10-Q: Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
Published on August 4, 2006
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
______________
FORM
10-Q
(Mark
One)
X
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006
or
___
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For
the transition period from _______________ to
_______________
Commission
file number 1-11316
OMEGA
HEALTHCARE
INVESTORS,
INC.
(Exact
name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Maryland 38-3041398
(State
of
Incorporation) (I.R.S.
Employer Identification No.)
9690
Deereco Road, Suite 100, Timonium, MD 21093
(Address
of principal executive offices)
(410)
427-1700
(Telephone
number, including area code)
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to
be
filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required
to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to the filing requirements for
the past 90 days.
Yes
X
No
__
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, or non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated
filer and larger accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check
one:)
Large
accelerated filer __ Accelerated
filer
X Non-accelerated
filer __
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule
12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes __ No
X
Indicate
the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common
stock
as of July 31,
2006.
Common
Stock, $.10 par value 58,866,857
(Class) (Number
of shares)
OMEGA
HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.
FORM
10-Q
June
30, 2006
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
|
||
Page
No.
|
||
PART
I
|
Financial
Information
|
|
Item
1.
|
Financial
Statements:
|
|
2
|
||
3
|
||
4
|
||
5
|
||
Item
2.
|
17
|
|
Item
3.
|
32
|
|
Item
4.
|
33
|
|
PART
II
|
Other
Information
|
|
Item
1.
|
34
|
|
Item
1A.
|
34
|
|
Item
4.
|
34
|
|
Item
5.
|
34
|
|
Item
6.
|
35
|
|
Item
1 - Financial Statements
OMEGA
HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.
(in
thousands)
June
30,
|
December
31,
|
||||||
2006
|
2005
|
||||||
(Unaudited)
|
|||||||
ASSETS
|
|
||||||
Real
estate properties
|
|||||||
Land
and buildings at cost
|
$
|
1,060,226
|
$
|
996,127
|
|||
Less
accumulated depreciation
|
(171,948
|
)
|
(157,255
|
)
|
|||
Real
estate properties - net
|
888,278
|
838,872
|
|||||
Mortgage
notes receivable - net
|
32,381
|
104,522
|
|||||
920,659
|
943,394
|
||||||
Other
investments - net
|
29,060
|
23,490
|
|||||
949,719
|
966,884
|
||||||
Assets
held for sale - net
|
248
|
1,243
|
|||||
Total
investments
|
949,967
|
968,127
|
|||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
14,053
|
3,948
|
|||||
Accounts
receivable
|
6,342
|
5,885
|
|||||
Other
assets
|
13,998
|
37,769
|
|||||
Total
assets
|
$
|
984,360
|
$
|
1,015,729
|
|||
LIABILITIES
AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
|
|||||||
Revolving
line of credit
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
58,000
|
|||
Unsecured
borrowings - net
|
484,739
|
505,429
|
|||||
Other
long-term borrowings
|
41,800
|
2,800
|
|||||
Accrued
expenses and other liabilities
|
22,399
|
19,563
|
|||||
Operating
liabilities for owned properties
|
125
|
256
|
|||||
Total
liabilities
|
549,063
|
586,048
|
|||||
Stockholders’
equity:
|
|||||||
Preferred
stock
|
118,488
|
118,488
|
|||||
Common
stock and additional paid-in-capital
|
680,443
|
663,607
|
|||||
Cumulative
net earnings
|
245,843
|
227,701
|
|||||
Cumulative
dividends paid
|
(568,150
|
)
|
(536,041
|
)
|
|||
Cumulative
dividends - redemption
|
(43,067
|
)
|
(43,067
|
)
|
|||
Unamortized
restricted stock awards
|
—
|
(1,167
|
)
|
||||
Accumulated
other comprehensive income
|
1,740
|
160
|
|||||
Total
stockholders’ equity
|
435,297
|
429,681
|
|||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders’ equity
|
$
|
984,360
|
$
|
1,015,729
|
Note
- The
balance sheet at December 31, 2005 has been derived from the audited
consolidated financial statements at that date but does not include all of
the
information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles
for complete financial statements.
See
notes
to consolidated financial statements.
2
OMEGA
HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.
Unaudited
(in
thousands, except per share amounts)
Three
Months Ended
|
Six
Months Ended
|
||||||||||||
June
30,
|
June
30,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2005
|
2006
|
2005
|
||||||||||
Revenues
|
|||||||||||||
Rental
income
|
$
|
29,042
|
$
|
22,514
|
$
|
57,975
|
$
|
44,262
|
|||||
Mortgage
interest income
|
1,154
|
1,240
|
2,338
|
3,196
|
|||||||||
Other
investment income - net
|
533
|
385
|
1,058
|
682
|
|||||||||
Miscellaneous
|
332
|
1,146
|
441
|
4,312
|
|||||||||
Total
operating revenues
|
31,061
|
25,285
|
61,812
|
52,452
|
|||||||||
Expenses
|
|||||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
7,542
|
6,044
|
15,060
|
11,742
|
|||||||||
General
and administrative
|
2,313
|
2,123
|
4,662
|
4,235
|
|||||||||
Provision
for uncollectible mortgages, notes and accounts receivable
|
-
|
83
|
-
|
83
|
|||||||||
Leasehold
expiration expense
|
-
|
750
|
-
|
750
|
|||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
9,855
|
9,000
|
19,722
|
16,810
|
|||||||||
Income
before other income and expense
|
21,206
|
16,285
|
42,090
|
35,642
|
|||||||||
Other
income (expense):
|
|||||||||||||
Interest
and other investment income
|
69
|
24
|
182
|
65
|
|||||||||
Interest
|
(9,447
|
)
|
(6,948
|
)
|
(19,056
|
)
|
(13,722
|
)
|
|||||
Interest
- amortization of deferred financing costs
|
(431
|
)
|
(525
|
)
|
(1,074
|
)
|
(1,031
|
)
|
|||||
Interest
- refinancing costs
|
-
|
-
|
(3,485
|
)
|
-
|
||||||||
Provision
for impairment on equity securities
|
-
|
(3,360
|
)
|
-
|
(3,360
|
)
|
|||||||
Total
other expense
|
(9,809
|
)
|
(10,809
|
)
|
(23,433
|
)
|
(18,048
|
)
|
|||||
Income
from continuing operations
|
11,397
|
5,476
|
18,657
|
17,594
|
|||||||||
(Loss)
from discontinued operations
|
(136
|
)
|
(3,219
|
)
|
(515
|
)
|
(6,033
|
)
|
|||||
Net
income
|
11,261
|
2,257
|
18,142
|
11,561
|
|||||||||
Preferred
stock dividends
|
(2,481
|
)
|
(2,864
|
)
|
(4,962
|
)
|
(6,423
|
)
|
|||||
Preferred
stock conversion and redemption charges
|
-
|
(2,013
|
)
|
-
|
(2,013
|
)
|
|||||||
Net
income (loss) available to common
|
$
|
8,780
|
$
|
(2,620
|
)
|
$
|
13,180
|
$
|
3,125
|
||||
Income
(loss) per common share:
|
|||||||||||||
Basic:
|
|||||||||||||
Income
from continuing operations
|
$
|
0.15
|
$
|
0.01
|
$
|
0.24
|
$
|
0.18
|
|||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$
|
0.15
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
$
|
0.23
|
$
|
0.06
|
||||
Diluted:
|
|||||||||||||
Income
from continuing operations
|
$
|
0.15
|
$
|
0.01
|
$
|
0.24
|
$
|
0.18
|
|||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$
|
0.15
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
$
|
0.23
|
$
|
0.06
|
||||
Dividends
declared and paid per common share
|
$
|
0.24
|
$
|
0.21
|
$
|
0.47
|
$
|
0.41
|
|||||
Weighted-average
shares outstanding, basic
|
58,158
|
51,031
|
57,787
|
50,980
|
|||||||||
Weighted-average
shares outstanding, diluted
|
58,237
|
51,365
|
57,858
|
51,339
|
|||||||||
Components
of other comprehensive income:
|
|||||||||||||
Net
income
|
$
|
11,261
|
$
|
2,257
|
$
|
18,142
|
$
|
11,561
|
|||||
Unrealized
gain on investments
|
881
|
-
|
1,580
|
-
|
|||||||||
Total
comprehensive income
|
$
|
12,142
|
$
|
2,257
|
$
|
19,722
|
$
|
11,561
|
See
notes
to consolidated financial statements.
3
OMEGA
HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.
Unaudited
(in thousands)
Six
Months Ended
June
30,
|
|||||||
2006
|
2005
|
||||||
Operating
activities
|
|||||||
Net
income
|
$
|
18,142
|
$
|
11,561
|
|||
Adjustment
to reconcile net income to cash provided by operating
activities:
|
|||||||
Depreciation
and amortization (including amounts in discontinued
operations)
|
15,069
|
12,793
|
|||||
Provision
for impairment on real estate properties (including amounts in
discontinued operations)
|
121
|
3,700
|
|||||
Provision
for uncollectible mortgages, notes and accounts receivable
|
—
|
83
|
|||||
Provision
for impairment on equity securities
|
—
|
3,360
|
|||||
Refinancing
costs
|
3,485
|
—
|
|||||
Amortization
of deferred financing costs
|
1,074
|
1,031
|
|||||
Loss
on assets sold - net
|
381
|
4,202
|
|||||
Restricted
stock amortization expense
|
585
|
571
|
|||||
Other
|
(23
|
)
|
(1,516
|
)
|
|||
Net
change in accounts receivable
|
(457
|
)
|
1,541
|
||||
Net
change in other assets
|
1,598
|
135
|
|||||
Net
change in operating assets and liabilities
|
2,708
|
(3,078
|
)
|
||||
Net
cash provided by operating activities
|
42,683
|
34,383
|
|||||
Cash
flows from investing activities
|
|||||||
Acquisition
of real estate
|
—
|
(120,696
|
)
|
||||
Proceeds
from sale of real estate investments
|
657
|
24,995
|
|||||
Cash
in transit from sale
|
—
|
(12,689
|
)
|
||||
Capital
improvements and funding of other investments
|
(3,649
|
)
|
(1,338
|
)
|
|||
Proceeds
from other investments
|
17,242
|
1,262
|
|||||
Investments
in other investments
|
(20,339
|
)
|
(5,897
|
)
|
|||
Collection
of mortgage principal
|
10,392
|
60,492
|
|||||
Net
cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
4,303
|
(53,871
|
)
|
||||
Cash
flows from financing activities
|
|||||||
Proceeds
from credit facility borrowings
|
48,200
|
168,000
|
|||||
Payments
on credit facility borrowings
|
(106,200
|
)
|
(81,500
|
)
|
|||
Receipts
from other long-term borrowings
|
39,000
|
—
|
|||||
Prepayment
of re-financing penalty
|
(755
|
)
|
—
|
||||
Receipts
from dividend reinvestment plan
|
17,320
|
757
|
|||||
Receipts/(payments)
from exercised options - net
|
225
|
(810
|
)
|
||||
Dividends
paid
|
(32,109
|
)
|
(28,134
|
)
|
|||
Redemption
of preferred stock
|
—
|
(50,013
|
)
|
||||
Payment
on common stock offering
|
(178
|
)
|
(28
|
)
|
|||
Deferred
financing costs paid
|
(2,384
|
)
|
(333
|
)
|
|||
Net
cash (used in) provided by financing activities
|
(36,881
|
)
|
7,939
|
||||
Increase
(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
10,105
|
(11,549
|
)
|
||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
3,948
|
12,083
|
|||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of period
|
$
|
14,053
|
$
|
534
|
|||
Interest
paid during the period
|
$
|
12,644
|
$
|
13,867
|
See
notes
to consolidated financial statements.
4
OMEGA
HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.
Unaudited
June
30, 2006
NOTE
1 - BASIS OF PRESENTATION
The
accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements for Omega Healthcare
Investors, Inc. (“Omega” or the “Company”) have been prepared in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) for
interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and
Article
10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information
and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. In our
opinion, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered
necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Certain reclassifications
have been made to the 2005 financial statements for consistency with the
presentation adopted for 2006. Such reclassifications have no effect on
previously reported earnings or equity.
In
December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued FAS No.
123 (revised 2004), Share-Based
Payment
(“FAS
No. 123R”), which is a revision of FAS No. 123, Accounting
for Stock-Based Compensation. FAS
No.
123R supersedes Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) Opinion No. 25, Accounting
for Stock Issued to Employees,
and
amends FAS No. 95, Statement
of Cash Flows.
We
adopted FAS No. 123R on January 1, 2006.
In
July
2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting
for Uncertainty in Income Taxes,(“FIN
48”). FIN 48 is an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, Accounting
for Income Taxes,
and it
seeks to reduce the diversity in practice associated with certain aspects
of
measurement and recognition in accounting for income taxes. In addition,
FIN 48
requires expanded disclosure with respect to the uncertainty in income
taxes and
is effective as of the beginning of our 2007 fiscal year. We are currently
evaluating the impact, if any, that FIN 48 will have on our financial
statements.
Operating
results for the three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2006 are not
necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year
ending
December 31, 2006. For further information, refer to the financial statements
and footnotes included in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005.
Our
consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Omega, all direct
and
indirect wholly owned subsidiaries and one variable interest entity (“VIE”) for
which we are the primary beneficiary. All inter-company accounts and
transactions have been eliminated in consolidation of the financial
statements.
Financial
Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation
of Variable Interest Entities,
(“FIN
46R”), addresses the consolidation by business enterprises of VIEs. As a result
of the adoption of FIN 46R, we consolidate all VIEs for which we are the
primary
beneficiary. Generally, a VIE is an entity with one or more of the following
characteristics: (a) the total equity investment at risk is not sufficient
to
permit the entity to finance its activities without additional subordinated
financial support; (b) as a group the holders of the equity investment
at risk
lack (i) the ability to make decisions about an entity’s activities through
voting or similar rights, (ii) the obligation to absorb the expected losses
of
the entity, or (iii) the right to receive the expected residual returns
of the
entity; or (c) the equity investors have voting rights that are not proportional
to their economic interests, and substantially all of the entity’s activities
either involve, or are conducted on behalf of, an investor that has
disproportionately few voting rights. FIN 46R requires a VIE to be consolidated
in the financial statements of the entity that is determined to be the
primary
beneficiary of the VIE. The primary beneficiary generally is the entity
that
will receive a majority of the VIE’s expected losses, receive a majority of the
VIE’s expected residual returns, or both.
5
In
accordance with FIN 46R, we determined that we were the primary beneficiary
of
one VIE. This VIE is derived from a financing relationship entered into
between
Omega and one company that is engaged in the ownership and rental of six
skilled
nursing facilities (“SNFs”) and one assisted living facility (“ALF”). The
consolidation of the VIE as of June 30, 2006 resulted in an increase in
our
consolidated total assets (primarily real estate) and liabilities (primarily
indebtedness) of approximately $38.2 million. The creditors of the VIE
do not
have recourse to our assets.
We
have
one reportable segment consisting of investments in real estate. Our business
is
to provide financing and capital to the long-term healthcare industry with
a
particular focus on skilled nursing facilities located in the United States.
Our
core portfolio consists of long-term lease and mortgage agreements. All
of our
leases are “triple-net” leases, which require the tenants to pay all
property-related expenses. Our mortgage revenue derives from fixed-rate
mortgage
loans, which are secured by first mortgage liens on the underlying real
estate
and personal property of the mortgagor. Substantially all depreciation
expenses
reflected in the consolidated statements of operations relate to the ownership
of our investment in real estate.
NOTE
2 - PROPERTIES
In
the
ordinary course of our business activities, we periodically evaluate investment
opportunities and extend credit to customers. We also regularly engage in lease
and loan extensions and modifications. Additionally, we actively monitor and
manage our investment portfolio with the objectives of improving credit quality
and increasing returns. In connection with portfolio management, we may engage
in various collection and foreclosure activities.
If
we
acquire real estate pursuant to a foreclosure, lease termination or bankruptcy
proceeding and do not immediately re-lease or sell the properties to new
operators, the assets will be included on the balance sheet as “foreclosed real
estate properties,” and the value of such assets is reported at the lower of
cost or estimated fair value.
The
table
below summarizes our number of properties and investment by category for the
six
months ended June 30, 2006:
Mortgage
|
Total
|
||||||||||||
Leased
|
Notes
|
Facilities
|
Healthcare
|
||||||||||
Facility
Count
|
Property
|
Receivable
|
Held
for Sale
|
Facilities
|
|||||||||
Balance
at December 31, 2005
|
192
|
32
|
3
|
227
|
|||||||||
Properties
sold/mortgages paid
|
-
|
(15
|
)
|
(3
|
)
|
(18
|
)
|
||||||
Properties
transferred to assets held for sale
|
(1
|
)
|
-
|
1
|
-
|
||||||||
Properties
transferred to purchase/leaseback
|
7
|
(7
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||
Balance
at June 30, 2006
|
198
|
10
|
1
|
209
|
|||||||||
Investment
($000’s)
|
|||||||||||||
Balance
at December 31, 2005
|
$
|
996,127
|
$
|
104,522
|
$
|
1,243
|
$
|
1,101,892
|
|||||
Properties
sold/mortgages paid
|
-
|
(48,990
|
)
|
(1,860
|
)
|
(50,850
|
)
|
||||||
Properties
transferred to assets held for sale
|
(865
|
)
|
-
|
865
|
-
|
||||||||
Properties
transferred to purchase/leaseback
|
61,750
|
(22,750
|
)
|
-
|
39,000
|
||||||||
Impairment
on properties
|
(121
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
(121
|
)
|
|||||||
Capital
expenditures and other
|
3,335
|
(401
|
)
|
-
|
2,934
|
||||||||
Balance
at June 30, 2006
|
$
|
1,060,226
|
$
|
32,381
|
$
|
248
|
$
|
1,092,855
|
Leased
Property
Our
leased real estate properties, represented by 196 long-term care facilities
and
two rehabilitation hospitals at June 30, 2006, are leased under provisions
of
single leases and master leases with initial terms typically ranging from 5
to
15 years, plus renewal options. Substantially all of the leases and master
leases provide for minimum annual rentals that are subject to annual increases
based upon increases in the
6
Consumer
Price Index (“CPI”). Under the terms of the leases, the lessee is responsible
for all maintenance, repairs, taxes and insurance on the leased
properties.
Set
forth
below is a summary of the transactions that occurred in the six months ended
June 30, 2006.
Haven
Eldercare, LLC
· |
During
the three months ended March 31, 2006, Haven Eldercare, LLC (“Haven”), an
existing operator of ours, entered into a $39 million first mortgage
loan
with General Electric Capital Corporation (“GE Loan”). Haven used the $39
million of proceeds to partially repay on a $62 million mortgage
it has
with us. Simultaneously, we subordinated the payment of our remaining
$23
million of the mortgage note, due in October 2012, to that of the
GE Loan.
As a result of this transaction, the interest rate on our remaining
mortgage note to Haven rose from 10% to approximately 15%, with annual
escalators.
|
· |
In
conjunction with the above transactions and the application of FIN
46R, we
consolidated the financial statements and related real estate of
this
Haven entity into our financial statements. The consolidation resulted
in
the following changes to our consolidated balance sheet as of June
30,
2006: (1) an increase in total gross investments of $39.0 million;
(2) an
increase in accumulated depreciation of $0.8 million; (3) an increase
in
other long-term borrowings of $39.0 million; and (4) a reduction
of $0.8
million in cumulative net earnings for the six months ended June
30, 2006
due to the increased depreciation expense. General Electric Capital
Corporation and Haven’s other creditors do not have recourse to our
assets. We have an option to purchase the mortgaged facilities for
a fixed
price in 2012. Our results of operations reflect the effects of the
consolidation of this entity, which is being accounted for similarly
to
our other purchase-leaseback
transactions.
|
Acquisitions
· |
There
were no acquisitions made during the three and six months ended June
30,
2006.
|
Assets
Sold or Held for Sale
Assets
Sold
· |
On
June 30, 2006, we sold two SNFs in California resulting in an accounting
loss of approximately $0.1 million.
|
· |
On
March 31, 2006, we sold a SNF in Illinois resulting in an accounting
loss
of approximately $0.2 million.
|
Held
for Sale
· |
At
June 30, 2006, we had one asset held for sale with a net book value
of
approximately $0.2 million.
|
· |
During
the three
months ended March 31, 2006, a
$0.1 million provision for impairment charge was recorded to reduce
the
carrying value to its sales price of one facility that was under
contract
to be sold that was subsequently sold during the second quarter of
2006.
|
7
Mortgage
Notes Receivable
Mortgage
notes receivable relate to 10 long-term care facilities. The mortgage notes
are
secured by first mortgage liens on the borrowers' underlying real estate and
personal property. The mortgage notes receivable relate to facilities located
in
five states, operated by seven independent healthcare operating companies.
We
monitor compliance with mortgages and when necessary have initiated collection,
foreclosure and other proceedings with respect to certain outstanding loans.
As
of June 30, 2006, we had no foreclosed property, and none of our mortgages
were
in foreclosure proceedings.
Mortgage
interest income is recognized as earned over the terms of the related mortgage
notes. Reserves are taken against earned revenues from mortgage interest when
collection of amounts due becomes questionable or when negotiations for
restructurings of troubled operators lead to lower expectations regarding
ultimate collection. When collection is uncertain, mortgage interest income
on
impaired mortgage loans is recognized as received after taking into account
application of security deposits.
Hickory
Creek Healthcare Foundation, Inc.
On
June
16, 2006, we received approximately $10 million in proceeds on a mortgage loan
payoff. We held mortgages on 15 facilities located in Indiana, representing
619
beds.
Haven
Eldercare, LLC.
During
the three months ended March 31, 2006, Haven used the $39 million of proceeds
from the GE Loan to partially repay on a $62 million mortgage it has with us.
Simultaneously, we subordinated the payment of its remaining $23 million on
the
mortgage note to that of the GE Loan (see Note - 2 Properties; Leased
Property).
NOTE
3 - CONCENTRATION OF RISK
As
of
June 30, 2006, our portfolio of domestic investments consisted of 209 healthcare
facilities, located in 27 states and operated by 34 third-party operators. Our
gross investment in these facilities, net of impairments and before reserve
for
uncollectible loans, totaled approximately $1.1 billion at June 30, 2006,
with
approximately 98% of our real estate investments related to long-term care
facilities. This portfolio is made up of 196 long-term healthcare facilities,
two rehabilitation hospitals owned and leased to third parties, fixed rate
mortgages on 10 long-term healthcare facilities and one facility held for
sale.
At June 30, 2006, we also held miscellaneous investments of approximately
$29
million, consisting primarily of secured loans to third-party operators
of our
facilities.
At
June
30, 2006, approximately 25% of our real estate investments were operated
by two
public companies: Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. (“Sun”) (15%) and Advocat Inc.,
(“Advocat”) (10%). Our largest private company operators (by investment) were
CommuniCare Health Services, Inc. (“CommuniCare”) (18%), Haven (11%), Guardian
LTC Management, Inc. (7%) and Essex Healthcare Corporation (7%). No other
operator represents more than 5% of our investments. The three states in
which
we had our highest concentration of investments were Ohio (25%), Florida
(10%)
and Pennsylvania (9%) at June 30, 2006.
For
the
three-month period ended June 30, 2006, our revenues from operations totaled
$31.1 million, of which approximately $5.8 million were from Sun (19%),
$4.6
million from CommuniCare (15%) and $3.2 million from Advocat (10%). For
the
six-month period ended June 30, 2006, our revenues from operations totaled
$61.8
million, of which approximately $11.6 million were from Sun (19%), $9.2
million
from CommuniCare (15%) and $6.3 million from Advocat (10%). No other operator
generated more than 10% of our revenues from operations for the three-
and
six-month periods ended June 30, 2006.
8
Sun
and
Advocate are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) and are required to file with the
Commission annual reports containing audited financial information and
quarterly
reports containing unaudited interim financial information. Sun’s and Advocat’s
filings with the Commission can be found at the Commission’s website at
www.sec.gov.
We are
providing this data for information purposes only, and you are encouraged
to
obtain Sun’s and Advocat’s publicly available filings from the
Commission.
NOTE
4 - DIVIDENDS
In
order
to qualify as a REIT, we are required to distribute dividends (other than
capital gain dividends) to our stockholders in an amount at least equal to
(A)
the sum of (i) 90% of our "REIT taxable income" (computed without regard to
the
dividends paid deduction and our net capital gain), and (ii) 90% of the net
income (after tax), if any, from foreclosure property, minus (B) the sum of
certain items of non-cash income. In addition, if we dispose of any built-in
gain asset during a recognition period, we will be required to distribute at
least 90% of the built-in gain (after tax), if any, recognized on the
disposition of such asset. Such distributions must be paid in the taxable year
to which they relate, or in the following taxable year if declared before we
timely file our tax return for such year and paid on or before the first regular
dividend payment after such declaration. In addition, such distributions are
required to be made pro rata, with no preference to any share of stock as
compared with other shares of the same class, and with no preference to one
class of stock as compared with another class except to the extent that such
class is entitled to such a preference. To the extent that we do not distribute
all of our net capital gain or do distribute at least 90%, but less than 100%
of
our "REIT taxable income," as adjusted, we will be subject to tax thereon at
regular ordinary and capital gain corporate tax rates. In addition, our $200
million revolving senior secured credit facility (“Credit Facility”) has certain
financial covenants that limit the distribution of dividends paid during a
fiscal quarter to no more than 95% of our aggregate cumulative funds from
operations (“FFO”) as defined in the loan agreement governing the Credit
Facility (the “Loan Agreement”), unless a greater distribution is required to
maintain REIT status. The Loan Agreement defines FFO as net income (or loss)
plus depreciation and amortization and shall be adjusted for charges related
to:
(i) restructuring our debt; (ii) redemption of preferred stock; (iii) litigation
charges up to $5.0 million; (iv) non-cash charges for accounts and notes
receivable up to $5.0 million; (v) non-cash compensation related expenses;
and
(vi) non-cash impairment charges.
Common
Dividends
On
July
17, 2006, the Board of Directors announced a common stock dividend of $0.24
per
share to be paid August 15, 2006 to common stockholders of record on July 31,
2006.
On
April
18, 2006, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of $0.24
per
share, an increase of $0.01 per common share compared to the prior quarter.
The
common dividend was paid May 15, 2006 to common stockholders of record on April
28, 2006.
On
January 17, 2006, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of
$0.23 per share, an increase of $0.01 per common share compared to the prior
quarter. The common stock dividend was paid February 15, 2006 to common
stockholders of record on January 31, 2006.
Series
D Preferred Dividends
On
July
17, 2006, the Board of Directors declared the regular quarterly dividends for
the 8.375% Series D Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (“Series D Preferred
Stock”) to stockholders of record on July 31, 2006. The stockholders of record
of the Series D Preferred Stock on July 31, 2006 will be paid dividends in
the
amount of $0.52344
per
preferred share on August 15, 2006. The liquidation
9
preference
for our Series D Preferred Stock is $25.00 per share. Regular quarterly
preferred dividends for the Series D Preferred Stock represent dividends for
the
period May 1, 2006 through July 31, 2006.
On
April
18, 2006, the Board of Directors declared regular quarterly dividends
of
approximately $0.52344 per preferred share on the Series D Preferred Stock
that
were paid
May 15,
2006
to
preferred stockholders of record on
April
28, 2006.
On
January 17, 2006, the Board of Directors declared regular quarterly dividends
of
approximately $0.52344 per preferred share on the Series D Preferred Stock
that
were paid February 15, 2006 to preferred stockholders of record on January
31,
2006.
NOTE
5 - TAXES
As
a
qualified REIT, as long as we distribute 100% of our taxable income, we will
not
be subject to Federal income taxes on our income, and no provisions for Federal
income taxes have been made. We are permitted to own up to 100% of a “taxable
REIT subsidiary” (“TRS”). Currently, we have two TRSs that are taxable as
corporations and that pay federal, state and local income tax on their net
income at the applicable corporate rates. These
TRSs had net operating loss carry-forwards as of June 30, 2006 of $10.1 million.
These loss carry-forwards were fully reserved with a valuation allowance due
to
uncertainties regarding realization.
NOTE
6 - STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
Stock
Options
Prior
to
January 1, 2006, we accounted for stock based compensation using the intrinsic
value method as defined by APB Opinion No. 25, Accounting
for Stock Issued to Employees.
Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted FAS No. 123R using the modified
prospective method. Accordingly, we have not restated prior period amounts.
The
additional expense to be recorded in 2006 as a result of this adoption is
approximately $3 thousand. Under the provisions of FAS No. 123R, the
“Unamortized restricted stock awards” line on our consolidated balance sheet, a
contra-equity line representing the amount of unrecognized share-based
compensation costs, is no longer presented. Accordingly, for the six-month
period ended June 30, 2006, the amount that had been on the “Unamortized
restricted stock awards” line was reversed through the “Common stock and
additional paid-in-capital” line on our consolidated balance sheet.
Under the terms of our 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2000 Plan”), we reserved
3,500,000 shares of common stock. The exercise price per share of an option
under the 2000 Plan cannot be reduced after the date of grant, nor can an option
be cancelled in exchange for an option with a lower exercise price per share.
The 2000 Plan provides for non-employee directors to receive options that vest
over three years while other grants vest over the period required in the
agreement applicable to the individual recipient. Directors, officers, employees
and consultants are eligible to participate in the 2000 Plan. At June 30, 2006,
there were outstanding options for 52,581 shares of common stock granted to
eight eligible participants under the 2000 Plan. Additionally, 355,655 shares
of
restricted stock have been granted under the provisions of the 2000 Plan, and
as
of June 30, 2006, there were no shares of unvested restricted stock outstanding
under the 2000 Plan.
10
At
June
30, 2006, under the 2000 Plan, there were outstanding options for 50,912 shares
of common stock granted to eight participants currently exercisable with a
weighted-average exercise price of $13.58, with exercise prices ranging from
$2.96 to $37.20. There were 559,960 shares available for future grants as of
June 30, 2006. A breakdown of the options outstanding under the 2000 Plan as
of
June 30, 2006, by price range, is presented below:
Option
Price
Range
|
Number
|
Weighted
Average Exercise Price
|
Weighted
Average Remaining Life (Years)
|
Number
Exercisable
|
Weighted
Average Price on Options Exercisable
|
|||||||||||
$2.96
-$3.81
|
11,918
|
$
|
3.41
|
5.51
|
11,918
|
$
|
3.41
|
|||||||||
$6.02
-$9.33
|
22,330
|
$
|
6.67
|
6.06
|
20,661
|
$
|
6.46
|
|||||||||
$20.25
-$37.20
|
18,333
|
$
|
28.23
|
2.02
|
18,333
|
$
|
28.23
|
On
April
20, 2004, our Board of Directors approved the 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the
“2004 Plan”), which was subsequently approved by our stockholders at our annual
meeting held on June 3, 2004. Under the terms of the 2004 Plan, we reserved
3,000,000 shares of common stock. The exercise price per share of an option
under the 2004 Plan cannot be less than fair market value (as defined in the
2004 Plan) on the date of grant. The exercise price per share of an option
under
the 2004 Plan cannot be reduced after the date of grant, nor can an option
be
cancelled in exchange for an option with a lower exercise price per share.
Directors, officers, employees and consultants are eligible to participate
in
the 2004 Plan. As of June 30, 2006, a total of 348,695 shares of restricted
stock and 317,500 restricted stock units have been granted under the 2004 Plan,
and as of June 30, 2006, there were no outstanding options to purchase shares
of
common stock under the 2004 Plan.
At
June
30, 2006, the only options outstanding to purchase shares of our common stock
were options issued under our 2000 Plan for 52,581 shares of common stock.
For
the quarter ended June 30, 2006, no options were granted under any of our stock
incentive plans. The following is a summary of option activity under the 2000
Plan:
Stock
Options
|
Number
of
Shares
|
Exercise
Price
|
Weighted-
Average
Price
|
Weighted-Average
Remaining Contractual Term
|
|||||||||
Outstanding
at December 31, 2005
|
227,440
|
$$
|
2.760-37.205
|
$
|
5.457
|
4.6
|
|||||||
Granted
during 1st
quarter 2006
|
|||||||||||||
Exercised
|
(174,191
|
)
|
2.760-9.330
|
2.979
|
—
|
||||||||
Cancelled
|
(668
|
)
|
22.452-22.452
|
22.452
|
—
|
||||||||
Outstanding
at March 31, 2006
|
52,581
|
$$
|
2.960-37.205
|
$
|
13.448
|
4.4
|
|||||||
Granted
during 2nd
quarter 2006
|
|||||||||||||
Exercised
|
—
|
—-—
|
—
|
—
|
|||||||||
Cancelled
|
—
|
—-—
|
—
|
—
|
|||||||||
Outstanding
at June 30, 2006
|
52,581
|
$$
|
2.960-37.205
|
$
|
13.448
|
4.2
|
|||||||
Vested
at June 30, 2006
|
50,912
|
$$
|
2.960-37.205
|
$
|
13.583
|
4.0
|
11
Non-Vested
Options
|
Number
of
Shares
|
Exercise
Price
|
Weighted-
Average
Price
|
Weighted-Average
Remaining Contractual Term
|
|||||||||
Non-vested
at December 31, 2005
|
74,985
|
$$
|
2.760-9.330
|
$
|
3.200
|
7.0
|
|||||||
Vested
during 1st
quarter 2006
|
(73,316
|
)
|
2.760-9.330
|
3.059
|
—
|
||||||||
Non-vested
at March 31, 2006
|
1,669
|
$$
|
9.330-9.330
|
$
|
9.330
|
7.8
|
|||||||
Vested
during 2nd
quarter
2006
|
—
|
—-—
|
—
|
—
|
|||||||||
Non-vested
at June 30, 2006
|
1,669
|
$$
|
9.330-9.330
|
$ |
9.330
|
7.5
|
Cash
received from exercise under all stock-based payment arrangements for the six
months ended June 30, 2006 and 2005 was $0.9 million and $0.1 million,
respectively. Cash used to settle equity instruments granted under stock-based
payment arrangements for the six months ended June 30, 2006 and 2005 was $0.7
million and $0.9 million, respectively.
In
2005,
we accounted for our stock-based compensation arrangements in accordance with
the intrinsic value method as defined by Accounting Principles Board Opinion
(APB) No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees.” The following table
presents the effect on net income and earnings per share if we had applied
the
fair value recognition provisions of FAS No. 123R to our stock-based
compensation.
The
reported and pro forma net income and earnings per share figures for 2006 in
the
table are the same because share-based compensation expense is calculated under
the provisions of FAS No. 123R. The 2006 amounts are included in the table
below
to provide detail for comparative purposes to the 2005 amounts.
Three
Months Ended
June
30,
|
Six
Months Ended
June
30,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2005
|
2006
|
2005
|
||||||||||
(in
thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|||||||||||||
Net
income (loss) to common stockholders
|
$
|
8,780
|
$
|
(2,620
|
)
|
$
|
13,180
|
$
|
3,125
|
||||
Add:
Stock-based compensation expense included in net income (loss) to
common
stockholders
|
292
|
285
|
585
|
571
|
|||||||||
9,072
|
(2,335
|
)
|
13,765
|
3,696
|
|||||||||
Less:
Stock-based compensation expense determined under the fair value
based
method for all awards
|
292
|
342
|
585
|
690
|
|||||||||
Pro
forma net income (loss) to common stockholders
|
$
|
8,780
|
$
|
(2,677
|
)
|
$
|
13,180
|
$
|
3,006
|
||||
Earnings
(loss) per share:
|
|||||||||||||
Basic,
as reported
|
$
|
0.15
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
$
|
0.23
|
$
|
0.06
|
||||
Basic,
pro forma
|
$
|
0.15
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
$
|
0.23
|
$
|
0.06
|
||||
Diluted,
as reported
|
$
|
0.15
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
$
|
0.23
|
$
|
0.06
|
||||
Diluted,
pro forma
|
$
|
0.15
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
$
|
0.23
|
$
|
0.06
|
Restricted
Stock
On
September
10, 2004, we entered into restricted stock agreements with four executive
officers under the 2004 Plan. A total of 317,500 shares of restricted stock
were
granted, which equated to approximately $3.3 million of deferred compensation.
The shares vest thirty-three and one-third percent
12
(33
1/3%)
on each of January 1, 2005, January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007 so long as
the
executive officer remains employed on the vesting date, with vesting
accelerating upon a qualifying termination of employment or upon the occurrence
of a change of control (as defined in the applicable restricted stock
agreements). As a result of the grant, we recorded $0.3 million and $0.6 million
of non-cash compensation expense for the three and six-month periods ended
June
30, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
For
the
six-month period ended June 30, 2006, we issued 1,822 shares of restricted
common stock to each non-employee director and an additional 2,000 shares of
restricted common stock to the Chairman of the Board under the 2004 Plan for
a
total of 11,110 shares. These shares represent a payment of the portion of
the
directors’ annual retainer that is payable in shares of our common
stock.
As
of
June 30, 2006, there was $670 thousand of total unrecognized compensation cost
related to these restricted stock awards.
Performance
Restricted Stock Units
On
September 10, 2004, we entered into performance restricted stock unit agreements
with our four executive officers under the 2004 Plan. A total of 317,500
restricted stock units were issued under the 2004 Plan and will fully vest
into
shares of common stock when our company attains $0.30 per share of adjusted
funds from operations (as defined in the applicable restricted stock unit
agreements) for two (2) consecutive quarters, with vesting accelerating upon
a
qualifying termination of employment or upon the occurrence of a change of
control (as defined in the applicable restricted stock unit agreements). The
performance restricted stock units expire on December 31, 2007 if the
performance criteria has not been met. The issuance of restricted stock units
has no impact on our calculation of diluted earnings per common share at this
time; however, under our current method of accounting for stock-based
compensation, the expense related to the restricted stock units will be
recognized when it becomes probable that the vesting requirements will be
met.
NOTE
7 - FINANCING ACTIVITIES AND BORROWING ARRANGEMENTS
Bank
Credit Agreements
At
June
30, 2006, we had no outstanding borrowings under our $200 million revolving
senior secured credit facility (the “New Credit Facility”); however, $2.9
million was utilized for the issuance of letters of credit, leaving availability
of $197.1 million. The New Credit Facility, entered into on March 31, 2006,
is
being provided by Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Deutsche
Bank
Trust Company Americas, UBS Securities LLC, General Electric Capital
Corporation, LaSalle Bank N.A., and Citicorp North America, Inc. and will be
used for acquisitions and general corporate purposes.
The
New
Credit Facility replaced our previous $200 million senior secured credit
facility (the “Prior Credit Facility”), that was terminated on March 31, 2006.
We will realize a 125 basis point savings on LIBOR-based loans under the New
Credit Facility, as compared to LIBOR-based loans under our Prior Credit
Facility. The New Credit Facility matures on March 31, 2010, and includes an
“accordion feature” that permits us to expand our borrowing capacity to $300
million during our first two years.
For
the
three-month period ending March 31, 2006, we recorded a one-time, non-cash
charge of approximately $2.7 million relating to the write-off of deferred
financing costs associated with the termination of our Prior Credit
Facility.
Our
long-term borrowings require us to meet certain property level financial
covenants and corporate financial covenants, including prescribed leverage,
fixed charge coverage, minimum net worth, limitations on additional indebtedness
and limitations on dividend payouts. As of June 30, 2006, we were in compliance
with all property level and corporate financial covenants.
13
$100
Million Aggregate Principal Amount of 6.95% Unsecured Notes Tender and
Redemption
On
December 16, 2005, we initiated a tender offer and consent solicitation for
all
of our outstanding $100 million aggregate principal amount 6.95% notes due
2007
(the “2007 Notes”). On December 30, 2005, we accepted for purchase 79.3% of the
aggregate principal amount of the 2007 Notes outstanding that were tendered.
On
December 30, 2005, our Board of Directors also authorized the redemption of
all
outstanding 2007 Notes that were not otherwise tendered. On December 30, 2005,
upon our irrevocable funding of the full redemption price for the 2007 Notes
and
certain other acts required by the Indenture governing the 2007 Notes, the
Trustee of the 2007 Notes certified in writing to us (the “Certificate of
Satisfaction and Discharge”) that the Indenture was satisfied and discharged as
of December 30, 2005, except for certain administrative provisions. In
accordance with FASB Statement No. 140, Accounting
for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishment of
Liabilities,
(“FAS
140”) we removed 79.3% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2007 Notes,
which were tendered in our tender offer and consent solicitation, and the
corresponding portion of the funds held in trust by the Trustee to pay the
tender price from our balance sheet and recognized $2.8 million of additional
interest expense associated with the tender offer. On January 18, 2006, we
completed the redemption of the remaining 2007 Notes not otherwise tendered.
Accordingly, we reduced other assets, representing the funds deposited with
the
Trustee, and unsecured borrowings by $21 million. In connection with the
redemption and in accordance with FAS 140, we recognized $0.8 million of
additional interest expense in the first quarter of 2006. As of January 18,
2006, none of the 2007 Notes remained outstanding.
Other
Long-Term Borrowings
During
the three months ended March 31, 2006, Haven used the $39 million of proceeds
from the GE Loan to partially repay a portion of a $62 million mortgage it
has
with us. Simultaneously, we subordinated the payment of its remaining $23
million on the mortgage note to that of the GE Loan. In conjunction with the
above transactions and the application of FIN 46R, we consolidated the financial
statements of this Haven entity into our financial statements, which contained
the long-term borrowings with General Electric Capital Corporation of $39.0
million. The loan has an interest rate of approximately seven percent and is
due
in 2012. The lender of the $39.0 million does not have recourse to our assets
(see Note - 2 Properties; Leased Property).
NOTE
8 - LITIGATION
We
are
subject to various legal proceedings, claims and other actions arising out
of
the normal course of business. While any legal proceeding or claim has an
element of uncertainty, management believes that the outcome of each lawsuit,
claim or legal proceeding that is pending or threatened, or all of them
combined, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
position or results of operations.
14
NOTE
9 - DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS
Statement
of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 144, Accounting
for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets,
requires
the presentation of the net operating results of facilities sold during 2006
or
currently classified as held-for-sale as income from discontinued operations
for
all periods presented. We incurred a net loss from discontinued operations
of
approximately $0.1 million and $0.5 million for the three- and six-month periods
ended June 30, 2006, respectively, in the accompanying consolidated statements
of operations.
The
following table summarizes the results of operations of facilities sold or
held-for-sale during the three and six months ended June 30, 2006 and 2005,
respectively.
Three
Months Ended
|
Six
Months Ended
|
||||||||||||
June
30,
|
June
30,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2005
|
2006
|
2005
|
||||||||||
(in
thousands)
|
|||||||||||||
Revenues
|
|||||||||||||
Rental
income
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
1,430
|
$
|
—
|
$
|
2,896
|
|||||
Other
income
|
—
|
12
|
—
|
24
|
|||||||||
Subtotal
revenues
|
—
|
1,442
|
—
|
2,920
|
|||||||||
Expenses
|
|||||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
—
|
496
|
9
|
1,051
|
|||||||||
General
and administrative
|
3
|
—
|
4
|
—
|
|||||||||
Provision
for impairment
|
—
|
—
|
121
|
3,700
|
|||||||||
Subtotal
expenses
|
3
|
496
|
134
|
4,751
|
|||||||||
Income
(loss) before loss on sale of assets
|
(3
|
)
|
946
|
(134
|
)
|
(1,831
|
)
|
||||||
Loss
on assets sold - net
|
(133
|
)
|
(4,165
|
)
|
(381
|
)
|
(4,202
|
)
|
|||||
Loss
from discontinued operations
|
$
|
(136
|
)
|
$
|
(3,219
|
)
|
$
|
(515
|
)
|
$
|
(6,033
|
)
|
NOTE
10 - EARNINGS PER SHARE
The
computation of basic earnings per common share (“EPS”) is computed by dividing
net income available to common stockholders by the weighted-average number
of
shares of common stock outstanding during the relevant period. Diluted EPS
reflects the potential dilution that could occur from shares issuable through
stock-based compensation, including stock options and restricted stock
rewards.
For
the
three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2006 and 2005, the dilutive effect
from stock options was immaterial.
NOTE
11 - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
On
August 1,
2006, we completed a transaction with Litchfield Investment Company, LLC
and its
affiliates (“Litchfield”) to purchase 30 skilled nursing facilities and one
independent living center for a total investment of approximately $171 million.
The facilities total 3,847 beds and are located in the states of Colorado
(5),
Florida (7), Idaho (1), Louisiana (13), and Texas (5). The facilities were
subject to master leases with three national healthcare providers, which
are
existing tenants of the Company. The tenants are Home Quality Management,
Inc.
(“HQM”), Nexion Health, Inc. (“Nexion”), and Peak Medical Corporation, which was
acquired by Sun in December of 2005. We used a combination of cash on hand
and
$150 million of New Credit Facility borrowings to finance the Litchfield
transaction.
15
Simultaneously
with
the close of the purchase transaction, the seven HQM facilities were combined
into an Amended and Restated Master Lease containing 13 facilities between
us
and HQM. In addition, the 18 Nexion facilities were combined into an Amended
and
Restated Master Lease containing 22 facilities between us and
Nexion.
We
entered
into a Master Lease, Assignment and Assumption Agreement with Litchfield
on the
six Sun facilities. These six facilities are currently under a master lease
that
expires on September 30, 2007.
The
total
incremental annualized rent from the 31 facility transaction will be
approximately $17.1 million.
16
Forward-looking
Statements, Reimbursement Issues and Other Factors Affecting Future
Results
The
following discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements
and notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this document. This document contains
forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws,
including statements regarding potential financings and potential future changes
in reimbursement. These statements relate to our expectations, beliefs,
intentions, plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events, performance
and
underlying assumptions and other statements other than statements of historical
facts. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the use
of
forward-looking terminology including, but not limited to, terms such as “may,”
“will,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “believes,” “intends,” “should” or comparable
terms or the negative thereof. These statements are based on information
available on the date of this filing and only speak as to the date hereof and
no
obligation to update such forward-looking statements should be assumed. Our
actual results may differ materially from those reflected in the forward-looking
statements contained herein as a result of a variety of factors, including,
among other things:
(i) |
those
items discussed under “Risk Factors” in Item 1A to our annual report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005;
|
(ii) |
uncertainties
relating to the business operations of the operators of our assets,
including those relating to reimbursement by third-party payors,
regulatory matters and occupancy
levels;
|
(iii) |
the
ability of any operators in bankruptcy to reject unexpired lease
obligations, modify the terms of our mortgages and impede our ability
to
collect unpaid rent or interest during the process of a bankruptcy
proceeding and retain security deposits for the debtors’
obligations;
|
(iv) |
our
ability to sell closed assets on a timely basis and on terms that
allow us
to realize the carrying value of these
assets;
|
(v) |
our
ability to negotiate appropriate modifications to the terms of our
credit
facility;
|
(vi) |
our
ability to manage, re-lease or sell any owned and operated
facilities;
|
(vii) |
the
availability and cost of capital;
|
(viii) |
competition
in the financing of healthcare
facilities;
|
(ix) |
regulatory
and other changes in the healthcare
sector;
|
(x) |
the
effect of economic and market conditions generally and, particularly,
in
the healthcare industry;
|
(xi) |
changes
in interest rates;
|
(xii) |
the
amount and yield of any additional
investments;
|
(xiii) |
changes
in tax laws and regulations affecting real estate investment trusts;
and
|
(xiv) |
changes
in the ratings of our debt and preferred
securities.
|
Overview
At
June
30, 2006, our portfolio of domestic investments consisted of 209 healthcare
facilities, located in 27 states and operated by 34 third-party operators.
Our
gross investment in these facilities, net of impairments and before reserve
for
uncollectible loans, totaled approximately $1.1 billion at June 30, 2006, with
approximately 98% of our real estate investments related to long-term care
facilities. This portfolio is made up of 196 long-term healthcare facilities,
two rehabilitation hospitals owned and leased to third parties, fixed rate
mortgages on 10 long-term healthcare facilities and one long-term healthcare
facility that is currently held for sale. At June 30, 2006, we also held other
investments of approximately $29 million, consisting primarily of secured loans
to third-party operators of our facilities.
17
Medicare
Reimbursement
All
of
our properties are used as healthcare facilities; therefore, we are directly
affected by the risk associated with the healthcare industry. Our lessees
and
mortgagors, as well as any facilities that may be owned and operated for
our own
account from time to time, derive a substantial portion of their net operating
revenues from third-party payors, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
These programs are highly regulated by federal, state and local laws, rules
and
regulations and are subject to frequent and substantial change.
In
1997,
the Balanced Budget Act significantly reduced spending levels for the Medicare
and Medicaid programs, in part because the legislation modified the payment
methodology for skilled nursing facilities (“SNFs”) by shifting payments for
services provided to Medicare beneficiaries from a reasonable cost basis
to a
prospective payment system. Under the prospective payment system, SNFs are
paid
on a per diem prospective case-mix adjusted basis for all covered services.
Implementation of the prospective payment system has affected each long-term
care facility to a different degree, depending upon the amount of revenue
such
facility derives from Medicare patients.
Legislation
adopted in 1999 and 2000 provided for a few temporary increases to Medicare
payment rates, but these temporary increases have since expired. Specifically,
in 1999 the Balanced Budget Refinement Act included a 4% across-the-board
increase of the adjusted federal per diem payment rates for all patient acuity
categories (known as “Resource Utilization Groups” or “RUGs”) that were in
effect from April 2000 through September 30, 2002. In 2000, the Benefits
Improvement and Protection Act included a 16.7% increase in the nursing
component of the case-mix adjusted federal periodic payment rate, which was
implemented in April 2000 and also expired October 1, 2002. The October 1,
2002
expiration of these temporary increases has had an adverse impact on the
revenues of the operators of SNFs and has negatively impacted some operators’
ability to satisfy their monthly lease or debt payments to us.
The
Balanced Budget Refinement Act and the Benefits Improvement and Protection
Act
also established temporary increases, beginning in April 2001, to Medicare
payment rates to SNFs that were designated to remain in place until the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) implemented refinements to the
existing RUG case-mix classification system to more accurately estimate the
cost
of non-therapy ancillary services. The Balanced Budget Refinement Act provided
for a 20% increase for 15 RUG categories until CMS modified the RUG case-mix
classification system. The Benefits Improvement and Protection Act modified
this
payment increase by reducing the 20% increase for three of the 15 RUGs to
a 6.7%
increase and instituting an additional 6.7% increase for eleven other
RUGs.
On
August
4, 2005, CMS published a final rule, effective October 1, 2005, establishing
Medicare payments for SNFs under the prospective payment system for federal
fiscal year 2006 (October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006). The final rule
modified the RUG case-mix classification system and added nine new categories
to
the system, expanding the number of RUGs from 44 to 53. The implementation
of
the RUG refinements triggered the expiration of the temporary payment increases
of 20% and 6.7% established by the Balanced Budget Refinement Act and the
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act, respectively. Additionally, CMS
announced updates in the final rule to reimbursement rates for SNFs in federal
fiscal year 2006 based on an increase in the “full market-basket” of
3.1%.
In
the
August 4, 2005 notice, CMS estimated that the increases in Medicare
reimbursements to SNFs arising from the refinements to the prospective payment
system and the market basket update under the final rule will offset the
reductions stemming from the elimination of the temporary increases during
federal fiscal year 2006. CMS estimated that there will be an overall increase
in Medicare payments to SNFs totaling $20 million in fiscal year 2006 compared
to 2005.
On
July
27, 2006, CMS posted a notice updating the payment rates to SNFs for fiscal
year
2007 (October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007). The market basket increase
factor
is 3.1% for 2007. CMS
18
estimates
that the payment update will increase aggregate payments to SNFs nationwide
by
approximately $560 million in fiscal year 2007 compared to 2006.
Nonetheless,
we cannot accurately predict what effect, if any, these changes will have
on our
lessees and mortgagors in 2006 and beyond. These changes to the Medicare
prospective payment system for SNFs, including the elimination of temporary
increases, could adversely impact the revenues of the operators of nursing
facilities and could negatively impact the ability of some of our lessees
and
mortgagors to satisfy their monthly lease or debt payments to us.
A
128%
temporary increase in the per diem amount paid to SNFs for residents who
have
AIDS took effect on October 1, 2004. This temporary payment increase arises
from
the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003
(“Medicare Modernization Act”). The August 2005 notice announcing the final rule
for the SNF prospective payment system for fiscal year 2006 clarified that
the
increase will remain in effect for fiscal year 2006, although CMS also noted
that the AIDS add-on was not intended to be permanent.
A
significant change enacted under the Medicare Modernization Act is the creation
of a new prescription drug benefit, Medicare Part D, which went into effect
January 1, 2006. The
significant expansion of benefits for Medicare beneficiaries arising under
the
expanded prescription drug benefit could result in financial pressures on
the
Medicare program that might result in future legislative and regulatory changes
with impacts for our operators. As part of this new program, the prescription
drug benefits for patients who are dually eligible for both Medicare and
Medicaid are being transitioned from Medicaid to Medicare, and many of these
patients reside in long-term care facilities. The Medicare program has
experienced significant operational difficulties in transitioning prescription
drug coverage for this population since the benefit went into effect on January
1, 2006, although it is unclear whether or how issues involving Medicare
Part D
might have any direct financial impacts on our operators.
On
February 8, 2006, the President signed into law a $39.7 billion budget
reconciliation package called the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (“Deficit
Reduction Act”) to lower the federal budget deficit. The Deficit Reduction Act
includes estimated net savings of $8.3 billion from the Medicare program
over 5
years.
The
Deficit Reduction Act contained a provision reducing payments to SNFs for
allowable bad debts. Previously, Medicare reimbursed SNFs for 100% of
beneficiary bad debt arising from unpaid deductibles and coinsurance amounts.
In
2003, CMS released a proposed rule seeking to reduce bad debt reimbursement
rates for certain providers, including SNFs, by 30% over a three-year period.
CMS never finalized its 2003 proposal. The Deficit Reduction Act reduced
payments to SNFs for allowable bad debts by 30% effective October 1, 2005
for
those individuals not dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Bad debt
payments for the dually eligible population will remain at 100%. These
reductions in Medicare payments for bad debt could have a material adverse
effect on our operators’ financial condition and operations, which could
adversely affect their ability to meet their payment obligations to
us.
The
Deficit Reduction Act also contained a provision governing the therapy caps
that
went into place under Medicare on January 1, 2006. The therapy caps limit
the
physical therapy, speech-language therapy and occupation therapy services
that a
Medicare beneficiary can receive during a calendar year. The therapy caps
were
in effect for calendar year 1999 and then suspended by Congress for three
years.
An inflation-adjusted therapy limit ($1,590 per year) was implemented in
September of 2002, but then once again suspended in December of 2003 by the
Medicare Modernization Act. Under the Medicare Modernization Act, Congress
placed a two-year moratorium on implementation of the caps, which expired
at the
end of 2005.
The
inflation-adjusted therapy caps are set at $1,740 for 2006. These caps do
not
apply to therapy services covered under Medicare Part A in a SNF, although
the
caps apply in most other instances involving patients in SNFs or long-term
care
facilities who receive therapy services covered under
19
In
general, we cannot be assured that federal reimbursement will remain at levels
comparable to present levels or that such reimbursement will be sufficient
for
our lessees or mortgagors to cover all operating and fixed costs necessary
to
care for Medicare and Medicaid patients. We also cannot be assured that there
will be any future legislation to increase Medicare payment rates for SNFs,
and
if such payment rates for SNFs are not increased in the future, some of our
lessees and mortgagors may have difficulty meeting their payment obligations
to
us.
Medicaid
and Other Third-Party Reimbursement
Each
state has its own Medicaid program that is funded jointly by the state and
federal government. Federal law governs how each state manages its Medicaid
program, but there is wide latitude for states to customize Medicaid programs
to
fit the needs and resources of their citizens. Currently, Medicaid is the
single
largest source of financing for long-term care in the United States. Rising
Medicaid costs and decreasing state revenues caused by recent economic
conditions have prompted an increasing number of states to cut or consider
reductions in Medicaid funding as a means of balancing their respective state
budgets. Existing and future initiatives affecting Medicaid reimbursement
may
reduce utilization of (and reimbursement for) services offered by the operators
of our properties.
In
recent
years, many states have announced actual or potential budget shortfalls,
and
many budget forecasts in 2006 could be similar. As a result of these budget
shortfalls, many states have announced that they are implementing or considering
implementing “freezes” or cuts in Medicaid reimbursement rates, including rates
paid to SNF and long-term care providers, or reductions in Medicaid enrollee
benefits, including long-term care benefits. We cannot predict the extent
to
which Medicaid rate freezes, cuts or benefit reductions ultimately will be
adopted, the number of states that will adopt them or the impact of such
adoption on our operators. However, extensive Medicaid rate cuts, freezes
or
benefit reductions could have a material adverse effect on our operators’
liquidity, financial condition and operations, which could adversely affect
their ability to make lease or mortgage payments to us.
The
Deficit Reduction Act included $4.7 billion in estimated savings from Medicaid
and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program over five years. The Deficit
Reduction Act gives states the option to increase Medicaid cost-sharing and
reduce Medicaid benefits, accounting for an estimated $3.2 billion in federal
savings over five years. The remainder of the Medicaid savings under the
Deficit
Reduction Act comes primarily from changes to prescription drug reimbursement
($3.9 billion in savings over five years) and tightened policies governing
asset
transfers ($2.4 billion in savings over five years).
Asset
transfer policies, which determine Medicaid eligibility based on whether
a
Medicaid applicant has transferred assets for less than fair value, are more
restrictive under the Deficit Reduction Act, which extends the look-back
period
to five years, moves the start of the penalty period and makes individuals
with
more than $500,000 in home equity ineligible for nursing home benefits
(previously, the home was excluded as a countable asset for purposes of Medicaid
eligibility). These changes could have a material adverse effect on our
operators’ financial condition and operations, which could adversely affect
their ability to meet their payment obligations to us.
Additional
reductions in federal funding are expected for some state Medicaid programs
as a
result of changes in the percentage rates used for determining federal
assistance on a state-by-state basis. Legislation has been introduced in
Congress that would partially mitigate the reductions for some states that
would
experience significant reductions in federal funding, although whether Congress
will enact this or other legislation remains uncertain.
20
Finally,
private payors, including managed care payors, increasingly are demanding
discounted fee structures and the assumption by healthcare providers of all
or a
portion of the financial risk of operating a healthcare facility. Efforts
to
impose greater discounts and more stringent cost controls are expected to
continue. Any changes in reimbursement policies that reduce reimbursement
levels
could adversely affect the revenues of our lessees and mortgagors, thereby
adversely affecting those lessees' and mortgagors' abilities to make their
monthly lease or debt payments to us.
Fraud
and Abuse Laws and Regulations
There
are
various extremely complex and largely uninterpreted federal and state laws
governing a wide array of referrals, relationships and arrangements and
prohibiting fraud by healthcare providers, including criminal provisions
that
prohibit filing false claims or making false statements to receive payment
or
certification under Medicare and Medicaid, and failing to refund overpayments
or
improper payments. The federal and state governments are devoting increasing
attention and resources to anti-fraud initiatives against healthcare providers.
Penalties for healthcare fraud have been increased and expanded over recent
years, including broader provisions for the exclusion of providers from the
Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Office of the Inspector General for the
U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, in cooperation with other federal
and
state agencies, continues to focus on the activities of SNFs in certain states
in which we have properties.
In
addition, the federal False Claims Act allows a private individual with
knowledge of fraud to bring a claim on behalf of the federal government and
earn
a percentage of the federal government’s recovery. Because of these monetary
incentives, these so-called ‘‘whistleblower’’ suits have become more frequent.
Some states currently have statutes that are analogous to the federal False
Claims Act. The Deficit Reduction Act encourages additional states to enact
such
legislation and may encourage increased enforcement activity by permitting
states to retain 10% of any recovery for that state’s Medicaid program if the
enacted legislation is at least as rigorous as the federal False Claims Act.
The
violation of any of these laws or regulations by an operator may result in
the
imposition of fines or other penalties that could jeopardize that operator’s
ability to make lease or mortgage payments to us or to continue operating
its
facility.
Legislative
and Regulatory Developments
Each
year, legislative and regulatory proposals are introduced or proposed in
Congress and state legislatures as well as by federal and state agencies
that,
if implemented, could result in major changes in the healthcare system, either
nationally or at the state level. In addition, regulatory proposals and rules
are released on an ongoing basis that may have major impacts on the healthcare
system generally and the industries in which our operators do business.
Legislative and regulatory developments can be expected to occur on an ongoing
basis at the local, state and federal levels that have direct or indirect
impacts on the policies governing the reimbursement levels paid to our
facilities by public and private third-party payors, the costs of doing business
and the threshold requirements that must be met for facilities to continue
operation or to expand.
The
Medicare Modernization Act, which is one example of such legislation, was
enacted in December 2003. The significant expansion of other benefits for
Medicare beneficiaries under this Act, such as the prescription drug benefit,
could create financial pressures on the Medicare program that might result
in
future legislative and regulatory changes with impacts on our operators.
Although the creation of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries
was expected to generate fiscal relief for state Medicaid programs, the
structure of the benefit and costs associated with its implementation may
mitigate the relief for states that originally was anticipated.
21
The
Deficit Reduction Act is another example of such legislation. The provisions
in
the legislation designed to create cost savings from both Medicare and Medicaid
could diminish reimbursement for our operators under both Medicare and
Medicaid.
CMS
also
launched the Nursing Home Quality Initiative program in 2002, which requires
nursing homes participating in Medicare to provide consumers with comparative
information about the quality of care at the facility. CMS plans to
initiate a new Nursing Home Quality campaign this fall to be conducted over
the
next two years with the ultimate goal being improvement in quality of life
and
efficiency of care delivery. In the event any of our operators do not maintain
the same or superior levels of quality care as their competitors, patients
could
choose alternate facilities, which could adversely impact our operators’
revenues. In addition, the reporting of such information could lead in the
future to reimbursement policies that reward or penalize facilities on the
basis
of the reported quality of care parameters.
In
late
2005, CMS began soliciting public comments regarding a demonstration to examine
pay-for-performance approaches in the nursing home setting that would offer
financial incentives for facilities to deliver high quality care. In June
2006,
Abt Associates published recommendations for CMS on how to design this
demonstration project. The proposed three-year demonstration could begin
as
early as late 2006 or early 2007, with CMS inviting state agencies to
participate in the project. Other proposals under consideration include efforts
by individual states to control costs by decreasing state Medicaid
reimbursements in the current or future fiscal years and federal legislation
addressing various issues, such as improving quality of care and reducing
medical errors throughout the health care industry. We cannot accurately
predict
whether specific proposals will be adopted or, if adopted, what effect, if
any,
these proposals would have on operators and, thus, our
business.
Our
financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and a summary of our
significant accounting policies is included in Note 2 to our annual report
on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. Our preparation of the financial
statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the
reported amounts of assets and liabilities, disclosure of contingent assets
and
liabilities at the date of our financial statements, and the reported amounts
of
revenue and expenses during the reporting period.
We
have
identified five significant accounting policies that we believe are critical
accounting policies. These critical accounting policies are those that have
the
most impact on the reporting of our financial condition and those requiring
significant assumptions, judgments and estimates. With respect to these critical
accounting policies, we believe the application of judgments and assessments
is
consistently applied and produces financial information that fairly presents
the
results of operations for all periods presented. The five critical accounting
policies are:
Revenue
Recognition
With
the
exception of certain master leases, rental income and mortgage interest income
are recognized as earned over the terms of the related master leases and
mortgage notes, respectively. Such income generally includes periodic increases
based on pre-determined formulas (i.e., such as increases in the CPI) as defined
in the master leases and mortgage loan agreements. Reserves are taken against
earned revenues from leases and mortgages when collection becomes questionable
or when negotiations for restructurings of troubled operators result in
significant uncertainty regarding ultimate collection. The amount of the reserve
is estimated based on what management believes will likely be collected. When
collection is uncertain, lease revenues are recorded when received, after taking
into account application of security deposits. Interest income on impaired
mortgage loans is recognized when received after taking into account application
of principal repayments and security deposits.
22
We
recognize the minimum base rental revenue under master leases with fixed
increases on a straight-line basis over the term of the related lease. Accrued
straight-line rents represent the rental revenue recognized in excess of rents
due under the lease agreements at the balance sheet date.
Gains
on
sales of real estate assets are recognized pursuant to the provisions of SFAS
No. 66, Accounting
for Sales of Real Estate.
The
specific timing of the recognition of the sale and the related gain is measured
against the various criteria in SFAS No. 66 related to the terms of the
transactions and any continuing involvement associated with the assets sold.
To
the extent the sales criteria are not met, we defer gain recognition until
the
sales criteria are met.
Depreciation
and Asset Impairment
Under
GAAP, real estate assets are stated at the lower of depreciated cost or fair
value, if deemed impaired. Depreciation is computed on a straight-line basis
over the estimated useful lives of 20 to 40 years for buildings and improvements
and three to ten years for furniture, fixtures and equipment. Management
periodically, but not less than annually, evaluates
our real estate investments for impairment indicators, including the evaluation
of our assets’ useful lives. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment
indicators is based on factors such as, but not limited to, market conditions,
operator performance and legal structure. If indicators of impairment are
present, management evaluates the carrying value of the related real estate
investments in relation to the future undiscounted cash flows of the underlying
facilities. Provisions
for impairment losses related to long-lived assets are recognized when expected
future undiscounted cash flows are determined to be permanently less than the
carrying values of the assets. An adjustment is made to the net carrying value
of the leased properties and other long-lived assets for the excess of
historical cost over fair value.
The
fair
value of the real estate investment is determined by market research, which
includes valuing the property as a nursing home as well as other alternative
uses. All
impairments are taken as a period cost at that time, and depreciation is
adjusted going forward to reflect the new value assigned to the
asset.
If
we
decide to sell rental properties or land holdings, we evaluate the
recoverability of the carrying amounts of the assets. If the evaluation
indicates that the carrying value is not recoverable from estimated net sales
proceeds, the property is written down to estimated fair value less costs to
sell. Our estimates of cash flows and fair values of the properties are based
on
current market conditions and consider matters such as rental rates and
occupancies for comparable properties, recent sales data for comparable
properties, and, where applicable, contracts or the results of negotiations
with
purchasers or prospective purchasers.
During
the six months ended June 30, 2006, we recognized an impairment loss associated
with one facility of approximately $0.1 million.
Loan
Impairment
Management,
periodically but not less than annually, evaluates our outstanding loans and
notes receivable. When management identifies potential loan impairment
indicators, such as non-payment under the loan documents, impairment of the
underlying collateral, financial difficulty of the operator or other
circumstances that may impair full execution of the loan documents, and
management believes these indicators are permanent, then the loan is written
down to the present value of the expected future cash flows. In cases where
expected future cash flows cannot be estimated, the loan is written down to
the
fair value of the collateral. The fair value of the loan is determined by market
research, which includes valuing the property as a nursing home as well as
other
alternative uses.
Assets
Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations
Pursuant
to the provisions of SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal
of
Long-Lived Assets, the operating results of specified real estate assets that
have been sold, or otherwise qualify as held for disposition (as defined by
SFAS
No. 144), are reflected as discontinued operations in the consolidated
statements of operations for all periods presented.
23
Consolidation
of Variable Interest Entities
Financial
Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 46R, Consolidation
of Variable Interest Entities,
or FIN
46R, addresses the consolidation by business enterprises of variable interest
entities (“VIEs”). FIN 46R provides criteria that, if met, would create a VIE,
which would then be subject to consolidation. If an entity is determined to
be a
VIE, the party deemed to be the primary beneficiary is required to consolidate
the VIE. The primary beneficiary is the party that has the most variability
in
expected gains or losses of the VIE.
In
order
to determine which party is the primary beneficiary, we must calculate the
expected losses and expected residual returns of the VIE. The analysis requires
a projection of expected cash flows and the assignment of probabilities to
each
possible cash flow outcome. Estimating expected cash flows and assigning
probabilities of each outcome of the VIE requires us to use significant
judgment. If assumptions used to estimate the expected cash flows prove to
be
inaccurate, our conclusions regarding which party is the VIE’s primary
beneficiary could be incorrect, resulting in us improperly consolidating the
VIE
when we are not the primary beneficiary or not consolidating the VIE when we
are
the primary beneficiary.
Results
of Operations
The
following is our discussion of the consolidated results of operations, financial
position and liquidity and capital resources, which should be read in
conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and accompanying
notes.
Three
Months Ended June 30, 2006 and 2005
Operating
Revenues
Our
operating revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2006 totaled $31.1
million, an increase of $5.8 million, over the same period in 2005. The
$5.8
million increase was primarily a result of new investments made throughout
2005
as well as scheduled contractual increases in rents. The increase in operating
revenues from new investments was partially offset by a reduction in mortgage
interest income and one-time contractual interest revenue associated with the
payoff of a mortgage during the first quarter of 2005.
Detailed
changes in operating revenues for
the
three months ended June 30, 2006
are as
follows:
· |
Rental
income was $29.0 million, an increase of $6.5 million over the same
period
in 2005. The increase was due to new leases entered into throughout
2005,
scheduled contractual increases in rents, and from consolidation
of a
VIE.
|
· |
Mortgage
interest income totaled $1.2 million, a decrease of $0.1 million
over the
same period in 2005. The decrease was primarily the result of normal
amortization and a $10 million loan payoff that occurred in the second
quarter of 2006.
|
· |
Miscellaneous
revenue was $0.3 million, a decrease of $0.8 million over the same
period
in 2005. The decrease was due to contractual revenue owed to us and
received in the second quarter of 2005 resulting from a mortgage
note
prepayment that occurred in the first quarter of
2005.
|
24
Operating
Expenses
Operating
expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2006 totaled $9.9 million, an
increase of approximately $0.9 million over the same period in 2005.
The
increase was primarily due to $1.5 million of increased depreciation expense
partially offset by a 2005 leasehold expiration expense.
Detailed
changes in our operating expenses for
the
three months ended June 30, 2006
versus
the same period in 2005 are as follows:
· |
Our
depreciation and amortization expense was $7.5 million, compared
to $6.0
million for the same period in 2005. The increase is due to new
investments placed throughout 2005 and the consolidation of a VIE
in
2006.
|
· |
Our
general and administrative expense, when excluding restricted stock
amortization expense, was $2.0 million, compared to $1.8 million
for the
same period in 2005. The increase was primarily due to normal inflationary
increases in goods and services.
|
· |
In
2005, we recorded a $0.1 million provision for uncollectible notes
receivable.
|
· |
In
2005, we recorded a $0.8 million lease expiration accrual relating
to
disputed capital improvement requirements associated with a lease
that
expired June 30, 2005.
|
Other
Income (Expense)
For
the
three months ended June 30, 2006, our total other net expenses were $9.8 million
as compared to $10.8 million for the same period in 2005. The significant
changes are as follows:
· |
Our
interest expense, excluding amortization of deferred costs and refinancing
related interest expenses, for the three months ended June 30, 2006
was
$9.4 million, compared to $6.9 million for the same period 2005.
The
increase of $2.5 million was primarily due to higher debt on our
balance
sheet versus the same period in 2005 and from consolidation of a
VIE in
2006.
|
· |
During
the three months ended June 30, 2005, we recorded a $3.4
million provision for impairment on an equity security. In accordance
with
FASB Statement No. 115, Accounting
for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities,
the $3.4 million provision for impairment was to write-down our 760,000
share investment in Sun Healthcare Group, Inc.’s (“Sun”) common stock to
its then current fair market value.
|
Six
Months Ended June 30, 2006 and 2005
Operating
Revenues
Our
operating revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2006 totaled $61.8 million,
an increase of $9.4 million, over the same period in 2005. The
$9.4
million increase was primarily a result of new investments made throughout
2005
as well as scheduled contractual increases in rents. The increase in operating
revenues from new investments was partially offset by a reduction in mortgage
interest income and one-time contractual interest revenue associated with the
payoff of a mortgage during the first quarter of 2005.
Detailed
changes in operating revenues for
the
six months ended June 30, 2006
are as
follows:
· |
Rental
income was $58.0 million, an increase of $13.7 million over the same
period in 2005. The increase was due to new leases entered into throughout
2005, scheduled contractual increases in rents, and the consolidation
of a
VIE in 2006.
|
· |
Mortgage
interest income totaled $2.3 million, a decrease of $0.9 million
over the
same period in 2005. The decrease was primarily the result of normal
amortization, a $60 million loan payoff that occurred in the first
quarter
of 2005 and a $10 million loan payoff that occurred in the second
quarter
of 2006.
|
· |
Miscellaneous
revenue was $0.4 million, a decrease of $3.9 million over the same
period
in 2005. The decrease was due to contractual revenue owed to us and
received in the second quarter of 2005 resulting from a mortgage
note
prepayment that occurred in the first quarter of
2005.
|
25
Operating
Expenses
Operating
expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2006 totaled $19.7 million, an
increase of approximately $2.9 million over the same period in 2005.
The
increase was primarily due to $3.3 million of increased depreciation expense
partially offset by a 2005 leasehold termination expense.
Detailed
changes in our operating expenses for
the
six months ended June 30, 2006
versus
the same period in 2005 are as follows:
· |
Our
depreciation and amortization expense was $15.1 million, compared
to $11.7
million for the same period in 2005. The increase is due to new
investments placed throughout 2005 and the consolidation of a VIE
in
2006.
|
· |
Our
general and administrative expense, when excluding restricted stock
amortization expense, was $4.1 million, compared to $3.7 million
for the
same period in 2005. The increase was primarily due to normal inflationary
increases in goods and services.
|
· |
In
2005, we recorded a $0.1 million provision for uncollectible notes
receivable.
|
· |
In
2005, we recorded a $0.8 million lease expiration accrual relating
to
disputed capital improvement requirements associated with a lease
that
expired June 30, 2005.
|
Other
Income (Expense)
For
the
six months ended June 30, 2006, our total other net expenses were $23.4 million
as compared to $18.0 million for the same period in 2005. The significant
changes are as follows:
· |
Our
interest expense, excluding amortization of deferred costs and refinancing
related interest expenses, for the six months ended June 30, 2006
was
$19.1 million, compared to $13.7 million for the same period 2005.
The
increase of $5.3 million was primarily due to higher debt on our
balance
sheet versus the same period in 2005 and from consolidation of a
VIE in
2006.
|
· |
For
the six months ended June 30, 2006, we
recorded a $0.8 million non-cash charge associated with the redemption
of
the remaining 20.7% of our $100 million aggregate principal amount
of
6.95% unsecured notes due 2007 not otherwise tendered in
2005.
|
· |
For
the six months ended June 30, 2006, we recorded a one time, non-cash
charge of approximately $2.7 million relating to the write-off of
deferred
financing costs associated with the termination of our prior credit
facility.
|
· |
During
the six months ended June 30, 2005, we recorded a $3.4
million provision for impairment of an equity security. In accordance
with
FASB Statement No. 115, Accounting
for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities,
the $3.4 million provision for impairment was to write-down our 760,000
share investment in Sun’s common stock to its then current fair market
value.
|
Loss
from Discontinued Operations
Discontinued
operations relate to properties we disposed of in 2006 or are currently
held-for-sale and are accounted for as discontinued operations under SFAS No.
144. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2006,
we sold
two SNFs in California resulting in an accounting loss of approximately $0.1
million.
26
At
June
30, 2006, we had one asset held for sale with a net book value of approximately
$0.2 million.
During
the three
months
ended March 31, 2006, a
$0.1
million provision for impairment charge was recorded to reduce the carrying
value to its sales price of one facility that was under contract to be sold
that
was subsequently sold during the second quarter of 2006.
In
accordance with SFAS No. 144, the $0.4 million realized net loss is reflected
in
our consolidated statements of operations as discontinued operations.
See
Note
9 - Discontinued Operations.
Funds
From Operations
Our
funds
from operations available to common stockholders (“FFO”), for the three months
ended June 30, 2006, was $16.5 million, compared to $8.1 million, for the same
period in 2005.
We
calculate and report FFO in accordance with the definition and interpretive
guidelines issued by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts
(“NAREIT”), and, consequently, FFO is defined as net income available to common
stockholders, adjusted for the effects of asset dispositions and certain
non-cash items, primarily depreciation and amortization. We believe that FFO
is
an important supplemental measure of our operating performance. Because the
historical cost accounting convention used for real estate assets requires
depreciation (except on land), such accounting presentation implies that the
value of real estate assets diminishes predictably over time, while real estate
values instead have historically risen or fallen with market conditions. The
term FFO was designed by the real estate industry to address this issue. FFO
herein is not necessarily comparable to FFO of other real estate investment
trusts (“REITs”) that do not use the same definition or implementation
guidelines or interpret the standards differently from us.
We
use
FFO as one of several criteria to measure operating performance of our business.
We further believe that by excluding the effect of depreciation, amortization
and gains or losses from sales of real estate, all of which are based on
historical costs and which may be of limited relevance in evaluating current
performance, FFO can facilitate comparisons of operating performance between
periods and between other REITs. We offer this measure to assist the users
of
our financial statements in evaluating our financial performance under GAAP,
and
FFO should not be considered a measure of liquidity, an alternative to net
income or an indicator of any other performance measure determined in accordance
with GAAP. Investors and potential investors in our securities should not rely
on this measure as a substitute for any GAAP measure, including net
income.
In
February 2004, NAREIT informed its member companies that it was adopting the
position of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) with respect to asset
impairment charges and would no longer recommend that impairment write-downs
be
excluded from FFO. In the tables included in this disclosure, we have applied
this interpretation and have not excluded asset impairment charges in
calculating our FFO. As a result, our FFO may not be comparable to similar
measures reported in previous disclosures. According to NAREIT, there is
inconsistency among NAREIT member companies as to the adoption of this
interpretation of FFO. Therefore, a comparison of our FFO results to another
company's FFO results may not be meaningful.
27
The
following table presents our FFO results reflecting the impact of asset
impairment charges (the SEC's interpretation) for the three and six months
ended
June 30, 2006 and 2005:
Three
Months Ended
|
Six
Months Ended
|
||||||||||||
June
30,
|
June
30,
|
||||||||||||
2006
|
2005
|
2006
|
2005
|
||||||||||
(in
thousands)
|
|||||||||||||
Net
income available to common
|
$
|
8,780
|
$
|
(2,620
|
)
|
$
|
13,180
|
$
|
3,125
|
||||
Add
back loss from real estate dispositions
|
133
|
4,165
|
381
|
4,202
|
|||||||||
Sub-total
|
8,913
|
1,545
|
13,561
|
7,327
|
|||||||||
Elimination
of non-cash items included in net income:
|
|||||||||||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
7,542
|
6,540
|
15,069
|
12,793
|
|||||||||
Funds
from operations available to common stockholders
|
$
|
16,455
|
$
|
8,085
|
$
|
28,630
|
$
|
20,120
|
Taxes
As
a
qualified REIT, as long as we distribute 100% of our taxable income, we will
not
be subject to Federal income taxes on our income, and no provisions for Federal
income taxes have been made. We are permitted to own up to 100% of a “taxable
REIT subsidiary” (“TRS”). Currently, we have two TRSs that are taxable as
corporations and that pay federal, state and local income tax on their net
income at the applicable corporate rates.
Portfolio
Developments, New Investments and Recent Developments
Below
is
a brief description, by third-party operator, of our re-leasing, restructuring
or new investment transactions that occurred during the six months ended June
30, 2006.
Hickory
Creek Healthcare Foundation, Inc.
On
June
16, 2006, we received approximately $10 million in proceeds on a mortgage loan
payoff. We held mortgages on 15 facilities located in Indiana, representing
619
beds.
Haven
Eldercare, LLC
· |
During
the three months ending March 31, 2006, Haven Eldercare, LLC (“Haven”), an
existing operator of ours, entered into a $39 million first mortgage
loan
with General Electric Capital Corporation (“GE Loan”). Haven used the $39
million of proceeds to partially repay on a $62 million mortgage
it has
with us. Simultaneously, we subordinated the payment of our remaining
$23
million on the mortgage note, due in October 2012, to that of the
GE Loan.
As a result of this transaction, the interest rate on our remaining
mortgage note to Haven rose from 10% to approximately 15%, with annual
escalators.
|
· |
In
conjunction with the above transactions and the application of FIN
46R, we
consolidated the financial statements and related real estate of
this
Haven entity into our financial statements. The consolidation resulted
in
the following changes to our consolidated balance sheet as of June
30,
2006: (1) an increase in total gross investments of $39.0 million;
(2) an
increase in accumulated depreciation of $0.8 million; (3) an increase
in
other long-term borrowings of $39.0 million; and (4) a reduction
of $0.8
million in cumulative net earnings for the six months ended June
30, 2006
due to the increased depreciation expense. General Electric Capital
Corporation and Haven’s other creditors do not have recourse to our
assets. Our results of operations reflect the effects of the consolidation
of this entity, which is being accounted for similarly to our other
purchase-leaseback transactions.
|
28
Assets
Sold
· |
On
June 30, 2006, we sold two SNFs in California resulting in an accounting
loss of approximately $0.1 million.
|
· |
On
March 31, 2006, we sold a SNF in Illinois resulting in an accounting
loss
of approximately $0.2 million.
|
Held
for Sale
· |
We
had one asset held for sale as of June 30, 2006 with a net book value
of
approximately $0.2 million.
|
· |
During
the three
months ended March 31, 2006, a
$0.1 million provision for impairment charge was recorded to reduce
the
carrying value to its sales price of one facility that was under
contract
to be sold, which was subsequently sold during the second quarter
of
2006.
|
The
partial expiration of certain Medicare rate increases has had an adverse impact
on the revenues of the operators of nursing home facilities and has negatively
impacted some operators’ ability to satisfy their monthly lease or debt payment
to us. In several instances, we hold security deposits that can be applied
in
the event of lease and loan defaults, subject to applicable limitations under
bankruptcy law with respect to operators seeking protection under Chapter 11
of
the Bankruptcy Code.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
At
June
30, 2006, we had total assets of $984.4 million, stockholders’ equity of $435.3
million and debt of $526.5 million, which represents approximately 54.7% of
our
total capitalization.
The
following table shows the amounts due in connection with the contractual
obligations described below as of June 30, 2006.
Payments
due by period
|
||||||||||||||||
Total
|
Less
than
1
year
|
1-3
years
|
3-5
years
|
More
than
5
years
|
||||||||||||
(In
thousands)
|
||||||||||||||||
Long-term
debt (1)
|
$
|
526,800
|
$
|
390
|
$
|
850
|
$
|
960
|
$
|
524,600
|
||||||
Other
long-term liabilities
|
616
|
231
|
385
|
-
|
-
|
|||||||||||
Total
|
$
|
527,416
|
$
|
621
|
$
|
1,235
|
$
|
960
|
$
|
524,600
|
(1) |
The
$526.8 million includes $310 million aggregate principal amount of
7%
Senior Notes due 2014, $175 million aggregate principal amount of
7%
Senior Notes due 2016 and Haven’s $39 million first mortgage with General
Electric Capital Corporation that expires in 2012. As of June 30,
2006,
there are no outstanding borrowings under the new $200 million revolving
senior secured credit facility that matures in March
2010.
|
Financing
Activities and Borrowing Arrangements
Bank
Credit Agreements
At
June
30, 2006, we had no outstanding borrowings under our $200 million revolving
senior secured credit facility (the “New Credit Facility”); however, $2.9
million was utilized for the issuance of letters of credit, leaving availability
of $197.1 million. The New Credit Facility, entered into on March 31, 2006,
is
being provided by Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Deutsche
Bank
Trust
29
Company
Americas, UBS Securities LLC, General Electric Capital Corporation, LaSalle
Bank
N.A., and Citicorp North America, Inc. and will be used for acquisitions and
general corporate purposes.
The
New
Credit Facility replaced our previous $200 million senior secured credit
facility (the “Prior Credit Facility”) that was terminated on March 31, 2006. We
will realize a 125 basis point savings on LIBOR-based loans under the New Credit
Facility, as compared to LIBOR-based loans under our Prior Credit Facility.
The
New Credit Facility matures on March 31, 2010, and includes an “accordion
feature” that permits us to expand our borrowing capacity to $300 million during
our first two years.
For
the
three-month period ending March 31, 2006, we recorded a one-time, non-cash
charge of approximately $2.7 million relating to the write-off of deferred
financing costs associated with the termination of our Prior Credit
Facility.
Our
long-term borrowings require us to meet certain property level financial
covenants and corporate financial covenants, including prescribed leverage,
fixed charge coverage, minimum net worth, limitations on additional indebtedness
and limitations on dividend payouts. As of June 30, 2006, we were in compliance
with all property level and corporate financial covenants.
$100
Million Aggregate Principal Amount of 6.95% Unsecured Notes Tender and
Redemption
On
December 16, 2005, we initiated a tender offer and consent solicitation for
all
of our outstanding $100 million aggregate principal amount 6.95% notes due
2007
(the “2007 Notes”). On December 30, 2005, we accepted for purchase the 79.3% of
the aggregate principal amount of the 2007 Notes outstanding that were tendered.
On December 30, 2005, our Board of Directors also authorized the redemption
of
all outstanding 2007 Notes that were not otherwise tendered. On December 30,
2005, upon our irrevocable funding of the full redemption price for the 2007
Notes and certain other acts required by the Indenture governing the 2007 Notes,
the Trustee of the 2007 Notes certified in writing to us (the “Certificate of
Satisfaction and Discharge”) that the Indenture was satisfied and discharged as
of December 30, 2005, except for certain administrative provisions. In
accordance with FASB Statement No. 140, Accounting
for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishment of
Liabilities,
(“FAS
140”) we removed 79.3% of the aggregate principal amount of the 2007 Notes,
which were tendered in our tender offer and consent solicitation, and the
corresponding portion of the funds held in trust by the Trustee to pay the
tender price from our balance sheet and recognized $2.8 million of additional
interest expense associated with the tender offer. On January 18, 2006, we
completed the redemption of the remaining 2007 Notes not otherwise tendered.
Accordingly, we reduced other assets, representing the funds deposited with
the
Trustee, and unsecured borrowings by $21 million. In connection with the
redemption and in accordance with FAS 140, we recognized $0.8 million of
additional interest expense in the first quarter of 2006. As of January 18,
2006, none of the 2007 Notes remained outstanding.
Other
Long-Term Borrowings
During
the three months ended March 31, 2006, Haven used the $39 million of proceeds
from the GE Loan to partially repay a portion of a $62 million mortgage it
has
with us. Simultaneously, we subordinated the payment of its remaining $23
million on the mortgage note to that of the GE Loan. In conjunction with the
above transactions and the application of FIN 46R, we consolidated the financial
statements of this Haven entity into our financial statements, which contained
the long-term borrowings with General Electric Capital Corporation of $39.0
million. The loan has an interest rate of approximately seven percent and is
due
in 2012. The lender of the $39.0 million does not have recourse to our assets.
See Note - 2 Properties; Leased Property.
30
Dividends
In
order
to qualify as a REIT, we are required to distribute dividends (other than
capital gain dividends) to our stockholders in an amount at least equal to
(A)
the sum of (i) 90% of our "REIT taxable income" (computed without regard to
the
dividends paid deduction and our net capital gain), and (ii) 90% of the net
income (after tax), if any, from foreclosure property, minus (B) the sum of
certain items of non-cash income. In addition, if we dispose of any built-in
gain asset during a recognition period, we will be required to distribute at
least 90% of the built-in gain (after tax), if any, recognized on the
disposition of such asset. Such distributions must be paid in the taxable year
to which they relate, or in the following taxable year if declared before we
timely file our tax return for such year and paid on or before the first regular
dividend payment after such declaration. In addition, such distributions are
required to be made pro rata, with no preference to any share of stock as
compared with other shares of the same class, and with no preference to one
class of stock as compared with another class except to the extent that such
class is entitled to such a preference. To the extent that we do not distribute
all of our net capital gain or do distribute at least 90%, but less than 100%
of
our "REIT taxable income," as adjusted, we will be subject to tax thereon at
regular ordinary and capital gain corporate tax rates. In addition, our $200
million New Credit Facility has certain financial covenants that limit the
distribution of dividends paid during a fiscal quarter to no more than 95%
of
our aggregate cumulative funds from operations (“FFO”) as defined in the loan
agreement governing the New Credit Facility (the “Loan Agreement”), unless a
greater distribution is required to maintain REIT status. The Loan Agreement
defines FFO as net income (or loss) plus depreciation and amortization and
shall
be adjusted for charges related to: (i) restructuring our debt; (ii) redemption
of preferred stock; (iii) litigation charges up to $5.0 million; (iv) non-cash
charges for accounts and notes receivable up to $5.0 million; (v) non-cash
compensation related expenses; and (vi) non-cash impairment
charges.
Common
Dividends
On
July
17, 2006, the Board of Directors announced a common stock dividend of $0.24
per
share to be paid August 15, 2006 to common stockholders of record on July 31,
2006.
On
April
18, 2006, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of $0.24
per
share, an increase of $0.01 per common share compared to the prior quarter.
The
common dividend was paid May 15, 2006 to common stockholders of record on April
28, 2006.
On
January 17, 2006, the Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend of
$0.23 per share, an increase of $0.01 per common share compared to the prior
quarter. The common stock dividend was paid February 15, 2006 to common
stockholders of record on January 31, 2006.
Series
D Preferred Dividends
On
July
17, 2006, the Board of Directors declared the regular quarterly dividends for
the 8.375% Series D Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (“Series D Preferred
Stock”) to stockholders of record on July 31, 2006. The stockholders of record
of the Series D Preferred Stock on July 31, 2006 will be paid dividends in
the
amount of $0.52344
per
preferred share on August 15, 2006. The liquidation preference for our Series
D
Preferred Stock is $25.00 per share. Regular quarterly preferred dividends
for
the Series D Preferred Stock represent dividends for the period May 1, 2006
through July 31, 2006.
Liquidity
We
believe our liquidity and various sources of available capital, including cash
from operations, our existing availability under our New Credit Facility and
expected proceeds from mortgage payoffs are more than adequate to finance
operations, meet recurring debt service requirements and fund future investments
through the next twelve months.
31
We
regularly review our liquidity needs, the adequacy of cash flow from operations,
and other expected liquidity sources to meet these needs. We believe our
principal short-term liquidity needs are to fund:
· normal
recurring expenses;
· debt
service payments;
· preferred
stock dividends;
· common
stock dividends; and
· growth
through acquisitions of additional properties.
The
primary source of liquidity is our cash flows from operations. Operating cash
flows have historically been determined by: (i) the number of facilities we
lease or have mortgages on; (ii) rental and mortgage rates; (iii) our debt
service obligations; and (iv) general and administrative expenses. The timing,
source and amount of cash flows provided by financing activities and used in
investing activities are sensitive to the capital markets environment,
especially to changes in interest rates. Changes in the capital markets
environment may impact the availability of cost-effective capital and affect
our
plans for acquisition and disposition activity.
Cash
and
cash equivalents totaled $14.1 million as of June 30, 2006, an increase of
$10.1
million as compared to the balance at December 31, 2005. The following is a
discussion of changes in cash and cash equivalents due to operating, investing
and financing activities, which are presented in our Consolidated Statements
of
Cash Flows.
Operating
Activities -
Net
cash flow from operating activities generated $42.7 million for the six months
ended June 30, 2006, as compared to $34.4 million for the same period in 2005.
The $8.3 million increase is due primarily to: (i) incremental revenue
associated with acquisitions completed throughout 2005 and (ii) normal working
capital fluctuations during the period.
Investing
Activities
- Net
cash flow from investing activities was an inflow of $4.3 million for the six
months ended June 30, 2006, as compared to an outflow of $53.9 million for
the
same period in 2005. The $58.2 million change in investing cash outflow was
primarily due to: (i) an outflow of $120.7 million for acquisitions completed
during the six months of 2005 as compared to the same period in 2006, (ii)
a
$60.0 million mortgage payoff in 2005 as compared to a $10.0 million mortgage
payoff in 2006 and (iii) $0.7 million collected from the sale of real estate
for
the six months ended June 30, 2006 as compared to $12.3 million in
2005.
Financing
Activities
- Net
cash flow from financing activities was an outflow of $36.9 million for the
six
months ended June 30, 2006 as compared to an inflow of $7.9 million for the
same
period in 2005. The increase in financing cash outflow of $44.8 million was
primarily a result of net repayments of $58.0 million on our New Credit Facility
in 2006 versus net borrowings of $86.5 million on our Prior Credit Facility
in
2005. The financial cash outflow was partially offset by $39.0 million of
proceeds received in a Haven transaction, $50.0 million redemption of the
outstanding shares of Series B preferred stock in 2005 and $16.6 million of
incremental optional cash purchases of our common stock through our dividend
reinvestment and common stock purchase plan for the six months ended June 30,
2006 as compared to the same time period in 2005.
There
were no material changes in our market risk during the three months ended June
30, 2006. For additional information, refer to Item 7A as presented in our
annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.
32
Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Our
principal executive officer and principal financial officer are responsible
for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures as defined
in
the rules promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the
“Exchange Act”). We evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of
our disclosure controls and procedures as of June 30, 2006, and based on that
evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer
have
concluded that these controls and procedures were effective as of June 30,
2006.
Disclosure
controls and procedures are the controls and other procedures designed to ensure
that information that we are required to disclose in our reports under the
Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time
periods required. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without
limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information we
are
required to disclose in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange
Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal
executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate, to allow
timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
Changes
in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
No
changes in our internal control over financial reporting were identified as
having occurred in the three months ended June 30, 2006 that have materially
affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control
over financial reporting.
33
See
Note
8 - Litigation to the Consolidated Financial Statements in PART I, Item 1
hereto, which is hereby incorporated by reference in response to this
item.
We
filed
our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2006, which sets forth our
risk factors in Item 1A therein. We have not experienced any material changes
from the risk factors previously described therein.
Our
annual meeting of stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) was held on May 25, 2006.
Of the total number of common shares outstanding on April 21, 2006, a total
of
57,992,789 were represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting. Results
of votes with respect to proposals submitted at the Annual Meeting are set
forth
below.
(a) To
elect
two nominees to serve as directors and to hold office until the next annual
meeting of stockholders or until their successors have been elected and
qualified. Our stockholders voted to elect both nominees to serve as directors.
Votes recorded, by nominee, were as follows:
Nominee
|
For
|
Against/Withheld
|
||
Bernard
J. Korman
|
51,060,573
|
649,442
|
||
Thomas
F. Franke
|
51,056,153
|
653,862
|
(b) To
consider and vote upon a proposal to ratify the selection of Ernst & Young
LLP as our independent auditor for the fiscal year 2006:
For
|
Against
|
Abstain
|
||
51,555,820
|
62,564
|
91,630
|
We
entered
into a contract
of sale (the “Litchfield Contract”), dated as of May 5, 2006, between Laramie
Associates, LLC, Casper Associates, LLC, North 12th
Street
Associates, LLC, North Union Boulevard Associates, LLC, Jones Avenue Associates,
LLC, Litchfield Investment Company, L.L.C., Ustick Road Associates, LLC,
West
24th
Street
Associates, LLC, North Third Street Associates, LLC, Midwestern Parkway
Associates, LLC, North Francis Street Associates, LLC, West Nash Street
Associates, LLC (as sellers) and OHI Asset (LA), LLC, NRS Ventures, L.L.C.
and
OHI Asset (CO), LLC (as buyers).
The
Litchfield Contract provides for the purchase of thirty skilled nursing
facilities and one independent living center from Litchfield Companies
for
approximately $171 million (the “Litchfield Transaction”). The facilities total
3,847 beds and are located in the states of Colorado (5), Florida (7),
34
Idaho
(1), Louisiana (13), and Texas (5). The facilities were subject to master
leases
with three national healthcare providers, which are our existing tenants.
The
tenants are Home Quality Management, Inc., Nexion Health, Inc., and Peak
Medical
Corporation, which was acquired by Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. (“Sun”) in
December of 2005. The Litchfield Contract provides for customary
representations, warranties and indemnification provisions. The Litchfield
Contract is attached to this Form 10-Q as Exhibit 10.1 and is incorporated
herein by reference. The total incremental annualized rent from the 31
facility
transaction is approximately $17.1 million.
We
closed
the Litchfield Transaction on August 1, 2006.
We
used a
combination of cash on hand and $150 million of borrowings under our $200
million revolving senior secured credit facility (the “New Credit Facility”),
drawn on August 1, 2006, to finance the Litchfield transaction.
The
New
Credit Facility, entered into on March 31, 2006, is being provided by Bank
of
America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas,
UBS Securities LLC, General Electric Capital Corporation, LaSalle Bank
N.A., and
Citicorp North America, Inc. and will be used for acquisitions and general
corporate purposes. The New Credit Facility matures on March 31, 2010,
and
includes an “accordion feature” that permits us to expand our borrowing capacity
to $300 million during our first two years.
Exhibit
No.
|
Description
|
|
10.1
|
Contract
of sale, dated as of May 5, 2006, between Laramie Associates, LLC,
Casper
Associates, LLC, North 12th
Street Associates, LLC, North Union Boulevard Associates, LLC,
Jones
Avenue Associates, LLC, Litchfield Investment Company, L.L.C.,
Ustick Road
Associates, LLC, West 24th
Street Associates, LLC, North Third Street Associates, LLC, Midwestern
Parkway Associates, LLC, North Francis Street Associates, LLC,
West Nash
Street Associates, LLC (as sellers) and OHI Asset (LA), LLC, NRS
Ventures,
L.L.C. and OHI Asset (CO), LLC (as buyers).
|
|
31.1
|
Rule
13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of the Chief Executive
Officer.
|
|
31.2
|
Rule
13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of the Chief Financial
Officer.
|
|
32.1
|
Section
1350 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer.
|
|
32.2
|
Section
1350 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer.
|
35
SIGNATURES
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant
has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto
duly authorized.
OMEGA
HEALTHCARE INVESTORS, INC.
Registrant
Date: August
4,
2006 By: /S/
C.
TAYLOR PICKETT
C.
Taylor
Pickett
Chief
Executive
Officer
Date: August
4,
2006 By: /S/
ROBERT O. STEPHENSON
Robert
O.
Stephenson
Chief
Financial
Officer
36