UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

FORM 10-K

 

 

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

 

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015

 

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 001-32319

 

 

Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

 

 

 

 

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (949) 330-4000

 

 

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

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

 

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes ☒  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.  Yes ☐  No ☒

 

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, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes ☒  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 (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes ☒  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. ☐

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes ☐  No ☒

 

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant based upon the closing sale price of the registrant’s common stock on June 30, 2015 as reported on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) was approximately $3.1 billion.  

 

The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding as of February 12, 2016 was 216,000,821.

 

Documents Incorporated by Reference

 

Part III of this Report incorporates by reference information from the definitive Proxy Statement for the registrant’s 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

 

 

 

SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, INC.

 

ANNUAL REPORT ON

FORM 10-K

 

For the Year Ended December 31, 2015

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

The “Company” means Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc., a Maryland corporation, and one or more of its subsidiaries, including Sunstone Hotel Partnership, LLC, or the Operating Partnership, and Sunstone Hotel TRS Lessee, Inc., or the TRS Lessee, and, as the context may require, Sunstone Hotel Investors only or the Operating Partnership only.

 

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

 

This report, together with other statements and information publicly disseminated by the Company, contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. The Company intends such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and includes this statement for purposes of complying with these safe harbor provisions. Forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and describe the Company’s future plans, strategies and expectations, are generally identifiable by use of the words “believe,” “expect,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “project” or similar expressions. You should not rely on forward-looking statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that are, in some cases, beyond the Company’s control and which could materially affect actual results, performances or achievements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, but are not limited to the risk factors discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Accordingly, there is no assurance that the Company’s expectations will be realized. Except as otherwise required by the federal securities laws, the Company disclaims any obligations or undertaking to publicly release any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statement contained herein (or elsewhere) to reflect any change in the Company’s expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

 

Item 1.Business

 

Our Company

 

We were incorporated in Maryland on June 28, 2004. We are a real estate investment trust, or REIT, under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). As of December 31, 2015, we had interests in 29 hotels (the “29 hotels”). The 29 hotels are comprised of 13,845 rooms, located in 13 states and in Washington, DC.

 

Our primary business is to acquire, own, asset manage and renovate full-service hotel and select focus-service hotel properties in the United States. As part of our ongoing portfolio management strategy, we may also sell hotel properties from time to time. All but one (the Boston Park Plaza) of the 29 hotels are operated under nationally recognized brands such as Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt, Fairmont and Sheraton, which are among the most respected and widely recognized brands in the lodging industry. While independent hotels may do well in strong market locations, we believe the largest and most stable segment of travelers prefer the consistent service and quality associated with nationally recognized brands and well-known independent hotels. Our portfolio primarily consists of urban, upper upscale hotels in the United States. As of December 31, 2015, our 29 hotels include two luxury hotels and  27 hotels classified as either upscale or upper upscale. The classifications luxury, upper upscale and upscale are defined by Smith Travel Research, an independent provider of lodging industry statistical data. Smith Travel Research classifies hotel chains into the following segments: luxury; upper upscale; upscale; upper midscale; midscale; economy; and independent.

 

Our hotels are operated by third-party managers pursuant to long-term management agreements with our TRS Lessee or its subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2015, our third-party managers included: subsidiaries of Marriott International, Inc. or Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. (collectively “Marriott”), managers of 11 of the Company’s 29 hotels; Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (“IHR”), manager of six of the Company’s 29 hotels; Highgate Hotels L.P. and an affiliate (“Highgate”), manager of three of the Company’s 29 hotels; Crestline Hotels & Resorts (“Crestline”), Hilton Worldwide (“Hilton”) and Hyatt Corporation (“Hyatt”), each a manager of two of the Company’s 29 hotels; and Davidson Hotels & Resorts (“Davidson”), Fairmont Hotels & Resorts (U.S.) (“Fairmont”) and HEI Hotels & Resorts (“HEI”), each a manager of one of the Company’s 29 hotels. 

 

Competitive Strengths

 

We believe the following competitive strengths distinguish us from other owners of lodging properties:

 

 

 

 

 

Presence in Key Markets. We believe that our hotels are located in desirable markets with major demand generators and significant barriers to entry for new supply. In 2015, approximately 87% of the revenues generated by the 29 hotels were earned by hotels located in key gateway markets such as Boston, New York, Washington, DC/Baltimore, Chicago, Orlando, New Orleans, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego. Over time, we expect the revenues of hotels located in key gateway markets to grow more quickly than the average for U.S. hotels as a result of stronger and more diverse economic drivers as well as higher levels of international travel.

 

Upper Upscale and Upscale Concentration. The upper upscale and upscale segments, which represented approximately 94% of the hotel revenue generated by the 29 hotels during 2015, tend to outperform the lodging industry, particularly in the recovery phase of the lodging cycle. As of December 31, 2015, the hotels comprising our 29 hotel portfolio averaged 477 rooms in size. Our total 29 hotel Comparable Portfolio RevPAR was $162.42 for the year ended December 31, 2015.

 

Nationally Recognized Brands. All but one (the Boston Park Plaza) of the 29 hotels are operated under nationally recognized brands, including Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt, Fairmont and Sheraton. We believe that affiliations with strong brands improve the appeal of our hotels to a broad set of travelers and help to drive business to our hotels.

 

Recently Renovated Hotels. From January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2015, we invested $556.9 million in capital renovations throughout the 29 hotels. We believe that these capital renovations have improved the competitiveness of our hotels and have helped to position our portfolio for future growth.

 

 

Asset Management. Our asset management team is responsible for maximizing the long-term value of our real estate investments by achieving above average revenue and profit performance through proactive oversight of hotel operations. Our asset management team leads property-level innovation, benchmarks best practices and aggressively oversees hotel management teams and property plans. We work with our operators to develop hotel-level “master plans,” which include positioning and capital renovation plans. We believe that a proactive asset management program can help grow the revenues of our hotel portfolio and maximize operational efficiency by leveraging best practices and innovations across our various hotels, and by initiating well-timed and focused capital improvements aimed at improving the appeal of our hotels.

 

Acquisitions. Our acquisitions team is responsible for enhancing our portfolio quality and scale by executing well-timed acquisitions and dispositions that maximize our risk-adjusted return on our investment dollars. We believe that our significant acquisition and disposition experience will allow us to continue to execute our cycle-appropriate strategy to redeploy capital from slower growth to higher growth hotels. From the date of our initial public offering through December 31, 2015, we acquired interests in 26 hotel properties and sold 43 hotel properties. We plan to capitalize on acquisition opportunities that may arise in 2016, as we believe our industry relationships may create opportunities for us to acquire individual hotel assets, or hotel portfolios, provided these opportunities are at attractive values relative to our cost of capital.  We will also focus on capital recycling, and may selectively sell hotels that we believe have lower growth prospects, have significant ongoing capital needs, or that we can sell at a substantial premium to our internal valuation of the asset, as evidenced by the sale of our interests in the Doubletree Guest Suites Times Square in December 2015.

 

Finance. We have a highly experienced finance team focused on minimizing our cost of capital and maximizing our financial flexibility by proactively managing our capital structure and opportunistically sourcing appropriate capital for growth, while maintaining a best in class disclosure and investor relations program. Accordingly, our financial objectives include the maintenance of appropriate levels of liquidity through the cyclical recovery phase, with liquidity levels maximized in advance of anticipated cyclical declines. During 2015, we reduced our total mortgage debt by $22.1 million through amortization, and by an additional $304.8 million through repayments of six separate mortgages. We also refinanced one mortgage loan with an $85.0 million unsecured term loan, extending our term to maturity and reducing our average interest rate. In addition, we entered into a $400.0 million senior unsecured credit facility, which replaced our prior $150.0 million senior unsecured credit facility. The credit facility’s interest rate is based on a pricing grid with a range of 155 to 230 basis points over LIBOR, depending on our leverage ratios, and represents a decline in pricing from the prior credit facility of approximately 30 to 60 basis points.

 

Business Strategy

 

Our mission is to create meaningful value for our stockholders by producing superior long-term returns.  Our values include transparency, trust, ethical conduct, communication and discipline. As demand for lodging generally fluctuates with the overall economy, we seek to employ a balanced, cycle-appropriate corporate strategy. Our strategy over the next several years, during what we believe will be the mature phase of the lodging cycle, is to maximize stockholder value through disciplined capital recycling, which is likely to include selective acquisitions and dispositions, while maintaining balance sheet flexibility and strength. Our goal is to maintain low leverage and high financial flexibility through the current cycle peak. We believe if we are successful in executing on this strategy, we will position the Company to create value during the next cyclical trough. Our strategic plan encompasses several elements, including proactive portfolio management, focused asset management, disciplined external growth and continued balance sheet strength.

 

Competition

 

The hotel industry is highly competitive. Our hotels compete with other hotels for guests in each of their markets. Competitive advantage is based on a number of factors, including location, quality of accommodations, convenience, brand affiliation, room rates, service levels and amenities, and level of customer service. Competition is often specific to the individual markets in which our hotels are located and includes competition from existing and new hotels operated under

brands in the luxury, upper upscale and upscale segments. Increased competition could harm our occupancy or revenues or may lead our operators to increase service or amenity levels, which may reduce the profitability of our hotels.

 

We believe that competition for the acquisition of hotels is fragmented. We face competition from institutional pension funds, private equity investors, other REITs and numerous local, regional, national and international owners, including franchisors, in each of our markets. Some of these entities may have substantially greater financial resources than we do and may be able and willing to accept more risk than we believe we can prudently manage. During the recovery phase of the lodging cycle, when we seek to acquire hotels, competition among potential buyers may increase the bargaining power of potential sellers, which may reduce the number of suitable investment opportunities available to us or increase pricing. Similarly, during times when we seek to sell hotels, competition from other sellers may increase the bargaining power of the potential property buyers.

 

Management Agreements

 

All of our 29 hotels are managed by third parties pursuant to management agreements with our TRS Lessee or its subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2015, Marriott managed 11 of our hotels, IHR managed six of our hotels, Highgate managed three of our hotels, Crestline, Hilton and Hyatt each managed two of our hotels, and the remaining three hotels were individually managed by Davidson, Fairmont and HEI. The following is a general description of our third-party management agreements as of December 31, 2015.

 

Marriott. Our management agreements with Marriott require us to pay Marriott a base management fee equal to 3.0% of total revenue. Inclusive of renewal options and absent prior termination by either party, these management agreements expire between 2031 and 2078. Additionally, six of the aforementioned management agreements require payment of an incentive fee of 20.0% of the excess of gross operating profit over a certain threshold; one management agreement requires payment of an incentive fee of 20% of the excess of gross operating profit over a certain threshold, however the total base and incentive fees were capped at 4.25% of gross revenue for 2012 and 2013, 4.5% of gross revenue for 2014, 4.75% of gross revenue for 2015, and are capped at 5.0% of gross revenue for the first seven months of 2016, and 5.25% of gross revenue for the remaining term of the agreement; one management agreement requires payment of an incentive fee of 35.0% of the excess of gross operating profit over a certain threshold; two management agreements require payment of a tiered incentive fee ranging from 15.0% to 20.0% of the excess of gross operating profit over certain thresholds;  and one management agreement requires payment of an incentive fee of 10.0% of adjusted gross operating profit, limited to 3.0% of gross revenue. The management agreements with Marriott may be terminated earlier than the stated term if certain events occur, including the failure of Marriott to satisfy certain performance standards, a condemnation of, a casualty to, or force majeure event involving a hotel, the withdrawal or revocation of any license or permit required in connection with the operation of a hotel and upon a default by Marriott or us that is not cured prior to the expiration of any applicable cure periods. In certain instances, Marriott has rights of first refusal to either purchase or lease hotels, or to terminate the applicable management agreement in the event we sell the respective hotel.

 

IHR. Our management agreements with IHR require us to pay a management fee ranging from 2.0% to 2.1% of gross revenue; plus an incentive fee of 10.0% of the excess of net operating income over a certain threshold. The incentive fee, however, may not exceed a range of 1.5% to 1.9% of the total revenue for all the hotels managed by IHR for any fiscal year.

 

With the exception of the IHR management agreement at the Sheraton Cerritos (which agreement is subject to automatic two-year renewal terms, the first of which commenced in 2012), the IHR management agreements expire in 2024 and provide us the right to renew each management agreement for up to two additional terms of five years each, absent a prior termination by either party.

 

Highgate. Our Boston Park Plaza, Hilton Times Square and Renaissance Westchester hotels are operated under management agreements with Highgate. The management agreement at the Boston Park Plaza required us to pay Highgate a base management fee of 2.5% of gross revenue until July 1, 2014. From July 2, 2014 to July 1, 2015, the base management fee increased to 2.75% of gross revenue, and thereafter the base management fee is 3.0% of gross revenue. The agreement expires in 2023, absent a prior termination by either party. In addition, the management agreement at the Boston Park Plaza requires us to pay an incentive fee of 15.0% of the excess of net operating income over a certain threshold.

 

The management agreements at the Hilton Times Square and the Renaissance Westchester require us to pay Highgate a base management fee of 3.0% of gross revenue. The management agreement at the Hilton Times Square expires in 2021 and provides Highgate with the right to renew for two additional terms of five years upon the achievement of certain performance thresholds, absent a prior termination by either party. In addition, the management agreement at the Hilton Times Square requires us to pay an incentive fee of 50.0% of the excess of net operating income over a certain threshold, limited to 1.25% of total revenue. The management agreement at the Renaissance Westchester expires in 2022, absent early termination by either party, and does not require payment of an incentive fee.

 

Crestline. Our Embassy Suites Chicago and Hilton Garden Inn Chicago Downtown/Magnificent Mile hotels are operated under management agreements with Crestline. The management agreement at the Embassy Suites Chicago expires in 2019 (absent early termination by either party), and provides no renewal options. The agreement requires us to pay Crestline a base management fee of 1.5% of gross revenue through May 31, 2016, and 2.0% of gross revenue thereafter.

 

The management agreement at the Hilton Garden Inn Chicago Downtown/Magnificent Mile expires in 2022 (absent early termination by either party), and provides us with the right to renew for up to two additional terms of five years each. The agreement requires us to pay 2.0% of gross revenue as a base management fee, and requires us to pay an incentive fee of 10.0% of the excess of operating profit over a certain threshold.

 

Hilton. Our Embassy Suites La Jolla and Hilton San Diego Bayfront hotels are operated under management agreements with Hilton. The management agreement at the Embassy Suites La Jolla expires in 2016 (absent early termination by either party), and provides no renewal options. The agreement requires us to pay a base management fee of 2.25% of gross revenue. The agreement includes an incentive fee of 15.0% of our net profit at the hotel in excess of certain net profit thresholds.

 

The management agreement at the Hilton San Diego Bayfront expires in 2018 and provides Hilton with the right to renew for up to three additional terms of five years each, absent a prior termination by either party. The agreement requires us to pay a base fee of 2.5% of total revenue and an incentive fee of 15.0% of the excess of operating cash flow over a certain percentage.

 

Hyatt. Our Hyatt Regency Newport Beach hotel is operated under a management agreement with Hyatt. The agreement expires in 2019 and provides either party the right to renew for successive periods of 10 years (provided that the term of the agreement shall in no event extend beyond 2039), absent early termination by either party. The agreement requires us to pay 3.5% of total hotel revenue as a base management fee, with an additional 0.5% of total revenue payable to Hyatt based upon the hotel achieving specific operating thresholds. The agreement also requires us to pay an incentive fee equal to 10.0% of the excess of adjusted profit over $2.0 million, and 5.0% of the excess of adjusted profit over $6.0 million.

 

Our Hyatt Regency San Francisco hotel is operated by Hyatt under an operating lease with economics that follow a typical management fee structure. The lease expires in 2050, and provides no renewal options. Pursuant to the lease, Hyatt retains 3.0% of total revenue as a base management fee. The lease also provides Hyatt the opportunity to earn an incentive fee if gross operating profit exceeds certain thresholds.

 

Davidson. Our Hyatt Chicago Magnificent Mile hotel is operated under a  management agreement with Davidson. The management agreement at the Hyatt Chicago Magnificent Mile expires in 2019, and provides us with the right to renew for up to two additional terms of five years each, absent a prior termination by either party. The agreement requires us to pay 2.5% of total revenue as a base management fee and calls for an incentive fee of 10.0% of the excess of net operating income over a certain threshold (capped at 1.5% of total revenue).  The base and incentive management fees payable to Davidson under the Hyatt Chicago Magnificent Mile management agreement have an aggregate cap of 4.0% of total revenue. In addition to the base and incentive management fees, the Hyatt Chicago Magnificent Mile management agreement required us to pay Davidson a development fee for their assistance in converting the hotel to a Hyatt equal to the lesser of 2.0% of the total development costs we incurred, or $0.5 million. The development fee, which totaled $0.5 million, was paid in full during 2013.

 

Fairmont. Our Fairmont Newport Beach hotel is operated under a management agreement with Fairmont. Commencing in July 2016, the management agreement is terminable upon sale of the hotel with sixty days advance notice to Fairmont; and, commencing in September 2016, the management agreement is terminable for any reason upon sixty days

advance notice to Fairmont. The agreement requires us to pay 3.0% of total revenue as a base management fee and calls for payment of incentive fees ranging from 20.0% to 30.0% of the hotel’s net profit above certain net profit thresholds. The base and incentive management fees payable to Fairmont under the management agreement have an aggregate cap of 6.0% of total revenue.

 

HEI. Our Hilton New Orleans St. Charles hotel is operated under a management agreement with HEI. The agreement expires in 2017 (absent early termination by either party), and provides for automatic month-to-month renewals thereafter. The agreement requires us to pay 2.0% of gross revenue as a base management fee and calls for an incentive fee of 20.0% of the excess of adjusted gross operating profit over a certain threshold.

 

The existing management agreements with Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt and Fairmont require the manager to furnish chain services that are generally made available to other hotels managed by that operator. Costs for these chain services are reimbursed by us. Such services include: (1) the development and operation of computer systems and reservation services; (2) management and administrative services; (3) marketing and sales services; (4) human resources training services; and (5) such additional services as may from time to time be more efficiently performed on a national, regional or group level.

 

Franchise Agreements

 

As of December 31, 2015, 14 of the 29 hotels were operated subject to franchise agreements. Franchisors provide a variety of benefits to franchisees, including nationally recognized brands, centralized reservation systems, national advertising, marketing programs and publicity designed to increase brand awareness, training of personnel and maintenance of operational quality at hotels across the brand system.

 

The franchise agreements generally specify management, operational, record-keeping, accounting, reporting and marketing standards and procedures with which our subsidiary, as the franchisee, must comply. The franchise agreements obligate the subsidiary to comply with the franchisors’ standards and requirements with respect to training of operational personnel, safety, maintaining specified insurance, the types of services and products ancillary to guest room services that may be provided by the subsidiary, display of signage and the type, quality and age of furniture, fixtures and equipment included in guest rooms, lobbies and other common areas. The franchise agreements for our hotels require that we reserve up to 5.0% of the gross revenues of the hotels into a reserve fund for capital expenditures.

 

The franchise agreements also provide for termination at the franchisor’s option upon the occurrence of certain events, including failure to pay royalties and fees or to perform other obligations under the franchise license, bankruptcy and abandonment of the franchise or a change in control. The subsidiary that is the franchisee is responsible for making all payments under the franchise agreements to the franchisors; however, the Company guaranties certain obligations under a majority of the franchise agreements.

 

Tax Status

 

We have elected to be taxed as a REIT under Sections 856 through 859 of the Code, commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2004. Under current federal income tax laws, we are required to distribute at least 90% of our net taxable income to our stockholders in order to satisfy the REIT distribution requirement. While REITs enjoy certain tax benefits relative to C corporations, as a REIT we may, however, be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and property. We may also be subject to federal income and excise tax on our undistributed income.

 

Taxable REIT Subsidiary

 

Subject to certain limitations, a REIT is permitted to own, directly or indirectly, up to 100% of the stock of a taxable REIT subsidiary, or TRS. The TRS may engage in businesses and earn income that are prohibited to a REIT. In particular, a hotel REIT is permitted to own a TRS that leases hotels from the REIT, rather than requiring the lessee to be an unaffiliated third party. However, a hotel leased to a TRS still must be managed by an unaffiliated third party in the business of managing hotels. The TRS provisions are complex and impose certain conditions on the use of TRSs. This is to assure that TRSs are subject to an appropriate level of federal corporate taxation.

 

A TRS is a fully taxable corporation that may earn income that would not be qualifying income if earned directly by us. A TRS may perform activities such as development, and other independent business activities. However, a TRS may not directly or indirectly operate or manage any hotels or provide rights to any brand name under which any hotel is operated.

 

We and the TRS Lessee must make a joint election with the IRS for the TRS Lessee to be treated as a TRS. A corporation of which a qualifying TRS owns, directly or indirectly, more than 35% of the voting power or value of the corporation’s stock will automatically be treated as a TRS. Overall, no more than 25% (20% beginning after 2017) of the value of our assets may consist of securities of one or more TRS, and no more than 25% of the value of our assets may consist of the securities of TRSs and other assets that are not qualifying assets for purposes of the 75% asset test. The 75% asset test generally requires that at least 75% of the value of our total assets be represented by real estate assets, cash, or government securities.

 

The rent that we receive from a TRS qualifies as “rents from real property” as long as the property is operated on behalf of the TRS by a person who qualifies as an “independent contractor” and who is, or is related to a person who is, actively engaged in the trade or business of operating “qualified lodging facilities” for any person unrelated to us and the TRS (an “eligible independent contractor”). A “qualified lodging facility” is a hotel, motel or other establishment in which more than one-half of the dwelling units are used on a transient basis. A “qualified lodging facility” does not include any facility where wagering activities are conducted. A “qualified lodging facility” includes customary amenities and facilities operated as part of, or associated with, the lodging facility as long as such amenities and facilities are customary for other properties of a comparable size and class owned by other unrelated owners.

 

We have formed the TRS Lessee as a wholly owned TRS. We lease each of our hotels to the TRS Lessee or one of its subsidiaries. These leases provide for a base rent plus variable rent based on occupied rooms and departmental revenues. These leases must contain economic terms which are similar to a lease between unrelated parties. If they do not, the IRS could impose a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between our TRS and us or our tenants that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis. We believe that all transactions between us and the TRS Lessee are conducted on an arm’s-length basis. Further, the TRS rules limit the deductibility of interest paid or accrued by a TRS to us to assure that the TRS is subject to an appropriate level of corporate taxation.

 

The TRS Lessee has engaged eligible independent contractors to manage the hotels it leases from Sunstone Hotel Partnership, LLC.

 

Ground, Building and Air Lease Agreements

 

At December 31, 2015,  eight of the 29 hotels are subject to ground, building and/or air leases with unaffiliated parties that cover either all or portions of their respective properties. As of December 31, 2015, the remaining terms of these ground, building and air leases (including renewal options) range from approximately 28 to 82 years. These leases generally require us to make rental payments and payments for all or portions of costs and expenses, including real and personal property taxes, insurance and utilities associated with the leased property.

 

Any proposed sale of a property that is subject to a ground, building or air lease or any proposed assignment of our leasehold interest as lessee under the ground, building or air lease may require the consent of the applicable lessor. As a result, we may not be able to sell, assign, transfer or convey our interest in any such property in the future absent the consent of the ground, building or air lessor, even if such transaction may be in the best interests of our stockholders. Two of the eight leases prohibit the sale or conveyance of the hotel and assignment of the lease by us to another party without first offering the lessor the opportunity to acquire our interest in the associated hotel and property upon the same terms and conditions as offered by us to the third party.

 

Two of the eight leases allow us the option to acquire the ground or building lessor’s interest in the ground or building lease subject to certain exercisability provisions. From time to time, we evaluate our options to purchase the lessors’ interests in the leases.

 

Offices

 

We lease our headquarters located at 120 Vantis, Suite 350, Aliso Viejo, California 92656 from an unaffiliated third party. We occupy our headquarters under a lease that terminates on August 30, 2018.

 

Employees

 

At February 1, 2016, we had 50 employees. We believe that our relations with our employees are positive. All persons employed in the day-to-day operations of the hotels are employees of the management companies engaged by the TRS Lessee or its subsidiaries to operate such hotels.

 

Environmental

 

Environmental reviews have been conducted on all of our hotels. Environmental consultants retained by our lenders have conducted Phase I environmental site assessments on many of our properties. In certain instances, these Phase I assessments relied on older environmental assessments prepared in connection with prior financings. Phase I assessments are designed to evaluate the potential for environmental contamination of properties based generally upon site inspections, facility personnel interviews, historical information and certain publicly available databases. Phase I assessments will not necessarily reveal the existence or extent of all environmental conditions, liabilities or compliance concerns at the properties. In addition, material environmental conditions, liabilities or compliance concerns may arise after the Phase I assessments are completed, or may arise in the future, and future laws, ordinances or regulations may impose material additional environmental liabilities.

 

Under various federal, state and local laws and regulations, an owner or operator of real estate may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances on the property. These laws often impose such liability without regard to whether the owner knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of hazardous or toxic substances. Furthermore, a person that arranges for the disposal or transports for disposal or treatment of a hazardous substance at another property may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of hazardous substances released into the environment at that property. The costs of remediation or removal of such substances may be substantial, and the presence of such substances, or the failure to promptly remediate such substances, may adversely affect the owner’s ability to sell such real estate or to borrow using such real estate as collateral. In connection with the ownership and operation of our properties, we or the TRS Lessee, as the case may be, may be potentially liable for such costs. Although we have tried to mitigate environmental risk through insurance, this insurance may not cover all or any of the environmental risks we encounter.

 

As an owner of real estate, we are not directly involved in the operation of our properties or other activities that could produce meaningful levels of greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, we have not implemented a formal program to measure or manage emissions associated with our corporate office or hotels. Although we do not believe that climate change represents a direct material risk to our business, we could be indirectly affected by climate change and other environmental issues to the extent these issues negatively affect the broader economy, result in increased regulation or costs, or have a negative impact on travel.

 

We have provided unsecured environmental indemnities to certain lenders and buyers of our properties. We have performed due diligence on the potential environmental risks including obtaining an independent environmental review from outside environmental consultants. These indemnities obligate us to reimburse the guaranteed parties for damages related to environmental matters. There is generally no term or damage limitation on these indemnities; however, if an environmental matter arises, we could have recourse against other previous owners.

 

ADA Regulation

 

Our properties must comply with various laws and regulations, including Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) to the extent that such properties are “public accommodations” as defined by the ADA. The ADA may require removal of structural barriers to access by persons with disabilities in certain public areas of our properties where such removal is readily achievable. We believe that our properties are in substantial compliance with the ADA; however, noncompliance with the ADA could result in capital expenditures, the imposition of fines or an award of damages to private litigants. The obligation to make readily achievable accommodations is an ongoing one, and we will continue to assess our properties and to make alterations as appropriate in this respect.

 

Inflation

 

Inflation may affect our expenses, including, without limitation, by increasing costs such as labor, food, taxes, property and casualty insurance, borrowing costs and utilities.

 

Securities Exchange Act Reports

 

Our internet address is www.sunstonehotels.com. Periodic and current Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) reports and amendments to those reports, such as our annual proxy statement, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly

reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, are available, free of charge, through links displayed on our web site as soon as reasonably practicable after we file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. In addition, the SEC maintains a website that contains these reports at www.sec.gov. Our website and the SEC website and the information on our and the SEC’s website is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Item 1A.Risk Factors

 

The statements in this section describe some of the significant risks to our business and should be considered carefully in evaluating our business and the other information in this Form 10-K. In addition, these statements constitute our cautionary statements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended.

 

Risks Related to Our Business

 

In the past, events beyond our control, including economic slowdowns, civil unrest and terrorism, harmed the operating performance of the hotel industry generally and the performance of our hotels, and if these or similar events occur again, our operating and financial results may be harmed by declines in average daily room rates and/or occupancy.

 

The performance of the lodging industry has traditionally been closely linked with the performance of the general economy. The majority of our hotels are classified as upper upscale hotels. In an economic downturn, this type of hotel may be more susceptible to a decrease in revenue, as compared to hotels in other categories that have lower room rates in part because upper upscale hotels generally target business and high-end leisure travelers. In periods of economic difficulties, business and leisure travelers may reduce travel costs by limiting travel or by using lower cost accommodations. In addition, operating results at our hotels in key gateway markets may be negatively affected by reduced demand from international travelers due to financial conditions in their home countries or a material strengthening of the U.S. dollar in relation to other currencies. Also, volatility in transportation fuel costs, increases in air and ground travel costs and decreases in airline capacity may reduce the demand for our hotel rooms. Accordingly, our financial results may be harmed if economic conditions worsen, or if travel-associated costs, such as transportation fuel costs, increase. For example,  the civil unrest which occurred in Baltimore during the spring of 2015 resulted in group cancellations at our Renaissance Harborplace, causing decreases in both our average daily room rates and our occupancy. Also, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 had a dramatic adverse effect on business and leisure travel, and on the occupancy and average daily rate, or ADR, of our hotels. Future terrorist activities and civil unrest could have a harmful effect on both the industry and us.

 

Volatility in the debt and equity markets may adversely affect our ability to acquire, renovate, refinance or sell hotel assets.

 

Volatility in the global financial markets may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Among other things, over time, the capital markets have experienced periods of extreme price volatility, dislocations and liquidity disruptions, all of which have exerted downward pressure on stock prices, widened credit spreads on debt financing and led to declines in the market values of U.S. and foreign stock exchanges. Future dislocations in the debt markets may reduce the amount of capital that is available to finance real estate, which, in turn may limit our ability to finance the acquisition of hotels or the ability of purchasers to obtain financing for hotels that we wish to sell, either of which may have a material adverse impact on revenues, income and/or cash flow.

 

We have historically used capital obtained from debt and equity markets, including both secured mortgage debt and unsecured corporate debt, to acquire, renovate and refinance hotel assets. If these markets become difficult to access as a result of low demand for debt or equity securities, higher capital costs and interest rates, a low value for capital securities (including our common or preferred stock), and more restrictive lending standards, our business could be adversely affected. In particular,  rising interest rates as a result of actions by the Federal Reserve Board or otherwise, could make it more difficult or expensive for us to obtain debt or equity capital in the future. Similar factors could also adversely affect the ability of others to obtain capital and therefore could make it more difficult for us to sell hotel assets. 

 

Changes in the debt and equity markets may adversely affect the value of our hotels.

 

The value of hotel real estate has an inverse correlation to the capital costs of hotel investors. If capital costs increase, real estate values may decrease. Capital costs are generally a function of the perceived risks associated with our assets,

interest rates on debt and return expectations of equity investors. Interest rates for hotel mortgages had increased by several percentage points from 2007 to 2009 before moderating in 2010 and then decreasing from 2011 to 2015.  The Federal Reserve Board, however, has recently raised interest rates and may continue to do so in the future, while other countries have recently adopted, or indicated that they may adopt, a negative interest rate policy.  Interest rate volatility, both in the U.S. and globally, could reduce our access to capital markets or increase the cost of funding our debt requirements.  If the income generated by our hotels does not increase by amounts sufficient to cover such higher capital costs, the market value of our hotel real estate may decline. In some cases, the value of our hotel real estate has previously declined, and may in the future decline, to levels below the principal amount of the debt securing such hotel real estate.

 

As of December 31, 2015, we had approximately $1.1 billion of consolidated outstanding debt, and carrying such debt may impair our financial flexibility or harm our business and financial results by imposing requirements on our business.

 

Of our total debt outstanding as of December 31, 2015, approximately $637.5 million matures over the next four years ($72.4 million in 2016, $241.8 million in 2017,  $109.8 million in 2018 and $213.5 million in 2019). In December 2015, we entered into a term loan agreement, which provided us with a six month period within which we had the option to borrow up to $100.0 million. On January 29, 2016, we drew the total available funds of $100.0 million. We used the proceeds on February 1, 2016, combined with cash on hand, to repay the loan secured by the Boston Park Plaza, which had a balance of $114.2 million as of December 31, 2015, and which was scheduled to mature in February 2018. After repayment of the loan secured by the Boston Park Plaza, $527.7 million of our debt will mature over the next four years. The new $100.0 million term loan will mature in January 2023. The $527.7 million in debt maturities due over the next four years does not include $12.4 million of scheduled loan amortization payments due in 2016, $10.7 million due in 2017, $11.0 million due in 2018, or $10.4 million due in 2019. Carrying our outstanding debt may adversely impact our business and financial results by:

 

 

 

 

 

We also may incur additional debt in connection with future acquisitions of real estate, which may include loans secured by some or all of the hotels we acquire or our existing hotels. In addition to our outstanding debt, at December 31, 2015, we had $0.6 million in outstanding letters of credit.

 

We anticipate that we will refinance our indebtedness from time to time to repay our debt, and our inability to refinance on favorable terms, or at all, could impact our operating results.

 

Because we anticipate that our internally generated cash will be adequate to repay only a portion of our indebtedness prior to maturity, we expect that we will be required to repay debt from time to time through refinancings of our indebtedness and/or offerings of equity or debt. The amount of our existing indebtedness may impede our ability to repay our debt through refinancings. If we are unable to refinance our indebtedness with property secured debt or corporate debt on acceptable terms, or at all, and are unable to negotiate an extension with the lender, we may be in default or forced to sell one or more of our properties on potentially disadvantageous terms, which might increase our borrowing costs, result in losses to us and reduce the amount of cash available to us for distributions to our stockholders. If prevailing interest rates or other factors at the time of any refinancing result in higher interest rates on new debt, our interest expense would increase, and potential proceeds we would be able to secure from future debt refinancings may decrease, which would harm our operating results.

 

If we were to default on our secured debt in the future, the loss of our property securing the debt may negatively affect our ability to satisfy other obligations.

 

All of our debt, excluding letters of credit and term loans, at December 31, 2015 is secured by first deeds of trust on our properties. Using our properties as collateral increases our risk of property losses because defaults on indebtedness secured by properties may result in foreclosure actions initiated by lenders and ultimately our loss of the property that secures any loan under which we are in default. Additionally, defaulting on indebtedness may damage our reputation as a borrower, and may limit our ability to secure financing in the future. For tax purposes, a foreclosure on any of our properties would be treated as a sale of the property. If the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage exceeds our tax basis in the property, we would recognize taxable income on foreclosure but would not necessarily receive any cash proceeds. As a result, we may be required to identify and utilize other sources of cash or employ a partial cash and partial stock dividend to satisfy our taxable income distribution requirements.

 

Financial covenants in our debt instruments may restrict our operating or acquisition activities.

 

Both our credit facility and unsecured term loan contain, and other potential financings that we may incur or assume in the future may contain, restrictions, requirements and other limitations on our ability to incur additional debt and make distributions to our stockholders, as well as financial covenants relating to the performance of our hotel properties. Our ability to borrow under these agreements is subject to compliance with these financial and other covenants. If we are unable to engage in activities that we believe would benefit our hotel properties or we are unable to incur debt to pursue those activities, our growth may be limited. Obtaining consents or waivers from compliance with these covenants may not be possible, or if possible, may cause us to incur additional costs.

 

Many of our existing mortgage debt agreements contain “cash trap” provisions that could limit our ability to use funds for other corporate purposes or to make distributions to our stockholders.

 

Certain of our loan agreements contain cash trap provisions that may be triggered if the performance of the hotels securing the loans decline. If these provisions are triggered, substantially all of the profit generated by the secured hotel would be deposited directly into lockbox accounts and then swept into cash management accounts for the benefit of the lender.  As of December 31, 2015, no cash trap provisions were triggered at any of our hotels.

 

Cash generated by our hotels that secure our existing mortgage debt agreements is distributed to us only after the related debt service and certain impound amounts are paid, which could affect our liquidity and limit our ability to use funds for other corporate purposes or to make distributions to our stockholders.

 

Cash generated by our hotels that secure our existing mortgage debt agreements is distributed to us only after certain items are paid, including, but not limited to, deposits into leasing and maintenance reserves and the payment of debt service, insurance, taxes, operating expenses, and extraordinary capital expenditures and leasing expenses. This limit on distributions could affect our liquidity and our ability to use cash generated by those hotels for other corporate purposes or to make distributions to our stockholders.

 

Our organizational documents contain no limitations on the amount of debt we may incur, so we may become too highly leveraged.

 

Our organizational documents do not limit the amount of indebtedness that we may incur. If we were to increase the level of our borrowings, then the resulting increase in cash flow that must be used for debt service would reduce cash available for capital investments or external growth, and could harm our ability to make payments on our outstanding indebtedness and our financial condition.

 

One of our directors has direct and active economic interests in hotels, which may result in conflicts and competing demands on his time.

 

One of our directors, Lewis N. Wolff, is actively involved in the management of entities that invest in hotels. Accordingly, this director may have a conflict of interest in owning hotels that operate in similar markets or in evaluating hotel acquisition opportunities in which we and Mr. Wolff both have a potential interest. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics requires Mr. Wolff to obtain approval from our in-house counsel and/or the chair of our Nominating and

Corporate Governance Committee prior to engaging in any transaction or relationship that could reasonably be expected to give rise to a potential conflict of interest. We cannot assure you that these procedures will prevent any conflicts or mitigate the impact of such conflicts if they arise.

 

We face competition for hotel acquisitions and dispositions, and we may not be successful in completing hotel acquisitions or dispositions that meet our criteria, which may impede our business strategy.

 

Our business strategy is predicated on a cycle-appropriate approach to hotel acquisitions and dispositions. We may not be successful in identifying or completing acquisitions or dispositions that are consistent with our strategy. We compete with institutional pension funds, private equity investors, other REITs, and numerous local, regional, national and international owners, including franchisors, who are engaged in the acquisition of hotels, and we rely on such entities as purchasers of hotels we seek to sell. These competitors may affect the supply/demand dynamics and, accordingly, increase the price we must pay for hotels or hotel companies we seek to acquire, and these competitors may succeed in acquiring those hotels or hotel companies themselves. Furthermore, our potential acquisition targets may find our competitors to be more attractive suitors because they may have greater financial resources, may be willing to pay more, or may have a more compatible operating philosophy. In addition, the number of entities competing for suitable hotels may increase in the future, which would increase demand for these hotels and the prices we must pay to acquire them, which, although beneficial to dispositions of hotels, may materially impact our ability to acquire new properties. We are also unable to predict certain market changes including changes in supply of, or demand for, similar real properties in a particular area. If we pay higher prices for hotels, our profitability may be reduced. Also, future acquisitions of hotels or hotel companies may not yield the returns we expect and, if financed using our equity, may result in stockholder dilution. In addition, our profitability may suffer because of acquisition-related costs or amortization costs for acquired intangible assets, and the integration of such acquisitions may cause disruptions to our business and may strain management resources.

 

Delays in the acquisition and renovation or repositioning of hotel properties may have adverse effects on our results of operations and returns to our stockholders.

 

Delays we encounter in the selection, acquisition, renovation, repositioning and development of real properties could adversely affect investor returns. Our ability to commit to purchase specific assets will depend, in part, on the amount of our available cash at a given time. Renovation or repositioning programs may take longer and cost more than initially expected. Therefore, we may experience delays in receiving cash distributions from such hotels. If our projections are inaccurate, we may not achieve our anticipated returns.

 

Accounting for the acquisition of a hotel property or other entity as a purchase transaction requires an allocation of the purchase price to the assets acquired and the liabilities assumed in the transaction at their estimated fair values. Should the allocation be incorrect, our assets and liabilities may be overstated or understated, which may also affect depreciation expense on our statement of operations.

 

Accounting for the acquisition of a hotel property or other entity as a purchase transaction requires an allocation of the purchase price to the assets acquired and the liabilities assumed in the transaction at their respective estimated fair values. The most difficult estimations of individual fair values are those involving long-lived assets, such as property and equipment, intangible assets and capital lease obligations that are assumed as part of the acquisition of a leasehold interest. During 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, we used all available information to make these fair value determinations, and engaged independent valuation specialists to assist in the fair value determinations of the long-lived assets acquired and liabilities assumed in all of our acquisitions. Should any of these allocations be incorrect, our assets and liabilities may be overstated or understated, which may also affect depreciation expense on our statement of operations.

 

The acquisition of a portfolio of hotels or a company presents more risks to our business and financial results than the acquisition of a single hotel.

 

We have acquired in the past, and may acquire in the future, multiple hotels in single transactions to seek to reduce acquisition costs per hotel and enable us to expand our hotel portfolio more rapidly. We may also evaluate acquiring companies that own hotels. Multiple hotel and company acquisitions, however, are generally more complex than single hotel acquisitions and, as a result, the risk that they will not be completed is greater. These acquisitions may also result in our owning hotels in new markets, which places additional demands on our ability to actively asset manage the hotels. In addition, we may be required by a seller to purchase a group of hotels as a package, even though one or more of the hotels

in the package do not meet our investment criteria. In those events, we expect to attempt to sell the hotels that do not meet our investment criteria, but may not be able to do so on acceptable terms or may have to pay a 100% “prohibited transactions” tax on any gain. These hotels may harm our operating results if they operate below our underwriting or if we sell them at a loss. Also, a portfolio of hotels may be more difficult to integrate with our existing hotels than a single hotel, may strain our management resources and may make it more difficult to find one or more management companies to operate the hotels. Any of these risks could harm our operating results.

 

The sale of a hotel or a portfolio of hotels is typically subject to contingencies, risks and uncertainties, any of which may cause us to be unsuccessful in completing the disposition.

 

We may not be successful in completing the sale of a hotel or a  portfolio of hotels, which may negatively impact our business strategy. Hotel sales are typically subject to customary risks and uncertainties. In addition, there may be contingencies related to, among other items, seller financing, franchise agreements, ground leases and other agreements.  As such, we can offer no assurances as to whether any closing conditions will be satisfied on a timely basis or at all, or whether the closing of a  sale will fail to occur for these or any other reasons.

 

Joint venture investments could be adversely affected by our lack of sole decision-making authority, our reliance on a co-venturer’s financial condition and disputes between us and our co-venturers.

 

We have co-invested, and may in the future co-invest, with third parties through partnerships, joint ventures or other entities, acquiring noncontrolling interests in or sharing responsibility for managing the affairs of a property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. For example, in April 2011, we acquired a 75.0% majority equity interest in One Park Boulevard, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“One Park”), the joint venture that holds title to the 1,190-room Hilton San Diego Bayfront hotel located in San Diego, California. Hilton Worldwide, Inc. is the 25.0% minority equity partner in One Park. Accordingly, we are not in a position, and may not be in a position in the future to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding a property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. Investments in partnerships, joint ventures or other entities may, under certain circumstances, involve risks not present were a third party not involved, including the possibility that partners or co-venturers might become bankrupt or fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Partners or co-venturers may have economic or other business interests or goals which are inconsistent with our business interests or goals, and may be in a position to take actions contrary to our policies or objectives. Such investments may also have the potential risk of impasses on decisions, such as a sale, because neither we nor the partner or co-venturer would have full control over the partnership or joint venture. Disputes between us and partners or co-venturers may result in litigation or arbitration that would increase our expenses and prevent our officers and/or trustees from focusing their time and effort on our business. Consequently, actions by, or disputes with, partners or co-venturers might result in subjecting properties owned by the partnership or joint venture to additional risk. In addition, we may in certain circumstances be liable for the actions of our third party partners or co-venturers.

 

The hotel loans in which we may invest in the future involve greater risks of loss than senior loans secured by income-producing real properties.

 

We have invested in hotel loans, and may invest in additional loans in the future, including mezzanine loans that take the form of subordinated loans secured by second mortgages on the underlying real property or loans secured by a pledge of the ownership interests of the entity owning the real property, the entity that owns the interest in the entity owning the real property or other assets. These types of investments involve a higher degree of risk than direct hotel investments because the investment may become unsecured as a result of foreclosure by the senior lender. In the event of a bankruptcy of the entity providing the pledge of its ownership interests as security, we may not have full recourse to the assets of such entity, or the assets of the entity may not be sufficient to satisfy our mezzanine loan. If a borrower defaults on our mezzanine loan or debt senior to our loan, or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, our mezzanine loan will be satisfied only after the senior debt. As a result, we may not recover some or all of our investment. In addition, mezzanine loans may have higher loan-to-value ratios than conventional mortgage loans, resulting in less equity in the real property and increasing the risk of loss of principal.

 

If we make or invest in mortgage loans with the intent of gaining ownership of the hotel secured by or pledged to the loan, our ability to perfect an ownership interest in the hotel is subject to the sponsor’s willingness to forfeit the property in lieu of the debt.

 

If we invest in a mortgage loan or note secured by the equity interest in a property with the intention of gaining ownership through the foreclosure process, the time it will take for us to perfect our interest in the property may depend on the sponsor’s willingness to cooperate during the foreclosure process. The sponsor may elect to file bankruptcy which could materially impact our ability to perfect our interest in the property and could result in a loss on our investment in the debt or note.

 

Certain of our long-lived assets and goodwill have in the past become impaired and may become impaired in the future.

 

We periodically review the fair value of each of our hotels and related goodwill for possible impairment. While we have not recognized any properties or other assets with indicators of impairment during the past four years, we have previously recognized impairment losses. In the future, our hotels and related goodwill may become impaired, or our hotels which have previously become impaired may become further impaired, which may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

 

We own primarily upper upscale hotels, and the upper upscale segment of the lodging market is highly competitive and may be subject to greater volatility than other segments of the market, which could negatively affect our profitability.

 

The upper upscale segment of the hotel business is highly competitive. Our hotels compete on the basis of location, room rates and quality, service levels, reputation and reservations systems, among many other factors. There are many competitors in our hotel chain scale segments, and many of these competitors have substantially greater marketing and financial resources than we have. This competition could reduce occupancy levels and room revenue at our hotels, which would harm our operations. Over-building in the hotel industry may increase the number of rooms available and may decrease occupancy and room rates. We may also face competition from nationally recognized hotel brands with which we are not associated. In addition, in periods of weak demand, profitability is negatively affected by the relatively high fixed costs of operating upper upscale hotels when compared to other classes of hotels.

 

Rising operating expenses or low occupancy rates could reduce our cash flow and funds available for future distributions.

 

Our hotels, and any hotels we buy in the future, are and will be subject to operating risks common to the lodging industry in general. If any hotel is not occupied at a level sufficient to cover our operating expenses, then we could be required to spend additional funds for that hotel’s operating expenses. In the future, our hotels will be subject to increases in real estate and other tax rates, utility costs, operating expenses, insurance costs, repairs and maintenance and administrative expenses, which could reduce our cash flow and funds available for future distributions.

 

A significant portion of our hotels are geographically concentrated in California, Illinois, Massachusetts and the greater Washington DC area and, accordingly, we could be disproportionately harmed by economic downturns or natural disasters in these areas of the country. 

 

As of December 31, 2015, nine of the 29 hotels are located in California, which is the largest concentration of our hotels in any state, representing 32% of our rooms and 36% of the revenue generated by the 29 hotels during 2015. In addition, as of December 31, 2015, three of the 29 hotels are located in each of the States of Illinois and Massachusetts, as well as in the greater Washington DC area. The three hotels located in Illinois represented 8% of our rooms and 8% of the revenue generated by the 29 hotels during 2015. The three hotels located in Massachusetts represented 14% of our rooms and 14% of the revenue generated by the 29 hotels during 2015. The three hotels located in the greater Washington DC area represented 13% of our rooms and 12% of the revenue generated by the 29 hotels during 2015. The concentration of our hotels in California, Illinois, Massachusetts and the greater Washington DC area exposes our business to economic conditions, competition and real and personal property tax rates unique to these locales. In addition, natural disasters in these locales would disproportionately affect our hotel portfolio. The economies and tourism industries in these locales, in comparison to other parts of the country, are negatively affected to a greater extent by changes and downturns in certain industries, including the entertainment, high technology, financial and government industries. It is also possible that because of our California, Illinois, Massachusetts and the greater Washington DC area concentrations, a change in laws

applicable to such hotels and the lodging industry may have a greater impact on us than a change in comparable laws in another geographical area in which we have hotels. Adverse developments in these locales could harm our revenue or increase our operating expenses.

 

The operating results of some of our individual hotels are significantly impacted by group contract business and room nights generated by large corporate transient customers, and the loss of such customers for any reason could harm our operating results.

 

Group contract business and room nights generated by other large corporate transient customers can significantly impact the results of operations of our hotels. These contracts and customers vary from hotel to hotel and change from time to time. Such group contracts are typically for a limited period of time after which they may be put up for competitive bidding. The impact and timing of large events are not always easy to predict. Some of these contracts and events may also be cancelled, which could reduce our expectations for future revenues. As a result, the operating results for our individual hotels can fluctuate as a result of these factors, possibly in adverse ways, and these fluctuations can affect our overall operating results.

 

A substantial number of our hotels operate under a brand owned by Marriott, Hilton or Hyatt. Should any of these brands experience a negative event, or receive negative publicity, our operating results may be harmed.

 

We believe the largest and most stable segment of travelers prefer the consistent service and quality associated with nationally recognized brands.  As of December 31, 2015, 16 of our 29 hotels utilized brands owned by Marriott. In addition, seven and three of our 29 hotels were utilized by Hilton and Hyatt brands, respectively. As a result, a significant concentration of our success is dependent in part on the success of Marriott, Hilton and Hyatt, or their respective brands. Consequently, if market recognition or the positive perception of Marriott, Hilton and/or Hyatt is reduced or compromised, the goodwill associated with our Marriott, Hilton and/or Hyatt branded hotels may be adversely affected, which may have an adverse affect on our results of operations, as well as our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Additionally, any negative perceptions or negative impact to operating results from any proposed or future consolidations between nationally recognized brands could have an adverse affect on our results of operations, as well as our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

 

Because all but one of our hotels are operated under franchise agreements or are brand managed, termination of these franchise, management or operating lease agreements or circumstances that negatively affect the franchisor or the hotel brand could cause us to lose business at our hotels or lead to a default or acceleration of our obligations under certain of our notes payable.

 

As of December 31, 2015, all of the 29 hotels except the Boston Park Plaza were operated under franchise, management or operating lease agreements with franchisors or hotel management companies, such as Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt, Fairmont and Sheraton. In general, under these arrangements, the franchisor or brand manager provides marketing services and room reservations and certain other operating assistance, but requires us to pay significant fees to it and to maintain the hotel in a required condition. If we fail to maintain these required standards, then the franchisor or hotel brand may terminate its agreement with us and obtain damages for any liability we may have caused. Moreover, from time to time, we may receive notices from franchisors or the hotel brands regarding our alleged non-compliance with the franchise agreements or brand standards, and we may disagree with these claims that we are not in compliance. Any disputes arising under these agreements could also lead to a termination of a franchise, management or operating lease agreement and a payment of liquidated damages. Such a termination may trigger a default or acceleration of our obligations under some of our notes payable. In addition, as our franchise, management or operating lease agreements expire, we may not be able to renew them on favorable terms or at all. If we were to lose a franchise or hotel brand for a particular hotel, it could harm the operation, financing, or value of that hotel due to the loss of the franchise or hotel brand name, marketing support and centralized reservation system. Moreover, negative publicity affecting a franchisor or hotel brand in general could reduce the revenue we receive from the hotels subject to that particular franchise or brand. Any loss of revenue at a hotel could harm the ability of the TRS Lessee, to whom we have leased our hotels, to pay rent to the Operating Partnership and could harm our ability to pay dividends on our common stock or preferred stock.

 

Our franchisors and brand managers may require us to make capital expenditures pursuant to property improvement plans, or PIPs, and the failure to make the expenditures required under the PIPs or to comply with brand standards could cause the franchisors or hotel brands to terminate the franchise, management or operating lease agreements.

 

Our franchisors and brand managers may require that we make renovations to certain of our hotels in connection with revisions to our franchise, management or operating lease agreements. In addition, upon regular inspection of our hotels, our franchisors and hotel brands may determine that additional renovations are required to bring the physical condition of our hotels into compliance with the specifications and standards each franchisor or hotel brand has developed. In connection with the acquisitions of hotels, franchisors and hotel brands may also require PIPs, which set forth their renovation requirements. If we do not satisfy the PIP renovation requirements, the franchisor or hotel brand may have the right to terminate the applicable agreement. In addition, in the event that we are in default under any franchise agreement as a result of our failure to comply with the PIP requirements, in general, we will be required to pay the franchisor liquidated damages, generally equal to a percentage of gross room revenue for the preceding two-, three- or five-year period for the hotel or a percentage of gross revenue for the preceding twelve-month period for all hotels operated under the franchised brand if the hotel has not been operating for at least two years.

 

Our franchisors and brand managers may change certain policies or cost allocations that could negatively impact our hotels.

 

Our franchisors and brand managers incur certain costs that are allocated to our hotels subject to our franchise, management or operating lease agreements. Those costs may increase over time or our franchisors and brand managers may elect to introduce new programs that could increase costs allocated to our hotels. In addition, certain policies, such as our third-party managers’ frequent traveler programs, may be altered resulting in reduced revenue or increased costs to our hotels.

 

Because we are a REIT, we depend on third parties to operate our hotels, which could harm our results of operations.

 

In order to qualify as a REIT, we cannot directly operate our hotels. Accordingly, we must enter into management or operating lease agreements (together, “management agreements”) with eligible independent contractors to manage our hotels. Thus, independent management companies control the daily operations of our hotels.

 

As of December 31, 2015, our 29 hotels were managed as follows: Marriott 11 hotels; IHR six hotels; Highgate three hotels; Crestline two hotels; Hilton two hotels; Hyatt two hotels; and Davidson, Fairmont and HEI one hotel each.  We depend on these independent management companies to operate our hotels as provided in the applicable management agreements. Thus, even if we believe a hotel is being operated inefficiently or in a manner that does not result in satisfactory ADR, occupancy rates or profitability, we may not necessarily have contractual rights to cause our independent management companies to change their method of operation at our hotels. We can only seek redress if a management company violates the terms of its applicable management agreement with us or fails to meet performance objectives set forth in the applicable management agreement, and then our remedies may be limited by the terms of the management agreement. Additionally, while our management agreements typically provide for limited contractual penalties in the event that we terminate the applicable management agreement upon an event of default, such terminations could result in significant disruptions at the affected hotels. If any of the foregoing occurs at franchised hotels, our relationships with the franchisors may be damaged, and we may be in breach of one or more of our franchise or management agreements.

 

Of these agreements, two were entered into during 2015, one was entered into during 2014,  three were entered into during each of the years 2013 and 2012, and four of these agreements were entered into during 2011. If we were to terminate any of these agreements and enter into new agreements with different hotel operators, the day to day operations of our hotels may be disrupted. In addition, we cannot assure you that any new management agreement would contain terms that are favorable to us, or that a new management company would be successful in managing our hotels.

 

We also cannot assure you that our existing management companies will successfully manage our hotels. A failure by our management companies to successfully manage our hotels could lead to an increase in our operating expenses or a decrease in our revenue, or both, which would reduce the amount available for dividends on our common stock and our preferred stock. In addition, the management companies may operate other hotels that may compete with our hotels or divert attention away from the management of our hotels.

 

We are subject to risks associated with the employment of hotel personnel, which could increase our expenses or expose us to additional liabilities.

 

Our third-party managers are responsible for hiring and maintaining the labor force at each of our hotels. Although we do not directly employ or manage employees at our consolidated hotels, we are still subject to many of the costs and risks generally associated with the hotel labor force. From time to time, hotel operations may be disrupted as a result of strikes, lockouts, public demonstrations or other negative actions and publicity. We also may incur increased legal costs and indirect labor costs as a result of contract disputes involving our third-party managers and their labor force or other events. The resolution of labor disputes or re-negotiated labor contracts could lead to increased labor costs, a significant component of our costs, either by increases in wages or benefits or by changes in work rules that raise hotel operating costs. We generally do not have the ability to affect the outcome of these negotiations.

 

The failure of tenants in our hotels to make rent payments under our retail and restaurant leases may adversely affect our results of operations.

 

A portion of the space in many of our hotels is leased to third-party tenants for retail or restaurant purposes. At times, we hold security deposits in connection with each lease, which may be applied in the event that a tenant under a lease fails or is unable to make its rent payments. In the event that a tenant continually fails to make rent payments, we may be able to apply the tenant’s security deposit to recover a portion of the rents due; however, we may not be able to recover all rents due to us, which may harm our operating results.

 

System security risks, data protection breaches, cyber-attacks and systems integration issues could disrupt our internal operations or services provided to guests at our hotels, and any such disruption could reduce our expected revenue, increase our expenses, damage our reputation and adversely affect our stock price.

 

Experienced computer programmers and hackers may be able to penetrate our network security or the network security of our third-party managers and franchisors, and misappropriate or compromise our confidential information or that of our hotel guests, create system disruptions or cause the shutdown of our hotels. Computer programmers and hackers also may be able to develop and deploy viruses, worms, and other malicious software programs that attack our computer systems or the computer systems operated by our third-party managers and franchisors, or otherwise exploit any security vulnerabilities of our respective networks. In addition, sophisticated hardware and operating system software and applications that we and our third-party managers or franchisors may procure from outside companies may contain defects in design or manufacture, including “bugs” and other problems that could unexpectedly interfere with our internal operations or the operations at our hotels. The costs to us to eliminate or alleviate cyber or other security problems, bugs, viruses, worms, malicious software programs and security vulnerabilities could be significant, and our efforts to address these problems may not be successful and could result in interruptions, delays, cessation of service and loss of existing or potential business at our hotels.

 

Portions of our information technology infrastructure or the information technology infrastructure of our third-party managers and franchisors also may experience interruptions, delays or cessations of service or produce errors in connection with systems integration or migration work that takes place from time to time. We or our third-party managers and franchisors may not be successful in implementing new systems and transitioning data, which could cause business disruptions and be more expensive, time consuming, disruptive and resource-intensive. Such disruptions could adversely impact the ability of our third-party managers and franchisors to fulfill reservations for guestrooms and other services offered at our hotels. Delayed sales or bookings, lower margins or lost guest reservations resulting from these disruptions could adversely affect our financial results, stock price and reputation. Many of our managers carry cyber insurance policies to protect and offset a portion of potential costs that may be incurred from a security breach. Additionally, in 2015, we obtained a cyber insurance policy to provide supplemental coverage above the coverage carried by our third-party managers. Despite various precautionary steps to protect our hotels from losses resulting from cyber-attacks, however, any occurrence of a cyber-attack could still result in losses at our properties, which could affect our results of operations.

 

Our hotels have an ongoing need for renovations and potentially significant capital expenditures in connection with acquisitions, repositionings and other capital improvements, some of which are mandated by applicable laws or regulations or agreements with third parties, and the costs of such renovations, repositionings or improvements may exceed our expectations or cause other problems.

 

In addition to capital expenditures required by our management, franchise and loan agreements, from time to time we will need to make capital expenditures to comply with applicable laws and regulations, to remain competitive with other hotels and to maintain the economic value of our hotels. We also may need to make significant capital improvements to hotels that we acquire. During 2015, we invested $164.2 million on capital improvements to our hotels. We expect our capital expenditures to remain at higher than historical levels during 2016, driven by previously announced renovations and repositionings at recently acquired hotels as part of our acquisition strategy. Occupancy and ADR are often affected by the maintenance and capital improvements at a hotel, especially in the event that the maintenance or improvements are not completed on schedule or if the improvements require significant closures at the hotel. The costs of capital improvements we need or choose to make could harm our financial condition and reduce amounts available for distribution to our stockholders. These capital improvements may give rise to the following additional risks, among others:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because we are a REIT, we depend on the TRS Lessee and its subsidiaries to make rent payments to us, and their inability to do so could harm our revenue and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

 

Due to certain federal income tax restrictions on hotel REITs, we cannot directly operate our hotel properties. Therefore, we lease our hotel properties to the TRS Lessee or one of its subsidiaries, which contracts with third-party hotel managers to manage our hotels. Our revenue and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders will depend solely upon the ability of the TRS Lessee and its subsidiaries to make rent payments under these leases. In general, under the leases with the TRS Lessee and its subsidiaries, we will receive from the TRS Lessee or its subsidiaries both fixed rent and variable rent based upon a percentage of gross revenues and the number of occupied rooms. As a result, we participate in the operations of our hotels only through our share of rent paid pursuant to the leases.

 

The ability of the TRS Lessee and its subsidiaries to pay rent is affected by factors beyond its control, such as changes in general economic conditions, the level of demand for hotels and the related services of our hotels, competition in the lodging and hospitality industry, the ability to maintain and increase gross revenue at our hotels and other factors relating to the operations of our hotels.

 

Although failure on the part of the TRS Lessee or its subsidiaries to materially comply with the terms of a lease (including failure to pay rent when due) would give us the right to terminate the lease, repossess the hotel and enforce the payment obligations under the lease, such steps may not provide us with any substantive relief since the TRS Lessee is our subsidiary. If we were to terminate a lease, we would then be required to find another lessee to lease the hotel or enter into a new lease with our TRS Lessee or its subsidiaries because we cannot operate hotel properties directly and remain qualified as a REIT. We cannot assure you that we would be able to find another lessee or that, if another lessee were found, we would be able to enter into a new lease on similar terms.

 

Because eight of the 29 hotels are subject to ground, building or air leases with unaffiliated parties, termination of these leases by the lessors could cause us to lose the ability to operate these hotels altogether and incur substantial costs in restoring the premises.

 

Our rights to use the underlying land, building and/or air space of eight of the 29 hotels are based upon our interest under long-term leases with unaffiliated parties. Pursuant to the terms of the applicable leases for these hotels, we are required to pay all rent due and comply with all other lessee obligations. As of December 31, 2015, the terms of these ground, building and air leases (including renewal options) range from approximately 28 to 82 years. Any pledge of our interest in a ground, building or air lease may also require the consent of the applicable lessor and its lenders. As a result, we may not be able to sell, assign, transfer or convey our lessee’s interest in any hotel subject to a ground, building or air lease in the future absent consent of such third parties even if such transactions may be in the best interest of our stockholders.

 

The lessors may require us, at the expiration or termination of the ground, building or air leases, to surrender or remove any improvements, alterations or additions to the land at our own expense. The leases also generally require us to restore the premises following a casualty and to apply in a specified manner any proceeds received in connection therewith. We may have to restore the premises if a material casualty, such as a fire or an act of nature, occurs and the cost thereof exceeds available insurance proceeds.

 

If we fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures in the future, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results, which could have an adverse effect on our business.

 

If our internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures are not effective, we may not be able to provide reliable financial information. If we discover deficiencies in our internal controls, we will make efforts to remediate these deficiencies; however, there is no assurance that we will be successful either in identifying deficiencies or in their remediation. Any failure to maintain effective controls in the future could adversely affect our business or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. Such non-compliance could also result in an adverse reaction in the financial marketplace due to a loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our financial statements. In addition, perceptions of our business among customers, suppliers, rating agencies, lenders, investors, securities analysts and others could be adversely affected.

 

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

 

Provisions of Maryland law and our organizational documents may limit the ability of a third party to acquire control of our company and may serve to limit our stock price.

 

Provisions of Maryland law and our charter and bylaws could have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing transactions that involve an actual or threatened change in control of us, and may have the effect of entrenching our management and members of our board of directors, regardless of performance. These provisions include the following:

 

Aggregate Stock and Common Stock Ownership Limits. In order for us to qualify as a REIT, no more than 50% of the value of outstanding shares of our stock may be owned, actually or constructively, by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of each taxable year. To assure that we will not fail to qualify as a REIT under this test, subject to some exceptions, our charter prohibits any stockholder from owning beneficially or constructively more than 9.8% (in number or value, whichever is more restrictive) of the outstanding shares of our common stock or more than 9.8% of the value of the outstanding shares of our capital stock. Any attempt to own or transfer shares of our capital stock in excess of the ownership limit without the consent of our board of directors will be void and could result in the shares (and all dividends thereon) being automatically transferred to a charitable trust. The board of directors has granted waivers of the aggregate stock and common stock ownership limits to six “look through entities” such as mutual or investment funds. This ownership limitation may prevent a third party from acquiring control of us if our board of directors does not grant an exemption from the ownership limitation, even if our stockholders believe the change in control is in their best interests.

 

Authority to Issue Stock. Our charter authorizes our board of directors to cause us to issue up to 500,000,000 shares of common stock and up to 100,000,000 shares of preferred stock. Our charter authorizes our board of directors to amend our charter without stockholder approval to increase or decrease the aggregate number of shares of stock or the number of

shares of any class or series of our stock that it has authority to issue, to classify or reclassify any unissued shares of our common stock or preferred stock and to set the preferences, rights and other terms of the classified or reclassified shares. Issuances of additional shares of stock may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of our company, including change of control transactions offering a premium over the market price of shares of our common stock, even if our stockholders believe that a change of control is in their interest.

 

Number of Directors, Board Vacancies, Term of Office. Under our charter and bylaws, we have elected to be subject to certain provisions of Maryland law which vest in the board of directors the exclusive right to determine the number of directors and the exclusive right, by the affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining directors, to fill vacancies on the board even if the remaining directors do not constitute a quorum. Any director elected to fill a vacancy will hold office until the next annual meeting of stockholders, and until his or her successor is elected and qualifies. As a result, stockholder influence over these matters is limited.

 

Limitation on Stockholder Requested Special Meetings. Our bylaws provide that our stockholders have the right to call a special meeting only upon the written request of the stockholders entitled to cast not less than a majority of all the votes entitled to be cast by the stockholders at such meeting. This provision makes it more difficult for stockholders to call special meetings.

 

Advance Notice Provisions for Stockholder Nominations and Proposals. Our bylaws require advance written notice for stockholders to nominate persons for election as directors at, or to bring other business before, any meeting of our stockholders. This bylaw provision limits the ability of our stockholders to make nominations of persons for election as directors or to introduce other proposals unless we are notified and provided certain required information in a timely manner prior to the meeting.

 

Authority of our Board to Amend our Bylaws. Our bylaws provide that our board of directors has the exclusive power to adopt, alter or repeal any provision of the bylaws or to make new bylaws, except with respect to amendments to the provision of our bylaws regarding our opt out of the Maryland Business Combination and Control Share Acquisition Acts. In February 2015, however, we amended our bylaws. By way of the amendment, the bylaws may be amended, altered, repealed or rescinded (a) by our board of directors or (b) by the stockholders, by the affirmative vote of a majority of all the votes entitled to be cast generally in the election of directors.

 

Duties of Directors. Maryland law requires that a director perform his or her duties (1) in good faith, (2) in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and (3) with the care that an ordinary prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. The duty of the directors of a Maryland corporation does not require them to (1) accept, recommend or respond on behalf of the corporation to any proposal by a person seeking to acquire control of the corporation, (2) authorize the corporation to redeem any rights under, or modify or render inapplicable, a stockholders’ rights plan, (3) elect on behalf of the corporation to be subject to or refrain from electing on behalf of the corporation to be subject to the unsolicited takeover provisions of Maryland law, (4) make a determination under the Maryland Business Combination Act or the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act or (5) act or fail to act solely because of the effect the act or failure to act may have on an acquisition or potential acquisition of control of the corporation or the amount or type of consideration that may be offered or paid to the stockholders in an acquisition. Moreover, under Maryland law the act of the directors of a Maryland corporation relating to or affecting an acquisition or potential acquisition of control is not subject to any higher duty or greater scrutiny than is applied to any other act of a director. Maryland law also contains a statutory presumption that an act of a director of a Maryland corporation satisfies the applicable standards of conduct for directors under Maryland law. These provisions increase the ability of our directors to respond to a takeover and may make it more difficult for a third party to effect an unsolicited takeover.

 

Unsolicited Takeover Provisions. Provisions of Maryland law permit the board of a corporation with a class of equity securities registered under the Exchange Act and at least three independent directors, without stockholder approval, to implement possible takeover defenses, such as a classified board or a two-thirds vote requirement for removal of a director. These provisions, if implemented, may make it more difficult for a third party to effect a takeover. In April 2013, however, we amended our charter to prohibit us from dividing directors into classes unless such action is first approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on the matter by stockholders entitled to vote generally in the election of directors.

 

We rely on our senior management team, the loss of whom could cause us to incur costs and harm our business.

 

Our continued success will depend to a significant extent on the efforts and abilities of our senior management team. These individuals are important to our business and strategy and to the extent that any of them departs, we could incur severance or other costs. For example, in 2015 we incurred $6.9 million of expenses associated with the termination of our former Chief Executive Officer. The loss of future executives could also disrupt our business and cause us to incur additional costs to hire replacement personnel.

 

Risks Related to the Lodging and Real Estate Industries

 

A number of factors, many of which are common to the lodging industry and beyond our control, could affect our business, including the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These factors could harm our financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

 

The hotel business is seasonal and seasonal variations in revenue at our hotels can be expected to cause quarterly fluctuations in our revenue.

 

As is typical of the lodging industry, we experience some seasonality in our business. Revenue for certain of our hotels is generally affected by seasonal business patterns (e.g., the first quarter is strong in Orlando, the second quarter is strong for the Mid-Atlantic business hotels, and the fourth quarter is strong for New York City and Hawaii). Quarterly revenue also may be adversely affected by renovations and repositionings, our managers’ effectiveness in generating business and by events beyond our control, such as extreme weather conditions, terrorist attacks or alerts, civil unrest,

public health concerns, airline strikes or reduced airline capacity, economic factors and other considerations affecting travel. Seasonal fluctuations in revenue may affect our ability to make distributions to our stockholders or to fund our debt service.

 

The growth of alternative reservation channels could adversely affect our business and profitability.

 

A significant percentage of hotel rooms for individual guests is booked through internet travel intermediaries. Many of our managers and franchisors contract with such intermediaries and pay them various commissions and transaction fees for sales of our rooms through their systems. If such bookings increase, these intermediaries may be able to obtain higher commissions, reduced room rates or other significant concessions from us or our franchisees. Although our managers and franchisors may have established agreements with many of these intermediaries that limit transaction fees for hotels, there can be no assurance that our managers and franchisors will be able to renegotiate such agreements upon their expiration with terms as favorable as the provisions that exist today. Moreover, hospitality intermediaries generally employ aggressive marketing strategies, including expending significant resources for online and television advertising campaigns to drive consumers to their websites. As a result, consumers may develop brand loyalties to the intermediaries’ offered brands, websites and reservations systems rather than to brands of our managers and franchisors. If this happens, our business and profitability may be significantly negatively impacted.

 

In addition, in general, internet travel intermediaries have traditionally competed to attract individual consumers or “transient” business rather than group and convention business. However, hospitality intermediaries have recently grown their business to include marketing to large group and convention business. If that growth continues, it could both divert group and convention business away from our hotels, and it could also increase our cost of sales for group and convention business.

 

The illiquidity of real estate investments and the lack of alternative uses of hotel properties could significantly limit our ability to respond to adverse changes in the performance of our hotels and harm our financial condition.

 

Because commercial real estate investments are relatively illiquid, our ability to promptly sell one or more of our hotels in response to changing economic, financial and investment conditions is limited. The real estate market, including our hotels, is affected by many factors, such as general economic conditions, availability of financing, interest rates and other factors, including supply and demand, that are beyond our control. We may not be able to sell any of our hotels on favorable terms. It may take a long time to find a willing purchaser and to close the sale of a hotel if we want to sell. Should we decide to sell a hotel during the term of that particular hotel’s management agreement, we may have to pay termination fees, which could be substantial, to the applicable management company.

 

In addition, hotels may not be readily converted to alternative uses if they were to become unprofitable due to competition, age of improvements, decreased demand or other factors. The conversion of a hotel to alternative uses would also generally require substantial capital expenditures and may give rise to substantial payments to our franchisors, management companies and lenders.

 

We may be required to expend funds to correct defects or to make improvements before a hotel can be sold. We may not have funds available to correct those defects or to make those improvements and, as a result, our ability to sell the hotel would be restricted. In acquiring a hotel, we may agree to lock-out provisions that materially restrict us from selling that hotel for a period of time or impose other restrictions on us, such as a limitation on the amount of debt that can be placed or repaid on that hotel to address specific concerns of sellers. These lock-out provisions would restrict our ability to sell a hotel. These factors and any others that would impede our ability to respond to adverse changes in the performance of our hotels could harm our financial condition and results of operations.

 

Claims by persons relating to our properties could affect the attractiveness of our hotels or cause us to incur additional expenses.

 

We could incur liabilities resulting from loss or injury to our hotels or to persons at our hotels. These losses could be attributable to us or result from actions taken by a hotel management company. If claims are made against a management company, it may seek to pass those expenses through to us. Claims such as these, whether or not they have merit, could harm the reputation of a hotel or cause us to incur expenses to the extent of insurance deductibles or losses in excess of policy limitations, which could harm our results of operations.

 

We have in the past and could in the future incur liabilities resulting from claims by hotel employees. While these claims are, for the most part, covered by insurance, some claims (such as claims for unpaid overtime wages) generally are not insured or insurable. These claims, whether or not they have merit, could harm the reputation of a hotel or cause us to incur losses which could harm our results of operations.

 

Uninsured and underinsured losses could harm our financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

 

Various types of litigation losses and catastrophic losses, such as losses due to wars, terrorist acts, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, pollution or environmental matters, generally are either uninsurable or not economically insurable, or may be subject to insurance coverage limitations, such as large deductibles or co-payments.

 

Of the 29 hotels, nine are located in California, which has been historically at greater risk to certain acts of nature (such as fires, earthquakes and mudslides) than other states. In the event of a catastrophic loss, our insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover the full current market value or replacement cost of our lost investment. Should an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of insured limits occur, we could lose all or a portion of the capital we have invested in a hotel, as well as the anticipated future revenue from the hotel. In that event, we might nevertheless remain obligated for any notes payable or other financial obligations related to the property, in addition to obligations to our ground lessors, franchisors and managers. Inflation, changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations and other factors might also keep us from using insurance proceeds to replace or renovate a hotel after it has been damaged or destroyed. Under those circumstances, the insurance proceeds we receive might be inadequate to restore our economic position on the damaged or destroyed hotel.

 

Property and casualty insurance, including coverage for terrorism, can be difficult or expensive to obtain. When our current insurance policies expire, we may encounter difficulty in obtaining or renewing property or casualty insurance on our hotels at the same levels of coverage and under similar terms. Such insurance may be more limited and for some catastrophic risks (e.g., earthquake, fire, flood and terrorism) may not be generally available at current levels. Even if we are able to renew our policies or to obtain new policies at levels and with limitations consistent with our current policies, we cannot be sure that we will be able to obtain such insurance at premium rates that are commercially reasonable. If we are unable to obtain adequate insurance on our hotels for certain risks, it could cause us to be in default under specific covenants on certain of our indebtedness or other contractual commitments we have to our ground lessors, franchisors and managers which require us to maintain adequate insurance on our properties to protect against the risk of loss. If this were to occur, or if we were unable to obtain adequate insurance and our properties experienced damages which would otherwise have been covered by insurance, it could harm our financial condition and results of operations.

 

In addition, there are other risks, such as certain environmental hazards, that may be deemed to fall completely outside the general coverage limits of our policies or may be uninsurable or too expensive to justify coverage. We also may encounter challenges with an insurance provider regarding whether it will pay a particular claim that we believe to be covered under our policy. Should a loss in excess of insured limits or an uninsured loss occur, or should we be unsuccessful in obtaining coverage from an insurance carrier, we could lose all or a part of the capital we have invested in a property, as well as the anticipated future revenue from the hotel. In that event, we might nevertheless remain obligated for any mortgage debt or other financial obligations related to the property.

 

Terrorist attacks and military conflicts may adversely affect the hospitality industry.

 

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and subsequent events underscore the possibility that large public facilities or economically important assets could become the target of terrorist attacks in the future. In particular, properties that are well-known or are located in concentrated business sectors in major cities may be subject to the risk of terrorist attacks. The occurrence or the possibility of terrorist attacks or military conflicts could:

 

 

 

 

 

 

We may not be able to recover fully under our existing terrorism insurance for losses caused by some types of terrorist acts, and federal terrorism legislation does not ensure that we will be able to obtain terrorism insurance in adequate amounts or at acceptable premium levels in the future.

 

We obtain terrorism insurance as part of our all-risk property insurance program. However, our all-risk policies have limitations such as per occurrence limits and sublimits that might have to be shared proportionally across participating hotels under certain loss scenarios. Also, all-risk insurers only have to provide terrorism coverage to the extent mandated by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (the “TRIA”) for “certified” acts of terrorism — namely those which are committed on behalf of non-United States persons or interests. Furthermore, we may not have full replacement coverage for all of our properties for acts of terrorism committed on behalf of United States persons or interests (“noncertified” events), as well as for “certified” events, as our terrorism coverage for such incidents is subject to sublimits and/or annual aggregate limits. In addition, property damage related to war and to nuclear, biological and chemical incidents is excluded under our policies. To the extent we have property damage directly related to fire following a nuclear, biological or chemical incident, however, our coverage may extend to reimburse us for our losses. While the TRIA provides for the reimbursement of insurers for losses resulting from nuclear, biological and chemical perils, the TRIA does not require insurers to offer coverage for these perils and, to date, insurers are not willing to provide this coverage, even with government reinsurance. As a result of the above, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the extent and adequacy of terrorism coverage that will be available to protect our interests in the event of future terrorist attacks that impact our properties.

 

Laws and governmental regulations may restrict the ways in which we use our hotel properties and increase the cost of compliance with such regulations. Noncompliance with such regulations could subject us to penalties, loss of value of our properties or civil damages.

 

Our hotel properties are subject to various federal, state and local laws relating to the environment, fire and safety and access and use by disabled persons. Under these laws, courts and government agencies have the authority to require us, if we are the owner of a contaminated property, to clean up the property, even if we did not know of or were not responsible for the contamination. These laws also apply to persons who owned a property at the time it became contaminated. In addition to the costs of cleanup, environmental contamination can affect the value of a property and, therefore, an owner’s ability to borrow funds using the property as collateral or to sell the property. Under such environmental laws, courts and government agencies also have the authority to require that a person who sent waste to a waste disposal facility, such as a landfill or an incinerator, pay for the clean-up of that facility if it becomes contaminated and threatens human health or the environment.

 

Furthermore, various court decisions have established that third parties may recover damages for injury caused by property contamination. For instance, a person exposed to asbestos while staying in or working at a hotel may seek to recover damages for injuries suffered. Additionally, some of these environmental laws restrict the use of a property or place conditions on various activities. For example, some laws require a business using chemicals (such as swimming pool chemicals at a hotel) to manage them carefully and to notify local officials that the chemicals are being used.

 

We could be responsible for the types of costs discussed above. The costs to clean up a contaminated property, to defend against a claim, or to comply with environmental laws could be material and could reduce the funds available for distribution to our stockholders. Future laws or regulations may impose material environmental liabilities on us, or the current environmental condition of our hotel properties may be affected by the condition of the properties in the vicinity of our hotels (such as the presence of leaking underground storage tanks) or by third parties unrelated to us.

 

Our hotel properties are also subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or the ADA. Under the ADA, all public accommodations must meet various Federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons. Compliance with the ADA’s requirements could require removal of access barriers and non-compliance could result in the U.S. government imposing fines or in private litigants’ winning damages. If we are required to make substantial modifications to our hotels, whether to comply with the ADA or other changes in governmental rules and regulations, our financial condition, results of operations and the ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be harmed. In addition, we are required to operate our hotel properties in compliance with fire and safety regulations, building codes and other land use regulations, as they may be adopted by governmental agencies and become applicable to our properties.

 

Tax and Employee Benefit Plan Risks

 

If we fail to qualify as a REIT, our distributions will not be deductible by us and our income will be subject to federal and state taxation, reducing our cash available for distribution.

 

We are a REIT under the Code, which affords us significant tax advantages. The requirements for qualifying as a REIT, however, are complex. If we fail to meet these requirements and certain relief provisions do not apply, our distributions will not be deductible by us and we will have to pay a corporate federal and state level tax on our income. This would substantially reduce our cash available to pay distributions and your yield on your investment in our common stock. In addition, such a tax liability might cause us to borrow funds, liquidate some of our investments or take other steps which could negatively affect our results of operations. Moreover, if our REIT status is terminated because of our failure to meet a technical REIT requirement or if we voluntarily revoke our election, we would generally be disqualified from electing treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year in which REIT status is lost.

 

Even as a REIT, we may become subject to federal, state or local taxes on our income or property, reducing our cash available for distribution.

 

Even as a REIT, we may become subject to federal income taxes and related state taxes. For example, if we have net income from a “prohibited transaction,” that income will be subject to a 100% tax. A “prohibited transaction” is, in general, the sale or other disposition of inventory or property, other than foreclosure property, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We may not be able to make sufficient distributions to avoid excise taxes applicable to REITs. In addition, to the extent that we do not distribute all of our net long-term capital gain or distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, we will be required to pay tax thereon at regular corporate tax rates. We may also decide to retain income we earn from the sale or other disposition of our property and pay federal income tax directly on that income. In that event, our stockholders would be treated as if they earned that income and paid the tax on it directly. However, stockholders that are tax-exempt, such as charities or qualified pension plans, would have no benefit from their deemed payment of that tax liability.

 

We may also be subject to federal and/or state income taxes when using net operating loss carryforwards to offset current taxable income. While we did not use any net operating loss carryforwards during either 2015 or 2014, our use of net operating loss carryforwards during 2013 and 2012 resulted in federal alternative minimum tax and state income tax expense (where our use of net operating loss carryforwards was either limited or unavailable) totaling $1.9 million and $1.1 million, respectively.

 

Our taxable lease subsidiaries are subject to tax as regular corporations. In addition, we may also be subject to state and local taxes on our income or property at the level of our operating partnership or at the level of the other companies through which we indirectly own our assets. In the normal course of business, entities through which we own or operate real estate either have undergone, or may undergo future tax audits. Should we receive a material tax deficiency notice in the future which requires us to incur additional expense, our earnings may be negatively impacted. There can be no assurance that future audits will not occur with increased frequency or that the ultimate result of such audits will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. We cannot assure you that we will be able to continue to satisfy the REIT requirements, or that it will be in our best interests to continue to do so.

 

If the leases of our hotels to our taxable REIT subsidiary are not respected as true leases for federal income tax purposes, we would fail to qualify as a REIT.

 

To qualify as a REIT, we must satisfy two gross income tests, under which specified percentages of our gross income must be passive income. Passive income includes rent paid pursuant to our operating leases between our TRS Lessee and its subsidiaries and our Operating Partnership. These rents constitute substantially all of our gross income. For the rent to

qualify for purposes of the gross income tests, the leases must be respected as true leases for federal income tax purposes and not be treated as service contracts, joint ventures or some other type of arrangement. If the leases are not respected as true leases for federal income tax purposes, we would fail to qualify as a REIT.

 

We may be subject to taxes in the event our operating leases are held not to be on an arm’s-length basis.

 

In the event that leases between us and our taxable REIT subsidiaries are held not to have been made on an arm’s-length basis, we or our taxable REIT subsidiaries could be subject to income taxes. In 2011, the Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, notified us of their intent to audit our taxable REIT subsidiary, Sunstone Hotel TRS Lessee, Inc., and its subsidiaries. During 2013, the IRS issued a notice of proposed adjustment to us, challenging certain aspects of our leases with our TRS Lessee and its subsidiaries. Though we believe our leases comply with all Code requirements, we determined that the costs associated with defending our position were greater than the benefits that might result therefrom. As such, we recognized income tax expense of $4.7 million related to the IRS’s audit of tax years 2008, 2009 and 2010, including $0.6 million in related interest expense. We recorded additional income tax expense of $1.5 million during 2013 based on the ongoing evaluations of our uncertain tax positions related to 2012, and as a result of our recent resolution of outstanding issues with the IRS.

 

Our taxable REIT subsidiary is subject to special rules that may result in increased taxes.

 

Several Code provisions ensure that a taxable REIT subsidiary is subject to an appropriate level of federal income taxation. For example, a taxable REIT subsidiary, such as the TRS Lessee, is limited in its ability to deduct interest payments made to an affiliated REIT. In addition, the REIT has to pay a 100% penalty tax on some payments that it receives if the economic arrangements between us and the taxable REIT subsidiary are not comparable to similar arrangements between unrelated parties. The IRS may successfully assert that the economic arrangements of any of our inter-company transactions, including the hotel leases, are not comparable to similar arrangements between unrelated parties.

 

We may be required to pay a penalty tax upon the sale of a hotel.

 

The federal income tax provisions applicable to REITs provide that any gain realized by a REIT on the sale of property held as inventory or other property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business is treated as income from a “prohibited transaction” that is subject to a 100% penalty tax. Under current law, unless a sale of real property qualifies for a safe harbor, the question of whether the sale of a hotel (or other property) constitutes the sale of property held primarily for sale to customers is generally a question of the facts and circumstances regarding a particular transaction. We may make sales that do not satisfy the requirements of the safe harbors or the IRS may successfully assert that one or more of our sales are prohibited transactions and, therefore we may be required to pay a penalty tax.

 

We may be subject to corporate level income tax on certain built-in gains.

 

We may acquire properties in the future from C corporations, in which we must adopt the C corporation’s tax basis in that asset as our tax basis. If we sell any such property within 5 years of the date on which we acquire it, then we will have to pay tax on the gain at the highest regular corporate tax rate.

 

If a transaction intended to qualify as a Section 1031 Exchange is later determined to be taxable, we may face adverse consequences, and if the laws applicable to such transactions are amended or repealed, we may not be able to dispose of properties on a tax deferred basis.

 

From time to time we may dispose of properties in transactions that are intended to qualify as tax deferred exchanges under Section 1031 of the Code (a “Section 1031 Exchange”). If the qualification of a disposition as a valid Section 1031 Exchange is successfully challenged by the IRS, the disposition may be treated as a taxable exchange. In such case, our taxable income and earnings and profits would increase as would the amount of distributions we are required to make to satisfy the REIT distribution requirements. As a result, we may be required to make additional distributions or, in lieu of that, pay additional corporate income tax, including interest and penalties. To satisfy these obligations, we may be required to borrow funds. In addition, the payment of taxes could cause us to have less cash available to distribute to our stockholders. Moreover, it is possible that legislation could be enacted that could modify or repeal the laws with respect to

Section 1031 Exchanges, which could make it more difficult, or not possible, for us to dispose of properties on a tax deferred basis.

 

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

 

The market price of our equity securities may vary substantially.

 

The trading prices of equity securities issued by REITs may be affected by changes in market interest rates and other factors. During 2015, our closing daily stock price fluctuated from a low of $12.49 to a high of $17.98. One of the factors that may influence the price of our common stock or preferred stock in public trading markets is the annual yield from distributions on our common stock or preferred stock, if any, as compared to yields on other financial instruments. An increase in market interest rates, or a decrease in our distributions to stockholders, may lead prospective purchasers of our stock to demand a higher annual yield, which could reduce the market price of our equity securities.

 

In addition to the risk factors discussed, other factors that could affect the market price of our equity securities include the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our distributions to stockholders may vary.

 

During the past three years, we paid quarterly cash dividends to the stockholders of our Series D cumulative redeemable preferred stock (“Series D preferred stock) and our common stock as follows:

 

 

 

Future distributions will be authorized and determined by our board of directors in its sole discretion from time to time and will be dependent upon a number of factors, including long-term operating projections,  expected capital requirements and risks affecting our business. Furthermore, our board of directors may elect to pay dividends on our common stock by any means allowed under the Code, including a combination of cash and shares of our common stock. We cannot assure you as to the timing or amount of future dividends; however, we expect to continue to pay a regular dividend of $0.05 per share of common stock throughout 2016. To the extent that expected regular quarterly dividends for 2016 do not satisfy our annual distribution requirements, we expect to satisfy the annual distribution requirement by paying a “catch up” dividend in January 2017, which dividend may be paid in cash and/or shares of common stock. We believe that investors consider the relationship of dividend yield to market interest rates to be an important factor in deciding whether to buy or sell shares of a REIT. If market interest rates increase, prospective purchasers of REIT shares may expect a higher dividend rate. Thus, higher market interest rates could cause the market price of our shares to decrease.

 

Distributions on our common stock may be made in the form of cash, stock, or a combination of both.

 

As a REIT, we are required to distribute at least 90% of our taxable income to our stockholders. Typically, we generate cash for distributions through our operations, the disposition of assets, or the incurrence of additional debt. We have elected in the past, and may elect in the future, to pay dividends on our common stock in cash, shares of common stock or a combination of cash and shares of common stock. Changes in our dividend policy could adversely affect the price of our stock.

 

The IRS may disallow our use of stock dividends to satisfy our distribution requirements.

 

We may elect to satisfy our REIT distribution requirements in the form of shares of our common stock along with cash. We have previously received private letter rulings from the IRS, including for both tax years 2014 and 2015, regarding the treatment of these distributions for purposes of satisfying our REIT distribution requirements. In the future, however, we may make cash/common stock distributions prior to receiving a private letter ruling. Should the IRS disallow our future use of cash/common stock dividends, the distribution would not qualify for purposes of meeting our distribution requirements, and we would need to make additional all cash distributions to satisfy the distribution requirement through the use of the deficiency dividend procedures outlined in the Code.

 

Shares of our common stock that are or become available for sale could affect the share price.

 

We have in the past, and may in the future, issue additional shares of common stock to raise the capital necessary to finance hotel acquisitions, fund capital expenditures, redeem our preferred stock, repay indebtedness  or for other corporate purposes. Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock, or the perception that sales could occur, could adversely affect prevailing market prices for our common stock. On July 17, 2014 we filed a prospectus supplement

relating to the possible resale by certain selling security holders of up to 4,034,970 shares of our common stock issued in connection with our acquisition of the Wailea Beach Marriott Resort & Spa.  In addition, we have reserved approximately 12 million shares of our common stock for issuance under the Company’s long-term incentive plan, and 6,191,380 shares remained available for future issuance as of December 31, 2015.

 

Our earnings and cash distributions will affect the market price of shares of our common stock.

 

We believe that the market value of a REIT’s equity securities is based primarily on the value of the REIT’s owned real estate, capital structure, debt levels and perception of the REIT’s growth potential and its current and potential future cash distributions, whether from operations, sales, acquisitions, development or refinancings. Because our market value is based on a combination of factors, shares of our common stock may trade at prices that are higher or lower than the net value per share of our underlying assets. To the extent we retain operating cash flow for investment purposes, working capital reserves or other purposes rather than distributing the cash flow to stockholders, these retained funds, while increasing the value of our underlying assets, may negatively impact the market price of our common stock. Our failure to meet our expectations or the market’s expectation with regard to future earnings and cash distributions would likely adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

 

Item 1B.Unresolved Staff Comments

 

None.

Item 2.Properties

 

The following table sets forth additional summary information with respect to our 29 hotels as of December 31, 2015:

 

 

 

In addition to the hotel properties listed above, as of December 31, 2015, we also owned one undeveloped parcel of land in Craig, Colorado.

 

Geographic Diversity

 

We own a geographically diverse portfolio of hotels located in 13 states and in Washington, DC. The following tables summarize our 29 hotels by region as of December 31, 2015, and the operating statistics by region for 2015,  2014 and 2013, including prior ownership results for the 2014 acquisition (Wailea Beach Marriott Resort & Spa), and the 2013 acquisitions (Hilton New Orleans St. Charles, Boston Park Plaza and Hyatt Regency San Francisco).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 3.Legal Proceedings

 

We are involved from time to time in various claims and legal actions in the ordinary course of our business. We do not believe that the resolution of any such pending legal matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations when resolved.

 

Item 4.Mine Safety Disclosures

 

Not applicable.

PART II

 

Item 5.Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

 

Our common stock is traded on the NYSE under the symbol “SHO.” On February 12, 2016, the last reported price per share of common stock on the NYSE was $11.94. The table below sets forth the high and low closing price per share of our common stock as reported on the NYSE and the cash dividends per share of common stock we declared with respect to each period.

 

 

Subject to certain limitations, we intend to make dividends on our stock in amounts equivalent to 100% of our annual taxable income. The level of any future dividends will be determined by our board of directors after considering long-term operating projections, expected capital requirements and risks affecting our business; however, we expect to continue to pay a regular quarterly dividend of $0.05 per share of common stock throughout 2016. To the extent that expected regular quarterly dividends for 2016 do not satisfy our annual distribution requirements, we expect to satisfy the annual distribution requirement by paying a “catch up” dividend in January 2017, which dividend may be paid in cash and/or shares of common stock.  Any future common stock dividends may be comprised of cash only, or a combination of cash and stock, consistent with Internal Revenue Service guidelines.

 

As of February 12, 2016, we had approximately 23 holders of record of our common stock. However, because many of the shares of our common stock are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of stockholders, we believe there are substantially more beneficial holders of our common stock than record holders. In order to comply with certain requirements related to our qualification as a REIT, our charter limits the number of common shares that may be owned by any single person or affiliated group to 9.8% of the outstanding common shares, subject to the ability of our board to waive this limitation under certain conditions.

 

Information relating to compensation plans under which our equity securities are authorized for issuance is set forth in Part III, Item 12 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

Fourth Quarter 2015 Purchases of Equity Securities:

 

 

Item 6.Selected Financial Data

 

The following table sets forth selected financial information for the Company that has been derived from the consolidated financial statements and notes. This information should be read together with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.