert Stephenson
$
255,000
$
114,750
$
632,400
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
168,172
$
1,170,322
Dan Booth
$
317,000
$
158,500
$
790,500
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
208,566
$
1,474,566
Lee Crabill
$
246,000
$
123,000
$
606,050
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
161,441
$
1,136,491
(1)
This amount represents the bonuses related to the performance in 2006 but paid in 2007.
(2)
The restricted common stock units were granted in 2004 and earned in 2006 because we attained $0.30 per share of common stock per fiscal quarter in “Adjusted Funds from Operations,” which target was previously set in 2004 by the Committee, valued at grant date price of $10.54 times the number of units earned.
(3) This amount includes: (i) dividends on units paid in January 2007 (see footnote 2 above);
(ii) interest earned on dividends on units paid in January 2007 (see footnote 2 above);
(iii) dividends on restricted stock that was paid during 2006, which vested on January 1, 2007; and
(iv) 401(K) matching contributions.
Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End
(1) These balances represent unvested restricted stock at December 31, 2006, which subsequently vested on January 1, 2007. These balances exclude performance restricted stock units, which were vested as of December 31, 2006 but will be distributed on January 1, 2008. The performance criteria for the receipt of these units were met in 2006. Messrs. Pickett, Stephenson, Booth and Crabill were awarded 125,000, 60,000, 75,000 and 57,500 of these performance restricted stock units, respectively.
(2) The market value is based on the closing price of our common stock on December 29, 2006 of $17.72.
Option Exercises and Stock Vested
(1)
This amount represents the gain to the employee based on the market price of underlying shares at the date of exercise less the exercise price.
Compensation and Severance Agreements
C. Taylor Pickett Employment Agreement
We entered into an employment agreement with C. Taylor Pickett, dated as of September 1, 2004, to be our Chief Executive Officer. The term of the agreement expires on December 31, 2007.
Mr. Pickett’s current base salary is $530,500 per year, subject to increase by us and provides that he will be eligible for an annual bonus of up to 125% of his base salary based on criteria determined by the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors.
In connection with this employment agreement, we issued Mr. Pickett 125,000 shares of our restricted common stock on September 10, 2004, which vested 33 1/3% on each of January 1, 2005, January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2007. Dividends were paid on unvested shares and a dividend equivalent per share was paid in an amount equal to the dividend per share payable to stockholders of record as of July 30, 2004. Also in connection with this employment agreement, we issued Mr. Pickett 125,000 performance restricted stock units on September 10, 2004, which were fully vested as of December 31, 2006 because we had attained $0.30 per share of common stock per fiscal quarter in “Adjusted Funds from Operations” (as defined in the agreement) for two (2) consecutive quarters. Dividend equivalents accrued on unvested shares and were paid upon vesting of the performance restricted stock units. Dividend equivalents on vested performance restricted stock units are paid currently. Pursuant to the terms of Mr. Pickett’s performance restricted stock unit agreement, he will not receive the vested shares attributable to his performance restricted stock units until the earlier of January 1, 2008, he is terminated without cause or quits for good reason (as defined in the performance restricted stock unit agreement), or his death or disability (as defined in performance restricted stock unit agreement).
If we terminate Mr. Pickett’s employment without “cause” or if he resigns for “good reason,” he will be entitled to payment of his cash compensation (the sum of his then current annual base salary plus average annual bonus payable based on the three completed fiscal years prior to termination of employment) for a period of three (3) years. “Cause” is defined in the employment agreement to include events such as willful refusal to perform duties, willful misconduct in performance of duties, unauthorized disclosure of confidential company information, or fraud or dishonesty against us. “Good reason” is defined in the employment agreement to include events such as our material breach of the employment agreement or our relocation of Mr. Pickett’s employment to more than 50 miles away without his consent.
Mr. Pickett is required to execute a release of claims against us as a condition to the payment of severance benefits. Severance is not paid if the term of the employment agreement expires. Mr. Pickett’s restricted common stock and performance restricted stock units will become fully vested upon the occurrence of Mr. Pickett’s death, disability, termination of employment without cause or resignation for good reason, or a “change in control” (as defined in the respective restricted stock agreement). In the event of a termination by us without cause or by Mr. Pickett for good reason, benefits are grossed up to cover federal excise taxes. If Mr. Pickett dies during the term of the employment agreement, his estate is entitled to a prorated bonus for the year of his death.
Mr. Pickett is restricted from using any of our confidential information during his employment and for two years thereafter or from using any trade secrets during his employment and for as long thereafter as permitted by applicable law. During the period of employment and for one year thereafter, Mr. Pickett is obligated not to provide managerial services or management consulting services to a competing business. Competing businesses is defined to include a defined list of competitors and any other business with the primary purpose of leasing assets to healthcare operators or financing ownership or operation of senior, retirement or healthcare related real estate. In addition, during the period of employment and for one year thereafter, Mr. Pickett agrees not to solicit clients or customers with whom he had material contact or to solicit our management level or key employees. If the term of the employment agreement expires at December 31, 2007 and as a result no severance is paid, then these provisions also expire at December 31, 2007.
Daniel J. Booth Employment Agreement
We entered into an employment agreement with Daniel J. Booth, dated as of September 1, 2004, to be our Chief Operating Officer. The term of the agreement expires on December 31, 2007.
Mr. Booth’s current base salary is $326,500 per year, subject to increase by us and provides that he will be eligible for an annual bonus of up to 75% of his base salary based on criteria determined by the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors.
In connection with this employment agreement, we issued Mr. Booth 75,000 shares of our restricted common stock on September 10, 2004, which vested 33 1/3% on each of January 1, 2005, January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2007. Dividends were paid on unvested shares and a dividend equivalent per share was paid in an amount equal to the dividend per share payable to stockholders of record as of July 30, 2004. Also in connection with this employment agreement, we issued Mr. Booth 75,000 performance restricted stock units on September 10, 2004, which were fully vested as of December 31, 2006 because we had attained $0.30 per share of common stock per fiscal quarter in “Adjusted Funds from Operations” (as defined in the agreement) for two (2) consecutive quarters. Dividend equivalents on vested performance restricted stock units are paid currently. Pursuant to the terms of Mr. Booth’s performance restricted stock unit agreement, he will not receive the vested shares attributable to his performance restricted stock units until the earlier of January 1, 2008, he is terminated without cause or quits for good reason (as defined in the performance restricted stock unit agreement), or his death or disability (as defined in performance restricted stock unit agreement).
If we terminate Mr. Booth’s employment without “cause” or if he resigns for “good reason,” he will be entitled to payment of his cash compensation (the sum of his then current annual base salary plus average annual bonus payable based on the three completed fiscal years prior to termination of employment) for a period of two (2) years. “Cause” is defined in the employment agreement to include events such as willful refusal to perform duties, willful misconduct in performance of duties, unauthorized disclosure of confidential company information, or fraud or dishonesty against us. “Good reason” is defined in the employment agreement to include events such as our material breach of the employment agreement or our relocation of Mr. Booth’s employment to more than 50 miles away without his consent.
Mr. Booth is required to execute a release of claims against us as a condition to the payment of severance benefits. Severance is not paid if the term of the employment agreement expires. Mr. Booth’s restricted common stock and performance restricted stock units will become fully vested upon the occurrence of Mr. Booth’s death, disability, termination of employment without cause or resignation for good reason, or a “change in control” (as defined in the respective restricted stock agreement). In the event of a termination by us without cause or by Mr. Booth for good reason, benefits are grossed up to cover federal excise taxes. If Mr. Booth dies during the term of the employment agreement, his estate is entitled to a prorated bonus for the year of his death.
Mr. Booth is restricted from using any of our confidential information during his employment and for two years thereafter or from using any trade secrets during his employment and for as long thereafter as permitted by applicable law. During the period of employment and for one year thereafter, Mr. Booth is obligated not to provide managerial services or management consulting services to a competing business. Competing businesses is defined to include a defined list of competitors and any other business with the primary purpose of leasing assets to healthcare operators or financing ownership or operation of senior, retirement or healthcare related real estate. In addition, during the period of employment and for one year thereafter, Mr. Booth agrees not to solicit clients or customers with whom he had material contact or to solicit our management level or key employees. If the term of the employment agreement expires at December 31, 2007 and as a result no severance is paid, then these provisions also expire at December 31, 2007.
Robert O. Stephenson Employment Agreement
We entered into an employment agreement with Robert O. Stephenson, dated as of September 1, 2004, to be our Chief Financial Officer. The term of the agreement expires on December 31, 2007.
Mr. Stephenson’s current base salary is $262,700 per year, subject to increase by us and provides that he will be eligible for an annual bonus of up to 60% of his base salary based on criteria determined by the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors.
In connection with this employment agreement, we issued Mr. Stephenson 60,000 shares of our restricted common stock on September 10, 2004, which vested 33 1/3% on each of January 1, 2005, January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2007. Dividends were paid on unvested shares and a dividend equivalent per share was paid in an amount equal to the dividend per share payable to stockholders of record as of July 30, 2004. Also in connection with this employment agreement, we issued Mr. Stephenson 60,000 performance restricted stock units on September 10, 2004, which were fully vested as of as of December 31, 2006 because we had attained $0.30 per share of common stock per fiscal quarter in “Adjusted Funds from Operation” (as defined in the agreement) for two (2) consecutive quarters. Dividend equivalents on vested performance restricted stock units are paid currently. Pursuant to the terms of Mr. Stephenson’s performance restricted stock unit agreement, he will not receive the vested shares attributable to his performance restricted stock units until the earlier of January 1, 2008, he is terminated without cause or quits for good reason (as defined in the performance restricted stock unit agreement), or his death or disability (as defined in performance restricted stock unit agreement).
If we terminate Mr. Stephenson’s employment without “cause” or if he resigns for “good reason,” he will be entitled to payment of his cash compensation (the sum of his then current annual base salary plus average annual bonus payable based on the three completed fiscal years prior to termination of employment) for a period of one and one half (1.5) years. “Cause” is defined in the employment agreement to include events such as willful refusal to perform duties, willful misconduct in performance of duties, unauthorized disclosure of confidential company information, or fraud or dishonesty against us. “Good reason” is defined in the employment agreement to include events such as our material breach of the employment agreement or our relocation of Mr. Stephenson’s employment to more than 50 miles away without his consent.
Mr. Stephenson is required to execute a release of claims against us as a condition to the payment of severance benefits. Severance is not paid if the term of the employment agreement expires. Mr. Stephenson’s restricted common stock and performance restricted stock units will become fully vested upon the occurrence of Mr. Stephenson’s death, disability, termination of employment without cause or resignation for good reason, or a “change in control” (as defined in the respective restricted stock agreement). In the event of a termination by us without cause or by Mr. Stephenson for good reason, benefits are grossed up to cover federal excise taxes. If Mr. Stephenson dies during the term of the employment agreement, his estate is entitled to a prorated bonus for the year of his death.
Mr. Stephenson is restricted from using any of our confidential information during his employment and for two years thereafter or from using any trade secrets during his employment and for as long thereafter as permitted by applicable law. During the period of employment and for one year thereafter, Mr. Stephenson is obligated not to provide managerial services or management consulting services to a competing business. Competing businesses is defined to include a defined list of competitors and any other business with the primary purpose of leasing assets to healthcare operators or financing ownership or operation of senior, retirement or healthcare related real estate. In addition, during the period of employment and for one year thereafter, Mr. Stephenson agrees not to solicit clients or customers with whom he had material contact or to solicit our management level or key employees. If the term of the employment agreement expires at December 31, 2007 and as a result no severance is paid, then these provisions also expire at December 31, 2007.
R. Lee Crabill, Jr. Employment Agreement
We entered into an employment agreement with R. Lee Crabill, dated as of September 1, 2004, to be our Senior Vice President of Operations. The term of the agreement expires on December 31, 2007.
Mr. Crabill’s current base salary is $253,400 per year, subject to increase by us and provides that he will be eligible for an annual bonus of up to 60% of his base salary based on criteria determined by the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors.
In connection with this employment agreement, we issued Mr. Crabill 57,500 shares of our restricted common stock on September 10, 2004, which vested 33 1/3% on each of January 1, 2005, January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2007. Dividends were paid on unvested shares and a dividend equivalent per share was paid in an amount equal to the dividend per share payable to stockholders of record as of July 30, 2004. Also in connection with this employment agreement, we issued Mr. Crabill 57,500 performance restricted stock units on September 10, 2004, which were fully vested as of as of December 31, 2006 because we had attained $0.30 per share of common stock per fiscal quarter in “Adjusted Funds from Operations” (as defined in the agreement) for two (2) consecutive quarters. Dividend equivalents on vested performance restricted stock units are paid currently. Performance restricted stock units that have not become vested as of December 31, 2007 are forfeited. Pursuant to the terms of Mr. Crabill’s performance restricted stock unit agreement, he will not receive the vested shares attributable to his performance restricted stock units until the earlier of January 1, 2008, he is terminated without cause or quits for good reason (as defined in the performance restricted stock unit agreement), or his death or disability (as defined in performance restricted stock unit agreement).
If we terminate Mr. Crabill’s employment without “cause” or if he resigns for “good reason,” he will be entitled to payment of his cash compensation (the sum of his then current annual base salary plus average annual bonus payable based on the three completed fiscal years prior to termination of employment) for a period of one and one half (1.5) years. “Cause” is defined in the employment agreement to include events such as willful refusal to perform duties, willful misconduct in performance of duties, unauthorized disclosure of confidential company information, or fraud or dishonesty against us. “Good reason” is defined in the employment agreement to include events such as our material breach of the employment agreement or our relocation of Mr. Crabill’s employment to more than 50 miles away without his consent.
Mr. Crabill is required to execute a release of claims against us as a condition to the payment of severance benefits. Severance is not paid if the term of the employment agreement expires. Mr. Crabill’s restricted common stock and performance restricted stock units will become fully vested upon the occurrence of Mr. Crabill’s death, disability, termination of employment without cause or resignation for good reason, or a “change in control” (as defined in the respective restricted stock agreement). In the event of a termination by us without cause or by Mr. Crabill for good reason, benefits are grossed up to cover federal excise taxes. If Mr. Crabill dies during the term of the employment agreement, his estate is entitled to a prorated bonus for the year of his death.
Mr. Crabill is restricted from using any of our confidential information during his employment and for two years thereafter or from using any trade secrets during his employment and for as long thereafter as permitted by applicable law. During the period of employment and for one year thereafter, Mr. Crabill is obligated not to provide managerial services or management consulting services to a competing business. Competing businesses is defined to include a defined list of competitors and any other business with the primary purpose of leasing assets to healthcare operators or financing ownership or operation of senior, retirement or healthcare related real estate. In addition, during the period of employment and for one year thereafter, Mr. Crabill agrees not to solicit clients or customers with whom he had material contact or to solicit our management level or key employees. If the term of the employment agreement expires at December 31, 2007 and as a result no severance is paid, then these provisions also expire at December 31, 2007.
Option Grants/SAR Grants
No options or stock appreciation rights (“SARs”), were granted to the named executive officers during 2006.
Long-Term Incentive Plan
For the period from August 14, 1992, the date of commencement of our operations, through December 31, 2006, we have had no long-term incentive plans.
Defined Benefit or Actuarial Plan
For the period from August 14, 1992, the date of commencement of our operations, through December 31, 2006, we have had no pension plans.
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Name
(A)
Fees earned or paid in cash
($
(1
(B
)
)
)
Stock Awards
($
(C
)
)
Option Awards
($
(D
)
)
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation
($
(E
)
)
Change in Pension Value and Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Earnings
(F
)
All Other Compensation
($
(G
)
)
Total
($
(H
)
)
Thomas F. Franke
$
53,500
$
27,582
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
86,082
Harold J. Kloosterman
$
69,000
$
27,582
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
103,082
Bernard J. Korman
$
75,000
$
52,762
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
132,762
Edward Lowenthal
$
57,500
$
27,582
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
90,082
Stephen D. Plavin
$
67,500
$
27,582
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
--
$
100,082
(1)
This represents the fees earned in 2006 and includes amounts to be paid in 2007. The amount excludes amounts paid in 2006 but earned in 2005.
Standard Compensation Arrangement for Directors. For the year ended December 31, 2006, our standard compensation arrangement for our Board of Directors provided that each non-employee director would receive a cash payment equal to $20,000 per year, payable in quarterly installments of $5,000. Each non-employee director also is entitled to receive a quarterly grant of shares of common stock equal to the number of shares determined by dividing the sum of $5,000 by the fair market value of the common stock on the date of each quarterly grant, currently set at February 15, May 15, August 15, and November 15. At the director’s option, the quarterly cash payment of director’s fees may be payable in shares of common stock. In addition, each non-employee director is entitled to receive fees equal to $1,500 per meeting for attendance at each regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors. For each teleconference or called special meeting of the Board of Directors, each non-employee director receives $1,500 for meeting. The Chairman of the Board receives an annual payment of $25,000 for being Chairman and each Committee Chair received an annual payment of $5,000. In addition, we reimburse the directors for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as directors. Employee directors received no compensation for service as directors.
Under our standard compensation arrangement of directors, each non-employee director of our company receives awarded options with respect to 10,000 shares at the date the plan was adopted or upon their initial election as a director. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, our standard compensation arrangement for directors provide that each non-employee director receives awarded an additional option grant with respect to 1,000 restricted shares on January 1 of each year they served as a director. All grants have been and will be at an exercise price equal to 100% of the fair market value of our common stock on the date of the grant. Non-employee director options and restricted stock vest ratably over a three-year period beginning the date of grant.
Standard Compensation Arrangement for Directors. Effective January 1, 2007, we modified our standard compensation arrangement for directors to provide that each non-employee director would receive (i) a cash payment of $25,000, payable in quarterly installments of $6,250, (ii) a quarterly grant of shares of common stock equal to the number of shares determined by dividing the sum of $6,250 by the fair market value of the common stock on the date of each quarterly grant, currently set at February 15, May 15, August 15, and November 15, and (iii) restricted stock with respect to 1,500 shares on January 1 of each year they serve as a director (except that the chairman of the board will be awarded 2,500 restricted shares on January 1 of each year he serves as Chairman). In addition, the Chairman of the Board will receive an additional annual payment of $25,000, the Chairman of the Audit Committee will receive an additional $15,000, the Chairman of the Compensation Committee will receive an additional $10,000 and all other committee chairman will receive $7,000.
We will continue to pay each non-employee director fees equal to $1,500 per meeting for attendance at each regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors. For each teleconference or called special meeting of the Board of Directors, each non-employee director will continue to receive $1,500 for meeting. In addition, each non-new employee director of our company will be awarded options with respect to 10,000 shares upon their initial election as a director.
All stock grants will be at an exercise price equal to 100% of the fair market value of our common stock on the date of the grant. Non-employee director options and restricted stock vest ratably over a three-year period beginning the date of grant.
Item 12
Item 12 - Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
The following table sets forth information regarding beneficial ownership of our capital stock as of January 18, 2007 for:
·
each of our directors and the named executive officers appearing in the table under “Executive Compensation - Compensation of Executive Officers”; and
·
all persons known to us to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of our outstanding common stock.
Except as indicated in the footnotes to this table, the persons named in the table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all shares of our common stock shown as beneficially owned by them, subject to community property laws where applicable. The business address of the directors and executive officers is Deereco Road, Suite 100, Timonium, Maryland 21093.
(1)
Based on 60,098,695 shares of our common stock outstanding as of February 21, 2007.
(2)
Includes 125,000 shares of restricted common stock that vested on 12/31/06 based on achievement of $0.30 per share of common stock per fiscal quarter in “Adjusted Funds from Operations.”
(3)
Includes 75,000 shares of restricted common stock that vested on 12/31/06 based on achievement of $0.30 per share of common stock per fiscal quarter in “Adjusted Funds from Operations.”
(4)
Includes 57,500 shares of restricted common stock that vested on 12/31/06 based on achievement of $0.30 per share of common stock per fiscal quarter in “Adjusted Funds from Operations.”
(5)
Includes 60,000 shares of restricted common stock that vested on 12/31/06 based on achievement of $0.30 per share of common stock per fiscal quarter in “Adjusted Funds from Operations.”
(6)
Includes 47,141 shares owned by a family limited liability company (Franke Family LLC) of which Mr. Franke is a member.
(7)
Includes stock options that are exercisable within 60 days to acquire 4,668 shares.
(8)
Includes shares owned jointly by Mr. Kloosterman and his wife, and 10,827 shares held solely in Mr. Kloosterman’s wife’s name.
(9)
Includes stock options that are exercisable within 60 days to acquire 9,000 shares.
(10)
Includes stock options that are exercisable within 60 days to acquire 7,001 shares.
(11)
Includes 1,400 shares owned by his wife through an individual retirement account.
(12)
Includes stock options that are exercisable within 60 days to acquire 7,335 shares.
(13)
Includes stock options that are exercisable within 60 days to acquire 14,000 shares.
(14)
Includes stock options that are exercisable within 60 days to acquire 42,004 shares
(15)
Based on a Schedule 13G filed by ING Clarion Real Estate Securities, L. P. on February 12, 2007. ING Clarion Real Estate Securities, L.P. is located at 259 N. Radnor Chester Road, Suite 205 Radnor, PA 19087. Includes 4,801,428 shares of common stock over which ING Clarion Real Estate Securities, L.P. has sole voting power or power to direct the vote.
(16)
Based on a Schedule 13G filed by Nomura Asset Management Co., LTD. on February 12, 2007. Nomura Asset Management Co., LTD. is located at 1-12-1, Nihonbashi, Chuo-ku, Toyko, Japan 103-8260. Includes 3,934,600 shares of common stock over which Nomura Asset Management Co., LTD. has sole voting power or power to direct the vote.
(17)
Based on a Schedule 13G filed by The Vanguard Group, Inc. on February 14, 2007. The Vanguard Group, Inc. is located at 100 Vanguard Blvd. Malvern, PA 19355. Includes 85,883 shares of common stock over which The Vanguard Group, Inc. has sole voting power or power to direct the vote.
(18)
Based on a Schedule 13G filed by ING Groep N.V. on February 14, 2007. ING Groep N.V. is located at Amstelveenseweg 500, 1081 KL Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Includes 9,713,849 shares of common stock over which ING Groep N.V. has sole voting power or power to direct the vote.
(19)
Based on 4,739,500 shares of Series D preferred stock outstanding at February 21, 2007.
Additional information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our company’s definitive proxy statement for the 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the SEC pursuant to Regulation 14A and to Item 5 herein.
Item 13
Item 13 - Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
There are no related party transactions requiring disclosure hereunder. Except for Mr. Pickett, all of the members of the Board of Directors meet the New York Stock Exchange listing standards for independence. There were no relevant transactions, relationships or arrangements for the Board of Directors’ consideration in making independence determinations with regard to these directors. While the Board of Directors has not adopted any categorical standards of independence, in making these independence determinations, the Board of Directors noted that no director other than Mr. Pickett (a) received direct compensation from our company other than director annual retainers and meeting fees, (b) had any relationship with our company or a third party that would preclude independence, or (c) had any business relationship with our company and its management, other than as a director of our company. Each of the members of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee meets the New York Stock Exchange listing standards for independence.
Item 14
Item 14 - Principal Accounting Fees and Services
Relationship with Independent Auditors
Independent Auditors
Ernst & Young LLP audited our financial statements for each of the years ended December 31, 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Fees
The following table presents fees for professional audit services rendered by Ernst & Young LLP for the audit of our company’s annual financial statements for the fiscal years 2005 and 2006 and fees billed for other services rendered by Ernst & Young LLP during those periods, all of which were pre-approved by the Audit Committee.
Audit Fees
The aggregate fees billed by Ernst & Young LLP for professional services rendered to our company for the audit of our company’s annual financial statements for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the audit of the effectiveness of our company’s internal control over financial reporting related to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the reviews of the financial statements included in our company’s Forms 10-Q for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, and services relating to securities and other filings with the SEC, including comfort letters and consents, were approximately $629,000 and $1,475,000, respectively. Audit fees in 2006 also included approximately $800,000 of fees billed by Ernst & Young LLP related to the restatement of our Form 10-K for the three-year period ended December 31, 2005 and Forms 10-Qs for the periods ended March 31, 2006 and June 30, 2006.
Audit Related Fees
Ernst & Young LLP was not engaged to perform services for our company relating to due diligence related to mergers and acquisitions, accounting consultations and audits in connection with acquisitions, internal control reviews, attest services that are not required by statute or regulation, or consultation concerning financial accounting and reporting standards for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
Tax Fees
Ernst & Young LLP was not engaged to perform services to our company relating to tax compliance, tax planning and tax advice for fiscal years 2005 and 2006, respectively.
All Other Fees
The aggregate fees billed by Ernst & Young LLP for professional services to our company rendered other than as stated under the captions “Audit Fees,” “Audit-Related Fees” and “Tax Fees” above for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 were approximately $6,000 and $6,000, respectively.
Determination of Auditor Independence
The Audit Committee considered the provision of non-audit services by our principal accountants and has determined that the provision of such services was consistent with maintaining the independence of Ernst & Young LLP.
Audit Committee’s Pre-Approval Policies
The Audit Committee’s current practice is to pre-approve all audit services and all permitted non-audit services to be provided to our company by our independent auditor; provided, however pre-approval requirements for non-audit services are not required if all such services: (1) do not aggregate to more than five percent of total revenues paid by us to our accountant in the fiscal year when services are provided; (2) were not recognized as non-audit services at the time of the engagement; and (3) are promptly brought to the attention of the Audit Committee and approved prior to the completion of the audit by the Audit Committee.
PART IV
Item 15
Item 15 - Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
(a)(1) Listing of Consolidated Financial Statements
Title of Document
Page
Number
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2006 and 2005
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(a)(2) Listing of Financial Statement Schedules. The following consolidated financial statement schedules are included herein:
Schedule III - Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
Schedule IV - Mortgage Loans on Real Estate
All other schedules for which provision is made in the applicable accounting regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission are not required under the related instructions or are inapplicable or have been omitted because sufficient information has been included in the notes to the Financial Statements.
(a)(3) Listing of Exhibits - See Index to Exhibits beginning on Page I-1 of this report.
(b) Exhibits - See Index to Exhibits beginning on Page I-1 of this report.
(c) Financial Statement Schedules - The following consolidated financial statement schedules are included herein:
Schedule III - Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation
Schedule IV - Mortgage Loans on Real Estate
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2006. Our audits also included the financial statement schedules listed in the Index at Item 15(a). These financial statements and schedules are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and schedules based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. at December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2006, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement schedules, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.
As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company changed its accounting for stock-based compensation in connection with the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (R), “Share-Based Payment.”
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the effectiveness of Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 22, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion on management’s assessment and an adverse opinion on internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
McLean, Virginia
February 22, 2007
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.
We have audited management’s assessment, included in Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting, included in Item 9A of Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.’s (“Omega”) Annual Report on Form 10-K, that Omega did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, because of the effect of the material weakness described in the fifth paragraph below, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (the “COSO criteria”). Omega’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of Omega’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
A material weakness is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected. The following material weakness has been identified and included in management’s assessment. As of December 31, 2006, Omega lacked sufficient internal control processes, procedures, and personnel resources necessary to address accounting for certain complex and non-routine transactions and as a result, the accounting for certain of these transactions was not performed correctly or on a timely basis. Accordingly, errors were made in accounting for financial instruments, income taxes, and rental revenues. These errors were recorded and disclosed in the restated quarterly consolidated financial statements for the three-month period ended March 31, 2006 and the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2006 included in Form 10-Q/A, and in the restated consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, included in Form 10-K/A, filed on December 14, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Until this deficiency is remediated, there is more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement to the annual or interim consolidated financial statements could occur and not be prevented or detected by Omega’s controls in a timely manner. This material weakness was considered in determining the nature, timing, and extent of audit tests applied in our audit of the 2006 consolidated financial statements, and this report does not affect our report dated February 22, 2007, on those consolidated financial statements.
In our opinion, management’s assessment that Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the COSO criteria. Also, in our opinion, because of the effect of the material weakness described above on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria, Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc has not maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, based on the COSO criteria.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
McLean, Virginia
February 22, 2007
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(in thousands)
See accompanying notes.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
See accompanying notes.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
See accompanying notes.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
See accompanying notes.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(in thousands)
See accompanying notes.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE 1 - ORGANIZATION AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION
Organization
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. (“Omega”), a Maryland corporation, is a self-administered real estate investment trust (“REIT”). From the date that we commenced operations in 1992, we have invested primarily in income-producing healthcare facilities, which include long-term care nursing homes, assisted living facilities and rehabilitation hospitals. At December 31, 2006, we have investments in 239 healthcare facilities located throughout the United States.
Consolidation
Our consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Omega and all direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries. All inter-company accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, (“FIN 46R”), addresses the consolidation by business enterprises of VIEs. We consolidate all VIEs for which we are the primary beneficiary. Generally, a VIE is an entity with one or more of the following characteristics: (a) the total equity investment at risk is not sufficient to permit the entity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support; (b) as a group the holders of the equity investment at risk lack (i) the ability to make decisions about an entity’s activities through voting or similar rights, (ii) the obligation to absorb the expected losses of the entity, or (iii) the right to receive the expected residual returns of the entity; or (c) the equity investors have voting rights that are not proportional to their economic interests, and substantially all of the entity’s activities either involve, or are conducted on behalf of, an investor that has disproportionately few voting rights. FIN 46R requires a VIE to be consolidated in the financial statements of the entity that is determined to be the primary beneficiary of the VIE. The primary beneficiary generally is the entity that will receive a majority of the VIE’s expected losses, receive a majority of the VIE’s expected residual returns, or both.
In accordance with FIN 46R, we determined that we were the primary beneficiary of one VIE beginning in 2006. This VIE is derived from a financing relationship entered into between Omega and one company that is engaged in the ownership and rental of six skilled nursing facilities (“SNFs”) and one assisted living facility (“ALF”). The consolidation of the VIE as of December 31, 2006 resulted in an increase in our consolidated total assets (primarily real estate) of $37.5 million and liabilities (primarily indebtedness) of approximately $39 million and a decrease in stockholders’ equity of approximately $1.5 million. The creditors of the VIE do not have recourse to our assets.
We have one reportable segment consisting of investments in real estate. Our business is to provide financing and capital to the long-term healthcare industry with a particular focus on skilled nursing facilities located in the United States. Our core portfolio consists of long-term lease and mortgage agreements. All of our leases are “triple-net” leases, which require the tenants to pay all property related expenses. Our mortgage revenue derives from fixed-rate mortgage loans, which are secured by first mortgage liens on the underlying real estate and personal property of the mortgagor. Substantially all depreciation expenses reflected in the consolidated statement of operations relate to the ownership of our investment in real estate.
Restated Financial Data
On December 14, 2006, we filed a Form 10-K/A, which amended our previously filed Form 10-K for fiscal year 2005. Contained within that Form 10-K/A were restated consolidated financial statements for the three years ended December 31, 2005. The restatements corrected errors in previously reported amounts related to income tax matters and to certain debt and equity investments in Advocat Inc. (“Advocat”), as well as to the recording of certain straight-line rental income. Amounts reflected herein were derived from the restated financial information rather than the 2005 Form 10-K, which had been filed with the SEC on February 17, 2006 and mailed to shareholders shortly thereafter. Similarly, on December 14, 2006, we filed Forms 10-Q/A amending the previously filed consolidated financial statements for the first and second quarters of fiscal 2006.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
NOTE 2 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Accounting Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Real Estate Investments and Depreciation
We allocate the purchase price of properties to net tangible and identified intangible assets acquired based on their fair values in accordance with the provisions Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 141, Business Combinations. In making estimates of fair values for purposes of allocating purchase price, we utilize a number of sources, including independent appraisals that may be obtained in connection with the acquisition or financing of the respective property and other market data. We also consider information obtained about each property as a result of its pre-acquisition due diligence, marketing and leasing activities in estimating the fair value of the tangible and intangible assets acquired. All costs of significant improvements, renovations and replacements are capitalized. In addition, we capitalize leasehold improvements when certain criteria are met, including when we supervise construction and will own the improvement. Expenditures for maintenance and repairs are charged to operations as they are incurred.
Depreciation is computed on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives ranging from 20 to 40 years for buildings and improvements and three to 10 years for furniture, fixtures and equipment. Leasehold interests are amortized over the shorter of useful life or term of the lease, with lives ranging from four to seven years.
Asset Impairment
Management periodically, but not less than annually, evaluates our real estate investments for impairment indicators, including the evaluation of our assets’ useful lives. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based on factors such as, but not limited to, market conditions, operator performance and legal structure. If indicators of impairment are present, management evaluates the carrying value of the related real estate investments in relation to the future undiscounted cash flows of the underlying facilities. Provisions for impairment losses related to long-lived assets are recognized when expected future undiscounted cash flows are determined to be permanently less than the carrying values of the assets. An adjustment is made to the net carrying value of the leased properties and other long-lived assets for the excess of historical cost over fair value. The fair value of the real estate investment is determined by market research, which includes valuing the property as a nursing home as well as other alternative uses. All impairments are taken as a period cost at that time, and depreciation is adjusted going forward to reflect the new value assigned to the asset.
If we decide to sell rental properties or land holdings, we evaluate the recoverability of the carrying amounts of the assets. If the evaluation indicates that the carrying value is not recoverable from estimated net sales proceeds, the property is written down to estimated fair value less costs to sell. Our estimates of cash flows and fair values of the properties are based on current market conditions and consider matters such as rental rates and occupancies for comparable properties, recent sales data for comparable properties, and, where applicable, contracts or the results of negotiations with purchasers or prospective purchasers.
For the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004 we recognized impairment losses of $0.5 million, $9.6 million and $0.0 million, respectively, including amounts classified within discontinued operations.
Loan Impairment
Management, periodically but not less than annually, evaluates our outstanding loans and notes receivable. When management identifies potential loan impairment indicators, such as non-payment under the loan documents, impairment of the underlying collateral, financial difficulty of the operator or other circumstances that may impair full execution of the loan documents, and management believes these indicators are permanent, then the loan is written down to the present value of the expected future cash flows. In cases where expected future cash flows cannot be estimated, the loan is written down to the fair value of the collateral. The fair value of the loan is determined by market research, which includes valuing the property as a nursing home as well as other alternative uses. We recorded loan impairments of $0.9 million, $0.1 million and $0.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
In accordance with FASB Statement No. 114, Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan and FASB Statement No. 118, Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan - Income Recognition and Disclosures, we currently account for impaired loans using the cost-recovery method applying cash received against the outstanding principal balance prior to recording interest income (see Note 5 - Other Investments). At December 31, 2006 and 2005, we had notes receivable totaling $0.0 million and $1.8 million, respectively, which were determined to be impaired.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents consist of cash on hand and highly liquid investments with a maturity date of three months or less when purchased. These investments are stated at cost, which approximates fair value.
Restricted Cash
Restricted cash consists primarily of funds escrowed for tenants’ security deposits required by us pursuant to certain contractual terms (see Note 7 - Lease and Mortgage Deposits).
Accounts Receivable
Accounts receivable consists primarily of amounts due under lease and mortgage agreements. Amounts recorded include estimated provisions for loss related to uncollectible accounts and disputed items. On a monthly basis, we review the contractual payment versus actual cash payment received and the contractual payment due date versus actual receipt date. When management identifies delinquencies, a judgment is made as to the amount of provision, if any, that is needed.
Recognizing rental income on a straight-line basis results in recognized revenue exceeding contractual amounts due from our tenants. Such cumulative excess amounts are included in accounts receivable and were $20.0 million and $13.8 million, net of allowances, at December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. In the case of a lease recognized on a straight-line basis, we will generally provide an allowance for straight-line accounts receivable when certain conditions or indicators of adverse collectibility are present (e.g., lessee payment delinquencies, bankruptcy indicators, etc.). At December 31, 2006 and 2005, the allowance for straight-line accounts receivable was $7.2 million and $6.7 million, respectively.
Investments in Debt and Equity Securities
Marketable securities classified as available-for-sale are stated at fair value with unrealized gains and losses recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income. Realized gains and losses and declines in value judged to be other-than-temporary on securities held as available-for-sale are included in other income. The cost of securities sold is based on the specific identification method. If events or circumstances indicate that the fair value of an investment has declined below its carrying value and we consider the decline to be “other than temporary,” the investment is written down to fair value and an impairment loss is recognized.
In accordance with SFAS No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, during the year ended December 31, 2005, we recorded a $3.4 million provision for impairment to write-down our 760,000 share investment in Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. (“Sun”) common stock to its then current fair market value. During the year ended December 31, 2006, we sold our remaining 760,000 shares of Sun’s common stock for approximately $7.6 million, realizing a gain on the sale of these securities of approximately $2.7 million.
We record dividend and accretion income on preferred stock based upon whether the amount and timing of collections are both probable and reasonably estimable. We recognize accretion income on a prospective basis using the effective interest method to the redemption date of the security.
Our investment in Advocat Series B preferred stock was classified as an available-for-sale security. The face value plus the value of the accrued dividends, which had previously been written down to zero due to impairment, were accreted into income ratably through the Omega redemption date (September 30, 2007). The cumulative amount recognized as income was limited to the fair market value of the preferred stock. The difference between the fair market value of the preferred stock and the accretive value of the security was recorded as other comprehensive income on the balance sheet. The Advocat Series B preferred stock was exchanged for the Advocat Series C preferred stock on October 20, 2006. See Note 5 - Other Investments.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
At December 31, 2006, we had one preferred stock investment security (i.e., Series C preferred shares of Advocat, a publicly traded company). This security is classified as a held-to-maturity security and was acquired in the Advocat restructuring. It was initially recorded at fair value and will be accreted to its mandatory redemption value. See Note 5 - Other Investments.
Comprehensive Income
SFAS 130, Reporting Comprehensive Income, establishes guidelines for the reporting and display of comprehensive income and its components in financial statements. Comprehensive income includes net income and all other non-owner changes in stockholders’ equity during a period including unrealized gains and losses on equity securities classified as available-for-sale and unrealized fair value adjustments on certain derivative instruments.
Deferred Financing Costs
Deferred financing costs are amortized on a straight-line basis over the terms of the related borrowings which approximate the effective interest method. Amortization of financing costs totaling $2.0 million, $2.1 million and $1.9 million in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively, is classified as “interest - amortization of deferred financing costs” in our audited consolidated statements of operations. When financings are terminated, unamortized amounts paid, as well as, charges incurred for the termination, are expensed at the time the termination is made. Gains and losses from the extinguishment of debt are presented as interest expense within income from continuing operations in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.
Revenue Recognition
Rental income is recognized as earned over the terms of the related master leases. Such income generally includes periodic increases based on pre-determined formulas (i.e., such as increases in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”)) as defined in the master leases. Certain master leases contain provisions relating to specific and determinable increases in rental payments over the term of the leases. Rental income, under lease arrangements with specific and determinable increases, is recognized over the term of the lease on a straight-line basis. Recognition of rental income commences when control of the facility has been given to the tenant. Mortgage interest income is recognized as earned over the terms of the related mortgage notes.
Reserves are taken against earned revenues from leases and mortgages when collection of amounts due becomes questionable or when negotiations for restructurings of troubled operators lead to lower expectations regarding ultimate collection. When collection is uncertain, lease revenues are recorded as received, after taking into account application of security deposits. The recording of any related straight-line rent is suspended until past due amounts have been paid. In the event the straight-line rent is deemed uncollectible, an allowance for loss for the straight-line rent asset will be recognized. Interest income on impaired mortgage loans is recognized as received after taking into account application of security deposits.
Gains or losses on sales of real estate assets are recognized pursuant to the provisions of SFAS No. 66, Accounting for Sales of Real Estate. The specific timing of the recognition of the sale and the related gain or loss is measured against the various criteria in SFAS No. 66 related to the terms of the transactions and any continuing involvement associated with the assets sold. To the extent the sales criteria are not met, we defer gain recognition until the sales criteria are met.
Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations
When a formal plan to sell real estate is adopted the real estate is classified as "assets held for sale," with the net carrying amount adjusted to the lower of cost or estimated fair value, less cost of disposal. Depreciation of the facilities is excluded from operations after management has committed to a plan to sell the asset. Pursuant to SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, long-lived assets sold or designated as held for sale are reported as discontinued operations in our financial statements for all periods presented. We had six assets held for sale as of December 31, 2006 with a combined net book value of $3.6 million.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
Derivative Instruments
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended, (“FAS No. 133”), requires that all derivatives are recognized on the balance sheet at fair value. Derivatives that are not hedges are adjusted to fair value through income. If the derivative is a hedge, depending on the nature of the hedge, changes in the fair value of derivatives are either offset against the change in fair value of the hedged assets, liabilities, or firm commitments through earnings or recognized in other comprehensive income until the hedge item is recognized in earnings. The ineffective portion of a derivative’s change in fair value will be immediately recognized in earnings.
At December 31, 2005, we had one derivative instrument accounted for at fair value resulting from the conversion feature of a redeemable convertible preferred stock security in Advocat, a publicly traded company, to convert that security into Advocat common stock at a fixed exchange rate. On October 20, 2006, we restructured our relationship with Advocat (the “Second Advocat Restructuring”) such that we no longer own the redeemable convertible preferred stock security in Advocat. As a result, at December 31, 2006, we had no derivative instruments.
Earnings Per Share
Basic earnings per common share (“EPS”) is computed by dividing net income available to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the year. Diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur from shares issuable through stock-based compensation, including stock options, restricted stock and for fiscal year 2004, the conversion of our Series C preferred stock.
Federal and State Income Taxes
So long as we qualify as a REIT, we will not be subject to Federal income taxes on our income. We have accrued a tax liability relating to potential “related party tenant” issues (see Note 10 - Taxes). To the extent that we have foreclosure income from our owned and operated assets, we will incur federal tax at a rate of 35%. To date, our owned and operated assets have generated losses, and therefore, no provision for federal income tax is necessary. We are permitted to own up to 100% of a “taxable REIT subsidiary” (“TRS”). Currently, we have two TRSs that are taxable as corporations and that pay federal, state and local income tax on their net income at the applicable corporate rates. These TRSs had a net operating loss carry-forward as of December 31, 2006 of $12 million. This loss carry-forward was fully reserved with a valuation allowance due to uncertainties regarding realization.
Stock-Based Compensation
Our company grants stock options to employees and directors with an exercise price equal to the fair value of the shares at the date of the grant. Through December 31, 2005, in accordance with the provisions of Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, compensation expense was not recognized for these stock option grants. We adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Statement No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (“FAS No. 123R”) on January 1, 2006. Accordingly, beginning in 2006, the grant date fair value of stock options granted is recognized as compensation cost over the vesting period. No stock options were granted in 2006.
SFAS No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation - Transition and Disclosure, requires certain disclosures related to our stock-based compensation arrangements.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
The following table presents the effect on net income and earnings per share if we had applied the fair value recognition provisions of FAS No. 123R to our stock-based compensation granted prior to January 1, 2006.
No stock options were issued during 2006 and 2005. For options issued during 2004 and prior years, fair value was calculated on the grant dates using the Black-Scholes options-pricing model with the following assumptions.
Significant Weighted-Average Assumptions:
Risk-free Interest Rate at time of Grant
2.50%
Expected Stock Price Volatility
3.00%
Expected Option Life in Years (a)
Expected Dividend Payout
5.00%
(a) Expected life is based on contractual expiration dates
Effects of Recently Issued Accounting Standards
FAS 123R Adoption
In December 2004, the FASB issued FAS No. 123R which supersedes APB Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and amends FAS No. 95, Statement of Cash Flows. We adopted FAS No. 123R on January 1, 2006 using the modified prospective transition method. The recorded expense in 2006 as a result of this adoption was $3 thousand.
FIN 48 Evaluation
In July 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes (“FIN 48”). FIN 48 is an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes, and it seeks to reduce the diversity in practice associated with certain aspects of measurement and recognition in accounting for income taxes. In addition, FIN will require expanded disclosure with respect to the uncertainty in income taxes and is effective as of the beginning of our 2007 fiscal year. We are currently evaluating the impact of adoption of FIN 48 on our financial statements.
FAS 157 Evaluation
In September 2006, the FASB issued FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value Measurements (“FAS No. 157”). This standard defines fair value, establishes a methodology for measuring fair value and expands the required disclosure for fair value measurements. FAS No. 157 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those years. Provisions of FAS No. 157 are required to be applied prospectively as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which FAS No. 157 is applied. We are evaluating the impact that FAS No. 157 will have on our financial statements.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
Risks and Uncertainties
Our company is subject to certain risks and uncertainties affecting the healthcare industry as a result of healthcare legislation and growing regulation by federal, state and local governments. Additionally, we are subject to risks and uncertainties as a result of changes affecting operators of nursing home facilities due to the actions of governmental agencies and insurers to limit the growth in cost of healthcare services (see Note 6 - Concentration of Risk).
Reclassifications
Certain reclassifications have been made in the prior year financial statements to conform to the 2006 presentation.
NOTE 3 - PROPERTIES
Leased Property
Our leased real estate properties, represented by 228 long-term care facilities and two rehabilitation hospitals at December 31, 2006, are leased under provisions of single leases and master leases with initial terms typically ranging from to 15 years, plus renewal options. Substantially all of the leases and master leases provide for minimum annual rentals that are typically subject to annual increases based upon the lesser of a fixed amount or increases derived from changes in CPI. Under the terms of the leases, the lessee is responsible for all maintenance, repairs, taxes and insurance on the leased properties.
A summary of our investment in leased real estate properties is as follows:
The future minimum estimated rents due for the remainder of the initial terms of the leases are as follows:
Below is a summary of the significant lease transactions that occurred in 2006.
Advocat, Inc.
On October 20, 2006, we restructured our relationship with Advocat (the “Second Advocat Restructuring”) by entering into a Restructuring Stock Issuance and Subscription Agreement with Advocat (the “2006 Advocat Agreement”). Pursuant to the 2006 Advocat Agreement, we exchanged the Advocat Series B preferred stock and subordinated note issued to us in November 2000 in connection with a restructuring because Advocat was in default on its obligations to us (the “Initial Advocat Restructuring”) for 5,000 shares of Advocat’s Series C non-convertible, redeemable (at our option after September 30, 2010) preferred stock with a face value of approximately $4.9 million and a dividend rate of 7% payable quarterly, and a secured non-convertible subordinated note in the amount of $2.5 million maturing September 30, 2007 and bearing interest at 7% per annum. As part of the Second Advocat Restructuring, we also amended our Consolidated Amended and Restated Master Lease by and between one of its subsidiaries, as lessor, and a subsidiary of Advocat, as lessee, to commence a new 12-year lease term through September 30, 2018 (with a renewal option for an additional 12 year term) and Advocat agreed to increase the master lease annual rent by approximately $687,000 to approximately $14 million commencing on January 1, 2007.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
The Second Advocat Restructuring has been accounted for as a new lease in accordance with FASB Statement No. 13, Accounting for Leases (“FAS No. 13”) and FASB Technical Bulletin No. 88-1, Issues Relating to Accounting for Leases (“FASB TB No. 88-1”). The fair value of the assets exchanged in the restructuring (i.e., the Series B non-voting redeemable convertible preferred stock and the secured convertible subordinated note, with a fair value of $14.9 million and $2.5 million, respectively, at October 20, 2006) in excess of the fair value of the assets received (the Advocat Series C non-convertible redeemable preferred stock and the secured non-convertible subordinated note, with a fair value of $4.1 million and $2.5 million, respectively, at October 20, 2006) have been recorded as a lease inducement asset of approximately $10.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2006 and is included in accounts receivable - net on our consolidated balance sheet. The $10.8 million lease inducement asset will be amortized as a reduction to rental income on a straight-line basis over the term of the new master lease. The exchange of securities also resulted in a gain in the fourth quarter of 2006 of approximately $3.6 million representing: (i) the fair value of the secured convertible subordinated note of $2.5 million, previously reserved; and (ii) the realization of the gain on investments previously classified as other comprehensive income of approximately $1.1 million relating to the Series B non-voting redeemable convertible preferred stock.
Guardian LTC Management, Inc.
On September 1, 2006, we completed a $25.0 million investment with subsidiaries of Guardian LTC Management, Inc. (“Guardian”), an existing operator of ours. The transaction involved the purchase and leaseback of a skilled nursing facility (“SNF”) in Pennsylvania and termination of a purchase option on a combination SNF and rehabilitation hospital in West Virginia owned by us. The facilities were included in an existing master lease with Guardian with an increase in contractual annual rent of approximately $2.6 million in the first year and the master lease now includes 17 facilities. In addition, the master lease term was extended from October 2014 through August 2016.
In accordance with FASB Statement No. 13, Accounting Leases (“FAS No. 13”) and FASB Technical Bulletin No. 88-1, Issues Relating to Accounting for Leases (“FASB TB No. 88-1”), $19.2 million of the $25.0 million transaction amount will be accounted for as a lease inducement and is classified within accounts receivable - net on our consolidated balance sheets. The lease inducement will be amortized as a reduction to rental income on a straight-line basis over the term of the new master lease. The remaining payment to Guardian of $5.8 million will be allocated to the purchase of the Pennsylvania SNF.
Litchfield Transaction
On August 1, 2006, we completed a transaction with Litchfield Investment Company, LLC and its affiliates (“Litchfield”) to purchase 30 SNFs and one independent living center for a total investment of approximately $171 million. The facilities total 3,847 beds and are located in the states of Colorado (5), Florida (7), Idaho (1), Louisiana (13), and Texas (5). The facilities were subject to master leases with three national healthcare providers, which are existing tenants of the Company. The tenants are Home Quality Management, Inc. (“HQM”), Nexion Health, Inc. (“Nexion”), and Peak Medical Corporation, which was acquired by Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. (“Sun”) in December of 2005.
Simultaneously with the close of the purchase transaction, the seven HQM facilities were combined into an Amended and Restated Master Lease containing 13 facilities between us and HQM. In addition, the 18 Nexion facilities were combined into an Amended and Restated Master Lease containing 22 facilities between us and Nexion.
We entered into a Master Lease, Assignment and Assumption Agreement with Litchfield on the six Sun facilities. These six facilities are currently under a master lease that expires on September 30, 2007. A portion of the acquisition price totaling $1.6 million was allocated to a lease intangible associated with our assumption of the Sun lease. This amount is being amortized as an increase to rental income over the remaining term of the lease which ends September 30, 2007.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
Haven Eldercare, LLC
During the three months ending March 31, 2006, Haven Eldercare, LLC (“Haven”), an existing operator of ours, entered into a $39 million first mortgage loan with General Electric Capital Corporation (“GE Loan”). Haven used the $39 million of proceeds to partially repay on a $62 million mortgage it has with us. Simultaneously, we subordinated the payment of our remaining $23 million on the mortgage note, due in October 2012, to that of the GE Loan. As a result of this transaction, the interest rate on our remaining mortgage note to Haven rose from 10% to approximately 15%, with annual escalators.
In conjunction with the above transactions and the application of FIN 46R, we consolidated the financial statements and related real estate of this Haven entity into our financial statements. The consolidation resulted in the following changes to our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2006: (1) an increase in total gross investments of $39.0 million; (2) an increase in accumulated depreciation of $1.6 million; (3) an increase in accounts receivable-net of $0.1 million relating to straight-line rent; (4) an increase in other long-term borrowings of $39.0 million; and (5) a reduction of $1.5 million in cumulative net earnings for the twelve months ended December 31, due to the increased depreciation expense offset by straight-line rental revenue. General Electric Capital Corporation and Haven’s other creditors do not have recourse to our assets. We have an option to purchase the mortgaged facilities for a fixed price in 2012. Our results of operations reflect the effects of the consolidation of this entity, which is being accounted for similarly to our other purchase-leaseback transactions.
Acquisitions
The table below summarizes the acquisitions completed during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005. The purchase price includes estimated transaction costs. The amount allocated to land, buildings, and below-market lease liability was $15.2 million, $163.6 million and $1.6 million, respectively, for the 2006 acquisitions and $19.7 million, $246.8 million and $0 million, respectively, for the 2005 acquisitions.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
The acquired properties are included in our results of operations from the respective date of acquisition. The following unaudited pro forma results of operations reflect these transactions as if each had occurred on January 1 of the year of the acquisition and the immediately preceding year. In our opinion, all significant adjustments necessary to reflect the effects of the acquisitions have been made.
Assets Sold or Held for Sale
·
We had six assets held for sale as of December 31, 2006 with a net book value of approximately $3.6 million. We had eight assets held for sale as of December 31, 2005 with a combined net book value of $5.8 million, which includes a reclassification of five assets with a net book value of $4.6 million that were sold or reclassified as held for sale during 2006.
·
During the three months ended March 31, 2006, a $0.1 million provision for impairment charge was recorded to reduce the carrying value to its sales price of one facility that was under contract to be sold that was subsequently sold during the second quarter of 2006. During the three months ended December 31, 2006, a $0.4 million impairment charge was recorded to reduce the carrying value of two facilities, currently under contract to be sold in the first quarter of 2007, to their respective sales price.
·
During the year ended December 31, 2005, a combined $9.6 million provision for impairment charge was recorded to reduce the carrying value on several facilities, some of which were subsequently closed, to their estimated fair values.
Asset Sales
·
For the three-month period ending December 31, 2006, we sold an ALF in Ohio resulting in an accounting gain of approximately $0.4 million.
·
For the three-month period ending June 30, 2006, we sold two SNFs in California resulting in an accounting loss of approximately $0.1 million.
·
For the three-month period ending March 31, 2006, we sold a SNF in Illinois resulting in an accounting loss of approximately $0.2 million.
and 2004 Asset Sales
Alterra Healthcare Corporation
On December 1, 2005, AHC Properties, Inc., a subsidiary of Alterra Healthcare Corporation (“Alterra”) exercised its option to purchase six ALFs. We received cash proceeds of approximately $20.5 million, resulting in a gain of approximately $5.6 million.
Alden Management Services, Inc.
On June 30, 2005, we sold four SNFs to subsidiaries of Alden Management Services, Inc., who previously leased the facilities from us. All four facilities are located in Illinois. The sales price totaled approximately $17 million. We received net cash proceeds of approximately $12 million plus a secured promissory note of approximately $5.4 million. The sale resulted in a non-cash accounting loss of approximately $4.2 million.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
Other 2005 and 2004 Asset Sales
·
In November 2005, we sold a SNF in Florida for net cash proceeds of approximately $14.1 million, resulting in a gain of approximately $5.8 million.
·
In August 2005, we sold 50.4 acres of undeveloped land, located in Ohio, for net cash proceeds of approximately $1 million. The sale resulted in a gain of approximately $0.7 million.
·
In March 2005, we sold three facilities, located in Florida and California, for their approximate net book value realizing cash proceeds of approximately $6 million, net of closing costs and other expenses.
·
During 2004, we sold six closed facilities, realizing proceeds of approximately $5.7 million, net of closing costs and other expenses, resulting in a net gain of approximately $3.3 million.
In accordance with SFAS No. 144, all related revenues and expenses as well as the realized gains, losses and provisions for impairment from the above mentioned facilities are included within discontinued operations in our consolidated statements of operations for their respective time periods. In addition, facilities not previously classified as held for sale as of December 31, 2005, that have been sold or classified as held for sale during 2006, have been reclassified to held for sale on our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2005.
NOTE 4 - MORTGAGE NOTES RECEIVABLE
Mortgage notes receivable relate to nine long-term care facilities. The mortgage notes are secured by first mortgage liens on the borrowers' underlying real estate and personal property. The mortgage notes receivable relate to facilities located in four states, operated by five independent healthcare operating companies. We monitor compliance with mortgages and when necessary have initiated collection, foreclosure and other proceedings with respect to certain outstanding loans. As of December 31, 2006, we have no foreclosed property and none of our mortgages were in foreclosure proceedings. At December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, no mortgage notes were impaired and there were no reserves for uncollectible mortgage notes.
Below is a summary of the significant mortgage transactions that occurred in 2006 and 2005.
Hickory Creek Healthcare Foundation, Inc.
On June 16, 2006, we received approximately $10 million in proceeds on a mortgage loan payoff. We held mortgages on 15 facilities located in Indiana, representing beds.
Haven Eldercare, LLC
During the three months ended March 31, 2006, Haven Eldercare, LLC (“Haven”), an existing operator of ours, entered into a $39 million first mortgage loan with General Electric Capital Corporation (“GE Loan”). Haven used the $39 million of proceeds to partially repay on a $62 million mortgage it has with us. Simultaneously, we subordinated the payment of our remaining $23 million of the mortgage note, due in October 2012, to that of the GE Loan. As a result of this transaction, the interest rate on our remaining mortgage note to Haven rose from 10% to approximately 15%, with annual escalators. In accordance with FIN 46R, we consolidated the financial statements and related real estate of the Haven entity that is the debtor under our mortgage note. See Note 3 - Properties.
Mariner Health Care, Inc.
On February 1, 2005, Mariner Health Care, Inc. (“Mariner”) exercised its right to prepay in full the $59.7 million aggregate principal amount owed to us under a promissory note secured by a mortgage with an interest rate of 11.57%, together with the required prepayment premium of 3% of the outstanding principal balance, an amendment fee and all accrued and unpaid interest.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
At December 31, 2006, all mortgages were structured as fixed-rate mortgages. The outstanding principal amounts of mortgage notes receivable, net of allowances, were as follows:
(1) As a result of the application of FIN 46R in 2006, we consolidated the Haven entity that was the debtor on this mortgage note. Our balance sheet at December 31, 2006 reflects real estate assets of $62 million, reflecting the real estate owned by the Haven entity.
(2) Mortgage notes are shown net of allowances of $0.0 million in 2006 and 2005.
NOTE 5 - OTHER INVESTMENTS
A summary of our other investments is as follows:
(1)
Includes notes receivable deemed impaired in 2006 and 2005 of $0 million and $1.8 million, respectively.
For the year ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, the following transactions impacted our other investments:
Advocat Subordinated Debt and Convertible Preferred Stock Investments
·
Under our 2000 restructuring agreement with Advocat, we received the following: (i) 393,658 shares of Advocat’s Series B non-voting, redeemable (on or after September 30, 2007), convertible preferred stock, which was convertible into up to 706,576 shares of Advocat’s common stock (representing 9.9% of the outstanding shares of Advocat’s common stock on a fully diluted, as-converted basis and accruing dividends at 7% per annum); and (ii) a secured convertible subordinated note in the amount of $1.7 million bearing interest at 7% per annum with a September 30, maturity, (collectively the “Initial Advocat Securities”). On October 20, 2006, we restructured our relationship with Advocat (the “Second Advocat Restructuring”) by entering into a Restructuring Stock Issuance and Subscription Agreement with Advocat (the “2006 Advocat Agreement”). Pursuant to the 2006 Advocat Agreement, we exchanged the Initial Advocat Securities issued to us in November 2000 for 5,000 shares of Advocat’s Series C non-convertible, redeemable (at our option after September 30, 2010) preferred stock with a face value of approximately $4.9 million and a dividend rate of 7% payable quarterly, and a secured non-convertible subordinated note in the amount of $2.5 million maturing September 30, 2007 and bearing interest at 7% per annum.
·
In accordance with FAS No. 115, the Advocat Series B security was a compound financial instrument. During the period of our ownership of this security, the embedded derivative value of the conversion feature was recorded separately at fair market value in accordance with FAS No. 133. The non-derivative portion of the security was classified as an available-for-sale investment and was stated at its fair value with unrealized gains or losses recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income. At December 31, 2005, the fair value of the conversion feature was $1.1 million and the fair value of the non-derivative portion of the security was $4.3 million. As a result of the Second Advocat Restructuring, we recorded a gain of $1.1 million associated with the exchange of the Advocat Series B preferred stock. See Note 3 - Properties.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
·
In accordance with FAS No. 114 and FAS No. 118, the $1.7 million Advocat secured convertible subordinated note was fully reserved and accounted for using the cost-recovery method applying cash received against the outstanding principal balance prior to recording interest income. As a result of the Second Advocat Restructuring, in 2006 a $2.5 million gain associated with the exchange of this note was recorded. See Note 3 - Properties.
·
As a result of the Second Advocat Restructuring, we obtained 5,000 shares of Advocat Series C non-convertible redeemable preferred stock. This security was initially recorded at its estimated fair value of $4.1 million. In accordance with FAS No. 115, we have classified this security as held-to-maturity. Accordingly, the carrying value of this security will be accreted to its mandatory redemption value of $4.9 million. At December 31, 2006, the carrying value of this security was $4.1 million.
·
Also, as a result of the Second Advocat Restructuring, we obtained a secured non-convertible subordinated note from Advocat in the amount of $2.5 million. This note was recorded at its estimated fair value of $2.5 million. At December 31, 2006, the carrying value of the note was $2.5 million.
Sun Healthcare Common Stock Investment
·
Under our 2004 restructuring agreement with Sun, we received the right to convert deferred base rent owed to us, totaling approximately $7.8 million, into 800,000 shares of Sun’s common stock, subject to certain non-dilution provisions and the right of Sun to pay cash in an amount equal to the value of that stock in lieu of issuing stock to us.
·
In March 2004, we exercised our right to convert the deferred base rent into fully paid and non-assessable shares of Sun’s common stock. In April 2004, we received a stock certificate for 760,000 restricted shares of Sun’s common stock and cash in the amount of approximately $0.5 million in exchange for the remaining 40,000 shares of Sun’s common stock. In July 2004, Sun registered these shares with the SEC. During the period of our ownership of this security, we accounted for the 760,000 shares as “available for sale” marketable securities with changes in market value recorded in other comprehensive income.
·
In accordance with FASB Statement No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities (“FAS No. 115”), in June 2005, we recorded a $3.4 million provision for impairment to write-down our 760,000 share investment in Sun common stock to its then current fair market value of $4.9 million. At December 31, 2005, the fair value of our Sun stock investment was $5.0 million.
·
During the three months ended September 30, 2006, we sold our remaining 760,000 shares of Sun’s common stock for approximately $7.6 million, realizing a gain on the sale of these securities of approximately $2.7 million.
Notes Receivable
At December 31, 2006, we had 11 notes receivable totaling $15.6 million, net of allowance, with maturities ranging from on demand to 2016. At December 31, 2005, we had 13 notes receivable totaling $18.6 million, net of allowance, with maturities ranging from on demand to 2014.
NOTE 6 - CONCENTRATION OF RISK
As of December 31, 2006, our portfolio of domestic investments consisted of 239 healthcare facilities, located in 27 states and operated by 32 third-party operators. Our gross investment in these facilities, net of impairments and before reserve for uncollectible loans, totaled approximately $1.3 billion at December 31, 2006, with approximately 98% of our real estate investments related to long-term care facilities. This portfolio is made up of 222 long-term healthcare facilities, two rehabilitation hospitals owned and leased to third parties, fixed rate mortgages on 9 long-term healthcare facilities and six facilities held for sale. At December 31, 2006, we also held miscellaneous investments of approximately $22 million, consisting primarily of secured loans to third-party operators of our facilities.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
At December 31, 2006, approximately 25% of our real estate investments were operated by two public companies: Sun (17%) and Advocat (8%). Our largest private company operators (by investment) were CommuniCare Health Services, Inc. (“CommuniCare”) (15%), Haven (9%), HQM (8%), Guardian (7%), Nexion (6%) and Essex Healthcare Corporation (6%). No other operator represents more than 4% of our investments. The three states in which we had our highest concentration of investments were Ohio (22%), Florida (14%) and Pennsylvania (9%) at December 31, 2006.
For the year ended December 31, 2006, our revenues from operations totaled $135.7 million, of which approximately $25.1 million were from Sun (19%), $20.3 million from CommuniCare (15%) and $15.3 million from Advocat (11%). No other operator generated more than 9% of our revenues from operations for the year ended December 31, 2006.
Sun and Advocat are subject to the reporting requirements of the SEC and are required to file with the SEC annual reports containing audited financial information and quarterly reports containing unaudited interim financial information. Sun’s and Advocat’s filings with the SEC can be found at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. We are providing this data for information purposes only, and you are encouraged to obtain Sun’s and Advocat’s publicly available filings from the SEC.
NOTE 7 - LEASE AND MORTGAGE DEPOSITS
We obtain liquidity deposits and letters of credit from most operators pursuant to our lease and mortgage contracts with the operators. These generally represent the rental and mortgage interest for periods ranging from three to six months with respect to certain of its investments. The liquidity deposits may be applied in the event of lease and loan defaults, subject to applicable limitations under bankruptcy law with respect to operators filing under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. At December 31, 2006, we held $4.1 million in such liquidity deposits and $16.9 million in letters of credit. Liquidity deposits are recorded as restricted cash on our consolidated balance sheet. Additional security for rental and mortgage interest revenue from operators is provided by covenants regarding minimum working capital and net worth, liens on accounts receivable and other operating assets of the operators, provisions for cross default, provisions for cross-collateralization and by corporate/personal guarantees.
NOTE 8 - BORROWING ARRANGEMENTS
Secured Borrowings
At December 31, 2006, we had $150.0 million outstanding under our $200 million revolving senior secured credit facility (the “New Credit Facility”) and $2.5 million was utilized for the issuance of letters of credit, leaving availability of $47.5 million. The $150.0 million of outstanding borrowings had a blended interest rate of 6.60% at December 31, 2006. The New Credit Facility, entered into on March 31, 2006, is being provided by Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, UBS Securities LLC, General Electric Capital Corporation, LaSalle Bank N.A., and Citicorp North America, Inc. and will be used for acquisitions and general corporate purposes.
The New Credit Facility replaced our previous $200 million senior secured credit facility (the “Prior Credit Facility”), that was terminated on March 31, 2006. The New Credit Facility matures on March 31, 2010, and includes an “accordion feature” that permits us to expand our borrowing capacity to $300 million during our first two years. For the year ended December 31, 2006, we recorded a one-time, non-cash charge of approximately $2.7 million relating to the write-off of deferred financing costs associated with the termination of our Prior Credit Facility.
Our long-term borrowings require us to meet certain property level financial covenants and corporate financial covenants, including prescribed leverage, fixed charge coverage, minimum net worth, limitations on additional indebtedness and limitations on dividend payouts. As of December 31, 2006, we were in compliance with all property level and corporate financial covenants.
At December 31, 2005, we had a $200 million revolving senior secured credit facility (“Credit Facility”) of which $58.0 million was outstanding and $3.9 million was utilized for the issuance of letters of credit, leaving availability of $138.1 million. On April 26, 2005, we amended our Credit Facility to reduce both LIBOR and Base Rate interest spreads (as defined in the Credit Facility) by 50 basis points for borrowings outstanding. The $58.0 million of outstanding borrowings had a blended interest rate of 7.12% at December 31, 2005.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
Unsecured Borrowings
$100 Million Aggregate Principal Amount of 6.95% Unsecured Notes Tender and Redemption
On December 16, 2005, we initiated a tender offer and consent solicitation for all of our outstanding $100 million aggregate principal amount 6.95% notes due (the “2007 Notes”). On December 30, 2005, we accepted for purchase 79.3% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2007 Notes outstanding that were tendered. On December 30, 2005, our Board of Directors also authorized the redemption of all outstanding 2007 Notes that were not otherwise tendered. On December 30, 2005, upon our irrevocable funding of the full redemption price for the 2007 Notes and certain other acts required by the Indenture governing the 2007 Notes, the Trustee of the 2007 Notes certified in writing to us (the “Certificate of Satisfaction and Discharge”) that the Indenture was satisfied and discharged as of December 30, 2005, except for certain provisions. In accordance with SFAS No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishment of Liabilities, we removed 79.3% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2007 Notes, which were tendered in our tender offer and consent solicitation, and the corresponding portion of the funds held in trust by the Trustee to pay the tender price from our balance sheet and recognized $2.8 million of additional interest expense associated with the tender offer. On January 18, 2006, we completed the redemption of the remaining 2007 Notes not otherwise tendered. In connection with the redemption and in accordance with SFAS No. 140, we recognized $0.8 million of additional interest expense in the first quarter of 2006. As of January 18, 2006, none of the 2007 Notes remained outstanding.
$175 Million Aggregate Principal Amount of 7% Unsecured Notes Issuance
On December 30, 2005, we closed on a private offering of $175 million of 7% senior unsecured notes due 2016 (“2016 Notes”) at an issue price of 99.109% of the principal amount of the notes (equal to a per annum yield to maturity of approximately 7.125%), resulting in gross proceeds to us of approximately $173.4 million. The 2016 Notes are unsecured senior obligations to us, which have been guaranteed by our subsidiaries. The 2016 Notes were issued in a private placement to qualified institutional buyers under Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). A portion of the proceeds of this private offering was used to pay the tender price and redemption price of the 2007 Notes. On February 24, 2006, we filed a registration statement on Form S-4 under the Securities Act with the SEC offering to exchange up to $175 million aggregate principal amount of our registered 7% Senior Notes due 2016 (the “2016 Exchange Notes”), for all of our outstanding unregistered 2016 Notes. The terms of the 2016 Exchange Notes are identical to the terms of the 2016 Notes, except that the 2016 Exchange Notes are registered under the Securities Act and therefore freely tradable (subject to certain conditions). The 2016 Exchange Notes represent our unsecured senior obligations and are guaranteed by all of our subsidiaries with unconditional guarantees of payment that rank equally with existing and future senior unsecured debt of such subsidiaries and senior to existing and future subordinated debt of such subsidiaries. In April 2006, upon the expiration of the 2016 Notes Exchange Offer, $175 million aggregate principal amount of 2016 Notes were exchanged for the 2016 Exchange Notes.
$50 Million Aggregate Principal Amount of 7% Unsecured Notes Issuance
On December 2, 2005, we completed a privately placed offering of an additional $50 million aggregate principal amount of 7% senior notes due 2014 (the “2014 Add-on Notes”) at an issue price of 100.25% of the principal amount of the notes (equal to a per annum yield to maturity of approximately 6.95%), resulting in gross proceeds to us of approximately $50.1 million. The terms of the 2014 Add-on Notes offered were substantially identical to our existing $200 million aggregate principal amount of 7% senior notes due 2014 issued in March 2004. The 2014 Add-on Notes were issued through a private placement to qualified institutional buyers under Rule 144A under the Securities Act. After giving effect to the issuance of the $50 million aggregate principal amount of this offering, we had outstanding $310 million aggregate principal amount of 7% senior notes due 2014. On February 24, 2006, we filed a registration statement on Form S-4 under the Securities Act with the SEC offering to exchange up to $50 million aggregate principal amount of our registered 7% Senior Notes due 2014 (the “2014 Add-on Exchange Notes”), for all of our outstanding unregistered 2014 Add-on Notes. The terms of the 2014 Add-on Exchange Notes are identical to the terms of the 2014 Add-on Notes, except that the 2014 Add-on Exchange Notes are registered under the Securities Act and therefore freely tradable (subject to certain conditions). The 2014 Add-on Exchange Notes represent our unsecured senior obligations and are guaranteed by all of our subsidiaries with unconditional guarantees of payment that rank equally with existing and future senior unsecured debt of such subsidiaries and senior to existing and future subordinated debt of such subsidiaries. In May 2006, upon the expiration of the 2014 Add-on Notes Exchange Offer, $50 million aggregate principal amount of Add-on Notes were exchanged for the 2014 Add-on Exchange Notes.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
Other Long-Term Borrowings
During the three months ended March 31, 2006, Haven used the $39 million of proceeds from the GE Loan to partially repay a portion of a $62 million mortgage it has with us. Simultaneously, we subordinated the payment of its remaining $23 million on the mortgage note to that of the GE Loan. In conjunction with the above transactions and the application of FIN 46R, we consolidated the financial statements of this Haven entity into our financial statements, which contained the long-term borrowings with General Electric Capital Corporation of $39.0 million. The loan has an interest rate of approximately seven percent and is due in 2012. The lender of the $39.0 million does not have recourse to our assets. See Note - 3 Properties; Leased Property.
The following is a summary of our long-term borrowings:
Real estate investments with a gross book value of approximately $268 million are pledged as collateral for outstanding secured borrowings at December 31, 2006.
The required principal payments, excluding the premium/discount on the 7% Notes, for each of the five years following December 31, 2006 and the aggregate due thereafter are set forth below:
(in thousands)
$
150,495
Thereafter
524,310
Totals
$
676,410
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
NOTE 9 - FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
At December 31, 2006 and 2005, the carrying amounts and fair values of our financial instruments were as follows:
Fair value estimates are subjective in nature and are dependent on a number of important assumptions, including estimates of future cash flows, risks, discount rates and relevant comparable market information associated with each financial instrument. (See Note 2 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies). The use of different market assumptions and estimation methodologies may have a material effect on the reported estimated fair value amounts. Accordingly, the estimates presented above are not necessarily indicative of the amounts we would realize in a current market exchange.
The following methods and assumptions were used in estimating fair value disclosures for financial instruments.
·
Cash and cash equivalents: The carrying amount of cash and cash equivalents reported in the balance sheet approximates fair value because of the short maturity of these instruments (i.e., less than 90 days).
·
Mortgage notes receivable: The fair values of the mortgage notes receivables are estimated using a discounted cash flow analysis, using interest rates being offered for similar loans to borrowers with similar credit ratings.
·
Other investments: Other investments are primarily comprised of: (i) notes receivable; (ii) a redeemable non-convertible preferred security in 2006 and a redeemable convertible preferred security in 2005; (iii) an embedded derivative of the redeemable convertible preferred security in 2005; (iv) a subordinated debt instrument of a publicly traded company; and (v) a marketable common stock security held for resale in 2005. The fair values of notes receivable are estimated using a discounted cash flow analysis, using interest rates being offered for similar loans to borrowers with similar credit ratings. The fair value of the embedded derivative is estimated using a financial pricing model and market data derived from the underlying issuer’s common stock. The fair value of the marketable securities are estimated using discounted cash flow and volatility assumptions or, if available, a quoted market value.
·
Revolving lines of credit: The carrying values of our borrowings under variable rate agreements approximate their fair values.
·
Senior notes and other long-term borrowings: The fair value of our borrowings under fixed rate agreements are estimated based on open market trading activity provided by a third party.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
From time to time, we may utilize interest rate swaps and caps to fix interest rates on variable rate debt and reduce certain exposures to interest rate fluctuations. We do not use derivatives for trading or speculative purposes. We have a policy of only entering into contracts with major financial institutions based upon their credit ratings and other factors. At December 31, 2005 and 2006, we had no derivative instruments relating to interest rate swaps and caps on our balance sheet.
To manage interest rate risk, we may employ options, forwards, interest rate swaps, caps and floors or a combination thereof depending on the underlying exposure. We may employ swaps, forwards or purchased options to hedge qualifying forecasted transactions. Gains and losses related to these transactions are deferred and recognized in net income as interest expense in the same period or periods that the underlying transaction occurs, expires or is otherwise terminated. We account for derivative financial instruments under the guidance of SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, and SFAS No. 138, Accounting for Certain Instruments and Certain Hedging Activities, an Amendment of Statement No. 133. These financial accounting standards require us to recognize all derivatives on the balance sheet at fair value. Derivatives that are not hedges must be adjusted to fair value through income. If the derivative is a hedge, depending on the nature of the hedge, changes in the fair value of derivatives will either be offset against the change in fair value of the hedged assets, liabilities, or firm commitments through earnings or recognized in Other Comprehensive Income until the hedge item is recognized in earnings. The ineffective portion of a derivative's change in fair value will be immediately recognized in earnings.
NOTE 10 - TAXES
We were organized to qualify for taxation as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code. So long as we qualify as a REIT and, among other things, we distribute 90% of our taxable income, we will not be subject to Federal income taxes on our income, except as described below. For tax year 2006, preferred and common dividend payments of approximately $67 million made throughout 2006 satisfy the 2006 REIT requirements relating to qualifying income. We are permitted to own up to 100% of a “taxable REIT subsidiary” (“TRS”). Currently, we have two TRSs that are taxable as corporations and that pay federal, state and local income tax on their net income at the applicable corporate rates. These TRSs had net operating loss carry-forwards as of December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 of $12 million, $14 million and $15 million, respectively. These loss carry-forwards were fully reserved with a valuation allowance due to uncertainties regarding realization.
Except with respect to the potential Advocat “related party tenant” issue discussed below, we believe we have conducted, and we intend to continue to conduct, our operations so as to qualify as a REIT. Qualification as a REIT involves the satisfaction of numerous requirements, some on an annual and some on a quarterly basis, established under highly technical and complex provisions of the Internal Revenue Code for which there are only limited judicial and administrative interpretations and involve the determination of various factual matters and circumstances not entirely within our control. We cannot assure you that we will at all times satisfy these rules and tests.
If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, as a result of a determination that we failed to meet the annual distribution requirement or otherwise, we would be subject to federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates with respect to each such taxable year for which the statute of limitations remains open. Moreover, unless entitled to relief under certain statutory provisions, we also would be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification is lost. This treatment would significantly reduce our net earnings and cash flow because of our additional tax liability for the years involved, which could significantly impact our financial condition.
Advocat Restructurings
In November 2000, Advocat, an operator of various skilled nursing facilities owned by or mortgaged to us, was in default on its obligations to us. As a result, we entered into an agreement with Advocat with respect to the restructuring of Advocat's obligations pursuant to leases and mortgages for the facilities then operated by Advocat (the “Initial Advocat Restructuring”). As part of the Initial Advocat Restructuring in 2000, Advocat issued to us (i) 393,658 shares of Advocat’s Series B non-voting, redeemable (on or after September 30, 2007), convertible preferred stock, which was convertible into up to 706,576 shares of Advocat’s common stock (representing 9.9% of the outstanding shares of Advocat’s common stock on a fully diluted, as-converted basis and accruing dividends at 7% per annum), and (ii) a secured convertible subordinated note in the amount of $1.7 million bearing interest at 7% per annum with a September 30, 2007 maturity.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
Subsequent to the Initial Advocat Restructuring, Advocat’s operations and financial condition have improved and there has been a significant increase in the market value of Advocat’s common stock from approximately $0.31 per share at the time of the Initial Advocat Restructuring to the closing price on October 20, 2006 of $18.84. As a result of the significant increase in the value of the common stock underlying the Series B preferred stock of Advocat held by us, on October 20, 2006 we again restructured our relationship with Advocat (the “Second Advocat Restructuring”) by entering into a Restructuring Stock Issuance and Subscription Agreement with Advocat (the “2006 Advocat Agreement”). Pursuant to the 2006 Advocat Agreement, we exchanged the Advocat Series B preferred stock and subordinated note issued in the Initial Advocat Restructuring for 5,000 shares of Advocat’s Series C non-convertible, redeemable (at our option after September 30, 2010) preferred stock with a face value of approximately $4.9 million and a dividend rate of 7% payable quarterly, and a secured non-convertible subordinated note in the amount of $2.5 million maturing September 30, 2007 and bearing interest at 7% per annum. As part of the Second Advocat Restructuring, we also amended our Consolidated Amended and Restated Master Lease by and between one of our subsidiaries, as lessor, and a subsidiary of Advocat, as lessee, to commence a new 12-year lease term through September 30, 2018 (with a renewal option for an additional 12 year term) and Advocat has agreed to increase the master lease annual rent by approximately $687,000 to approximately $14 million commencing on January 1, 2007.
Advocat Related Party Tenant Issue
Management believes that certain of the terms of the Advocat Series B preferred stock previously held by us could be interpreted as affecting our compliance with federal income tax rules applicable to REITs regarding related party tenant income.
The market value for Advocat’s common stock has increased significantly since the completion of the Initial Advocat Restructuring. In connection with exploring the potential disposition of the Advocat Series B preferred stock as part of the Second Advocat Restructuring, we were advised by our tax counsel that due to the structure of the Initial Advocat Restructuring, Advocat may be deemed to be a “related party tenant” under applicable federal income tax rules and, in such event, rental income from Advocat would not be qualifying income under the gross income tests that are applicable to REITs.
In order to maintain qualification as a REIT, we annually must satisfy certain tests regarding the source of our gross income. The applicable federal income tax rules provide a “savings clause” for REITs that fail to satisfy the REIT gross income tests, if such failure is due to reasonable cause. A REIT that qualifies for the savings clause will retain its REIT status but will pay a tax under section 857(b)(5) and related interest.
On December 15, 2006, we submitted to the IRS a request for a closing agreement to resolve the “related party tenant” issue. Since that time, we have had additional conversations with the IRS, who has encouraged us to move forward with the process of obtaining a closing agreement, and we have submitted additional documentation in support of the issuance of a closing agreement with respect to this matter. While we believe there are valid arguments that Advocat should not be deemed a “related party tenant,” the matter still is not free from doubt, and we believe it is in our best interest to proceed with the request for a closing agreement with the IRS in order to resolve the matter, minimize potential interest charges and obtain assurances regarding our continuing REIT status. If obtained, a closing agreement will establish that any failure to satisfy the gross income tests was due to reasonable cause. In the event that it is determined that the “savings clause” described above does not apply, we could be treated as having failed to qualify as a REIT for one or more taxable years.
As a result of the potential related party tenant issue described above, we have recorded a $2.3 million, $2.4 million and $0.4 million provision for income taxes, including related interest expense, for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The amount accrued represents the estimated liability and interest, which remains subject to final resolution and therefore is subject to change. In addition, in October 2006, in connection with the Second Advocat Restructuing we have been advised by tax counsel that we will not receive any non-qualifying related party tenant income from Advocat in future fiscal years. Accordingly, we do not expect to incur tax expense associated with related party tenant income in future periods commencing January 1, 2007.
NOTE 11 - RETIREMENT ARRANGEMENTS
Our company has a 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan covering all eligible employees. Under this plan, employees are eligible to make contributions, and we, at our discretion, may match contributions and make a profit sharing contribution.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
We have a Deferred Compensation Plan which is an unfunded plan under which we can award units that result in participation in the dividends and future growth in the value of our common stock. There are no outstanding units as of December 31, 2006.
Amounts charged to operations with respect to these retirement arrangements totaled approximately $62,700, $55,400 and $52,800 in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
NOTE 12 - STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY AND STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
Stockholders’ Equity
5.175 Million Common Stock Offering
On November 21, 2005, we closed an underwritten public offering of 5,175,000 shares of Omega common stock at $11.80 per share, less underwriting discounts. The sale included 675,000 shares sold in connection with the exercise of an over-allotment option granted to the underwriters. We received approximately $58 million in net proceeds from the sale of the shares, after deducting underwriting discounts and before estimated offering expenses.
8.625% Series B Preferred Redemption
On May 2, 2005, we fully redeemed our 8.625% Series B Cumulative Preferred Stock (NYSE:OHI PrB) (the “Series B Preferred Stock”). We redeemed the 2.0 million shares of Series B Preferred Stock at a price of $25.55104, comprising the $25 liquidation value and accrued dividend. Under FASB-EITF Issue D-42, ‘‘The Effect on the Calculation of Earnings per Share for the Redemption or Induced Conversion of Preferred Stock,” the repurchase of the Series B Preferred Stock resulted in a non-cash charge to our 2005 net income available to common shareholders of approximately $2.0 million reflecting the write-off of the original issuance costs of the Series B Preferred Stock.
4.025 Million Primary Share Common Stock Offering
On December 15, 2004, we closed an underwritten public offering of 4,025,000 shares of our common stock at a price of $11.96 per share, less underwriting discounts. The offering included 525,000 shares sold in connection with the exercise of an over-allotment option granted to the underwriters. We received approximately $46 million in net proceeds from the sale of the shares, after deducting underwriting discounts and before estimated offering expenses.
9.25% Series A Preferred Redemption
On April 30, 2004, we fully redeemed all of the outstanding 2.3 million shares of our Series A Cumulative Preferred Stock (the "Series A Preferred Stock") at a price of $25.57813, comprised of the $25 per share liquidation value and accrued dividend. Under FASB-EITF Issue D-42, ‘‘The Effect on the Calculation of Earnings per Share for the Redemption or Induced Conversion of Preferred Stock,” the repurchase of the Series A Preferred Stock resulted in a non-cash charge to our 2004 net income available to common stockholders of approximately $2.3 million.
8.375% Series D Preferred Stock Offering
On February 10, 2004, we closed on the sale of 4,739,500 shares of our 8.375% Series D cumulative redeemable preferred stock (the “Series D Preferred Stock”) at a price of $25 per share. The Series D Preferred Stock is listed on the NYSE under the symbol “OHI PrD.” Dividends on the Series D Preferred Stock are cumulative from the date of original issue and are payable quarterly. At December 31, 2006, the aggregate liquidation preference of the Series D Preferred Stock was $118.5 million. (See Note 13 - Dividends).
Series C Preferred Stock Redemption, Conversion and Repurchase
On July 14, 2000, Explorer Holdings, L.P., (“Explorer”), a private equity investor, completed an investment of $100.0 million in our company in exchange for 1,000,000 shares of our Series C convertible preferred stock (the “Series C Preferred Stock”). Shares of the Series C Preferred Stock were convertible into common stock at any time by the holder at an initial conversion price of $6.25 per share of common stock. The shares of Series C Preferred Stock were entitled to receive dividends at the greater of 10% per annum or the dividend payable on shares of common stock, with the Series C Preferred Stock participating on an "as converted" basis. Dividends on the Series C Preferred Stock were cumulative from the date of original issue and are payable quarterly.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
On February 5, 2004, we announced that Explorer, our then largest stockholder, granted us the option to repurchase up to 700,000 shares of our Series C Preferred Stock, which were convertible into our common shares held by Explorer at a negotiated purchase price of $145.92 per share of Series C Preferred Stock (or $9.12 per common share on an as converted basis). Explorer further agreed to convert any remaining Series C Preferred Stock into our common stock.
We used approximately $102.1 million of the net proceeds from the Series D Preferred Stock offering to repurchase 700,000 shares of our Series C Preferred Stock from Explorer. In connection with the closing of the repurchase, Explorer converted its remaining 348,420 shares of Series C Preferred Stock into approximately 5.6 million shares of our common stock. Following the repurchase and conversion, Explorer held approximately 18.1 million of our common shares.
The combined repurchase and conversion of the Series C Preferred Stock reduced our preferred dividend requirements, increased our market capitalization and facilitated future financings by simplifying our capital structure. Under FASB-EITF Issue D-42, ‘‘The Effect on the Calculation of Earnings per Share for the Redemption or Induced Conversion of Preferred Stock,” the repurchase of the Series C Preferred Stock resulted in a non-cash charge to our 2004 net income available to common stockholders of approximately $38.7 million.
18.1 Million Secondary and 2.7 Million Share Primary Offering of Our Common Stock
On March 8, 2004, we announced the closing of an underwritten public offering of 18.1 million shares of our common stock at a price of $9.85 per share owned by Explorer (the “Secondary Offering”). As a result of the Secondary Offering, Explorer no longer owned any shares of our common stock. We did not receive any proceeds from the sale of the shares sold by Explorer.
In connection with the Secondary Offering, we issued approximately 2.7 million additional shares of our common stock at a price of $9.85 per share, less underwriting discounts (the “Over-Allotment Offering”), to cover over-allotments in connection with the Secondary Offering. We received net proceeds of approximately $23 million from the Over-Allotment Offering.
Stock Options
Prior to January 1, 2006, we accounted for stock based compensation using the intrinsic value method as defined by APB Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees. Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted FAS No. 123R using the modified prospective method. Accordingly, we have not restated prior period amounts. The additional expense recorded in 2006 as a result of this adoption is approximately $3 thousand. Under the provisions of FAS No. 123R, the “Unamortized restricted stock awards” line on our consolidated balance sheet, a contra-equity line representing the amount of unrecognized share-based compensation costs, is no longer presented. Accordingly, effective January 1, 2006, the balance recorded for “Unamortized restricted stock awards” as of December 31, 2005 was reversed through the “Common stock and additional paid-in-capital” line on our consolidated balance sheet.
Under the terms of our 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2000 Plan”), we reserved 3,500,000 shares of common stock. The exercise price per share of an option under the Plan cannot be reduced after the date of grant, nor can an option be cancelled in exchange for an option with a lower exercise price per share. The 2000 Plan provides for non-employee directors to receive options that vest over three years while other grants vest over the period required in the agreement applicable to the individual recipient. Directors, officers, employees and consultants are eligible to participate in the 2000 Plan. At December 31, 2006, there were outstanding options for 48,913 shares of common stock granted to eight eligible participants under the 2000 Plan. Additionally, 355,655 shares of restricted stock have been granted under the provisions of the 2000 Plan, and as of December 31, 2006, there were no shares of unvested restricted stock outstanding under the 2000 Plan.
At December 31, 2006, under the 2000 Plan, there were options for 47,244 shares of common stock currently exercisable with a weighted-average exercise price of $12.70, with exercise prices ranging from $2.96 to $37.20. There were 559,960 shares available for future grants as of December 31, 2006. A breakdown of the options outstanding under the 2000 Plan as of December 31, 2006, by price range, is presented below:
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
Option Price
Range
Number
Weighted Average Exercise Price
Weighted Average Remaining Life (Years
)
Number Exercisable
Weighted Average Price on Options Exercisable
$2.96 -$3.81
11,918
$
3.41
3.44
11,918
$
3.41
$6.02 -$9.33
22,330
$
6.67
5.14
20,661
$
6.46
$20.25 -$37.20
14,665
$
29.04
1.59
14,665
$
29.04
On April 20, 2004, our Board of Directors approved the 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2004 Plan”), which was subsequently approved by our stockholders at our annual meeting held on June 3, 2004. Under the terms of the 2004 Plan, we reserved 3,000,000 shares of common stock. The exercise price per share of an option under the 2004 Plan cannot be less than fair market value (as defined in the 2004 Plan) on the date of grant. The exercise price per share of an option under the 2004 Plan cannot be reduced after the date of grant, nor can an option be cancelled in exchange for an option with a lower exercise price per share. Directors, officers, employees and consultants are eligible to participate in the 2004 Plan. As of December 31, 2006, a total of 350,480 shares of restricted stock and 317,500 restricted stock units have been granted under the 2004 Plan, and as of December 31, 2006, there were no outstanding options to purchase shares of common stock under the 2004 Plan.
At December 31, 2006, options outstanding (48,913) have a weighted-average exercise price of $12.58, with exercise prices ranging from $2.96 to $37.20. For the year ended December 31, 2004, 9,000 options were granted at a weighted average price per share of $9.33. There were no options granted in 2005 or 2006. The following is a summary of option activity under the 2000 Plan:
Stock Options
Number of
Shares
Exercise Price
Weighted-
Average Price
Weighted-
Average Remaining Contractual Term
Aggregate Intrinsic Value
Outstanding at December 31, 2003
2,282,630
$
2.320-37.205
$
3.202
6.8
Granted during 2004
9,000
9.330-9.330
9.330
Exercised
(1,713,442
)
2.320-7.750
2.988
Cancelled
(8,005
)
3.740-9.330
6.914
Outstanding at December 31, 2004
570,183
2.320-37.205
3.891
6.0
Exercised
(336,910
)
2.320-9.330
2.843
Cancelled
(5,833
)
3.410-3.410
3.410
Outstanding at December 31, 2005
227,440
2.760-37.205
5.457
4.6
Exercised
(174,191
)
2.760-9.330
2.979
Cancelled
(4,336
)
22.452-25.038
24.594
Outstanding at December 31, 2006
48,913
$
2.960-37.205
$
12.583
3.1
$
417,368
Exercisable at December 31, 2006
47,244
$
2.960-37.205
$
12.698
3.7
$
403,357
The total intrinsic value of options exercised during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 was $1.7, million, $3.2 million and $12.5 million, respectively. The total fair value of options vested during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 was $0.0 million, $0.2 million and $0.2 million, respectively.
Cash received from the exercise under all stock-based payment arrangements for the year ended 2006, 2005 and 2004 was $0.9 million, $0.4 million and $1.7 million, respectively. Cash used to settle equity instruments granted under stock-based payment arrangements for the year ended 2006, 2005 and 2004, was $0.7 million, $1.4 million and 2.1 million, respectively.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
Restricted Stock
On September 10, 2004, we entered into restricted stock agreements with four executive officers under the 2004 Plan. A total of 317,500 shares of restricted stock were granted, which equated to approximately $3.3 million of deferred compensation (based on grant-date fair value). The shares vest thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/3%) on each of January 1, 2005, January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007 so long as the executive officer remains employed on the vesting date, with vesting accelerating upon a qualifying termination of employment or upon the occurrence of a change of control (as defined in the applicable restricted stock agreements). As a result of the grant, we recorded $1.1 million of non-cash compensation expense for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The total fair value of shares vested during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 was $1.1 million, $1.1 million and $0.0 million, respectively.
For the year ended December 31, 2006, we issued 2,179 shares of restricted common stock to each non-employee director and an additional 2,000 shares of restricted common stock to the Chairman of the Board under the 2004 Plan for a total of 12,895 shares. These shares represent a payment of the portion of the directors’ annual retainer that is payable in shares of our common stock.
Restricted Stock
Number of Shares
Weighted-Average Grant-Date Fair Value
Non-vested at December 31, 2005
218,666
$
10.56
Granted during 2006
7,000
12.59
Vested
(108,170
)
10.55
Non-vested at December 31, 2006
117,496
$
10.68
Performance Restricted Stock Units
On September 10, 2004, we entered into performance restricted stock unit agreements with our four executive officers under the 2004 Plan. A total of 317,500 restricted stock units were issued under the 2004 Plan and will fully vest into shares of common stock when our company attains $0.30 per share of adjusted funds from operations (as defined in the applicable restricted stock unit agreements), (“AFFO”) for two (2) consecutive quarters, with vesting accelerating upon a qualifying termination of employment or upon the occurrence of a change of control (as defined in the applicable restricted stock unit agreements). The performance restricted stock units expire on December 31, if the performance criteria has not been met. Pursuant to the terms of the performance restricted stock unit agreements, each of the executive officers will not receive the vested shares attributable to the performance restricted stock units until the earlier of January 1, 2008, such executive officer is terminated without cause or quits for good reason (as defined in the performance restricted stock unit agreement), or the death or disability (as defined in performance restricted stock unit agreement) of the executive officer. Under our current method of accounting for stock-based compensation, the expense related to the restricted stock units will be recognized when it becomes probable that the vesting requirements will be met.
As of September 30, 2006, we achieved the vesting target as defined in the 2004 Plan, and therefore, in accordance with FAS No. 123R (i.e., compensation expense for a performance-based stock award shall be recognized when the satisfaction of the performance conditions that cause the award to vest are probable to occur), we recorded approximately $3.3 million as compensation expense (based on grant-date fair value) associated with the performance restricted stock units for the year ended December 31, 2006.
Performance Restricted Stock Units
Number of Units
Weighted-Average Grant-Date Fair Value
Non-vested at December 31, 2005
317,500
$
10.54
Vested
(317,500
)
10.54
Non-vested at December 31, 2006
-
$
-
In accordance with FASB Statement No. 128, Earnings per Share, (“FAS No. 128”), the restricted stock unit shares are included in the computation of basic EPS from the date of vesting on a weighted-average basis. See Note 17 - Earnings per Share.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
NOTE 13 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
Explorer Holdings, L.P.
On February 5, 2004, we entered into a Repurchase and Conversion Agreement with our then largest stockholder, Explorer, pursuant to which Explorer granted us an option to repurchase up to 700,000 shares of our Series C Preferred Stock at a price of $145.92 per share (or $9.12 per share of common stock on an as-converted basis), on the condition that we purchase a minimum of $100 million on or prior to February 27, 2004. Explorer also agreed to convert all of its remaining shares of Series C Preferred Stock into shares of our common stock upon exercise of the repurchase option.
On February 10, 2004, we sold in a registered direct placement 4,739,500 shares of our Series D Preferred Stock at a price of $25 per share to a number of institutional investors and other purchasers for net proceeds, after fees and expenses, of approximately $114.9 million. Following the closing of the Series D Preferred Stock offering, we used approximately $102.1 million of the net proceeds to repurchase 700,000 shares of our Series C Preferred Stock from Explorer pursuant to the repurchase option. In connection with this transaction, Explorer converted its remaining 348,420 shares of Series C Preferred Stock into 5,574,720 shares of our common stock. The balance of the net proceeds from the offering was used to redeem approximately 600,000 shares of our Series A Preferred Stock.
On February 12, 2004, we registered Explorer’s 18,118,246 shares of common stock (that includes the 5.6 million shares from the conversion) with the SEC. Explorer sold all of these registered shares pursuant to the registration statement.
In connection with our repurchase of a portion of Explorer’s Series C Preferred Stock, our results of operations for the first quarter of 2004 included a non-recurring reduction in net income attributable to common stockholders of approximately $38.7 million. This amount reflects the sum of: (i) the difference between the deemed redemption price of $145.92 per share of our Series C Preferred Stock and the carrying amount of $100 per share of our Series C Preferred Stock multiplied by the number of shares of the Series C Preferred Stock repurchased upon exercise of our option to repurchase shares of Series C Preferred Stock; and (ii) the cost associated with the original issuance of our Series C Preferred Stock that was previously classified as additional paid-in capital, pro-rated for the repurchase.
NOTE 14 - DIVIDENDS
In order to qualify as a REIT, we are required to distribute dividends (other than capital gain dividends) to our stockholders in an amount at least equal to (A) the sum of (i) 90% of our "REIT taxable income" (computed without regard to the dividends paid deduction and our net capital gain), and (ii) 90% of the net income (after tax), if any, from foreclosure property, minus (B) the sum of certain items of non-cash income. In addition, if we dispose of any built-in gain asset during a recognition period, we will be required to distribute at least 90% of the built-in gain (after tax), if any, recognized on the disposition of such asset. Such distributions must be paid in the taxable year to which they relate, or in the following taxable year if declared before we timely file our tax return for such year and paid on or before the first regular dividend payment after such declaration. In addition, such distributions are required to be made pro rata, with no preference to any share of stock as compared with other shares of the same class, and with no preference to one class of stock as compared with another class except to the extent that such class is entitled to such a preference. To the extent that we do not distribute all of our net capital gain or do distribute at least 90%, but less than 100% of our "REIT taxable income," as adjusted, we will be subject to tax thereon at regular ordinary and capital gain corporate tax rates. In addition, our New Credit Facility has certain financial covenants that limit the distribution of dividends paid during a fiscal quarter to no more than 95% of our aggregate cumulative funds from operations (“FFO”) as defined in the loan agreement governing the New Credit Facility (the “Loan Agreement”), unless a greater distribution is required to maintain REIT status. The Loan Agreement defines FFO as net income (or loss) plus depreciation and amortization and shall be adjusted for charges related to: (i) restructuring our debt; (ii) redemption of preferred stock; (iii) litigation charges up to $5.0 million; (iv) non-cash charges for accounts and notes receivable up to $5.0 million; (v) non-cash compensation related expenses; (vi) non-cash impairment charges; and (vii) tax liabilities in an amount not to exceed $8.0 million.
Common Dividends
On January 16, 2007, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of $0.26 per share, an increase of $0.01 per common share compared to the prior quarter. The common dividend was paid February 15, 2007 to common stockholders of record on January 31, 2007.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
On October 24, 2006, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of $0.25 per share, an increase of $0.01 per common share compared to the prior quarter, which was paid November 15, 2006 to common stockholders of record on November 3, 2006.
On July 17, 2006, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of $0.24 per share. The common dividend was paid August 15, 2006 to common stockholders of record on July 31, 2006.
On April 18, 2006, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of $0.24 per share, an increase of $0.01 per common share compared to the prior quarter. The common dividend was paid May 15, 2006 to common stockholders of record on April 28, 2006.
On January 17, 2006, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of $0.23 per share, an increase of $0.01 per common share compared to the prior quarter. The common stock dividend was paid February 15, 2006 to common stockholders of record on January 31, 2006.
Series D Preferred Dividends
On January 16, 2007, the Board of Directors declared regular quarterly dividends of approximately $0.52344 per preferred share on its 8.375% Series D cumulative redeemable preferred stock (the “Series D Preferred Stock”), that were paid February 15, 2007 to preferred stockholders of record on January 31, 2007. The liquidation preference for our Series D Preferred Stock is $25.00 per share. Regular quarterly preferred dividends for the Series D Preferred Stock represent dividends for the period November 1, 2006 through January 31, 2007.
On October 24, 2006, the Board of Directors declared the regular quarterly dividends of approximately $0.52344 per preferred share on the Series D Preferred Stock that were paid November 15, 2006 to preferred stockholders of record on November 3, 2006.
On July 17, 2006, the Board of Directors declared regular quarterly dividends of approximately $0.52344 per preferred share on the Series D Preferred Stock that were paid August 15, 2006 to preferred stockholders of record on July 31, 2006.
On April 18, 2006, the Board of Directors declared regular quarterly dividends of approximately $0.52344 per preferred share on the Series D Preferred Stock that were paid May 15, to preferred stockholders of record on April 28, 2006.
On January 17, 2006, the Board of Directors declared regular quarterly dividends of approximately $0.52344 per preferred share on the Series D Preferred Stock that were paid February 15, 2006 to preferred stockholders of record on January 31, 2006.
Series B Preferred Dividends
In March 2005, our Board of Directors authorized the redemption of all outstanding 2.0 million shares of our Series B Preferred Stock. The Series B Preferred Stock was redeemed on May 2, 2005 for $25 per share, plus $0.55104 per share in accrued and unpaid dividends through the redemption date, for an aggregate redemption price of $25.55104 per share.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
Per Share Distributions
Per share distributions by our company were characterized in the following manner for income tax purposes:
NOTE 15 - LITIGATION
We are subject to various legal proceedings, claims and other actions arising out of the normal course of business. While any legal proceeding or claim has an element of uncertainty, management believes that the outcome of each lawsuit, claim or legal proceeding that is pending or threatened, or all of them combined, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.
We and several of our wholly-owned subsidiaries have been named as defendants in professional liability claims related to our former owned and operated facilities. Other third-party managers responsible for the day-to-day operations of these facilities have also been named as defendants in these claims. In these suits, patients of certain previously owned and operated facilities have alleged significant damages, including punitive damages against the defendants. The majority of these lawsuits representing the most significant amount of exposure were settled in 2004. There currently is one lawsuit pending that is in the discovery stage, and we are unable to predict the likely outcome of this lawsuit at this time.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
In 1999, we filed suit against a former tenant seeking damages based on claims of breach of contract. The defendants denied the allegations made in the lawsuit. In settlement of our claim against the defendants, we agreed in the fourth quarter of 2005 to accept a lump sum cash payment of $2.4 million. The cash proceeds were offset by related expenses incurred of $0.8 million, resulting in a net gain of $1.6 million paid December 22, 2005.
During 2005, we accrued $1.1 million to settle a dispute relating to capital improvement requirements associated with a lease that expired June 30, 2005.
NOTE 16 - SUMMARY OF QUARTERLY RESULTS (UNAUDITED)
The following summarizes quarterly results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
NOTE 17 - EARNINGS PER SHARE
We calculate basic and diluted earnings per common share (“EPS”) in accordance with FAS No. 128. The computation of basic EPS is computed by dividing net income available to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the relevant period. Diluted EPS is computed using the treasury stock method, which is net income divided by the total weighted-average number of common outstanding shares plus the effect of dilutive common equivalent shares during the respective period. Dilutive common shares reflect the assumed issuance of additional common shares pursuant to certain of our share-based compensation plans, including stock options, restricted stock and restrictive stock units.
The following tables set forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share:
For the year ended December 31, 2004, there were 683,399 stock options and restricted stock shares excluded as all such effects were anti-dilutive.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
NOTE 18 - DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS
SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, requires the presentation of the net operating results of facilities sold during 2006 or currently classified as held-for-sale as income from discontinued operations for all periods presented. We incurred a net loss of $0.3 million from discontinued operations in 2006. We incurred net gain of $1.4 million and $6.8 million for 2005 and 2004, respectively, in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.
The following table summarizes the results of operations of the facilities sold or held- for- sale for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
NOTE 19 - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
Increase in Credit Facility
Pursuant to Section 2.01 of our Credit Agreement, dated as of March 31, 2006, as amended, by and among OHI Asset, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, OHI Asset (ID), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, OHI Asset (LA), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, OHI Asset (TX), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, OHI Asset (CA), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Delta Investors I, LLC a Maryland limited liability company, Delta Investors II, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and Texas Lessor - Stonegate, LP, a Maryland limited partnership, the Lenders identified therein, and Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent (the “Credit Agreement”), we are permitted under certain circumstances to increase our available borrowing base under the Credit Agreement from $200 million up to an aggregate of $300 million.. Effective as of February 22, 2007, we exercised our right to increase our available revolving commitment under Section 2.01 of the Credit Agreement from $200 million to $255 million and we consented to the addition of 18 our properties to the borrowing base assets under the Credit Agreement.
Asset Sale
On December 22, 2006, Residential Care VIII, LLC, a subsidiary of American Senior Communiites, LLC, notified us of their intent to exercise their option to purchase two facilities. The two facilities were classified on our December 31, 2006 consolidated balance sheet as assets held for sale with a net book value of approximately $1.9 million. On January 31, 2007, we received gross cash proceeds of approximately $3.6 million.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Continued
INDEX TO EXHIBITS TO 2006 FORM 10-K
EXHIBIT NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
3.1
Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended as of January 16, 2007. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Form S-11, filed on January 29,2007).
3.2
Articles of Incorporation, as restated on May 6, 1996, as amended on July 19, 1999, June 3, 2002, and August 5, 2004, and supplemented on February 19, 1999, February 10, 2004, August 10, 2004 and June 20, 2005. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, filed on October 21, 2005).
4.0
See Exhibits 3.1 to 3.2.
4.1
Rights Agreement, dated as of May 12, 1999, between Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and First Chicago Trust Company, as Rights Agent, including Exhibit A thereto (Form of Articles Supplementary relating to the Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock) and Exhibit B thereto (Form of Rights Certificate). (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on May 14, 1999).
4.2
Amendment No. 1, dated May 11, 2000 to Rights Agreement, dated as of May 12, 1999, between Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and First Chicago Trust Company, as Rights Agent. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2000).
4.3
Amendment No. 2 to Rights Agreement between Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and First Chicago Trust Company, as Rights Agent. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit F to the Schedule 13D filed by Explorer Holdings, L.P. on October 30, 2001 with respect to the Company).
4.4
Indenture, dated as of March 22, 2004, among the Company, each of the subsidiary guarantors named therein, and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on March 26, 2004).
4.5
Form of 7% Senior Notes due 2014. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on March 26, 2004).
4.6
Form of Subsidiary Guarantee relating to the 7% Senior Notes due 2014. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on March 26, 2004).
4.7
First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of July 20, 2004, among the Company and the subsidiary guarantors named therein, OHI Asset II (TX), LLC and U.S Bank National Association. (Incorporated by reference Exhibit 4.8 to the Company’s Form S-4/A filed on July 26, 2004.)
4.8
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of November 8, 2004, by and among Omega Healthcare, the Guarantors named therein, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC and UBS Securities LLC, as Initial Purchasers. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on November 9, 2004).
4.9
Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 5, 2004, among Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., each of the subsidiary guarantors listed on Schedule I thereto, OHI Asset (OH) New Philadelphia, LLC, OHI Asset (OH) Lender, LLC, OHI Asset (PA) Trust and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on November 9, 2004).
4.10
Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 1, 2005, among Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., each of the subsidiary guarantors listed on Schedule I thereto, OHI Asset (OH) New Philadelphia, LLC, OHI Asset (OH) Lender, LLC, OHI Asset (PA) Trust and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on December 2, 2005).
4.11
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of December 2, 2005, by and among Omega Healthcare, the Guarantors named therein, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC and UBS Securities LLC, as Initial Purchasers. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on December 2, 2005).
4.12
Indenture, dated as of December 30, 2005, among Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., each of the subsidiary guarantors listed therein and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on January 4, 2006).
4.13
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of December 30, 2005, by and among Omega Healthcare, the Guarantors named therein, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC and UBS Securities LLC, as Initial Purchasers. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on January 4, 2006).
4.14
Form of 7% Senior Notes due 2016. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit A of Exhibit 4.1 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on January 4, 2006).
4.15
Form of Subsidiary Guarantee relating to the 7% Senior Notes due 2016. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit E of Exhibit 4.1 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on January 4, 2006).
4.16
Form of Indenture. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Company’s Form S-3, filed on July 26, 2004).
4.17
Form of Indenture. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of the Company’s Form S-3, filed on February 3, 1997).
4.18
Form of Supplemental Indenture No. 1 dated as of August 5, 1997 relating to the 6.95% Notes due 2007. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on August 5, 1997).
4.19
Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 30, 2005, among Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and Wachovia Bank, National Association, as trustee. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on January 5, 2006).
10.1
Amended and Restated Secured Promissory Note between Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and Professional Health Care Management, Inc. dated as of September 1, 2001. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to the Company’s 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2001).
10.2
Settlement Agreement between Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., Professional Health Care Management, Inc., Living Centers - PHCM, Inc. GranCare, Inc., and Mariner Post-Acute Network, Inc. dated as of September 1, 2001. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2001).
10.3
Form of Directors and Officers Indemnification Agreement. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2000).
10.4
Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit A to the Company’s Proxy Statement dated April 6, 2003).+
10.5
Stock Incentive Plan (as amended January 1, 2001). (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003).+
10.6
Amendment to 2000 Stock Incentive Plan. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2000).+
10.7
Employment Agreement, dated September 10, 2004 between Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and C. Taylor Pickett. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on September 16, 2004).+
10.8
Employment Agreement, dated September 10, 2004 between Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and Daniel J. Booth. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on September 16, 2004).+
10.9
Employment Agreement, dated September 10, 2004 between Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and R. Lee Crabill. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on September 16, 2004).+
10.10
Employment Agreement, dated September 10, 2004 between Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and Robert O. Stephenson. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on September 16, 2004).+
10.11
Form of Restricted Stock Award. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on September 16, 2004).+
10.12
Form of Performance Restricted Stock Unit Agreement. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to the Company’s current report on Form 8-K, filed on September 16, 2004).+
10.13
Put Agreement, effective as of October 12, 2004, by and between American Health Care Centers, Inc. and Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on October 18, 2004).
10.14
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004).
10.15
Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 28, 2004, effective November 1, 2004, among Omega, OHI Asset (PA) Trust, Guardian LTC Management, Inc. and the licensees named therein. (Incorporated by reference Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s current report on Form 8-K, filed on November 8, 2004).
10.16
Master Lease, dated October 28, 2004, effective November 1, 2004, among Omega, OHI Asset (PA) Trust and Guardian LTC Management, Inc. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s current report on Form 8-K, filed on November 8, 2004).
10.17
Form of Incentive Stock Option Award for the Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan.+ (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.30 to the Company’s Form 10-K, filed on February 18, 2005).
10.18
Form of Non-Qualified Stock Option Award for the Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan.+ (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.31 to the Company’s Form 10-K, filed on February 18, 2005).
10.19
Schedule of 2007 Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. Executive Officers Salaries and Bonuses.*
10.20
Form of Directors’ Restricted Stock Award. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s current report on Form 8-K, filed on January 19, 2005). +
10.21
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated June 10, 2005, by and between Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., OHI Asset (OH), LLC, Hollis J. Garfield, Albert M. Wiggins, Jr., A. David Wiggins, Estate of Evelyn R. Garfield, Evelyn R. Garfield Revocable Trust, SG Trust B - Hollis Trust, Evelyn Garfield Family Trust, Evelyn Garfield Remainder Trust, Baldwin Health Center, Inc., Copley Health Center, Inc., Hanover House, Inc., House of Hanover, Ltd., Pavilion North, LLP, d/b/a Wexford House Nursing Center, Pavilion Nursing Center North, Inc., Pavillion North Partners, Inc., and The Suburban Pavillion, Inc., OMG MSTR LSCO, LLC, CommuniCare Health Services, Inc., and Emery Medical Management Co. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s current report on Form 8-K, filed on June 16, 2005).
I-1/2
10.22
Purchase Agreement dated as of December 16, 2005 by and between Cleveland Seniorcare Corp. and OHI Asset II (OH), LLC. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s current report on Form 8-K, filed on December 21, 2005).
10.23
Master Lease dated December 16, 2005 by and between OHI Asset II (OH), LLC as lessor, and CSC MSTR LSCO, LLC as lessee. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s current report on Form 8-K, filed on December 21, 2005).
10.24
Credit Agreement, dated as of March 31, 2006, among OHI Asset, LLC, OHI Asset (ID), LLC, OHI Asset (LA), LLC, OHI Asset (TX), LLC, OHI Asset (CA), LLC, Delta Investors I, LLC, Delta Investors II, LLC, Texas Lessor - Stonegate, LP, the lenders named therein, and Bank of America, N.A. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on April 5, 2006).
10.25
Second Amendment, Waiver and Consent to Credit Agreement dated as of October 23, 2006, by and among the Borrowers, the Lenders, and Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent and a Lender. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on October 25, 2006).
10.26
Contract of sale, dated as of May 5, 2006, between Laramie Associates, LLC, Casper Associates, LLC, North 12th Street Associates, LLC, North Union Boulevard Associates, LLC, Jones Avenue Associates, LLC, Litchfield Investment Company, L.L.C., Ustick Road Associates, LLC, West 24th Street Associates, LLC, North Third Street Associates, LLC, Midwestern parkway Associates, LLC, North Francis Street Associates, LLC, West Nash Street Associates, LLC (as sellers) and OHI Asset (LA), LLC, NRS ventures, L.L.C. and OHI Asset (CO), LLC (as buyers). (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006).
10.27
Restructuring Stock Issuance and Subscription Agreement dated as of October 20, 2006, by and between Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and Advocat Inc. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on October 25, 2006).
10.28
Consolidated Amended and Restated Master Lease by and between Sterling Acquisition Corp., a Kentucky corporation, as lessor, Diversicare Leasing Corp., a Tennessee corporation, dated as of November 8, 2000, together with First Amendment thereto dated as of September 30, 2001, and Second Amendment thereto dated as of June 15, 2005. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on October 25, 2006).
10.29
Third Amendment to Consolidated Amended and Restated Master Lease by and between Sterling Acquisition Corp., a Kentucky corporation, as lessor, and Diversicare Leasing Corp., a Tennessee corporation, dated as of October 20, 2006. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of the Company’s Form 8-K, filed on October 25, 2006).
12.1
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. *
12.2
Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends. *
Subsidiaries of the Registrant.*
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.*
31.1
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.*
31.2
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.*
32.1
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer under Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002.*
32.2
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer under Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002.*
_________
* Exhibits that are filed herewith.
+ Management contract or compensatory plan, contract or arrangement.
I-3
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.
By: /s/ C. TAYLOR PICKETT
C. Taylor Pickett
Chief Executive Officer
Date: February 23, 2007
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities on the date indicated.
I-4