Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

 

 

FORM 10-K

 

 

 

x	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010

or

 

¨	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from              to             

Commission File Number 1-12298 (Regency Centers Corporation)

Commission File Number 0-24763 (Regency Centers, L.P.)

 

 

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

FLORIDA (REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION)		59-3191743
DELAWARE (REGENCY CENTERS, L.P)		59-3429602
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer identification No.)
One Independent Drive, Suite 114 Jacksonville, Florida 32202		(904) 598-7000
(Address of principal executive offices) (zip code)		(Registrant’s telephone No.)

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Regency Centers Corporation

 

Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $.01 par value		New York Stock Exchange
7.45% Series 3 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, $.01 par value		New York Stock Exchange
7.25% Series 4 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, $.01 par value		New York Stock Exchange
6.70% Series 5 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, $.01 par value		New York Stock Exchange

Regency Centers, L.P.

 

Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
None		N/A

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Regency Centers Corporation: None

Regency Centers, L.P.: Class B Units of Partnership Interest

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation    YES  x     NO  ¨                   Regency Centers, L.P.    YES  x    NO  ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act

Regency Centers Corporation    YES  ¨    NO  x                     Regency Centers, L.P.    YES  ¨    NO  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Regency Centers Corporation    YES  x    NO  ¨                     Regency Centers, L.P.    YES  x    NO  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Regency Centers Corporation    YES  x    NO  ¨                     Regency Centers, L.P.    YES  x    NO  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.

Regency Centers Corporation  ¨                                               Regency Centers, L.P.  x  

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Regency Centers Corporation:

 

Large accelerated filer		x		Accelerated filer		¨
Non-accelerated filer		¨		Smaller reporting company		¨

Regency Centers, L.P.:

 

Large accelerated filer		¨		Accelerated filer		x
Non-accelerated filer		¨		Smaller reporting company		¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company.

Regency Centers Corporation    YES  ¨    NO  x                     Regency Centers, L.P.    YES  ¨    NO  x

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrants’ most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

Regency Centers Corporation:    $ 2,752,880,606                      Regency Centers, L.P.:    N/A

The number of shares outstanding of the Regency Centers Corporation’s voting common stock was 81,888,361 as of February 23, 2011.

 

 

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of Regency Centers Corporation’s proxy statement in connection with its 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference in Part III.

 

 

 

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

EXPLANATORY NOTE

This report combines the annual reports on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, references to “Regency Centers Corporation” or the “Parent Company” mean Regency Centers Corporation and its controlled subsidiaries; and references to “Regency Centers, L.P.” or the “Operating Partnership” mean Regency Centers, L.P. and its controlled subsidiaries. The term “the Company” or “Regency” means the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, collectively.

The Parent Company is a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) and the general partner of the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership’s capital includes general and limited common Partnership Units (“Units”). As of December 31, 2010, the Parent Company owned approximately 99.8% of the Units in the Operating Partnership and the remaining limited Units are owned by investors. The Parent Company owns all of the Series 3, 4 and 5 Preferred Units of the Operating Partnership. As the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, the Parent Company has exclusive control of the Operating Partnership’s day-to-day management.

The Company believes combining the annual reports on Form 10-K of the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership into this single report provides the following benefits:

 

•

enhances investors’ understanding of the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership by enabling investors to view the business as a whole in the same manner as management views and operates the business;

 

•

eliminates duplicative disclosure and provides a more streamlined and readable presentation since a substantial portion of the Company’s disclosure applies to both the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership; and

 

•

creates time and cost efficiencies through the preparation of one combined report instead of two separate reports.

Management operates the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership as one business. The management of the Parent Company consists of the same members as the management of the Operating Partnership. These members are officers of the Parent Company and employees of the Operating Partnership.

The Company believes it is important to understand the few differences between the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership in the context of how the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership operate as a consolidated company. The Parent Company is a REIT, whose only material asset is its ownership of partnership interests of the Operating Partnership. As a result, the Parent Company does not conduct business itself, other than acting as the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, issuing public equity from time to time and guaranteeing certain debt of the Operating Partnership. The Parent Company does not hold any indebtedness, but guarantees all of the unsecured public debt and less than 9% of the secured debt of the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership holds all the assets of the Company and retains the ownership interests in the Company’s joint ventures. Except for net proceeds from public equity issuances by the Parent Company, which are contributed to the Operating Partnership in exchange for partnership units, the Operating Partnership generates all remaining capital required by the Company’s business. These sources include the Operating Partnership’s operations, its direct or indirect incurrence of indebtedness, and the issuance of partnership units.

Stockholders’ equity, partners’ capital, and noncontrolling interests are the main areas of difference between the consolidated financial statements of the Parent Company and those of the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership’s capital includes general and limited common Partnership Units, Series 3, 4, and 5 Preferred Units owned by the Parent Company, and Series D Preferred Units owned by institutional investors. The Series D preferred units and limited partners’ units in the Operating Partnership owned by third parties are accounted for in partners’ capital in the Operating Partnership’s financial statements and outside of stockholders’ equity in noncontrolling interests in the Parent Company’s financial statements. The Series 3, 4, and 5 Preferred Units owned by the Parent Company are eliminated in consolidation in the accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Parent Company and are classified as preferred units of general partner in the accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Operating Partnership.

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

In order to highlight the differences between the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, there are sections in this report that separately discuss the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, including separate financial statements, controls and procedures sections, and separate Exhibit 31 and 32 certifications. In the sections that combine disclosure for the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, this report refers to actions or holdings as being actions or holdings of the Company.

As general partner with control of the Operating Partnership, the Parent Company consolidates the Operating Partnership for financial reporting purposes, and the Parent Company does not have assets other than its investment in the Operating Partnership. Therefore, while stockholders’ equity and partners’ capital differ as discussed above, the assets and liabilities of the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership are the same on their respective financial statements.

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Form 10-K

 

Item No.				Report Page
		PART I
1.		Business			1
1A.		Risk Factors			4
1B.		Unresolved Staff Comments			15
2.		Properties			15
3.		Legal Proceedings			33
4.		(Removed and Reserved)			33
		PART II
5.		Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters, and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities			33
6.		Selected Financial Data			35
7.		Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations			37
7A.		Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk			64
8.		Financial Statements and Supplementary Data			66
9.		Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure			127
9A.		Controls and Procedures			127
9B.		Other Information			128
		PART III
10.		Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance			129
11.		Executive Compensation			129
12.		Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters			129
13.		Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence			130
14.		Principal Accountant Fees and Services			130
		PART IV
15.		Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules			131
		SIGNATURES
16.		Signatures			135

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Forward-Looking Statements

In addition to historical information, the following information contains forward-looking statements as defined under federal securities laws. These forward-looking statements include statements about anticipated changes in our revenues, the size of our development program, earnings per share and unit, returns and portfolio value, and expectations about our liquidity. These statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about the industry and markets in which Regency Centers Corporation (the “Parent Company”) and Regency Centers, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”), collectively “Regency” or “the Company”, operate, and management’s beliefs and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, changes in national and local economic conditions; financial difficulties of tenants; competitive market conditions, including timing and pricing of acquisitions and sales of properties and out-parcels; changes in leasing activity and market rents; timing of development starts; meeting development schedules; our inability to exercise voting control over the co-investment partnerships through which we own or develop many of our properties; consequences of any armed conflict or terrorist attack against the United States; and the ability to obtain governmental approvals. For additional information, see “Risk Factors” elsewhere herein. The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto of Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. appearing elsewhere herein.

PART I

 

Item 1.

Business

Regency Centers Corporation began its operations as a Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”) in 1993 and is the managing general partner in Regency Centers, L.P. The term “the Company” or “Regency” means the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, collectively. Our key strategic goals are focused on producing superior results for our shareholders by achieving total shareholder returns in excess of REIT shopping center averages, and sustaining growth in our net asset value and our earnings over an extended period of time. We will achieve these goals by investing in and operating a high-quality portfolio of primarily grocery-anchored shopping centers that are tenanted by market-dominant grocers, category-leading anchors, specialty retailers, and restaurants located in areas with above average household incomes and population densities.

At December 31, 2010, we directly owned 215 shopping centers located in 23 states representing 23.3 million square feet of gross leasable area (“GLA”). Through co-investment partnerships, we own partial ownership interests in 181 shopping centers located in 25 states and the District of Columbia representing 21.8 million square feet of GLA. The shopping center portfolio that we manage, on a “Combined Basis” (total of consolidated and unconsolidated properties), represents 396 shopping centers located in 28 states and the District of Columbia and contains 45.1 million square feet of GLA.

We earn revenues and generate cash flow by leasing space in our shopping centers to grocery stores, major retail anchors, side-shop retailers, and restaurants, including ground leasing or selling building pads (out-parcels) to these same types of tenants. Historically, we have experienced growth in revenues by increasing occupancy and rental rates in our shopping centers. Although both of these important operating metrics declined during 2009 and 2010 as a result of the recession, the economy appears to be recovering and we are intensely focused on returning these metrics to historic levels. Our shopping centers generate substantial daily traffic by conveniently offering necessities and services. This high traffic should generate increased sales to our tenants, and attract new tenants to our shopping centers, thereby driving higher occupancy levels and rental-rate growth.

We seek a range of strong national, regional and local specialty retailers, for the same reason that we choose to anchor our centers with leading grocers and major retailers who provide a mix of goods and services that meet consumer needs. We have created a formal partnering process, the Premier Customer Initiative (“PCI”), to promote mutually beneficial relationships with our side-shop retailers. The objective of PCI is for us to build a

 

1

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

base of non-anchor tenants who represent the “best-in-class” operators in their respective merchandising categories. Such retailers reinforce the consumer appeal and other strengths of a center’s anchor, help grow and stabilize a center’s occupancy, reduce re-leasing downtime, reduce tenant turnover, and yield higher sustainable rents.

We grow our shopping center portfolio through acquisitions of operating centers and shopping center development. We will continue to use our unique combination of development capabilities, market presence, and anchor relationships to invest in value-added opportunities sourced from land owners and joint venture partners, the redevelopment of existing centers, developing land that we already own, and other opportunities. Development is customer driven and serves the growth needs of our anchors and specialty retailers, resulting in new modern shopping centers with long-term anchor leases that produce attractive returns on our invested capital.

Maintaining a high quality portfolio also involves identifying and selling assets that are at risk of not achieving our long-term investment goals. Proceeds from these sales are targeted for reinvestment into higher quality new development, redevelopment of existing centers, or acquisitions that will generate sustainable revenue growth and higher returns.

We also invest in real estate partnerships. These co-investment partnerships provide us with a reliable capital source for shopping center acquisitions, as well as the opportunity to earn fees for asset management, property management, and other investing and financing services. As asset manager, we are engaged by our partners to apply similar operating, investment and capital strategies to the portfolios owned by the co-investment partnerships as those applied to the portfolio that we wholly-own. Co-investment partnerships also grow their shopping center investments through acquisitions from third parties or direct purchases from us.

We have implemented a greengenuity program envisioned to improve our environmental sustainability. To date we have received LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certifications by the U.S. Green Building Council on three shopping centers and we are targeting five additional shopping centers for certification. We also continue to install network lighting controls and smart irrigation controllers that will reduce our power and water consumption in addition to other sustainability initiatives. It is our intent to be one of the leaders in the design, construction and operation of environmentally efficient shopping centers that will contribute to our key strategic goals.

Competition

We are among the largest owners of shopping centers in the nation based on revenues, number of properties, gross leasable area, and market capitalization. There are numerous companies and private individuals engaged in the ownership, development, acquisition, and operation of shopping centers which compete with us in our targeted markets, including grocery store chains that also anchor some of our shopping centers. This results in competition for attracting anchor tenants, as well as the acquisition of existing shopping centers and new development sites. We believe that the principal competitive factors in attracting tenants in our market areas are competitive in-fill locations, above average trade area demographics, rental costs, tenant mix, property age, and property maintenance. We believe that our competitive advantages are driven by our locations within our market areas, the design and high quality of our shopping centers, the strong demographics surrounding our shopping centers, our relationships with our anchor tenants and our side-shop and out-parcel retailers, our PCI program that allows us to efficiently provide retailers with multiple locations, our practice of maintaining and renovating our shopping centers, and our ability to source and develop new shopping centers.

Changes in Policies

Our Board of Directors establishes the policies that govern our investment and operating strategies including, among others, development and acquisition of shopping centers, tenant and market focus, debt and equity financing policies, quarterly distributions to stock and unit holders, and REIT tax status. The Board of Directors may amend these policies at any time without a vote of our stockholders.

 

2

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Employees

Our headquarters are located at One Independent Drive, Suite 114, Jacksonville, Florida. We presently maintain 17 market offices nationwide where we conduct management, leasing, construction, and investment activities. At December 31, 2010, we had 392 employees and we believe that our relations with our employees are good.

Compliance with Governmental Regulations

Under various federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, we may be liable for the cost to remove or remediate certain hazardous or toxic substances at our shopping centers. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of the hazardous or toxic substances. The cost of required remediation and the owner’s liability for remediation could exceed the value of the property and/or the aggregate assets of the owner. The presence of such substances, or the failure to properly remediate such substances, may adversely affect our ability to sell or lease the property or borrow using the property as collateral. We have a number of properties that could require or are currently undergoing varying levels of environmental remediation. Environmental remediation is not currently expected to have a material financial impact on us due to reserves for remediation, insurance programs designed to mitigate the cost of remediation, and various state-regulated programs that shift the responsibility and cost to the state.

Executive Officers

The executive officers of the Company are appointed each year by the Board of Directors. Each of the executive officers has been employed by the Company in the position indicated in the list or positions indicated in the pertinent notes below. Each of the executive officers has been employed by the Company for more than five years.

 

Name		Age				Title		Executive Officer in Position Shown  Since
Martin E. Stein, Jr.			58			Chairman and Chief Executive Officer			1993
Brian M. Smith			56			President and Chief Operating Officer			2009	(1)
Bruce M. Johnson			63			Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer			1993

 

(1)

In February 2009, Brian M. Smith, Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer of the Company since 2005, was appointed to the position of President. Prior to serving as our Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer, from March 1999 to September 2005, Mr. Smith served as Managing Director of Investments for our Pacific, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast divisions.

Company Website Access and SEC Filings

The Company’s website may be accessed at www.regencycenters.com. All of our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) can be accessed through our website promptly after filing; however, in the event that the website is inaccessible, we will provide paper copies of our most recent annual report on Form 10-K, the most recent quarterly report on Form 10-Q, current reports filed or furnished on Form 8-K, and all related amendments, excluding exhibits, free of charge upon request. These filings are also accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

General Information

The Company’s registrar and stock transfer agent is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo Shareowner Services”), South St. Paul, MN. The Company offers a dividend reinvestment plan (“DRIP”) that enables its stockholders to reinvest dividends automatically, as well as to make voluntary cash payments toward the purchase of additional shares. For more information, contact Wells Fargo toll free at (800) 468-9716 or the Company’s Shareholder Relations Department.

 

3

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

The Company’s Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm is KPMG LLP, Jacksonville, Florida. The Company’s legal counsel is Foley & Lardner LLP, Jacksonville, Florida.

Annual Meeting

The Company’s annual meeting will be held at The River Club, One Independent Drive, 35^th Floor, Jacksonville, Florida, at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2011.

 

Item 1A.

Risk Factors

Risk Factors Related to Our Industry and Real Estate Investments

Our revenues and cash flow could be adversely affected by poor market conditions where our properties are geographically concentrated.

The economic conditions in markets in which our properties are concentrated greatly influence our financial performance. During the year ended December 31, 2010, our properties in California, Florida, and Texas accounted for 32.6%, 14.3%, and 13.4%, respectively, of our consolidated net operating income. Our revenues and cash available for distribution to stock and unit holders could be adversely affected by this geographic concentration if market conditions, such as supply of retail space or demand for shopping centers, deteriorate in California, Florida, and Texas relative to other geographic areas.

Loss of revenues from major tenants could reduce distributions to stock and unit holders.

We derive significant revenues from anchor tenants such as Kroger, Publix and Safeway which are our three largest anchor tenants and accounted for 4.4%, 4.4%, and 3.8%, respectively, of our annualized base rent on a pro-rata basis for the year ended December 31, 2010. Distributions to stock and unit holders could be adversely affected by the loss of revenues in the event a major tenant:

 

•

becomes bankrupt or insolvent;

 

•

experiences a downturn in its business;

 

•

materially defaults on its leases;

 

•

does not renew its leases as they expire; or

 

•

renews at lower rental rates.

Vacated anchor space, including space owned by the anchor, can reduce rental revenues generated by the shopping center because of the loss of the departed anchor tenant’s customer drawing power. Most anchors have the right to vacate and prevent re-tenanting by paying rent for the balance of the lease term. If major tenants vacate a property, then other tenants may be entitled to terminate their leases at the property.

Our net income depends on the success and continued presence of our tenants.

Our net income could be adversely affected if we fail to lease significant portions of our new developments or in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency of any anchors or of a significant number of our non-anchor tenants within a shopping center. The adverse impact on our net income may be greater than the loss of rent from the resulting unoccupied space because co-tenancy clauses may allow other tenants to modify or terminate their rent or lease obligations. Co-tenancy clauses have several variants: they may allow a tenant to postpone a store opening if certain other tenants fail to open their stores; they may allow a tenant the opportunity to close its store prior to lease expiration if another tenant closes its store prior to lease expiration; or more commonly, they may allow a tenant to pay reduced levels of rent until a certain number of tenants open their stores within the same shopping center.

 

4

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

We may be unable to collect balances due from tenants in bankruptcy.

At any point in time, we generally have one or more tenants in bankruptcy. A tenant that files for bankruptcy protection may not continue to pay us rent. A bankruptcy filing by or relating to one of our tenants or a lease guarantor would bar all efforts by us to collect pre-bankruptcy debts from the tenant or the lease guarantor, or its property, unless the bankruptcy court permits us to do so. A tenant or lease guarantor bankruptcy could delay our efforts to collect past due balances under the relevant leases and could ultimately preclude collection of these sums. If a lease is rejected by a tenant in bankruptcy, we would have only a general unsecured claim for damages. As a result, it is likely that we would recover substantially less than the full value of any unsecured claims it holds, if at all.

Downturns in the retail industry likely will have a direct adverse impact on our revenues and cash flow.

Our properties consist primarily of grocery-anchored shopping centers. Our performance therefore is generally linked to economic conditions in the market for retail space. The market for retail space has been or could be adversely affected by any of the following:

 

•

weakness in the national, regional and local economies, which could adversely impact consumer spending and retail sales and in turn tenant demand for space and increased store closings;

 

•

consequences of any armed conflict involving, or terrorist attack against, the United States;

 

•

adverse financial conditions for large retail companies;

 

•

the ongoing consolidation in the retail sector;

 

•

the excess amount of retail space in a number of markets;

 

•

reduction in the demand by tenants to occupy our shopping centers as a result of reduced consumer demand for certain retail formats such as video rental stores;

 

•

the timing and costs associated with property improvements and rentals;

 

•

changes in taxation and zoning laws;

 

•

adverse government regulation;

 

•

a shift in retail shopping from brick and mortar stores to Internet retailers and catalogs;

 

•

the growth of super-centers, such as those operated by Wal-Mart, and their adverse effect on major grocery chains; and

 

•

the impact of increased energy costs on consumers and its consequential effect on the number of shopping visits to our centers.

To the extent that any of these conditions occur, they are likely to impact market rents for retail space, occupancy in the operating portfolios, our ability to recycle capital, and our cash available for distributions to stock and unit holders.

Our real estate assets may be subject to impairment charges.

Our long-lived assets, primarily real estate held for investment, are carried at cost unless circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. We review long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate such an evaluation is warranted. In addition, we perform an annual review, generally during the fourth quarter, to re-evaluate market-based capitalization rates and estimated holding periods. If we determine that the carrying amount of a property is not recoverable, we write down the asset to fair value. If as a result of a change in our strategy for a specific property which we own directly or through our co-investment partnerships, a property previously classified as held and used is changed to held for sale, or if its estimated holding period changes, such change could cause us to determine that the

 

5

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

property is impaired and a provision for impairment in relation to that property would be recorded by us either directly or through a reduction of our equity in income of real estate partnerships. A property’s value is impaired only if our estimate of the aggregate future cash flows (undiscounted and without interest charges) to be generated by the property are less than the carrying value of the property. If the aggregate future cash flows are less than the carrying value of property, we write down the property to its fair value. In our estimate of cash flows, we consider factors such as expected future operating income, trends and prospects, the effects of demand, competition and other factors. These subjective assessments have a direct impact on our net income because recording an impairment charge results in an immediate negative adjustment to net income. There can be no assurance that we will not take additional charges in the future related to the impairment of our assets. Any future impairment could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the charge is taken.

Adverse global market and economic conditions may adversely affect us and could cause us to recognize additional impairment charges or otherwise harm our performance.

We are unable to predict the timing, severity, and length of adverse market and economic conditions. The return of adverse market and economic conditions may impede our ability to generate sufficient operating cash flow to pay expenses, maintain properties, pay distributions to our stock and unit holders, and refinance debt. During these adverse periods, there may be significant uncertainty in the valuation our properties and investments that could result in a substantial decrease in the value thereof. No assurance can be given that we would be able to recover the current carrying amount of all of our properties and investments in the future. Our failure to do so would require us to recognize additional impairment charges for the period in which we reached that conclusion, which could materially and adversely affect us and the market price of our common stock.

Unsuccessful development activities or a slowdown in development activities will have a direct impact on our revenues and our revenue growth.

We actively pursue development activities as opportunities arise. Development activities require various government and other approvals for entitlements which can significantly delay the development process. We may not recover our investment in development projects for which approvals are not received. We incur other risks associated with development activities, including:

 

•

the ability to lease up developments to full occupancy on a timely basis;

 

•

the risk that anchor tenants will not open and operate in accordance with their lease agreement;

 

•

the risk that occupancy rates and rents of a completed project will not be sufficient to make the project profitable and available for contribution to our co-investment partnerships or sale to third parties;

 

•

the risk that the current size in our development pipeline will strain the organization’s capacity to complete the developments within the targeted timelines and at the expected returns on invested capital;

 

•

the risk that we may abandon development opportunities and lose our investment in these developments;

 

•

the risk that development costs of a project may exceed original estimates, possibly making the project unprofitable;

 

•

delays in the development and construction process;

 

•

the lack of cash flow during the construction period; and

 

•

the lack of development activity could reduce the capitalization of direct costs incurred for the purpose of development resulting in higher general and administrative costs.

If our developments are unsuccessful or we experience a slowdown in development activities, our revenue growth may be adversely impacted.

 

 

6

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

We may experience difficulty or delay in renewing leases or re-leasing space.

We derive most of our revenue directly or indirectly from rent received from our tenants. We are subject to the risks that, upon expiration or termination of leases, whether by their terms, as a result of a tenant bankruptcy or otherwise, leases for space in our properties may not be renewed, space may not be re-leased, or the terms of renewal or re-lease, including the cost of required renovations or concessions to tenants, may be less favorable than current lease terms. As a result, our results of operations and our net income could be reduced.

Many real estate costs are fixed, even if income from our properties decreases.

Our financial results depend primarily on leasing space in our properties to tenants on terms favorable to us. Costs associated with real estate investment, such as real estate taxes, insurance and maintenance costs, generally are not reduced even when a property is not fully occupied, rental rates decrease, or other circumstances cause a reduction in income from the property. As a result, cash flow from the operations of our properties may be reduced if a tenant does not pay its rent or we are unable to lease our properties on favorable terms. Under those circumstances, we might not be able to enforce our rights as landlord without delays and may incur substantial legal costs. Additionally, new properties that we may acquire or develop may not produce any significant revenue immediately, and the cash flow from existing operations may be insufficient to pay the operating expenses and debt service associated with such new properties until they are fully leased.

We may be unable to sell properties when appropriate because real estate investments are illiquid.

Real estate investments generally cannot be sold quickly. We may not be able to alter our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions including being unable to sell a property at a return we believe is appropriate due to the current economic environment. Our inability to respond quickly to adverse changes in the performance of our investments could have an adverse effect on our ability to meet our obligations and make distributions to our stock and unit holders.

Changes in accounting standards may adversely impact our financial condition and results of operations.

The SEC may decide in 2011 that issuers in the United States should be required to prepare financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) instead of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). IFRS is a comprehensive set of accounting standards promulgated by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”), which are rapidly gaining worldwide acceptance. If the SEC decides to require IFRS, U.S. issuers may report under the new standards beginning as early as 2015. Changes in U.S. GAAP and changes in current interpretations are beyond our control, can be hard to predict and could materially impact how we report our financial results and condition. In certain cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised rule retroactively or apply existing rules differently which may adversely impact our results of operations or result in our recasting prior period financial statements for material amounts. Additionally, significant changes to U.S. GAAP may require costly technology changes, additional training and personnel, and other expenses that will negatively impact our results of operations.

The adoption of new lease accounting rules may adversely impact our financial condition and results of operations.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) has proposed new accounting rules which could result in significant changes in the way leases are reported in our financial statements under GAAP. The proposal, if adopted, could have a significant effect on our balance sheet. FASB may issue final rules on this topic in 2011. At this time, we are unable to determine what effect, if any, the adoption of this proposal will have on our financial condition, our results of operations and our financial ratios required by our debt covenants.

 

7

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

An uninsured loss or a loss that exceeds the insurance policies on our properties could subject us to loss of capital or revenue on those properties.

We carry comprehensive liability, fire, flood, extended coverage, rental loss, and environmental insurance for our properties with policy specifications and insured limits customarily carried for similar properties. We believe that the insurance carried on our properties is adequate and in accordance with industry standards. There are, however, some types of losses, such as from hurricanes, terrorism, wars or earthquakes, which may be uninsurable, or the cost of insuring against such losses may not be economically justifiable. In addition, tenants generally are required to indemnify and hold us harmless from liabilities resulting from injury to persons or damage to personal or real property, on or off the premises, due to activities conducted by tenants or their agents on the properties (including without limitation any environmental contamination), and at the tenant’s expense, to obtain and keep in full force during the term of the lease, liability and property damage insurance policies. However, our tenants may not properly maintain their insurance policies or have the ability to pay the deductibles associated with such policies. Should a loss occur that is uninsured or in an amount exceeding the combined aggregate limits for the policies noted above, or in the event of a loss that is subject to a substantial deductible under an insurance policy, we could lose all or part of our capital invested in, and anticipated revenue from, one or more of the properties, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition, as well as our ability to make distributions to stock and unit holders.

Loss of our key personnel could adversely affect the value of our performance and our Parent Company’s stock price.

We depend on the efforts of our key executive personnel. Although we believe qualified replacements could be found for our key executives, the loss of their services could adversely affect performance and our Parent Company’s stock price.

We face competition from numerous sources.

The ownership of shopping centers is highly fragmented, with less than 10% owned by REIT’s. We face competition from other REIT’s as well as from numerous small owners in the acquisition, ownership, and leasing of shopping centers. We compete to develop shopping centers with other real estate investment trusts engaged in development activities as well as with local, regional, and national real estate developers.

We compete for the acquisition of properties through proprietary research that identifies opportunities in markets with high barriers to entry and higher-than-average population growth and household income. We seek to maximize rents per square foot by (i) establishing relationships with supermarket chains that are first or second in their markets or other category-leading anchors and (ii) leasing non-anchor space in multiple centers to national or regional tenants. We compete to develop properties by applying our proprietary research methods to identify development and leasing opportunities and by pre-leasing a significant portion of a center before beginning construction.

There can be no assurance, however, that other real estate owners or developers will not utilize similar research methods and target the same markets and anchor tenants. These entities may successfully control these markets and tenants to our exclusion. If we cannot successfully compete in our targeted markets, our cash flow, and therefore distributions to stock and unit holders, may be adversely affected.

Costs of environmental remediation could reduce our cash flow available for distribution to stock and unit holders.

Under various federal, state and local laws, an owner or manager of real property may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of hazardous or toxic substances on the property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of hazardous or toxic substances. The cost of any required remediation could exceed the value of the property and/or the aggregate assets of the owner or the responsible party.

 

8

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

We are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations as they apply to our shopping centers pertaining to chemicals used by the dry cleaning industry, the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers, and underground petroleum storage tanks (UST’s). The presence of, or the failure to properly remediate, hazardous or toxic substances may adversely affect our ability to sell or lease a contaminated property or to borrow using the property as collateral. Any of these developments could reduce cash flow and distributions to stock and unit holders.

Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and fire, safety and other regulations may require us to make unintended expenditures that adversely affect our cash flows.

All of our properties are required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The ADA has separate compliance requirements for “public accommodations” and “commercial facilities,” but generally requires that buildings be made accessible to people with disabilities. Compliance with the ADA requirements could require removal of access barriers, and noncompliance could result in imposition of fines by the U.S. government or an award of damages to private litigants, or both. While the tenants to whom we lease properties are obligated by law to comply with the ADA provisions, and typically under tenant leases are obligated to cover costs associated with compliance, if required changes involve greater expenditures than anticipated, or if the changes must be made on a more accelerated basis than anticipated, the ability of these tenants to cover costs could be adversely affected. As a result, we could be required to expend funds to comply with the provisions of the ADA, which could adversely affect the results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make distributions to our stock and unit holders. In addition, we are required to operate the properties in compliance with fire and safety regulations, building codes and other land use regulations, as they may be adopted by governmental entities and become applicable to the properties. We may be required to make substantial capital expenditures to comply with those requirements, and these expenditures could have a material adverse effect on our ability to meet our financial obligations and make distributions to our stock and unit holders.

Risk Factors Related to Our Co-investment Partnerships and Acquisition Structure

We do not have voting control over our joint venture investments, so we are unable to ensure that our objectives will be pursued.

We have invested as a co-venturer in the acquisition or development of properties. These investments involve risks not present in a wholly-owned project. We do not have voting control over the ventures. The other co-venturer might (i) have interests or goals that are inconsistent with our interests or goals or (ii) otherwise impede our objectives. The other co-venturer also might become insolvent or bankrupt.

Our co-investment partnerships are an important part of our growth strategy. The termination of our co-investment partnerships could adversely affect distributions to stock and unit holders.

Our management fee income has increased significantly as our participation in co-investment partnerships has increased. If co-investment partnerships owning a significant number of properties were dissolved for any reason, we would lose the asset and property management fees from these co-investment partnerships, which could adversely affect our cash available for distribution to stock and unit holders.

In addition, termination of the co-investment partnerships without replacing them with new co-investment partnerships could adversely affect our growth strategy. Property sales to the co-investment partnerships provide us with an important source of funding for additional developments and acquisitions. Without this source of capital, our ability to recycle capital, fund developments and acquisitions, and increase distributions to stock and unit holders could be adversely affected.

Our co-investment partnerships have $2.1 billion of debt as of December 31, 2010, of which 35.0% will mature through 2012, which is subject to significant refinancing risks. We anticipate that as real estate values decline, the refinancing of maturing loans, including those maturing in our joint ventures, will require us and our

 

9

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

joint venture partners to contribute our respective pro-rata shares of capital in order to reduce refinancing requirements to acceptable loan to value levels required for new financings. The long-term impact of the current economic crisis on our ability to access capital, including access by our joint venture partners, or to obtain future financing to fund maturing debt is unclear.

Our partnership structure may limit our flexibility to manage our assets.

We invest in retail shopping centers through the Operating Partnership in which the Parent Company currently owns approximately 99.8% of the outstanding common partnership units. From time to time, we have acquired properties through the Operating Partnership in exchange for limited partnership interests. This acquisition structure may permit limited partners who contribute properties to us to defer some, if not all, of the income tax liability that they would incur if they sold the property for cash.

Properties contributed to the Operating Partnership may have unrealized gains attributable to the difference between the fair market value and adjusted tax basis in the properties prior to contribution. As a result, our sale of these properties could cause adverse tax consequences to the limited partners who contributed them.

Generally, the Operating Partnership has no obligation to consider the tax consequences of its actions to any limited partner. However, the Operating Partnership may acquire properties in the future subject to material restrictions on refinancing or resale designed to minimize the adverse tax consequences to the limited partners who contribute those properties. These restrictions could significantly reduce our flexibility to manage our assets by preventing us from reducing mortgage debt or selling a property when such a transaction might be in our best interest in order to reduce interest costs or dispose of an under-performing property.

Risk Factors Related to Our Capital Recycling and Capital Structure

Higher market capitalization rates for our properties could adversely impact our ability to recycle capital and fund developments and acquisitions, and could dilute earnings.

As part of our capital recycling program, we sell operating properties that no longer meet our investment standards. We also develop certain retail centers because of their attractive margins with the intent of selling them to co-investment partnerships or other third parties for a profit. These sales proceeds are used to fund the construction of new developments. An increase in market capitalization rates could cause a reduction in the value of centers identified for sale, which would have an adverse impact on our capital recycling program by reducing the amount of cash generated and profits realized. In order to meet the cash requirements of our development program, we may be required to sell more properties than initially planned, which would have a negative impact on our earnings.

Our debt financing may reduce distributions to stock and unit holders.

We do not expect to generate sufficient funds from operations to make balloon principal payments on our debt when due. If we are unable to refinance our debt on acceptable terms, we might be forced (i) to dispose of properties, which might result in losses, or (ii) to obtain financing at unfavorable terms. Either could reduce the cash flow available for distributions to stock and unit holders.

In addition, if we cannot make required mortgage payments, the mortgagee could foreclose on the property securing the mortgage, causing the loss of cash flow from that property. Furthermore, substantially all of our debt is cross-defaulted, which means that a default under one loan could trigger defaults under other loans.

Our organizational documents do not limit the amount of debt that may be incurred. The degree to which we are leveraged could have important consequences, including the following:

 

•

leverage could affect our ability to obtain additional financing in the future to repay indebtedness or for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, development, or other general corporate purposes;

 

10

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

•

leverage could make us more vulnerable to a downturn in our business or the economy generally; and

 

•

as a result, our leverage could lead to reduced distributions to stock and unit holders.

Covenants in our debt agreements may restrict our operating activities and adversely affect our financial condition.

Our unsecured notes, unsecured line of credit, and revolving credit facility contain customary covenants, including compliance with financial ratios, such as ratios of total debt to gross asset value and coverage ratios. Coverage ratio is defined as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) divided by the sum of the gross interest and scheduled mortgage principal paid to our lenders plus dividends paid to our preferred stockholders. Our line of credit also restricts our ability to enter into a transaction that would result in a change of control. These covenants may limit our operational flexibility and our acquisition activities. Moreover, if we breach any of the covenants in our debt agreements, including the covenants above, and did not cure the breach within any applicable cure period, our lenders could require us to repay the debt immediately, even in the absence of a payment default. Many of our debt arrangements, including our unsecured notes, unsecured line of credit, and our revolving credit facility, are cross-defaulted, which means that the lenders under those debt arrangements can put us in default and require immediate repayment of their debt if we breach and fail to cure a default under certain of our other debt obligations. As a result, any default under our debt covenants could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, our results of operations, our ability to meet our obligations, and the market value of our stock.

We depend on external sources of capital, which may not be available in the future.

To qualify as a REIT, the Parent Company must, among other things, distribute to its stockholders each year at least 90% of its REIT taxable income (excluding any net capital gains). Because of these distribution requirements, we likely will not be able to fund all future capital needs, including capital for acquisitions or developments, with income from operations. We therefore will have to rely on third-party sources of capital, which may or may not be available on favorable terms or at all. Our access to third-party sources of capital depends on a number of things, including the market’s perception of our growth potential and our current and potential future earnings. In addition, our line of credit imposes covenants that limit our flexibility in obtaining other financing, such as a prohibition on negative pledge agreements.

Additional equity offerings may result in substantial dilution of stockholders’ interests and additional debt financing may substantially increase our degree of leverage.

Settlement provisions contained in forward sale agreements subject us to certain risks.

On December 9, 2009, we entered into two forward sale agreements (the “Agreements”) with J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (collectively, the “Forward Purchasers”). At the date of the Agreements, the Forward Purchasers borrowed 8 million shares from unrelated parties and sold those shares into the open market. In March 2011, we expect to settle the Agreements by issuing 8 million shares of Regency Centers Corporation common stock to the Forward Purchasers, unless we elect to settle in cash, or we agree to extend the Agreements with the Forward Purchasers. Settling the Agreements by issuing shares to the Forward Purchasers will result in dilution to our earnings per share and unit, and our return on equity.

If we elect to settle all or a portion of the 8 million shares of common stock included in the Agreements in cash, then we would expect the Forward Purchasers to repurchase our common stock in the open market to cover their obligation to return the shares of common stock that they borrowed in connection with the Agreements. If the market value of our common stock at the time of their repurchase is above the forward price, we would pay the Forward Purchasers an amount in cash equal to the difference. Thus, we would potentially be responsible for a substantial cash payment if our stock price were to rise substantially above the forward sale price on the date

 

11

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

we elect to settle in cash. In addition, the repurchase of our common stock by the Forward Purchasers to unwind any hedge positions could cause the price of our common stock to increase, thereby increasing the amount of cash we would owe to the Forward Purchasers upon a cash settlement of the Agreements.

The Agreements provide the Forward Purchasers the right to require us to settle in common shares by a specific date upon the occurrence of certain events, irrespective of our interests, including our need for capital. In such a case, we would be required to issue and deliver our common stock under the terms of the physical settlement provisions of the Agreements, which would result in dilution to our earnings per share and unit, and our return on equity. In addition, upon certain events of bankruptcy, insolvency, or reorganization relating to us, the Agreements would terminate without further liability of either party, and we would not issue any shares, nor would we receive any proceeds pursuant to the Agreements.

Risk Factors Related to Interest Rates and the Market for Our Stock

We may be forced to deleverage our business with our operating cash flows, which could result in the reduction of distributions to our stock and unit holders, a reduction in investments into our business or additional equity offerings that dilute our stock and unit holders’ interests.

We depend on external financing, principally debt financing, to fund the growth of our business and to ensure that we can meet ongoing maturities of our outstanding debt. Our access to financing depends on our credit rating, the willingness of creditors to lend to us and conditions in the capital markets. Without access to external financing, we would be required to pay outstanding debt with our operating cash flows and our operating cash flows may not be sufficient to pay our outstanding debt as it comes due. If we are required to deleverage our business with operating cash flows, we may be forced to reduce the amount of, or eliminate altogether, our distributions to stock and unit holders or refrain from making investments in our business.

We and our joint ventures have a significant amount of debt maturing in 2011 and 2012. During this time period, we have $402.0 million maturing and our joint ventures have $741.5 million maturing (our pro-rata share is $284.6 million). In addition to finding creditors willing to lend to us, we are dependent upon our joint venture partners to contribute their share of any amount needed to repay or refinance existing debt when lenders reduce the amount of debt our joint ventures are refinancing.

Increased market interest rates could reduce the Parent Company’s stock price.

The annual dividend rate on our common stock as a percentage of its market price may influence the trading price of our stock. An increase in market interest rates may lead purchasers to demand a higher annual dividend rate, which could adversely affect the market price of our stock. A decrease in the market price of our common stock could reduce our ability to raise additional equity in the public markets. Selling common stock at a decreased market price would have a dilutive impact on existing stockholders.

The price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly.

The market price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly in response to many factors, many of which are out of our control, including:

 

•

actual or anticipated variations in our operating results or dividends;

 

•

changes in our funds from operations or earnings estimates;

 

•

publication of research reports about us or the real estate industry in general and recommendations by financial analysts or actions taken by rating agencies with respect to our securities or those of other REIT’s;

 

•

the ability of our tenants to pay rent and meet their other obligations to us under current lease terms and our ability to re-lease space as leases expire;

 

 

12

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

•

increases in market interest rates that drive purchasers of our stock to demand a higher dividend yield;

 

•

changes in market valuations of similar companies;

 

•

adverse market reaction to any additional debt we incur in the future;

 

•

any future issuances of equity securities;

 

•

additions or departures of key management personnel;

 

•

strategic actions by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions or restructurings;

 

•

actions by institutional stockholders;

 

•

speculation in the press or investment community; and

 

•

general market and economic conditions.

These factors may cause the market price of our common stock to decline, regardless of our financial condition, results of operations, business or prospects. It is impossible to ensure that the market price of our common stock will not fall in the future.

Risk Factors Related to Federal Income Tax Laws

If the Parent Company fails to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, it would be subject to federal income tax at regular corporate rates.

We believe that we qualify for taxation as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, and we plan to operate so that we can continue to meet the requirements for taxation as a REIT. If we qualify as a REIT, we generally will not be subject to federal income tax on our income that we distribute currently to our stockholders. Many of the REIT requirements, however, are highly technical and complex. The determination that we are a REIT requires an analysis of various factual matters and circumstances, some of which may not be totally within our control and some of which involve questions of interpretation. For example, to qualify as a REIT, at least 95% of our gross income must come from specific passive sources, like rent, that are itemized in the REIT tax laws. There can be no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or a court would agree with the positions we have taken in interpreting the REIT requirements. We are also required to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding capital gains. The fact that we hold many of our assets through co-investment partnerships and their subsidiaries further complicates the application of the REIT requirements. Even a technical or inadvertent mistake could jeopardize our REIT status. Furthermore, Congress and the IRS might make changes to the tax laws and regulations, and the courts might issue new rulings, that make it more difficult, or impossible, for us to remain qualified as a REIT.

Also, unless the IRS granted us relief under certain statutory provisions, we would remain disqualified as a REIT for four years following the year we first failed to qualify. If we failed to qualify as a REIT, we would have to pay significant income taxes, reducing cash available to pay dividends, which would likely have a significant adverse affect on the value of our securities. In addition, we would no longer be required to pay any dividends to stockholders.

Even if we qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we are required to pay certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and property. For example, if we have net income from “prohibited transactions,” that income will be subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions include sales or other dispositions of property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. The determination as to whether a particular sale is a prohibited transaction depends on the facts and circumstances related to that sale. While we have undertaken a significant number of asset sales in recent years, we do not believe that those sales should be considered prohibited transactions, but there can be no assurance that the IRS would not contend otherwise.

 

 

13

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

In addition, any net taxable income earned directly by our taxable affiliates, including Regency Realty Group, Inc. (“RRG”), our taxable REIT subsidiary, is subject to federal and state corporate income tax. Several provisions of the laws applicable to REIT’s and their subsidiaries ensure that a taxable REIT subsidiary will be subject to an appropriate level of federal income taxation. For example, a taxable REIT subsidiary is limited in its ability to deduct interest payments made to an affiliated REIT. In addition, a REIT has to pay a 100% penalty tax on some payments that it receives if the economic arrangements between the REIT, the REIT’s tenants and the taxable REIT subsidiary are not comparable to similar arrangements between unrelated parties. Finally, some state and local jurisdictions may tax some of our income even though as a REIT, we are not subject to federal income tax on that income. To the extent that we and our affiliates are required to pay federal, state and local taxes, we will have less cash available for dividends to our stockholders.

A REIT may not own securities in any one issuer if the value of those securities exceeds 5% of the value of the REIT’s total assets or the securities owned by the REIT represent more than 10% of the issuer’s outstanding voting securities or 10% of the value of the issuer’s outstanding securities. An exception to these tests allows a REIT to own securities of a subsidiary that exceed the 5% value test and the 10% value tests if the subsidiary elects to be a “taxable REIT subsidiary.” We are not able to own securities of taxable REIT subsidiaries that represent in the aggregate more than 25% of the value of our total assets. We currently own more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of RRG.

Risk Factors Related to Our Ownership Limitations and the Florida Business Corporation Act

Restrictions on the ownership of the Parent Company’s capital stock to preserve our REIT status could delay or prevent a change in control.

Ownership of more than 7% by value of our outstanding capital stock by certain persons is restricted for the purpose of maintaining our qualification as a REIT, with certain exceptions. This 7% limitation may discourage a change in control and may also (i) deter tender offers for our capital stock, which offers may be attractive to our stockholders, or (ii) limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their capital stock that might otherwise exist if an investor attempted to assemble a block in excess of 7% of our outstanding capital stock or to affect a change in control.

The issuance of the Parent Company’s capital stock could delay or prevent a change in control.

Our articles of incorporation authorize our Board of Directors to issue up to 30,000,000 shares of preferred stock and 10,000,000 shares of special common stock and to establish the preferences and rights of any shares issued. The issuance of preferred stock or special common stock could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control even if a change in control were in our stockholders’ interest. The provisions of the Florida Business Corporation Act regarding control share acquisitions and affiliated transactions could also deter potential acquisitions by preventing the acquiring party from voting the common stock it acquires or consummating a merger or other extraordinary corporate transaction without the approval of our disinterested stockholders.

 

14

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Item 1B.

Unresolved Staff Comments

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. have received no written comments regarding their periodic or current reports from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission that were issued 180 days or more preceding December 31, 2010 that remain unresolved.

 

Item 2.

Properties

The following table is a list of the shopping centers summarized by state and in order of largest holdings presented on a Combined Basis (includes properties owned by unconsolidated co-investment partnerships):

 

		December 31, 2010																December 31, 2009
Location		# Properties				GLA				% of Total GLA				% Leased				# Properties				GLA				% of Total GLA				% Leased
California			69				8,766,970				19.4	%			94.0	%			71				8,743,529				19.4	%			92.5	%
Florida			55				5,308,855				11.8	%			92.4	%			56				5,432,000				12.1	%			91.3	%
Texas			33				4,153,026				9.2	%			90.3	%			35				4,358,457				9.7	%			89.8	%
Virginia			29				3,699,659				8.2	%			94.6	%			29				3,635,546				8.1	%			94.9	%
Illinois			24				3,143,802				7.0	%			92.8	%			23				2,769,037				6.2	%			89.7	%
Missouri			23				2,265,467				5.0	%			96.8	%			23				2,265,466				5.0	%			96.8	%
Ohio			15				2,235,335				5.0	%			92.9	%			15				2,245,341				5.0	%			93.1	%
North Carolina			16				2,189,581				4.9	%			92.9	%			15				2,073,487				4.6	%			89.7	%
Colorado			20				2,064,400				4.6	%			90.5	%			20				2,070,251				4.6	%			90.4	%
Maryland			16				1,860,710				4.1	%			89.8	%			16				1,873,908				4.2	%			92.8	%
Georgia			19				1,671,632				3.7	%			88.9	%			19				1,661,612				3.7	%			92.0	%
Pennsylvania			11				1,287,079				2.9	%			93.5	%			12				1,414,123				3.1	%			92.4	%
Washington			11				1,038,514				2.3	%			92.7	%			11				1,038,514				2.3	%			95.4	%
Oregon			8				752,161				1.7	%			96.7	%			8				752,162				1.7	%			98.1	%
Tennessee			7				565,386				1.2	%			92.7	%			7				565,386				1.3	%			91.8	%
Massachusetts			3				557,037				1.2	%			95.8	%			3				564,386				1.2	%			95.2	%
Arizona			4				496,073				1.1	%			91.1	%			4				496,073				1.1	%			89.4	%
Minnesota			3				483,520				1.1	%			97.4	%			3				483,938				1.1	%			97.3	%
Delaware			4				474,267				1.0	%			88.1	%			4				472,005				1.0	%			91.0	%
Nevada			2				439,422				1.0	%			79.5	%			2				432,990				1.0	%			78.0	%
South Carolina			6				360,718				0.8	%			96.3	%			6				360,718				0.8	%			95.2	%
Indiana			6				273,253				0.6	%			85.5	%			6				273,253				0.6	%			80.3	%
Wisconsin			2				269,128				0.6	%			94.2	%			2				269,128				0.6	%			97.7	%
Alabama			2				203,206				0.4	%			70.1	%			2				203,206				0.4	%			72.0	%
Connecticut			1				179,863				0.4	%			99.8	%			1				179,860				0.4	%			100.0	%
New Jersey			2				156,482				0.3	%			93.8	%			2				156,482				0.3	%			95.2	%
Michigan			2				118,273				0.3	%			84.6	%			2				118,273				0.3	%			85.8	%
Dist. of Columbia			2				39,647				0.1	%			90.6	%			2				39,647				0.1	%			100.0	%
Kentucky			1				23,186				0.1	%			81.9	%			1				23,184				0.1	%			63.7	%
Total			396				45,076,652				100.0	%			92.6	%			400				44,971,962				100.0	%			92.1	%

The Combined Properties include the consolidated and unconsolidated properties encumbered by mortgage loans of $413.3 million and $2.1 billion, respectively, as of December 31, 2010.

 

15

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

The following table is a list of the shopping centers summarized by state and in order of largest holdings presented for Consolidated Properties (excludes properties owned by unconsolidated co-investment partnerships):

 

		December 31, 2010																December 31, 2009
Location		# Properties				GLA				% of Total GLA				% Leased				# Properties				GLA				% of Total GLA				% Leased
California			42				5,211,886				22.4	%			93.7	%			44				5,340,854				23.3	%			93.1	%
Florida			44				4,467,696				19.2	%			92.5	%			44				4,421,788				19.2	%			91.2	%
Texas			23				2,875,917				12.4	%			89.9	%			24				2,978,018				13.0	%			88.8	%
Ohio			13				1,698,262				7.3	%			93.2	%			13				1,708,268				7.4	%			93.6	%
Georgia			16				1,428,281				6.1	%			88.2	%			16				1,418,261				6.2	%			91.4	%
Colorado			14				1,117,074				4.8	%			86.8	%			14				1,123,006				4.9	%			87.1	%
Virginia			7				910,740				3.9	%			93.9	%			7				864,116				3.8	%			93.2	%
Illinois			5				885,581				3.8	%			94.4	%			3				414,168				1.8	%			85.2	%
North Carolina			9				874,238				3.8	%			87.8	%			9				873,943				3.8	%			92.3	%
Oregon			7				659,060				2.8	%			96.8	%			7				659,061				2.9	%			98.0	%
Tennessee			6				479,321				2.1	%			92.3	%			6				479,321				2.1	%			91.3	%
Washington			6				461,073				2.0	%			94.0	%			6				461,073				2.0	%			93.5	%
Nevada			2				439,422				1.9	%			79.5	%			2				432,990				1.9	%			78.0	%
Arizona			3				388,440				1.7	%			90.6	%			3				388,440				1.7	%			90.4	%
Massachusetts			2				371,758				1.6	%			93.7	%			2				379,107				1.6	%			92.9	%
Pennsylvania			4				305,444				1.3	%			94.0	%			4				320,279				1.4	%			88.7	%
Delaware			2				242,680				1.0	%			89.8	%			2				240,418				1.0	%			93.3	%
Michigan			2				118,273				0.5	%			84.6	%			2				118,273				0.5	%			85.8	%
Maryland			1				95,010				0.4	%			90.1	%			1				107,063				0.5	%			75.4	%
Alabama			1				84,740				0.4	%			77.8	%			1				84,740				0.4	%			76.2	%
South Carolina			2				74,421				0.3	%			96.2	%			2				74,421				0.3	%			90.6	%
Indiana			3				54,484				0.2	%			62.9	%			3				54,484				0.2	%			44.7	%
Kentucky			1				23,186				0.1	%			81.9	%			1				23,184				0.1	%			63.7	%
Total			215				23,266,987				100.0	%			91.6	%			216				22,965,276				100.0	%			91.0	%

The Consolidated Properties are encumbered by mortgage loans of $413.3 million as of December 31, 2010.

 

16

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

The following table is a list of the shopping centers summarized by state and in order of largest holdings presented for Unconsolidated Properties (only properties owned by unconsolidated co-investment partnerships):

 

		December 31, 2010																December 31, 2009
Location		# Properties				GLA				% of Total GLA				% Leased				# Properties				GLA				% of Total GLA				% Leased
California			27				3,555,084				16.3	%			94.4	%			27				3,402,675				15.5	%			91.6	%
Virginia			22				2,788,919				12.8	%			94.8	%			22				2,771,430				12.6	%			95.4	%
Missouri			23				2,265,467				10.4	%			96.8	%			23				2,265,466				10.3	%			96.8	%
Illinois			19				2,258,221				10.4	%			92.1	%			20				2,354,869				10.7	%			90.5	%
Maryland			15				1,765,700				8.1	%			89.8	%			15				1,766,845				8.0	%			93.8	%
North Carolina			7				1,315,343				6.0	%			96.3	%			6				1,199,544				5.5	%			87.8	%
Texas			10				1,277,109				5.9	%			91.4	%			11				1,380,439				6.3	%			92.1	%
Pennsylvania			7				981,635				4.5	%			93.3	%			8				1,093,844				5.0	%			93.5	%
Colorado			6				947,326				4.3	%			94.8	%			6				947,245				4.3	%			94.4	%
Florida			11				841,159				3.9	%			92.0	%			12				1,010,212				4.6	%			92.0	%
Washington			5				577,441				2.6	%			91.7	%			5				577,441				2.6	%			96.9	%
Ohio			2				537,073				2.5	%			92.0	%			2				537,073				2.4	%			91.6	%
Minnesota			3				483,520				2.2	%			97.4	%			3				483,938				2.2	%			97.3	%
South Carolina			4				286,297				1.3	%			96.4	%			4				286,297				1.3	%			96.4	%
Wisconsin			2				269,128				1.2	%			94.2	%			2				269,128				1.2	%			97.7	%
Georgia			3				243,351				1.1	%			92.8	%			3				243,351				1.1	%			95.6	%
Delaware			2				231,587				1.1	%			86.2	%			2				231,587				1.1	%			88.5	%
Indiana			3				218,769				1.0	%			91.1	%			3				218,769				1.0	%			89.1	%
Massachusetts			1				185,279				0.8	%			100.0	%			1				185,279				0.8	%			100.0	%
Connecticut			1				179,863				0.8	%			99.8	%			1				179,860				0.8	%			100.0	%
New Jersey			2				156,482				0.7	%			93.8	%			2				156,482				0.7	%			95.2	%
Alabama			1				118,466				0.6	%			64.6	%			1				118,466				0.5	%			69.1	%
Arizona			1				107,633				0.5	%			93.2	%			1				107,633				0.5	%			85.8	%
Oregon			1				93,101				0.4	%			95.9	%			1				93,101				0.4	%			98.1	%
Tennessee			1				86,065				0.4	%			94.8	%			1				86,065				0.4	%			94.8	%
Dist. of Columbia			2				39,647				0.2	%			90.6	%			2				39,647				0.2	%			100.0	%
Total			181				21,809,665				100.0	%			93.6	%			184				22,006,686				100.0	%			93.2	%

The Unconsolidated Properties are encumbered by mortgage loans of $2.1 billion as of December 31, 2010.

 

17

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

The following table summarizes the largest tenants occupying our shopping centers for Consolidated Properties plus Regency’s pro-rata share of Unconsolidated Properties as of December 31, 2010, based upon a percentage of total annualized base rent exceeding or equal to .5% (dollars in thousands):

 

Tenant		GLA				Percent to Company Owned GLA				Rent				Percentage of Annualized Base Rent				Number of Leased Stores				Anchor Owned Stores (1)
Kroger			2,148,362				7.3	%		$	19,991				4.4	%			44				10
Publix			2,018,569				6.9	%			19,800				4.4	%			55				1
Safeway			1,726,446				5.9	%			16,966				3.8	%			53				6
Supervalu			925,485				3.2	%			10,721				2.4	%			27				2
CVS			525,840				1.8	%			7,681				1.7	%			50				—
Whole Foods			239,460				0.8	%			6,382				1.4	%			7				—
TJX Companies			497,326				1.7	%			5,770				1.3	%			25				—
Ahold			348,705				1.2	%			4,674				1.0	%			13				—
Blockbuster Video			200,866				0.7	%			4,445				1.0	%			52				—
Ross Dress For Less			278,612				1.0	%			4,201				0.9	%			17				—
Walgreens			190,201				0.6	%			3,602				0.8	%			16				—
Starbucks			103,351				0.4	%			3,573				0.8	%			86				—
Sports Authority			181,523				0.6	%			3,459				0.8	%			5				—
PETCO			182,874				0.6	%			3,443				0.8	%			21				—
Wells Fargo Bank			68,038				0.2	%			3,387				0.8	%			41				—
Sears Holdings			442,433				1.5	%			3,380				0.7	%			11				1
Rite Aid			227,758				0.8	%			3,214				0.7	%			26				—
Bank of America			77,429				0.3	%			3,171				0.7	%			28				—
PetSmart			178,850				0.6	%			2,917				0.6	%			10				—
Target			349,683				1.2	%			2,884				0.6	%			4				20
Subway			99,496				0.3	%			2,871				0.6	%			113				—
Harris Teeter			245,746				0.8	%			2,836				0.6	%			8				—
H.E.B.			210,413				0.7	%			2,772				0.6	%			4				—
Schnucks			308,578				1.1	%			2,688				0.6	%			31				—
The UPS Store			97,975				0.3	%			2,548				0.6	%			97				—
JPMorgan Chase Bank			61,213				0.2	%			2,379				0.5	%			23				—
Trader Joe’s			89,994				0.3	%			2,266				0.5	%			11				—

 

(1)	Stores owned by anchor tenant that are attached to our centers.

Regency’s leases for tenant space under 5,000 square feet generally have terms ranging from three to five years. Leases greater than 10,000 square feet generally have lease terms in excess of five years, mostly comprised of anchor tenants. Many of the anchor leases contain provisions allowing the tenant the option of extending the term of the lease at expiration. The leases provide for the monthly payment in advance of fixed minimum rent, additional rents calculated as a percentage of the tenant’s sales, the tenant’s pro-rata share of real estate taxes, insurance, and common area maintenance (“CAM”) expenses, and reimbursement for utility costs if not directly metered.

 

18

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

The following table sets forth a schedule of lease expirations for the next ten years and thereafter, assuming no tenants renew their leases (dollars in thousands):

 

Lease Expiration Year		Expiring GLA (2)				Percent of Total Company GLA (2)				Minimum Rent Expiring Leases (3)				Percent of Minimum Rent (3)
(1)			347,598				1.3	%		$	6,116				1.4	%
2011			2,457,614				9.1	%			43,108				9.6	%
2012			3,512,975				13.1	%			65,097				14.4	%
2013			2,657,644				9.9	%			50,376				11.2	%
2014			2,480,093				9.2	%			47,374				10.5	%
2015			2,179,022				8.1	%			42,775				9.5	%
2016			1,359,450				5.1	%			22,926				5.1	%
2017			1,389,524				5.2	%			24,538				5.4	%
2018			1,359,345				5.1	%			21,280				4.7	%
2019			1,202,740				4.5	%			18,435				4.1	%
2020			1,465,468				5.4	%			22,012				4.9	%
Thereafter			6,479,513				24.0	%			87,005				19.2	%
Total			26,890,986				100.0	%		$	451,042				100.0	%

 

(1)	Leased currently under month to month rent or in process of renewal.

(2)	Represents GLA for Consolidated Properties plus Regency’s pro-rata share of Unconsolidated Properties.

(3)	Minimum rent includes current minimum rent and future contractual rent steps for the Consolidated Properties plus Regency’s pro-rata share from Unconsolidated Properties, but excludes additional rent such as percentage rent, common area maintenance, real estate taxes and insurance reimbursements.

 

19

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

See the following Combined Basis property table and also see Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis for further information about Regency’s properties.

 

Property Name		Year Acquired				Year Con- structed  (1)				Gross Leasable Area (GLA)				Percent Leased (2)				Grocer & Major Tenant(s) >40,000sf				Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft
CALIFORNIA
Los Angeles/ Southern CA
4S Commons Town Center			2004				2004				240,060				96.2	%			Ralphs, Jimbo’s...Naturally!			Bed Bath & Beyond, Cost Plus World Market, CVS, Griffin Ace Hardware
Amerige Heights Town Center			2000				2000				96,680				100.0	%			Albertsons, (Target)			—
Brea Marketplace (4)			2005				1987				352,022				98.0	%			Sprout’s Markets			24 Hour Fitness, Big 5 Sporting Goods, Beverages & More!, Childtime Childcare
Costa Verde Center			1999				1988				178,623				91.5	%			Bristol Farms			Bookstar, The Boxing Club, Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy
El Camino Shopping Center			1999				1995				135,728				99.0	%			Von’s Food & Drug			Sav-On Drugs
El Norte Pkwy Plaza			1999				1984				90,549				93.9	%			Von’s Food & Drug			Longs Drug
Falcon Ridge Town Center Phase I (4)			2003				2004				232,754				98.0	%			Stater Bros., (Target)			Sports Authority, Ross Dress for Less, Party City, Michaels, Pier 1 Imports
Falcon Ridge Town Center Phase II (4)			2005				2005				66,864				100.0	%			24 Hour Fitness			CVS
Five Points Shopping Center (4)			2005				1960				144,553				97.0	%			Albertsons			Longs Drug, Ross Dress for Less, Big 5 Sporting Goods
French Valley Village Center			2004				2004				98,752				94.1	%			Stater Bros.			CVS
Friars Mission Center			1999				1989				146,897				95.6	%			Ralphs			Longs Drug
Gelson’s Westlake Market Plaza			2002				2002				84,975				93.4	%			Gelson’s Markets			—
Golden Hills Promenade (3)			2006				2006				216,846				91.1	%			Lowe’s			Bed Bath & Beyond
Granada Village (4)			2005				1965				224,649				76.9	%			—			Rite Aid, TJ Maxx, Stein Mart
Hasley Canyon Village (4)			2003				2003				65,801				98.2	%			Ralphs			—
Heritage Plaza			1999				1981				231,582				92.7	%			Ralphs			CVS, Hands On Bicycles, Total Woman, Ace Hardware
Indio Towne Center (3)			2006				2006				132,678				59.0	%			(Home Depot), (WinCo)			CVS, 24 Hour Fitness, PETCO
Indio Towne Center Phase II (3)			2010				2010				46,827				100.0	%			Toys “R” Us/ Babies “R” Us			—
Jefferson Square (3)			2007				2007				38,013				74.7	%			Fresh & Easy			CVS
Laguna Niguel Plaza (4)			2005				1985				41,943				96.7	%			(Albertsons)			CVS
Marina Shores (4)			2008				2001				67,727				100.0	%			Whole Foods			PETCO
Morningside Plaza			1999				1996				91,212				93.8	%			Stater Bros.			—
Navajo Shopping Center (4)			2005				1964				102,139				94.6	%			Albertsons			Rite Aid, Kragen Auto Parts
Newland Center			1999				1985				149,140				98.8	%			Albertsons			—
Oakbrook Plaza			1999				1982				83,286				94.5	%			Albertsons			(Longs Drug)
Park Plaza Shopping Center (4)			2001				1991				194,396				94.4	%			Henry’s Marketplace			CVS, PETCO, Ross Dress For Less, Office Depot, Tuesday Morning
Plaza Hermosa			1999				1984				94,940				92.9	%			Von’s Food & Drug			Sav-On Drugs
Point Loma Plaza (4)			2005				1987				212,415				96.4	%			Von’s Food & Drug			Sport Chalet 5, 24 Hour Fitness, Jo-Ann Fabrics
Rancho San Diego Village (4)			2005				1981				153,256				92.3	%			Von’s Food & Drug			(Longs Drug), 24 Hour Fitness
Rio Vista Town Center (3)			2005				2005				67,622				83.6	%			Stater Bros.			(CVS)
Rona Plaza			1999				1989				51,760				100.0	%			Superior Super Warehouse			—

 

20

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name		Year Acquired				Year Con- structed  (1)				Gross Leasable Area (GLA)				Percent Leased (2)				Grocer & Major Tenant(s) >40,000sf				Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft
CALIFORNIA (continued)
Seal Beach (4)			2002				1966				96,858				93.5	%			Von’s Food & Drug			CVS
Paseo Del Sol (3)			2004				2004				49,680				77.2	%			Whole Foods			—
Twin Oaks Shopping Center (4)			2005				1978				98,399				94.4	%			Ralphs			Rite Aid
Twin Peaks			1999				1988				198,139				99.4	%			Albertsons, Target			—
Valencia Crossroads			2002				2003				172,856				98.8	%			Whole Foods, Kohl’s			—
Ventura Village			1999				1984				76,070				92.1	%			Von’s Food & Drug			—
Vine at Castaic			2005				2005				27,314				66.4	%			—			—
Vista Village Phase I (4)			2002				2003				129,009				91.1	%			Krikorian Theaters, (Lowe’s)			—
Vista Village Phase II (4)			2002				2003				55,000				45.5	%			Frazier Farms			—
Vista Village IV			2006				2006				11,000				100.0	%			—			—
Westlake Village Plaza and Center			1999				1975				190,529				92.7	%			Von’s Food & Drug			(CVS), Longs Drug, Total Woman
Westridge Village			2001				2003				92,287				95.7	%			Albertsons			Beverages & More!
Woodman Van Nuys			1999				1992				107,614				95.7	%			El Super			—
San Francisco/ Northern CA
Applegate Ranch Shopping Center (3)			2006				2006				144,444				75.0	%			(Super Target), (Home Depot)			Marshalls, PETCO, Big 5 Sporting Goods
Auburn Village (4)			2005				1990				133,944				89.4	%			Bel Air Market			Dollar Tree, Goodwill Industries, (Longs Drug)
Bayhill Shopping Center (4)			2005				1990				121,846				100.0	%			Mollie Stone’s Market			Longs Drug
Blossom Valley (4)			1999				1990				93,316				94.1	%			Safeway			Longs Drug
Clayton Valley Shopping Center			2003				2004				260,205				94.0	%			Fresh & Easy, Home Depot			Longs Drugs, Dollar Tree, Ross Dress For Less
Clovis Commons			2004				2004				174,990				95.9	%			(Super Target)			Petsmart, TJ Maxx, Office Depot, Best Buy
Corral Hollow (4)			2000				2000				167,184				98.1	%			Safeway, Orchard Supply & Hardware			Longs Drug
Diablo Plaza			1999				1982				63,265				96.7	%			(Safeway)			(Longs Drug), Jo-Ann Fabrics
El Cerrito Plaza			2000				2000				256,035				97.9	%			(Lucky’s)			(Longs Drug), Bed Bath & Beyond, Barnes & Noble, Jo-Ann Fabrics, PETCO, Ross Dress For Less
Encina Grande			1999				1965				102,413				98.3	%			Safeway			Walgreens
Folsom Prairie City Crossing			1999				1999				90,237				98.0	%			Safeway			—
Gateway 101			2008				2008				92,110				100.0	%			(Home Depot), (Best Buy), Sports Authority, Nordstrom Rack			—
Loehmanns Plaza California			1999				1983				113,310				98.2	%			(Safeway)			Longs Drug, Loehmann’s
Mariposa Shopping Center (4)			2005				1957				126,658				96.8	%			Safeway			Longs Drug, Ross Dress for Less
Pleasant Hill Shopping Center (4)			2005				1970				227,681				99.1	%			Target, Toys “R” Us			Barnes & Noble
Powell Street Plaza			2001				1987				165,928				100.0	%			Trader Joe’s			PETCO, Beverages & More!, Ross Dress For Less, DB Shoe Company
Raley’s Supermarket (4)			2007				1964				62,827				100.0	%			Raley’s			—
San Leandro Plaza			1999				1982				50,432				100.0	%			(Safeway)			(Longs Drug)
Sequoia Station			1999				1996				103,148				88.5	%			(Safeway)			Longs Drug, Barnes & Noble, Old Navy
Silverado Plaza (4)			2005				1974				84,916				100.0	%			Nob Hill			Longs Drug
Snell & Branham Plaza (4)			2005				1988				99,351				95.5	%			Safeway			—
Stanford Ranch Village (4)			2005				1991				89,875				95.1	%			Bel Air Market			—
Strawflower Village			1999				1985				78,827				98.9	%			Safeway			(Longs Drug)
Tassajara Crossing			1999				1990				146,188				95.8	%			Safeway			Longs Drug, Ace Hardware
West Park Plaza			1999				1996				88,104				98.0	%			Safeway			Rite Aid

 

21

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name		Year Acquired				Year Con- structed  (1)				Gross Leasable Area (GLA)				Percent Leased (2)				Grocer & Major Tenant(s) >40,000sf				Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft
CALIFORNIA (continued)
Woodside Central			1999				1993				80,591				94.0	%			(Target)			Chuck E. Cheese, Marshalls
Ygnacio Plaza (4)			2005				1968				109,701				100.0	%			Fresh & Easy			Sports Basement
Subtotal/Weighted Average (CA)											8,766,970				94.0	%
FLORIDA
Ft. Myers / Cape Coral
Corkscrew Village			2007				1997				82,011				93.6	%			Publix			—
First Street Village			2006				2006				54,926				89.4	%			Publix			—
Grande Oak			2000				2000				78,784				100.0	%			Publix			—
Jacksonville / North Florida
Anastasia Plaza			1993				1988				102,342				97.6	%			Publix			—
Canopy Oak Center (3)(4)			2006				2006				90,041				77.8	%			Publix			—
Carriage Gate			1994				1978				76,784				93.2	%			—			Leon County Tax Collector, TJ Maxx
Courtyard Shopping Center			1993				1987				137,256				100.0	%			(Publix), Target			—
Fleming Island			1998				2000				136,663				67.7	%			Publix, (Target)			—
Hibernia Pavilion			2006				2006				51,298				94.9	%			Publix			—
Hibernia Plaza			2006				2006				8,400				16.7	%			—			(Walgreens)
Horton’s Corner			2007				2007				14,820				100.0	%			—			Walgreens
John’s Creek Center (4)			2003				2004				75,101				92.5	%			Publix			—
Julington Village (4)			1999				1999				81,820				100.0	%			Publix			(CVS)
Millhopper Shopping Center			1993				1974				80,421				100.0	%			Publix			CVS, Jo-Ann Fabrics
Newberry Square			1994				1986				180,524				95.5	%			Publix, K-Mart			Jo-Ann Fabrics
Nocatee Town Center (3)			2007				2007				69,679				88.0	%			Publix			—
Oakleaf Commons			2006				2006				73,717				81.0	%			Publix			(Walgreens)
Old St Augustine Plaza			1996				1990				232,459				99.1	%			Publix, Burlington Coat Factory, Hobby Lobby			CVS
Pine Tree Plaza			1997				1999				63,387				96.8	%			Publix			—
Plantation Plaza (4)			2004				2004				77,747				89.1	%			Publix			—
Seminole Shoppes (3)			2009				2009				73,241				91.6	%			Publix			—
Shoppes at Bartram Park (4)			2005				2004				105,319				94.0	%			Publix, (Kohl’s)			Toll Brothers
Shoppes at Bartram Park Phase II (3)(4)			2008				2008				14,639				30.1	%			—			(Tutor Time)
Shops at John’s Creek			2003				2004				15,490				65.0	%			—			—
Starke			2000				2000				12,739				100.0	%			—			CVS
Vineyard Shopping Center (4)			2001				2002				62,821				81.6	%			Publix			—
Miami / Fort Lauderdale
Aventura Shopping Center			1994				1974				102,876				87.3	%			Publix			CVS
Berkshire Commons			1994				1992				106,354				98.9	%			Publix			Walgreens
Caligo Crossing (3)			2007				2007				10,763				87.0	%			(Kohl’s)			—
Five Corners Plaza (4)			2005				2001				44,647				88.1	%			Publix			—
Garden Square			1997				1991				90,258				95.7	%			Publix			CVS
Naples Walk Shopping Center			2007				1999				125,390				87.9	%			Publix			—
Pebblebrook Plaza (4)			2000				2000				76,767				100.0	%			Publix			(Walgreens)
Shoppes @ 104			1998				1990				108,192				94.9	%			Winn-Dixie			Navarro Discount Pharmacies
Welleby Plaza			1996				1982				109,949				93.5	%			Publix			Bealls
Tampa / Orlando
Beneva Village Shops			1998				1987				141,532				90.4	%			Publix			Walgreens, Harbor Freight Tools
Bloomingdale Square			1998				1987				267,736				97.0	%			Publix, Wal-Mart, Bealls			Ace Hardware
East Towne Center			2002				2003				69,841				84.0	%			Publix			—
Kings Crossing Sun City			1999				1999				75,020				95.7	%			Publix			—
Lynnhaven (4)			2001				2001				63,871				100.0	%			Publix			—

 

22

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name		Year Acquired				Year Con- structed  (1)				Gross Leasable Area (GLA)				Percent Leased (2)				Grocer & Major Tenant(s) >40,000sf		Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft
FLORIDA (continued)
Marketplace Shopping Center			1995				1983				90,296				75.5	%		LA Fitness		—
Regency Square			1993				1986				349,848				95.8	%		AMC Theater, Michaels, (Best Buy), (Macdill)		Dollar Tree, Marshalls, Shoe Carnival, Staples, TJ Maxx, PETCO, Hobbytown USA
Suncoast Crossing Phase I (3)			2007				2007				108,434				93.2	%		Kohl’s		—
Suncoast Crossing Phase II (3)			2008				2008				9,451				44.5	%		(Target)		—
Town Square			1997				1999				44,380				100.0	%		—		PETCO, Pier 1 Imports
Village Center			1995				1993				181,110				97.1	%		Publix		Walgreens, Stein Mart
Northgate Square			2007				1995				75,495				100.0	%		Publix		—
Westchase			2007				1998				78,998				95.2	%		Publix		—
Willa Springs (4)			2000				2000				89,930				100.0	%		Publix		—
West Palm Beach / Treasure Cove
Boynton Lakes Plaza			1997				1993				124,924				84.7	%		Winn-Dixie		Citi Trends
Chasewood Plaza			1993				1986				155,603				95.5	%		Publix		Bealls, Books-A-Million
East Port Plaza			1997				1991				162,831				84.9	%		Publix		Walgreens
Island Crossing (4)			2007				1996				58,456				100.0	%		Publix		—
Martin Downs Village Center			1993				1985				112,666				87.3	%		—		Bealls, Coastal Care
Martin Downs Village Shoppes			1993				1998				48,937				83.4	%		—		Walgreens
Town Center at Martin Downs			1996				1996				64,546				100.0	%		Publix		—
Wellington Town Square			1996				1982				107,325				97.0	%		Publix		CVS
Subtotal/Weighted Average (FL)											5,308,855				92.4	%
TEXAS
Austin
Hancock			1999				1998				410,438				94.6	%		H.E.B., Sears		Twin Liquors, PETCO, 24 Hour Fitness
Market at Round Rock			1999				1987				122,646				60.2	%		Sprout’s Markets		—
North Hills			1999				1995				144,020				98.6	%		H.E.B.		—
Dallas / Ft. Worth
Bethany Park Place (4)			1998				1998				98,906				96.6	%		Kroger		—
Cooper Street			1999				1992				127,696				87.6	%		(Home Depot)		Office Max, K&G Men’s Company
Hickory Creek Plaza (3)			2006				2006				28,134				77.6	%		(Kroger)		—
Shops at Highland Village			2005				2005				351,635				83.1	%		AMC Theater		Barnes & Noble
Hillcrest Village			1999				1991				14,530				100.0	%		—		—
Keller Town Center			1999				1999				114,937				95.2	%		Tom Thumb		—
Lebanon/Legacy Center			2000				2002				56,674				76.5	%		(Albertsons)		—
Main Street Center (4)			2002				2002				42,754				51.4	%		(Albertsons)		—
Market at Preston Forest			1999				1990				96,353				97.4	%		Tom Thumb		—
Mockingbird Common			1999				1987				120,321				100.0	%		Tom Thumb		Ogle School of Hair Design
Preston Park			1999				1985				239,333				90.6	%		Tom Thumb		Gap
Prestonbrook			1998				1998				91,537				93.5	%		Kroger		—
Prestonwood Park			1999				1999				101,167				61.7	%		(Albertsons)		—
Rockwall Town Center			2002				2004				46,095				100.0	%		(Kroger)		(Walgreens)
Shiloh Springs (4)			1998				1998				110,040				83.6	%		Kroger		—
Signature Plaza			2003				2004				32,415				75.9	%		(Kroger)		—
Trophy Club			1999				1999				106,507				85.7	%		Tom Thumb		(Walgreens)
Houston
Alden Bridge (4)			2002				1998				138,953				94.5	%		Kroger		Walgreens
Cochran’s Crossing			2002				1994				138,192				93.4	%		Kroger		CVS
Fort Bend Center			2000				2000				30,164				83.3	%		(Kroger)		—
Indian Springs Center (4)			2002				2003				136,625				98.5	%		H.E.B.		—
Kleinwood Center (4)			2002				2003				148,964				81.2	%		H.E.B.		(Walgreens)

 

23

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name		Year Acquired				Year Con- structed  (1)				Gross Leasable Area (GLA)				Percent Leased (2)				Grocer & Major Tenant(s) >40,000sf				Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft
TEXAS (continued)
Panther Creek			2002				1994				166,076				100.0	%			Randall’s Food			CVS, Sears Paint & Hardware
Sterling Ridge			2002				2000				128,643				100.0	%			Kroger			CVS
Sweetwater Plaza (4)			2001				2000				134,045				92.7	%			Kroger			Walgreens
Waterside Marketplace (3)			2007				2007				24,858				92.5	%			(Kroger)			—
Weslayan Plaza East (4)			2005				1969				169,693				100.0	%			—			Berings, Ross Dress for Less, Michaels, Berings Warehouse, Chuck E. Cheese, The Next Level Fitness, Spec’s Liquor
Weslayan Plaza West (4)			2005				1969				185,964				98.5	%			Randall’s Food			Walgreens, PETCO, Jo Ann’s, Office Max, Tuesday Morning
Westwood Village			2006				2006				183,546				94.9	%			(Target)			Gold’s Gym, PetSmart, Office Max, Ross Dress For Less, TJ Maxx
Woodway Collection (4)			2005				1974				111,165				84.5	%			Randall’s Food			—
Subtotal/Weighted Average (TX)											4,153,026				90.3	%
VIRGINIA
Richmond
Gayton Crossing (4)			2005				1983				156,917				93.6	%			Ukrop’s			—
Hanover Village Shopping Center (4)			2005				1971				88,006				85.0	%			—			Tractor Supply Company
Village Shopping Center (4)			2005				1948				111,177				93.2	%			Ukrop’s			CVS
Other Virginia
601 King Street (4)			2005				1980				8,003				87.3	%			—			—
Ashburn Farm Market Center			2000				2000				91,905				97.2	%			Giant Food			—
Ashburn Farm Village Center (4)			2005				1996				88,897				89.3	%			Shoppers Food Warehouse			—
Braemar Shopping Center (4)			2004				2004				96,439				94.8	%			Safeway			—
Centre Ridge Marketplace (4)			2005				1996				104,100				94.5	%			Shoppers Food Warehouse			Sears
Cheshire Station			2000				2000				97,156				100.0	%			Safeway			PETCO
Culpeper Colonnade			2006				2006				131,707				96.1	%			Martin’s, (Target)			PetSmart, Staples
Fairfax Shopping Center			2007				1955				76,311				80.8	%			—			Direct Furniture
Festival at Manchester Lakes (4)			2005				1990				165,130				95.3	%			Shoppers Food Warehouse			—
Fortuna Center Plaza (4)			2004				2004				104,694				100.0	%			Shoppers Food Warehouse, (Target)			Rite Aid
Fox Mill Shopping Center (4)			2005				1977				103,269				96.1	%			Giant Food			—
Greenbriar Town Center (4)			2005				1972				340,006				96.9	%			Giant Food			CVS, HMY Roomstore, Total Beverage, Ross Dress for Less, Marshalls, PETCO
Hollymead Town Center (4)			2003				2004				153,739				98.1	%			Harris Teeter, (Target)			Petsmart
Kamp Washington Shopping Center (4)			2005				1960				71,825				95.8	%			—			Borders Books
Kings Park Shopping Center (4)			2005				1966				74,702				95.6	%			Giant Food			CVS
Lorton Station Marketplace (4)			2006				2005				132,445				97.7	%			Shoppers Food Warehouse			Advanced Design Group
Lorton Town Center (4)			2006				2005				51,807				94.7	%			—			ReMax
Market at Opitz Crossing			2003				2003				149,791				88.4	%			Safeway			Boat U.S.
Saratoga Shopping Center (4)			2005				1977				113,013				94.7	%			Giant Food			—
Shops at County Center			2005				2005				96,695				96.9	%			Harris Teeter			—
Signal Hill (4)			2003				2004				95,172				100.0	%			Shoppers Food Warehouse			—

 

24

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name		Year Acquired				Year Con- structed  (1)				Gross Leasable Area (GLA)				Percent Leased (2)				Grocer & Major Tenant(s) >40,000sf				Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft
VIRGINIA (continued)
Stonewall			2007				2007				267,175				95.3	%			Wegmans			Staples, Ross Dress For Less, Bed Bath & Beyond, Michaels
Town Center at Sterling Shopping Center (4)			2005				1980				190,069				88.3	%			Giant Food			Washington Sports Club, Party Depot
Village Center at Dulles (4)			2002				1991				298,271				98.3	%			Shoppers Food Warehouse, Gold’s Gym			CVS, Advance Auto Parts, Chuck E. Cheese, PETCO, Staples, The Thrift Store
Willston Centre I (4)			2005				1952				105,376				85.9	%			—			CVS, Baileys Health Care
Willston Centre II (4)			2005				1986				135,862				94.6	%			Safeway, (Target)			—
Subtotal/Weighted Average (VA)											3,699,659				94.6	%
ILLINOIS
Chicago
Baker Hill Center (4)			2004				1998				135,355				99.1	%			Dominick’s			—
Brentwood Commons (4)			2005				1962				125,550				99.1	%			Dominick’s			Dollar Tree
Civic Center Plaza (4)			2005				1989				264,973				98.0	%			Super H Mart, Home Depot			Murray’s Discount Auto, King Spa
Deer Grove Center (4)			2004				1996				236,173				79.0	%			Dominick’s, (Target)			Michaels, PETCO, Factory Card Outlet, Dress Barn, Staples
Frankfort Crossing Shpg Ctr			2003				1992				114,534				87.1	%			Jewel / OSCO			Ace Hardware
Geneva Crossing (4)			2004				1997				123,182				96.7	%			Dominick’s			Goodwill
Glen Oak Plaza			2010				1967				62,616				97.6	%			Trader Joe’s			Walgreens, ENH Medical Offices
Hinsdale			1998				1986				178,960				97.5	%			Dominick’s			Ace Hardware
McHenry Commons Shopping Center (4)			2005				1988				100,526				38.2	%			—			—
Oaks Shopping Center (4)			2005				1983				135,005				91.5	%			Dominick’s			—
Riverside Sq & River’s Edge (4)			2005				1986				169,435				95.8	%			Dominick’s			Ace Hardware, Party City
Riverview Plaza (4)			2005				1981				139,256				93.1	%			Dominick’s			Walgreens, Toys “R” Us
Shorewood Crossing (4)			2004				2001				87,705				98.4	%			Dominick’s			—
Shorewood Crossing II (4)			2007				2005				86,276				98.1	%			—			Babies R Us, Staples, PETCO, Factory Card Outlet
Stonebrook Plaza Shopping Center (4)			2005				1984				95,825				100.0	%			Dominick’s			—
Westbrook Commons			2001				1984				123,855				91.5	%			Dominick’s			—
Willow Festival			2010				2007				405,616				95.5	%			Whole Foods, Best Buy, Lowe’s			CVS, DSW Warehouse, HomeGoods, Recreational Equipment
Champaign/Urbana
Champaign Commons (4)			2007				1990				88,105				90.7	%			Schnucks			—
Urbana Crossing (4)			2007				1997				85,196				95.3	%			Schnucks			—
Springfield
Montvale Commons (4)			2007				1996				73,937				98.1	%			Schnucks			—
Other Illinois
Carbondale Center (4)			2007				1997				59,726				100.0	%			Schnucks			—
Country Club Plaza (4)			2007				2001				86,867				94.4	%			Schnucks			—
Granite City (4)			2007				2004				46,237				100.0	%			Schnucks			—
Swansea Plaza (4)			2007				1988				118,892				95.9	%			Schnucks			Fashion Bug
Subtotal/Weighted Average (IL)											3,143,802				92.8	%
MISSOURI
St. Louis
Affton Plaza (4)			2007				2000				67,760				100.0	%			Schnucks			—
Bellerive Plaza (4)			2007				2000				115,252				93.3	%			Schnucks			—

 

25

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name		Year Acquired				Year Con- structed  (1)				Gross Leasable Area (GLA)				Percent Leased (2)				Grocer & Major Tenant(s) >40,000sf				Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft
MISSOURI (continued)
Brentwood Plaza (4)			2007				2002				60,452				96.5	%			Schnucks			—
Bridgeton (4)			2007				2005				70,762				100.0	%			Schnucks, (Home Depot)			—
Butler Hill Centre (4)			2007				1987				90,889				96.3	%			Schnucks			—
City Plaza (4)			2007				1998				80,150				100.0	%			Schnucks			—
Crestwood Commons (4)			2007				1994				67,285				100.0	%			Schnucks, (Best Buy), (Gordman’s)			—
Dardenne Crossing (4)			2007				1996				67,430				100.0	%			Schnucks			—
Dorsett Village (4)			2007				1998				104,217				100.0	%			Schnucks, (Orlando Gardens Banquet Center)			SSM Care Management Company
Kirkwood Commons (4)			2007				2000				467,703				100.0	%			Wal-Mart, (Target), (Lowe’s)			TJ Maxx, HomeGoods, Famous Footwear
Lake St. Louis (4)			2007				2004				75,643				96.3	%			Schnucks			—
O’Fallon Centre (4)			2007				1984				71,300				89.0	%			Schnucks			—
Plaza 94 (4)			2007				2005				66,555				95.4	%			Schnucks			—
Richardson Crossing (4)			2007				2000				82,994				97.1	%			Schnucks			—
Shackelford Center (4)			2007				2006				49,635				95.8	%			Schnucks			—
Sierra Vista Plaza (4)			2007				1993				74,666				98.4	%			Schnucks			—
Twin Oaks (4)			2007				2006				71,682				100.0	%			Schnucks			(Walgreens)
University City Square (4)			2007				1997				79,230				100.0	%			Schnucks			—
Washington Crossing (4)			2007				1999				117,626				97.1	%			Schnucks			Michaels, Altmueller Jewelry
Wentzville Commons (4)			2007				2000				74,205				100.0	%			Schnucks, (Home Depot)			—
Wildwood Crossing (4)			2007				1997				108,200				74.4	%			Schnucks			—
Zumbehl Commons (4)			2007				1990				116,682				95.7	%			Schnucks			Ace Hardware
Other Missouri
Capital Crossing (4)			2007				2002				85,149				94.4	%			Schnucks			—
Subtotal/Weighted Average (MO)											2,265,467				96.8	%
OHIO
Cincinnati
Beckett Commons			1998				1995				121,498				81.8	%			Kroger			—
Cherry Grove			1998				1997				195,513				98.0	%			Kroger			Hancock Fabrics, Shoe Carnival, TJ Maxx
Hyde Park			1997				1995				396,861				97.4	%			Kroger, Biggs			Walgreens, Jo-Ann Fabrics, Ace Hardware, Michaels, Staples
Indian Springs Market Center (4)			2005				2005				146,116				100.0	%			Kohl’s, (Wal-Mart Supercenter)			Office Depot, HH Gregg Appliances
Red Bank Village			2006				2006				164,317				96.5	%			Wal-Mart			—
Regency Commons			2004				2004				30,770				80.5	%			—			—
Shoppes at Mason			1998				1997				80,800				100.0	%			Kroger			—
Sycamore Crossing & Sycamore Plaza (4)			2008				1966				390,957				89.0	%			Fresh Market, Macy’s Furniture Gallery, Toys ‘R Us, Dick’s Sporting Goods			Barnes & Noble, Old Navy, Staples, Identity Salon & Day Spa
Westchester Plaza			1998				1988				88,181				98.4	%			Kroger			—
Columbus
East Pointe			1998				1993				86,503				98.4	%			Kroger			—
Kroger New Albany Center			1999				1999				93,286				91.8	%			Kroger			—
Maxtown Road (Northgate)			1998				1996				85,100				98.4	%			Kroger, (Home Depot)			—
Park Place Shopping Center			1998				1988				106,832				61.2	%			—			Big Lots

 

26

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name		Year Acquired				Year Con- structed  (1)				Gross Leasable Area (GLA)				Percent Leased (2)				Grocer & Major Tenant(s) >40,000sf				Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft
OHIO (continued)
Windmiller Plaza Phase I			1998				1997				140,437				98.5	%			Kroger			Sears Hardware
Wadsworth Crossing			2005				2005				108,164				88.7	%			(Kohl’s), (Lowe’s), (Target)			Office Max, Bed, Bath & Beyond, MC Sports, PETCO
Subtotal/Weighted Average (OH)											2,235,335				92.9	%
NORTH CAROLINA
Charlotte
Carmel Commons			1997				1979				132,651				90.5	%			Fresh Market			Chuck E. Cheese, Party City, Eckerd, Casual Furniture Marketplace
Cochran Commons (4)			2007				2003				66,020				91.6	%			Harris Teeter			(Walgreens)
Providence Commons (4)			2010				1994				197,801				100.0	%			Lowe’s			Rite Aid
Greensboro
Harris Crossing (3)			2007				2007				65,151				84.8	%			Harris Teeter			—
Raleigh / Durham
Cameron Village (4)			2004				1949				554,738				96.9	%			Harris Teeter, Fresh Market			Eckerd, Talbots, Wake County Public Library, Great Outdoor Provision Co., York Properties, The Bargain Box, K&W Cafeteria, Johnson-Lambe Sporting Goods, Pier 1 Imports, Pirate’s Chest Fine Antiques
Colonnade Center (3)			2009				2009				57,511				76.5	%			Whole Foods			—
Fuquay Crossing (4)			2004				2002				124,774				94.6	%			Kroger			Peak’s Fitness, Dollar Tree
Garner Towne Square			1998				1998				221,776				78.9	%			Kroger, (Home Depot), (Target)			Office Max, Petsmart, Shoe Carnival, United Artist Theater
Glenwood Village			1997				1983				42,864				96.8	%			Harris Teeter			—
Lake Pine Plaza			1998				1997				87,690				89.6	%			Kroger			—
Maynard Crossing (4)			1998				1997				122,782				93.2	%			Kroger			—
Middle Creek Commons			2006				2006				73,634				92.7	%			Lowes Foods			—
Shoppes of Kildaire (4)			2005				1986				148,204				97.8	%			Trader Joe’s			Home Comfort Furniture, Gold’s Gym, Staples
Southpoint Crossing			1998				1998				103,128				96.4	%			Kroger			—
Sutton Square (4)			2006				1985				101,024				91.9	%			Fresh Market			Rite Aid
Woodcroft Shopping Center			1996				1984				89,833				95.4	%			Food Lion			Triangle True Value Hardware
Subtotal/Weighted Average (NC)											2,189,581				92.9	%
COLORADO
Colorado Springs
Falcon Marketplace			2005				2005				22,491				66.2	%			(Wal-Mart Supercenter)			—
Marketplace at Briargate			2006				2006				29,075				90.0	%			(King Soopers)			—
Monument Jackson Creek			1998				1999				85,263				100.0	%			King Soopers			—
Woodmen Plaza			1998				1998				116,233				89.9	%			King Soopers			—
Denver
Applewood Shopping Center (4)			2005				1956				375,522				96.1	%			King Soopers, Wal- Mart			Applejack Liquors, PetSmart, Wells Fargo Bank
Arapahoe Village (4)			2005				1957				159,237				90.4	%			Safeway			Jo-Ann Fabrics, PETCO, Pier 1 Imports, Bottles Wine & Spirit
Belleview Square			2004				1978				117,335				100.0	%			King Soopers			—
Boulevard Center			1999				1986				88,579				89.2	%			(Safeway)			One Hour Optical
Buckley Square			1999				1978				116,147				92.2	%			King Soopers			Ace Hardware
Centerplace of Greeley Phase III (3)			2007				2007				94,090				81.5	%			Sports Authority			Best Buy

 

27

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name		Year Acquired				Year Con- structed  (1)				Gross Leasable Area (GLA)				Percent Leased (2)				Grocer & Major Tenant(s) >40,000sf				Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft
COLORADO (continued)
Cherrywood Square (4)			2005				1978				86,162				93.3	%			King Soopers			—
Crossroads Commons (4)			2001				1986				143,625				96.7	%			Whole Foods			Barnes & Noble, Bicycle Village
Hilltop Village (4)			2002				2003				100,030				93.8	%			King Soopers			—
NorthGate Village (3)			2008				2008				19,376				5.3	%			(King Soopers)			—
South Lowry Square			1999				1993				119,916				82.3	%			Safeway			—
Littleton Square			1999				1997				94,222				70.9	%			King Soopers			Walgreens
Lloyd King Center			1998				1998				83,326				91.6	%			King Soopers			—
Ralston Square Shopping Center (4)			2005				1977				82,750				96.2	%			King Soopers			—
Shops at Quail Creek (3)			2008				2008				37,585				76.5	%			(King Soopers)			—
Stroh Ranch			1998				1998				93,436				93.3	%			King Soopers			—
Subtotal/Weighted Average (CO)											2,064,400				90.5	%
MARYLAND
Baltimore
Elkridge Corners (4)			2005				1990				73,529				100.0	%			Super Fresh			Rite Aid
Festival at Woodholme (4)			2005				1986				81,016				85.8	%			Trader Joe’s			—
Village at Lee Airpark (3)			2005				2005				95,010				90.1	%			Giant Food, (Sunrise)			—
Parkville Shopping Center (4)			2005				1961				162,435				96.7	%			Super Fresh			Rite Aid, Parkville Lanes, Castlewood Realty
Southside Marketplace (4)			2005				1990				125,146				86.8	%			Shoppers Food Warehouse			Rite Aid
Valley Centre (4)			2005				1987				247,837				81.6	%			—			TJ Maxx, Sony Theatres, Ross Dress for Less, HomeGoods, Staples, PetSmart
Other Maryland
Bowie Plaza (4)			2005				1966				102,904				89.3	%			—			CVS
Clinton Park (4)			2003				2003				206,050				94.1	%			Giant Food, Sears, (Toys “R” Us)			Fitness For Less
Cloppers Mill Village (4)			2005				1995				137,035				87.7	%			Shoppers Food Warehouse			CVS
Firstfield Shopping Center (4)			2005				1978				22,328				93.3	%			—			—
Goshen Plaza (4)			2005				1987				45,654				88.1	%			—			CVS
King Farm Village Center (4)			2004				2001				118,326				96.4	%			Safeway			—
Mitchellville Plaza (4)			2005				1991				156,125				81.4	%			Food Lion			—
Takoma Park (4)			2005				1960				106,469				93.4	%			Shoppers Food Warehouse			—
Watkins Park Plaza (4)			2005				1985				113,443				94.8	%			Safeway			CVS
Woodmoor Shopping Center (4)			2005				1954				67,403				88.6	%			—			CVS
Subtotal/Weighted Average (MD)											1,860,710				89.8	%
GEORGIA
Atlanta
Ashford Place			1997				1993				53,345				59.7	%			—			—
Briarcliff La Vista			1997				1962				39,204				100.0	%			—			Michaels
Briarcliff Village			1997				1990				187,156				87.2	%			Publix			Office Depot, Party City, PETCO, TJ Maxx
Buckhead Court			1997				1984				48,338				98.4	%			—			—
Cambridge Square			1996				1979				71,474				99.9	%			Kroger			—
Chapel Hill Centre			2005				2005				66,970				94.3	%			(Kohl’s), Hobby Lobby			—
Cromwell Square			1997				1990				80,406				92.5	%			—			CVS, Hancock Fabrics, Antiques & Interiors of Sandy Springs

 

28

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name		Year Acquired				Year Con- structed  (1)				Gross Leasable Area (GLA)				Percent Leased (2)				Grocer & Major Tenant(s) >40,000sf				Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft
GEORGIA (continued)
Delk Spectrum			1998				1991				100,539				82.0	%			Publix			Eckerd
Dunwoody Hall (4)			1997				1986				89,351				100.0	%			Publix			Eckerd
Dunwoody Village			1997				1975				120,598				87.4	%			Fresh Market			Walgreens, Dunwoody Prep
Howell Mill Village			2004				1984				97,990				88.7	%			Publix			Eckerd
King Plaza (4)			2007				1998				81,432				84.6	%			Publix			—
Loehmanns Plaza Georgia			1997				1986				137,139				92.4	%			—			Loehmann’s, Dance 101, Office Max
Lost Mountain Crossing (4)			2007				1994				72,568				93.0	%			Publix			—
Paces Ferry Plaza			1997				1987				61,697				100.0	%			—			Harry Norman Realtors
Powers Ferry Square			1997				1987				95,703				78.8	%			—			CVS, Pearl Arts & Crafts
Powers Ferry Village			1997				1994				78,896				96.2	%			Publix			CVS, Mardi Gras
Rivermont Station			1997				1996				90,267				69.7	%			Kroger			—
Russell Ridge			1994				1995				98,559				92.6	%			Kroger			—
Subtotal/Weighted Average (GA)											1,671,632				88.9	%
PENNSYLVANIA
Allentown / Bethlehem
Allen Street Shopping Center (4)			2005				1958				46,228				100.0	%			Ahart Market			Rite Aid
Lower Nazareth Commons (3)			2007				2007				65,367				92.0	%			(Target), Sports Authority			—
Stefko Boulevard Shopping Center (4)			2005				1976				133,824				89.9	%			Valley Farm Market			—
Harrisburg
Silver Spring Square (4)			2005				2005				314,449				95.4	%			Wegmans, (Target)			Ross Dress For Less, Bed Bath and Beyond, Best Buy, Office Max, Ulta, PETCO
Philadelphia
City Avenue Shopping Center (4)			2005				1960				159,095				92.8	%			—			Ross Dress for Less, TJ Maxx, Sears
Gateway Shopping Center			2004				1960				219,257				94.0	%			Trader Joe’s			Staples, TJ Maxx, Famous Footwear, Jo-Ann Fabrics
Kulpsville Village Center			2006				2006				14,820				100.0	%			—			Walgreens
Mercer Square Shopping Center (4)			2005				1988				91,400				90.1	%			Genuardi’s			—
Newtown Square Shopping Center (4)			2005				1970				146,959				92.8	%			Acme Markets			Rite Aid
Warwick Square Shopping Center (4)			2005				1999				89,680				92.5	%			Genuardi’s			—
Other Pennsylvania
Hershey			2000				2000				6,000				100.0	%			—			—
Subtotal/Weighted Average (PA)											1,287,079				93.5	%
WASHINGTON
Portland
Orchards Market Center I (4)			2002				2004				100,663				100.0	%			Wholesale Sports			Jo-Ann Fabrics, PETCO, (Rite Aid)
Orchards Market Center II			2005				2005				77,478				87.3	%			LA Fitness			Office Depot
Seattle
Aurora Marketplace (4)			2005				1991				106,921				95.9	%			Safeway			TJ Maxx
Cascade Plaza (4)			1999				1999				211,072				80.5	%			Safeway			Bally Total Fitness, Fashion Bug, Jo-Ann Fabrics, Ross Dress For Less, Big Lots
Eastgate Plaza (4)			2005				1956				78,230				100.0	%			Albertsons			Rite Aid
Inglewood Plaza			1999				1985				17,253				100.0	%			—			—

 

29

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name		Year Acquired				Year Con- structed  (1)				Gross Leasable Area (GLA)				Percent Leased (2)				Grocer & Major Tenant(s) >40,000sf				Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft
WASHINGTON(continued)
Overlake Fashion Plaza (4)			2005				1987				80,555				96.9	%			(Sears)			Marshalls
Pine Lake Village			1999				1989				102,899				100.0	%			Quality Foods			Rite Aid
Sammamish-Highlands			1999				1992				101,289				95.5	%			(Safeway)			Bartell Drugs, Ace Hardware
WASHINGTON (continued)
Southcenter			1999				1990				58,282				90.0	%			(Target)			—
Thomas Lake			1999				1998				103,872				92.8	%			Albertsons			Rite Aid
Subtotal/Weighted Average (WA)											1,038,514				92.7	%
OREGON
Portland
Greenway Town Center (4)			2005				1979				93,101				95.9	%			Lamb’s Thriftway			Rite Aid, Dollar Tree
Murrayhill Marketplace			1999				1988				148,967				93.5	%			Safeway			Segal’s Baby News
Sherwood Crossroads			1999				1999				87,966				93.3	%			Safeway			—
Sherwood Market Center			1999				1995				124,259				97.8	%			Albertsons			—
Sunnyside 205			1999				1988				52,710				98.4	%			—			—
Tanasbourne Market			2006				2006				71,000				97.3	%			Whole Foods			—
Walker Center			1999				1987				89,610				100.0	%			Sports Authority			—
Other Oregon
Corvallis Market Center			2006				2006				84,548				100.0	%			Trader Joe’s			TJ Maxx, Michael’s
Subtotal/Weighted Average (OR)											752,161				96.7	%
TENNESSEE
Memphis
Collierville Crossing (4)			2007				2004				86,065				94.8	%			Schnucks, (Target)			—
Nashville
Lebanon Center			2006				2006				63,800				89.0	%			Publix			—
Harpeth Village Fieldstone			1997				1998				70,091				100.0	%			Publix			—
Nashboro Village			1998				1998				86,811				95.2	%			Kroger			(Walgreens)
Northlake Village			2000				1988				137,807				88.7	%			Kroger			PETCO
Peartree Village			1997				1997				109,904				90.9	%			Harris Teeter			Eckerd, Office Max
Other Tennessee
Dickson Tn			1998				1998				10,908				100.0	%			—			Eckerd
Subtotal/Weighted Average (TN)											565,386				92.7	%
MASSACHUSETTS
Boston
Shops at Saugus (3)			2006				2006				90,055				91.9	%			Trader Joe’s			La-Z-Boy, PetSmart
Speedway Plaza (4)			2006				1988				185,279				100.0	%			Stop & Shop, BJ’s Warehouse			—
Twin City Plaza			2006				2004				281,703				94.3	%			Shaw’s, Marshall’s			Rite Aid, K&G Fashion, Dollar Tree, Gold’s Gym, Extra Space Storage
Subtotal/Weighted Average (MA)											557,037				95.8	%
ARIZONA
Phoenix
Anthem Marketplace			2003				2000				113,292				90.1	%			Safeway			—
Palm Valley Marketplace (4)			2001				1999				107,633				93.2	%			Safeway			—
Pima Crossing			1999				1996				239,438				91.7	%			Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc.			Life Time Fitness, E & J Designer Shoe Outlet, Paddock Pools Store, Pier 1 Imports, Stein Mart

 

30

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name		Year Acquired				Year Con- structed  (1)				Gross Leasable Area (GLA)				Percent Leased (2)				Grocer & Major Tenant(s) >40,000sf				Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft
ARIZONA (continued)
Shops at Arizona			2003				2000				35,710				84.2	%			—			Ace Hardware
Subtotal/Weighted Average (AZ)											496,073				91.1	%
MINNESOTA
Apple Valley Square (4)			2006				1998				184,841				100.0	%			Rainbow Foods, Jo-Ann Fabrics, (Burlington Coat Factory)			Savers, PETCO
Colonial Square (4)			2005				1959				93,200				100.0	%			Lund’s			—
Rockford Road Plaza (4)			2005				1991				205,479				93.9	%			Rainbow Foods			PetSmart, HomeGoods, TJ Maxx
Subtotal/Weighted Average (MN)											483,520				97.4	%
DELAWARE
Dover
White Oak—Dover, DE			2000				2000				10,908				100.0	%			—			Eckerd
Wilmington
First State Plaza (4)			2005				1988				164,779				85.1	%			Shop Rite			Cinemark, Dollar Tree, US Post Office
Pike Creek			1998				1981				231,772				89.4	%			Acme Markets, K-Mart			Rite Aid
Shoppes of Graylyn (4)			2005				1971				66,808				89.1	%			—			Rite Aid
Subtotal/Weighted Average (DE)											474,267				88.1	%
NEVADA
Anthem Highlands Shopping Center			2004				2004				108,515				80.6	%			Albertsons			CVS
Deer Springs Town Center (3)			2007				2007				330,907				79.2	%			(Target), Home Depot, Toys “R” Us			Party Superstores, PetSmart, Ross Dress For Less, Staples
Subtotal/Weighted Average (NV)											439,422				79.5	%
SOUTH CAROLINA
Charleston
Merchants Village (4)			1997				1997				79,724				97.0	%			Publix			—
Orangeburg			2006				2006				14,820				100.0	%			—			Walgreens
Queensborough Shopping Center (4)			1998				1993				82,333				95.9	%			Publix			—
Columbia
Murray Landing (4)			2002				2003				64,359				97.8	%			Publix			—
Greenville
Other South Carolina
Buckwalter Village			2006				2006				59,601				95.3	%			Publix			—
Surfside Beach Commons (4)			2007				1999				59,881				94.7	%			Bi-Lo			—
Subtotal/Weighted Average (SC)											360,718				96.3	%
INDIANA
Chicago
Airport Crossing (3)			2006				2006				11,924				77.8	%			(Kohl’s)			—
Augusta Center			2006				2006				14,532				75.4	%			(Menards)			—
Evansville
Evansville West Center (4)			2007				1989				79,885				91.9	%			Schnucks			—

 

31

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name		Year Acquired				Year Con- structed  (1)				Gross Leasable Area (GLA)				Percent Leased (2)				Grocer & Major Tenant(s) >40,000sf				Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft
INDIANA (continued)
Indianapolis
Greenwood Springs			2004				2004				28,028				50.0	%			(Gander Mountain), (Wal-Mart Supercenter)			—
Willow Lake Shopping Center (4)			2005				1987				85,923				84.9	%			(Kroger)			Factory Card Outlet
Willow Lake West Shopping Center (4)			2005				2001				52,961				100.0	%			Trader Joe’s			—
Subtotal/Weighted Average (IN)											273,253				85.5	%
WISCONSIN
Racine Centre Shopping Center (4)			2005				1988				135,827				98.2	%			Piggly Wiggly			Office Depot, Factory Card Outlet, Dollar Tree
Whitnall Square Shopping Center (4)			2005				1989				133,301				90.0	%			Pick ‘N’ Save			Harbor Freight Tools, Dollar Tree, Walgreens
Subtotal/Weighted Average (WI)											269,128				94.2	%
ALABAMA
Shoppes at Fairhope Village (3)			2008				2008				84,740				77.8	%			Publix			—
Valleydale Village Shop Center (4)			2002				2003				118,466				64.6	%			Publix			—
Subtotal/Weighted Average (AL)											203,206				70.1	%
CONNECTICUT
Corbin’s Corner (4)			2005				1962				179,863				99.8	%			Trader Joe’s			Toys “R” Us, Best Buy, Old Navy, Office Depot, Pier 1 Imports
Subtotal/Weighted Average (CT)											179,863				99.8	%
NEW JERSEY
Haddon Commons (4)			2005				1985				52,640				93.4	%			Acme Markets			CVS
Plaza Square (4)			2005				1990				103,842				94.1	%			Shop Rite			—
Subtotal/Weighted Average (NJ)											156,482				93.8	%
MICHIGAN
Fenton Marketplace			1999				1999				97,224				90.0	%			Farmer Jack			Michaels
State Street Crossing (3)			2006				2006				21,049				60.0	%			(Wal-Mart)			—
Subtotal/Weighted Average (MI)											118,273				84.6	%
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Shops at The Columbia (4)			2006				2006				22,812				83.7	%			Trader Joe’s			—
Spring Valley Shopping Center (4)			2005				1930				16,835				100.0	%			—			CVS
Subtotal/Weighted Average (DC)											39,647				90.6	%
KENTUCKY
Walton Towne Center (3)			2007				2007				23,186				81.9	%			(Kroger)			—
Subtotal/Weighted Average (KY)											23,186				81.9	%
Total/Weighted Average											45,076,652				92.6	%

 

(1)	Or latest renovation.

(2)	Includes development properties. If development properties are excluded, the total percentage leased would be 93.2% for Company shopping centers.

(3)	Property under development.

(4)	Owned by a co-investment partnership with outside investors in which RCLP or an affiliate is the general partner.

Note:

Shadow anchor is indicated by parentheses.

 

32

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Item 3.

Legal Proceedings

We are a party to various legal proceedings which arise in the ordinary course of our business. We are not currently involved in any litigation nor to our knowledge, is any litigation threatened against us, the outcome of which would, in our judgment based on information currently available to us, have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

 

Item 4.

(Removed and Reserved)

PART II

 

Item 5.

Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters, and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “REG”. As of February 24, 2011, we had approximately 17,000 holders of common equity. The following table sets forth the high and low prices and the cash dividends declared on our common stock by quarter for 2010 and 2009:

 

		2010												2009
Quarter Ended		High Price				Low Price				Cash Dividends Declared				High Price				Low Price				Cash Dividends Declared
March 31		$	39.37				32.54				0.4625				46.54				22.02				0.7250
June 30			41.96				34.01				0.4625				38.63				26.55				0.4625
September 30			40.24				32.25				0.4625				41.05				28.50				0.4625
December 31			44.80				39.60				0.4625				36.24				31.62				0.4625

We intend to pay regular quarterly dividends to Regency Centers Corporations’ common stockholders. Future dividends will be declared and paid at the discretion of our Board of Directors, and will depend upon cash generated by operating activities, our financial condition, capital requirements, annual dividend requirements under the REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and such other factors as our Board of Directors deem relevant. Distributions by us to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits for federal income tax purposes will be taxable to stockholders as either ordinary dividend income or capital gain income if so declared by us. Distributions in excess of earnings and profits generally will be treated as a non-taxable return of capital. Such distributions have the effect of deferring taxation until the sale of a stockholder’s common stock. In order to maintain Regency Centers Corporation’s qualification as a REIT, we must make annual distributions to stockholders of at least 90% of our taxable income. Under certain circumstances, which we do not expect to occur, we could be required to make distributions in excess of cash available for distributions in order to meet such requirements. We currently maintain the Regency Centers Corporation Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan which enables our stockholders to automatically reinvest dividends, as well as make voluntary cash payments towards the purchase of additional shares.

Under the loan agreement of our line of credit, in the event of any monetary default, we may not make distributions to stockholders except to the extent necessary to maintain our REIT status.

We sold the following equity securities during the quarter ended December 31, 2010 that we did not report on Form 8-K because they represent in aggregate less than 1% of our outstanding common stock. All shares were issued to one accredited investor, an unrelated party, in a transaction exempt from registration pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, in exchange for an equal number of common units of the Operating Partnership.

 

Date		Number of Shares
12/30/2010		12,000

 

33

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

The following table provides information about the Company’s purchases of equity securities that are registered by the Company pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act during the quarter ended December 31, 2010:

 

Period

Total number of shares purchased (1)

Average price paid per share

Total number of shares purchased as part of publicly  announced plans or programs

Maximum number or approximate dollar value of shares that may yet be purchased under the plans or programs

October 1 through October 31, 2010

—

—

—

—

November 1 through November 30, 2010

—

—

—

—

December 1 through December 31, 2010

—

$

—

—

—

Total

—

$

—

—

—

 

(1)	Represents shares delivered in payment of withholding taxes in connection with options exercised and restricted stock vesting by participants under Regency’s Long-Term Omnibus Plan.

The performance graph furnished below compares Regency’s cumulative total stockholder return since December 31, 2005. The stock performance graph should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other filing made by us under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate the stock performance graph by reference in another filing.

 

34

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Item 6.

Selected Financial Data

(in thousands, except per share and unit data, number of properties, and ratio of earnings to fixed charges)

The following tables set forth Selected Financial Data for Regency on a historical basis for the five years ended December 31, 2010. This historical Selected Financial Data has been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements as reclassified for discontinued operations. This information should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements of Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. (including the related notes thereto) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of the Financial Condition and Results of Operations, each included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

Parent Company

 

		2010				2009				2008				2007				2006
Operating Data:
Revenues		$	486,806				488,073				494,934				434,737				404,602
Operating expenses			311,622				307,138				277,095				246,924				232,429
Other expense (income)			153,733				193,479				103,907				30,174				13,748
Income (loss) before equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships			21,451				(12,544	)			113,932				157,639				158,425
Equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships			(12,884	)			(26,373	)			5,292				18,093				2,580
Income (loss) from continuing operations			8,567				(38,917	)			119,224				175,732				161,005
Income from discontinued operations			7,632				6,174				22,297				34,284				68,970
Net income (loss)			16,199				(32,743	)			141,521				210,016				229,975
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests			(4,185	)			(3,961	)			(5,333	)			(6,365	)			(11,464	)
Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests			12,014				(36,704	)			136,188				203,651				218,511
Preferred stock dividends			(19,675	)			(19,675	)			(19,675	)			(19,675	)			(19,675	)
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders		$	(7,661	)			(56,379	)			116,513				183,976				198,836
Income (loss) per common share – diluted:
Income (loss) from continuing operations		$	(0.19	)			(0.82	)			1.35				2.16				1.89
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders		$	(0.10	)			(0.74	)			1.66				2.65				2.89
Other Information:
Common dividends declared per share		$	1.85				2.11				2.90				2.64				2.38
Common stock outstanding including exchangeable operating partnership units			82,064				82,008				70,505				70,112				69,759
Combined Basis gross leasable area (GLA)			45,077				44,972				49,645				51,107				47,187
Combined Basis number of properties owned			396				400				440				451				405
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges			2.5				1.0				1.6				2.0				2.1
Balance Sheet Data:
Real estate investments before accumulated depreciation		$	4,417,746				4,259,990				4,425,895				4,367,191				3,870,629
Total assets			3,973,648				3,973,806				4,142,375				4,114,773				3,643,546
Total debt			2,094,469				1,886,380				2,135,571				2,007,975				1,575,386
Total liabilities			2,212,988				2,030,412				2,380,093				2,194,244				1,734,572
Stockholders’ equity			1,701,435				1,875,167				1,696,861				1,843,061				1,825,954
Noncontrolling interests			59,225				68,227				65,421				77,468				83,020

 

35

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Operating Partnership

 

		2010				2009				2008				2007				2006
Operating Data:
Revenues		$	486,806				488,073				494,934				434,737				404,602
Operating expenses			311,622				307,138				277,095				246,924				232,429
Other expense (income)			153,733				193,479				103,907				30,174				13,748
Income (loss) before equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships			21,451				(12,544	)			113,932				157,639				158,425
Equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships			(12,884	)			(26,373	)			5,292				18,093				2,580
Income (loss) from continuing operations			8,567				(38,917	)			119,224				175,732				161,005
Income from discontinued operations			7,632				6,174				22,297				34,284				68,970
Net income (loss)			16,199				(32,743	)			141,521				210,016				229,975
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests			(376	)			(452	)			(701	)			(990	)			(4,863	)
Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests			15,823				(33,195	)			140,820				209,026				225,112
Preferred unit distributions			(23,400	)			(23,400	)			(23,400	)			(23,400	)			(23,400	)
Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders		$	(7,577	)			(56,595	)			117,420				185,626				201,712
Income (loss) per common unit - diluted:
Income (loss) from continuing operations		$	(0.19	)			(0.82	)			1.35				2.16				1.89
Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders		$	(0.10	)			(0.74	)			1.66				2.65				2.89
Other Information:
Distributions per unit		$	1.85				2.11				2.90				2.64				2.38
Common units outstanding			82,064				82,008				70,505				70,112				69,759
Preferred units outstanding			500				500				500				500				500
Combined Basis gross leasable area (GLA)			45,077				44,972				49,645				51,107				47,187
Combined Basis number of properties owned			396				400				440				451				405
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges			2.5				1.0				1.6				2.0				2.1
Balance Sheet Data:
Real estate investments before accumulated depreciation		$	4,417,746				4,259,990				4,425,895				4,367,191				3,870,629
Total assets			3,973,648				3,973,806				4,142,375				4,114,773				3,643,546
Total debt			2,094,469				1,886,380				2,135,571				2,007,975				1,575,386
Total liabilities			2,212,988				2,030,412				2,380,093				2,194,244				1,734,572
Partners’ capital			1,749,831				1,931,646				1,754,302				1,902,138				1,891,177
Noncontrolling interests			10,829				11,748				7,980				18,391				17,797

 

36

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Item 7.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Overview of Our Strategy

Regency Centers Corporation (the “Parent Company”) began its operations as a Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”) in 1993 and is the managing general partner in Regency Centers, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”). The term “the Company” or “Regency” means the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, collectively. Our key strategic goals are focused on producing superior results to our shareholders by achieving total shareholder returns in excess of REIT shopping center averages, and sustaining growth in our net asset value and our earnings over an extended period of time. We will achieve these goals through owning, operating, and investing in a high-quality portfolio of primarily grocery-anchored shopping centers that are tenanted by market-dominant grocers, category-leading anchors, specialty retailers, and restaurants located in areas with above average household incomes and population densities. All of our operating, investing, and financing activities are performed through the Operating Partnership, its wholly-owned subsidiaries, and through its investments in real estate partnerships with third parties (also referred to as co-investment partnerships or joint ventures). The Parent Company currently owns approximately 99.8% of the outstanding common partnership units of the Operating Partnership. Because of our structure and certain public debt financing, the Operating Partnership is also a registrant.

At December 31, 2010, we directly owned 215 shopping centers (the “Consolidated Properties”) located in 23 states representing 23.3 million square feet of gross leasable area (“GLA”). Our cost of these shopping centers and those under development is $4.0 billion before depreciation. Through co-investment partnerships, we own partial ownership interests in 181 shopping centers (the “Unconsolidated Properties”) located in 25 states and the District of Columbia representing 21.8 million square feet of GLA. Our investment in the partnerships that own the Unconsolidated Properties is $428.6 million. Certain portfolio information described below is presented (1) on a Combined Basis, which is a total of the Consolidated Properties and the Unconsolidated Properties, (2) for our Consolidated Properties only and (3) for the Unconsolidated Properties that we own through co-investment partnerships. We believe that presenting the information under these methods provides a more complete understanding of the properties that we wholly-own versus those that we indirectly own through entities we do not control, but for which we provide asset management, property management, leasing, investing, and financing services. The shopping center portfolio that we manage, on a Combined Basis, represents 396 shopping centers located in 28 states and the District of Columbia and contains 45.1 million square feet of GLA.

We earn revenues and generate cash flow by leasing space in our shopping centers to grocery stores, major retail anchors, side-shop retailers, and restaurants, including ground leasing or selling building pads (out-parcels) to these same types of tenants. Historically, we have experienced growth in revenues by increasing occupancy and rental rates in our existing shopping centers and by acquiring and developing new shopping centers. Our shopping centers generate substantial daily traffic by conveniently offering necessities and services. This high traffic should generate increased sales to our tenants, and attract new tenants to our shopping centers, thereby driving higher occupancy levels and rental-rate growth, which we expect will provide sustained growth in earnings per share and unit, and net asset value over the long term. Increasing occupancy in our shopping centers to historical levels and achieving positive rental rate growth are key objectives of our strategic plan.

We seek a range of strong national, regional, and local specialty retailers, for the same reason that we choose to anchor our centers with leading grocers and major retailers who provide a mix of goods and services that meet consumer needs. We have created a formal partnering process, the Premier Customer Initiative (“PCI”), to promote mutually beneficial relationships with our side-shop retailers. The objective of PCI is for us to build a base of non-anchor tenants who represent the “best-in-class” operators in their respective merchandising categories. Such retailers reinforce the consumer appeal and other strengths of a center’s anchor, help grow and stabilize a center’s occupancy, reduce re-leasing downtime, reduce tenant turnover, and yield higher sustainable rents.

At December 31, 2010, the operating shopping centers on a Combined Basis were 93.2% leased and unchanged from December 31, 2009. During the recession of 2009, we did experience occupancy declines in our

 

37

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

shopping centers; however, occupancy levels appear to have stabilized as the economy continues its recovery. We continue to produce higher levels of new leasing activity and fewer tenant defaults as compared to 2009, and move-outs of weaker tenants hurt by the recession appear to be on the decline. We did however continue to experience a decline in our rental rates. During 2010 and 2009, rental rates in the Combined portfolio declined -2.7% and -2.0%, respectively. We currently expect rental rates to decline moderately in isolated markets as we release vacant space, or renew expiring leases, where the previous tenant’s rental rates were above market.

We continue to closely monitor the operating performance and rent collections of all tenants in our shopping centers, especially those tenants operating retail formats that are experiencing significant changes in competition, business practice, and store closings in other locations. We expect these weaker tenants to continue moving out of our shopping centers during 2011, which will provide us the opportunity to release these vacancies to financially stronger vibrant tenants that will contribute to the overall success of our shopping centers.

We also continue to monitor tenants who have co-tenancy clauses in their lease agreements. These tenants are typically located in larger format community shopping centers that contain multiple anchor tenants whose leases contain these types of clauses. Co-tenancy clauses have several variants: they may allow a tenant to postpone a store opening if certain other tenants fail to open their store; they may allow a tenant the opportunity to close their store prior to lease expiration if another tenant closes their store prior to lease expiration; or more commonly, they may allow a tenant to pay reduced levels of rent until a certain number of tenants open their stores within the same shopping center. If economic weakness persists in geographic areas where we have centers that contain leases with these types of clauses, we could experience reductions in rent and occupancy related to tenants exercising their co-tenancy clauses.

We grow our shopping center portfolio through acquisitions of operating centers and new shopping center development. We will continue to use our unique combination of development capabilities, market presence, and anchor relationships to invest in value-added opportunities sourced from land owners and joint venture partners, the redevelopment of existing centers, and the development of land. Development is customer driven, meaning we generally have an executed lease from the anchor before we start construction. Developments serve the growth needs of our anchors and specialty retailers, resulting in modern shopping centers with long-term anchor leases that produce attractive returns on our invested capital. This development process typically requires three to five years from initial land or redevelopment acquisition through construction, lease-up, and stabilization of rental income, but can take longer depending upon tenant demand for new stores and the size of the project.

In the near term, fewer new store openings by retailers are resulting in reduced demand for new retail space. As a result, we scaled back our development program by decreasing the number of new projects started, phasing existing developments that lack retail demand, and decreasing overhead costs. Although our development program will continue to play an important part in our long term business strategy, new development projects will be rigorously evaluated in regard to the cost and availability of capital, visibility of tenant demand to achieve a stabilized occupancy, and sufficient investment returns.

We strive to cost effectively and opportunistically strengthen our balance sheet, which should allow us to access various sources of capital to fund our future commitments. We endeavor to continue improving our key financial ratios and to maintain a high percentage of unencumbered assets: 81.5% of our consolidated real estate assets at December 31, 2010 are unencumbered. Such assets allow us to access the secured and unsecured debt markets and to maintain significant availability on our $713.8 million unsecured line of credit (“The Line”) and revolving credit facility which had an outstanding balance of $10.0 million on the Line at December 31, 2010. Our debt to asset ratio (before the effect of accumulated depreciation), including our pro-rata share of the debt and assets of joint ventures is 48.4% at December 31, 2010, and is higher than our ratio at December 31, 2009 of 45.9%; however, our ratio could decline in 2011 if we settle the $246.0 million forward equity offering during 2011, discussed further below. Our coverage ratio including our pro-rata share of our partnerships was 2.1 times at December 31, 2010 and 2009. We define our coverage ratio as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) divided by the sum of the gross interest and scheduled mortgage principal paid to our

 

38

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

lenders plus dividends paid to our preferred stockholders. We plan to grow EBITDA through growth in net operating income by returning the occupancy percentages in our shopping centers back to historic levels and by acquiring or developing high quality shopping centers, which in combination with a conservative capital structure should favorably impact our coverage ratio on a long-term basis.

Capital recycling involves identifying non-strategic assets from our real estate portfolio and selling those in the open market; and reinvesting the sale proceeds into new higher quality developments and acquisitions that will generate sustainable revenue growth and attractive returns. To the extent that we are unable to generate capital in excess of our current commitments, we intend to reduce our new investment activity accordingly.

Co-investment partnerships provide us with a reliable capital source for shopping center acquisitions, as well as, the opportunity to earn fees for asset management, property management, and other investing and financing services. As asset manager, we are engaged by our partners to apply similar operating, investment and capital strategies to the portfolios owned by the co-investment partnerships as those applied to the portfolio that we wholly-own. Co-investment partnerships grow their shopping center investments through acquisitions from third parties or direct purchases from us. Although selling properties to co-investment partnerships reduces our direct ownership interest, it provides a source of capital that further strengthens our balance sheet while we continue to share, to the extent of our ownership interest, in the risks and rewards of shopping centers that meet our high quality standards and long-term investment strategy.

Our co-investment partnerships have significant levels of debt that mature through 2012 and are subject to significant borrowing risks if the capital markets again become unavailable as they were during the recession. While we have to date successfully refinanced our maturing loans, the U.S. economy although recovering, remains weak, and could hinder our ability to access capital, including access by our joint venture partners, or to obtain future financing to fund maturing debt. Currently, we believe that our joint venture partners have sufficient capital or access thereto for these future capital requirements. The impact to the Company or a co-investment partner defaulting on its share of a capital call is discussed below under “Liquidity and Capital Resources”.

Shopping Center Portfolio

The following table summarizes general information related to our shopping center portfolio, which we use to evaluate and monitor our performance:

 

		December 31, 2010				December 31, 2009
Number of Properties – Combined Basis (1)(4)			396				400
Number of Properties – Consolidated (2)(4)			215				216
Number of Properties – Unconsolidated (3)(4)			181				184
Properties in Development – Combined Basis (1)			26				40
Properties in Development – Consolidated (2)			25				39
Properties in Development – Unconsolidated (3)			1				1
Gross Leasable Area – Combined Basis (1)			45,076,652				44,971,962
Gross Leasable Area – Consolidated (2)			23,266,987				22,965,276
Gross Leasable Area – Unconsolidated (3)			21,809,665				22,006,686
% Leased – Combined Basis (1)(4)			92.6	%			92.1	%
% Leased – Consolidated Properties (2)(4)			91.6	%			91.0	%
% Leased – Unconsolidated Properties (3)(4)			93.6	%			93.2	%
% Leased – Operating Centers Only Combined Basis (1)			93.2	%			93.2	%
% Leased – Operating Centers Only Consolidated (2)			92.6	%			93.2	%
% Leased – Operating Centers Only Unconsolidated (3)			93.8	%			93.3	%

 

(1)	Combined Basis (includes properties owned by unconsolidated co-investment partnerships)

(2)	Consolidated Properties (excludes properties owned by unconsolidated co-investment partnerships)

 

39

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

(3)	Unconsolidated Properties (only properties owned by unconsolidated co-investment partnerships)

(4)	Includes Properties in Development

We seek to reduce our operating and leasing risks by diversifying our shopping center locations geographically, and through our tenant mix, as well as, owning a portion of our shopping centers through co-investment partnerships.

The following table summarizes our four largest tenants, each of which is a grocery tenant, occupying the shopping centers at December 31, 2010:

 

Grocery Anchor		Number of Stores (1)				Percentage  of Company- owned GLA (2)				Percentage  of Annualized Base Rent (2)
Kroger			54				7.3	%			4.4	%
Publix			56				6.9	%			4.4	%
Safeway			59				5.9	%			3.8	%
Super Valu			29				3.2	%			2.4	%

 

(1)	For the Combined Properties including stores owned by grocery anchors that are attached to our centers.

(2)	GLA and annualized base rent include the Consolidated Properties plus Regency’s pro-rata share of the Unconsolidated Properties (“Regency Pro-rata”).

The following table summarizes leasing activity in square feet (“SF”) for the year ended December 31, 2010 for the Combined Properties and Regency Pro-rata GLA (in thousands):

 

		Combined Properties  (1)				% of GLA				Regency Pro-rata  (2)				% of GLA
Leasing Activity:
New leases signed			1,903				4.2	%			1,357				4.5	%
Existing leases renewed			3,776				8.4	%			2,558				8.5	%
Total leasing activity			5,679				12.6	%			3,915				13.0	%
Leases moved out			(1,862	)			-4.1	%			(1,313	)			-4.4	%
New leases less moveouts			41				0.1	%			44				0.1	%
Rental Rate Growth %			-2.7	%							-1.8	%
Leases expiring in 2011			3,408				7.6	%			2,471				8.3	%
Leases expiring in 2012			5,056				11.2	%			3,544				11.8	%
Leases expiring in 2013			4,248				9.4	%			2,685				9.0	%

 

(1)	Combined Properties includes Consolidated Properties and Unconsolidated Properties.

(2)	Regency Pro-rata includes Consolidated Properties and Regency’s pro-rata share of the Unconsolidated Properties.

Although base rent is supported by long-term lease contracts, tenants who file bankruptcy are given the right to reject any or all of their leases and close related stores. In the event that a tenant with a significant number of leases in our shopping centers files bankruptcy and cancels its leases, we could experience a significant reduction in our revenues and tenant receivables. We are closely monitoring industry trends and sales data to help us identify declines in retail categories or tenants who might be experiencing financial difficulties as a result of slowing sales, lack of credit, changes in retail formats or increased competition. As a result of our findings, we may reduce new leasing, suspend leasing, or curtail the allowance for the construction of leasehold improvements within a certain retail category or to a specific retailer.

 

40

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

As of December 31, 2010, 56 video rental stores occupied our shopping centers on a Combined Basis and represent $4.7 million of annual base rent on a pro-rata basis. Blockbuster Video, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on September 23, 2010, represents the majority of our video rental leases with 52 stores and annual base rent of $4.4 million or 1.0% of our annualized base rent including our pro-rata share of 20 stores in the Unconsolidated Properties. As of December 31, 2010, Blockbuster has rejected 14 leases. Blockbuster has also provided formal notice that five additional stores will close in early 2011 and those respective leases will be rejected upon closing. We expect additional store closures and lease rejections as their bankruptcy continues.

Movie Gallery/Hollywood Video filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on February 2, 2010 and closed all of its stores in our shopping centers. The base rent loss associated with these store closings was insignificant to our 2010 annual base rent on a pro-rata basis.

During 2010, Fili’s Enterprises, Inc. doing business as Daphne’s Café, along with Swoozie’s, Pearl Arts, Trade Secret, Jennifer Convertibles, Urban Brands, A&P, and Loehmann’s, also filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Of these 19 leases, 11 have been assumed or assigned to a new entity and six have been rejected. The combined annual base rent on a pro-rata basis associated with these leases is insignificant to our annual base rent on a pro-rata basis.

We continuously monitor the financial condition of our tenants. We communicate often with those tenants who have announced store closings or filed bankruptcy. We are not currently aware of the pending bankruptcy or announced store closings of any tenants in our shopping centers beyond those described above that would individually cause a material reduction in our revenues, and no tenant represents more than 5% of our annual base rent on a pro-rata basis.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our Parent Company has no capital commitments other than its guarantees of the commitments of our Operating Partnership. The Parent Company will from time to time access the capital markets for the purpose of issuing new equity and will simultaneously contribute all of the offering proceeds to the Operating Partnership in exchange for additional partnership units. Any new debt is issued by our Operating Partnership or by our co-investment partnerships. Accordingly, the discussion below regarding liquidity and capital resources is presented on a consolidated basis for the Company. The following table summarizes net cash flows related to operating, investing, and financing activities of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009				2008
Net cash provided by operating activities		$	141,208				193,862				219,169
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities			(183,997	)			45,729				(105,775	)
Net cash used in financing activities			(34,228	)			(161,647	)			(110,529	)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents		$	(77,017	)			77,944				2,865

 

41

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

On December 31, 2010 our cash balance was $22.5 million. We operate our business such that we expect net cash provided by operating activities, before settlements of derivative instruments, in combination with proceeds generated from sales of development properties and land will provide the necessary funds to pay our scheduled mortgage loan principal payments, capital expenditures necessary to maintain our shopping centers, and distributions to our share and unit holders. The following table summarizes these amounts for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009				2008
Cash flow from operations		$	141,208				193,862				219,169
Settlements of derivative instruments			63,435				19,953				—
Gains on sales of developments and land			699				6,050				36,107
Total		$	205,342				219,865				255,276
Scheduled principal payments		$	5,024				5,214				4,806
Capital expenditures to maintain shopping centers			12,238				10,072				11,176
Distributions to share and unit holders			149,117				159,670				199,528
Total		$	166,379				174,956				215,510

Our dividend distribution policy is set by our Board of Directors and they continuously review our financial results. Our Board of Directors recently declared our quarterly dividend of $0.4625 per share, payable March 2, 2011 to stock and unit holders of record as of February 16, 2011. Our dividend has remained unchanged since May 2009. We plan to continue paying an aggregate amount of distributions to our stock and unit holders that at a minimum meet the requirements to continue qualifying as a REIT for Federal income tax purposes.

At December 31, 2010 commitments available to us under our Operating Partnership’s unsecured line of credit (the “Line”) and revolving credit facility totaled $713.8 million and our outstanding balance on the Line was $10.0 million. In February 2011, the $113.8 million revolving credit facility expired with no balance outstanding. The maturity date of the $600 million Line was extended one year to February 2012. We initiated discussions with our lenders to evaluate our Line requirements and we expect to complete and close on a new credit facility prior to the maturity date of the Line.

We currently estimate that we will require $455.8 million through 2013 primarily to repay $398.0 million of maturing debt (excluding scheduled principal payments), complete in-process developments, and to fund our pro-rata share of estimated capital contributions to our co-investment partnerships for repayment of debt. Included in these capital requirements are $374.1 million of unsecured public debt, as further described below under Notes Payable, which we intend to repay at maturity from the proceeds of new unsecured issues of debt or equity. To the extent that issuing unsecured debt is cost prohibitive or unavailable, we believe that we have sufficient unsecured assets available for secured mortgage financing whose proceeds could be used to repay the unsecured debt at maturity. When necessary, the Line is available to fund our capital needs. We will also receive estimated net proceeds of $217.8 million once we settle the 8.0 million common share forward equity offering (“Forward Equity Offering”), as further discussed below under Equity and Capital.

As part of our strategy, we will sell shopping centers that no longer meet our long-term investment criteria and invest those proceeds into higher quality shopping centers. During 2010, we sold three shopping centers for $36.3 million and reinvested the majority of the proceeds into two shopping centers with a combined purchase price of $82.0 million including the assumption of existing mortgage debt of $59.0 million.

On September 1, 2010, we acquired a shopping center for a purchase price of $18.0 million which included the assumption of $7.9 million in debt. Acquired lease intangible assets and acquired lease intangible liabilities of $1.5 million and approximately $562,000, respectively were recorded for this acquisition. The acquisition was accounted for as a purchase business combination and the results are included in the consolidated financial statements from the date of acquisition.

 

42

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

On December 15, 2010, we acquired a shopping center for a purchase price of $64.0 million which included the assumption of $51.1 million in debt, recorded net of a $1.6 million debt premium. Acquired lease intangible assets and acquired lease intangible liabilities of $9.2 million and $1.5 million, respectively were recorded for this acquisition. The acquisition was accounted for as a purchase business combination and the results are included in the consolidated financial statements from the date of acquisition.

At December 31, 2010 we had 26 development properties on a Combined Basis that were either under construction or in lease up, which when completed, will represent a net investment of $520.7 million after projected sales of adjacent land and out-parcels. This compares to 40 development properties at December 31, 2009 representing an investment of $820.7 million upon completion. We estimate that we will earn an average return on investment from our current development projects of 6.7% when completed and fully leased. Costs necessary to complete in-process development projects, net of reimbursements and projected land sales, are estimated to be $11.4 million.

At December 31, 2010, our joint ventures had $781.4 million of scheduled secured mortgage loans and credit lines maturing through 2013. On April 30, 2010 our joint venture with Global Retail Investors (“GRI”) prepaid, without penalty, $514.8 million of mortgage loans that would have matured in June and July 2010. Regency and GRI each contributed capital to the joint venture for their respective pro-rata share of the repayment. On June 2, 2010 our joint venture with GRI closed on $202.0 million of new ten year secured mortgage loans and distributed the proceeds to Regency and GRI in proportion to their ownership interests. A more detailed loan maturity schedule and further discussion about the repayment of maturing debt is included below under Notes Payable. We believe that our joint venture partners are financially sound and have sufficient capital or access thereto to fund future capital requirements. We communicate with our co-investment partners regularly regarding the operating and capital budgets of our co-investment partnerships, and believe that we will successfully complete the refinancing of our joint venture debt as it matures in the future. In the event that a co-investment partner was unable to fund its share of the capital requirements of the co-investment partnership, we would have the right, but not the obligation, to loan the defaulting partner the amount of its capital call at an interest rate at the lesser of prime plus a pre-defined spread or the maximum rate allowed by law. A decision to loan to a defaulting joint venture partner, which would be secured by the defaulting partner’s partnership interest, would be based on the fair value of the co-investment partnership assets, our joint venture partner’s financial health, and would be subject to an evaluation of our own capital commitments and sources to fund those commitments. Alternatively, should we determine that our joint venture partners will not have sufficient capital to meet future capital needs, we could trigger liquidation of the partnership. For the co-investment partnerships that have distribution-in-kind (“DIK”) provisions, and own multiple properties, a liquidation of the co-investment partnership could be completed by either a DIK of the properties to each joint venture partner in proportion to its partnership interest, open market sale, or a combination of both methods. Our co-investment partnership properties have been financed with non-recourse loans that represent 99% of the total debt of the co-investment partnerships including lines of credit as of December 31, 2010. We and our partners have no guarantees related to these loans. In those co-investment partnerships which have DIK provisions, if we trigger liquidation by distribution-in-kind, each partner would receive title to properties selected in a rotation process for distribution and would assume any related loans secured by the properties distributed. The loan agreements generally provide for assumption by either joint venture partner after obtaining any required lender consent. We would only be responsible for those loans we assume through the DIK and only to the extent of the value of the property we receive, since after assumption through the DIK the loans would remain non-recourse. We also have a 50% investment interest in a single asset joint venture with an $8.8 million loan which contains guarantees from each partner limited to their respective interest.

On June 2, 2010 we issued $150.0 million of 6.0% ten-year senior unsecured notes, and the net proceeds were used to repay the balance of the Line at that point in time. On October 7, 2010 we issued $250.0 million of 4.80% ten-year senior unsecured notes, and used $110.0 million to repay the balance of the Line. On October 29, 2010 we completed a tender offer for outstanding debt by purchasing $11.8 million of 7.95% unsecured notes maturing in January 2011, and $57.6 million of 6.75% unsecured notes maturing in January 2012. The proceeds

 

43

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

from the debt offering that remained after repayment of the Line and the completion of the tender offer were used to repay debts that matured in December 2010 and to fund other capital requirements.

Our preferred stock and preferred units, though callable by us, are not redeemable in cash at the option of the holders.

Although common or preferred equity raised in the public markets by the Parent Company is an option to fund future capital needs, access to these markets could be limited at times. When conditions for the issuance of securities are acceptable, we will evaluate issuing debt or equity to fund new acquisition opportunities, fund new developments, or repay maturing debt. At December 31, 2010, the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership each had existing shelf registration statements available for the issuance of new equity or debt securities.

Investments in Real Estate Partnerships

We account for certain investments in real estate partnerships using the equity method. We have determined that these investments are not variable interest entities and do not require consolidation under Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 810, and therefore are subject to the voting interest model in determining our basis of accounting. Major decisions, including leasing, property acquisitions not meeting pre-established investment criteria, dispositions, financings, annual budgets, and dissolution of the joint ventures are subject to the approval of all partners.

Recognition of gains from sales to co-investment partnerships is recorded on only that portion of the sales not attributable to our ownership interest unless there are certain provisions in the partnership agreement which allow the Company a unilateral right to initiate a DIK upon liquidation, as described further below under our Critical Accounting Policies and Note 1(b) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies in our Consolidated Financial Statements each included herein. The presence of such DIK provisions requires that we apply a more restrictive method of gain recognition (“Restricted Gain Method”) on sales of properties to these co-investment partnerships. This method considers our potential ability to receive property through a DIK on which partial gain has been recognized, and ensures maximum gain deferral upon sale to a co-investment partnership containing these unilateral DIK rights (“DIK-JV”). During 2010 and 2009, we did not sell any properties to a DIK-JV.

The operations and gains related to properties sold to our investments in real estate partnerships are not classified as discontinued operations because we continue to provide property management services to these shopping centers under market rate agreements with our co-investment partnerships. For those properties acquired by joint ventures from unrelated parties, we are required to contribute our pro-rata share of the purchase price based on our ownership interest in the co-investment partnerships.

At December 31, 2010, we had investments in real estate partnerships of $428.6 million. The following table is a summary of unconsolidated combined assets and liabilities of these co-investment partnerships and our pro-rata share (see note below) at December 31, 2010 and 2009 (dollars in thousands):

 

		2010				2009
Number of Joint Ventures			18				18
Regency’s Ownership			16.35%-50%				16.35%-50%
Number of Properties			181				184
Combined Assets		$	3,983,122			$	4,185,181
Combined Liabilities		$	2,262,476			$	2,644,948
Combined Equity		$	1,720,646			$	1,540,233
Regency’s Share of (1):
Assets		$	1,263,400			$	998,960
Liabilities		$	706,026			$	623,884

 

(1)	Pro-rata financial information is not, and is not intended to be, a presentation in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. However, management believes that providing such information

 

44

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

is useful to investors in assessing the impact of its investments in real estate partnership activities on the operations of Regency, which includes such items on a single line presentation under the equity method in its consolidated financial statements.

Investments in real estate partnerships are primarily composed of co-investment partnerships in which we currently invest with five co-investment partners and a real estate fund (“Regency Retail Partners” or the “Fund”), as further described below. In addition to recognizing our pro-rata share of net income or loss in each of these real estate partnerships, we receive market-based fees for asset management, property management, leasing, investment and financing services, which were $25.1 million, $29.1 million, and $31.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively. We also received fees for specific transactions of $2.6 million, $7.8 million, and $23.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively, which are further described below.

Our investments in real estate partnerships as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 consist of the following (in thousands):

 

		Ownership				2010				2009
GRI—Regency, LLC (GRIR)(1)			40.00	%		$	277,235				154,350
Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III, LLC (MCWR III)			24.95	%			63				351
Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO, LLC
(MCWR-DESCO)			16.35	%			20,050				24,374
Columbia Regency Retail Partners, LLC (Columbia I)			20.00	%			20,025				28,347
Columbia Regency Partners II, LLC (Columbia II)			20.00	%			9,815				11,202
Cameron Village, LLC (Cameron)			30.00	%			17,604				18,285
RegCal, LLC (RegCal)			25.00	%			15,340				12,863
Regency Retail Partners, LP (the Fund)			20.00	%			17,478				22,114
US Regency Retail I, LLC (USAA)			20.01	%			3,941				5,111
Other investments in real estate partnerships			50.00	%			47,041				49,215
Total						$	428,592				326,212

 

(1)	At December 31, 2009, the Company’s ownership interest in GRIR (formerly Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II, LLC) was 25.00%.

Investments in real estate partnerships are reported net of deferred gains of $51.4 million and $52.0 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Cumulative deferred gains related to each co-investment partnership are described below.

We co-invest with GRI, a joint venture between the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) and an affiliate of First Washington Realty, Inc. in one real estate partnership in which we have an ownership interest of 40%. During March 2010, an amendment was filed with the state of Delaware to change the name of the real estate partnership from Macquarie CountryWide – Regency II, LLC (“MCWR II”) to GRI – Regency, LLC (“GRIR”). Our investment in GRIR totals $277.2 million and represents 7.0% of our total assets at December 31, 2010.

On July 17, 2009, we announced that Charter Hall Retail REIT (“CHRR”), formerly Macquarie CountryWide, had agreed to sell a 60% partnership interest to GRI in two closings. The initial closing was completed on July 31, 2009, with GRI purchasing a 45% interest in the real estate partnership. At the initial closing we received a disposition fee of $7.8 million from CHRR equal to 1% of the gross sales price paid by GRI. As part of the closing, we acquired Macquarie-Regency Management, LLC’s (“US Manager”) 0.1% ownership of the real estate partnership. US Manager was owned 50/50 by us and an affiliate of Macquarie Bank Limited. The transaction increased our ownership to 25% from 24.95%.

 

45

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

As part of the original agreement with CHRR, we negotiated two separate options to acquire an additional 15% interest in the partnership. In November 2009, we exercised our two options with closing contingent upon obtaining lender consents. We funded the purchase price of $16.0 million on December 23, 2009, which was held in escrow and recorded in other assets in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2009. On March 30, 2010, we received lender consent and closed on our options increasing our ownership interest in the real estate partnership to 40%.

On April 30, 2010, GRIR repaid $514.8 million of mortgage debt, without penalty, in order to minimize its future refinancing and interest rate risks. We contributed capital of $206.7 million to GRIR for our pro-rata share of the repayment, which we funded from the Line and available cash balances. Simultaneously, GRI closed on the purchase of its remaining 15% interest from CHRR, increasing its total ownership interest in the real estate partnership to 60%. As a part of this transaction, we also received a disposition fee of $2.6 million equal to 1% of gross sales price paid by GRI. We have retained asset management, property management, and leasing responsibilities. On June 2, 2010, GRIR closed on $202.0 million of new ten year secured mortgage loans and we received $79.6 million as our pro-rata share of the loan proceeds. On September 1, 2010, an additional $47.2 million of mortgage debt was repaid and we contributed our pro-rata share.

As of December 31, 2010, GRIR owned 83 shopping centers, had total assets of $2.1 billion and a net loss of $15.1 million for the year ended, primarily related to provisions for impairment of $12.3 million recorded on one property that sold during 2010 and $23.9 million on seven properties that are expected to sell during the next three years. Effective January 1, 2010, the partnership agreement was amended to include a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we will apply the Restricted Gain Method for any properties sold to GRIR on or after January 1, 2010. During 2010, we did not sell any properties to GRIR. Since the inception of GRIR (formerly MCWR II), we recognized gains of $2.3 million on partial sales and deferred gains of approximately $766,000. During 2010, GRIR sold three shopping centers for $59.5 million and recognized a gain of $5.4 million.

We co-invest with CHRR as the only other partner in two co-investment partnerships, one in which we have an ownership interest of 24.95% (“MCWR III”) and one in which we have an ownership interest of 16.35% (“MCWR-DESCO”). Our investment in the two co-investment partnerships with CHRR totals $20.1 million and represents less than 1% of our total assets at December 31, 2010. At December 31, 2010, the CHRR joint ventures had total assets of $430.4 million and a net loss of $5.3 million for the year ended.

As of December 31, 2010, MCWR III owned four shopping centers, had total assets of $63.6 million, and a net loss of approximately $433,000 for the year ended. Effective January 1, 2010, the partnership agreement was amended to include a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we will apply the Restricted Gain Method for additional properties sold to MCWR III on or after January 1, 2010. During 2010, we did not sell any properties to MCWR III. Since the inception of MCWR III in 2005, we have recognized gain of $14.1 million on partial sales to MCWR III and deferred gains of $4.7 million.

As of December 31, 2010, MCWR-DESCO owned 32 shopping centers, had total assets of $366.8 million and recorded a net loss of $4.9 million for the year ended. Since the inception of MCWR-DESCO in 2007, we have not sold any properties to MCWR-DESCO. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require us to apply the Restricted Gain Method. In December 2010, the partners of MCWR-DESCO began negotiating the liquidation of the portfolio through DIK. If agreed to and executed by the partners, the liquidation could occur in 2011, whereby we would receive four shopping centers from MCWR-DESCO representing the distribution of our equity in the partnership on a pro-rata basis. As a result of the expected liquidation of the partnership, we reduced our investment in MCWR-DESCO to fair value and recorded a provision for impairment of $2.7 million at December 31, 2010 in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.

We co-invest with the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund (“OPERF”) in three co-investment partnerships, two of which we have ownership interests of 20% (“Columbia I” and “Columbia II”) and one in which we have an ownership interest of 30% (“Cameron”). Our investment in the three co-investment

 

46

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

partnerships with OPERF totals $47.4 million and represents 1.2% of our total assets at December 31, 2010. At December 31, 2010, the OPERF joint ventures had total assets of $686.2 million and net loss of $15.9 million for the year ended.

As of December 31, 2010, Columbia I owned 13 shopping centers, had total assets of $277.8 million and net loss of $14.9 million for the year ended, primarily related to a provision for impairment of $23.7 million on two properties it expects to sell in the next three years. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we have applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain that we recognize on property sales to Columbia. During 2010, we did not sell any properties to Columbia I. Since the inception of Columbia I in 2001, we have recognized gain of $2.0 million on partial sales to Columbia I and deferred gains of $4.3 million. During 2010, Columbia I sold one shopping center to a third party for $12.4 million and recognized a gain of $1.2 million.

As of December 31, 2010, Columbia II owned 16 shopping centers, had total assets of $302.4 million, and net loss of approximately $330,000 for the year ended, primarily related to a provision for impairment of approximately $857,000 on one property it expects to sell in the next three years. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we have applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain that we recognize on property sales to Columbia II. During 2010, we did not sell any properties to Columbia II. Since the inception of Columbia II in 2004, we have recognized gain of $9.1 million on partial sales to Columbia II and deferred gains of $15.7 million.

As of December 31, 2010, Cameron owned one shopping center, had total assets of $106.0 million, and a net loss of approximately $708,000 for the year ended. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require us to apply the Restricted Gain Method. Since the inception of Cameron in 2004, we have not sold any properties to Cameron.

We co-invest with the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (“CalSTRS”) in a joint venture (“RegCal”) in which we have a 25% ownership interest. Our investment in the co-investment partnership with CalSTRS totals $15.3 million and represents less than 1% of our total assets at December 31, 2010. As of December 31, 2010, RegCal owned eight shopping centers, had total assets of $183.5 million, and net income of approximately $858,000 for the year ended. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we have applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain that we recognize on property sales to RegCal. During 2010, we did not sell any properties to RegCal. Since the inception of RegCal in 2004, we have recognized gain of $10.1 million on partial sales to RegCal and deferred gains of $3.4 million. In March 2010, RegCal purchased one property from a third party for $12.9 million, net of assumed debt of $18.0 million, and we contributed $3.3 million for our proportionate share of the purchase price.

We co-invest with Regency Retail Partners (the “Fund”), a closed-end, finite life investment fund in which we have an ownership interest of 20%. Our investment in the Fund totals $17.5 million and represents less than 1% of our total assets at December 31, 2010. As of December 31, 2010, the Fund owned nine shopping centers, had total assets of $341.1 million, and recorded a net loss of $18.9 million for the year ended, primarily related to provisions for impairment of $18.1 million recorded on four properties that are expected to sell during the next three years. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require us to apply the Restricted Gain Method. During 2010, we did not sell any properties to the Fund. Since the inception of the Fund in 2006, we have recognized gains of $71.6 million on partial sales to the Fund and deferred gains of $17.9 million.

We co-invest with United Services Automobile Association (the “USAA partnership”) in which we have an ownership interest of 20.01%. Our investment in the USAA partnership totals $3.9 million and represents less than 1% of our total assets at December 31, 2010. As of December 31, 2010, the USAA partnership owned eight shopping centers, had total assets of $134.3 million, and recorded a net loss of approximately $441,000 for the year ended. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right for election to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain

 

47

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

recognized on property sales to the USAA partnership. During 2010, we did not sell any properties to the USAA partnership. Since the inception of the USAA partnership in 2009, we recognized gains of $19.4 million on partial sales to the USAA partnership and deferred gains of $8.0 million.

We co-invest in another nine joint ventures that own seven shopping centers and land (“other investments in real estate partnerships”) in which we have an ownership interest of 50% in each venture. Each venture is also owned 50% by one of three partners, two partners of which are also the grocery anchor tenants in the seven shopping centers owned by the various ventures. Our investment in these other investments in real estate partnerships totals $47.0 million and represents 1.2% of our total assets at December 31, 2010. As of December 31, 2010, the other investments in real estate partnerships had total combined assets of $130.4 million, and recorded combined net income of $3.2 million for the year ended.

Contractual Obligations

We have debt obligations related to our mortgage loans, unsecured notes, and our Unsecured credit facilities as described further below. We have shopping centers that are subject to non-cancelable long-term ground leases where a third party owns and has leased the underlying land to us to construct and/or operate a shopping center. In addition, we have non-cancelable operating leases pertaining to office space from which we conduct our business. The table excludes reserves for $2.9 million related to environmental remediation as discussed below under Environmental Matters as the timing of the remediation is not currently known. The table also excludes obligations related to construction or development contracts because payments are only due upon satisfactory performance under the contract.

The following table of Contractual Obligations summarizes our debt maturities including interest, (excluding recorded debt premiums or discounts that are not obligations), and our obligations under non-cancelable operating and ground leases as of December 31, 2010 including our pro-rata share of obligations within co-investment partnerships excluding interest (in thousands):

 

		Payments Due by Period
		2011				2012				2013				2014				2015				Beyond 5 years				Total
Notes Payable:
Regency (1)		$	303,818				303,736				116,093				261,241				463,869				1,263,574				2,712,331
Regency’s share of JV (2)			185,651				98,977				14,567				24,346				72,614				265,959				662,114
Operating Leases:
Regency			4,695				4,390				4,267				3,562				3,535				4,709				25,158
Regency’s share of JV			—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Ground Leases:
Regency			3,346				3,357				3,354				3,361				3,151				103,958				120,527
Regency’s share of JV			264				264				265				265				258				9,946				11,262
Total		$	497,774				410,724				138,546				292,775				543,427				1,648,146				3,531,392

 

(1)	Amounts include interest payments

(2)	Amounts exclude interest payments

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We do not have off-balance sheet arrangements, financings, or other relationships with other unconsolidated entities (other than our co-investment partnerships) or other persons, also known as variable interest entities not previously discussed.

 

48

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Notes Payable and Unsecured Credit Facilities

The Parent Company does not hold any indebtedness, but guarantees all of the unsecured public debt and less than 9% of the secured debt of the Operating Partnership.

Notes payable consist of mortgage loans secured by properties and unsecured public debt. Mortgage loans may be prepaid, but could be subject to yield maintenance premiums and are generally due in monthly installments of principal and interest or interest only, and mature over various terms through 2020. Interest on unsecured public debt is payable semi-annually and the debt matures over various terms through 2021. Fixed interest rates on mortgage loans range from 5.00% to 8.40% with a weighted average rate of 6.52%. As of December 31, 2010, we had two variable rate mortgage loans, one in the amount of $4.1 million with an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 380 basis points maturing on October 1, 2014 and one construction loan with a current balance of $7.1 million with a variable interest rate of LIBOR plus 300 basis points maturing on September 2, 2011.

At December 31, 2010, 99.0% of our total debt had fixed interest rates, compared with 99.7% at December 31, 2009. We intend to limit the percentage of variable interest rate debt to be no more than 30% of total debt, which we believe to be an acceptable risk. Currently, our variable rate debt represents 1.0% of our total debt.

On June 2, 2010, we completed the sale of $150.0 million of 6.0% ten-year senior unsecured notes. The notes are due June 15, 2020. Interest on the notes will be payable semiannually on June 15^th and December 15^th of each year. The net proceeds were used to repay the balance of the Line.

On October 7, 2010 we completed the sale of $250.0 million of 4.80% ten-year senior unsecured notes. The notes are due April 15, 2021. Interest on the notes will be payable semiannually on April 15^th and October 15^th of each year. A portion of the net proceeds were used to repay the $110.0 million balance on the Line and to fund the debt tender offer discussed below.

On October 29, 2010 we completed a tender offer for outstanding debt by purchasing $11.8 million of 7.95% unsecured notes maturing in January 2011, and $57.6 million of 6.75% unsecured notes maturing in January 2012. We recognized a $4.2 million expense for the early extinguishment of this debt.

We have a $600.0 million Line commitment under an agreement with Wells Fargo Bank and a syndicate of other banks that matures in February 2012. The Line has a current interest rate of LIBOR plus 55 basis points and an annual facility fee of 15 basis points subject to maintaining our corporate credit and senior unsecured ratings at BBB. The outstanding balance on the line was $10.0 million at December 31, 2010 and there was no outstanding balance at December 31, 2009. We initiated discussions with our lender to enter into a new Line commitment and term, and we expect to close on the new commitment prior to February 2012.

We had a $113.8 million revolving credit facility under an agreement with Wells Fargo Bank and a syndicate of other banks that matured in February 2011. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the revolving credit facility had a variable interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 100 basis points and an annual facility fee of 20 basis points subject to maintaining our corporate credit and senior unsecured ratings at BBB. There was no balance outstanding at December 31, 2010 or 2009, and we will not renew this facility.

The interest spread paid on the Line commitment and the revolving credit facility (collectively, “Unsecured credit facilities”), is dependent upon maintaining specific investment-grade ratings. We are also required to comply with certain financial covenants as defined in the Credit Agreement such as Minimum Net Worth, Ratio of Total Liabilities to Gross Asset Value (“GAV”) and Ratio of Recourse Secured Indebtedness to GAV, Ratio of Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization (“EBITDA”) to Fixed Charges, and other covenants customary with this type of unsecured financing. As of December 31, 2010, management believes we are in compliance with all financial covenants for the Unsecured credit facilities. The Unsecured credit facilities are used to finance the acquisition and development of real estate and for general working-capital purposes.

 

49

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

The fair value of our notes payable is estimated based on the current rates available to us for debt of the same terms and remaining maturities. Fixed rate loans assumed in connection with real estate acquisitions are recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements at fair value at the time of acquisition excluding those loans assumed in DIK liquidations. Based on the estimates used, the fair value of notes payable was $1.7 billion and $1.4 billion at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Total outstanding debt at December 31, 2010 and 2009 consists of the following (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009
Notes payable:
Fixed rate mortgage loans		$	402,151				398,820
Variable rate mortgage loans			11,189				5,596
Fixed rate unsecured loans			1,671,129				1,481,964
Total notes payable			2,084,469				1,886,380
Unsecured credit facilities			10,000				—
Total		$	2,094,469				1,886,380

As of December 31, 2010, scheduled principal repayments on notes payable were as follows (in thousands):

 

Scheduled Principal Payments by Year:		Scheduled Principal Payments				Mortgage Loan Maturities				Unsecured Maturities (1)				Total
2011		$	4,957				7,665				181,691				194,313
2012			5,267				—				202,377				207,644
2013			5,151				16,341				—				21,492
2014			4,515				21,076				150,000				175,591
2015			3,075				46,312				350,000				399,387
Beyond 5 Years			5,716				292,535				800,000				1,098,251
Unamortized debt discounts, net			—				730				(2,939	)			(2,209	)
Total		$	28,681				384,659				1,681,129				2,094,469

 

(1)	Includes unsecured public debt and unsecured credit facilities. The Line is included in 2012 maturities and matures in February 2012.

At December 31, 2010, our investments in real estate partnerships had notes payable of $2.1 billion maturing through 2028, of which 99.1% had weighted average fixed interest rates of 5.8%. The remaining notes payable had variable interest rates based on LIBOR plus a spread in a range of 73 to 270 basis points. Our pro-rata share of these loans was $663.1 million. We and our partners have no guarantees related to these loans except for an $8.8 million loan related to our 50% ownership interest in one single asset real estate partnership where we are only responsible for our pro-rata share of the loan. As of December 31, 2010, scheduled principal repayments on notes payable held by our investments in real estate partnerships were as follows (in thousands):

 

Scheduled Principal Payments by Year:		Scheduled Principal Payments				Mortgage Loan Maturities				Unsecured Maturities				Total				Regency’s Pro-Rata Share
2011		$	4,275				466,470				8,759				479,504				185,651
2012			6,489				244,418				11,046				261,953				98,977
2013			7,530				32,447				—				39,977				14,567
2014			7,714				77,304				—				85,018				24,346
2015			7,493				299,978				—				307,471				72,614
Beyond 5 Years			41,658				897,535				—				939,193				265,959
Unamortized debt premiums, net			—				4,579				—				4,579				942
Total		$	75,159				2,022,731				19,805				2,117,695				663,056

 

50

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

On April 30, 2010, GRIR prepaid $514.8 million of $562.0 million mortgage debt maturing in 2010, without penalty, in order to minimize its refinancing and interest rate risks. Regency and GRI each contributed their pro-rata share of the repayment as a capital contribution to GRIR. In June 2010, the joint venture executed 13 new mortgage loans representing $202.0 million with ten year terms and rates of 5.825%. The net proceeds were distributed to us and GRI in proportion to our ownership interests in GRIR. An additional $47.2 million of mortgage debt was repaid in September 2010, which also required pro-rata contributions from each joint venture partner.

GRIR recently locked the interest rate on $340.0 million of mortgage loan financings to be secured by 19 assets in the partnership to repay a portion of the partnership’s $430.4 million of secured debt maturing in 2011. The refinance includes a weighted average interest rate of 4.9% over a weighted average 11-year term and is interest-only for the first year. The closing is expected to occur in 2011 prior to the maturity dates of the loans. The GRIR partners intend to contribute their pro-rata share of the capital necessary to repay the balance of the 2011 maturities not repaid from the new loans.

Equity and Capital

We have issued common and preferred stock from the Parent Company and common and preferred units from the Operating Partnership to fund our capital commitments and to maintain a conservative capital structure as described below.

Equity of the Parent Company

The Series 3, 4, and 5 preferred shares are perpetual, are not convertible into common stock of the Parent Company, and are redeemable at par upon our election beginning five years after the issuance date. None of the terms of the preferred stock contain any unconditional obligations that would require us to redeem the securities at any time or for any purpose and we do not currently anticipate redeeming any preferred stock. Terms and conditions of the three series of preferred stock outstanding as of December 31, 2010 are summarized as follows:

 

Series		Shares Outstanding				Liquidation Preference				Distribution Rate				Callable By Company
Series 3			3,000,000			$	75,000,000				7.45	%			4/3/2008
Series 4			5,000,000				125,000,000				7.25	%			8/31/2009
Series 5			3,000,000				75,000,000				6.70	%			8/2/2010
			11,000,000			$	275,000,000

Common Stock

On December 9, 2009, the Parent Company completed a public offering of 8.0 million common shares at $30.75 per share in connection with forward sale agreements entered into with J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo Securities, which will result in estimated future net proceeds of $217.8 million, net of issuance costs, once the agreements are settled. We expect to settle the agreements by March 2011 unless we enter into an extension with the forward purchasers. The offering included an over-allotment option of 1.2 million shares, which closed simultaneously with the execution of the forward sale agreements, and provided proceeds of $34.9 million to us during 2010. We intend to use the proceeds from the settlement of the forward sale agreements to repay debt maturing in 2011 and outstanding balances on our line of credit.

On April 24, 2009, we completed a public offering of 10.0 million common shares at $32.50 per share resulting in proceeds of $310.9 million, net of issuance costs. The net proceeds were used to repay the balance of the Line and general working capital purposes.

 

51

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Noncontrolling Interests of Preferred Units

We have issued Preferred Units through the Operating Partnership in various amounts since 1998 primarily to institutional investors in private placements. Generally, the Preferred Units may be exchanged by the holders for Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock of the Parent Company after a specified date at an exchange rate of one share for one unit. The Preferred Units of the Operating Partnership and the related Preferred Stock of the Parent Company are not convertible into common stock of the Parent Company. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, only the Series D Preferred Units were outstanding with a face value of $50.0 million and a fixed distribution rate of 7.45%. These Units are callable by the Parent Company beginning September 29, 2009, and have no stated maturity or mandatory redemption. Included in the Series D Preferred Units are original issuance costs of approximately $842,000.

Noncontrolling Interest of Exchangeable Operating Partnerships Units

As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Operating Partnership had 177,164 and 468,211 limited Partnership Units outstanding that were not owned by the Parent Company, representing less than 1% of the outstanding Partnership Units of the Operating Partnership. The redemption value of the limited Partnership Units is based on the closing market price of the Parent Company’s common stock, which was $42.24 and $35.06 per share as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, an aggregate redemption value of $7.5 million and $16.4 million, respectively.

Noncontrolling Interests of Limited Partners’ Interests in Consolidated Partnerships

Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships not owned by us are classified as noncontrolling interests on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. Subject to certain conditions and pursuant to the conditions of the agreement, we have the right, but not the obligation, to purchase the other member’s interest or sell our own interest in these consolidated partnerships. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the noncontrolling interest in these consolidated partnerships was $10.8 million and $11.7 million, respectively.

Capital of the Operating Partnership

Preferred Units

The Series D Preferred Units are owned by institutional investors. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the face value of the Series D Preferred Units was $50.0 million with a fixed distribution rate of 7.45% and recorded in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets net of original issuance costs of approximately $842,000. See above for further discussion.

Preferred Units of General Partner

The Parent Company, as general partner, owns corresponding Series 3, 4, and 5 preferred unit interests (“Series 3, 4, and 5 Preferred Units”) in the Operating Partnership. See above for further discussion.

General Partner

As of December 31, 2010, the Parent Company, as general partner, owned approximately 99.8% or 81,886,872 of the total 82,064,036 Partnership Units outstanding.

Limited Partners

The Operating Partnership had 177,164 and 468,211 limited Partnership Units outstanding as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

 

52

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Noncontrolling Interests of Limited Partners’ Interests in Consolidated Partnerships

See above for further discussion.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Knowledge about our accounting policies is necessary for a complete understanding of our financial statements. The preparation of our financial statements requires that we make certain estimates that impact the balance of assets and liabilities at a financial statement date and the reported amount of income and expenses during a financial reporting period. These accounting estimates are based upon, but not limited to, our judgments about historical results, current economic activity, and industry accounting standards. They are considered to be critical because of their significance to the financial statements and the possibility that future events may differ from those judgments, or that the use of different assumptions could result in materially different estimates. We review these estimates on a periodic basis to ensure reasonableness; however, the amounts we may ultimately realize could differ from such estimates.

Revenue Recognition and Accounts Receivable – Accounts receivable represent revenues recognized in our financial statements, and include base rent, percentage rent, and expense recoveries from tenants for common area maintenance costs, insurance and real estate taxes. We analyze tenant receivables, historical bad debt levels, customer credit-worthiness and current economic trends when evaluating the adequacy of our allowance for doubtful accounts. Our reported net income (loss) is directly affected by our estimate of the recoverability of accounts receivable.

Recognition of Gains from the Sales of Real Estate – Profits from sales of real estate are recognized under the full accrual method by us when a sale is consummated; the buyer’s initial and continuing investment is adequate to demonstrate a commitment to pay for the property; a receivable, if applicable, is not subject to future subordination; we have transferred to the buyer the usual risks and rewards of ownership; and we do not have substantial continuing involvement with the property. We sell shopping center properties to joint ventures in exchange for cash equal to the fair value of the percentage interest acquired by our partners. We have accounted for those sales as “partial sales” and recognized gains on those partial sales in the period the properties were sold to the extent of the percentage interest sold, and in the case of certain joint venture partnerships, we apply a more restrictive method of recognizing gains as discussed below. The gains and operations associated with properties sold to these joint venture partnerships are not classified as discontinued operations because we continue to partially own and manage these shopping centers. Certain DIK-JVs give either partner the unilateral right to elect to dissolve the joint venture partnership and, upon such an election, receive a distribution in-kind of the assets of the joint venture partnership equal to its respective ownership interests. We have concluded that these DIK dissolution provisions constitute in-substance call/put options, and represent a form of continuing involvement with respect to property that we sold to these joint venture partnerships, limiting our recognition of gain related to the partial sale. This more restrictive method of gain recognition, the Restricted Gain Method, considers our potential ability to receive property through a DIK on which partial gain has been recognized, and ensures, maximum gain deferral upon sale to a DIK-JV. We have applied the Restricted Gain Method to partial sales of property to joint venture partnerships that contain such unilateral DIK provisions.

Capitalization of Costs – We capitalize the acquisition of land, the construction of buildings and other specifically identifiable development costs incurred by recording them into properties in development in our accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. In summary, a project changes from non-operating to operating when it is substantially completed and held available for occupancy. At that time, costs are no longer capitalized. Other development costs include pre-development costs essential to the development of the property, as well as, interest, real estate taxes, and direct employee costs incurred during the development period. Pre-development

 

53

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

costs are incurred prior to land acquisition during the due diligence phase and include contract deposits, legal, engineering, and other professional fees related to evaluating the feasibility of developing a shopping center. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, we had capitalized pre-development costs of approximately $899,000 and $816,000, respectively, of which approximately $840,000 and $325,000, respectively, were refundable contract deposits. If we determine that the development of a specific project undergoing due diligence is no longer probable, we immediately expense all related capitalized pre-development costs not considered recoverable. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, we expensed pre-development costs of approximately $520,000, $3.8 million, and $15.5 million, respectively, recorded in other expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. Interest costs are capitalized into each development project based on applying our weighted average borrowing rate to that portion of the actual development costs expended. We cease interest cost capitalization when the property is no longer being developed or is available for occupancy upon substantial completion of tenant improvements, but in no event would we capitalize interest on the project beyond 12 months after substantial completion of the building shell. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, we capitalized interest of $5.1 million, $19.1 million, and $36.5 million, respectively, on our development projects. We have a staff of employees who directly support our development program. All direct internal costs attributable to these development activities are capitalized as part of each development project. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, we capitalized $2.7 million, $6.5 million, and $27.8 million, respectively, of direct costs incurred to support our development program. The capitalization of costs is directly related to the actual level of development activity occurring. If accounting standards issued in the future were to limit the amount of internal costs that may be capitalized we could incur additional increases in general and administrative expenses which would further reduce net income.

Real Estate Acquisitions – Upon acquisition of operating real estate properties, we estimate the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, building and improvements), and identify intangible assets and liabilities (consisting of above- and below-market leases, in-place leases and tenant relationships) and assumed debt. Based on these estimates, we assign the purchase price to the applicable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, and any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree. We utilize methods similar to those used by independent appraisers in estimating the fair value of acquired assets and liabilities. We evaluate the useful lives of amortizable intangible assets each reporting period and account for any changes in estimated useful lives over the revised remaining useful life. We expense transaction costs associated with business combinations in the period incurred.

Valuation of Real Estate Investments – Our long-lived assets, primarily real estate held for investment, are carried at cost unless circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. We review long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate such an evaluation is warranted. In addition, we perform an annual review to re-evaluate market-based capitalization rates, estimated holding periods, expected future operating income, trends and prospects, the effects of demand, competition and other factors. If we determine that the carrying amount of a property is not recoverable, we write down the asset to fair value. For properties to be “held and used” for long term investment, to determine recoverability, we estimate undiscounted future cash flows over the expected investment term including the estimated future value of the asset upon sale at the end of the investment period. Future value is generally determined by applying a market-based capitalization rate to the estimated future net operating income in the final year of the expected investment term. If the estimated undiscounted cash flows used in the recoverability test are less than the long-lived asset’s carrying amount, management then determines the fair value of the long-lived asset and if the carrying amount of the long-lived asset exceeds its fair value, an impairment loss is recognized equal to the excess of carrying value over fair value. Fair value is determined through comparable sales information and other market data if available, or through use of an income approach such as the direct capitalization method or the traditional discounted cash flow approach. For properties “held for sale”, we estimate current market resale values through appraisal less expected costs to sell. A loss in value of an investment under the equity method of accounting, which is other than a temporary decline, must be recognized in the period in which the loss occurs. In the case of our investments in unconsolidated real estate partnerships, we calculate the present value of our investment by discounting estimated future cash flows over the expected term of the investment. Fair value can

 

54

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

fluctuate as a result of a number of factors, including changes in the general economy of those markets in which we operate, our estimated holding period of the property, tenant credit quality, and demand for new retail stores. If as a result of a change in our strategy for a specific property which we own directly or through our co-investment partnerships, a property previously classified as held and used is changed to held for sale, or if its estimated holding period changes, such change could cause us to determine that the property is impaired and a provision for impairment in relation to that property would be recorded by us either directly or through a reduction of our equity in income of real estate partnerships.

Discontinued Operations – The application of current accounting principles that govern the classification of any of our properties as held-for-sale on the balance sheet, or the presentation of results of operations and gains on the sale of these properties as discontinued, requires management to make certain significant judgments. We classify an operating property or a property in development as held-for-sale when we determine that the property is available for immediate sale in its present condition, the property is being actively marketed for sale, and management believes it is probable that a sale will be consummated within one year. Given the nature of real estate sales contracts, it is not unusual for such contracts to allow a contractual buyer a due diligence period to evaluate the property with the right to cancel the contract without any financial loss. In addition, certain other matters critical to the final sale, such as financing arrangements often remain pending even upon contract acceptance. As a result, properties under contract may not close within the expected time period, or may not close at all. Therefore, any properties categorized as held-for-sale represent only those properties that management has determined are likely to close within the requirements set forth above. In order to determine if the results of operations and gain on sale should be reflected as discontinued operations, prior to the sale, we evaluate the extent of our involvement and significance of cash flows the sale will have on a property after the sale. Any property sold in which we have significant continuing involvement or cash flows (most often sales to co-investment partnerships in which we continue to manage the property) is not considered to be discontinued. In addition, any property which we sell to an unrelated third party, but which we retain a property management function, is not considered discontinued. Therefore, only properties sold, or to be sold, to unrelated third parties, where we will have no significant continuing involvement or significant cash flows are classified as discontinued and their operations, including any mortgage interest and gain on sale, are reported in discontinued operations so that the operations are clearly distinguished. Prior periods are also reclassified to reflect the operations of these properties as discontinued operations. When we sell operating properties to our joint ventures or to third parties, and will have continuing involvement, the operations and gains on sales are included in income from continuing operations. If circumstances arise that previously were considered unlikely and, as a result, we decide not to sell a property previously classified as held for sale, the property is reclassified as held and used and is measured individually at the lower of its (i) carrying amount before the property was classified as held for sale, adjusted for any depreciation and amortization expense that would have been recognized had the property been continuously classified as held and used or (ii) the fair value at the date of the subsequent decision not to sell. Any required adjustment to the carrying amount of the property reclassified as held and used is included in income from continuing operations in the period of the subsequent decision not to sell. If a property is reclassified as held and used, the results of operations of the property previously reported in discontinued operations are reclassified and included in income from continuing operations for all periods presented.

Investments in Real Estate Partnerships – In addition to owning real estate directly, we invest in real estate through our co-investment partnerships. As asset and property manager, we conduct the business of the Unconsolidated Properties held in the co-investment partnerships in the same way that we conduct the business of the Consolidated Properties that are wholly-owned; therefore, the Critical Accounting Policies as described are also applicable to our investments in the real estate partnerships. We account for all investments in which we do not have a controlling financial ownership interest using the equity method. We have determined that these investments are not variable interest entities and do not require consolidation, and therefore, are subject to the voting interest model in determining our basis of accounting. Decisions, including property acquisitions and dispositions, financings, certain leasing arrangements, annual budgets and dissolution of the joint ventures are subject to the approval of all partners, or in the case of the Fund, its advisory committee.

 

55

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Income Tax Status – The Parent Company believes it qualifies, and intends to continue to qualify, as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). The Parent Company is required to meet certain income and asset tests on a periodic basis to ensure that it continues to qualify as a REIT. As a REIT, the Parent Company is allowed to reduce taxable income by all or a portion of its distributions to shareholders. We evaluate the transactions that we enter into and determine their impact on our REIT status. projects. We have a staff of employees who directly support our development program. All direct internal costs attributable to these development activities are capitalized as part of each development project. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, we capitalized $2.7 million, $6.5 million, and $27.8 million, respectively, of direct costs incurred to support our development program. The capitalization of costs is directly related to the actual level of development activity occurring. If accounting standards issued in the future were to limit the amount of internal costs that may be capitalized we could incur additional increases in general and administrative expenses which would further reduce net income.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In January 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2010-06, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (820) – Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements” (“ASU 2010-06”). ASU 2010-06 provides amendments to Subtopic 820-10 and requires new disclosures for transfers in and out of Levels 1 and 2 and activity in Level 3 fair value measurements. ASU 2010-06 also clarifies existing disclosure requirements for the level of disaggregation for each class of assets and liabilities and for the inputs and valuation techniques used to measure fair value. ASU 2010-06 is effective for financial statements issued for interim and annual periods ending after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements in the roll forward of activity in Level 3 fair value measurements which is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2010, and for interim periods within those fiscal years. We adopted this ASU on December 31, 2009.

In December 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-17 “Improvements to Financial Reporting by Enterprises Involved with Variable Interest Entities” (“ASU 2009-17”). ASU 2009-17 was issued to reflect the amendments from Statement 167 “Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R)” as a revision to FASB Interpretation No. 46 (Revised December 2003), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities”. ASU 2009-17 changes how a reporting entity determines when an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or is not controlled through voting (or similar rights) should be consolidated. The determination of whether a reporting entity is required to consolidate another entity is based on, among other things, the other entity’s purpose and design and the reporting entity’s ability to direct the activities of the other entity that most significantly impact the other entity’s economic performance. ASU 2009-17 was effective January 1, 2010 and early application is not permitted. We have evaluated the adoption of this ASU and it has no effect on our results of operations or financial position, as we do not currently have any variable interests that we believe would require consolidation.

Results from Operations – 2010 vs. 2009

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2010 to 2009:

At December 31, 2010, on a Combined Basis, we were operating or developing 396 shopping centers, as compared to 400 shopping centers at December 31, 2009. We identify our shopping centers as either properties in development or operating properties. Properties in development are defined as properties that are in the construction or lease-up process and have not reached their initial full occupancy. A development property becomes an operating property at the earlier to occur of attaining 95% leased and rent paying or four years from the start of site work, regardless of the percentage leased. At December 31, 2010, on a Combined Basis, we had 26 development properties, as compared to 40 properties at December 31, 2009.

 

56

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Our revenues decreased by $1.3 million or 0.3% to $486.8 million in 2010, as summarized in the following table (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009				Change
Minimum rent		$	347,122				344,709				2,413
Percentage rent			2,540				3,585				(1,045	)
Recoveries from tenants and other income			107,744				101,490				6,254
Management, transaction, and other fees			29,400				38,289				(8,889	)
Total revenues		$	486,806				488,073				(1,267	)

Generally, leased percentages were unchanged between 2010 and 2009; however, the percent leased of a development property may not reflect rent paying occupancy if a tenant’s space is under construction for a portion of the year and not yet rent paying. Therefore, increase in minimum rent was related primarily to tenants opening new stores in our development properties during 2010, or operating for a full 12 months during 2010, as compared to 2009. Declines in percentage rent were a result of the change in percentage rent lease terms due to the increase in minimum rent for certain leases, upon their renewal. The increase in recoveries from tenants and other income resulted from a significant increase in termination fees received during 2010 related to weak tenant operators negotiating an early end to their lease agreements, as well as, higher operating and real estate tax expenses. The decrease in management, transaction, and other fees relates primarily to a $7.8 million disposition fee we received from CHRR in 2009 equal to 1% of the gross sales price paid by GRI described below.

We earn fees, at market-based rates, for asset management, disposition, property management, leasing, acquisition, and financing services that we provide to our co-investment partnerships and third parties as follows (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009				Change
Asset management fees		$	6,695				9,671				(2,976	)
Property management fees			15,599				15,031				568
Transaction fees			2,594				7,781				(5,187	)
Leasing commissions and other fees			4,512				5,806				(1,294	)
		$	29,400				38,289				(8,889	)

Asset management fees, which are tied to the value of the real estate we manage for our co-investment partners, decreased in 2010 due to an overall decline in commercial real estate values, but was also a result of the liquidation of a joint venture with Macquarie Countrywide that occurred in 2009, as well as, our increased ownership and revised agreements in the GRIR joint venture, which resulted in lower fees paid to us by our partner. Property management fees are based on net operating income and increased as a result of the increase in base rent. Transaction fees decreased primarily as a result of the $7.8 million disposition fee we received from CHRR in 2009. Leasing commissions decreased as a result of our increased ownership in the GRIR joint venture, which resulted in a reduction of fee recognized.

Our operating expenses increased by $4.5 million or 1.5% to $311.6 million in 2010. The following table summarizes our operating expenses (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009				Change
Operating, maintenance and real estate taxes		$	125,131				119,585				5,546
General and administrative			56,324				54,136				2,188
Depreciation and amortization			123,731				116,456				7,275
Provision for doubtful accounts			3,941				8,677				(4,736	)
Other expenses			2,495				8,284				(5,789	)
Total operating expenses		$	311,622				307,138				4,484

 

57

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Increases in operating, maintenance, and real estate taxes along with depreciation and amortization expense are primarily related to the recently completed developments commencing operations in the current year and general increases in expenses incurred by the operating properties. The majority of these cost increases are recoverable from our tenants and included in our revenues. General and administrative expense increased $2.2 million as a result of higher levels of compensation earned in 2010 for higher levels of performance as compared to 2009. The provision for doubtful accounts decreased $4.7 million in 2010 as compared to 2009 directly related to significantly improved tenant collection rates and fewer tenant defaults; continued evidence of the recovering U.S. economy. The decrease in other expenses is due to a $1.3 million tax benefit incurred in 2010, as compared to tax expense of $1.8 million incurred in 2009, as well as a reduction in pre-development costs written off as a result of pursuing less new development activity during 2010.

The following table presents the change in interest expense (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009				Change
Interest on Unsecured credit facilities		$	1,430				5,985				(4,555	)
Interest on notes payable			125,788				123,778				2,010
Capitalized interest			(5,099	)			(19,062	)			13,963
Hedge interest			5,576				2,305				3,271
Interest income			(2,408	)			(3,767	)			1,359
		$	125,287				109,239				16,048

Interest on Unsecured credit facilities decreased by $4.6 million as a result of lower outstanding balances during 2010 as compared to 2009. Capitalized interest decreased as a result of a reduced development activity as compared to 2009, and a higher level of shopping center completions during 2010.

During 2010, we sold eleven out-parcels for net proceeds of $11.8 million and recognized a gain of approximately $661,000, as compared to 2009 where we sold 18 out-parcels for net proceeds of $27.8 million and recognized a gain of approximately $219,000. During 2010, we recognized approximately $332,000 in contingent gains related to three properties sold to the USAA partnership during 2009. During 2009, we sold eight operating properties to the USAA partnership for net proceeds of $103.3 million and recognized gains of $19.1 million recorded under the Restricted Gain Method.

In 2010, we recorded a provision for impairment of $26.6 million, which was a decrease of $70.9 million from the impairment provision recorded in 2009. The impairment provision recorded in 2010 was a result of identifying properties that had been previously considered held for long term investment and determining that they no longer met our long term investment strategy. As a result of this re-evaluation, we changed our expected investment holding period and reduced our carrying value to estimated fair value. During 2009, we recorded a provision for impairment of $104.4 million, of which $93.7 million related to land held for future development or sale. During 2009, a prospective anchor tenant for several development sites expressed considerable uncertainty about the timing and location of future stores given the recession occurring during that period. As a result, we reevaluated and reduced the probability of future development at these sites and accordingly reduced our carrying value in the land parcels to estimated fair value of the land. Included in the impairment provision recorded during 2009 were operating properties that were subjected to the same investment criteria evaluation that we applied during 2010, and we accordingly reduced our carrying value on those properties to estimated fair value based upon a change in expected holding periods. If we sell a property or classify a property as held-for-sale, we are required to reclassify its operations into discontinued operations for all prior periods which results in a reclassification of amounts previously reported as continuing operations into discontinued operations. All of the $26.6 million provision was recorded in continuing operations for the year ended December 31, 2010 and of the $104.4 million provision recorded during the year ended December 31, 2009, $6.9 million was reclassified into discontinued operations.

 

58

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Our equity in loss of investments in real estate partnerships was $13.5 million less during 2010, as compared to 2009 as follows (in thousands):

 

		Ownership				2010				2009				Change
Macquarie CountryWide-Regency (MCWR I) (1)			—			$	—				1,207				(1,207	)
GRI—Regency, LLC (GRIR) (2)			40.00	%			(6,672	)			(28,308	)			21,636
Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III, LLC (MCWR III)			24.95	%			(108	)			150				(258	)
Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO, LLC (MCWR-DESCO)			16.35	%			(817	)			(883	)			66
Columbia Regency Retail Partners, LLC (Columbia I)			20.00	%			(2,970	)			914				(3,884	)
Columbia Regency Partners II, LLC (Columbia II)			20.00	%			(69	)			28				(97	)
Cameron Village, LLC (Cameron)			30.00	%			(221	)			(436	)			215
RegCal, LLC (RegCal)			25.00	%			194				123				71
Regency Retail Partners, LP (the Fund)			20.00	%			(3,565	)			(464	)			(3,101	)
US Regency Retail I, LLC (USAA)			20.01	%			(88	)			(6	)			(82	)
Other investments in real estate partnerships			50.00	%			1,432				1,302				130
Total						$	(12,884	)			(26,373	)			13,489

 

(1)	At December 31, 2008, our ownership interest in MCWR I was 25%. The liquidation of MCWR I was complete December 31, 2009.

(2)	At December 31, 2009, our ownership interest in GRIR (formerly Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II, LLC) was 25%.

The change in our equity in loss of investments in real estate partnerships is primarily related to increasing our ownership interest in GRIR effective January 1, 2010 to 40% from our 24.95% ownership interest in 2009, combined with similar positive trends that we experienced in the Consolidated properties as they relate to increases in base rent, reductions in provisions for doubtful accounts, higher termination fees and lower provisions for impairment. During 2010, our pro-rata share of the impairment reserves recorded in the real estate partnerships was $23.0 million as compared to $26.1 million in 2009. During 2009, impairment provisions were primarily incurred and recorded by GRIR; however, during 2010, impairment provisions, which were significantly lower in GRIR and contributed to GRIR’s reduction in equity loss, were higher in Columbia I and the Fund, which contributed to the equity losses reported by these two partnerships in 2010.

Income from discontinued operations was $7.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to $6.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. Income from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2010 includes the sale of two operating properties and one property in development for combined net proceeds of $34.9 million and gains of $7.6 million, net of taxes, and the operations of shopping centers sold or classified as held-for sale in 2010 and 2009. Income from discontinued operations for the year ended December 1, 2009 includes the sale of one operating property and four properties in development for combined net proceeds of $49.3 million and gains of $5.8 million and the operations of shopping centers sold or classified as held for sale in 2010 and 2009. If we sell a property or classify a property as held-for-sale, we are required to reclassify its operations into discontinued operations for all prior periods which results in a reclassification of amounts previously reported as continuing operations into discontinued operations.

Related to our Parent Company’s results, our net loss attributable to common stockholders for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $7.7 million, an increase in net income of $48.7 million as compared with the net loss of $56.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. The higher net income was primarily related to a lower provision for impairment recorded during 2010 as compared to 2009, moderate improvement in our operating fundamentals impacting base rent, but partially offset by lower gains realized in 2010 on sales of operating properties, and higher interest expense. Our diluted net loss per share was $0.10 in 2010 as compared to diluted net loss per share of $0.74 in 2009.

 

59

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Related to our Operating Partnership results, our net loss attributable to common unit holders for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $7.6 million, an increase in net income of $49.0 million as compared with the net loss of $56.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 for the same reasons stated above. Our diluted net loss per unit was $0.10 for the year ended December 31, 2010 as compared to net loss per unit of $0.74 for the year ended December 31, 2009.

Results from Operations – 2009 vs. 2008

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2009 to 2008:

At December 31, 2009, on a Combined Basis, we were operating or developing 400 shopping centers, as compared to 440 shopping centers at December 31, 2008. The decrease in properties is related to the liquidation of the assets of MCWR I where the properties were distributed through a DIK to MCW and Regency, and in which we received six properties. At December 31, 2009, on a Combined Basis, we had 40 development properties, as compared to 45 properties at December 31, 2008.

Our revenues decreased by $6.9 million to $488.1 million in 2009, as summarized in the following table (in thousands):

 

		2009				2008				Change
Minimum rent		$	344,709				333,659				11,050
Percentage rent			3,585				4,258				(673	)
Recoveries from tenants and other income			101,490				100,985				505
Management, transaction, and other fees			38,289				56,032				(17,743	)
Total revenues		$	488,073				494,934				(6,861	)

Our decline in revenues was related to a one-time transaction fee earned and recognized in 2008, which is more fully described in the fee table and discussion below. The increase in minimum rent related primarily to new properties distributed to us as part of the MCWR I DIK liquidation and new rent generated by the development properties.

We earn fees, at market-based rates, for asset management, disposition, property management, leasing, acquisition, and financing services that we provide to our co-investment partnerships and third parties as follows (in thousands):

 

		2009				2008				Change
Asset management fees		$	9,671				11,673				(2,002	)
Property management fees			15,031				16,132				(1,101	)
Transaction fees			7,781				25,155				(17,374	)
Leasing commissions and other fees			5,806				3,072				2,734
		$	38,289				56,032				(17,743	)

Asset management fees, which are tied to the value of the real estate we manage for our co-investment partners, decreased in 2009 due to an overall decline in commercial real estate values, as well as, a reduction in the number of joint venture partnership properties we manage as a result of the DIK liquidation of MCWR I. Transaction fees decreased as a result of the $19.7 million Portfolio Incentive Return Fee earned and recognized in 2008, and not recurring in 2009.

 

60

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Our operating expenses increased by $30.0 million or 10.8% to $307.1 million in 2009. The following table summarizes our operating expenses (in thousands):

 

		2009				2008				Change
Operating, maintenance and real estate taxes		$	119,585				107,487				12,098
General and administrative			54,136				49,495				4,641
Depreciation and amortization			116,456				104,159				12,297
Provision for doubtful accounts			8,677				1,130				7,547
Other expenses			8,284				14,824				(6,540	)
Total operating expenses		$	307,138				277,095				30,043

Increases in operating, maintenance, and real estate taxes along with depreciation and amortization expense were primarily related to six properties distributed to us as part of the MCWR I DIK liquidation during 2009 not included in the 2008 amounts, completed developments that commenced operations in 2009, and general increases in expenses incurred by the operating properties. General and administrative expense was 9.4% higher in 2009 primarily related to $7.5 million in severance and benefit payments associated with two reductions in force completed during 2009, offset by reduction in incentive compensation for not achieving targeted performance levels. During 2009, we increased the provision for doubtful accounts to reserve for past due amounts reflecting a significantly higher tenant default rate on rental payments as tenants struggled during the recession of 2009. The decrease in other expenses was due to a reduction in pre-development costs written off as a result of pursuing less new development activity.

The following table presents the change in interest expense (in thousands):

 

		2009				2008				Change
Interest on Unsecured credit facilities		$	5,985				12,655				(6,670	)
Interest on notes payable			123,778				120,029				3,749
Capitalized interest			(19,062	)			(36,510	)			17,448
Hedge interest			2,305				1,306				999
Interest income			(3,767	)			(4,696	)			929
		$	109,239				92,784				16,455

Interest on Unsecured credit facilities decreased by $6.7 million as a result of lower average outstanding balances on our credit facilities in 2009 as compared to 2008. At December 31, 2009, the balance of our Line was zero, we had repaid the term loan portion of our unsecured Term Facility, and we completed a partial tender offer of outstanding unsecured debt. Interest on notes payable increased as a result of issuing $106.0 million secured mortgage loans in addition to four mortgage loans assumed as part of the MCWR I DIK liquidation. Capitalized interest decreased as in-process developments were completed during 2009 and new development activity declined.

During 2009, we sold 18 out-parcels for net proceeds of $27.8 million and recognized a gain of approximately $219,000, whereas during 2008, we sold 12 out-parcels for net proceeds of $38.2 million and recognized a gain of $5.3 million. During 2008, we also recognized a $1.2 million gain on two out-parcels originally deferred at the time of sale. During 2009, we also sold eight operating properties to the USAA partnership for net proceeds of $103.3 million and recognized gains of $19.1 million recorded under the Restricted Gain Method. During 2008, we sold four properties to several joint ventures for net proceeds of $110.5 million and recognized gains of $13.8 million recorded under the Restricted Gain Method.

During the year ended December 31, 2009, we recorded a provision for impairment of $104.4 million, of which $93.7 million related to land held for future development or sale. During 2009, a prospective anchor tenant for several development sites expressed considerable uncertainty about the timing and location of future stores given the continuation of the weak economy and reductions in consumer spending. As a result, we re-evaluated and reduced the probability of future development at these sites and accordingly reduced our carrying value in

 

61

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

the land parcels to estimated fair value. Included in the impairment loss was a $10.2 million provision related to operating properties that became targeted for sale in the near future, which caused us to re-evaluate and reduce our expected holding periods for these assets and corresponding future cash flows. We also recorded a reserve of $465,000 on a note receivable in default. During the year ended December 31, 2008, we recorded a provision for impairment of $34.9 million of which $7.2 million related to land held for future development or sale, $20.6 million related to operating properties, $1.1 million related to a note receivable in default, and $6.0 related to our investment in real estate partnerships. If we sell a property or classify a property as held-for-sale, we are required to reclassify its operations into discontinued operations for all prior periods which results in a reclassification of amounts previously reported as continuing operations into discontinued operations. Of the $104.4 million provision recorded during the year ended December 31, 2009, $6.9 million was reclassified into discontinued operations, and of the $34.9 million provision recorded during the year ended December 31, 2008, $3.4 million was reclassified into discontinued operations.

Our equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships decreased by $31.7 million during 2009 as follows (in thousands):

 

		Ownership				2009				2008				Change
Macquarie CountryWide-Regency (MCWR I) (1)			—			$	1,207				488				719
Macquarie CountryWide Direct (MCWR I) (1)			—				—				697				(697	)
GRI—Regency, LLC (GRIR) (2)			25.00	%			(28,308	)			(672	)			(27,636	)
Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III, LLC (MCWR III)			24.95	%			150				203				(53	)
Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO, LLC
(MCWR-DESCO)			16.35	%			(883	)			(823	)			(60	)
Columbia Regency Retail Partners, LLC (Columbia I)			20.00	%			914				2,105				(1,191	)
Columbia Regency Partners II, LLC (Columbia II)			20.00	%			28				169				(141	)
Cameron Village, LLC (Cameron)			30.00	%			(436	)			(65	)			(371	)
RegCal, LLC (RegCal)			25.00	%			123				1,678				(1,555	)
Regency Retail Partners, LP (the Fund)			20.00	%			(464	)			(233	)			(231	)
US Regency Retail I, LLC (USAA)			20.01	%			(6	)			—				(6	)
Other investments in real estate partnerships			50.00	%			1,302				1,745				(443	)
Total						$	(26,373	)			5,292				(31,665	)

 

(1)	At December 31, 2008, our ownership interest in MCWR I was 25%. The liquidation of MCWR I was complete December 31, 2009.

 

(2)	At December 31, 2008, our ownership interest in GRIR (formerly Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II, LLC) was 24.95%.

The decrease in our equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships is primarily related to a provision for impairment of $104.4 million recognized by GRIR associated with multiple shopping centers that became targeted for sale in the near future. Our pro-rata share of this provision for impairment was $26.1 million. Excluding the impairment, the declines in revenues or losses incurred by our co-investment partnerships were directly related to reductions in operating revenues as occupancy levels declined in 2009 and to increased allowances for doubtful accounts as they also experienced a significantly higher tenant default rate during a difficult economic environment.

Income from discontinued operations was $6.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 related to the operations of shopping centers sold or classified as held-for-sale in 2010, 2009, and 2008 whereas income from discontinued operations was $22.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Income from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2009 includes the sale of four properties in development for net proceeds of $29.8 million and gains of $5.6 million, one operating property which was sold for net proceeds of

 

62

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

$19.5 million and a gain of approximately $273,000, and the operations of shopping centers sold or classified as held-for-sale in 2010, 2009, and 2008. Income from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2008 includes the sale of seven properties in development for net proceeds of $55.3 million and gains of $14.0 million, three operating properties which were sold for net proceeds of $30.9 million and gains of $3.5 million, and the operations of shopping centers sold or classified as held-for-sale in 2010, 2009, and 2008. If we sell a property or classify a property as held-for-sale, we are required to reclassify its operations into discontinued operations for all prior periods which results in a reclassification of amounts previously reported as continuing operations into discontinued operations.

Related to our Parent Company’s results, our net loss attributable to common stockholders for the year ended December 31, 2009 was $56.4 million, a decrease of $172.9 million as compared with net income of $116.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. The decrease in net income was primarily related to the large provision for impairment recognized during 2009. Our diluted net loss per share was $0.74 in 2009 as compared to diluted net income per share of $1.66 in 2008.

Related to our Operating Partnership results, our net loss attributable to common unit holders for the year ended December 31, 2009 was $56.6 million, a decrease of $174.0 million as compared with net income of $117.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 for the same reasons stated above. Our diluted net loss per unit was $0.74 in 2009 as compared to net income per unit of $1.66 in 2008.

Environmental Matters

We are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations as they apply to our shopping centers pertaining to chemicals used by the dry cleaning industry, the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers, and underground petroleum storage tanks. We believe that the tenants who currently operate dry cleaning plants or gas stations do so in accordance with current laws and regulations. Generally, we use all legal means to cause tenants to remove dry cleaning plants from our shopping centers or convert them to non-chlorinated solvent systems. Where available, we have applied and been accepted into state-sponsored environmental programs. We have a blanket environmental insurance policy that covers us against third-party liabilities and remediation costs on shopping centers that currently have no known environmental contamination. We have also placed environmental insurance, where possible, on specific properties with known contamination, in order to mitigate our environmental risk. We monitor the shopping centers containing environmental issues and in certain cases voluntarily remediate the sites. We also have legal obligations to remediate certain sites and we are in the process of doing so. We estimate the cost associated with these legal obligations to be $2.9 million and $3.2 million, all of which has been accrued as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. We believe that the ultimate disposition of currently known environmental matters will not have a material effect on our financial position, liquidity, or results of operations; however, we can give no assurance that existing environmental studies on our shopping centers have revealed all potential environmental liabilities; that any previous owner, occupant or tenant did not create any material environmental condition not known to us; that the current environmental condition of the shopping centers will not be affected by tenants and occupants, by the condition of nearby properties, or by unrelated third parties; or that changes in applicable environmental laws and regulations or their interpretation will not result in additional environmental liability to us.

Inflation/Deflation

Inflation has been historically low and has had a minimal impact on the operating performance of our shopping centers; however, more recent data suggests inflation will eventually become a greater concern as the economy continues to recover from the recent recession. Substantially all of our long-term leases contain provisions designed to mitigate the adverse impact of inflation. Such provisions include clauses enabling us to receive percentage rent based on tenants’ gross sales, which generally increase as prices rise; and/or escalation clauses, which generally increase rental rates during the terms of the leases. Such escalation clauses are often related to increases in the consumer price index or similar inflation indices. In addition, many of our leases are

 

63

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

for terms of less than ten years, which permits us to seek increased rents upon re-rental at market rates. Most of our leases require tenants to pay their pro-rata share of operating expenses, including common-area maintenance, real estate taxes, insurance and utilities, thereby reducing our exposure to increases in costs and operating expenses resulting from inflation. However, during deflationary periods or periods of economic weakness, minimum rents and percentage rents will decline as the supply of available retail space exceeds demand and consumer spending declines. Occupancy declines resulting from a weak economic period will also likely result in lower recovery rates of our operating expenses.

 

Item 7A.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Market Risk

We are exposed to two significant components of interest rate risk. Our Line commitment has a variable interest rate that is based upon LIBOR plus a spread of 55 basis points and our revolving credit facility has a variable interest rate based upon LIBOR plus a spread of 100 basis points. LIBOR rates charged on our Unsecured credit facilities change monthly. The spread on the Unsecured credit facilities is dependent upon maintaining specific credit ratings. If our credit ratings are downgraded, the spread on the Unsecured credit facilities would increase, resulting in higher interest costs. We are also exposed to higher interest rates when we refinance our existing long-term fixed rate debt. The objective of our interest rate risk management is to limit the impact of interest rate changes on earnings and cash flows and to lower our overall borrowing costs. To achieve these objectives, we borrow primarily at fixed interest rates and may enter into derivative financial instruments such as interest rate swaps, caps, or treasury locks in order to mitigate our interest rate risk on a related financial instrument. We do not enter into derivative or interest rate transactions for speculative purposes.

During 2006, we entered into four forward-starting interest rate swaps (the “Swaps”) totaling $396.7 million with fixed rates of 5.399%, 5.415%, 5.399%, and 5.415%. At inception, we designated these Swaps as cash flow hedges to lock in the underlying treasury rates on $400.0 million of fixed rate financing that was expected to occur in 2010 and 2011. During 2009, we paid $20.0 million to partially settle $106.0 million of the $396.7 Swaps in place to hedge the $106.0 million mortgage loan issued on July 1, 2009. On June 1, 2010, we paid $26.8 million to partially settle $150.0 million of the remaining $290.7 million Swaps in place to hedge the $150.0 million ten-year senior unsecured notes issued on June 2, 2010. On September 30, 2010, we paid $36.7 million to settle the remaining $140.7 million of Swaps to hedge the $250.0 million ten-year senior unsecured notes issued on October 7, 2010. For the year ended December 31, 2010, we recognized income of $1.4 million for changes in hedge ineffectiveness attributable to revised inputs used in valuation models to estimate effectiveness.

We have $374.7 million of fixed rate debt maturing in 2011 and 2012 that has a weighted average fixed interest rate of 7.29%, which includes $374.1 million of unsecured long-term debt. We continuously monitor the capital markets and evaluate our ability to issue new debt to repay maturing debt or fund our commitments. Based upon the current capital markets, our current credit ratings, and the number of high quality, unencumbered properties that we own which could collateralize borrowings, we expect that we will be able to successfully issue new secured or unsecured debt to fund these debt obligations.

Our interest rate risk is monitored using a variety of techniques. The table below presents the principal cash flows (in thousands), weighted average interest rates of remaining debt, and the fair value of total debt (in thousands) as of December 31, 2010, by year of expected maturity to evaluate the expected cash flows and sensitivity to interest rate changes. Although the average interest rate for variable rate debt is included in the table, those rates represent rates that existed at December 31, 2010 and are subject to change on a monthly basis.

 

64

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

The table below incorporates only those exposures that exist as of December 31, 2010 and does not consider exposures or positions that could arise after that date. Since firm commitments are not presented, the table has limited predictive value. As a result, our ultimate realized gain or loss with respect to interest rate fluctuations will depend on the exposures that arise during the period, our hedging strategies at that time, and actual interest rates.

 

		2011				2012				2013				2014				2015				Thereafter				Total				Value
Fixed rate debt		$	187,049				197,440				21,288				172,074				399,387				1,098,251				2,075,489				1,657,995
Average interest rate for all fixed rate debt (1)			5.78	%			5.67	%			5.65	%			5.72	%			5.87	%			5.87	%			—				—
Variable rate LIBOR debt		$	7,264				10,204				204				3,517				—				—				21,189				20,232
Average interest rate for all variable rate debt (1)			2.25	%			5.80	%			5.80	%			—				—				—				—				—

 

(1)	Average interest rates at the end of each year presented.

The fair value of total debt in the table above is $1.7 billion versus the face value of $2.1 billion, which suggests that as new debt is issued in the future to repay maturing debt, the cost of new debt issuances will be higher than the current cost of existing debt.

 

65

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Item 8.

Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Index to Financial Statements

 

Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm			67
Regency Centers Corporation:
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2010 and 2009			71
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008			72
Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the years ended December  31, 2010, 2009, and 2008			73
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008			75
Regency Centers, L.P.:
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2010 and 2009			77
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008			78
Consolidated Statements of Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the years ended December  31, 2010, 2009, and 2008			79
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008			80
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements			82
Financial Statement Schedule
Schedule III—Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation—December 31, 2010			119

All other schedules are omitted because of the absence of conditions under which they are required, materiality or because information required therein is shown in the consolidated financial statements or notes thereto.

 

66

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

Regency Centers Corporation:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three–year period ended December 31, 2010. In connection with our audits of the consolidated financial statements, we also have audited financial statement Schedule III. These consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule 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 consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Regency Centers Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three–year period ended December 31, 2010, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Regency Centers Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report dated March 1, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

/s/ KPMG LLP

March 1, 2011

Jacksonville, Florida

Certified Public Accountants

 

67

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

Regency Centers Corporation:

We have audited Regency Centers Corporation’s (the Company’s) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Regency Centers Corporation’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, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’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, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included 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.

In our opinion, Regency Centers Corporation maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010 and the related financial statement schedule, and our report dated March 1, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and the related financial statement schedule.

/s/ KPMG LLP

March 1, 2011

Jacksonville, Florida

Certified Public Accountants

 

68

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Unit Holders of Regency Centers, L.P. and

the Board of Directors and Stockholders of

Regency Centers Corporation:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers, L.P. and subsidiaries (the Partnership) as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, capital and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three–year period ended December 31, 2010. In connection with our audits of the consolidated financial statements, we also have audited financial statement Schedule III. These consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule 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 consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Regency Centers, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three–year period ended December 31, 2010, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Regency Centers, L.P.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report dated March 1, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

/s/ KPMG LLP

March 1, 2011

Jacksonville, Florida

Certified Public Accountants

 

69

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Unit Holders of Regency Centers, L.P. and

    the Board of Directors and Stockholders of

    Regency Centers Corporation:

We have audited Regency Centers, L.P.’s (the Partnership’s) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Regency Centers, L.P.’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, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Partnership’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, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included 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.

In our opinion, Regency Centers, L.P. maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, capital and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010 and the related financial statement schedule, and our report dated March 1, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and the related financial statement schedule.

/s/ KPMG LLP

March 1, 2011

Jacksonville, Florida

Certified Public Accountants

 

70

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Balance Sheets

December 31, 2010 and 2009

(in thousands, except share data)

 

		2010				2009
Assets
Real estate investments at cost (notes 2, 3, 4, and 14):
Land		$	1,093,700				975,861
Buildings and improvements			2,284,522				2,017,843
Properties in development			610,932				920,427
			3,989,154				3,914,131
Less: accumulated depreciation			700,878				622,163
			3,288,276				3,291,968
Operating properties held for sale, net			—				19,647
Investments in real estate partnerships			428,592				326,212
Net real estate investments			3,716,868				3,637,827
Cash and cash equivalents			22,460				99,477
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $4,819 and $6,567 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively			36,600				40,871
Straight-line rent receivable, net of reserve of $1,396 and $1,899 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively			45,241				39,292
Notes receivable (note 5)			35,931				37,753
Deferred costs, less accumulated amortization of $69,158 and $58,861 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively			63,165				58,376
Acquired lease intangible assets, less accumulated amortization of $13,996 and $11,632 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively (note 6)			18,219				10,007
Other assets			35,164				50,203
Total assets		$	3,973,648				3,973,806
Liabilities and Equity
Liabilities:
Notes payable (note 8)		$	2,084,469				1,886,380
Unsecured credit facilities (note 8)			10,000				—
Accounts payable and other liabilities			101,047				99,145
Derivative instruments, at fair value (note 9)			—				28,363
Acquired lease intangible liabilities, less accumulated accretion of $11,010 and $9,715 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively (note 6)			6,682				5,896
Tenants’ security and escrow deposits			10,790				10,628
Total liabilities			2,212,988				2,030,412
Commitments and contingencies (notes 14 and 15)
Equity:
Stockholders' equity (notes 9, 11, 12, and 13):
Preferred stock, $.01 par value per share, 30,000,000 shares authorized; 11,000,000 Series 3-5 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009 with liquidation preferences of $25 per share			275,000				275,000
Common stock $.01 par value per share, 150,000,000 shares authorized; 81,886,872 and 81,539,296 shares issued at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively			819				815
Additional paid in capital			2,038,006				2,022,670
Accumulated other comprehensive loss			(80,885	)			(49,973	)
Distributions in excess of net income			(531,505	)			(373,345	)
Total stockholders' equity			1,701,435				1,875,167
Noncontrolling interests:
Series D preferred units, aggregate redemption value of $50,000 at December 31, 2010 and 2009			49,158				49,158
Exchangeable operating partnership units, aggregate redemption value of $7,483 and $16,415 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively (note 10)			(762	)			7,321
Limited partners' interests in consolidated partnerships			10,829				11,748
Total noncontrolling interests			59,225				68,227
Total equity			1,760,660				1,943,394
Total liabilities and equity		$	3,973,648				3,973,806

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

71

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Operations

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008

(in thousands, except per share data)

 

		2010				2009				2008
Revenues:
Minimum rent (note 14)		$	347,122				344,709				333,659
Percentage rent			2,540				3,585				4,258
Recoveries from tenants and other income			107,744				101,490				100,985
Management, transaction, and other fees			29,400				38,289				56,032
Total revenues			486,806				488,073				494,934
Operating expenses:
Depreciation and amortization			123,731				116,456				104,159
Operating and maintenance			70,375				65,887				58,961
General and administrative			56,324				54,136				49,495
Real estate taxes			54,756				53,698				48,526
Provision for doubtful accounts			3,941				8,677				1,130
Other expenses			2,495				8,284				14,824
Total operating expenses			311,622				307,138				277,095
Other expense (income):
Interest expense, net of interest income of $2,408, $3,767, and $4,696 in 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively			125,287				109,239				92,784
Gain on sale of operating properties and properties in development			(993	)			(19,357	)			(20,346	)
Provision for impairment			26,615				97,519				31,469
Early extinguishment of debt			4,243				2,784				—
Loss (gain) on derivative instruments (note 9)			(1,419	)			3,294				—
Total other expense (income)			153,733				193,479				103,907
Income (loss) before equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships			21,451				(12,544	)			113,932
Equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships (note 4)			(12,884	)			(26,373	)			5,292
Income (loss) from continuing operations			8,567				(38,917	)			119,224
Discontinued operations, net (note 3):
Operating income			55				339				4,916
Gain on sale of operating properties and properties in development			7,577				5,835				17,381
Income from discontinued operations			7,632				6,174				22,297
Net income (loss)			16,199				(32,743	)			141,521
Noncontrolling interests:
Preferred units			(3,725	)			(3,725	)			(3,725	)
Exchangeable operating partnership units			(84	)			216				(907	)
Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships			(376	)			(452	)			(701	)
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests			(4,185	)			(3,961	)			(5,333	)
Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests			12,014				(36,704	)			136,188
Preferred stock dividends			(19,675	)			(19,675	)			(19,675	)
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders		$	(7,661	)			(56,379	)			116,513
Income (loss) per common share – basic (note 13):
Continuing operations		$	(0.19	)			(0.82	)			1.35
Discontinued operations			0.09				0.08				0.31
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders		$	(0.10	)			(0.74	)			1.66
Income (loss) per common share – diluted (note 13):
Continuing operations		$	(0.19	)			(0.82	)			1.35
Discontinued operations			0.09				0.08				0.31
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders		$	(0.10	)			(0.74	)			1.66

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

72

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss)

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008

(in thousands, except per share data)

 

																														Noncontrolling Interests
		Preferred Stock				Common Stock				Treasury Stock				Additional Paid In Capital				Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss				Distributions in Excess of Net Income				Total Stockholders' Equity				Preferred Units				Exchangeable Operating Partnership Units				Limited Partners' Interest in Consolidated Partnerships				Total Noncontrolling Interests				Total Equity
Balance at December 31, 2007		$	275,000				752				(111,414	)			1,766,280				(18,622	)			(68,935	)			1,843,061				49,158				9,919				18,391				77,468				1,920,529
Comprehensive Income (note 9):
Net income			—				—				—				—				—				136,188				136,188				3,725				907				701				5,333				141,521
Amortization of loss on derivative instruments			—				—				—				—				1,297				—				1,297				—				9				—				9				1,306
Change in fair value of derivative instruments			—				—				—				—				(73,364	)			—				(73,364	)			—				(491	)			—				(491	)			(73,855	)
Total comprehensive income																											64,121																4,851				68,972
Restricted stock issued, net of amortization (note 12)			—				3				—				8,190				—				—				8,193				—				—				—				—				8,193
Common stock redeemed for taxes withheld for stock based compensation, net			—				—				—				(3,659	)			—				—				(3,659	)			—				—				—				—				(3,659	)
Common stock issued for dividend reinvestment plan			—				1				—				4,473				—				—				4,474				—				—				—				—				4,474
Tax benefit for issuance of stock options			—				—				—				2,285				—				—				2,285				—				—				—				—				2,285
Common stock issued for partnership units exchanged			—				—				—				232				—				—				232				—				(232	)			—				(232	)			—
Reallocation of limited partners' interest			—				—				—				464				—				—				464				—				(464	)			—				(464	)			—
Contributions from partners			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				3,157				3,157				3,157
Distributions to partners			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				(14,269	)			(14,269	)			(14,269	)
Cash dividends declared:
Preferred stock/unit			—				—				—				—				—				(19,675	)			(19,675	)			(3,725	)			—				—				(3,725	)			(23,400	)
Common stock/unit ($2.90 per share)			—				—				—				—				—				(202,635	)			(202,635	)			—				(1,365	)			—				(1,365	)			(204,000	)
Balance at December 31, 2008		$	275,000				756				(111,414	)			1,778,265				(90,689	)			(155,057	)			1,696,861				49,158				8,283				7,980				65,421				1,762,282
Comprehensive Income (note 9):
Net income (loss)			—				—				—				—				—				(36,704	)			(36,704	)			3,725				(216	)			452				3,961				(32,743	)
Amortization of loss on derivative instruments			—				—				—				—				2,292				—				2,292				—				13				—				13				2,305
Change in fair value of derivative instruments			—				—				—				—				38,424				—				38,424				—				221				—				221				38,645
Total comprehensive income																											4,012																4,195				8,207
Restricted stock issued, net of amortization (note 12)			—				2				—				5,961				—				—				5,963				—				—				—				—				5,963
Common stock redeemed for taxes withheld for stock based compensation, net			—				—				—				343				—				—				343				—				—				—				—				343
Common stock issued for dividend reinvestment plan			—				1				—				3,222				—				—				3,223				—				—				—				—				3,223
Tax benefit for issuance of stock options			—				—				—				552				—				—				552				—				—				—				—				552

 

73

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss)

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008

(in thousands, except per share data)

 

																														Noncontrolling Interests
		Preferred Stock				Common Stock				Treasury Stock				Additional Paid In Capital				Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss				Distributions in Excess of Net Income				Total Stockholders' Equity				Preferred Units				Exchangeable Operating Partnership Units				Limited Partners' Interest in Consolidated Partnerships				Total Noncontrolling Interests				Total Equity
Common stock issued for stock offerings, net of issuance costs			—				112				—				345,685				—				—				345,797				—				—				—				—				345,797
Treasury stock cancellation			—				(56	)			111,414				(111,358	)			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Contributions from partners			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				4,197				4,197				4,197
Distributions to partners			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				(881	)			(881	)			(881	)
Cash dividends declared:
Preferred stock/unit			—				—				—				—				—				(19,675	)			(19,675	)			(3,725	)			—				—				(3,725	)			(23,400	)
Common stock/unit ($2.11 per share)			—				—				—				—				—				(161,909	)			(161,909	)			—				(980	)			—				(980	)			(162,889	)
Balance at December 31, 2009		$	275,000				815				—				2,022,670				(49,973	)			(373,345	)			1,875,167				49,158				7,321				11,748				68,227				1,943,394
Comprehensive Income (note 9):
Net income			—				—				—				—				—				12,014				12,014				3,725				84				376				4,185				16,199
Amortization of loss on derivative instruments			—				—				—				—				5,563				—				5,563				—				12				—				12				5,575
Change in fair value of derivative instruments			—				—				—				—				(36,475	)			—				(36,475	)			—				(81	)			—				(81	)			(36,556	)
Total comprehensive income (loss)																											(18,898	)															4,116				(14,782	)
Restricted stock issued, net of amortization (note 12)			—				—				—				7,236				—				—				7,236				—				—				—				—				7,236
Common stock redeemed for taxes withheld for stock based compensation, net			—				—				—				(1,374	)			—				—				(1,374	)			—				—				—				—				(1,374	)
Common stock issued for dividend reinvestment plan			—				1				—				1,847				—				—				1,848				—				—				—				—				1,848
Common stock issued for partnership units exchanged			—				3				—				7,627				—				—				7,630				—				(7,630	)			—				(7,630	)			—
Contributions from partners			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				161				161				161
Distributions to partners			—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				(1,456	)			(1,456	)			(1,456	)
Cash dividends declared:
Preferred stock/unit			—				—				—				—				—				(19,675	)			(19,675	)			(3,725	)			—				—				(3,725	)			(23,400	)
Common stock/unit ($1.85 per share)			—				—				—				—				—				(150,499	)			(150,499	)			—				(468	)			—				(468	)			(150,967	)
Balance at December 31, 2010		$	275,000				819				—				2,038,006				(80,885	)			(531,505	)			1,701,435				49,158				(762	)			10,829				59,225				1,760,660

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

74

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008

(in thousands)

 

		2010				2009				2008
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income (loss)		$	16,199				(32,743	)			141,521
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization			123,933				117,979				107,846
Amortization of deferred loan cost and debt premium			8,533				5,822				4,287
Amortization and (accretion) of above and below market lease intangibles, net			(1,161	)			(1,867	)			(2,376	)
Stock-based compensation, net of capitalization			6,615				4,668				5,950
Equity in loss (income) of investments in real estate partnerships			12,884				26,373				(5,292	)
Net gain on sale of properties			(8,648	)			(25,192	)			(37,843	)
Provision for doubtful accounts			3,954				9,078				1,197
Provision for impairment			26,615				104,402				34,855
Early extinguishment of debt			4,243				2,784				—
Distribution of earnings from operations of investments in real estate partnerships			41,054				31,252				30,730
Settlement of derivative instruments			(63,435	)			(19,953	)			—
Loss (gain) on derivative instruments			(1,419	)			3,294				—
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable			(1,297	)			(2,995	)			(6,621	)
Straight-line rent receivables, net			(6,202	)			(3,959	)			(3,709	)
Other receivables			—				19,700				(19,700	)
Deferred leasing costs			(15,563	)			(9,799	)			(6,734	)
Other assets			(4,681	)			(16,493	)			(12,839	)
Accounts payable and other liabilities			(449	)			(18,035	)			(12,423	)
Tenants' security and escrow deposits			33				(454	)			320
Net cash provided by operating activities			141,208				193,862				219,169
Cash flows from investing activities:
Acquisition of operating real estate			(24,569	)			—				—
Development of real estate including acquisition of land			(65,889	)			(142,989	)			(388,783	)
Proceeds from sale of real estate investments			47,333				180,307				274,417
Collection of notes receivable			883				13,572				28,287
Investments in real estate partnerships			(231,847	)			(28,709	)			(48,619	)
Distributions received from investments in real estate partnerships			90,092				23,548				28,923
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities			(183,997	)			45,729				(105,775	)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Net proceeds from common stock issuance			—				345,800				1,020
Distributions to limited partners in consolidated partnerships, net			(1,427	)			(872	)			(14,134	)
Distributions to exchangeable operating partnership unit holders			(468	)			(980	)			(1,363	)
Distributions to preferred unit holders			(3,725	)			(3,725	)			(3,725	)
Dividends paid to common stockholders			(148,649	)			(158,690	)			(198,165	)
Dividends paid to preferred stockholders			(19,675	)			(19,675	)			(19,675	)
Repayment of fixed rate unsecured notes			(209,879	)			(116,053	)			—
Proceeds from issuance of fixed rate unsecured notes, net			398,599				—				—
Proceeds from unsecured credit facilities			250,000				135,000				89,667
Repayment of unsecured credit facilities			(240,000	)			(432,667	)			—
Proceeds from notes payable			6,068				106,992				62,500
Repayment of notes payable			(51,687	)			(8,056	)			(19,932	)
Scheduled principal payments			(5,024	)			(5,214	)			(4,806	)
Payment of loan costs			(4,361	)			(1,195	)			(1,916	)
Payment of premium on tender offer			(4,000	)			(2,312	)			—
Net cash used in financing activities			(34,228	)			(161,647	)			(110,529	)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents			(77,017	)			77,944				2,865
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of the year			99,477				21,533				18,668
Cash and cash equivalents at end of the year		$	22,460				99,477				21,533

 

75

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008

(in thousands)

 

		2010				2009				2008
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest (net of capitalized interest of $5,099, $19,062, and $36,510 in 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively)		$	127,591				112,730				94,632
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash transactions:
Common stock issued for partnership units exchanged		$	7,630				—				232
Real estate received through distribution in kind		$	—				100,717				—
Mortgage loans assumed through distribution in kind		$	—				70,541				—
Mortgage loans assumed for the acquisition of operating real estate		$	58,981				—				—
Real estate contributed for investments in real estate partnerships		$	—				26,410				6,825
Notes receivable taken in connection with sales of properties in development		$	—				11,413				16,294
Real estate received through foreclosure on notes receivable		$	990				—				—
Change in fair value of derivative instruments		$	28,363				55,328				(73,855	)
Common stock issued for dividend reinvestment plan		$	1,847				3,219				4,470
Stock-based compensation capitalized		$	852				1,574				3,606
Contributions from limited partners in consolidated partnerships, net		$	132				4,188				3,020

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

76

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

December 31, 2010 and 2009

(in thousands, except unit data)

 

		2010				2009
Assets
Real estate investments at cost (notes 2, 3, 4, and 14):
Land		$	1,093,700				975,861
Buildings and improvements			2,284,522				2,017,843
Properties in development			610,932				920,427
			3,989,154				3,914,131
Less: accumulated depreciation			700,878				622,163
			3,288,276				3,291,968
Operating properties held for sale, net			—				19,647
Investments in real estate partnerships			428,592				326,212
Net real estate investments			3,716,868				3,637,827
Cash and cash equivalents			22,460				99,477
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $4,819 and $6,567 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively			36,600				40,871
Straight-line rent receivable, net of reserve of $1,396 and $1,899 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively			45,241				39,292
Notes receivable (note 5)			35,931				37,753
Deferred costs, less accumulated amortization of $69,158 and $58,861 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively			63,165				58,376
Acquired lease intangible assets, less accumulated amortization of $13,996 and $11,632 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively (note 6)			18,219				10,007
Other assets			35,164				50,203
Total assets		$	3,973,648				3,973,806
Liabilities and Capital
Liabilities:
Notes payable (note 8)		$	2,084,469				1,886,380
Unsecured credit facilities (note 8)			10,000				—
Accounts payable and other liabilities			101,047				99,145
Derivative instruments, at fair value (note 9)			—				28,363
Acquired lease intangible liabilities, less accumulated accretion of $11,010 and $9,715 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively (note 6)			6,682				5,896
Tenants' security and escrow deposits			10,790				10,628
Total liabilities			2,212,988				2,030,412
Commitments and contingencies (notes 14 and 15)
Capital:
Partners' capital (note 9, 11, 12, and 13):
Series D preferred units, par value $100: 500,000 units issued and outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009			49,158				49,158
Preferred units of general partner, $.01 par value per unit, 11,000,000 units issued and outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009, liquidation preference of $25 per unit			275,000				275,000
General partner; 81,886,872 and 81,539,296 units outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively			1,507,320				1,650,140
Limited partners; 177,164 and 468,211 units outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively			(762	)			7,321
Accumulated other comprehensive loss			(80,885	)			(49,973	)
Total partners’ capital			1,749,831				1,931,646
Noncontrolling interests:
Limited partners' interests in consolidated partnerships			10,829				11,748
Total noncontrolling interests			10,829				11,748
Total capital			1,760,660				1,943,394
Total liabilities and capital		$	3,973,648				3,973,806

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

77

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated Statements of Operations

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008

(in thousands, except per unit data)

 

		2010				2009				2008
Revenues:
Minimum rent (note 14)		$	347,122				344,709				333,659
Percentage rent			2,540				3,585				4,258
Recoveries from tenants and other income			107,744				101,490				100,985
Management, transaction, and other fees			29,400				38,289				56,032
Total revenues			486,806				488,073				494,934
Operating expenses:
Depreciation and amortization			123,731				116,456				104,159
Operating and maintenance			70,375				65,887				58,961
General and administrative			56,324				54,136				49,495
Real estate taxes			54,756				53,698				48,526
Provision for doubtful accounts			3,941				8,677				1,130
Other expenses			2,495				8,284				14,824
Total operating expenses			311,622				307,138				277,095
Other expense (income):
Interest expense, net of interest income of $2,408, $3,767, and $4,696 in 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively			125,287				109,239				92,784
Gain on sale of operating properties and properties in development			(993	)			(19,357	)			(20,346	)
Provision for impairment			26,615				97,519				31,469
Early extinguishment of debt			4,243				2,784				—
Loss (gain) on derivative instruments (note 9)			(1,419	)			3,294				—
Total other expense (income)			153,733				193,479				103,907
Income (loss) before equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships			21,451				(12,544	)			113,932
Equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships (note 4)			(12,884	)			(26,373	)			5,292
Income (loss) from continuing operations			8,567				(38,917	)			119,224
Discontinued operations, net (note 3):
Operating income			55				339				4,916
Gain on sale of operating properties and properties in development			7,577				5,835				17,381
Income from discontinued operations			7,632				6,174				22,297
Net income (loss)			16,199				(32,743	)			141,521
Noncontrolling interests:
Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships			(376	)			(452	)			(701	)
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests			(376	)			(452	)			(701	)
Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests			15,823				(33,195	)			140,820
Preferred unit distributions			(23,400	)			(23,400	)			(23,400	)
Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders		$	(7,577	)			(56,595	)			117,420
Income (loss) per common unit—basic (note 13):
Continuing operations		$	(0.19	)			(0.82	)			1.35
Discontinued operations			0.09				0.08				0.31
Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders		$	(0.10	)			(0.74	)			1.66
Income (loss) per common unit—diluted (note 13):
Continuing operations		$	(0.19	)			(0.82	)			1.35
Discontinued operations			0.09				0.08				0.31
Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders		$	(0.10	)			(0.74	)			1.66

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

78

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated Statements of Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss)

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008

(in thousands)

 

		Preferred Units				General Partner Preferred and Common Units				Limited Partners				Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)				Total Partners’ Capital				Noncontrolling Interests in Limited Partners’ Interest in Consolidated Partnerships				Total Capital
Balance at December 31, 2007		$	49,158				1,861,683				9,919				(18,622	)			1,902,138				18,391				1,920,529
Comprehensive income (note 9):
Net income			3,725				136,188				907				—				140,820				701				141,521
Amortization of loss on derivative instruments			—				—				9				1,297				1,306				—				1,306
Change in fair value of derivative instruments			—				—				(491	)			(73,364	)			(73,855	)			—				(73,855	)
Total comprehensive income																			68,271								68,972
Contributions from partners			—				—				—				—				—				3,157				3,157
Distributions to partners			—				(202,635	)			(1,365	)			—				(204,000	)			(14,269	)			(218,269	)
Preferred unit distributions			(3,725	)			(19,675	)			—				—				(23,400	)			—				(23,400	)
Restricted stock issued by Parent Company, net of amortization (note 12)			—				8,193				—				—				8,193				—				8,193
Common units issued as a result of common stock issued by Parent Company, net of repurchases			—				3,100				—				—				3,100				—				3,100
Common units exchanged for common stock of Parent Company			—				232				(232	)			—				—				—				—
Reallocation of limited partners’ interest			—				464				(464	)			—				—				—				—
Balance at December 31, 2008		$	49,158				1,787,550				8,283				(90,689	)			1,754,302				7,980				1,762,282
Comprehensive income (note 9):
Net income (loss)			3,725				(36,704	)			(216	)			—				(33,195	)			452				(32,743	)
Amortization of loss on derivative instruments			—				—				13				2,292				2,305				—				2,305
Change in fair value of derivative instruments			—				—				221				38,424				38,645				—				38,645
Total comprehensive income																			7,755								8,207
Contributions from partners			—				—				—				—				—				4,197				4,197
Distributions to partners			—				(161,909	)			(980	)			—				(162,889	)			(881	)			(163,770	)
Preferred unit distributions			(3,725	)			(19,675	)			—				—				(23,400	)			—				(23,400	)
Restricted stock issued by Parent Company, net of amortization (note 12)			—				5,963				—				—				5,963				—				5,963
Common units issued as a result of common stock issued by Parent Company, net of repurchases			—				349,915				—				—				349,915				—				349,915
Balance at December 31, 2009		$	49,158				1,925,140				7,321				(49,973	)			1,931,646				11,748				1,943,394
Comprehensive income (note 9):
Net income			3,725				12,014				84				—				15,823				376				16,199
Amortization of loss on derivative instruments			—				—				12				5,563				5,575				—				5,575
Change in fair value of derivative instruments			—				—				(81	)			(36,475	)			(36,556	)			—				(36,556	)
Total comprehensive loss																			(15,158	)							(14,782	)
Contributions from partners			—				—				—				—				—				161				161
Distributions to partners			—				(150,499	)			(468	)			—				(150,967	)			(1,456	)			(152,423	)
Preferred unit distributions			(3,725	)			(19,675	)			—				—				(23,400	)			—				(23,400	)
Restricted stock issued by Parent Company, net of amortization (note 12)			—				7,236				—				—				7,236				—				7,236
Common units issued as a result of common stock issued by Parent Company, net of repurchases			—				474				—				—				474				—				474
Common units exchanged for common stock of Parent Company			—				7,630				(7,630	)			—				—				—				—
Balance at December 31, 2010		$	49,158				1,782,320				(762	)			(80,885	)			1,749,831				10,829				1,760,660

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

79

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008

(in thousands)

 

		2010				2009				2008
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income (loss)		$	16,199				(32,743	)			141,521
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization			123,933				117,979				107,846
Amortization of deferred loan cost and debt premium			8,533				5,822				4,287
Amortization and (accretion) of above and below market lease intangibles, net			(1,161	)			(1,867	)			(2,376	)
Stock-based compensation, net of capitalization			6,615				4,668				5,950
Equity in loss (income) of investments in real estate partnerships			12,884				26,373				(5,292	)
Net gain on sale of properties			(8,648	)			(25,192	)			(37,843	)
Provision for doubtful accounts			3,954				9,078				1,197
Provision for impairment			26,615				104,402				34,855
Early extinguishment of debt			4,243				2,784				—
Distribution of earnings from operations of investments in real estate partnerships			41,054				31,252				30,730
Settlement of derivative instruments			(63,435	)			(19,953	)			—
Loss (gain) on derivative instruments			(1,419	)			3,294				—
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable			(1,297	)			(2,995	)			(6,621	)
Straight-line rent receivables, net			(6,202	)			(3,959	)			(3,709	)
Other receivables			—				19,700				(19,700	)
Deferred leasing costs			(15,563	)			(9,799	)			(6,734	)
Other assets			(4,681	)			(16,493	)			(12,839	)
Accounts payable and other liabilities			(449	)			(18,035	)			(12,423	)
Tenants’ security and escrow deposits			33				(454	)			320
Net cash provided by operating activities			141,208				193,862				219,169
Cash flows from investing activities:
Acquisition of operating real estate			(24,569	)			—				—
Development of real estate including acquisition of land			(65,889	)			(142,989	)			(388,783	)
Proceeds from sale of real estate investments			47,333				180,307				274,417
Collection of notes receivable			883				13,572				28,287
Investments in real estate partnerships			(231,847	)			(28,709	)			(48,619	)
Distributions received from investments in real estate partnerships			90,092				23,548				28,923
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities			(183,997	)			45,729				(105,775	)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Net proceeds from common units issued as a result of common stock issued by Parent Company			—				345,800				1,020
Distributions to limited partners in consolidated partnerships, net			(1,427	)			(872	)			(14,134	)
Distributions to partners			(149,117	)			(159,670	)			(199,528	)
Preferred unit distributions			(23,400	)			(23,400	)			(23,400	)
Repayment of fixed rate unsecured notes			(209,879	)			(116,053	)			—
Proceeds from issuance of fixed rate unsecured notes, net			398,599				—				—
Proceeds from unsecured credit facilities			250,000				135,000				89,667
Repayment of unsecured credit facilities			(240,000	)			(432,667	)			—
Proceeds from notes payable			6,068				106,992				62,500
Repayment of notes payable			(51,687	)			(8,056	)			(19,932	)
Scheduled principal payments			(5,024	)			(5,214	)			(4,806	)
Payment of loan costs			(4,361	)			(1,195	)			(1,916	)
Payment of premium on tender offer			(4,000	)			(2,312	)			—
Net cash used in financing activities			(34,228	)			(161,647	)			(110,529	)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents			(77,017	)			77,944				2,865
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of the year			99,477				21,533				18,668
Cash and cash equivalents at end of the year		$	22,460				99,477				21,533

 

80

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008

(in thousands)

 

		2010				2009				2008
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest (net of capitalized interest of $5,099, $19,062, and $36,510 in 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively)		$	127,591				112,730				94,632
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash transactions:
Common stock issued by Parent Company for partnership units exchanged		$	7,630				—				232
Real estate received through distribution in kind		$	—				100,717				—
Mortgage loans assumed through distribution in kind		$	—				70,541				—
Mortgage loans assumed for the acquisition of operating real estate		$	58,981				—				—
Real estate contributed for investments in real estate partnerships		$	—				26,410				6,825
Notes receivable taken in connection with sales of properties in development		$	—				11,413				16,294
Real estate received through foreclosure on notes receivable		$	990				—				—
Change in fair value of derivative instruments		$	28,363				55,328				(73,855	)
Common stock issued by Parent Company for dividend reinvestment plan		$	1,847				3,219				4,470
Stock-based compensation capitalized		$	852				1,574				3,606
Contributions from limited partners in consolidated partnerships, net		$	132				4,188				3,020

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

81

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

1.	Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

 

(a)

Organization and Principles of Consolidation

General

Regency Centers Corporation (the “Parent Company”) began its operations as a Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”) in 1993 and is the managing general partner of Regency Centers, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”). The Parent Company currently owns approximately 99.8% of the outstanding common Partnership Units of the Operating Partnership. The Parent Company engages in the ownership, management, leasing, acquisition, and development of retail shopping centers through the Operating Partnership, and has no other assets or liabilities other than through its investment in the Operating Partnership. At December 31, 2010, the Parent Company, the Operating Partnership and their controlled subsidiaries on a consolidated basis (“the Company” or “Regency”) directly owned 215 retail shopping centers and held partial interests in an additional 181 retail shopping centers through investments in real estate partnerships (also referred to as joint ventures or real estate partnerships).

Estimates, Risks, and Uncertainties

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) requires the Company’s management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and 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. The most significant estimates in the Company’s financial statements relate to the carrying values of its investments in real estate including its shopping centers, properties in development and its investments in real estate partnerships, accounts receivable, net, and derivative instruments. Although the U.S. economy is recovering from the recession of 2009, economic conditions remain challenging, and therefore, it is possible that the estimates and assumptions that have been utilized in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements could change significantly, if economic conditions where to weaken.

Consolidation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Parent Company, the Operating Partnership, its wholly-owned subsidiaries, and consolidated partnerships in which the Company has a controlling ownership interest. All significant inter-company balances and transactions are eliminated in the consolidated financial statements.

Ownership of the Parent Company

The Parent Company has a single class of common stock outstanding and three series of preferred stock outstanding (“Series 3, 4, and 5 Preferred Stock”). The dividends on the Series 3, 4, and 5 Preferred Stock are cumulative and payable in arrears on the last day of each calendar quarter. The Parent Company owns corresponding Series 3, 4, and 5 preferred unit interests (“Series 3, 4, and 5 Preferred Units”) in the Operating Partnership that entitle the Parent Company to income and distributions from the Operating Partnership in amounts equal to the dividends paid on the Parent Company’s Series 3, 4, and 5 Preferred Stock.

 

82

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Ownership of the Operating Partnership

The Operating Partnership’s capital includes general and limited common Partnership Units, Series 3, 4, and 5 Preferred Units owned by the Parent Company, and Series D Preferred Units owned by institutional investors. At December 31, 2010, the Parent Company owned approximately 99.8% or 81,886,872 of the total 82,064,036 Partnership Units outstanding.

Net income and distributions of the Operating Partnership are allocable first to the Preferred Units and the remaining amounts to the general and limited common Partnership Units in accordance with their ownership percentages. The Series 3, 4, and 5 Preferred Units owned by the Parent Company are eliminated in consolidation in the accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Parent Company and are classified as preferred units of general partner in the accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Operating Partnership.

Investments in Real Estate Partnerships

Investments in real estate partnerships not controlled by the Company are accounted for under the equity method. Income or loss from these real estate partnerships, which includes all operating results (including impairments) and gains on sales of properties within the joint ventures, is allocated to the Company in accordance with the respective partnership agreements. Such allocations of net income or loss are recorded in equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. The net difference in the carrying amount of investments in real estate partnerships and the underlying equity in net assets is either accreted to income and recorded in equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations over the expected useful lives of the properties and other intangible assets, which range in lives from 10 to 40 years, or recognized at liquidation if the joint venture agreement includes a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the real estate partnership and, upon such an election, receive a distribution in-kind, as discussed further below.

Cash distributions of earnings from operations from investments in real estate partnerships are presented in cash flows provided by operating activities in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Cash distributions from the sale of a property or loan proceeds received from the placement of debt on a property included in investments in real estate partnerships are presented in cash flows provided by investing activities in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

The Company evaluates the structure and the substance of its investments in the real estate partnerships to determine if they are variable interest entities. The Company has concluded that these partnership investments are not variable interest entities. Further, the joint venture partners in the real estate partnerships have significant ownership rights, including approval over operating budgets and strategic plans, capital spending, sale or financing, and admission of new partners. Upon formation of the joint ventures, the Company, through the Operating Partnership, also became the managing member, responsible for the day-to-day operations of the real estate partnerships. In accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 810, the Company evaluated its investment in each real estate partnership and concluded that the other partners have kick-out rights and/or substantive participating rights and, therefore, the Company has concluded that the equity method of accounting is appropriate for these investments and they do not require consolidation. Under the equity method of accounting, investments in real estate partnerships are initially recorded at cost, subsequently increased for additional contributions and allocations of

 

83

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

income, and reduced for distributions received and allocations of loss. These investments are included in the consolidated financial statements as investments in real estate partnerships.

Noncontrolling Interests

The Company consolidates all entities in which it has a controlling ownership interest. A controlling ownership interest is typically attributable to the entity with a majority voting interest. Noncontrolling interest is the portion of equity, in a subsidiary or consolidated entity, not attributable, directly or indirectly to the Company. Such noncontrolling interests are reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets within equity or capital, but separately from stockholders’ equity or partners’ capital. On the Consolidated Statements of Operations, all of the revenues and expenses from less-than-wholly-owned consolidated subsidiaries are reported in net income (loss), including both the amounts attributable to the Company and noncontrolling interests. The amounts of consolidated net income (loss) attributable to the Company and to the noncontrolling interests are clearly identified on the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Noncontrolling Interests of the Parent Company

The consolidated financial statements of the Parent Company include the following ownership interests held by owners other than the preferred and common stockholders of the Parent Company: the preferred units in the Operating Partnership held by third parties (“Series D preferred units”), the limited Partnership Units in the Operating Partnership held by third parties (“Exchangeable operating partnership units”), and the minority-owned interest held by third parties in consolidated partnerships (“Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships”). The Parent Company has included all of these noncontrolling interests in permanent equity, separate from the Parent Company’s stockholders’ equity, in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss). The portion of net income (loss) or comprehensive income (loss) attributable to these noncontrolling interests is included in net income (loss) and comprehensive income (loss) in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Parent Company.

In accordance with the FASB ASC Topic 480, securities that are redeemable for cash or other assets at the option of the holder, not solely within the control of the issuer, are classified as redeemable noncontrolling interests outside of permanent equity in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Parent Company has evaluated the conditions as specified under the FASB ASC Topic 480 as it relates to Preferred Units and exchangeable operating partnership units outstanding and concluded that it has the right to satisfy the redemption requirements of the units by delivering unregistered preferred or common stock. Each outstanding Preferred Unit and exchangeable operating partnership unit is exchangeable for one share of preferred stock or common stock of the Parent Company, respectively, and the unit holder cannot require redemption in cash or other assets. Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships are not redeemable by the holders. The Parent Company’s only asset is its investment in the Operating Partnership, and therefore settlement in shares would not be a surrender of assets, but a contra-equity. The Parent Company also evaluated its fiduciary duties to itself, its shareholders, and, as the managing general partner of the Operating Partnership, to the Operating Partnership, and concluded its fiduciary duties are not in conflict with each other or the underlying agreements. Therefore, the Parent Company classifies such units and interests as permanent equity in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss).

 

84

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Noncontrolling Interests of the Operating Partnership

The Operating Partnership has determined that Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships are noncontrolling interests. The Operating Partnership has included these noncontrolling interests in permanent capital, separate from partners’ capital, in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss). The portion of net income (loss) or comprehensive income (loss) attributable to these noncontrolling interests is included in net income (loss) and comprehensive income (loss) in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and Consolidated Statements of Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Operating Partnership.

 

(b)

Revenues

The Company leases space to tenants under agreements with varying terms. Leases are accounted for as operating leases with minimum rent recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease regardless of when payments are due. The Company estimates the collectibility of the accounts receivable related to base rents, straight-line rents, expense reimbursements, and other revenue taking into consideration the Company’s experience in the retail sector, available internal and external tenant credit information, payment history, industry trends, tenant credit-worthiness, and remaining lease terms. In some cases, primarily related to straight-line rents, the ultimate collection of these amounts are associated with increased rents to be collected in future years which extend beyond one year. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, the Company recorded provisions for doubtful accounts of $4.0 million, $9.1 million, and $1.2 million respectively, of which approximately $13,000, $401,000, and $66,000 respectively, is included in discontinued operations.

The following table represents the components of accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts, as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009
Tenant receivables		$	19,314			$	22,395
CAM and tax reimbursements			13,629				15,099
Other receivables			8,476				9,944
Less: allowance for doubtful accounts			(4,819	)			(6,567	)
Total		$	36,600			$	40,871

Substantially all of the lease agreements with anchor tenants contain provisions that provide for additional rents based on tenants’ sales volume (percentage rent). Percentage rents are recognized when the tenants achieve the specified targets as defined in their lease agreements. Substantially all lease agreements contain provisions for reimbursement of the tenants’ share of real estate taxes, insurance and common area maintenance (“CAM”) costs. Recovery of real estate taxes, insurance, and CAM costs are recognized as the respective costs are incurred in accordance with the lease agreements.

As part of the leasing process, the Company may provide the lessee with an allowance for the construction of leasehold improvements. These leasehold improvements are capitalized and recorded as tenant improvements, and depreciated over the shorter of the useful life of the improvements or the remaining lease term. If the allowance represents a payment for a purpose other than funding leasehold improvements, or in the event the Company is not considered the owner of the improvements, the allowance is considered to be a lease incentive and is recognized over the lease term as a reduction of

 

85

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

minimum rent. Factors considered during this evaluation include, among other things, who holds legal title to the improvements as well as other controlling rights provided by the lease agreement and provisions for substantiation of such costs (e.g. unilateral control of the tenant space during the build-out process). Determination of the appropriate accounting for the payment of a tenant allowance is made on a lease-by-lease basis, considering the facts and circumstances of the individual tenant lease. When the Company is the owner of the leasehold improvements, recognition of lease revenue commences when the lessee is given possession of the leased space upon completion of tenant improvements. However, when the leasehold improvements are owned by the tenant, the lease inception date is the date the tenant obtains possession of the leased space for purposes of constructing their leasehold improvements.

Profits from sales of real estate are recognized under the full accrual method by the Company when a sale is consummated; the buyer’s initial and continuing investment is adequate to demonstrate a commitment to pay for the property; the Company’s receivable, if applicable, is not subject to future subordination; the Company has transferred to the buyer the usual risks and rewards of ownership; and the Company does not have substantial continuing involvement with the property.

The Company sells shopping centers to joint ventures in exchange for cash equal to the fair value of the ownership interest of its partners. The Company accounts for those sales as “partial sales” and recognizes gains on those partial sales in the period the properties were sold to the extent of the percentage interest sold, and in the case of certain real estate partnerships, applies a more restrictive method of recognizing gains, as discussed further below. The gains and operations associated with properties sold to these real estate partnerships are not classified as discontinued operations because the Company continues to partially own and manage these shopping centers.

As of December 31, 2010, six of the Company’s joint ventures (“DIK-JV”) give each partner the unilateral right to elect to dissolve the real estate partnership and, upon such an election, receive a distribution in-kind (“DIK”) of the assets of the real estate partnership equal to their respective capital account, which could include properties the Company previously sold to the real estate partnership. The liquidation provisions require that all of the properties owned by the real estate partnership be appraised to determine their respective fair values. As a general rule, if the Company initiates the liquidation process, its partner has the right to choose the first property that it will receive with the Company choosing the next property that it will receive in liquidation. If the Company’s partner initiates the liquidation process, the order of the selection process is reversed. The process then continues with an alternating selection of properties by each partner until the balance of each partner’s capital account, on a fair value basis, has been distributed. After the final selection, to the extent that the fair value of properties in the DIK-JV are not distributable in a manner that equals the balance of each partner’s capital account, a cash payment would be made to the other partner by the partner receiving a property distribution in excess of its capital account. The partners may also elect to liquidate some or all of the properties through sales rather than through the DIK process.

The Company has concluded that these DIK dissolution provisions constitute in-substance call/put options and represent a form of continuing involvement with respect to property that the Company has sold to these real estate partnerships, limiting the Company’s recognition of gain related to the partial sale. This more restrictive method of gain recognition (“Restricted Gain Method”) considers the Company’s potential ability to receive property through a DIK on which partial gain has been recognized, and ensures, as discussed below, maximum gain deferral upon sale to a DIK-JV. The Company has applied the Restricted Gain Method to partial sales of property to real estate partnerships that contain unilateral DIK provisions.

 

86

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Profit shall be recognized under a method determined by the nature and extent of the seller’s continuing involvement and the profit recognized shall be reduced by the maximum exposure to loss. The Company has concluded that the Restricted Gain Method accomplishes this objective.

Under the Restricted Gain Method, for purposes of gain deferral, the Company considers the aggregate pool of properties sold into the DIK-JV as well as the aggregate pool of properties which will be distributed in the DIK process. As a result, upon the sale of properties to a DIK-JV, the Company performs a hypothetical DIK liquidation assuming that it would choose only those properties that it has sold to the DIK-JV in an amount equal to its capital account. For purposes of calculating the gain to be deferred, the Company assumes that it will select properties in a DIK liquidation that would otherwise have generated the highest gain to the Company when originally sold to the DIK-JV. The deferred gain, recorded by the Company upon the sale of a property to a DIK-JV, is calculated whenever a property is sold to a DIK-JV. During the periods when there are no property sales to a DIK-JV, the deferred gain is not recalculated.

Because the contingency associated with the possibility of receiving a particular property back upon liquidation, which forms the basis of the Restricted Gain Method, is not satisfied at the property level, but at the aggregate level, no deferred gain is recognized on property sold by the DIK-JV to a third party or received by the Company upon actual dissolution. Instead, the property received upon dissolution is recorded at the carrying value of the Company’s investment in the DIK-JV on the date of dissolution.

The Company is engaged under agreements with its joint venture partners to provide asset management, property management, leasing, investing, and financing services for such joint ventures’ shopping centers. The fees are market-based, generally calculated as a percentage of either revenues earned or the estimated values of the properties managed or the proceeds received, and are recognized as services are rendered, when fees due are determinable, and collectibility is reasonably assured. The Company also receives transaction fees, as contractually agreed upon with a joint venture, which include fees such as acquisition fees, disposition fees, “promotes”, or “earnouts”.

 

(c)

Real Estate Investments

Land, buildings, and improvements are recorded at cost. All specifically identifiable costs related to development activities are capitalized into properties in development on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. Properties in development are defined as properties that are in the construction or initial lease-up phase and have not reached their initial full occupancy. In summary, a project changes from non-operating to operating when it is substantially completed and available for occupancy. At that time, costs are no longer capitalized. The capitalized costs include pre-development costs essential to the development of the property, development costs, construction costs, interest costs, real estate taxes, and allocated direct employee costs incurred during the period of development. Interest costs are capitalized into each development project based upon applying the Company’s weighted average borrowing rate to that portion of the actual development costs expended. The Company discontinues interest cost capitalization when the property is no longer being developed or is available for occupancy upon substantial completion of tenant improvements, but in no event would the Company capitalize interest on the project beyond 12 months after substantial completion of the building shell.

 

87

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

The following table represents the components of properties in development as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009
Construction in process		$	41,611			$	127,376
Construction complete and in lease-up			459,231				673,052
Land held for future development			110,090				119,999
Total		$	610,932			$	920,427

Construction in process represents developments where the Company has not yet incurred at least 90% of the expected costs to complete. Construction complete and in lease-up represents developments where the Company has incurred at least 90% of the estimated costs to complete, but is still completing lease-up and final tenant build out. Land held for future development represents projects not in construction, but identified and available for future development if and when the market demand for a new shopping center exists.

The Company incurs costs prior to land acquisition including contract deposits, as well as legal, engineering, and other external professional fees related to evaluating the feasibility of developing a shopping center. These pre-development costs are included in properties in development in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company had capitalized pre-development costs of approximately $899,000 and $816,000, respectively, of which approximately $840,000 and $325,000, respectively, were refundable deposits. If the Company determines that the development of a particular shopping center is no longer probable, any related pre-development costs previously capitalized are immediately expensed in other expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, the Company expensed pre-development costs of approximately $520,000, $3.8 million, and $15.5 million, respectively, in other expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Maintenance and repairs that do not improve or extend the useful lives of the respective assets are recorded in operating and maintenance expense.

Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over estimated useful lives of approximately 40 years for buildings and improvements, the shorter of the useful life or the remaining lease term subject to a maximum of 10 years for tenant improvements, and three to seven years for furniture and equipment.

The Company and the real estate partnerships account for business combinations using the acquisition method by recognizing and measuring the identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, and any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree at their acquisition date fair values. The Company expenses transaction costs associated with business combinations in the period incurred.

The Company’s methodology includes estimating an “as-if vacant” fair value of the physical property, which includes land, building, and improvements. In addition, the Company determines the estimated fair value of identifiable intangible assets, considering the following three categories: (i) value of in-place leases, (ii) above and below-market value of in-place leases, and (iii) customer relationship value.

The value of in-place leases is estimated based on the value associated with the costs avoided in originating leases compared to the acquired in-place leases as well as the value associated with lost rental and recovery revenue during the assumed lease-up period. The value of in-place leases is recorded to amortization expense over the remaining initial term of the respective leases.

 

88

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Above-market and below-market in-place lease values for acquired properties are recorded based on the present value of the difference between (i) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to the in-place leases and (ii) management’s estimate of fair market lease rates for comparable in- place leases, measured over a period equal to the remaining non-cancelable term of the lease. The value of above-market leases is amortized as a reduction of minimum rent over the remaining terms of the respective leases and the value of below-market leases is accreted to minimum rent over the remaining terms of the respective leases, including below-market renewal options, if applicable. The Company does not assign value to customer relationship intangibles if it has pre-existing business relationships with the major retailers at the acquired property since they do not provide incremental value over the Company’s existing relationships.

The Company classifies an operating property or a property in development as held-for-sale when it determines that the property is available for immediate sale in its present condition, the property is being actively marketed for sale, and management believes it is probable that a sale will be consummated within one year. Given the nature of all real estate sales contracts, it is not unusual for such contracts to allow prospective buyers a period of time to evaluate the property prior to formal acceptance of the contract. In addition, certain other matters critical to the final sale, such as financing arrangements, often remain pending even upon contract acceptance. As a result, properties under contract may not close within the expected time period, or may not close at all. Therefore, any properties categorized as held-for-sale represent only those properties that management has determined are probable to close within the requirements set forth above. Operating properties held-for-sale are carried at the lower of cost or fair value less costs to sell. The recording of depreciation and amortization expense is suspended during the held-for-sale period. If circumstances arise that previously were considered unlikely and, as a result, the Company decides not to sell a property previously classified as held-for-sale, the property is reclassified as held and used and is measured individually at the lower of its (i) carrying amount before the property was classified as held-for-sale, adjusted for any depreciation and amortization expense that would have been recognized had the property been continuously classified as held and used or (ii) the fair value at the date of the subsequent decision not to sell. Any required adjustment to the carrying amount of the property reclassified as held and used is included in income from continuing operations in the period of the subsequent decision not to sell and the results of operations previously reported in discontinued operations are reclassified and included in income from continuing operations for all periods presented.

When the Company sells a property or classifies a property as held-for-sale and will not have significant continuing involvement in the operation of the property, the operations of the property are eliminated from ongoing operations and classified in discontinued operations. Its operations, including any mortgage interest and gain on sale, are reported in discontinued operations so that the operations are clearly distinguished. Prior periods are also reclassified to reflect the operations of the property as discontinued operations. When the Company sells an operating property to a joint venture or to a third party, and will continue to manage the property, the operations and gain on sale are included in income from continuing operations.

The Company reviews its real estate portfolio, including the properties owned through real estate partnerships, for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. In addition, the Company performs an annual review to re-evaluate market-based capitalization rates, estimated holding periods, expected future operating income, trends and prospects, the effects of demand, competition and other factors. For properties to be “held and used” for long term investment, to determine recoverability, the Company estimates undiscounted future cash flows over the expected investment term including the estimated future value of the asset upon sale at the end of the investment period. Future value is generally determined by applying a

 

89

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

market-based capitalization rate to the estimated future net operating income in the final year of the expected investment term. If the estimated undiscounted cash flows used in the recoverability test are less than the long-lived asset’s carrying amount, management then determines the fair value of the long-lived asset and if the carrying amount of the long-lived asset exceeds its fair value, an impairment loss is recognized equal to the excess of carrying value over fair value. Fair value is determined through comparable sales information and other market data if available, or through use of an income approach such as the direct capitalization method or the traditional discounted cash flow approach. For properties “held-for-sale”, the Company estimates current resale values through appraisal information and other market data, less expected costs to sell. These methods of determining fair value can fluctuate significantly as a result of a number of factors, including changes in the general economy for those markets in which the Company operates, the Company’s estimated holding period of the property, tenant credit quality, ongoing leasing activity, and demand for new retail stores. If as a result of a change in the Company’s strategy for a specific property which the Company owns directly or through real estate partnerships, a property previously classified as held and used is changed to held-for-sale, or if its estimated holding period changes, such change could cause the Company to determine that the property is impaired and a provision for impairment would be recorded either directly or through the Company’s equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, the Company established a provision for impairment on consolidated properties of $23.9 million, $103.9 million, and $27.8 million, respectively, of which there was no impact to discontinued operations in 2010, and $6.9 million and $3.4 million were included in discontinued operations for 2009 and 2008, respectively. See Note 10 for further discussion.

A loss in value of investments in real estate partnerships under the equity method of accounting, other than a temporary decline, must be recognized in the period in which the loss occurs. To evaluate the Company’s investment in real estate partnerships, the Company calculates the fair value of the investment by discounting estimated future cash flows over the expected term of the investment. As a result of this evaluation, the Company established a provision for impairment of $2.7 million on one investment in real estate partnership and $6.0 million on two investments in real estate partnerships for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2008, respectively. No provision for impairment for investments in real estate partnerships was recorded during the year ended December 31, 2009.

 

(d)

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Any instruments which have an original maturity of 90 days or less when purchased are considered cash equivalents. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, $5.4 million and $3.6 million, respectively, of cash was restricted through escrow agreements and certain mortgage loans.

 

(e)

Notes Receivable

The Company records notes receivable at cost on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets and interest income is accrued as earned and netted against interest expense in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. If a note receivable is past due, meaning the debtor is past due per contractual obligations, the Company ceases to accrue interest. However, in the event the debtor subsequently becomes current, the Company will resume accruing interest and record the interest income accordingly. The Company evaluates the collectibility of both interest and principal for all notes receivable to determine whether impairment exists using the present value of expected cash flows discounted at the note receivable’s effective interest rate or, alternatively, at the observable market price of the loan or the fair value of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent. In the event the

 

90

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Company determines a note receivable or a portion thereof is considered uncollectible, the Company records a provision for impairment. No impairment was recorded during the year ended December 31, 2010, and approximately $465,000 and $1.1 million was recorded during the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The Company estimates the collectibility of notes receivable taking into consideration the Company’s experience in the retail sector, available internal and external credit information, payment history, market and industry trends, and debtor credit-worthiness. See Note 5 for further discussion.

 

(f)

Deferred Costs

Deferred costs include leasing costs and loan costs, net of accumulated amortization. Such costs are amortized over the periods through lease expiration or loan maturity, respectively. If the lease is terminated early, or if the loan is repaid prior to maturity, the remaining leasing costs or loan costs are written off. Deferred leasing costs consist of internal and external commissions associated with leasing the Company’s shopping centers. Net deferred leasing costs were $52.9 million and $49.9 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Deferred loan costs consist of initial direct and incremental costs associated with financing activities. Net deferred loan costs were $10.2 million and $8.5 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

 

(g)

Derivative Financial Instruments

All derivative instruments, whether designated in hedging relationships or not, are recorded on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets at their fair value. The accounting for changes in the fair value of derivatives depends on the intended use of the derivative, whether the Company has elected to designate a derivative in a hedging relationship and apply hedge accounting, and whether the hedging relationship has satisfied the criteria necessary to apply hedge accounting. Derivatives designated and qualifying as a hedge of the exposure to changes in the fair value of an asset, liability, or firm commitment attributable to a particular risk, such as interest rate risk, are considered fair value hedges. Derivatives designated and qualifying as a hedge of the exposure to variability in expected future cash flows, or other types of forecasted transactions, are considered cash flow hedges. Hedge accounting generally provides for the matching of the timing of gain or loss recognition on the hedging instrument with the recognition of the changes in the fair value of the hedged asset or liability attributable to the hedged risk in a fair value hedge or the earnings effect of the hedged forecasted transactions in a cash flow hedge. The Company may enter into derivative contracts that are intended to economically hedge certain risks, even though hedge accounting does not apply or the Company elects not to apply hedge accounting.

The Company’s use of derivative financial instruments is intended to mitigate its interest rate risk on a related financial instrument or forecasted transaction through the use of interest rate swaps (the “Swaps”) and the Company designates these interest rate swaps as cash flow hedges. The gains or losses resulting from changes in fair value of derivatives that qualify as cash flow hedges are recognized in other comprehensive income (“OCI”) while the ineffective portion of the derivative’s change in fair value is recognized in the Statements of Operations as a gain or loss on derivative instruments. Upon the settlement of a hedge, gains and losses remaining in OCI are amortized over the underlying term of the hedged transaction. The Company formally documents all relationships between hedging instruments and hedged items, as well as its risk management objectives and strategies for undertaking various hedge transactions. The Company assesses, both at inception of the hedge and on an ongoing basis, whether the derivatives that are used in hedging transactions are highly effective in offsetting changes in the cash flows and/or forecasted cash flows of the hedged items.

 

91

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

In assessing the valuation of the hedges, the Company uses standard market conventions and techniques such as discounted cash flow analysis, option pricing models, and termination costs at each balance sheet date. All methods of assessing fair value result in a general approximation of value, and such value may never actually be realized. See Notes 9 and 10 for further discussion.

The settlement of swap terminations is presented in cash flows provided by operating activities in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

 

(h)

Income Taxes

The Parent Company believes it qualifies, and intends to continue to qualify, as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). As a REIT, the Parent Company will generally not be subject to federal income tax, provided that distributions to its stockholders are at least equal to REIT taxable income. Regency Realty Group, Inc. (“RRG”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Operating Partnership, is a Taxable REIT Subsidiary (“TRS”) as defined in Section 856(l) of the Code. RRG is subject to federal and state income taxes and files separate tax returns. As a pass through entity, the Operating Partnership’s taxable income or loss is reported by its partners, of which the Parent Company as general partner and approximately 99.8% owner, is allocated its pro-rata share of tax attributes.

Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the estimated tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using the enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which these temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled.

Earnings and profits, which determine the taxability of dividends to stockholders, differs from net income reported for financial reporting purposes primarily because of differences in depreciable lives and cost bases of the shopping centers, as well as other timing differences. See Note 7 for further discussion.

Tax positions are initially recognized in the financial statements when it is more likely than not the position will be sustained upon examination by the tax authorities. Such tax positions shall initially and subsequently be measured as the largest amount of tax benefit that has a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement with the tax authority assuming full knowledge of the position and relevant facts. The Company believes that it has appropriate support for the income tax positions taken and to be taken on its tax returns and that its accruals for tax liabilities are adequate for all open tax years (after 2008 for federal and state) based on an assessment of many factors including past experience and interpretations of tax laws applied to the facts of each matter.

 

(i)

Earnings per Share and Unit

Basic earnings per share of common stock and unit are computed based upon the weighted average number of common shares and units, respectively, outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share and unit reflect the conversion of obligations and the assumed exercises of securities including the effects of shares issuable under the Company’s share-based payment arrangements, if dilutive. Dividends paid on the Company’s share-based payment transactions are not participating securities as they are forfeitable. See Note 13 for the calculation of earnings per share (“EPS”) and earnings per unit (“EPU”).

 

92

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

(j)

Stock-Based Compensation

The Company grants stock-based compensation to its employees and directors. The Company recognizes stock-based compensation based on the grant-date fair value of the award and the cost of the stock-based compensation is expensed over the vesting period. See Note 12 for further discussion.

When the Parent Company issues common shares as compensation, it receives a like number of common units from the Operating Partnership. The Company is committed to contribute to the Operating Partnership all proceeds from the exercise of stock options or other share-based awards granted under the Parent Company’s Long-Term Omnibus Plan (the “Plan”). Accordingly, the Parent Company’s ownership in the Operating Partnership will increase based on the amount of proceeds contributed to the Operating Partnership for the common units it receives. As a result of the issuance of common units to the Parent Company for stock-based compensation, the Operating Partnership accounts for stock-based compensation in the same manner as the Parent Company.

 

(k)

Segment Reporting

The Company’s business is investing in retail shopping centers through direct ownership or through joint ventures. The Company actively manages its portfolio of retail shopping centers and may from time to time make decisions to sell lower performing properties or developments not meeting its long-term investment objectives. The proceeds from sales are reinvested into higher quality retail shopping centers, through acquisitions or new developments, which management believes will generate sustainable revenue growth and attractive returns. It is management’s intent that all retail shopping centers will be owned or developed for investment purposes; however, the Company may decide to sell all or a portion of a development upon completion. The Company’s revenues and net income are generated from the operation of its investment portfolio. The Company also earns fees for services provided to manage and lease retail shopping centers owned through joint ventures.

The Company’s portfolio is located throughout the United States; however, management does not distinguish or group its operations on a geographical basis for purposes of allocating resources or capital. The Company reviews operating and financial data for each property on an individual basis; therefore, the Company defines an operating segment as its individual properties. The individual properties have been aggregated into one reportable segment based upon their similarities with regard to both the nature and economics of the centers, tenants and operational processes, as well as long-term average financial performance. In addition, no single tenant accounts for 5% or more of revenue and none of the shopping centers are located outside the United States.

 

(l)

Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity

The Company accounts for the fair value of noncontrolling interests in consolidated entities with specified termination dates in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 480. See Note 10 for further discussion.

 

(m)

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value

Fair value is a market-based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement. Therefore, a fair value measurement is determined based on the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. As a basis for considering market participant assumptions in fair value measurements, the Company uses a fair value hierarchy that distinguishes between market participant assumptions based on market data obtained from independent sources (observable inputs that are classified within

 

93

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Levels 1 and 2 of the hierarchy) and the Company’s own assumptions about market participant assumptions (unobservable inputs classified within Level 3 of the hierarchy). The three levels of inputs used to measure fair value are as follows:

 

•

Level 1 - Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the Company has the ability to access.

 

•

Level 2 - Inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly.

 

•

Level 3 - Unobservable inputs for the asset or liability, which are typically based on the Company’s own assumptions, as there is little, if any, related market activity.

The Company also remeasures nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, initially measured at fair value in a business combination or other new basis event, at fair value in subsequent periods. See Note 10 for all fair value measurements of assets and liabilities made on a recurring and nonrecurring basis.

 

(n)

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In January 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2010-06, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (820) - Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements” (“ASU 2010-06”). ASU 2010-06 provides amendments to Subtopic 820-10 and requires new disclosures for transfers in and out of Levels 1 and 2 and activity in Level 3 fair value measurements. ASU 2010-06 also clarifies existing disclosure requirements for the level of disaggregation for each class of assets and liabilities and for the inputs and valuation techniques used to measure fair value. ASU 2010-06 is effective for financial statements issued for interim and annual periods ending after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements in the roll forward of activity in Level 3 fair value measurements which is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2010, and for interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company adopted this ASU on December 31, 2009.

In December 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-17 “Improvements to Financial Reporting by Enterprises Involved with Variable Interest Entities” (“ASU 2009-17”). ASU 2009-17 was issued to reflect the amendments from Statement 167 “Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R)” as a revision to FASB Interpretation No. 46 (Revised December 2003), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities”. ASU 2009-17 changes how a reporting entity determines when an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or is not controlled through voting (or similar rights) should be consolidated. The determination of whether a reporting entity is required to consolidate another entity is based on, among other things, the other entity’s purpose and design and the reporting entity’s ability to direct the activities of the other entity that most significantly impact the other entity’s economic performance. ASU 2009-17 was effective January 1, 2010 and early application is not permitted. The Company has evaluated the adoption of this ASU and it has no effect on its results of operations or financial position, as it does not currently have any variable interests that it believes would require consolidation.

 

(o)

Reclassifications

Certain reclassifications have been made to the 2009 and 2008 amounts to conform to classifications adopted in 2010.

 

94

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

2.	Real Estate Investments

On December 15, 2010, the Company acquired a shopping center for a purchase price of $64.0 million which included the assumption of $51.1 million in debt, recorded net of a $1.6 million debt premium. Acquired lease intangible assets and acquired lease intangible liabilities of $9.2 million and $1.5 million, respectively, were recorded for this acquisition. On September 1, 2010, the Company acquired a shopping center for a purchase price of $18.0 million which included the assumption of $7.9 million in debt. Acquired lease intangible assets and acquired lease intangible liabilities of $1.5 million and approximately $562,000, respectively, were recorded for this acquisition. The acquisitions were accounted for as purchase business combinations and the results are included in the consolidated financial statements from the date of acquisition. The Company did not have any acquisition activity, other than through its investments in real estate partnerships during 2009.

 

3.	Discontinued Operations

During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company sold 100% of its ownership interest in two operating properties and one property in development for net proceeds of $34.9 million. During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company sold 100% of its ownership interest in one operating property and four properties in development for proceeds of $73.0 million, net of notes receivable taken by the Company of $20.4 million of which $8.9 million was subsequently paid in full in May 2009. During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company sold 100% of its ownership interest in three operating properties and seven properties in development for net proceeds of $86.2 million. The combined operating income and gain on the sale of these properties and properties classified as held-for-sale were reclassified to discontinued operations. The revenues from properties included in discontinued operations were approximately $759,000, $9.8 million, and $17.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively. The operating income and gains on sales of properties included in discontinued operations are reported net of income taxes, if the property is sold by the TRS. Income tax benefit of approximately $166,000 and $2.1 million was allocated to operating income (loss) from discontinued operations at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. There was no income tax benefit or expense allocated in 2008.

 

4.	Investments in Real Estate Partnerships

The Company’s investments in real estate partnerships were $428.6 million and $326.2 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The Company’s carrying amount of these investments was $128.8 million and $48.9 million lower than the underlying equity in net assets at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Investments in real estate partnerships are primarily composed of real estate partnerships where the Company invests with five co-investment partners and a close-ended real estate fund (“Regency Retail Partners” or the “Fund”), as further described below. In addition to earning its pro-rata share of net income or loss in each of these real estate partnerships, the Company received recurring market-based fees for asset management, property management, and leasing as well as fees for investment and financing services, of $25.1 million, $29.1 million and $31.6 million and transaction fees of $2.6 million, $7.8 million and $23.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively.

 

95

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Investments in real estate partnerships as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 consist of the following (in thousands):

 

		Ownership				2010				2009
GRI - Regency, LLC (GRIR)(1)			40.00	%		$	277,235				154,350
Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III, LLC (MCWR III)			24.95	%			63				351
Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO, LLC
(MCWR-DESCO)			16.35	%			20,050				24,374
Columbia Regency Retail Partners, LLC (Columbia I)			20.00	%			20,025				28,347
Columbia Regency Partners II, LLC (Columbia II)			20.00	%			9,815				11,202
Cameron Village, LLC (Cameron)			30.00	%			17,604				18,285
RegCal, LLC (RegCal)			25.00	%			15,340				12,863
Regency Retail Partners, LP (the Fund)			20.00	%			17,478				22,114
US Regency Retail I, LLC (USAA)			20.01	%			3,941				5,111
Other investments in real estate partnerships			50.00	%			47,041				49,215
Total						$	428,592				326,212

 

(1)	At December 31, 2009, the Company’s ownership interest in GRIR (formerly Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II, LLC) was 25.00%.

Investments in real estate partnerships are reported net of deferred gains of $51.4 million and $52.0 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Cumulative deferred gains related to each real estate partnership are described below.

The Company co-invests with Global Retail Investors LLC (“GRI”), a joint venture between the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) and an affiliate of First Washington Realty, Inc. in one real estate partnership in which the Company has an ownership interest of 40%. During March 2010, an amendment was filed with the state of Delaware to change the name of the real estate partnership from Macquarie CountryWide – Regency II, LLC (“MCWR II”) to GRI – Regency, LLC (“GRIR”). The Company’s investment in GRIR totals $277.2 million and represents 7.0% of the Company’s total assets at December 31, 2010.

On July 17, 2009, the Company announced that Charter Hall Retail REIT (“CHRR”), formerly Macquarie CountryWide, had agreed to sell 60% of the partnership’s interest to GRI in two closings. The first closing was completed on July 31, 2009, with GRI purchasing a 45% ownership interest in the real estate partnership. As part of the closing, the Company acquired Macquarie-Regency Management, LLC’s (“US Manager”) 0.1% ownership of the real estate partnership. US Manager was owned 50/50 by the Company and an affiliate of Macquarie Bank Limited. The transaction increased the Company’s ownership to 25% from 24.95%. At the first closing, the Company received a disposition fee of $7.8 million from CHRR equal to 1% of the gross sales price paid by GRI.

As part of the original agreement with CHRR, the Company negotiated two separate options to acquire an additional 15% interest in the partnership at a 7.7% discount. In November 2009, the Company exercised its two options with the closing contingent upon obtaining lender consents. The Company funded the purchase price of $16.0 million on December 23, 2009, which was held in escrow and recorded in other assets in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2009. On March 30, 2010, the Company closed on both of its options increasing its ownership interest in the real estate partnership to 40%.

On April 30, 2010, GRIR prepaid $514.8 million of mortgage debt, without penalty, in order to minimize its future refinancing and interest rate risks. The Company contributed capital of $206.7 million to GRIR for its

 

96

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

pro-rata share of the repayment funded from its unsecured line of credit and available cash balances. Simultaneously, GRI closed on the purchase of its remaining 15% interest from CHRR, increasing its total ownership in the real estate partnership to 60%. As a part of this second closing, the Company also received a disposition fee of $2.6 million equal to 1% of gross sales price paid by GRI. The Company retained asset management, property management, and leasing responsibilities. On June 2, 2010, GRIR closed on $202.0 million of new ten year secured mortgage loans. The Company received $79.6 million as its pro-rata share of the proceeds. On September 1, 2010, an additional $47.2 million of mortgage debt was repaid, which also required pro-rata contributions from each joint venture partner.

As of December 31, 2010, GRIR owned 83 shopping centers, had total assets of $2.1 billion and a net loss of $15.1 million for the year ended, primarily related to the provision for impairment of $12.3 million on one property that sold in 2010 and $23.9 million on seven properties that it expects to sell in the next three years. The Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $831.5 million and $6.7 million, respectively. Effective January 1, 2010, the partnership agreement was amended to include a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the Company will apply the Restricted Gain Method for additional properties sold to GRIR on or after January 1, 2010. During 2010, the Company did not sell any properties to GRIR. Since the inception of the real estate partnership in 2005, the Company has recognized gain of $2.3 million on partial sales to GRIR and deferred gains of approximately $766,000. During 2010, GRIR sold three shopping centers to third parties for $59.5 million and recognized a gain of $5.4 million.

The Company co-invests with CHRR in two real estate partnerships, one in which the Company has an ownership interest of 24.95% (“MCWR III”) and one in which the Company has an ownership interest of 16.35% (“MCWR-DESCO”). The Company’s investment with CHRR totals $20.1 million and represents less than 1% of the Company’s total assets at December 31, 2010. At December 31, 2010, these joint ventures had total assets of $430.4 million and a net loss of $5.3 million for the year ended.

As of December 31, 2010, MCWR III owned four shopping centers, had total assets of $63.6 million, and a net loss of approximately $433,000 for the year ended and the Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $15.9 million and approximately $108,000, respectively. Effective January 1, 2010, the partnership agreement was amended to include a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the Company will apply the Restricted Gain Method for properties sold to MCWR III on or after January 1, 2010. During 2010, the Company did not sell any properties to MCWR III. Since the inception of MCWR III in 2005, the Company has recognized gain of $14.1 million on partial sales to MCWR III and deferred gains of $4.7 million.

As of December 31, 2010, MCWR-DESCO owned 32 shopping centers, had total assets of $366.8 million and recorded a net loss of $4.9 million for the year ended and the Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $60.0 million and approximately $817,000, respectively. Since the inception of MCWR-DESCO in 2007, Regency has not sold any properties to MCWR-DESCO. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require the Company to apply the Restricted Gain Method. In December 2010, the partners of MCWR-DESCO began negotiating the liquidation of the portfolio through DIK. If agreed to and executed by the partners, the liquidation could occur in 2011, whereby Regency would receive four shopping centers from MCWR-DESCO representing the distribution of its equity in the partnership on a pro-rata basis. As a result of the expected liquidation of the partnership, Regency reduced its investment in MCWR-DESCO to fair value and recorded a provision for impairment of $2.7 million at December 31, 2010 in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The Company co-invests with the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund (“OPERF”) in three real estate partnerships, two of which the Company has ownership interests of 20% (“Columbia I” and “Columbia II”) and one in which the Company has an ownership interest of 30% (“Cameron”). The

 

97

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Company’s investment in these three real estate partnerships totals $47.4 million and represents 1.2% of the Company’s total assets at December 31, 2010. At December 31, 2010, the OPERF joint ventures had total assets of $686.2 million and a net loss of $15.9 million.

As of December 31, 2010, Columbia I owned 13 shopping centers, had total assets of $277.8 million, and net loss of $14.9 million for the year ended, primarily related to the provision for impairment of $23.7 million on two properties that it expects to sell in the next three years. The Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $57.8 million and $3.0 million, respectively. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right for election to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the Company has applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain recognized on property sales to Columbia I. During 2010, the Company did not sell any properties to Columbia I. Since the inception of Columbia I in 2001, the Company has recognized gain of $2.0 million on partial sales to Columbia I and deferred gains of $4.3 million. During 2010, Columbia I sold one shopping center to a third party for $12.4 million and recognized a gain of $1.2 million.

As of December 31, 2010, Columbia II owned 16 shopping centers, had total assets of $302.4 million and net loss of approximately $330,000 for the year ended, primarily related to the provision for impairment of approximately $857,000 on one property it expects to sell in the next three years. The Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $59.0 million and approximately $69,000, respectively. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right for election to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the Company has applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain recognized on property sales to Columbia II. During 2010, the Company did not sell any properties to Columbia II. Since the inception of Columbia II in 2004, the Company has recognized gain of $9.1 million on partial sales to Columbia II and deferred gains of $15.7 million.

As of December 31, 2010, Cameron owned one shopping center, had total assets of $106.0 million and a net loss of approximately $708,000 for the year ended and the Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $31.9 million and approximately $221,000, respectively. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require the Company to apply the Restricted Gain Method. Since the inception of Cameron in 2004, the Company has not sold any properties to the real estate partnership.

The Company co-invests with the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (“CalSTRS”) in a joint venture (“RegCal”) in which the Company has a 25% ownership interest. As of December 31, 2010, RegCal owned eight shopping centers, had total assets of $183.5 million, and net income of approximately $858,000 for the year ended and the Company’s share of its total assets and net income was $45.9 million and approximately $194,000 respectively. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right for election to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the Company has applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain recognized on property sales to RegCal. During 2010, the Company did not sell any properties to RegCal. Since the inception of RegCal in 2004, the Company has recognized gain of $10.1 million on partial sales to RegCal and deferred gains of $3.4 million. In March 2010, RegCal purchased one property from a third party for a sales price of $12.9 million, net of assumed debt of $18.0 million, and the Company contributed $3.3 million for its proportionate share of the purchase price.

The Company co-invests with Regency Retail Partners (the “Fund”), a closed-end, finite life investment fund in which the Company has an ownership interest of 20%. As of December 31, 2010, the Fund owned nine shopping centers, had total assets of $341.1 million, and recorded a net loss of $18.9 million for the year ended, primarily related to provisions for impairment of $18.1 million recorded on four properties that are expected to sell in the next three years, and the Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $68.1 million and $3.6 million, respectively. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require the Company to apply the Restricted Gain Method. During 2010, the

 

98

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Company did not sell any properties to the Fund. Since the inception of the Fund in 2006, the Company has recognized gains of $71.6 million on partial sales to the Fund and deferred gains of $17.9 million.

The Company co-invests with United Services Automobile Association (the “USAA partnership”) in which the Company has an ownership interest of 20.01%. As of December 31, 2010, the USAA partnership owned eight shopping centers, had total assets of $134.3 million and recorded a net loss of approximately $441,000 for the year ended and the Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $26.9 million and approximately $88,000, respectively. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right for election to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the Company has applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain recognized on property sales to the USAA partnership. During 2010, the Company did not sell any properties to the USAA partnership. Since the inception of the USAA partnership in 2009, the Company has recognized gains of $19.4 million on partial sales to the USAA partnership and deferred gains of $8.0 million.

The Company co-invests in another nine joint ventures that own seven shopping centers and land (“other investments in real estate partnerships”) in which the Company has an ownership interest of 50% in each venture. Each venture is also owned 50% by one of three partners, two partners of which are also the grocery anchor tenants in the seven shopping centers owned by the various ventures. The Company’s investment in these other investments in real estate partnerships totals $47.0 million and represents 1.2% of the Company’s total assets at December 31, 2010. As of December 31, 2010, the other investments in real estate partnerships had total combined assets of $130.4 million, and recorded combined net income of $3.2 million for the year ended and the Company’s share of these combined total assets and combined net income was $66.5 million and $1.4 million, respectively.

Summarized financial information for the investments in real estate partnerships on a combined basis, is as follows (in thousands):

 

		December 31, 2010				December 31, 2009
Investment in real estate, net		$	3,686,565				3,900,277
Acquired lease intangible assets, net			120,163				147,151
Other assets			176,394				137,753
Total assets		$	3,983,122				4,185,181
Notes payable		$	2,117,695				2,477,928
Acquired lease intangible liabilities, net			75,551				87,009
Other liabilities			69,230				80,011
Capital - Regency			557,374				375,076
Capital - Third parties			1,163,272				1,165,157
Total liabilities and capital		$	3,983,122				4,185,181

Investments in real estate partnerships had notes payable of $2.1 billion and $2.5 billion as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and the Company’s proportionate share of these loans was $663.1 million and $585.5 million, respectively. The Company does not guarantee these loans with the exception of an $8.8 million loan related to its 50% ownership interest in a single asset real estate partnership where the loan agreement contains “several” guarantees from each partner.

 

99

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

As of December 31, 2010, scheduled principal repayments on notes payable of the investments in real estate partnerships were as follows (in thousands):

 

Scheduled Principal Payments by Year:		Scheduled Principal Payments				Mortgage Loan Maturities				Unsecured Maturities				Total				Regency’s Pro-Rata Share
2011		$	4,275				466,470				8,759				479,504				185,651
2012			6,489				244,418				11,046				261,953				98,977
2013			7,530				32,447				—				39,977				14,567
2014			7,714				77,304				—				85,018				24,346
2015			7,493				299,978				—				307,471				72,614
Beyond 5 Years			41,658				897,535				—				939,193				265,959
Unamortized debt premiums, net			—				4,579				—				4,579				942
Total		$	75,159				2,022,731				19,805				2,117,695				663,056

The revenues and expenses for the investments in real estate partnerships on a combined basis are summarized as follows (in thousands):

 

		For the years ended December 31,
		2010				2009				2008
Total revenues		$	437,029				434,050				491,246
Operating expenses:
Depreciation and amortization			155,146				160,484				182,844
Operating and maintenance			67,541				63,855				70,158
General and administrative			7,383				8,247				8,860
Real estate taxes			55,926				59,339				63,393
Provision for doubtful accounts			2,951				10,062				2,765
Other expenses			715				2,098				658
Total operating expenses			289,662				304,085				328,678
Other expense (income):
Interest expense, net			129,581				137,794				146,765
Gain on sale of real estate			(8,976	)			(6,141	)			(14,461	)
Provision for impairment			78,908				104,416				—
Other income			(383	)			72				139
Total other expense			199,130				236,141				132,443
Net income (loss)		$	(51,763	)			(106,176	)			30,125
Regency’s share of net income (loss)		$	(12,884	)			(26,373	)			5,292

 

5.	Notes Receivable

The Company had notes receivable outstanding of $35.9 million and $37.8 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The notes receivable have fixed interest rates ranging from 6.0% to 9.0% with maturity dates through January 2019 and are secured by property held as collateral. There was no provision for impairment recorded for notes receivable during 2010. During the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, impairment losses of approximately $465,000 related to an $879,000 note receivable and $1.1 million related to a $3.6 million note receivable, respectively, were recorded in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. During the years ended December 31, 2009, and 2008, the Company recorded approximately $50,000 and $417,000 in interest income related to these impaired loans of which $296,000 was recognized on a cash basis during the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

100

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

6.	Acquired Lease Intangibles

The Company had acquired lease intangible assets, net of amortization, of $18.2 million and $10.0 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, of which $15.7 million and $9.7 million, respectively relates to in-place leases. These in-place leases had a remaining weighted average amortization period of 7.9 years. The aggregate amortization expense recorded for these in-place leases was $2.3 million, $2.7 million, and $4.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively. The Company had above-market lease intangible assets, net of amortization, of approximately $974,000 and $341,000 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The remaining weighted average amortization period was 6.0 years. The aggregate amortization expense recorded as a reduction to minimum rent for these above-market leases was approximately $108,000, $102,000 and $113,000 for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively. In 2010, the Company acquired an above-market ground rent lease intangible asset in the amount of $1.6 million with a remaining life of 91 years. There were no above-market ground rent lease intangible assets recorded as of December 31, 2009.

The Company had acquired lease intangible liabilities, net of accretion, of $6.7 million and $5.9 million as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The remaining weighted average accretion period is 8.4 years. The aggregate amount recorded as an increase to minimum rent for these below-market rents was $1.3 million, $1.9 million, and $2.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively.

The estimated aggregate amortization and net accretion amounts from acquired lease intangibles for the next five years are as follows (in thousands):

 

Year Ending December 31,		Amortization Expense				Minimum Rent, net
2011		$	2,715				859
2012			2,233				793
2013			1,907				715
2014			1,585				530
2015			1,319				474

 

7.	Income Taxes

The net book basis of the Company’s real estate assets exceeds the tax basis by $40.2 million and $78.7 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, primarily due to the difference between the cost basis of the assets acquired and their carryover basis recorded for tax purposes.

The following summarizes the tax status of dividends paid during the respective years:

 

		2010				2009				2008
Dividend per share		$	1.85				2.11				2.90
Ordinary income			40	%			54	%			73	%
Capital gain			2	%			14	%			22	%
Return of capital			58	%			32	%			5	%

 

101

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

RRG is subject to federal and state income taxes and files separate tax returns. Income tax expense (benefit) is included in other expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and consists of the following for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009				2008
Income tax (benefit) expense:
Current		$	(639	)			4,692				88
Deferred			(860	)			(4,894	)			(1,688	)
Total income tax benefit		$	(1,499	)			(202	)			(1,600	)

Income tax expense (benefit) is included in either other expenses if the related income is from continuing operations or discontinued operations on the Consolidated Statements of Operations as follows for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009				2008
Income tax expense (benefit) from:
Continuing operations		$	(1,333	)			1,883				(1,600	)
Discontinued operations			(166	)			(2,085	)			—
Total income tax benefit		$	(1,499	)			(202	)			(1,600	)

Income tax benefit differed from the amounts computed by applying the U.S. Federal income tax rate of 34% to pretax income of RRG for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively as follows (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009				2008
Computed expected tax benefit		$	(3,368	)			(4,791	)			(2,324	)
Increase in income tax resulting from state taxes			(392	)			(558	)			(197	)
Provision for valuation allowance			286				4,755				—
Straight-line rent and all other items			1,975				392				921
Total income tax benefit		$	(1,499	)			(202	)			(1,600	)

All other items principally represent the tax effect of gains associated with the sale of properties to joint ventures. Included in the income tax expense (benefit) disclosed above, the Company has approximately $600,000 of state income tax expense at the Operating Partnership for the Texas Gross Margin Tax recorded in other expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008.

The following table represents the Company’s net deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 recorded in other assets in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009
Deferred tax assets		$	23,189				19,802
Deferred tax liabilities			(1,999	)			(1,057	)
Provision for valuation allowance			(5,041	)			(4,755	)
Total		$	16,149				13,990

During 2010, a valuation allowance of approximately $286,000 was established representing 100% of the charitable contribution carryforward. During 2009, a valuation allowance of $4.8 million was established representing 100% of the disallowed interest, under Section 163(j) of the Code. In both cases, it was

 

102

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

determined to be more likely than not that the asset would not be realized. Other deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities relate primarily to differences in the timing of the recognition of income or loss between U.S. GAAP and tax basis of accounting. Excluding the provision for valuation allowance, significant portions of the deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities include a $5.1 million deferred tax asset for capitalized costs under Section 263A of the Code, a $9.0 million deferred tax asset related to the provision for impairment, a $2.7 million deferred tax asset related to a net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforward and a $1.7 million deferred tax liability related to straight line rents. Our estimated Federal NOL generated in 2010 is $7.6 million of which we carryback two years and forward 20 years. We intend to carryback approximately $527,000 to 2009 and the balance forward, expiring in 2030. We assessed the components of the net deferred tax asset balance at year end, excluding the items for which a valuation allowance was provided, and determined that it is more likely than not that the assets will be utilized.

The Company accounts for uncertainties in income tax law in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 740. Under FASB ASC Topic 740, tax positions shall initially be recognized in the financial statements when it is more likely than not the position will be sustained upon examination by the tax authorities. Such tax positions shall initially and subsequently be measured as the largest amount of tax benefit that has a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement with the tax authority assuming full knowledge of the position and relevant facts. The Company believes that it has appropriate support for the income tax positions taken and to be taken on its tax returns and that its accruals for tax liabilities are adequate for all open tax years based on an assessment of many factors including past experience and interpretations of tax laws applied to the facts of each matter. Federal and state tax returns are open from 2007 and forward for the Company and federal returns are open from 2008 and forward for the TRS.

During 2008, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) commenced an examination of RRG’s U.S. income tax returns for 2006 and 2007 which was completed in June 2009. No adjustments were made.

 

8.	Notes Payable and Unsecured Credit Facilities

The Parent Company does not hold any indebtedness, but guarantees all of the unsecured debt and less than 9% of the secured debt of the Operating Partnership.

Notes Payable

Notes payable consist of mortgage loans secured by properties and unsecured public debt. Mortgage loans may be prepaid, but could be subject to yield maintenance premiums. Mortgage loans are generally due in monthly installments of principal and interest or interest only, and mature over various terms through 2020, whereas, interest on unsecured public debt is payable semi-annually and the debt mature over various terms through 2021. Fixed interest rates on mortgage loans range from 5.00% to 8.40% with a weighted average rate of 6.52%. As of December 31, 2010, the Company had two variable rate mortgage loans, one in the amount of $4.1 million with an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 380 basis points maturing on October 1, 2014 and one construction loan with a current balance of $7.1 million with a variable interest rate of LIBOR plus 300 basis points maturing on September 2, 2011. During the year ended December 31, 2010, $6.1 million was funded from the construction loan for a development project.

On June 2, 2010, RCLP completed the sale of $150.0 million of 6.0% ten-year senior unsecured notes. The notes are due June 15, 2020. Interest on the notes will be payable semi-annually on June 15^th and December 15^th of each year. The net proceeds were used to repay the balance of the unsecured line of credit.

 

103

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

On October 7, 2010, RCLP completed the sale of $250.0 million of 4.80% ten-year senior unsecured notes. The notes are due April 15, 2021. Interest on the notes will be payable semiannually on April 15^th and October 15^th of each year. A portion of the net proceeds were used to repay the $110.0 million balance of the unsecured line of credit and to fund the debt tender offer discussed below.

On October 29, 2010, RCLP completed a tender offer for outstanding debt by purchasing $11.8 million of its $173.5 million 7.95% unsecured notes maturing in January 2011, and $57.6 million of its $250.0 million 6.75% unsecured notes maturing in January 2012 (collectively, the “Notes”). The total consideration paid for the Notes was $74.8 million or $1,066.25 per $1,000 in principal amount of the 6.75% Notes and $1,015.50 per $1,000 in principal amount of the 7.95% Notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest. The Company recognized a $4.2 million expense for the early extinguishment of this debt.

Unsecured Credit Facilities

The Company has a $600.0 million line of credit (the “Line”) commitment under an agreement with Wells Fargo Bank and a syndicate of other banks that matures in February 2012. The Line has a current interest rate of LIBOR plus 55 basis points and an annual facility fee of 15 basis points subject to Regency maintaining its corporate credit and senior unsecured ratings at BBB. The balance on the Line was $10.0 million at December 31, 2010 and there was no balance outstanding at December 31, 2009. The Company initiated discussions with its lender to enter into a new Line commitment and term, and expects to close on a new commitment prior to February 2012.

The Company had a $113.8 million revolving credit facility under an agreement with Wells Fargo Bank and a syndicate of other banks that matured in February 2011. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the revolving credit facility had a variable interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 100 basis points and an annual facility fee of 20 basis points subject to maintaining its corporate credit and senior unsecured ratings at BBB. There was no balance outstanding at December 31, 2010 or 2009 and the Company did not renew this facility.

Including both the Line commitment and the revolving credit facility (collectively, “Unsecured credit facilities”), the Company has $703.8 million of total availability as of December 31, 2010 and the spread paid is dependent upon the Company maintaining specific investment-grade ratings. The Company is also required to comply with certain financial covenants as defined in the Credit Agreement such as Minimum Net Worth, Ratio of Total Liabilities to Gross Asset Value (“GAV”) and Ratio of Recourse Secured Indebtedness to GAV, Ratio of Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization (“EBITDA”) to Fixed Charges, and other covenants customary with this type of unsecured financing. As of December 31, 2010, management of the Company believes it is in compliance with all financial covenants for the Unsecured credit facilities. The Unsecured credit facilities are used to finance the acquisition and development of real estate and for general working-capital purposes.

The Company’s outstanding debt at December 31, 2010 and 2009 consists of the following (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009
Notes payable:
Fixed rate mortgage loans		$	402,151				398,820
Variable rate mortgage loans			11,189				5,596
Fixed rate unsecured loans			1,671,129				1,481,964
Total notes payable			2,084,469				1,886,380
Unsecured credit facilities			10,000				—
Total		$	2,094,469				1,886,380

 

104

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

As of December 31, 2010, scheduled principal repayments on notes payable were as follows (in thousands):

 

Scheduled Principal Payments by Year:		Scheduled Principal Payments				Mortgage Loan Maturities				Unsecured Maturities (1)				Total
2011		$	4,957				7,665				181,691				194,313
2012			5,267				—				202,377				207,644
2013			5,151				16,341				—				21,492
2014			4,515				21,076				150,000				175,591
2015			3,075				46,312				350,000				399,387
Beyond 5 Years			5,716				292,535				800,000				1,098,251
Unamortized debt discounts, net			—				730				(2,939	)			(2,209	)
Total		$	28,681				384,659				1,681,129				2,094,469

 

(1)	Includes unsecured public debt and unsecured credit facilities. The Line is included in 2012 maturities and matures in February 2012.

 

9.	Derivative Financial Instruments

Risk Management Objective of Using Derivatives

The Company is exposed to certain risks arising from both its business operations and economic conditions. The Company principally manages its exposures to a wide variety of business and operational risks through management of its core business activities. The Company manages economic risks, including interest rate, liquidity, and credit risk primarily by managing the amount, sources, and duration of its debt funding and the use of derivative financial instruments. Specifically, the Company enters into derivative financial instruments to manage exposures that arise from business activities that result in the receipt or future payment of known and uncertain cash amounts, the amount of which are determined by interest rates. The Company’s derivative financial instruments are used to manage differences in the amount, timing, and duration of the Company’s known or expected cash payments principally related to the Company’s borrowings.

Cash Flow Hedges of Interest Rate Risk

The Company’s objectives in using interest rate derivatives are to add stability to interest expense and to manage its exposure to interest rate movements. To accomplish this objective, the Company primarily uses interest rate swaps as part of its interest rate risk management strategy. Interest rate swaps designated as cash flow hedges involve the receipt of variable-rate amounts from a counterparty in exchange for the Company making fixed-rate payments over the life of the agreements without exchange of the underlying notional amount.

The effective portion of changes in the fair value of derivatives designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges is recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss and subsequently reclassified into earnings in the period that the hedged forecasted transaction affects earnings. During 2010, such derivatives were used to hedge the variable cash flows associated with forecasted issuances of debt (see “Objectives and Strategies” below for further discussion). The ineffective portion of the change in fair value of the derivatives is recognized directly in earnings as gain or loss on derivative instruments. During the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company recognized a gain of $1.4 million and loss of $3.3 million, respectively, for changes in hedge ineffectiveness attributable to revised inputs used in the valuation models to estimate effectiveness. There was no hedge ineffectiveness recognized for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

105

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

On October 7, 2010, the Company paid $36.7 million to settle the remaining $140.7 million of interest rate swaps then outstanding. On October 7, 2010, the Company closed on $250.0 million of 4.80% ten-year senior unsecured notes The Company began amortizing the $36.7 million loss realized from the swap settlement in October 2010 over a ten year period; therefore, the effective interest rate on these notes is 6.26%.

On June 1, 2010, the Company paid $26.8 million to settle and partially settle $150.0 million of its interest rate swaps then outstanding of $290.7 million. On June 2, 2010 the Company also closed on $150.0 million of ten-year senior unsecured notes with an interest rate of 6.00%. The Company began amortizing the $26.8 million loss realized from the swap settlement in June 2010 over a ten year period; therefore, the effective interest rate on these notes is 7.67%.

Realized gains and losses associated with the settled interest rate swaps have been included in accumulated other comprehensive loss in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Parent Company and the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Operating Partnership and are amortized as the corresponding hedged interest payments are made in future periods.

The tables below represent the effect of the derivative financial instruments on the accompanying consolidated financial statements for the years ended (in thousands):

 

Derivatives in FASB ASC Topic 815 Cash Flow Hedging Relationships:		Amount of Gain (Loss) Recognized in OCI on Derivative (Effective Portion)												Location of Gain (Loss) Reclassified from Accumulated OCI into Income (Effective Portion)				Amount of Gain (Loss) Reclassified from Accumulated OCI into Income (Effective Portion)												Location of Gain or (Loss) Recognized in Income on Derivative (Ineffective Portion and Amount Excluded from Effectiveness Testing)		Amount of Gain or (Loss) Recognized in Income on Derivative (Ineffective Portion and Amount Excluded from Effectiveness Testing)
		December 31,																December 31,														December 31,
		2010				2009				2008								2010				2009				2008						2010				2009				2008
Interest rate products		$	(36,556	)			38,645				(73,855	)			Interest expense			$	(5,575	)			(2,305	)			(1,306	)		Gain (loss) on derivative instruments		$	1,419				(3,294	)			—

 

The unamortized balance of the settled interest rate swaps at December 31, 2010 and 2009 was $81.5 million and $25.4 million, respectively, of which the Company expects to amortize $9.5 million over 2011.

The table below presents the fair value of the Company’s derivative financial instruments as well as their classification on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 (in thousands):

 

Liability Derivatives
2010						2009
Balance Sheet Location		Fair Value				Balance Sheet Location		Fair Value
Derivative instruments		$	—			Derivative instruments		$	(28,363	)

Non-designated Hedges

The Company does not use derivatives for trading or speculative purposes and currently does not have any derivatives that are not designated as hedges.

 

106

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Objectives and Strategies

The Company continuously monitors the capital markets and evaluates its ability to issue new debt to repay maturing debt or fund its commitments. Based upon the current capital markets, the Company’s current credit ratings, and the number of high quality, unencumbered properties that it owns which could collateralize borrowings, the Company expects that it will successfully issue new secured or unsecured debt to fund its obligations.

 

10.	Fair Value Measurements

Derivative Financial Instruments

The valuation of these instruments is determined using widely accepted valuation techniques including discounted cash flow analysis on the expected cash flows of each derivative. This analysis reflects the contractual terms of the derivatives, including the period to maturity, and uses observable market-based inputs, including interest rate curves, and implied volatilities. The Company incorporates credit valuation adjustments to appropriately reflect both its own nonperformance risk and the respective counterparty’s nonperformance risk in the fair value measurements.

Although the Company has determined that the majority of the inputs used to value its derivatives fall within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, the credit valuation adjustments associated with its derivatives utilize Level 3 inputs, such as estimates of current credit spreads to evaluate the likelihood of default by the Company and its counterparties.

As of December 31, 2010, there were no liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis.

As of December 31, 2009, the Company’s liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis, aggregated by the level in the fair value hierarchy within which those measurements fall were as follows (in thousands):

 

						Fair Value Measurements Using:
Liabilities		Balance				Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Liabilities (Level 1)				Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)				Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
Derivative instruments		$	(28,363	)			—				(29,040	)			677

Changes in Level 3 inputs are not considered significant enough to warrant reconciliation as of December 31, 2009.

Impairment of Long-lived Assets

Long-lived assets held and used are comprised primarily of real estate. During the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company established provisions for impairment of long-lived assets as follows (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009
Land held for future development or sale		$	2,177				93,710
Operating and development properties			21,688				10,227
Total		$	23,865				103,937

 

107

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

The triggering event that led to the impairment charges during 2010 was primarily due to a change in the expected investment holding period for certain properties. As a result, the Company evaluated the current fair value of said properties and recorded an impairment loss during 2010. Additional impairments may be necessary in the future, in the event that market conditions change and impact the factors used to estimate fair value, the Company reduces the holding period on properties held and used, or it decides to classify properties as held for sale where they were previously classified as held and used. See Note 1(c) for a discussion of the inputs used in determining the fair value of long-lived assets. The Company has determined that the inputs used to value its long-lived assets fall within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

The Company’s assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis are those assets for which the Company has recorded a provision for impairment during 2010. The assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis are as follows (in thousands):

 

		Fair Value Measurements Using:
Assets		Balance				Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)				Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)				Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)				Total (Losses)
Long-lived assets held and used:
Land held for future development or sale		$	5,638				—				—				5,638				(2,177	)
Operating and development properties			93,510				—				—				93,510				(21,688	)
Investment in real estate partnerships			20,050				—				—				20,050				(2,750	)
Total		$	119,198				—				—				119,198				(26,615	)

Notes Payable

The fair value of the Company’s notes payable are estimated based on the current rates available to the Company for debt of the same terms and remaining maturities. Fixed rate loans assumed in connection with real estate acquisitions are recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements at fair value at the time of acquisition excluding those loans assumed in DIK liquidations. Each of these fair value measurements fall within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Based on the estimates used by the Company, the fair value of notes payable was $1.7 billion and $1.4 billion at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Noncontrolling Interests of the Parent Company and Partners’ Capital

The Operating Partnership had 177,164 and 468,211 limited Partnership Units outstanding as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The limited Partnership Units are exchangeable for the Parent Company’s common stock. The redemption value of the limited Partnership Units is based on the closing market price of the Parent Company’s common stock and is used to calculate the fair value measurement. Therefore, the fair value measurements fall within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. The Parent Company’s closing common stock price was $42.24 and $35.06 per share as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and the aggregate redemption value of the limited Partnership Units was $7.5 million and $16.4 million, respectively.

 

108

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Noncontrolling Interests of the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership

At December 31, 2010, the Company held a majority interest in four consolidated entities with specified termination dates through 2049. The noncontrolling interests in these entities will be settled upon termination by distribution or transfer of either cash or specific assets of the underlying entities. The estimated fair value of the noncontrolling interests in entities with specified termination dates was $9.3 million and $9.1 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and is generally determined by applying a market-based capitalization rate to net operating income. Each of the inputs used in calculating these fair value measurements fall within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Their related carrying value was $6.8 million and $6.6 million as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, which is included within noncontrolling interests of Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.

 

11.	Equity and Capital

Equity of the Parent Company

Preferred Stock

The Series 3, 4, and 5 preferred shares are perpetual, are not convertible into common stock of the Parent Company, and are redeemable at par upon the Company’s election beginning five years after the issuance date. None of the terms of the preferred stock contain any unconditional obligations that would require the Company to redeem the securities at any time or for any purpose and the Company does not currently anticipate redeeming any preferred stock. Terms and conditions of the three series of preferred stock outstanding as of December 31, 2010 are summarized as follows:

 

Series		Shares Outstanding				Liquidation Preference				Distribution Rate				Callable By Company
Series 3			3,000,000			$	75,000,000				7.45	%			4/3/2008
Series 4			5,000,000				125,000,000				7.25	%			8/31/2009
Series 5			3,000,000				75,000,000				6.70	%			8/2/2010
			11,000,000			$	275,000,000

Common Stock

On December 9, 2009, the Parent Company completed a public offering of 8.0 million shares of common stock at $30.75 per share in connection with forward sale agreements entered into with J.P Morgan and Wells Fargo Securities, which will result in estimated future net proceeds of $217.8 million, net of issuance costs, once the agreements are settled by March 2011, unless the Company and the forward purchasers agree to extend the settlement date. This offering included an over-allotment option of 1.2 million shares which closed simultaneously with the offering and provided the Company with net proceeds of $34.9 million during 2010. The Company intends to use the proceeds it receives upon settlement of the forward sale agreements to repay debt maturing in 2011 and outstanding balances on its line of credit.

On April 24, 2009, the Parent Company completed a public offering of 10.0 million common shares at $32.50 per share resulting in proceeds of $310.9 million, net of issuance costs. The net proceeds were used to repay the balance of the Line and general working capital purposes.

 

109

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Noncontrolling Interest of Preferred Units

At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the face value of the Series D preferred units was $50.0 million with a fixed distribution rate of 7.45% which are recorded in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets, net of original issuance costs of approximately $842,000.

Terms and conditions for the Series D preferred units outstanding as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 are summarized as follows:

 

Units Outstanding		Amount Outstanding				Distribution Rate				Callable by Company				Exchangeable by Unit  holder
500,000		$	50,000,000				7.45	%			9/29/2009				1/1/2014

The Series D preferred units are callable at par beginning September 29, 2009, have no stated maturity or mandatory redemption and pay a cumulative, quarterly dividend at a fixed rate. The Series D preferred units may be exchanged by the holder for cumulative redeemable preferred stock of the Parent Company at an exchange rate of one unit for one share. The Series D preferred units and the related preferred stock are not convertible into common stock of the Parent Company.

Noncontrolling Interest of Exchangeable Operating Partnership Units

The Operating Partnership had 177,164 and 468,211 limited Partnership Units not owned by the Parent Company outstanding as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. See Note 10 for further discussion.

Noncontrolling Interests of Limited Partners’ Interests in Consolidated Partnerships

Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships not owned by the Company are classified as noncontrolling interests on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets of the Parent Company. Subject to certain conditions and pursuant to the conditions of the agreement, the Company has the right, but not the obligation, to purchase the other member’s interest or sell its own interest in these consolidated partnerships. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company’s noncontrolling interest in these consolidated partnerships was $10.8 million and $11.7 million, respectively.

Capital of the Operating Partnership

Preferred Units

The Series D Preferred Units are owned by institutional investors. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the face value of the Series D Preferred Units was $50.0 million with a fixed distribution rate of 7.45% and are recorded in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets net of original issuance costs of approximately $842,000.

Preferred Units of General Partner

The Parent Company, as general partner, owns corresponding Series 3, 4, and 5 preferred unit interests (“Series 3, 4, and 5 Preferred Units”) in the Operating Partnership. See above for further discussion.

General Partner

As of December 31, 2010, the Parent Company, as general partner, owned approximately 99.8% or 81,886,872 of the total 82,064,036 Partnership Units outstanding.

 

110

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Limited Partners

The Operating Partnership had 177,164 and 468,211 limited Partnership Units outstanding as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. See Note 10 for further discussion.

Noncontrolling Interests of Limited Partners’ Interests in Consolidated Partnerships

See above for further discussion.

 

12.	Stock-Based Compensation

The Company recorded stock-based compensation in general and administrative expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations, the components of which are further described below (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009				2008
Restricted stock		$	7,236				5,227				8,193
Stock options			—				—				988
Directors’ fees paid in common stock			231				279				375
Capitalized stock-based compensation			(852	)			(1,574	)			(3,606	)
Total		$	6,615				3,932				5,950

The recorded amounts of stock-based compensation expense represent amortization of deferred compensation related to share-based payments. Compensation expense specifically identifiable to development and leasing activities is capitalized and included above.

The Company established the Plan under which the Board of Directors may grant stock options and other stock-based awards to officers, directors, and other key employees. The Plan allows the Company to issue up to 5.0 million shares in the form of the Parent Company’s common stock or stock options. The plan permits the grant of any type of stock-based award but limits non-option awards to no more than 2.75 million shares. At December 31, 2010, there were approximately 2.2 million shares available for grant under the Plan either through options or restricted stock. The Plan also limits outstanding awards to no more than 12% of the Parent Company’s outstanding common stock.

Stock options are granted under the Plan with an exercise price equal to the Parent Company’s stock’s price at the date of grant. All stock options granted have ten-year lives, contain vesting terms of one to five years from the date of grant and some have dividend equivalent rights. Stock options granted prior to 2005 also contained “reload” rights, which allowed an option holder the right to receive new options each time existing options were exercised, if the existing options were exercised under specific criteria provided for in the Plan.

The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes-Merton closed-form (“Black-Scholes”) option valuation model. The Company believes that the use of the Black-Scholes model meets the fair value measurement objectives of FASB ASC Topic 718 and reflects all substantive characteristics of the instruments being valued.

 

111

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

The following table reports stock option activity during the year ended December 31, 2010:

 

		Number of Options				Weighted Average Exercise Price				Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (in years)				Aggregate Intrinsic Value (in thousands)
Outstanding December 31, 2009			453,463			$	51.90
Less: Exercised			1,996				41.44
Less: Forfeited			2,580				51.36
Less: Expired			6,007				59.68
Outstanding December 31, 2010			442,880			$	51.85				3.5			$	(4,255	)
Vested and expected to vest – December 31, 2010			442,880			$	51.85				3.5			$	(4,255	)
Exercisable December 31, 2010			440,695			$	51.67				3.5			$	(4,154	)

There were no stock options granted in 2010, 2009, and 2008. The total intrinsic value of options exercised during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 was approximately $1,000, $40,000, and $2.3 million, respectively. The Company received cash proceeds for stock option exercises of $1.0 million during 2008. The Company issues new shares to fulfill option exercises from its authorized shares available.

The following table presents information regarding non-vested option activity during the year ended December 31, 2010:

 

		Non-vested Number of Options				Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair Value
Non-vested at December 31, 2009			4,369			$	8.78
Less: 2010 Vesting			2,184				8.78
Non-vested at December 31, 2010			2,185			$	8.78

The Company grants restricted stock under the Plan to its employees as a form of long-term compensation and retention. The terms of each grant vary depending upon the participant’s responsibilities and position within the Company. The Company’s stock grants can be categorized as either time-based awards, performance-based awards, or market-based awards. All awards were valued at the fair market value on the date of grant, earn dividends throughout the vesting period, and have no voting rights. Compensation expense is measured at the grant date and recognized over the vesting period.

 

•

Time-based awards vest 25% per year beginning on the first anniversary following the grant date. These grants are subject only to continued employment and not dependent on future performance measures; and accordingly, if such vesting criteria are not met, compensation cost previously recognized would be reversed. During 2010, the Company granted 181,309 shares of time-based awards.

 

•

Performance-based awards are earned subject to future performance measurements, including individual goals, annual growth in earnings, and compounded three-year growth in earnings. Once the performance criteria are achieved and the actual number of shares earned is determined, shares will vest over a required service period. If such performance criteria are not met, compensation cost previously recognized would be reversed. The Company considers the likelihood of meeting

 

112

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

the performance criteria based upon managements’ estimates from which it determines the amounts recognized as expense on a periodic basis. During 2010, the Company did not grant any performance-based awards.

 

•

Market-based awards are earned dependent upon the Company’s total shareholder return in relation to the shareholder return of peer indices over a three-year period (“TSR Grant”). Once the market criteria are met and the actual number of shares earned is determined, 100% of the earned shares vest. The probability of meeting the market criteria was considered when calculating the estimated fair market value on the date of grant using a Monte Carlo simulation. These awards were accounted for as awards with market criteria, with compensation cost recognized over the service period, regardless of whether the market criteria are achieved and the awards are ultimately earned and vest. During 2010, the Company granted 93,688 shares of market-based awards.

The following table reports non-vested restricted stock activity during the year ended December 31, 2010:

 

		Number of Shares				Intrinsic Value (in thousands)				Weighted Average Grant Price
Non-vested at December 31, 2009			367,662
Add: Time-based awards			181,309							$	35.85
Add: Market-based awards			93,688							$	35.26
Less: Vested and Distributed			173,076							$	35.21
Less: Forfeited			33,024							$	67.49
Non-vested at December 31, 2010			436,559				$18,440

The following table reports shares vested and distributed during the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009:

 

		2010				2009
Time-based awards			108,637				138,773
Performance-based awards			40,618				87,723
Market-based awards earned			23,821				27,227
Total vested and distributed			173,076				253,723

The weighted-average grant price for restricted stock granted during the years 2010, 2009, and 2008 was $35.65, $38.91, and $63.76, respectively. The total intrinsic value of restricted stock vested during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 was $6.1 million, $9.6 million, and $12.3 million, respectively.

As of December 31, 2010, there was $11.4 million of unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested restricted stock granted under the Plan. When recognized, this compensation results in additional paid in capital in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Parent Company and in general partner preferred and common units in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Operating Partnership. This unrecognized compensation cost is expected to be recognized over the next three years, through 2013. The Company issues new restricted stock from its authorized shares available at the date of grant.

 

113

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

The Company maintains a 401(k) retirement plan covering substantially all employees, which permits participants to defer up to the maximum allowable amount determined by the IRS of their eligible compensation. This deferred compensation, together with Company matching contributions equal to 100% of employee deferrals up to a maximum of $3,900 of their eligible compensation, is fully vested and funded as of December 31, 2010. Costs related to the matching portion of the plan were $1.1 million, $1.4 million, and $1.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively.

 

13.	Earnings per Share and Unit

Parent Company Earnings per Share

The following summarizes the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per share for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively (in thousands except per share data):

 

		2010				2009				2008
Numerator:
Income (loss) from continuing operations		$	8,567				(38,917	)			119,224
Discontinued operations			7,632				6,174				22,297
Net income (loss)			16,199				(32,743	)			141,521
Less: Preferred stock dividends			19,675				19,675				19,675
Less: Noncontrolling interests			4,185				3,961				5,333
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders			(7,661	)			(56,379	)			116,513
Less: Dividends paid on unvested restricted stock			542				488				733
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders – basic and diluted		$	(8,203	)			(56,867	)			115,780
Denominator:
Weighted average common shares outstanding for basic EPS			81,414				76,829				69,578
Incremental shares to be issued under common stock options			—				—				84
Incremental shares to be issued under Forward Equity Offering			1,534				67				—
Weighted average common shares outstanding for diluted EPS			82,948				76,896				69,662
Income (loss) per common share – basic
Continuing operations		$	(0.19	)			(0.82	)			1.35
Discontinued operations			0.09				0.08				0.31
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders		$	(0.10	)			(0.74	)			1.66
Income (loss) per common share – diluted
Continuing operations		$	(0.19	)			(0.82	)			1.35
Discontinued operations			0.09				0.08				0.31
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders		$	(0.10	)			(0.74	)			1.66

The exchangeable operating partnership units were anti-dilutive to diluted EPS for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 and therefore, the units and related minority interest of exchangeable operating partnership units are excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS.

 

114

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

Operating Partnership Earnings per Unit

The following summarizes the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per unit for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively (in thousands except per unit data):

 

		2010				2009				2008
Numerator:
Income (loss) from continuing operations		$	8,567				(38,917	)			119,224
Discontinued operations			7,632				6,174				22,297
Net income (loss)			16,199				(32,743	)			141,521
Less: Preferred unit distributions			23,400				23,400				23,400
Less: Noncontrolling interests			376				452				701
Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders			(7,577	)			(56,595	)			117,420
Less: Dividends paid on unvested restricted stock			542				488				733
Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders – basic and diluted		$	(8,119	)			(57,083	)			116,687
Denominator:
Weighted average common units outstanding for basic EPU			81,685				77,297				70,048
Incremental units to be issued under common stock options			—				—				84
Incremental units to be issued under Forward Equity Offering			1,534				67				—
Weighted average common units outstanding for diluted EPU			83,219				77,364				70,132
Income (loss) per common unit – basic
Continuing operations		$	(0.19	)			(0.82	)			1.35
Discontinued operations			0.09				0.08				0.31
Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders		$	(0.10	)			(0.74	)			1.66
Income (loss) per common unit – diluted
Continuing operations		$	(0.19	)			(0.82	)			1.35
Discontinued operations			0.09				0.08				0.31
Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders		$	(0.10	)			(0.74	)			1.66

 

115

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

14.	Operating Leases

The Company’s properties are leased to tenants under operating leases with expiration dates extending to the year 2084. Future minimum rents under non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2010, excluding both tenant reimbursements of operating expenses and additional percentage rent based on tenants’ sales volume, are as follows (in thousands):

 

Year Ending December 31,		Amount
2011		$	330,503
2012			303,970
2013			262,040
2014			226,918
2015			192,837
Thereafter			1,149,219
Total		$	2,465,487

The shopping centers’ tenant base includes primarily national and regional supermarkets, drug stores, discount department stores and other retailers and, consequently, the credit risk is concentrated in the retail industry. There were no tenants that individually represented more than 5% of the Company’s annualized future minimum rents.

The Company has shopping centers that are subject to non-cancelable long-term ground leases where a third party owns and has leased the underlying land to the Company to construct and/or operate a shopping center. Ground leases expire through the year 2085 and in most cases provide for renewal options. In addition, the Company has non-cancelable operating leases pertaining to office space from which it conducts its business. Office leases expire through the year 2017 and in most cases provide for renewal options. Leasehold improvements are capitalized, recorded as tenant improvements, and depreciated over the shorter of the useful life of the improvements or the lease term. Operating lease expense, including capitalized ground lease payments on properties in development, was $8.1 million, $7.9 million, and $8.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively. The following table summarizes the future obligations under non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2010, (in thousands):

 

Year Ending December 31,		Amount
2011		$	8,041
2012			7,747
2013			7,621
2014			6,923
2015			6,686
Thereafter			108,667
Total		$	145,685

 

15.	Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is involved in litigation on a number of matters and is subject to certain claims which arise in the normal course of business, none of which, in the opinion of management, is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company is also subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations as they apply to real estate

 

116

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

pertaining to chemicals used by the dry cleaning industry, the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers, and underground petroleum storage tanks. The Company believes that the tenants who currently operate dry cleaning plants or gas stations do so in accordance with current laws and regulations. The Company has placed environmental insurance, when possible, on specific properties with known contamination, in order to mitigate its environmental risk. The Company monitors the shopping centers containing environmental issues and in certain cases voluntarily remediates the sites. If an operating or development property requires remediation to be performed by the Company prior to development or as a condition of sale, environmental remediation obligations are estimated and are considered in the assessment of the property’s value. In the event environmental remediation is required, the Company adjusts the sales price of the property for the environmental remediation to be performed, funds the cash in escrow to remediate the environmental issues, or agrees to remain responsible for the future environmental remediation expenses in which case the Company would accrue the estimated potential liability. The Company also has legal obligations to remediate certain sites and is in the process of doing so. The Company estimates the cost associated with remediating all of its environmental obligations at December 31, 2010 and 2009 to be $2.9 million and $3.2 million, respectively, all of which has been accrued in accounts payable and other liabilities on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company believes that the ultimate disposition of currently known environmental matters will not have a material effect on its financial position, liquidity, or operations; however, it can give no assurance that existing environmental studies with respect to the shopping centers have revealed all potential environmental liabilities; that any previous owner, occupant or tenant did not create any material environmental condition not known to it; that the current environmental condition of the shopping centers will not be affected by tenants and occupants, by the condition of nearby properties, or by unrelated third parties; or that changes in applicable environmental laws and regulations or their interpretation will not result in additional environmental liability to the Company.

The Company has the right to issue letters of credit under the Line up to an amount not to exceed $50.0 million which reduces the credit availability under the Line. The Company also has stand alone letters of credit with other banks. These letters of credit are primarily issued as collateral to facilitate the construction of development projects. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company had $5.3 million and $9.5 million letters of credit outstanding, respectively.

 

16.	Reorganization and Restructuring Charges

During 2009 and 2008, the Company announced restructuring plans designed to align employee headcount with projected workload. During 2009, the Company severed 103 employees with no future service requirement and recorded restructuring charges of $7.5 million for employee severance benefits. During 2008, the Company severed 50 employees and recorded restructuring charges of $2.4 million for employee severance benefits. There were no restructuring charges in 2010. Restructuring charges are included in general and administrative expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. All severance payouts were completed by January 2010 and funded using cash from operations. The component charges of the restructuring program for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 follows (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009				2008
Severance		$	—				5,966				2,086
Health insurance			—				1,092				150
Placement services			—				431				187
Total		$	—				7,489				2,423

 

117

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

 

As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the remaining accrued liabilities are as follows (in thousands):

 

		2010				2009
Compensation		$	—				1,160
Insurance			—				—
Other			—				—
		$	—				1,160

 

17.	Summary of Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)

The following table sets forth selected Quarterly Financial Data for the Company on a historical basis for each of the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 and has been derived from the accompanying consolidated financial statements as reclassified for discontinued operations (in thousands except per share and per unit data):

 

		First Quarter				Second Quarter				Third Quarter				Fourth Quarter
2010:
Operating Data:
Revenues as originally reported		$	124,368				121,600				121,410				119,901
Reclassified to discontinued operations			(290	)			(348	)			165				—
Adjusted Revenues		$	124,078				121,252				121,575				119,901
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders		$	12,368				6,753				9,885				(36,667	)
Net income (loss) of limited partners			94				27				34				(71	)
Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders		$	12,462				6,780				9,919				(36,738	)
Net income (loss) attributable to common stock and unit holders per share and unit:
Basic		$	0.15				0.08				0.12				(0.45	)
Diluted		$	0.15				0.08				0.12				(0.44	)
2009:
Operating Data:
Revenues as originally reported		$	120,159				116,461				133,742				121,625
Reclassified to discontinued operations			(744	)			(1,466	)			(1,421	)			(283	)
Adjusted Revenues		$	119,415				114,995				132,321				121,342
Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders		$	19,563				(17,180	)			(84,092	)			25,330
Net income (loss) of limited partners			164				(92	)			(462	)			174
Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders		$	19,727				(17,272	)			(84,554	)			25,504
Net income (loss) attributable to common stock and unit holders per share and unit:
Basic		$	0.28				(0.23	)			(1.05	)			0.31
Diluted		$	0.28				(0.23	)			(1.05	)			0.31

 

118

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 2010

(in thousands)

 

Shopping Centers (1)		Initial Cost								Cost  Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition  (2)				Total Cost																				Total Cost Net of Accumulated Depreciation				Mortgages
		Land				Building & Improvements								Land				Building & Improvements				Properties held for Sale				Total				Accumulated Depreciation
4S COMMONS TOWN CENTER		$	30,760				35,830				(200	)			30,811				35,579				—				66,390				7,868				58,522				62,500
AMERIGE HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER			10,109				11,288				79				10,108				11,368				—				21,476				890				20,586				17,000
ANASTASIA PLAZA			9,065				—				(101	)			3,328				5,636				—				8,964				232				8,732				—
ANTHEM HIGHLANDS SHOPPING CTR			8,643				11,981				(24	)			8,643				11,957				—				20,600				1,651				18,949				—
ANTHEM MARKETPLACE			6,714				13,696				(5,931	)			4,889				9,590				—				14,479				—				14,479				—
ASHBURN FARM MARKET CENTER			9,835				4,812				13				9,835				4,825				—				14,660				2,394				12,266				—
ASHFORD PLACE			2,584				9,865				143				2,584				10,008				—				12,592				4,513				8,079				—
AUGUSTA CENTER			5,142				2,720				(5,763	)			1,326				773				—				2,099				—				2,099				—
AVENTURA SHOPPING CENTER			2,751				10,459				51				2,751				10,510				—				13,261				8,557				4,704				—
BECKETT COMMONS			1,625				10,960				407				1,625				11,367				—				12,992				3,387				9,605				—
BELLEVIEW SQUARE			8,132				9,756				107				8,132				9,863				—				17,995				3,055				14,940				8,008
BENEVA VILLAGE SHOPS			2,484				10,162				778				2,484				10,940				—				13,424				3,642				9,782				—
BERKSHIRE COMMONS			2,295				9,551				131				2,295				9,682				—				11,977				4,574				7,403				7,500
BLOOMINGDALE SQUARE			3,940				14,912				148				3,940				15,060				—				19,000				5,338				13,662				—
BOULEVARD CENTER			3,659				10,787				662				3,659				11,449				—				15,108				3,763				11,345				—
BOYNTON LAKES PLAZA			2,628				11,236				250				2,628				11,486				—				14,114				4,142				9,972				—
BRIARCLIFF LA VISTA			694				3,292				150				694				3,442				—				4,136				1,799				2,337				—
BRIARCLIFF VILLAGE			4,597				24,836				287				4,597				25,123				—				29,720				11,439				18,281				—
BUCKHEAD COURT			1,417				7,432				104				1,417				7,536				—				8,953				3,739				5,214				—
BUCKLEY SQUARE			2,970				5,978				206				2,970				6,184				—				9,154				2,294				6,860				—
BUCKWALTER PLACE SHOPPING CTR			6,563				6,590				—				6,563				6,590				—				13,153				901				12,252				—
CAMBRIDGE SQUARE			774				4,347				588				774				4,935				—				5,709				1,820				3,889				—
CARMEL COMMONS			2,466				12,548				310				2,466				12,858				—				15,324				4,650				10,674				—
CARRIAGE GATE			833				4,974				155				833				5,129				—				5,962				3,203				2,759				—
CHAPEL HILL CENTRE			3,932				3,897				(160	)			2,988				4,681				—				7,669				—				7,669				—
CHASEWOOD PLAZA			4,612				20,829				173				4,612				21,002				—				25,614				10,727				14,887				—
CHERRY GROVE			3,533				15,862				334				3,533				16,196				—				19,729				5,478				14,251				—
CHESHIRE STATION			9,896				8,344				39				9,896				8,383				—				18,279				4,887				13,392				—

 

119

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 2010

(in thousands)

 

Shopping Centers (1)		Initial Cost								Cost  Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition  (2)				Total Cost																				Total Cost Net of Accumulated Depreciation				Mortgages
		Land				Building & Improvements								Land				Building & Improvements				Properties held for Sale				Total				Accumulated Depreciation
CLAYTON VALLEY SHOPPING CENTER			24,189				35,422				995				24,528				36,078				—				60,606				8,743				51,863				—
CLOVIS COMMONS			11,100				32,692				1,229				12,134				32,887				—				45,021				4,935				40,086				—
COCHRAN'S CROSSING			13,154				12,315				261				13,154				12,576				—				25,730				4,914				20,816				—
COOPER STREET			2,079				10,682				(725	)			1,954				10,082				—				12,036				3,200				8,836				—
CORKSCREW VILLAGE			8,407				8,004				21				8,407				8,025				—				16,432				1,124				15,308				8,890
CORVALLIS MARKET CENTER			6,674				12,244				34				6,696				12,256				—				18,952				1,384				17,568				—
COSTA VERDE CENTER			12,740				26,868				513				12,798				27,323				—				40,121				9,867				30,254				—
COURTYARD SHOPPING CENTER			5,867				4				3				5,867				7				—				5,874				—				5,874				—
CROMWELL SQUARE			1,772				6,944				7				1,772				6,951				—				8,723				3,183				5,540				—
CULPEPER COLONNADE			15,944				10,601				34				15,945				10,634				—				26,579				2,387				24,192				—
DELK SPECTRUM			2,985				12,001				116				2,985				12,117				—				15,102				4,189				10,913				—
DIABLO PLAZA			5,300				8,181				172				5,300				8,353				—				13,653				2,716				10,937				—
DICKSON TN			675				1,568				—				675				1,568				—				2,243				439				1,804				—
DUNWOODY VILLAGE			3,342				15,934				722				3,342				16,656				—				19,998				7,543				12,455				—
EAST POINTE			1,730				7,189				8				1,730				7,197				—				8,927				2,904				6,023				—
EAST PORT PLAZA			3,257				10,051				2,981				3,758				12,531				—				16,289				3,339				12,950				—
EAST TOWNE CENTER			2,957				4,938				(84	)			2,957				4,854				—				7,811				1,739				6,072				—
EL CAMINO SHOPPING CENTER			7,600				11,538				42				7,600				11,580				—				19,180				3,762				15,418				—
EL CERRITO PLAZA			11,025				27,371				32				11,025				27,403				—				38,428				1,960				36,468				41,106
EL NORTE PKWY PLAZA			2,834				7,370				55				2,840				7,419				—				10,259				2,593				7,666				—
ENCINA GRANDE			5,040				11,572				(45	)			5,040				11,527				—				16,567				3,828				12,739				—
FAIRFAX SHOPPING CENTER			15,239				11,367				(5,557	)			13,111				7,938				—				21,049				411				20,638				—
FALCON			1,340				4,168				—				1,340				4,168				—				5,508				590				4,918				—
FENTON MARKETPLACE			2,298				8,510				(5	)			2,298				8,505				—				10,803				2,344				8,459				—
FIRST STREET VILLAGE			4,161				8,103				—				4,161				8,103				—				12,264				1,277				10,987				—
FLEMING ISLAND			3,077				11,587				542				3,077				12,129				—				15,206				3,750				11,456				1,338
FORT BEND CENTER			2,594				3,175				(1,800	)			1,885				2,084				—				3,969				1,348				2,621				—
FORTUNA			2,025				—				883				2,908				—				—				2,908				—				2,908				—
FRANKFORT CROSSING SHPG CTR			7,417				8,065				408				7,418				8,472				—				15,890				3,547				12,343				—
FRENCH VALLEY VILLAGE CENTER			11,924				16,856				82				11,924				16,938				—				28,862				4,164				24,698				—

 

120

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 2010

(in thousands)

 

Shopping Centers (1)		Initial Cost								Cost  Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition  (2)				Total Cost																				Total Cost Net of Accumulated Depreciation				Mortgages
		Land				Building & Improvements								Land				Building & Improvements				Properties held for Sale				Total				Accumulated Depreciation
FRIARS MISSION CENTER			6,660				28,021				208				6,660				28,229				—				34,889				8,492				26,397				609
GARDENS SQUARE			2,136				8,273				194				2,136				8,467				—				10,603				2,958				7,645				—
GARNER TOWNE SQUARE			5,591				21,866				93				5,591				21,959				—				27,550				6,888				20,662				—
GATEWAY 101			24,971				9,113				—				24,971				9,113				—				34,084				768				33,316				—
GATEWAY SHOPPING CENTER			52,665				7,134				323				52,665				7,457				—				60,122				5,267				54,855				18,476
GELSON'S WESTLAKE MARKET PLAZA			3,157				11,153				174				3,157				11,327				—				14,484				2,812				11,672				—
GLEN OAK PLAZA			4,103				12,951				—				4,103				12,951				—				17,054				162				16,892				6,266
GLENWOOD VILLAGE			1,194				5,381				38				1,194				5,419				—				6,613				2,694				3,919				—
GREENWOOD SPRINGS			2,720				3,059				(3,726	)			889				1,164				—				2,053				—				2,053				—
HANCOCK			8,232				28,260				318				8,232				28,578				—				36,810				9,581				27,229				—
HARPETH VILLAGE FIELDSTONE			2,284				9,443				5				2,284				9,448				—				11,732				3,123				8,609				—
HERITAGE LAND			12,390				—				—				12,390				—				—				12,390				—				12,390				—
HERITAGE PLAZA			—				26,097				286				—				26,383				—				26,383				8,917				17,466				—
HERSHEY			7				808				—				7				808				—				815				207				608				—
HIGHLAND CROSSROADS			2,260				4,924				(7,184	)			—				—				—				—				—				—				—
HIBERNIA PAVILION			4,929				5,065				—				4,929				5,065				—				9,994				671				9,323				—
HIBERNIA PLAZA			267				230				—				267				230				—				497				—				497				—
HILLCREST VILLAGE			1,600				1,909				—				1,600				1,909				—				3,509				589				2,920				—
HINSDALE			5,734				16,709				558				5,734				17,267				—				23,001				5,638				17,363				—
HORTON'S CORNER			3,137				2,779				25				3,213				2,728				—				5,941				354				5,587				—
HOWELL MILL VILLAGE			5,157				14,279				28				5,157				14,307				—				19,464				909				18,555				—
HYDE PARK			9,809				39,905				678				9,809				40,583				—				50,392				14,842				35,550				—
INGLEWOOD PLAZA			1,300				2,159				28				1,300				2,187				—				3,487				742				2,745				—
KELLER TOWN CENTER			2,294				12,841				73				2,294				12,914				—				15,208				3,946				11,262				—
KINGS CROSSING SUN CITY			515				1,246				(10	)			515				1,236				—				1,751				124				1,627				—
KROGER NEW ALBANY CENTER			3,844				6,599				228				3,844				6,827				—				10,671				3,224				7,447				4,130
KULPSVILLE			5,518				3,756				148				5,614				3,808				—				9,422				279				9,143				—
LAKE PINE PLAZA			2,008				7,632				32				2,029				7,643				—				9,672				2,536				7,136				—
LEBANON/LEGACY CENTER			3,913				7,874				94				3,913				7,968				—				11,881				3,201				8,680				—
LEBANON CENTER			3,865				5,751				—				3,865				5,751				—				9,616				873				8,743				—
LEGACY WEST			1,770				—				(1,000	)			770				—				—				770				—				770				—

 

121

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 2010

(in thousands)

 

Shopping Centers (1)		Initial Cost								Cost  Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition  (2)				Total Cost																				Total Cost Net of Accumulated Depreciation				Mortgages
		Land				Building & Improvements								Land				Building & Improvements				Properties held for Sale				Total				Accumulated Depreciation
LITTLETON SQUARE			2,030				8,859				113				2,030				8,972				—				11,002				2,761				8,241				—
LLOYD KING CENTER			1,779				10,060				93				1,779				10,153				—				11,932				3,297				8,635				—
LOEHMANNS PLAZA			3,983				18,687				167				3,983				18,854				—				22,837				7,713				15,124				—
LOEHMANNS PLAZA CALIFORNIA			5,420				9,450				391				5,420				9,841				—				15,261				3,200				12,061				—
LOVELAND SHOPPING CENTER			157				—				—				157				—				—				157				—				157				—
MARKET AT OPITZ CROSSING			9,902				9,248				(6,100	)			6,597				6,453				—				13,050				—				13,050				—
MARKET AT PRESTON FOREST			4,400				11,445				661				4,400				12,106				—				16,506				3,555				12,951				—
MARKET AT ROUND ROCK			2,000				9,676				3,064				2,000				12,740				—				14,740				3,342				11,398				—
MARKETPLACE AT BRIARGATE			1,706				4,885				47				1,727				4,911				—				6,638				894				5,744				—
MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CENTER			1,287				5,509				14				1,287				5,523				—				6,810				2,245				4,565				—
MARTIN DOWNS TOWN CENTER			1,364				5,187				30				1,364				5,217				—				6,581				1,894				4,687				—
MARTIN DOWNS VILLAGE CENTER			2,438				9,142				522				2,438				9,664				—				12,102				5,425				6,677				—
MARTIN DOWNS VILLAGE SHOPPES			817				4,965				54				817				5,019				—				5,836				2,427				3,409				—
MERRIMACK SHOPPING CENTER			285				—				(285	)			—				—				—				—				—				—				—
MIDDLE CREEK COMMONS			5,042				8,100				—				5,042				8,100				—				13,142				1,243				11,899				—
MILLHOPPER SHOPPING CENTER			1,073				5,358				4,405				1,784				9,052				—				10,836				4,065				6,771				—
MOCKINGBIRD COMMON			3,000				10,728				384				3,000				11,112				—				14,112				3,751				10,361				10,300
MONUMENT JACKSON CREEK			2,999				6,765				259				2,999				7,024				—				10,023				3,094				6,929				—
MORNINGSIDE PLAZA			4,300				13,951				127				4,300				14,078				—				18,378				4,466				13,912				—
MURRAYHILL MARKETPLACE			2,670				18,401				78				2,670				18,479				—				21,149				6,340				14,809				7,787
NAPLES WALK			18,173				13,554				18				18,173				13,572				—				31,745				1,820				29,925				16,859
NASHBORO VILLAGE			1,824				7,678				—				1,824				7,678				—				9,502				2,295				7,207				—
NEWBERRY SQUARE			2,412				10,150				225				2,412				10,375				—				12,787				5,513				7,274				—
NEWLAND CENTER			12,500				10,697				178				12,500				10,875				—				23,375				3,990				19,385				—
NORTH HILLS			4,900				19,774				512				4,900				20,286				—				25,186				6,087				19,099				—
NORTHGATE PLAZA (MAXTOWN ROAD)			1,769				6,652				23				1,769				6,675				—				8,444				2,351				6,093				—
NORTHGATE SQUARE			5,011				8,692				85				5,011				8,777				—				13,788				1,150				12,638				6,173
NORTHLAKE VILLAGE			2,662				11,284				84				2,662				11,368				—				14,030				3,342				10,688				—
OAKBROOK PLAZA			4,000				6,668				164				4,000				6,832				—				10,832				2,305				8,527				—
OAKLEAF COMMONS			3,503				11,671				—				3,503				11,671				—				15,174				1,647				13,527				—

 

122

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 2010

(in thousands)

 

Shopping Centers (1)		Initial Cost								Cost  Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition  (2)				Total Cost																				Total Cost Net of Accumulated Depreciation				Mortgages
		Land				Building & Improvements								Land				Building & Improvements				Properties held for Sale				Total				Accumulated Depreciation
OLD ST AUGUSTINE PLAZA			2,368				11,405				241				2,368				11,646				—				14,014				4,475				9,539				—
ORANGEBURG & CENTRAL			2,071				2,384				(85	)			2,071				2,299				—				4,370				314				4,056				—
ORCHARDS MARKET CENTER II			6,602				9,690				(3,016	)			5,497				7,779				—				13,276				—				13,276				—
PACES FERRY PLAZA			2,812				12,639				49				2,812				12,688				—				15,500				5,588				9,912				—
PANTHER CREEK			14,414				14,748				488				14,414				15,236				—				29,650				5,997				23,653				—
PARK PLACE SHOPPING CENTER			2,232				5,027				(1,983	)			1,332				3,944				—				5,276				2,819				2,457				—
PASEO DEL SOL			9,477				1,331				19,492				17,788				12,512				—				30,300				2,423				27,877				—
PEARTREE VILLAGE			5,197				19,746				322				5,197				20,068				—				25,265				7,263				18,002				9,513
PHENIX CROSSING			1,544				—				(500	)			1,044				—				—				1,044				—				1,044				—
PIKE CREEK			5,153				20,652				224				5,153				20,876				—				26,029				7,250				18,779				—
PIMA CROSSING			5,800				28,143				830				5,800				28,973				—				34,773				9,191				25,582				—
PINE LAKE VILLAGE			6,300				10,991				467				6,300				11,458				—				17,758				3,494				14,264				—
PINE TREE PLAZA			668				6,220				36				668				6,256				—				6,924				2,130				4,794				—
PLAZA HERMOSA			4,200				10,109				138				4,200				10,247				—				14,447				3,121				11,326				13,800
POWELL STREET PLAZA			8,248				30,716				1,108				8,248				31,824				—				40,072				7,353				32,719				—
POWERS FERRY SQUARE			3,687				17,965				119				3,687				18,084				—				21,771				8,187				13,584				—
POWERS FERRY VILLAGE			1,191				4,672				65				1,191				4,737				—				5,928				2,136				3,792				—
PRAIRIE CITY CROSSING			4,164				13,032				384				4,164				13,416				—				17,580				3,338				14,242				—
PRESTON PARK			6,400				54,817				(344	)			5,733				55,140				—				60,873				18,122				42,751				—
PRESTONBROOK			7,069				8,622				(17	)			7,069				8,605				—				15,674				4,153				11,521				6,800
PRESTONWOOD PARK			7,399				9,012				(2,417	)			6,274				7,720				—				13,994				4,204				9,790				—
RED BANK			10,336				9,505				—				10,336				9,505				—				19,841				324				19,517				—
REGENCY COMMONS			3,917				3,616				12				3,917				3,628				—				7,545				1,046				6,499				—
REGENCY SQUARE			4,770				25,191				818				4,770				26,009				—				30,779				15,813				14,966				—
RIVERMONT STATION			2,887				10,648				(4,505	)			2,636				6,394				—				9,030				—				9,030				—
ROCKWALL TOWN CENTER			4,438				5,140				(82	)			4,438				5,058				—				9,496				1,283				8,213				—
RONA PLAZA			1,500				4,917				53				1,500				4,970				—				6,470				1,667				4,803				—
RUSSELL RIDGE			2,234				6,903				194				2,234				7,097				—				9,331				2,983				6,348				—
SAMMAMISH-HIGHLANDS			9,300				8,075				350				9,300				8,425				—				17,725				2,595				15,130				—
SAN LEANDRO PLAZA			1,300				8,226				30				1,300				8,256				—				9,556				2,630				6,926				—
SANTA ANA DOWNTOWN PLAZA			4,240				8,514				(12,754	)			—				—				—				—				—				—				—
SEQUOIA STATION			9,100				18,356				137				9,100				18,493				—				27,593				5,624				21,969				21,100

 

123

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 2010

(in thousands)

 

Shopping Centers (1)		Initial Cost								Cost  Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition  (2)				Total Cost																				Total Cost Net of Accumulated Depreciation				Mortgages
		Land				Building & Improvements								Land				Building & Improvements				Properties held for Sale				Total				Accumulated Depreciation
SHERWOOD CROSSROADS			2,731				6,360				(52	)			2,731				6,308				—				9,039				1,391				7,648				—
SHERWOOD MARKET CENTER			3,475				16,362				3				3,475				16,365				—				19,840				5,283				14,557				—
SHOPPES @ 104			11,193				—				(279	)			6,652				4,262				—				10,914				206				10,708				—
SHOPPES AT MASON			1,577				5,685				119				1,577				5,804				—				7,381				1,944				5,437				—
SHOPPES OF GRANDE OAK			5,091				5,985				55				5,091				6,040				—				11,131				2,598				8,533				—
SHOPS AT ARIZONA			3,063				3,243				38				3,063				3,281				—				6,344				1,160				5,184				—
SHOPS AT COUNTY CENTER			9,957				11,269				83				9,990				11,319				—				21,309				2,426				18,883				—
SHOPS AT HIGHLAND VILLAGE			33,145				66,926				—				33,145				66,926				—				100,071				12,485				87,586				—
SHOPS AT JOHN'S CREEK			1,863				2,014				—				1,870				2,006				—				3,876				537				3,339				—
SIGNATURE PLAZA			2,396				3,898				129				2,396				4,028				—				6,424				1,365				5,059				—
SOUTH LOWRY SQUARE			3,434				10,445				114				3,434				10,559				—				13,993				3,318				10,675				—
SOUTH MOUNTAIN			146				—				465				611				—				—				611				—				611				—
SOUTHCENTER			1,300				12,750				405				1,300				13,155				—				14,455				3,874				10,581				—
SOUTHPOINT CROSSING			4,412				12,235				62				4,412				12,297				—				16,709				3,850				12,859				—
STARKE			71				1,683				—				71				1,683				—				1,754				427				1,327				—
STERLING RIDGE			12,846				12,162				217				12,846				12,379				—				25,225				4,875				20,350				13,900
STONEWALL			27,511				22,123				—				27,511				22,123				—				49,634				3,484				46,150				—
STRAWFLOWER VILLAGE			4,060				8,084				183				4,060				8,267				—				12,327				2,756				9,571				—
STROH RANCH			4,280				8,189				83				4,280				8,272				—				12,552				3,682				8,870				—
SUNNYSIDE 205			1,200				9,459				327				1,200				9,786				—				10,986				3,092				7,894				—
TANASBOURNE MARKET			3,269				10,861				(297	)			3,269				10,564				—				13,833				1,297				12,536				—
TASSAJARA CROSSING			8,560				15,464				158				8,560				15,622				—				24,182				4,794				19,388				19,800
THOMAS LAKE			6,000				10,628				(66	)			6,000				10,562				—				16,562				3,287				13,275				—
TOWN SQUARE			883				8,132				—				883				8,132				—				9,015				3,089				5,926				—
TRACE CROSSING			279				—				—				279				—				—				279				—				279				—
TROPHY CLUB			2,595				11,023				17				2,595				11,040				—				13,635				3,289				10,346				—
TWIN CITY PLAZA			17,245				44,225				771				17,263				44,978				—				62,241				6,312				55,929				42,489
TWIN PEAKS			5,200				25,827				196				5,200				26,023				—				31,223				7,900				23,323				—
VALENCIA CROSSROADS			17,921				17,659				201				17,921				17,860				—				35,781				8,643				27,138				—
VENTURA VILLAGE			4,300				6,648				115				4,300				6,763				—				11,063				2,103				8,960				—
VILLAGE CENTER			3,885				14,131				427				3,885				14,558				—				18,443				5,487				12,956				—
VINE AT CASTAIC			4,799				5,884				—				4,799				5,884				—				10,683				902				9,781				—

 

124

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 2010

(in thousands)

 

Shopping Centers (1)		Initial Cost								Cost  Capitalized Subsequent to Acquisition  (2)				Total Cost																				Total Cost Net of Accumulated Depreciation				Mortgages
		Land				Building & Improvements								Land				Building & Improvements				Properties held for Sale				Total				Accumulated Depreciation
VISTA VILLAGE IV			2,287				2,765				15				2,287				2,780				—				5,067				979				4,088				—
WADSWORTH CROSSING			12,093				14,101				—				12,093				14,101				—				26,194				1,731				24,463				—
WALKER CENTER			3,840				7,232				165				3,840				7,397				—				11,237				2,434				8,803				—
WELLEBY PLAZA			1,496				7,787				182				1,496				7,969				—				9,465				4,322				5,143				—
WELLINGTON TOWN SQUARE			2,041				12,131				76				2,041				12,207				—				14,248				4,157				10,091				12,800
WEST PARK PLAZA			5,840				5,759				206				5,840				5,965				—				11,805				1,853				9,952				—
WESTBROOK COMMONS			3,366				11,751				(1,156	)			3,091				10,870				—				13,961				2,809				11,152				—
WESTCHASE			5,302				8,273				63				5,302				8,336				—				13,638				1,038				12,600				8,297
WESTCHESTER PLAZA			1,857				7,572				40				1,857				7,612				—				9,469				3,313				6,156				—
WESTLAKE PLAZA AND CENTER			7,043				27,195				239				7,043				27,434				—				34,477				9,117				25,360				—
WESTRIDGE VILLAGE			9,529				11,397				92				9,529				11,489				—				21,018				3,526				17,492				—
WESTWOOD VILLAGE			19,933				25,301				—				19,933				25,301				—				45,234				3,379				41,855				—
WHITE OAK—DOVER, DE			2,144				3,069				—				2,144				3,069				—				5,213				1,524				3,689				—
WILLOW FESTIVAL			1,954				56,501				—				1,954				56,501				—				58,455				142				58,313				39,505
WINDMILLER PLAZA PHASE I			2,638				13,241				25				2,638				13,266				—				15,904				4,625				11,279				—
WOODCROFT SHOPPING CENTER			1,419				6,284				97				1,421				6,379				—				7,800				2,537				5,263				—
WOODMAN VAN NUYS			5,500				7,195				24				5,500				7,219				—				12,719				2,356				10,363				—
WOODMEN PLAZA			7,621				11,018				223				7,621				11,241				—				18,862				6,448				12,414				—
WOODSIDE CENTRAL			3,500				9,288				133				3,500				9,421				—				12,921				2,908				10,013				—
CORPORATELY HELD ASSETS			—				—				2,800				670				2,130				—				2,800				2,042				758				605
PROPERTIES IN DEVELOPMENT			(200	)			1,078,886				(467,754	)			—				610,932				—				610,932				21,127				589,805				7,059
		$	1,117,743				3,341,829				(470,418	)			1,093,700				2,895,454				—				3,989,154				700,878				3,288,276				412,610

 

(1)	See Item 2. Properties for geographic location and year acquired.

(2)	The negative balance for costs capitalized subsequent to acquisition could include out-parcels sold, provision for loss recorded and development transfers subsequent to the initial costs.

See accompanying report of independent registered public accounting firm.

 

125

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 2010

(in thousands)

Depreciation and amortization of the Company’s investment in buildings and improvements reflected in the statements of operations is calculated over the estimated useful lives of the assets as follows:

Buildings and improvements up to 40 or more years

The aggregate cost for Federal income tax purposes was approximately $3.2 billion at December 31, 2010.

The changes in total real estate assets for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:

 

		2010				2009				2008
Balance, beginning of year		$	3,933,778				4,042,487				3,965,284
Developed or acquired properties			93,759				180,346				358,156
Improvements			18,772				15,617				15,995
Sale of properties			(14,503	)			(150,792	)			(202,758	)
Properties held for sale			—				(19,647	)			(66,447	)
Properties reclassed to held for use			—				(30,296	)			—
Provision for impairment			(42,652	)			(103,937	)			(27,743	)
Balance, end of year		$	3,989,154				3,933,778				4,042,487

The changes in accumulated depreciation for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:

 

		2010				2009				2008
Balance, beginning of year		$	622,163				554,595				497,498
Depreciation for year			99,554				97,019				88,509
Sale of properties			(2,052	)			(31,792	)			(19,771	)
Accumulated depreciation related to properties held for sale			—				(3,066	)			(11,641	)
Accumulated depreciation related to properties reclassed to held for use			—				5,407				—
Provision for impairment			(18,787	)			—				—
Balance, end of year		$	700,878				622,163				554,595

 

126

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

Item 9.

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None.

 

Item 9A.

Controls and Procedures (Regency Centers Corporation)

Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Under the supervision and with the participation of the Parent Company’s management, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, the Parent Company conducted an evaluation of its disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined under Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Based on this evaluation, the Parent Company’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer concluded that its disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this annual report on Form 10-K to ensure information required to be disclosed in the reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time period specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. These disclosure controls and procedures include controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Parent Company in the reports it files or submits is accumulated and communicated to management, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

The Parent Company’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, the Parent Company conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on its evaluation under the framework in Internal Control—Integrated Framework, the Parent Company’s management concluded that its internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2010.

KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has audited the consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K and, as part of their audit, has issued a report, included herein, on the effectiveness of the Parent Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

The Parent Company’s system of internal control over financial reporting was designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance and 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.

Changes in Internal Controls

There have been no changes in the Parent Company’s internal controls over financial reporting identified in connection with this evaluation that occurred during the fourth quarter of 2010 and that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, its internal controls over financial reporting.

Controls and Procedures (Regency Centers, L.P.)

Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Under the supervision and with the participation of the Operating Partnership’s management, including the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of its general partner, the Operating Partnership conducted an

 

127

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

evaluation of its disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined under Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Based on this evaluation, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of its general partner concluded that its disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this annual report on Form 10-K to ensure information required to be disclosed in the reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time period specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. These disclosure controls and procedures include controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Operating Partnership in the reports it files or submits is accumulated and communicated to management, including the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of its general partner, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

The Operating Partnership’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of its general partner, the Operating Partnership conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on its evaluation under the framework in Internal Control—Integrated Framework, the Operating Partnership’s management concluded that its internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2010.

KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has audited the consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K and, as part of their audit, has issued a report, included herein, on the effectiveness of the Operating Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

The Operating Partnership’s system of internal control over financial reporting was designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance and 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.

Changes in Internal Controls

There have been no changes in the Operating Partnership’s internal controls over financial reporting identified in connection with this evaluation that occurred during the fourth quarter of 2010 and that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, its internal controls over financial reporting.

 

Item 9B.

Other Information

Not applicable

 

128

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

PART III

 

Item 10.

Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance

Information concerning the directors of Regency is incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Information regarding executive officers is included in Part I of this Form 10-K as permitted by General Instruction G(3).

Audit Committee, Independence, Financial Experts. Incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act. Information concerning filings under Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act by the directors or executive officers of Regency is incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Code of Ethics. We have adopted a code of ethics applicable to our Board of Directors, principal executive officers, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer and persons performing similar functions. The text of this code of ethics may be found on our web site at “www.regencycenters.com.” We intend to post notice of any waiver from, or amendment to, any provision of our code of ethics on our web site.

 

Item 11.

Executive Compensation

Incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

 

Item 12.

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

Equity Compensation Plan Information

 

(a)

(b)

(c)

Plan Category

Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights

Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights (1)

Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a)) (2)

Equity compensation plans approved by security holders

442,880

$

51.85

735,297

Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total

442,880

$

51.85

735,297

 

(1)	The weighted average exercise price excludes stock rights awards, which is sometimes referred to as unvested restricted stock.

 

129

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

(2)

Our Long Term Omnibus Plan, as amended and approved by stockholders at our 2003 annual meeting, provides for the issuance of up to 5.0 million shares of common stock or stock options for stock compensation; however, outstanding unvested grants plus vested but unexercised options cannot exceed 12% of our outstanding common stock and common stock equivalents (excluding options and other stock equivalents outstanding under the plan). The plan permits the grant of any type of share-based award but limits restricted stock awards, stock rights awards, performance shares, dividend equivalents settled in stock and other forms of stock grants to 2.75 million shares, of which 735,297 shares were available at December 31, 2010 for future issuance.

Information about security ownership is incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

 

Item 13.

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

Incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

 

Item 14.

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

Incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

 

130

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

PART IV

 

Item 15.

Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

 

(a)

Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedules:

 

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. 2010 financial statements and financial statement schedule, together with the reports of KPMG LLP are listed on the index immediately preceding the financial statements in Item 8, Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplemental Data.

 

(b)

Exhibits:

In reviewing the agreements included as exhibits to this report, please remember they are included to provide you with information regarding their terms and are not intended to provide any other factual or disclosure information about the Company, its subsidiaries or other parties to the agreements. The Agreements contain representations and warranties by each of the parties to the applicable agreement. These representations and warranties have been made solely for the benefit of the other parties to the applicable agreement and:

 

•

should not in all instances be treated as categorical statements of fact, but rather as a way of allocating the risk to one of the parties if those statements prove to be inaccurate;

 

•

have been qualified by disclosures that were made to the other party in connection with the negotiation of the applicable agreement, which disclosures are not necessarily reflected in the agreement;

 

•

may apply standards of materiality in a way that is different from what may be viewed as material to you or other investors; and

 

•

were made only as of the date of the applicable agreement or such other date or dates as may be specified in the agreement and are subject to more recent developments.

Accordingly, these representations and warranties may not describe the actual state of affairs as of the date they were made or at any other time. We acknowledge that, notwithstanding the inclusion of the foregoing cautionary statements, we are responsible for considering whether additional specific disclosures of material information regarding material contractual provisions are required to make the statements in this report not misleading. Additional information about the Company may be found elsewhere in this report and the Company’s other public files, which are available without charge through the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Unless otherwise indicated below, the Commission file number to the exhibit is No. 001-12298.

 

3.	Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws

 

(a)

Restated Articles of Incorporation of Regency Centers Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 of the Company’s Form 8-K filed February 19, 2008).

 

(b)

Amended and Restated Bylaws of Regency Centers Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2(b) of the Company’s Form 8-K filed November 7, 2008).

 

(c)

Fourth Amended and Restated Certificate of Limited Partnership of Regency Centers, L.P. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(a) to Regency Centers, L.P.’s Form 10-K filed March 17, 2009).

 

(d)

Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Regency Centers, L.P., as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(m) to the Company’s Form 10-K filed March 12, 2004).

 

(i)

Amendment to Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Regency Centers, L.P. relating to 6.70% Series 5 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.3 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed August 1, 2005).

 

131

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

(ii)

Amended and Restated Amendment dated January 1, 2008 to Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Regency Centers, L.P. relating to 7.45% Series 3 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Regency Centers, L.P.’s Form 8-K filed January 7, 2008).

 

(iii)

Amended and Restated Amendment dated January 1, 2008 to Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Regency Centers, L.P. relating to 7.25% Series 4 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to Regency Centers, L.P.’s Form 8-K filed January 7, 2008).

 

4.	Instruments Defining Rights of Security Holders

 

(a)

See Exhibits 3(a) and 3(b) for provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Company defining the rights of security holders. See Exhibit 3(d) for provisions of the Partnership Agreement of Regency Centers, L.P. defining rights of security holders.

 

(b)

Indenture dated March 9, 1999 between Regency Centers, L.P., the guarantors named therein and First Union National Bank, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the registration statement on Form S-3 of Regency Centers, L.P. filed February 24, 1999, No. 333-72899).

 

(c)

Indenture dated December 5, 2001 between Regency Centers, L.P., the guarantors named therein and First Union National Bank, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.4 of Form 8-K of Regency Centers, L.P. filed December 10, 2001).

 

(i)

First Supplemental Indenture dated as of June 5, 2007 among Regency Centers, L.P., the Company as guarantor and U.S. Bank National Association, as successor to Wachovia Bank, National Association (formerly known as First Union National Bank), as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of Form 8-K of Regency Centers, L.P. filed June 5, 2007).

 

(d)

Indenture dated July 18, 2005 between Regency Centers, L.P., the guarantors named therein and Wachovia Bank, National Bank, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the registration statement on Form S-4 of Regency Centers, L.P. filed August 5, 2005, No. 333-127274).

 

(e)

Confirmation of Forward Sale Transaction dated as of December 4, 2009 among Regency Centers Corporation and Wachovia Bank, National Association (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed December 7, 2009).

 

(f)

Confirmation of Forward Sale Transaction dated as of December 4, 2009 among Regency Centers Corporation and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed December 7, 2009) .

 

10.

Material Contracts

 

~(a)

Regency Centers Corporation Long Term Omnibus Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to the Company’s Form 10-Q filed May 8, 2008).

 

~(i)

Form of Stock Rights Award Agreement pursuant to the Company’s Long Term Omnibus Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(b) to the Company’s Form 10-K filed March 10, 2006).

 

~(ii)

Form of 409A Amendment to Stock Rights Award Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(b)(i) to the Company’s Form 10-K filed March 17, 2009).

 

~(iii)

Form of Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement pursuant to the Company’s Long Term Omnibus Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(c) to the Company’s Form 10-K filed March 10, 2006).

 

~(iv)

Form of 409A Amendment to Stock Option Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(c)(i) to the Company’s Form 10-K filed March 17, 2009).

 

~(v)

Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan dated May 6, 2003 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(k) to the Company’s Form 10-K filed March 12, 2004).

 

132

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

~(vi)

Regency Centers Corporation 2005 Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(s) to the Company’s Form 8-K filed December 21, 2004).

 

~(vii)

First Amendment to Regency Centers Corporation 2005 Deferred Compensation Plan dated December 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(q)(i) to the Company’s Form 10-K filed March 10, 2006).

 

~(b)

Form of Director/Officer Indemnification Agreement (filed as an Exhibit to Pre-effective Amendment No. 2 to the Company registration statement on Form S-11 filed October 5, 1993 (33-67258), and incorporated by reference).

 

~(c)

2011 Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement dated as of January 1, 2011 by and between the Company and Martin E. Stein, Jr. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Company’s Form 8-K filed January 3, 2011).

 

~(d)

2011 Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement dated as of January 1, 2011 by and between the Company and Bruce M. Johnson (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Company’s Form 8-K filed January 3, 2011).

 

~(e)

2011 Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement dated as of January 1, 2011 by and between the Company and Brian M. Smith (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of the Company’s Form 8-K filed January 3, 2011).

 

(f)

Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of February 9, 2007 by and among Regency Centers, L.P., the Company, each of the financial institutions initially a signatory thereto, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.A to the Company’s Form 10-Q filed August 6, 2010).

 

(i)

First Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Form 10-Q filed May 8, 2008).

 

(g)

Credit Agreement dated as of March 5, 2008 by and among Regency Centers, L.P., the Company, each of the financial institutions party thereto and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.B to the Company’s Form 10-Q filed August 6, 2010).

 

(h)

Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II, LLC dated as of July 31, 2009 by and among Global Retail Investors, LLC, Regency Centers, L.P. and Macquarie CountryWide (US) No. 2 LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 10-Q filed November 6, 2009).

 

(i)

Amendment No. 1 to Second Amended and Restate Limited Liability Company Agreement of GRI-Regency, LLC (formerly Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II, LLC).

 

(i)

Limited Partnership Agreement dated as of December 21, 2006 of RRP Operating, LP (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(u) to the Company’s Form 10-K filed February 27, 2007.

 

21.	Subsidiaries of Regency Centers Corporation.

 

23.	Consents of KPMG LLP.

 

23.1

Consent of KPMG LLP for Regency Centers Corporation.

 

23.2

Consent of KPMG LLP for Regency Centers, L.P.

 

23.3

Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for GRI-Regency, LLC.

 

31.	Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications.

 

31.1

Rule 13a-14 Certification of Chief Executive Officer for Regency Centers Corporation.

 

~	Management contract or compensatory plan

 

133

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

31.2

Rule 13a-14 Certification of Chief Financial Officer for Regency Centers Corporation.

 

31.3

Rule 13a-14 Certification of Chief Executive Officer for Regency Centers, L.P.

 

31.4

Rule 13a-14 Certification of Chief Financial Officer for Regency Centers, L.P.

 

32.	Section 1350 Certifications.

The certifications in this exhibit are being furnished solely to accompany this report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any of the Company’s filings, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

32.1

18 U.S.C. § 1350 Certification of Chief Executive Officer for Regency Centers Corporation.

 

32.2

18 U.S.C. § 1350 Certification of Chief Financial Officer for Regency Centers Corporation.

 

32.3

18 U.S.C. § 1350 Certification of Chief Executive Officer for Regency Centers, L.P.

 

32.4

18 U.S.C. § 1350 Certification of Chief Financial Officer for Regency Centers, L.P.

 

99.	Financial Statements under Rule 3-09 of Regulation S-X.

 

99.1

Financial Statements of GRI-Regency, LLC.

 

101.	Interactive Data Files

 

101.INS**+

XBRL Instance Document

 

101.SCH**+

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document

 

101.CAL**+

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document

 

101.DEF**+

XBRL Taxonomy Definition Linkbase Document

 

101.LAB**+

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document

 

101.PRE**+

XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document

 

**

Pursuant to Rule 406T of Regulation S-T, these interactive data files are deemed not filed or part of a registration statement or prospectus for purposes of Sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 or Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and otherwise are not subject to liability.

 

+	Submitted electronically with this Annual Report

 

134

---

Table of Contents

Index to Financial Statements

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 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.

 

				REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION and REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.
March 1, 2011				/s/ Martin E. Stein, Jr. Martin E. Stein, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

 

March 1, 2011		/s/ Martin E. Stein, Jr. Martin E. Stein, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
March 1, 2011		/s/ Brian M. Smith Brian M. Smith, President, Chief Operating Officer and Director
March 1, 2011		/s/ Bruce M. Johnson Bruce M. Johnson, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer), and Director
March 1, 2011		/s/ J. Christian Leavitt J. Christian Leavitt, Senior Vice President and Treasurer (Principal Accounting Officer)
March 1, 2011		/s/ Raymond L. Bank Raymond L. Bank, Director
March 1, 2011		/s/ C. Ronald Blankenship C. Ronald Blankenship, Director
March 1, 2011		/s/ A. R. Carpenter A. R. Carpenter, Director
March 1, 2011		/s/ J. Dix Druce J. Dix Druce, Director
March 1, 2011		/s/ Mary Lou Fiala Mary Lou Fiala, Director
March 1, 2011		/s/ Douglas S. Luke Douglas S. Luke, Director
March 1, 2011		/s/ John C. Schweitzer John C. Schweitzer, Director
March 1, 2011		/s/ Thomas G. Wattles Thomas G. Wattles, Director

 

135