Index to Financial Statements

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

 

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20082009

or

 

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

For the transition period fromto            to

Commission File Number 1-12298 (Regency Centers Corporation)

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

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

DelawareFLORIDA (REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION)59-3191743
DELAWARE (REGENCY CENTERS, L.P) 59-3429602

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

 

(I.R.S. Employer

identification No.)

One Independent Drive, Suite 114

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

 

(904) 598-7000

(Address of principal executive offices) (zip code) (Registrant’s telephone No.)

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

None

(Title of Class)Regency Centers Corporation

Title of each class

Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, $.01 par valueNew York Stock Exchange
7.45% Series 3 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, $.01 par valueNew York Stock Exchange
7.25% Series 4 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, $.01 par valueNew York Stock Exchange
6.70% Series 5 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, $.01 par valueNew York Stock Exchange

Not ApplicableRegency Centers, L.P.

Title of each class

Name of each exchange on which registered

NoneN/A

(Name of exchange on which registered)

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

Regency Centers Corporation: None

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

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

YES  x    NO  ¨

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

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

YES  ¨    NO  x

Regency Centers CorporationYES  ¨    NO  xRegency Centers, L.P.YES  ¨    NO  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    YES  x    NO  ¨

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

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

Regency Centers CorporationYES  ¨    NO  ¨Regency Centers, L.P.YES  ¨    NO  ¨


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

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

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

Regency Centers Corporation:

 

Large accelerated filerxAccelerated filer¨
Non-accelerated filer ¨Smaller reporting company¨

Regency Centers, L.P.:

Large accelerated filer 

x

¨
  Accelerated filer ¨x
Non-accelerated filer 

¨

  Smaller reporting company ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company.    YES  ¨    NO  x

The

Regency Centers CorporationYES  ¨    NO  xRegency Centers, L.P.YES  ¨    NO  x

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

Regency Centers Corporation:$2,744,244,309Regency Centers, L.P.:N/A

The number of shares outstanding of Registrant’sthe Regency Centers Corporation’s voting common stock outstanding is not applicable.was 81,561,952 as of February 26, 2010.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Regency Centers Corporation is the general partner of Regency Centers, L.P. Portions of Regency Centers Corporation’s Proxy Statementproxy statement in connection with its 20092010 Annual Meeting of ShareholdersStockholders are incorporated by reference in Part III.

 

 

 


Index

EXPLANATORY NOTE

This report combines the annual reports on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 of Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, references to Financial Statements

“Regency Centers Corporation” or the “Parent Company” mean Regency Centers Corporation and its controlled subsidiaries; and references to “Regency Centers, L.P.” or the “Operating Partnership” mean Regency Centers, L.P. and its controlled subsidiaries. The term “the Company” or “Regency” means the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, collectively.

The Parent Company is a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) and the general partner of the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership’s capital includes general and limited common Partnership Units (“Units”). As of December 31, 2009, the Parent Company owned approximately 99% of the Units in the Operating Partnership and the remaining limited Units are owned by investors. The Parent Company owns all of the Series 3, 4 and 5 Preferred Units of the Operating Partnership. As the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, the Parent Company has exclusive control of the Operating Partnership’s day-to-day management.

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

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

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

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

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

The Company believes it is important to understand the few differences between the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership in the context of how the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership operate as a consolidated company. The Parent Company is a REIT, whose only material asset is its ownership of partnership interests of the Operating Partnership. As a result, the Parent Company does not conduct business itself, other than acting as the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, issuing public equity from time to time and guaranteeing certain debt of the Operating Partnership. The Parent Company does not hold any indebtedness, but guarantees all of the unsecured public debt and less than 10% of the secured debt of the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership holds all the assets of the Company and retains the ownership interests in the Company’s joint ventures. Except for net proceeds from public equity issuances by the Parent Company, which are contributed to the Operating Partnership in exchange for partnership units, the Operating Partnership generates all remaining capital required by the Company’s business. These sources include the Operating Partnership’s operations, its direct or indirect incurrence of indebtedness, and the issuance of partnership units.

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

In order to highlight the differences between the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, there are sections in this report that separately discuss the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, including separate


financial statements, controls and procedures sections, and separate Exhibit 31 and 32 certifications. In the sections that combine disclosure for the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, this report refers to actions or holdings as being actions or holdings of the Company.

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


TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Item No.

     Form 10-K
Report Page

Item No.

  Form 10-K
Report Page
  PART I  
PART IPART I
1.  Business  1  

Business

  1
1A.  Risk Factors  5  

Risk Factors

  4
1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments  11  

Unresolved Staff Comments

  12
2.  Properties  12  

Properties

  13
3.  Legal Proceedings  28  

Legal Proceedings

  29
4.  Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders  28  

Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

  29
  PART II  
PART IIPART II
5.  

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

  28  

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

  29
6.  Selected Financial Data  30  

Selected Financial Data

  32
7.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations  33  

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

  34
7A.  Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk  57  

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

  63
8.  Financial Statements and Supplementary Data  59  

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

  65
9.  Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure  110  

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

  128
9A.  Controls and Procedures  110  

Controls and Procedures

  128
9B.  Other Information  111  

Other Information

  129
  PART III  
PART IIIPART III
10.  Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance  112  

Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance

  130
11.  Executive Compensation  112  

Executive Compensation

  130
12.  Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters  113  

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

  131
13.  Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence  113  

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

  131
14.  Principal Accountant Fees and Services  113  

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

  131
  PART IV  
PART IVPART IV
15.  Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules  114  

Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

  132
  SIGNATURES  
SIGNATURESSIGNATURES
16.  Signatures  116  

Signatures

  137


Index to Financial Statements

Forward-Looking Statements

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

PART I

 

Item 1.Business

Regency isCenters Corporation began its operations as a qualified real estate investment trustReal Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”), which began operations in 1993.1993 and is the managing general partner in Regency Centers, L.P. ). The term “the Company” or “Regency” means the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, collectively. Our primary operatingkey strategic goals are focused on total share and investment goal is long-term growth in earnings and total unit holder return which we work toin excess of peer indices and sustaining growth in net asset value and earnings. We will achieve by focusing on a strategy ofthese goals through owning, operating and developinginvesting in a high-quality community and neighborhoodportfolio of primarily grocery-anchored shopping centers that are tenanted by market-dominant grocers, category-leading anchors, specialty retailers, and restaurants located in areas with above average household incomes and population densities. All of our operating, investing, and financing activities are performed through RCLP,the Operating Partnership, its wholly ownedwholly-owned subsidiaries, and through its investments in real estate partnerships with third parties (also referred to as co-investment partnerships or joint ventures). RegencyThe Parent Company currently owns 99% of the outstanding operatingcommon partnership units of RCLP.the Operating Partnership. Because of our structure and certain public debt financing, RCLPthe Operating Partnership is also a registrant.

At December 31, 2008,2009, we directly owned 224216 shopping centers (the “Consolidated Properties”) located in 2423 states representing 24.223.0 million square feet of gross leasable area (“GLA”). Our cost of these shopping centers and those under development is $4.0 billion before depreciation. Through co-investment partnerships, we own partial ownership interests in 216184 shopping centers (the “Unconsolidated Properties”) located in 2725 states and the District of Columbia representing 25.422.0 million square feet of GLA. Our investment in the partnerships that own the Unconsolidated Properties is $383.4 million. Certain portfolio information described below is presented (a) on a Combined Basis, which is a total of the Consolidated Properties and the Unconsolidated Properties, (b) for our Consolidated Properties only and (c) for the Unconsolidated Properties that we own through co-investment partnerships. We believe that presenting the information under these methods provides a more complete understanding of the properties that we wholly-own versus those that we indirectly own through entities we do not control, but for which we provide asset management, property management, leasing, investing and financing services. The shopping center portfolio that we manage, on a Combined Basis, represents 440400 shopping centers located in 2928 states and the District of Columbia and contains 49.645.0 million square feet of GLA.

We earn revenues and generate cash flow by leasing space in our shopping centers to market-leading grocers,grocery stores, major retail anchors, specialty side-shop retailers, and restaurants, including ground leasing or selling building pads (out-parcels) to these potentialsame types of tenants. We experienceHistorically, we have experienced growth in revenues by increasing occupancy and rental rates at currently ownedin our existing shopping centers, and by acquiring and developing new shopping centers. Community and neighborhoodOur shopping centers generate substantial daily traffic by conveniently offering necessities and services. This high traffic generates increased sales, thereby driving higher occupancy and rental-rate growth, which we expect will sustain ourprovide sustained growth in earnings per share and unit, and increase thenet asset value of our portfolio over the long term.

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

Index to Financial Statements

retailers reinforce the consumer appeal and other strengths of a center’s anchor, help grow and stabilize a center’s occupancy, reduce re-leasing downtime, reduce tenant turnover, and yield higher sustainable rents.

The current economic recession is resulting in a higher level of retail store closings and is limiting the demand for leasing space in our shopping centers resulting in a decline in our occupancy percentages and rental revenues. Additionally, certain national tenants negotiate co-tenancy clauses into their lease agreements, which allow them to reduce their rents or close their stores in the event that a co-tenant closes its store. We believe that our investment focus on neighborhood and community shopping centers that conveniently provide daily necessities will help lessen the current economy’s negative impact to our shopping centers, although the negative impact could still be significant. We are closely monitoring the operating performance and tenants’ sales in our shopping centers including those tenants operating retail formats that are experiencing significant changes in competition, business practice, or reductions in sales.

We grow our shopping center portfolio through acquisitions of operating centers and new shopping center development. We will continue to use our unique combination of development wherecapabilities, market presence, and

anchor relationships to invest in value-added opportunities sourced from distressed owners, the redevelopment of existing centers, developing land that we acquire the landalready own, and construct the building.other opportunities. Development is customer driven, meaning we generally have an executed lease from the anchor before we start construction. Developments serve the growth needs of our anchors and specialty retailers, resulting in modern shopping centers with long-term anchor leases that produce attractive returns on our invested capital. This development process can requiretypically requires three to five years from initial land or redevelopment acquisition through construction, lease-up, and stabilization of rental income, but can take longer depending upon tenant demand for new stores and the size of the project. Generally, anchor tenants begin operating their stores prior to the completion of construction of the entire center, resulting in rental income during the development phase.

In the near term, reduced new store openings amongst retailers is resulting in reduced demand for new retail space and is causing corresponding reductions in new leasing rental rates and development pre-leasing. As a result, we are significantly reducing our development program by reducing the number of new projects started, phasing existing developments that lack retail demand, and reducing related general and administrative expense. Although our development program will continue to be a significant part of our business strategy, new development projects will be rigorously evaluated in regard to availability of capital, visibility of tenant demand to achieve 95% occupancy, and sufficient investment returns.

We intend to maintain a conservative capital structure to fund our growth program, which should preserve our investment-grade ratings. Our approach is founded on our self-funding capital strategy to fund our growth. The culling of non-strategic assets and our industry-leadingalso invest in real estate partnerships. These co-investment partnership program are integral components of this strategy. We also develop certain retail centers because of their attractive profit margins with the intent of selling them to third parties upon completion. These sales proceeds are re-deployed into new, high-quality developments and acquisitions that are expected to generate sustainable revenue growth and attractive returns. To the extent that we are unable to execute our capital recycling program to generate adequate sources of capital, we will significantly reduce and even stop new investment activity until there is adequate visibility and reliability to sources of capital for RCLP.

Joint venturing of shopping centers providespartnerships provide us with a reliable capital source for new developments andshopping center acquisitions, as well as the opportunity to earn fees for asset andmanagement, property management, and other investing and financing services. As asset manager, we are engaged by our partners to apply similar operating, investment and capital strategies to the portfolios owned by the co-investment partnerships.partnerships as those applied to the portfolio that we wholly-own. Co-investment partnerships also grow their shopping center investments through acquisitions from third parties or direct purchases from us. Although selling properties to co-investment partnerships reduces our direct ownership interest, we continue to share, to the extent of our remaining ownership interest, in the risks and rewards of shopping centers that meet our high quality standards and long-term investment strategy. We have no obligations or liabilities within the co-investment partnerships beyond our ownership interest.

The current lack of liquidity in the capital markets is having a corresponding effect on new investment activity in our co-investment partnerships. Our co-investment partnerships have significant levels of debt, 67.5% of which will mature through 2012, and are subject to significant refinancing risks. We anticipate that as real estate values decline, the refinancing of maturing loans, including those maturing in our joint ventures, will require us and our joint venture partners to contribute our respective pro-rata shares of capital in order to reduce refinancing requirements to acceptable loan to value levels required for new financings. While we have been successful refinancing maturing loans, the longer-term impact of the current economic crisis on our ability to access capital, including access by our joint venture partners, or to obtain future financing to fund maturing debt is unclear. While we believe that our partners have sufficient capital or access thereto for these future capital requirements, we can provide no assurance that the constrained capital markets will not inhibit their ability to access capital and meet their future funding requirements.

Index to Financial Statements

We expect that cash generated from operating activities will provide the necessary funds to pay our operating expenses, interest expense, scheduled principal payments on outstanding debt, and capital expenditures necessary to maintain our shopping centers. Regency expects to continue paying dividends to their shareholders based upon availability of cash flow and to maintain compliance with REIT tax laws. Regency’s Board of Directors determined that in light of the current recession and the strains it is placing on our business, they will not increase Regency’s dividend rate per share during 2009, and may find it necessary to reduce future dividends or pay a portion of the dividend in the form of stock. Regency’s Board of Directors is continuously reviewing Regency’s operations and will make decisions about future dividend payments on a quarterly basis.

Competition

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

Changes in Policies

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

Employees

Our headquarters are located at One Independent Drive, Suite 114, Jacksonville, Florida. We presently maintain 2118 market offices nationwide where we conduct management, leasing, construction, and investment activities. At December 31, 2008,2009, we had 511380 employees and we believe that our relations with our employees are good.

Compliance with Governmental Regulations

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

Executive Officers

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

Index to Financial Statements

Name

  Age  

Title

  Executive Officer in
Position Shown Since
   Age  

Title

  Executive Officer in
Position Shown
Since
 

Martin E. Stein, Jr.

  56  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  1993   57  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  1993  

Mary Lou Fiala

  57  President and Chief Operating Officer  1999(1)

Brian M. Smith

  55  President and Chief Operating Officer  2005(1) 

Bruce M. Johnson

  61  Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer  1993(2)  62  

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

  1993  

Brian M. Smith

  54  Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer  2005(3)

 

(1)(1)

In February 2009, Mary Lou Fiala, President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company since 1999, announced that she will retire from her position as Chief Operating Officer at the end of 2009. As part of the transition of her responsibilities in connection with her retirement later this year, Ms. Fiala gave up the position of President to Brian M. Smith, who was appointed to fill that position as described below. Ms. Fiala will remain as Chief Operating Officer until her retirement. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee intends to renominate Ms. Fiala as a director subsequent to her retirement.

(2)

In February 2009, Bruce M. Johnson, Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer of the Company since 1993, was appointed to Executive Vice President.

(3)

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

Company Website Access and SEC Filings

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

General Information

The Company’s registrar and stock transfer agent is American Stock Transfer & Trust Company (“AST”), New York, New York. The Company offers a dividend reinvestment plan (“DRIP”) that enables its shareholdersstockholders to reinvest dividends automatically, as well as to make voluntary cash payments toward the purchase of additional shares. For more information, contact AST’s Shareholder Services Group toll free at (866) 668-6550 or the Company’s Shareholder Relations Department.

The Company’s Independent Registered Public Accountants areAccounting Firm is KPMG LLP, Jacksonville, Florida. The Company’s General Counsel is Foley & Lardner LLP, Jacksonville, Florida.

Annual Meeting

The Company’s annual meeting will be held at The River Club, One Independent Drive, 35th Floor, Jacksonville, Florida, at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 5, 2009.4, 2010.

Index to Financial Statements
Item 1A.Risk Factors

Risk Factors Related to Our Industry and Real Estate Investments

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

Our performance depends on the economic conditions in markets in which our properties are concentrated. During the year ended December 31, 2008,2009, our properties in California, Florida, and Texas accounted for 58.9%32.0%, 13.6%, and 15.4%, respectively, of our consolidated net operating income. Our revenues and cash available for distribution to stock and unit holders could be adversely affected by this geographic concentration if market conditions, such as supply of retail space or demand for shopping centers, deteriorate in California, Florida, and Texas relative to other geographic areas.

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

We derive significant revenues from anchor tenants such as Kroger, Publix and Safeway that occupy more than one center. Kroger, Publix, and Safeway are our three largest tenants and accounted for 4.9%, 4.2%, and 3.7%, respectively, of our annualized base rent on a pro-rata basis for the year ended December 31, 2009. Distributions to stock and unit holders could be adversely affected by the loss of revenues in the event a major tenant:

 

becomes bankrupt or insolvent;

 

experiences a downturn in its business;

 

materially defaults on its leases;

 

does not renew its leases as they expire; or

 

renews at lower rental rates.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

the adverse financial condition of some large retailingretail companies;

 

the ongoing consolidation in the retail sector;

 

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

increasing consumer purchases through catalogs or the internet;catalogs;

 

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

 

the timing and costs associated with property improvements and rentals;

 

changes in taxation and zoning laws;

 

adverse government regulation.regulation;

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

 

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

 

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

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

Our real estate assets may be subject to impairment charges.

IndexOn a periodic basis, we assess whether there are any indicators that the value of our real estate properties and other investments may be impaired. A property’s value is impaired only if our estimate of the aggregate future cash flows (undiscounted and without interest charges) to Financial Statements
be generated by the property are less than the carrying value of the property. If the aggregate future cash flows are less than the carrying value of property, we write down the property to its fair value. In our estimate of cash flows, we consider factors such as expected future operating income, trends and prospects, the effects of demand, competition and other factors. We are required to make subjective assessments as to whether there are impairments in the value of our real estate properties and other investments. These assessments have a direct impact on our net income because recording an impairment charge results in an immediate negative adjustment to net income. There can be no assurance that we will not take additional charges in the future related to the impairment of our assets. Any future impairment could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the charge is taken.

Unsuccessful development activities or a slowdown in development activities could reduce distributions to stock and unit holders.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

delays in the development and construction process; and

 

the lack of cash flow during the construction period.

If developments are unsuccessful, funding provided from contributionssales to co-investment partnerships and sales to third parties may be materially reduced and our cash flow available for distribution to stock and unit holders will be reduced. Our earnings and cash flow available for distribution to stock and unit holders also may be reduced if we experience a significant slowdown in our development activities.

Uninsured lossWe may adversely affectexperience difficulty or delay in renewing leases or re-leasing space.

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

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

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

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

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

We carry comprehensive liability, fire, flood, extended coverage, rental loss, and environmental insurance for our properties with policy specifications and insured limits customarily carried for similar properties. We believe that the insurance carried on our properties is adequate and in accordance with industry standards. There are, however, some types of losses, such as from hurricanes, terrorism, wars or earthquakes, which may be uninsurable, or the cost of insuring against such losses may not be economically justifiable. If an uninsured loss occurs, we could lose both the invested capital in and anticipated revenues from the property, but we would still be obligated to repay any recourse mortgage debt on the property. In that event, our distributions to stock and unit holders could be reduced.

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

Ongoing adverse market and economic conditions and market volatility will likely continue to make it difficult to value the properties and investments owned by us and our joint ventures. There may be significant uncertainty in the valuation, or in the stability of the value, of such properties and investments that could result in a substantial decrease in the value thereof. No assurance can be given that we will be able to recover the current carrying amount of all of our properties, investments and intangibles and those of our joint ventures in the future. Our failure to do so would require us to recognize additional impairment charges for the period in which we reached that conclusion, which could materially and adversely affect us and the market price of our common stock.

We are unable to predict whether, or to what extent or for how long, these adverse market and economic conditions will persist. The continuation and/or intensification of these conditions may impede our ability to generate sufficient operating cash flow to pay expenses, maintain properties, pay dividends, distributions, and refinance debt.

We face competition from numerous sources.

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

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

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

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

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

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

We have invested as a co-venturer in the acquisition or development of properties. These investments involve risks not present in a wholly-owned project. We do not have voting control over the ventures. The other co-venturer might (1)(i) have interests or goals that are inconsistent with our interests or goals or (2)(ii) otherwise impede our objectives. The other co-venturer also might become insolvent or bankrupt.

Our co-investment partnerships account for a significant portion of our revenues and net income in the form of management fees and are an important part of our growth strategy. The termination of our co-investment partnerships could adversely affect distributions to stock and unit holders.

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

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

Our co-investment partnerships have significant levels$2.5 billion of debt 67.5%as of December 31, 2009, of which 54.8% will mature through 2012, and arewhich is subject to significant refinancing risks. We anticipate that as real estate values decline, the refinancing of maturing loans, including those maturing in our joint ventures, will require us and our joint venture partners to contribute our respective pro-rata shares of capital in order to reduce refinancing requirements to acceptable loan to value levels required for new financings. The long-term impact of the current economic crisis on our ability to access capital, including access by our joint venture partners, or to obtain future financing to fund maturing debt is unclear.

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

Regency investsWe invest in retail shopping centers through Regency Centers, L.P., the operating partnershipOperating Partnership in which Regencythe Parent Company currently ownowns 99% of the outstanding common partnership units. From time to time, we acquirehave acquired properties through our operating partnershipthe Operating Partnership in exchange for limited partnership interests. This acquisition structure may permit limited partners who contribute properties to us to defer some, if not all, of the income tax liability that they would incur if they sold the property for cash.

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

Risk Factors Related to Our Capital Recycling and Capital Structure

Lack of available credit could reduce capital available for new developments and other investments and could increase refinancing risks.

The lack of available credit in the commercial real estate market is causing a decline in the sale of shopping centers and their values. This reduces the available capital for new developments or other new investments, which is a key part of our capital recycling strategy. The lack of liquidity in the capital markets has also resulted in a significant increase in the cost to refinance maturing loans and a significant increase in refinancing risks. We anticipate that as real estate values decline, refinancing maturing secured loans, including those maturing in our joint ventures, may require us and our joint venture partners to contribute our respective pro-rata shares of capital in order to reduce refinancing requirements to acceptable loan to value levels required for new financings. At this time, it is unclear whether and to what extent the actions taken by the U.S. government currently being implemented or contemplated, will mitigate the effects of the economic crisis within the United States. While we currently have no immediate need to accessWhether the credit markets the impact of the current economic crisis onwill hinder our ability to access capital, including access by our joint venture partners, or to obtain future financing to fund maturing debt is unclear.

A reduction in the availability of capital, an increase in the cost of capital, and higher market capitalization rates could adversely impact Regency’sour ability to recycle capital and fund developments and acquisitions, and could dilute earnings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

Our revolving line of credit and our unsecured notes contain customary covenants, including compliance with financial ratios, such as ratios of total debt to gross asset value and fixed charge coverage ratios. Coverage ratio is defined as EBITDA divided by the sum of the gross interest and scheduled mortgage principal paid to our lenders plus dividends paid to our preferred stockholders. Our line of credit also restricts our ability to enter into a transaction that would result in a change of control. These covenants may limit our operational flexibility and our acquisition activities. Moreover, if we breach any of thesethe covenants in our debt agreements, including the resulting defaultcovenants above, and did not cure the breach within any applicable cure period, our lenders could causerequire us to repay the acceleration of our indebtedness,debt immediately, even in the absence of a payment default. IfMany of our debt arrangements, including our unsecured notes, unsecured line of credit, and our revolving credit facility, are cross-defaulted, which means that the lenders under those debt arrangements can put us in default and require immediate repayment of their debt if we are not ablebreach and fail to refinance our indebtedness aftercure a default or unable to refinanceunder certain of our indebtednessother debt obligations. As a result, any default under our debt covenants could have an adverse effect on favorable terms, distributions to unit holders and our financial condition, would be adversely affected.our results of operations, our ability to meet our obligations, and the market value of our stock.

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

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

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

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

The Company entered into forward sale agreements in December 2009 with each of J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC. The forward sale agreements relate to the forward sale by the Company of a number of shares of common stock equal to the number of shares of common stock to be borrowed and sold by each forward seller. Depending on the price of our common stock at the time of settlement and the relevant settlement method, we may receive proceeds from the sale of common stock upon settlement of the forward sale agreements, which settlement must occur within approximately 15 months after December 2009. We intend to use any proceeds that we receive upon settlement of the forward sale agreements to repay or refinance maturing 2010 debt which may include a portion of our pro-rata share of the existing mortgage debt of Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II, LLC as the debt comes due beginning in 2010 and other general corporate purposes, which may include the payment of future maturing debt or the acquisition of additional properties.

Each forward purchaser has the right to accelerate its respective forward sale agreement and require us to physically settle its forward sale agreement on a date specified by such forward purchaser upon the occurrence of certain events. Each forward purchaser’s decision to exercise its right to require us to settle its forward sale agreement will be made irrespective of our interests, including our need for capital. In such cases, we could be required to issue and deliver our common stock under the terms of the physical settlement provisions of the relevant forward sale agreement irrespective of our capital needs, which would result in dilution to our earnings per share and unit and return on equity. In addition, upon certain events of bankruptcy, insolvency, or reorganization relating to

us, the forward sale agreements will terminate without further liability of either party. Following any such termination, we would not issue any shares and we would not receive any proceeds pursuant to the forward sale agreements.

The forward sale agreements provide for settlement on a settlement date or dates to be specified at our discretion within approximately 15 months from December 7, 2009. Each forward sale agreement will be physically settled, unless we elect to settle such forward sale agreement in cash. If we decide to physically settle a forward sale agreement, delivery of our shares on any physical settlement of such forward sale agreement will result in dilution to our earnings per share and unit and return on equity. If we elect cash settlement for all or a portion of the shares of our common stock included in a forward sale agreement, we would expect the relevant forward purchaser or one of its affiliates to repurchase a number of shares equal to the portion for which we elect cash settlement in order to cover its obligation to return the shares of our common stock it had borrowed in connection with sales of our common stock. If the market value of our common stock at the time of the repurchase is above the forward price, we would pay the relevant forward purchaser under such forward sale agreement an amount in cash equal to the difference. Thus, we would be responsible for a potentially substantial cash payment.

In addition, the purchase of our common stock by the forward purchasers or their respective affiliates, to unwind their hedge positions, could cause the price of our common stock to increase over time, thereby increasing the amount of cash we would owe to the forward purchasers upon a cash settlement of the forward sale agreements.

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

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

We depend on external financing, principally debt financing, to fund the growth of our business and to ensure that we can meet ongoing maturities of our outstanding debt. Our access to financing depends on our credit rating, the willingness of creditors to lend to us and conditions in the capital markets. The disruption in the capital markets that began in 2008 has continued into 2009, limiting access to financing for many companies. Without access to external financing, we would be required to pay outstanding debt with our operating cash flows and our operating cash flows may not be sufficient to pay our outstanding debt as it comes due. If we are required to deleverage our business with operating cash flows, we may be forced to reduce the amount of, or eliminate altogether, our distributions to stock and unit holders or refrain from making investments in our business.

We and our joint ventures have a significant amount of debt maturing in 2010, 2011, and 2012. During this time period, we have $624.7 million maturing and our joint ventures have $1.3 billion maturing (our pro-rata share is $333.8 million). In addition to finding creditors willing to lend to us, we are dependent upon our joint venture partners to contribute their share of any amount needed to repay or refinance existing debt when lenders reduce the amount of debt our joint ventures are refinancing.

Increased interest rates may reduce distributions to stock and unit holders.

We are obligated on floating rate debt, and ifof which we had $5.6 million as of December 31, 2009. If we do not eliminate our exposure to increases in interest rates through interest rate protection or cap agreements, these increases may reduce cash flow and our ability to make distributions to stock and unit holders.

Although swap agreements enable us to convert floating rate debt to fixed rate debt and cap agreements enable us to cap our maximum interest rate, they expose us to the risk that the counterparties to these hedge agreements may not perform, which could increase our exposure to rising interest rates. If we enter into swap agreements, decreases in interest rates will increase our interest expense as compared to the underlying floating rate debt. This could result in our making payments to unwind these agreements, such as in connection with a prepayment of theour floating rate debt.

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

The annual dividend rate on Regency’sour common stock as a percentage of its market price may influence the trading price of Regency’sour stock. An increase in market interest rates may lead purchasers to demand a higher annual dividend rate, which could adversely affect the market price of our stock. A decrease in the market price of our

common stock could reduce our ability to raise additional equity in the public markets. Selling common stock at a decreased market price would have a dilutive impact on existing Regency shareholders.stockholders.

The price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly.

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

actual or anticipated variations in our operating results or dividends;

changes in our funds from operations or earnings estimates;

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

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

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

changes in market valuations of similar companies;

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

any future issuances of equity securities;

additions or departures of key management personnel;

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

actions by institutional stockholders;

speculation in the press or investment community;

general market and economic conditions.

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

Risk Factors Related to Federal Income Tax Laws for Regency

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

We believe that we qualify for taxation as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, and we plan to operate so that we can continue to meet the requirements for taxation as a REIT. If we qualify as a REIT, we generally will not be subject to federal income tax on our income that we distribute currently to our stockholders. Many of the REIT requirements, however, are highly technical and complex. The determination that we are a REIT requires an analysis of various factual matters and circumstances, some of which may not be totally within our control and some of which involve questions of interpretation. For example, to qualify as a REIT, at least 95% of our gross income must come from specific passive sources, like rent, that are itemized in the REIT tax laws. There can be no

Index to Financial Statements

assurance that the IRSInternal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or a court would agree with the positions we have taken in interpreting the REIT requirements. We are also are required to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding capital gains. The fact that we hold many of our assets through co-investment partnerships and their subsidiaries further complicates the application of the REIT requirements. Even a technical or inadvertent mistake could jeopardize our REIT status. Furthermore, Congress and the Internal Revenue ServiceIRS might make changes to the tax laws and regulations, and the courts might issue new rulings, that make it more difficult, or impossible, for us to remain qualified as a REIT.

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

Even if we qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we are required to pay certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and property. For example, if we have net income from “prohibited transactions,” that income will be subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions include sales or other dispositions of property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. The determination as to whether a

particular sale is a prohibited transaction depends on the facts and circumstances related to that sale. While we have undertaken a significant number of asset sales in recent years, we do not believe that those sales should be considered prohibited transactions, but there can be no assurance that the IRS would not contend otherwise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regency’sOur articles of incorporation authorize Regency’sour Board of Directors to issue up to 30,000,000 shares of preferred stock and 10,000,000 shares of special common stock and to establish the preferences and rights of any shares issued. The issuance of preferred stock or special common stock could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control even if a change in control were in Regency’sour stockholders’ interest. The provisions of the Florida Business Corporation Act regarding control share acquisitions and affiliated transactions could also deter

Index to Financial Statements

potential acquisitions by preventing the acquiring party from voting the common stock it acquires or consummating a merger or other extraordinary corporate transaction without the approval of Regency’sour disinterested stockholders.

 

Item 1B.Unresolved Staff Comments

The Partnership hasRegency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. have received no written comments regarding its periodic or current reports from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission that were issued 180 days or more preceding December 31, 20082009 that remain unresolved.

Index to Financial Statements
Item 2.Properties

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

 

  December 31, 2008 December 31, 2007   December 31, 2009 December 31, 2008 

Location

  #
Properties
  GLA  % of Total
GLA
 %
Leased
 #
Properties
  GLA  % of Total
GLA
 %
Leased
   #
Properties
  GLA  % of Total
GLA
 %
Leased
 #
Properties
  GLA  % of Total
GLA
 %
Leased
 

California

  76  9,597,194  19.3% 91.9% 73  9,615,484  18.8% 89.9%  71  8,743,529  19.4 92.5 76  9,597,194  19.3 91.9

Florida

  60  6,050,697  12.2% 93.9% 60  6,137,127  12.0% 94.2%  56  5,432,000  12.1 91.3 60  6,050,697  12.2 93.9

Texas

  36  4,404,025  8.9% 90.5% 38  4,524,621  8.9% 90.7%  35  4,358,457  9.7 89.8 36  4,404,025  8.9 90.5

Virginia

  30  3,799,919  7.6% 95.6% 34  4,153,392  8.1% 93.8%  29  3,635,546  8.1 94.9 30  3,799,919  7.6 95.6

Illinois

  24  2,901,919  5.8% 90.0% 24  2,901,849  5.7% 94.5%  23  2,769,037  6.2 89.7 24  2,901,919  5.8 90.0

Missouri

  23  2,265,466  5.0 96.8 23  2,265,422  4.6 96.8

Ohio

  15  2,245,341  5.0 93.1 17  2,631,530  5.3 86.7

North Carolina

  15  2,073,487  4.6 89.7 15  2,107,442  4.2 91.9

Colorado

  20  2,070,251  4.6 90.4 22  2,285,926  4.6 91.4

Maryland

  16  1,873,908  4.2 92.8 16  1,873,759  3.8 94.0

Georgia

  30  2,648,555  5.3% 92.7% 30  2,628,658  5.1% 94.0%  19  1,661,612  3.7 92.0 30  2,648,555  5.3 92.7

Ohio

  17  2,631,530  5.3% 86.7% 16  2,270,932  4.4% 86.7%

Colorado

  22  2,285,926  4.6% 91.4% 22  2,424,813  4.8% 91.4%

Missouri

  23  2,265,422  4.6% 96.8% 23  2,265,472  4.4% 97.9%

North Carolina

  15  2,107,442  4.2% 91.9% 16  2,180,033  4.3% 92.7%

Maryland

  16  1,873,759  3.8% 94.0% 18  2,058,337  4.0% 95.0%

Pennsylvania

  12  1,441,791  2.9% 90.1% 14  1,596,969  3.1% 87.4%  12  1,414,123  3.1 92.4 12  1,441,791  2.9 90.1

Washington

  13  1,255,836  2.5% 97.0% 14  1,332,518  2.6% 98.5%  11  1,038,514  2.3 95.4 13  1,255,836  2.5 97.0

Oregon

  11  1,087,738  2.2% 97.1% 11  1,088,697  2.1% 96.9%  8  752,162  1.7 98.1 11  1,087,738  2.2 97.1

Tennessee

  8  574,114  1.2% 92.0% 8  576,614  1.1% 95.7%  7  565,386  1.3 91.8 8  574,114  1.2 92.0

Massachusetts

  3  561,186  1.1% 93.4% 3  561,176  1.1% 86.2%  3  564,386  1.2 95.2 3  561,186  1.1 93.4

Nevada

  3  528,368  1.1% 83.4% 3  774,736  1.5% 43.7%

Arizona

  4  496,073  1.0% 94.3% 4  496,073  1.0% 98.8%  4  496,073  1.1 89.4 4  496,073  1.0 94.3

Minnesota

  3  483,938  1.0% 92.9% 3  483,938  1.0% 96.2%  3  483,938  1.1 97.3 3  483,938  1.0 92.9

Delaware

  4  472,005  0.9% 95.2% 5  654,779  1.3% 89.7%  4  472,005  1.0 91.0 4  472,005  0.9 95.2

Nevada

  2  432,990  1.0 78.0 3  528,368  1.1 83.4

South Carolina

  8  451,494  0.9% 96.7% 9  547,735  1.1% 92.5%  6  360,718  0.8 95.2 8  451,494  0.9 96.7

Kentucky

  3  325,853  0.7% 90.2% 3  325,792  0.6% 88.1%

Alabama

  3  278,299  0.6% 78.3% 2  193,558  0.4% 83.5%

Indiana

  6  273,279  0.6% 76.4% 6  273,256  0.5% 81.9%  6  273,253  0.6 80.3 6  273,279  0.6 76.4

Wisconsin

  2  269,128  0.5% 97.7% 2  269,128  0.5% 97.7%  2  269,128  0.6 97.7 2  269,128  0.5 97.7

Alabama

  2  203,206  0.4 72.0 3  278,299  0.6 78.3

Connecticut

  1  179,860  0.4% 100.0% 1  179,860  0.4% 100.0%  1  179,860  0.4 100.0 1  179,860  0.4 100.0

New Jersey

  2  156,482  0.3% 96.2% 2  156,482  0.3% 95.2%  2  156,482  0.3 95.2 2  156,482  0.3 96.2

Michigan

  2  118,273  0.2% 84.9% 4  303,457  0.6% 89.6%  2  118,273  0.3 85.8 2  118,273  0.2 84.9

Dist. of Columbia

  2  39,647  0.1 100.0 2  39,647  0.1 100.0

Kentucky

  1  23,184  0.1 63.7 3  325,853  0.7 90.2

New Hampshire

  1  84,793  0.2% 80.4% 1  91,692  0.2% 74.8%  —    —    —     —     1  84,793  0.2 80.4

Dist. of Columbia

  2  39,647  0.1% 100.0% 2  39,646  0.1% 79.4%
                                                  

Total

  440  49,644,545  100.0% 92.3% 451  51,106,824  100.0% 91.7%  400  44,971,962  100.0 92.1 440  49,644,545  100.0 92.3
                                                  

The Combined Properties include the consolidated and unconsolidated properties which are encumbered by notes payable of $240.3 million and mortgage loans of $2.7$404.4 million and $2.5 billion, respectively.

Index to Financial Statements
Item 2.Properties (continued)

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

 

  December 31, 2008 December 31, 2007   December 31, 2009 December 31, 2008 

Location

  #
Properties
  GLA  % of Total
GLA
 %
Leased
 #
Properties
  GLA  % of Total
GLA
 %
Leased
   #
Properties
  GLA  % of Total
GLA
 %
Leased
 #
Properties
  GLA  % of Total
GLA
 %
Leased
 

California

  46  5,668,350  23.5% 89.7% 44  5,656,656  22.0% 86.8%  44  5,340,854  23.3 93.1 46  5,668,350  23.5 89.7

Florida

  41  4,198,414  17.4% 94.4% 42  4,376,530  17.0% 94.4%  44  4,421,788  19.2 91.2 41  4,198,414  17.4 94.4

Texas

  28  3,371,380  13.9% 89.9% 29  3,404,741  13.2% 88.7%  24  2,978,018  13.0 88.8 28  3,371,380  13.9 89.9

Ohio

  14  1,985,392  8.2% 85.3% 14  2,015,751  7.8% 85.5%  13  1,708,268  7.4 93.6 14  1,985,392  8.2 85.3

Georgia

  16  1,409,622  5.8% 92.0% 16  1,409,725  5.5% 92.9%  16  1,418,261  6.2 91.4 16  1,409,622  5.8 92.0

Colorado

  14  1,130,771  4.7% 86.2% 14  1,277,505  5.0% 88.3%  14  1,123,006  4.9 87.1 14  1,130,771  4.7 86.2

North Carolina

  9  873,943  3.8 92.3 9  951,177  3.9 94.6

Virginia

  7  958,825  4.0% 90.8% 10  1,315,651  5.1% 89.0%  7  864,116  3.8 93.2 7  958,825  4.0 90.8

North Carolina

  9  951,177  3.9% 94.6% 10  1,023,768  4.0% 93.5%

Oregon

  8  733,068  3.0% 98.4% 8  734,027  2.8% 97.4%  7  659,061  2.9 98.0 8  733,068  3.0 98.4

Tennessee

  6  479,321  2.1 91.3 7  488,049  2.0 91.2

Washington

  7  538,155  2.2% 95.9% 8  614,837  2.4% 98.6%  6  461,073  2.0 93.5 7  538,155  2.2 95.9

Tennessee

  7  488,049  2.0% 91.2% 7  490,549  1.9% 95.1%

Nevada

  2  429,304  1.8% 81.1% 2  675,672  2.6% 35.6%  2  432,990  1.9 78.0 2  429,304  1.8 81.1

Illinois

  3  414,996  1.7% 84.7% 3  414,996  1.6% 92.2%  3  414,168  1.8 85.2 3  414,996  1.7 84.7

Arizona

  3  388,440  1.6% 93.0% 3  388,440  1.5% 99.0%  3  388,440  1.7 90.4 3  388,440  1.6 93.0

Massachusetts

  2  375,907  1.6% 90.5% 2  375,897  1.5% 79.4%  2  379,107  1.6 92.9 2  375,907  1.6 90.5

Pennsylvania

  4  347,430  1.4% 77.6% 5  534,741  2.1% 72.9%  4  320,279  1.4 88.7 4  347,430  1.4 77.6

Delaware

  2  240,418  1.0% 99.2% 2  240,418  0.9% 99.6%  2  240,418  1.0 93.3 2  240,418  1.0 99.2

Michigan

  2  118,273  0.5% 84.9% 4  303,457  1.2% 89.6%  2  118,273  0.5 85.8 2  118,273  0.5 84.9

Maryland

  1  106,915  0.4% 77.8% 1  129,340  0.5% 77.3%  1  107,063  0.5 75.4 1  106,915  0.4 77.8

New Hampshire

  1  84,793  0.4% 80.4% 1  91,692  0.4% 74.8%

Alabama

  1  84,741  0.4% 68.7% —    —    —    —     1  84,740  0.4 76.2 1  84,741  0.4 68.7

South Carolina

  2  74,422  0.3% 90.6% 3  170,663  0.7% 79.1%  2  74,421  0.3 90.6 2  74,422  0.3 90.6

Indiana

  3  54,510  0.2% 34.1% 3  54,487  0.2% 44.5%  3  54,484  0.2 44.7 3  54,510  0.2 34.1

Kentucky

  1  23,184  0.1% 33.6% 1  23,122  0.1% —     1  23,184  0.1 63.7 1  23,184  0.1 33.6

New Hampshire

  —    —    —     —     1  84,793  0.4 80.4
                                                  

Total

  224  24,176,536  100.0% 90.2% 232  25,722,665  100.0% 88.1%  216  22,965,276  100.0 91.0 224  24,176,536  100.0 90.2
                                                  

The Consolidated Properties are encumbered by notes payablemortgage loans of $240.3$404.4 million.

Index to Financial Statements
Item 2.Properties (continued)

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

 

  December 31, 2008 December 31, 2007   December 31, 2009 December 31, 2008 

Location

  #
Properties
  GLA  % of Total
GLA
 %
Leased
 #
Properties
  GLA  % of Total
GLA
 %
Leased
   #
Properties
  GLA  % of Total
GLA
 %
Leased
 #
Properties
  GLA  % of Total
GLA
 %
Leased
 

California

  30  3,928,844  15.4% 94.9% 29  3,958,828  15.6% 94.4%  27  3,402,675  15.5 91.6 30  3,928,844  15.4 94.9

Virginia

  23  2,841,094  11.2% 97.2% 24  2,837,741  11.2% 96.0%  22  2,771,430  12.6 95.4 23  2,841,094  11.2 97.2

Illinois

  21  2,486,923  9.8% 90.9% 21  2,486,853  9.8% 94.9%  20  2,354,869  10.7 90.5 21  2,486,923  9.8 90.9

Missouri

  23  2,265,422  8.9% 96.8% 23  2,265,472  8.9% 97.9%  23  2,265,466  10.3 96.8 23  2,265,422  8.9 96.8

Maryland

  15  1,766,845  8.0 93.8 15  1,766,844  6.9 95.0

Texas

  11  1,380,439  6.3 92.1 8  1,032,645  4.0 92.6

North Carolina

  6  1,199,544  5.5 87.8 6  1,156,265  4.5 89.7

Pennsylvania

  8  1,093,844  5.0 93.5 8  1,094,361  4.3 94.1

Florida

  19  1,852,283  7.3% 92.6% 18  1,760,597  6.9% 93.6%  12  1,010,212  4.6 92.0 19  1,852,283  7.3 92.6

Maryland

  15  1,766,844  6.9% 95.0% 17  1,928,997  7.6% 96.2%

Georgia

  14  1,238,933  4.9% 93.6% 14  1,218,933  4.8% 95.3%

North Carolina

  6  1,156,265  4.5% 89.7% 6  1,156,265  4.6% 92.0%

Colorado

  8  1,155,155  4.5% 96.4% 8  1,147,308  4.5% 94.8%  6  947,245  4.3 94.4 8  1,155,155  4.5 96.4

Pennsylvania

  8  1,094,361  4.3% 94.1% 9  1,062,228  4.2% 94.7%

Texas

  8  1,032,645  4.0% 92.6% 9  1,119,880  4.4% 96.6%

Washington

  6  717,681  2.8% 97.8% 6  717,681  2.8% 98.4%  5  577,441  2.6 96.9 6  717,681  2.8 97.8

Ohio

  3  646,138  2.5% 91.0% 2  255,181  1.0% 96.5%  2  537,073  2.4 91.6 3  646,138  2.5 91.0

Minnesota

  3  483,938  1.9% 92.9% 3  483,938  1.9% 96.2%  3  483,938  2.2 97.3 3  483,938  1.9 92.9

South Carolina

  6  377,072  1.5% 98.0% 6  377,072  1.5% 98.5%  4  286,297  1.3 96.4 6  377,072  1.5 98.0

Oregon

  3  354,670  1.4% 94.3% 3  354,670  1.4% 96.0%

Kentucky

  2  302,669  1.2% 94.6% 2  302,670  1.2% 94.8%

Wisconsin

  2  269,128  1.1% 97.7% 2  269,128  1.1% 97.7%  2  269,128  1.2 97.7 2  269,128  1.1 97.7

Georgia

  3  243,351  1.1 95.6 14  1,238,933  4.9 93.6

Delaware

  2  231,587  0.9% 91.1% 3  414,361  1.6% 83.9%  2  231,587  1.1 88.5 2  231,587  0.9 91.1

Indiana

  3  218,769  0.9% 87.0% 3  218,769  0.9% 91.2%  3  218,769  1.0 89.1 3  218,769  0.9 87.0

Alabama

  2  193,558  0.8% 82.5% 2  193,558  0.8% 83.5%

Massachusetts

  1  185,279  0.7% 99.4% 1  185,279  0.7% 100.0%  1  185,279  0.8 100.0 1  185,279  0.7 99.4

Connecticut

  1  179,860  0.7% 100.0% 1  179,860  0.7% 100.0%  1  179,860  0.8 100.0 1  179,860  0.7 100.0

New Jersey

  2  156,482  0.6% 96.2% 2  156,482  0.6% 95.2%  2  156,482  0.7 95.2 2  156,482  0.6 96.2

Alabama

  1  118,466  0.5 69.1 2  193,558  0.8 82.5

Arizona

  1  107,633  0.4% 98.9% 1  107,633  0.4% 98.1%  1  107,633  0.5 85.8 1  107,633  0.4 98.9

Nevada

  1  99,064  0.4% 93.0% 1  99,064  0.4% 98.9%

Oregon

  1  93,101  0.4 98.1 3  354,670  1.4 94.3

Tennessee

  1  86,065  0.3% 96.2% 1  86,065  0.3% 98.8%  1  86,065  0.4 94.8 1  86,065  0.3 96.2

Dist. of Columbia

  2  39,647  0.2% 100.0% 2  39,646  0.2% 79.4%  2  39,647  0.2 100.0 2  39,647  0.2 100.0

Nevada

  —    —    —     —     1  99,064  0.4 93.0

Kentucky

  —    —    —     —     2  302,669  1.2 94.6
                                                  

Total

  216  25,468,009  100.0% 94.3% 219  25,384,159  100.0% 95.2%  184  22,006,686  100.0 93.2 216  25,468,009  100.0 94.3
                                                  

The Unconsolidated Properties are encumbered by mortgage loans of $2.7$2.5 billion.

Index to Financial Statements
Item 2.Properties (continued)

The following table summarizes the largest tenants occupying our shopping centers for Consolidated Properties plus RCLP’sRegency’s pro-rata share of Unconsolidated Properties as of December 31, 20082009 based upon a percentage of total annualized base rent exceeding or equal to .5%.

 

Tenant

  GLA  Percent to
Partnership
Owned GLA
 Rent  Percentage of
Annualized
Base Rent
 Number of
Leased
Stores
  Anchor
Owned
Stores (a)
  GLA  Percent to
Company
Owned GLA
 Rent  Percentage of
Annualized
Base Rent
 Number of
Leased
Stores
  Anchor
Owned
Stores (a)

Kroger

  2,626,656  9.0% $24,585,984  5.71% 57  9  2,209,184  8.0 $20,462,378  4.8 46  9

Publix

  1,982,774  6.8%  17,905,956  4.16% 66  1  1,902,503  6.9  17,615,932  4.2 54  1

Safeway

  1,669,257  5.7%  16,182,878  3.76% 58  6  1,601,669  5.8  15,488,636  3.7 55  6

Supervalu

  937,795  3.2%  10,510,610  2.44% 33  3  882,406  3.2  10,337,559  2.4 28  3

CVS

  466,451  1.6%  6,966,021  1.62% 52  —    449,045  1.6  6,923,620  1.6 50  —  

Blockbuster Video

  295,762  1.0%  6,296,522  1.46% 80  —    268,623  1.0  5,708,551  1.4 71  —  

TJX Companies

  433,886  1.5%  4,449,824  1.03% 27  —    406,252  1.5  4,149,162  1.0 23  —  

Whole Foods

  139,796  0.5  3,952,760  0.9 5  —  

Ross Dress For Less

  241,538  0.9  3,782,603  0.9 16  —  

Sports Authority

  181,523  0.7  3,458,514  0.8 5  —  

Starbucks

  98,478  0.4  3,302,076  0.8 88  —  

Sears Holdings

  435,250  1.6  3,297,617  0.8 14  1

PETCO

  189,538  0.7  3,273,941  0.8 23  —  

Wells Fargo Bank

  71,798  0.2%  3,606,331  0.84% 51  —    61,579  0.2  3,178,196  0.8 49  —  

Starbucks

  103,040  0.4%  3,436,229  0.80% 97  —  

JPMorgan Chase Bank

  94,583  0.3%  3,323,739  0.77% 36  —  

Sears Holdings

  435,225  1.5%  3,270,528  0.76% 14  2

Walgreens

  207,823  0.7%  3,149,986  0.73% 20  —    176,165  0.6  2,971,809  0.7 17  —  

PETCO

  165,339  0.6%  2,970,225  0.69% 22  —  

Rite Aid

  221,440  0.8%  2,966,555  0.69% 32  —    198,992  0.7  2,924,740  0.7 25  —  

H.E.B.

  210,413  0.8  2,771,745  0.7 4  —  

Schnucks

  309,522  1.1%  2,695,784  0.63% 31  —    308,578  1.1  2,687,565  0.6 31  —  

Bank of America

  70,644  0.2%  2,680,761  0.62% 31  —    68,847  0.2  2,611,264  0.6 32  —  

Subway

  90,705  0.3  2,571,552  0.6 111  —  

The UPS Store

  95,313  0.3  2,442,339  0.6 98  —  

Target

  268,922  1.0  2,392,748  0.6 4  20

Hallmark

  156,512  0.5%  2,676,729  0.62% 59  —    135,374  0.5  2,366,096  0.6 51  —  

Subway

  89,453  0.3%  2,539,466  0.59% 115  —  

H.E.B.

  210,413  0.7%  2,499,163  0.58% 4  —  

Ross Dress For Less

  174,379  0.6%  2,346,730  0.54% 16  —  

The UPS Store

  94,034  0.3%  2,336,115  0.54% 110  —  

Ahold

  135,773  0.5  2,348,193  0.6 10  —  

Harris Teeter

  182,108  0.6%  2,315,621  0.54% 7  —    182,108  0.7  2,315,621  0.5 7  —  

Best Buy

  113,280  0.4%  2,310,476  0.54% 7  —  

Michael’s

  190,501  0.7  2,284,210  0.5 12  —  

JPMorgan Chase Bank

  59,161  0.2  2,277,678  0.5 23  —  

Home Depot

  135,604  0.5  2,250,231  0.5 4  —  

PetSmart

  140,491  0.5  2,159,950  0.5 9  —  

Stater Bros.

  151,151  0.5%  2,300,289  0.53% 5  —    139,961  0.5  2,122,914  0.5 4  —  

PetSmart

  149,326  0.5%  2,276,767  0.53% 11  —  

Whole Foods

  109,613  0.4%  2,250,494  0.52% 5  —  

Staples

  147,312  0.5%  2,224,514  0.52% 12  —    147,382  0.5  2,116,261  0.5 12  —  

Sports Authority

  129,427  0.4%  2,211,673  0.51% 4  —  

Michael’s

  194,815  0.7%  2,188,080  0.51% 13  —  

Target

  268,864  0.9%  2,186,323  0.51% 3  22

Ahold

  191,645  0.7%  2,161,122  0.50% 10  —  

 

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

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

Index to Financial Statements
Item 2.Properties (continued)

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

 

Lease

Expiration

Year

  Expiring
GLA (2)
  Percent of
Total
Partnership
GLA (2)
 Minimum
Rent
Expiring
Leases (3)
  Percent of
Minimum
Rent (3)
   Expiring
GLA (2)
  Percent of
Total
Company
GLA (2)
 Minimum
Rent
Expiring
Leases (3)
  Percent of
Minimum
Rent (3)
 

(1)

  321,286  1.2% $5,883,035  1.4%  332,341  1.3 $6,597,904  1.6

2009

  1,925,845  7.4%  37,125,786  8.6%

2010

  2,431,621  9.4%  45,949,295  10.7%  2,403,843  9.6  46,441,879  11.0

2011

  2,954,151  11.4%  52,293,040  12.1%  2,865,300  11.5  50,980,187  12.1

2012

  3,227,004  12.5%  58,804,328  13.7%  3,305,426  13.2  61,187,816  14.5

2013

  2,537,624  9.8%  49,051,657  11.4%  2,435,983  9.7  46,169,653  10.9

2014

  1,256,946  4.9%  20,669,720  4.8%  2,254,932  9.0  42,849,004  10.1

2015

  750,931  2.9%  12,577,954  2.9%  756,837  3.0  12,883,157  3.0

2016

  739,725  2.9%  12,526,878  2.9%  700,283  2.8  12,135,224  2.9

2017

  1,242,402  4.8%  21,744,597  5.0%  1,215,920  4.9  21,081,969  5.0

2018

  1,340,798  5.2%  21,291,183  4.9%  1,251,759  5.0  19,545,813  4.6

2019

  1,127,900  4.5  16,444,918  3.9

Thereafter

  7,131,604  27.6%  92,852,925  21.6%  6,350,888  25.5  86,676,290  20.4
                          

Total

  25,859,937  100.0% $430,770,398  100.0%  25,001,412  100.0 $422,993,814  100.0
                          

 

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

(2)represents GLA for Consolidated Properties plus RCLP’sRegency’s pro-rata share of Unconsolidated Properties

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

 

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
 Year
Con-
structed (1)
 Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
 Percent
Leased (2)
 

Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf

 

Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft

  Year
Acquired
  Year
Constructed
(1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased
(2)
 

Grocer & Major

Tenant(s) >40,000sf

  

Drug Store & Other Anchors >

10,000 Sq Ft

CALIFORNIA                 

Los Angeles/ Southern CA

                 
4S Commons Town Center 2004 2004 240,060 98.5% Ralphs, Jimbo’s...Naturally! Bed Bath & Beyond, Cost Plus World Market, CVS, Griffin Ace Hardware  2004  2004  240,060  96.6 Ralphs, Jimbo’s...Naturally!  Bed Bath & Beyond, Cost Plus World Market, CVS, Griffin Ace Hardware
Amerige Heights Town Center (4) 2000 2000 96,680 100.0% Albertsons, (Target) 
Bear Creek Village Center (4) 2003 2004 75,220 96.3% Stater Bros. 

Amerige Heights Town Center

  2000  2000  96,680  98.0 Albertsons, (Target)  
Brea Marketplace (4) 2005 1987 193,172 93.1% Sprout’s Markets, Toys “R” Us 24 Hour Fitness, Circuit City, Big 5 Sporting Goods, Beverages & More!, Childtime Childcare  2005  1987  193,235  84.2 Sprout’s Markets  24 Hour Fitness, Big 5 Sporting Goods, Beverages & More!, Childtime Childcare
Campus Marketplace (4) 2000 2000 144,289 98.1% Ralphs Longs Drug, Discovery Isle Child Development Center
Costa Verde Center 1999 1988 178,623 94.6% Bristol Farms Bookstar, The Boxing Club, Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy  1999  1988  178,623  92.2 Bristol Farms  Bookstar, The Boxing Club, Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy
El Camino Shopping Center 1999 1995 135,728 100.0% Von’s Food & Drug Sav-On Drugs  1999  1995  135,728  100.0 Von’s Food & Drug  Sav-On Drugs
El Norte Pkwy Plaza 1999 1984 90,679 95.5% Von’s Food & Drug Longs Drug  1999  1984  90,549  95.9 Von’s Food & Drug  Longs Drug

Falcon Ridge Town Center Phase I (4)

 2003 2004 232,754 87.3% Stater Bros., (Target) Sports Authority, Ross Dress for Less, Party City, Michaels, Pier 1 Imports  2003  2004  232,754  85.2 Stater Bros., (Target)  Sports Authority, Ross Dress for Less, Party City, Michaels, Pier 1 Imports

Falcon Ridge Town Center Phase II (4)

 2005 2005 66,864 100.0% 24 Hour Fitness CVS  2005  2005  66,864  100.0 24 Hour Fitness  CVS
Five Points Shopping Center (4) 2005 1960 144,553 100.0% Albertsons Longs Drug, Ross Dress for Less, Big 5 Sporting Goods  2005  1960  144,553  100.0 Albertsons  Longs Drug, Ross Dress for Less, Big 5 Sporting Goods
French Valley Village Center 2004 2004 98,919 90.7% Stater Bros. Sav-On Drugs  2004  2004  98,752  92.7 Stater Bros.  CVS
Friars Mission Center 1999 1989 146,898 100.0% Ralphs Longs Drug  1999  1989  146,898  98.6 Ralphs  Longs Drug
Garden Village (4) 2000 2000 112,767 98.4% Albertsons Rite Aid

Gelson’s Westlake Market Plaza

 2002 2002 84,975 96.9% Gelson’s Markets   2002  2002  84,975  90.8 Gelson’s Markets  
Golden Hills Promenade (3) 2006 2006 288,252 69.7% Lowe’s Bed Bath & Beyond  2006  2006  216,846  92.7 Lowe’s  Bed Bath & Beyond
Granada Village (4) 2005 1965 224,649 72.3%  Rite Aid, TJ Maxx, Stein Mart  2005  1965  224,649  68.9   Rite Aid, TJ Maxx, Stein Mart
Hasley Canyon Village 2003 2003 65,801 97.5% Ralphs 

Hasley Canyon Village (4)

  2003  2003  65,801  95.7 Ralphs  
Heritage Plaza 1999 1981 231,582 99.4% Ralphs CVS, Hands On Bicycles, Total Woman, Ace Hardware  1999  1981  231,582  99.7 Ralphs  CVS, Hands On Bicycles, Total Woman, Ace Hardware
Highland Crossing (3) 2007 2007 39,920 0.0% LA Fitness 
Indio-Jackson (3) 2006 2006 230,382 49.5% (Home Depot), (WinCo) CVS, 24 Hour Fitness, PETCO, Staples

Highland Crossing

  2007  2007  45,000  100.0 LA Fitness  

Indio Towne Center (3)

  2006  2006  142,790  53.4 (Home Depot), (WinCo)  CVS, 24 Hour Fitness, PETCO
Jefferson Square (3) 2007 2007 38,013 74.7% Fresh & Easy CVS  2007  2007  38,013  74.7 Fresh & Easy  CVS
Laguna Niguel Plaza (4) 2005 1985 41,943 97.9% (Albertsons) CVS  2005  1985  41,943  96.1 (Albertsons)  CVS
Marina Shores (4) 2008 2001 67,727 93.4%  PETCO  2008  2001  67,727  89.5   PETCO
Morningside Plaza 1999 1996 91,211 95.1% Stater Bros.   1999  1996  91,212  93.1 Stater Bros.  
Murrieta Marketplace (3) 2008 2008 233,194 77.8% (Target), Lowe’s Staples
Navajo Shopping Center (4) 2005 1964 102,138 98.4% Albertsons Rite Aid, Kragen Auto Parts  2005  1964  102,138  97.7 Albertsons  Rite Aid, Kragen Auto Parts
Newland Center 1999 1985 149,140 100.0% Albertsons   1999  1985  149,140  100.0 Albertsons  
Oakbrook Plaza 1999 1982 83,279 96.4% Albertsons (Longs Drug)  1999  1982  83,279  97.2 Albertsons  (Longs Drug)
Park Plaza Shopping Center (4) 2001 1991 194,396 95.6% Henry’s Marketplace CVS, PETCO, Ross Dress For Less, Office Depot, Tuesday Morning  2001  1991  194,396  93.6 Henry’s Marketplace  CVS, PETCO, Ross Dress For Less, Office Depot, Tuesday Morning
Plaza Hermosa 1999 1984 94,940 100.0% Von’s Food & Drug Sav-On Drugs  1999  1984  94,940  100.0 Von’s Food & Drug  Sav-On Drugs
Point Loma Plaza (4) 2005 1987 212,774 96.2% Von’s Food & Drug Sport Chalet 5, 24 Hour Fitness, Jo-Ann Fabrics  2005  1987  212,415  96.3 Von’s Food & Drug  Sport Chalet 5, 24 Hour Fitness, Jo-Ann Fabrics
Rancho San Diego Village (4) 2005 1981 153,255 97.9% Von’s Food & Drug (Longs Drug), 24 Hour Fitness  2005  1981  153,256  94.1 Von’s Food & Drug  (Longs Drug), 24 Hour Fitness
Rio Vista Town Center (3) 2005 2005 79,519 64.4% Stater Bros. (CVS)  2005  2005  79,519  64.4 Stater Bros.  (CVS)
Rona Plaza 1999 1989 51,760 100.0% Superior Super Warehouse —    1999  1989  51,760  100.0 Superior Super Warehouse  
Santa Ana Downtown Plaza 1999 1987 100,306 96.6% Food 4 Less Famsa, Inc.  1999  1987  100,306  90.7 Food 4 Less  Famsa, Inc.
Seal Beach (4) 2002 1966 96,858 89.1% Von’s Food & Drug CVS  2002  1966  96,858  91.7 Von’s Food & Drug  CVS
Shops of Santa Barbara 2003 2004 46,118 84.0%  Circuit City

Shops of Santa Barbara Phase II (3)

 2004 2004 51,848 57.3% Whole Foods —  

Slauson & Central (3)

 2008 2008 77,300 58.2% Northgate Market —  

Paseo Del Sol (3)

  2004  2004  54,778  64.5 Whole Foods  

Twin Oaks Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1978 98,399 100.0% Ralphs Rite Aid  2005  1978  98,399  100.0 Ralphs  Rite Aid

Twin Peaks

 1999 1988 198,140 97.6% Albertsons, Target —    1999  1988  198,139  95.5 Albertsons, Target  

Valencia Crossroads

 2002 2003 172,856 100.0% Whole Foods, Kohl’s —    2002  2003  172,856  94.1 Whole Foods, Kohl’s  

Ventura Village

 1999 1984 76,070 97.3% Von’s Food & Drug —    1999  1984  76,070  95.2 Von’s Food & Drug  

Vine at Castaic (3)

 2005 2005 30,236 74.3%  —    2005  2005  30,236  62.6   

Vista Village Phase I (4)

 2002 2003 129,009 99.4% Krikorian Theaters, (Lowe’s) —    2002  2003  129,009  91.8 Krikorian Theaters, (Lowe’s)  

Vista Village Phase II (4)

 2002 2003 55,000 45.5% Sprout’s Markets —    2002  2003  55,000  45.5 Sprout’s Markets  

Vista Village IV

 2006 2006 11,000 100.0%  —    2006  2006  11,000  100.0   

Westlake Village Plaza and Center

 1999 1975 190,519 99.0% Von’s Food & Drug (CVS), Longs Drug, Total Woman  1999  1975  190,529  98.1 Von’s Food & Drug  (CVS), Longs Drug, Total Woman

Westridge Village

 2001 2003 92,287 98.2% Albertsons Beverages & More!  2001  2003  92,287  100.0 Albertsons  Beverages & More!

Woodman Van Nuys

 1999 1992 107,614 98.6% El Super —    1999  1992  107,614  100.0 El Super  

San Francisco/ Northern CA

                 

Applegate Ranch Shopping Center (3)

 2006 2006 158,825 55.8% (Super Target), (Home Depot) Marshalls, PETCO, Big 5 Sporting Goods  2006  2006  144,444  66.2 (Super Target), (Home Depot)  Marshalls, PETCO, Big 5 Sporting Goods

Auburn Village (4)

 2005 1990 133,944 100.0% Bel Air Market Dollar Tree, Goodwill Industries, (Longs Drug)  2005  1990  133,944  96.3 Bel Air Market  Dollar Tree, Goodwill Industries, (Longs Drug)

Bayhill Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1990 121,846 100.0% Mollie Stone’s Market Longs Drug  2005  1990  121,846  100.0 Mollie Stone’s Market  Longs Drug
      

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
 Year
Con-
structed (1)
 Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
 Percent
Leased (2)
 

Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf

 

Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft

  Year
Acquired
  Year
Constructed
(1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased
(2)
 

Grocer & Major

Tenant(s) >40,000sf

  

Drug Store & Other Anchors >

10,000 Sq Ft

CALIFORNIA (continued)                 
Blossom Valley 1999 1990 93,316 100.0% Safeway Longs Drug

Blossom Valley (4)

  1999  1990  93,316  93.8 Safeway  Longs Drug
Clayton Valley Shopping Center 2003 2004 259,701 93.9% Fresh & Easy, Yardbirds Home Center Longs Drugs, Dollar Tree, Ross Dress For Less  2003  2004  260,671  96.8 Fresh & Easy, Home Depot  Longs Drugs, Dollar Tree, Ross Dress For Less
Clovis Commons 2004 2004 174,990 93.1% (Super Target) Petsmart, TJ Maxx, Office Depot, Best Buy  2004  2004  174,990  98.4 (Super Target)  Petsmart, TJ Maxx, Office Depot, Best Buy
Corral Hollow (4) 2000 2000 167,184 100.0% Safeway, Orchard Supply & Hardware Longs Drug  2000  2000  167,184  98.7 Safeway, Orchard Supply & Hardware  Longs Drug
Diablo Plaza 1999 1982 63,265 100.0% (Safeway) (Longs Drug), Jo-Ann Fabrics  1999  1982  63,265  96.7 (Safeway)  (Longs Drug), Jo-Ann Fabrics
El Cerrito Plaza (4) 2000 2000 256,035 96.2% (Lucky’s) (Longs Drug), Bed Bath & Beyond, Barnes & Noble, Jo-Ann Fabrics, PETCO, Ross Dress For Less

El Cerrito Plaza

  2000  2000  256,035  98.0 (Lucky’s)  (Longs Drug), Bed Bath & Beyond, Barnes & Noble, Jo-Ann Fabrics, PETCO, Ross Dress For Less
Encina Grande 1999 1965 102,413 99.0% Safeway Walgreens  1999  1965  102,413  95.8 Safeway  Walgreens
Folsom Prairie City Crossing 1999 1999 90,237 98.9% Safeway —    1999  1999  90,237  95.7 Safeway  
Gateway 101 (3) 2008 2008 91,907 100.0% (Home Depot), (Best Buy), Sports Authority, Nordstrom Rack —  

Gateway 101

  2008  2008  92,110  100.0 (Home Depot), (Best Buy), Sports Authority, Nordstrom Rack  
Loehmanns Plaza California 1999 1983 113,310 98.0% (Safeway) Longs Drug, Loehmann’s  1999  1983  113,310  99.1 (Safeway)  Longs Drug, Loehmann’s
Mariposa Shopping Center (4) 2005 1957 126,658 100.0% Safeway Longs Drug, Ross Dress for Less  2005  1957  126,658  100.0 Safeway  Longs Drug, Ross Dress for Less
Pleasant Hill Shopping Center (4) 2005 1970 234,061 99.2% Target, Toys “R” Us Barnes & Noble, Marshalls  2005  1970  234,061  83.6 Target, Toys “R” Us  Barnes & Noble
Powell Street Plaza 2001 1987 165,928 92.4% Trader Joe’s Circuit City, Beverages & More!, Ross Dress For Less, Shane Company  2001  1987  165,928  83.6 Trader Joe’s  PETCO, Beverages & More!, Ross Dress For Less, DB Shoe Company
Raley’s Supermarket (4) 2007 1964 62,827 100.0% Raley’s —    2007  1964  62,827  100.0 Raley’s  
San Leandro Plaza 1999 1982 50,432 100.0% (Safeway) (Longs Drug)  1999  1982  50,432  100.0 (Safeway)  (Longs Drug)
Sequoia Station 1999 1996 103,148 100.0% (Safeway) Longs Drug, Barnes & Noble, Old Navy, Wherehouse Music  1999  1996  103,148  86.3 (Safeway)  Longs Drug, Barnes & Noble, Old Navy
Silverado Plaza (4) 2005 1974 84,916 99.6% Nob Hill Longs Drug  2005  1974  84,916  100.0 Nob Hill  Longs Drug
Snell & Branham Plaza (4) 2005 1988 99,350 98.3% Safeway —    2005  1988  99,350  98.3 Safeway  
Stanford Ranch Village (4) 2005 1991 89,875 95.1% Bel Air Market —    2005  1991  89,875  95.1 Bel Air Market  
Strawflower Village 1999 1985 78,827 97.6% Safeway (Longs Drug)  1999  1985  78,827  94.4 Safeway  (Longs Drug)
Tassajara Crossing 1999 1990 146,188 96.7% Safeway Longs Drug, Ace Hardware  1999  1990  146,188  96.7 Safeway  Longs Drug, Ace Hardware
West Park Plaza 1999 1996 88,103 98.0% Safeway Rite Aid  1999  1996  88,104  98.0 Safeway  Rite Aid
Woodside Central 1999 1993 80,591 100.0% (Target) Chuck E. Cheese, Marshalls  1999  1993  80,591  100.0 (Target)  Chuck E. Cheese, Marshalls
Ygnacio Plaza (4) 2005 1968 109,701 100.0%  Sports Basement, Rite Aid  2005  1968  109,701  99.0 Fresh & Easy  Sports Basement
                       

Subtotal/Weighted Average (CA)

   9,597,194 91.9%        8,743,529  92.5   
                       
FLORIDA                 
Ft. Myers / Cape Coral                 
Corkscrew Village 2007 1997 82,011 93.6% Publix —    2007  1997  82,011  91.9 Publix  
First Street Village (3) 2006 2006 54,926 91.8% Publix —    2006  2006  54,926  89.4 Publix  
Grande Oak 2000 2000 78,784 100.0% Publix —    2000  2000  78,784  100.0 Publix  
Jacksonville / North Florida                 
Anastasia Plaza (4) 1993 1988 102,342 90.6% Publix —  

Anastasia Plaza

  1993  1988  102,342  95.0 Publix  
Canopy Oak Center (3)(4) 2006 2006 90,043 79.4% Publix —    2006  2006  90,041  77.8 Publix  
Carriage Gate 1994 1978 76,784 94.3%  Leon County Tax Collector, TJ Maxx  1994  1978  76,784  91.4   Leon County Tax Collector, TJ Maxx
Courtyard Shopping Center 1993 1987 137,256 100.0% (Publix), Target —    1993  1987  137,256  100.0 (Publix), Target  
Fleming Island 1998 2000 136,662 91.8% Publix, (Target) Stein Mart  1998  2000  136,663  63.9 Publix, (Target)  
Hibernia Pavilion (3) 2006 2006 51,298 92.5% Publix —    2006  2006  51,298  92.5 Publix  
Hibernia Plaza (3) 2006 2006 8,400 33.3%  —    2006  2006  8,400  33.3   (Walgreens)
Horton’s Corner 2007 2007 14,820 100.0%  Walgreens  2007  2007  14,820  100.0   Walgreens
John’s Creek Center (4) 2003 2004 75,101 98.1% Publix —    2003  2004  75,101  100.0 Publix  
Julington Village (4) 1999 1999 81,820 100.0% Publix (CVS)  1999  1999  81,820  100.0 Publix  (CVS)
Millhopper Shopping Center 1993 1974 84,065 100.0% Publix CVS, Jo-Ann Fabrics  1993  1974  84,065  100.0 Publix  CVS, Jo-Ann Fabrics
Newberry Square 1994 1986 180,524 97.8% Publix, K-Mart Jo-Ann Fabrics  1994  1986  180,524  95.6 Publix, K-Mart  Jo-Ann Fabrics
Nocatee Town Center (3) 2007 2007 69,806 77.8% Publix —    2007  2007  69,679  86.0 Publix  
Oakleaf Commons (3) 2006 2006 73,719 79.1% Publix (Walgreens)  2006  2006  73,717  79.1 Publix  (Walgreens)
Ocala Corners (4) 2000 2000 86,772 100.0% Publix —  
Old St Augustine Plaza 1996 1990 232,459 98.3% Publix, Burlington Coat Factory, Hobby Lobby CVS  1996  1990  232,459  99.1 Publix, Burlington Coat Factory, Hobby Lobby  CVS
Palm Harbor Shopping Village (4) 1996 1991 166,041 86.6% Publix CVS, Bealls
Pine Tree Plaza 1997 1999 63,387 91.3% Publix —    1997  1999  63,387  98.4 Publix  
Plantation Plaza (4) 2004 2004 77,747 100.0% Publix —    2004  2004  77,747  98.2 Publix  

Seminole Shoppes (3)

  2009  2009  73,240  74.2 Publix  
Shoppes at Bartram Park (4) 2005 2004 119,959 89.9% Publix, (Kohl’s) Toll Brothers  2005  2004  105,319  95.3 Publix, (Kohl’s)  Toll Brothers

Shoppes at Bartram Park Phase II (3)(4)

 2008 2008 14,640 28.5%  (Tutor Time)  2008  2008  14,639  49.3   (Tutor Time)
Shops at John’s Creek 2003 2004 15,490 89.5%  —    2003  2004  15,490  72.6   
Starke 2000 2000 12,739 100.0%  CVS  2000  2000  12,739  100.0   CVS

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
 Year
Con-
structed (1)
 Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
 Percent
Leased (2)
 

Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf

 

Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft

  Year
Acquired
  Year
Constructed
(1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased
(2)
 

Grocer & Major

Tenant(s) >40,000sf

  

Drug Store & Other Anchors >

10,000 Sq Ft

FLORIDA (continued)                 
Vineyard Shopping Center (4) 2001 2002 62,821 87.5% Publix —    2001  2002  62,821  88.9 Publix  
Miami / Fort Lauderdale                 
Aventura Shopping Center 1994 1974 102,876 95.1% Publix CVS  1994  1974  102,876  92.2 Publix  CVS
Berkshire Commons 1994 1992 106,354 96.7% Publix Walgreens  1994  1992  106,354  100.0 Publix  Walgreens
Caligo Crossing (3) 2007 2007 10,762 74.0% (Kohl’s) —    2007  2007  10,762  74.9 (Kohl’s)  
Five Corners Plaza (4) 2005 2001 44,647 88.1% Publix —    2005  2001  44,647  88.1 Publix  
Garden Square 1997 1991 90,258 98.2% Publix CVS  1997  1991  90,258  98.6 Publix  CVS
Naples Walk Shopping Center 2007 1999 125,390 89.0% Publix —    2007  1999  125,390  91.7 Publix  
Pebblebrook Plaza (4) 2000 2000 76,767 100.0% Publix (Walgreens)  2000  2000  76,767  100.0 Publix  (Walgreens)
Shoppes @ 104 (4) 1998 1990 108,192 100.0% Winn-Dixie Navarro Discount Pharmacies

Shoppes @ 104

  1998  1990  108,192  97.4 Winn-Dixie  Navarro Discount Pharmacies
Welleby Plaza 1996 1982 109,949 96.9% Publix Bealls  1996  1982  109,949  93.1 Publix  Bealls
Tampa / Orlando                 
Beneva Village Shops 1998 1987 141,532 78.5% Publix Walgreens, Harbor Freight Tools  1998  1987  141,532  79.6 Publix  Walgreens, Harbor Freight Tools
Bloomingdale Square 1998 1987 267,736 96.4% Publix,
Wal-Mart, Bealls
 Ace Hardware  1998  1987  267,736  96.7 Publix, Wal-Mart, Bealls  Ace Hardware
East Towne Center 2002 2003 69,841 100.0% Publix —    2002  2003  69,841  92.0 Publix  
Kings Crossing Sun City (4) 1999 1999 75,020 97.3% Publix —  

Kings Crossing Sun City

  1999  1999  75,020  98.4 Publix  
Lynnhaven (4) 2001 2001 63,871 95.6% Publix —    2001  2001  63,871  100.0 Publix  
Marketplace St Pete 1995 1983 90,296 93.6% Publix Dollar Duck
Merchants Crossing (4) 2006 1990 213,739 93.6% Publix, Beall’s Office Depot, Walgreens
Peachland Promenade (4) 1995 1991 82,082 98.7% Publix —  

Marketplace Shopping Center

  1995  1983  90,296  33.2   
Regency Square 1993 1986 349,848 98.1% AMC Theater, Michaels, (Best Buy), (Macdill) Dollar Tree, Marshalls, S & K Famous Brands, Shoe Carnival, Staples, TJ Maxx, PETCO, Hobbytown USA  1993  1986  349,848  93.1 AMC Theater, Michaels, (Best Buy), (Macdill)  Dollar Tree, Marshalls, Shoe Carnival, Staples, TJ Maxx, PETCO, Hobbytown USA
Regency Village (4) 2000 2002 83,170 88.0% Publix (Walgreens)
Suncoast Crossing Phase I (3) 2007 2007 108,434 93.2% Kohl’s —    2007  2007  108,434  91.9 Kohl’s  
Suncoast Crossing Phase II (3) 2008 2008 9,450 0.0% (Target) —    2008  2008  9,451  0.0 (Target)  
Town Square 1997 1999 44,380 100.0% —   PETCO, Pier 1 Imports  1997  1999  44,380  100.0   PETCO, Pier 1 Imports
Village Center 1995 1993 181,110 99.6% Publix Walgreens, Stein Mart  1995  1993  181,110  96.5 Publix  Walgreens, Stein Mart
Northgate Square 2007 1995 75,495 100.0% Publix —    2007  1995  75,495  100.0 Publix  
Westchase 2007 1998 78,998 96.5% Publix —    2007  1998  78,998  95.2 Publix  
Willa Springs 2000 2000 89,930 94.2% Publix —  

Willa Springs (4)

  2000  2000  89,930  98.3 Publix  

West Palm Beach / Treasure Cove

                 
Boynton Lakes Plaza 1997 1993 124,924 96.7% Winn-Dixie Gold’s Gym, Walgreens  1997  1993  124,924  83.5 Winn-Dixie  Citi Trends
Chasewood Plaza 1993 1986 155,603 95.5% Publix Bealls, Books-A-Million  1993  1986  155,603  97.7 Publix  Bealls, Books-A-Million
East Port Plaza 1997 1991 149,363 91.7% Publix Walgreens, Paradise Furniture  1997  1991  113,281  90.4 Publix  Walgreens
Island Crossing (4) 2007 1996 58,456 100.0% Publix —    2007  1996  58,456  100.0 Publix  
Martin Downs Village Center 1993 1985 121,947 85.7% —   Bealls, Coastal Care  1993  1985  112,666  87.3   Bealls, Coastal Care
Martin Downs Village Shoppes 1993 1998 48,937 96.4% —   Walgreens  1993  1998  48,937  87.1   Walgreens
Town Center at Martin Downs 1996 1996 64,546 100.0% Publix —    1996  1996  64,546  100.0 Publix  

Village Commons Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1986 169,053 88.3% Publix CVS  2005  1986  169,053  80.6 Publix  CVS
Wellington Town Square 1996 1982 107,325 98.0% Publix CVS  1996  1982  107,325  98.9 Publix  CVS
                       

Subtotal/Weighted Average (FL)

   6,050,697 93.9%        5,432,000  91.3   
                       
TEXAS                 
Austin                 
Hancock 1999 1998 410,438 96.7% H.E.B., Sears Twin Liquors, PETCO, 24 Hour Fitness  1999  1998  410,438  96.0 H.E.B., Sears  Twin Liquors, PETCO, 24 Hour Fitness
Market at Round Rock 1999 1987 123,046 41.2% —   —    1999  1987  122,646  57.7 Sprout’s Markets  
North Hills 1999 1995 144,020 96.3% H.E.B. —    1999  1995  144,020  95.1 H.E.B.  
Dallas / Ft. Worth                 
Bethany Park Place 1998 1998 98,906 98.0% Kroger —  

Bethany Park Place (4)

  1998  1998  98,906  96.6 Kroger  
Cooper Street 1999 1992 133,196 94.3% (Home Depot) Office Max, K&G Men’s Company  1999  1992  133,196  91.5 (Home Depot)  Office Max, K&G Men’s Company
Hickory Creek Plaza (3) 2006 2006 28,134 24.4% (Kroger) —    2006  2006  28,134  47.2 (Kroger)  
Highland Village (3) 2005 2005 351,662 82.6% AMC Theater Barnes & Noble  2005  2005  351,635  79.2 AMC Theater  Barnes & Noble
Hillcrest Village 1999 1991 14,530 100.0% —   —    1999  1991  14,530  100.0   
Keller Town Center 1999 1999 114,937 94.2% Tom Thumb —    1999  1999  114,937  95.2 Tom Thumb  
Lebanon/Legacy Center 2000 2002 56,674 100.0% (Albertsons) —    2000  2002  56,674  91.8 (Albertsons)  
Main Street Center (4) 2002 2002 42,754 74.8% (Albertsons) —    2002  2002  42,754  59.3 (Albertsons)  
Market at Preston Forest 1999 1990 96,353 98.8% Tom Thumb —    1999  1990  96,353  100.0 Tom Thumb  
Mockingbird Common 1999 1987 120,321 98.3% Tom Thumb —    1999  1987  120,321  100.0 Tom Thumb  Ogle School of Hair Design
Preston Park 1999 1985 239,333 88.1% Tom Thumb Gap  1999  1985  239,333  92.9 Tom Thumb  Gap
Prestonbrook 1998 1998 91,537 98.8% Kroger —    1998  1998  91,537  95.3 Kroger  
Prestonwood Park 1999 1999 101,167 72.2% (Albertsons) —    1999  1999  101,167  51.4 (Albertsons)  
Rockwall Town Center 2002 2004 46,095 100.0% (Kroger) (Walgreens)  2002  2004  46,095  94.6 (Kroger)  (Walgreens)

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
 Year
Con-
structed (1)
 Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
 Percent
Leased (2)
 

Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf

 

Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft

  Year
Acquired
  Year
Constructed
(1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased
(2)
 

Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf

  

Drug Store & Other Anchors >

10,000 Sq Ft

TEXAS (continued)                 
Shiloh Springs 1998 1998 110,040 94.7% Kroger —  

Shiloh Springs (4)

  1998  1998  110,040  91.2 Kroger  
Signature Plaza 2003 2004 32,414 60.5% (Kroger) —    2003  2004  32,414  68.8 (Kroger)  
Trophy Club 1999 1999 106,507 89.7% Tom Thumb (Walgreens)  1999  1999  106,507  88.6 Tom Thumb  (Walgreens)
Houston                 
Alden Bridge 2002 1998 138,953 97.7% Kroger Walgreens

Alden Bridge (4)

  2002  1998  138,953  91.1 Kroger  Walgreens
Atascocita Center 2002 2003 97,240 94.3% Kroger —    2002  2003  97,240  94.3 Kroger  
Cochran’s Crossing 2002 1994 138,192 95.4% Kroger CVS  2002  1994  138,192  97.1 Kroger  CVS
Fort Bend Center 2000 2000 30,164 92.1% (Kroger) —    2000  2000  30,164  92.1 (Kroger)  
Indian Springs Center (4) 2002 2003 136,625 100.0% H.E.B. —    2002  2003  136,625  98.9 H.E.B.  
Kleinwood Center (4) 2002 2003 148,964 89.6% H.E.B. (Walgreens)  2002  2003  148,964  79.7 H.E.B.  (Walgreens)
Kleinwood Center II 2005 2005 45,000 100.0% (LA Fitness) —  

Memorial Collection Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1974 103,330 97.5% Randall’s Food Walgreens  2005  1974  103,330  97.5 Randall’s Food  Walgreens
Panther Creek 2002 1994 165,560 96.9% Randall’s Food CVS, Sears Paint & Hardware  2002  1994  165,560  92.1 Randall’s Food  CVS, Sears Paint & Hardware
Sterling Ridge 2002 2000 128,643 100.0% Kroger CVS  2002  2000  128,643  100.0 Kroger  CVS
Sweetwater Plaza (4) 2001 2000 134,045 95.3% Kroger Walgreens  2001  2000  134,045  96.6 Kroger  Walgreens
Waterside Marketplace (3) 2007 2007 24,859 60.7% (Kroger) —    2007  2007  24,858  92.5 (Kroger)  
Weslayan Plaza East (4) 2005 1969 169,693 85.4%  Berings, Ross Dress for Less, Michaels,Berings Warehouse, Chuck E. Cheese, The Next Level  2005  1969  169,693  94.8   Berings, Ross Dress for Less, Michaels, Berings Warehouse, Chuck E. Cheese, The Next Level Fitness, Spec’s Liquor
Weslayan Plaza West (4) 2005 1969 186,069 95.0% Randall’s Food Walgreens, PETCO, Jo Ann’s, Office Max  2005  1969  185,964  98.8 Randall’s Food  Walgreens, PETCO, Jo Ann’s, Office Max, Tuesday Morning
Westwood Village (3) 2006 2006 183,459 84.6% (Target) Gold’s Gym, PetSmart, Office Max, Ross Dress For Less, TJ Maxx  2006  2006  183,424  85.3 (Target)  Gold’s Gym, PetSmart, Office Max, Ross Dress For Less, TJ Maxx
Woodway Collection (4) 2005 1974 111,165 93.4% Randall’s Food —    2005  1974  111,165  85.1 Randall’s Food  
              
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (TX)

   4,404,025 90.5%        4,358,457  89.8   
                       
VIRGINIA                 
Richmond                 
Gayton Crossing (4) 2005 1983 156,917 93.0% Ukrop’s —    2005  1983  156,917  97.1 Ukrop’s  

Hanover Village Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1971 96,146 86.5%  Rite Aid, Tractor Supply Company  2005  1971  93,147  72.2   Tractor Supply Company
Village Shopping Center (4) 2005 1948 111,177 100.0% Ukrop’s CVS  2005  1948  111,177  100.0 Ukrop’s  CVS
Other Virginia                 
601 King Street (4) 2005 1980 8,349 83.8%  —    2005  1980  8,349  73.7   
Ashburn Farm Market Center 2000 2000 91,905 98.5% Giant Food —    2000  2000  91,905  95.7 Giant Food  
Ashburn Farm Village Center (4) 2005 1996 88,897 97.3% Shoppers Food Warehouse —    2005  1996  88,897  89.3 Shoppers Food Warehouse  
Braemar Shopping Center (4) 2004 2004 96,439 97.9% Safeway —    2004  2004  96,439  94.8 Safeway  
Brookville Plaza (4) 2005 1996 63,665 94.8% Shoppers Food Warehouse Sears
Centre Ridge Marketplace (4) 2000 2000 104,100 100.0% Safeway PETCO  2005  1996  104,100  94.5 Shoppers Food Warehouse  Sears
Cheshire Station 2006 2006 97,156 97.0% (Target) PetSmart, Staples  2000  2000  97,156  100.0 Safeway  PETCO
Culpeper Colonnade (3) 2007 1955 143,725 94.1%  Direct Furniture

Culpeper Colonnade

  2006  2006  62,114  93.8 Martin’s, (Target)  PetSmart, Staples
Fairfax Shopping Center 2005 1990 85,482 80.2% Shoppers Food Warehouse —    2007  1955  78,711  78.2 --  Direct Furniture
Festival at Manchester Lakes (4) 2004 2004 165,130 98.5% Shoppers Food Warehouse, (Target) Rite Aid  2005  1990  165,130  97.9 Shoppers Food Warehouse  
Fortuna Center Plaza (4) 2005 1977 90,131 100.0% Giant Food —    2004  2004  90,131  100.0 Shoppers Food Warehouse, (Target)  Rite Aid
Fox Mill Shopping Center (4) 2005 1972 103,269 100.0% Giant Food CVS, HMY Roomstore, Total Beverage, Ross Dress for Less, Marshalls, PETCO  2005  1977  103,269  96.1 Giant Food  
Greenbriar Town Center (4) 2005 1960 343,006 99.3%  Borders Books  2005  1972  340,006  97.6 Giant Food  CVS, HMY Roomstore, Total Beverage, Ross Dress for Less, Marshalls, PETCO
Hollymead Town Center (4) 2005 1966 153,739 96.1% Giant Food CVS  2003  2004  153,739  97.0 Harris Teeter, (Target)  Petsmart

Kamp Washington Shopping Center (4)

 2006 2005 71,825 95.8% Shoppers Food Warehouse Advanced Design Group  2005  1960  71,825  95.8   Borders Books
Kings Park Shopping Center (4) 2006 2005 74,702 100.0%  ReMax  2005  1966  74,702  95.6 Giant Food  CVS
Lorton Station Marketplace (4) 2003 2003 132,445 97.7% Safeway Boat U.S.  2006  2005  132,445  97.3 Shoppers Food Warehouse  Advanced Design Group
Lorton Town Center (4) 2005 1977 51,807 91.3% Giant Food —    2006  2005  51,807  88.5   ReMax
Market at Opitz Crossing 2005 2005 149,791 82.4% Harris Teeter —    2003  2003  149,791  91.4 Safeway  Boat U.S.
Saratoga Shopping Center (4) 2003 2004 113,013 97.8% Shoppers Food Warehouse —    2005  1977  113,013  97.8 Giant Food  
Shops at County Center 2007 2007 96,695 98.8% Wegmans Staples, Ross Dress For Less, Bed Bath & Beyond, Michaels  2005  2005  96,695  96.9 Harris Teeter  
Signal Hill (4) 2005 1980 95,172 96.2% Giant Food Washington Sports Club, Party Depot  2003  2004  95,172  97.5 Shoppers Food Warehouse  
Stonewall (3) 2005 1952 294,071 89.6%  CVS, Baileys Health Care  2007  2007  287,744  93.8 Wegmans  Staples, Ross Dress For Less, Bed Bath & Beyond, Michaels

Town Center at Sterling Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1986 190,069 95.7% Safeway, (Target) —  
Village Center at Dulles (4) 1998 1991 298,271 98.4% Kroger —  
Willston Centre I (4) 2003 2004 105,376 94.1% Harris Teeter, (Target) Petsmart

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
 Year
Con-
structed (1)
 Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
 Percent
Leased (2)
 

Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf

 

Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft

  Year
Acquired
  Year
Constructed
(1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased
(2)
 

Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf

  

Drug Store & Other Anchors >
10,000 Sq Ft

VIRGINIA (continued)                 

Town Center at Sterling Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1980  190,069  92.4 Giant Food  Washington Sports Club, Party Depot

Village Center at Dulles (4)

  2002  1991  298,271  97.7 Shoppers Food Warehouse, Gold’s Gym  CVS, Advance Auto Parts, Chuck E. Cheese, PETCO, Staples, The Thrift Store

Willston Centre I (4)

  2005  1952  105,376  92.3   CVS, Baileys Health Care

Willston Centre II (4)

 2005 1960 127,449 100.0% —   Borders Books  2005  1986  127,449  96.0 Safeway, (Target)  
                       

Subtotal/Weighted Average (VA)

   3,799,919 95.6%        3,635,546  94.9   
                       
      
ILLINOIS                 
Chicago                 

Baker Hill Center (4)

 2004 1998 135,355 95.1% Dominick’s —    2004  1998  135,355  94.6 Dominick’s  

Brentwood Commons (4)

 2005 1962 125,585 80.6% Dominick’s Dollar Tree  2005  1962  125,585  91.8 Dominick’s  Dollar Tree

Civic Center Plaza (4)

 2005 1989 264,973 99.0% Super H Mart, Home Depot Murray’s Discount Auto, King Spa  2005  1989  264,973  98.0 Super H Mart, Home Depot  Murray’s Discount Auto, King Spa

Deer Grove Center (4)

 2004 1996 239,356 75.2% Dominick’s, (Target) Michaels, PETCO, Factory Card Outlet, Dress Barn, Staples  2004  1996  236,173  73.4 Dominick’s, (Target)  Michaels, PETCO, Factory Card Outlet, Dress Barn, Staples

Frankfort Crossing Shpg Ctr

 2003 1992 114,534 85.7% Jewel / OSCO Ace Hardware  2003  1992  114,534  91.8 Jewel / OSCO  Ace Hardware

Geneva Crossing (4)

 2004 1997 123,182 91.5% Dominick’s Goodwill  2004  1997  123,182  98.8 Dominick’s  Goodwill

Heritage Plaza - Chicago (4)

 2005 2005 128,871 96.8% Jewel / OSCO Ace Hardware

Hinsdale

 1998 1986 178,960 84.7% Dominick’s Ace Hardware  1998  1986  178,960  81.0 Dominick’s  Ace Hardware

McHenry Commons Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1988 100,526 17.6% —   —    2005  1988  100,526  16.6   

Oaks Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1983 135,005 87.3% Dominick’s —    2005  1983  135,005  87.3 Dominick’s  

Riverside Sq & River’s Edge (4)

 2005 1986 169,435 100.0% Dominick’s Ace Hardware, Party City  2005  1986  169,435  98.6 Dominick’s  Ace Hardware, Party City

Riverview Plaza (4)

 2005 1981 139,256 100.0% Dominick’s Walgreens, Toys “R” Us  2005  1981  139,256  97.7 Dominick’s  Walgreens, Toys “R” Us

Shorewood Crossing (4)

 2004 2001 87,705 93.4% Dominick’s —    2004  2001  87,705  96.5 Dominick’s  

Shorewood Crossing II (4)

 2007 2005 86,276 98.1% —   Babies R Us, Staples, PETCO, Factory Card Outlet  2007  2005  86,276  98.1   Babies R Us, Staples, PETCO, Factory Card Outlet

Stearns Crossing (4)

 2004 1999 96,613 97.6% Dominick’s —    2004  1999  96,613  92.6 Dominick’s  

Stonebrook Plaza Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1984 95,825 100.0% Dominick’s —    2005  1984  95,825  100.0 Dominick’s  

Westbrook Commons

 2001 1984 121,502 83.8% Dominick’s —    2001  1984  120,674  85.2 Dominick’s  
Champaign/Urbana                 

Champaign Commons (4)

 2007 1990 88,105 98.4% Schnucks —    2007  1990  88,105  90.7 Schnucks  

Urbana Crossing (4)

 2007 1997 85,196 96.7% Schnucks —    2007  1997  85,196  96.7 Schnucks  
Springfield                 

Montvale Commons (4)

 2007 1996 73,937 98.1% Schnucks —    2007  1996  73,937  98.1 Schnucks  
Other Illinois                 

Carbondale Center (4)

 2007 1997 59,726 100.0% Schnucks —    2007  1997  59,726  100.0 Schnucks  

Country Club Plaza (4)

 2007 2001 86,867 98.4% Schnucks —    2007  2001  86,867  98.4 Schnucks  

Granite City (4)

 2007 2004 46,237 100.0% Schnucks —    2007  2004  46,237  100.0 Schnucks  

Swansea Plaza (4)

 2007 1988 118,892 97.1% Schnucks Fashion Bug  2007  1988  118,892  97.1 Schnucks  Fashion Bug
                       

Subtotal/Weighted Average (IL)

   2,901,919 90.0%        2,769,037  89.7   
                       
GEORGIA      
Atlanta      

Ashford Place

 1997 1993 53,449 69.6% —   —  

Briarcliff La Vista

 1997 1962 39,204 85.5% —   Michaels

Briarcliff Village

 1997 1990 187,156 86.5% Publix Office Depot, Party City, PETCO, TJ Maxx

Buckhead Court

 1997 1984 48,338 94.8% —   —  

Buckhead Crossing (4)

 2004 1989 221,874 95.4% —   Office Depot, HomeGoods, Marshalls, Michaels, Hancock Fabrics, Ross Dress for Less

Cambridge Square

 1996 1979 71,474 99.9% Kroger —  

Chapel Hill Centre

 2005 2005 66,970 100.0% (Kohl’s) —  

Coweta Crossing (4)

 2004 1994 68,489 91.1% Publix —  

Cromwell Square

 1997 1990 70,282 91.5% —   CVS, Hancock Fabrics, Antiques & Interiors of Sandy Springs

Delk Spectrum

 1998 1991 100,539 90.7% Publix Eckerd

Dunwoody Hall

 1997 1986 89,351 100.0% Publix Eckerd

Dunwoody Village

 1997 1975 120,598 88.0% Fresh Market Walgreens, Dunwoody Prep

Howell Mill Village (4)

 2004 1984 97,990 96.0% Publix Eckerd

King Plaza (4)

 2007 1998 81,432 89.0% Publix —  

Lindbergh Crossing (4)

 2004 1998 27,059 100.0% —   CVS

Loehmanns Plaza Georgia

 1997 1986 137,139 98.5% —   Loehmann’s, Dance 101, Office Max

Lost Mountain Crossing (4)

 2007 1994 72,568 98.3% Publix —  

Northlake Promenade (4)

 2004 1986 25,394 90.7% —   —  

Orchard Square (4)

 1995 1987 93,222 81.1% Publix Harbor Freight Tools

Paces Ferry Plaza

 1997 1987 61,697 100.0% —   Harry Norman Realtors

Powers Ferry Kroger (4)

 2004 1983 45,528 100.0% Kroger —  

Powers Ferry Square

 1997 1987 95,703 95.8% —   CVS, Pearl Arts & Crafts

Powers Ferry Village

 1997 1994 78,896 100.0% Publix CVS, Mardi Gras

Rivermont Station

 1997 1996 90,267 76.8% Kroger —  

MISSOURI

           

St. Louis

           

Affton Plaza (4)

  2007  2000  67,760  100.0 Schnucks  

Bellerive Plaza (4)

  2007  2000  115,252  93.3 Schnucks  

Brentwood Plaza (4)

  2007  2002  60,452  96.5 Schnucks  

Bridgeton (4)

  2007  2005  70,762  100.0 Schnucks, (Home Depot)  

Butler Hill Centre (4)

  2007  1987  90,889  98.5 Schnucks  

City Plaza (4)

  2007  1998  80,149  94.9 Schnucks  

Crestwood Commons (4)

  2007  1994  67,285  100.0 Schnucks, (Best Buy), (Gordman’s)  

Dardenne Crossing (4)

  2007  1996  67,430  100.0 Schnucks  

Dorsett Village (4)

  2007  1998  104,217  100.0 Schnucks, (Orlando Gardens Banquet Center)  SSM Care Management Company

Kirkwood Commons (4)

  2007  2000  467,703  100.0 Wal-Mart, (Target), (Lowe’s)  TJ Maxx, HomeGoods, Famous Footwear

Lake St. Louis (4)

  2007  2004  75,643  98.1 Schnucks  

O’Fallon Centre (4)

  2007  1984  71,300  87.5 Schnucks  

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
 Year
Con-
structed (1)
 Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
 Percent
Leased (2)
  

Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf

 

Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft

GEORGIA (continued)      
Rose Creek (4) 2004 1993 69,790 98.6% Publix —  

Roswell Crossing (4)

 2004 1999 201,979 94.3% Trader Joe’s, Pike Nurseries PetSmart, Office Max, Walgreens, LA Fitness

Russell Ridge

 1994 1995 98,559 93.9% Kroger —  

Thomas Crossroads (4)

 2004 1995 104,928 86.4% Kroger —  

Trowbridge Crossing (4)

 2004 1998 62,558 100.0% Publix —  

Woodstock Crossing (4)

 2004 1994 66,122 96.2% Kroger —  
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (GA)

   2,648,555 92.7%  
         
OHIO      
Cincinnati      

Beckett Commons

 1998 1995 121,498 100.0% Kroger Stein Mart

Cherry Grove

 1998 1997 195,513 96.1% Kroger Hancock Fabrics, Shoe Carnival, TJ Maxx

Hyde Park

 1997 1995 396,810 95.4% Kroger, Biggs Walgreens, Jo-Ann Fabrics, Ace Hardware, Michaels, Staples

Indian Springs Market Center (4)

 2005 2005 146,258 100.0% Kohl’s,
(Wal-Mart Supercenter)
 Office Depot, HH Gregg Appliances

Red Bank Village (3)

 2006 2006 186,160 81.5% Wal-Mart —  

Regency Commons

 2004 2004 30,770 80.5%  —  

Regency Milford Center (4)

 2001 2001 108,923 90.2% Kroger (CVS)

Shoppes at Mason

 1998 1997 80,800 100.0% Kroger —  

Sycamore Crossing & Sycamore Plaza (4)

 2008 1966 390,957 87.8% Fresh Market, Macy’s Furniture Gallery, Toys ‘R Us, Dick’s Sporting Goods Barnes & Noble, Old Navy, Staples, Identity Salon & Day Spa

Westchester Plaza

 1998 1988 88,181 96.9% Kroger —  
Columbus      
East Pointe 1998 1993 86,503 100.0% Kroger —  

Kingsdale Shopping Center

 1997 1999 266,878 44.0% Giant Eagle —  

Kroger New Albany Center

 1999 1999 91,722 91.7% Kroger —  

Maxtown Road (Northgate)

 1998 1996 85,100 98.4% Kroger, (Home Depot) —  

Park Place Shopping Center

 1998 1988 106,832 58.9%  Big Lots

Windmiller Plaza Phase I

 1998 1997 140,437 98.5% Kroger Sears Hardware

Wadsworth Crossing (3)

 2005 2005 108,188 83.3% (Kohl’s), (Lowe’s), (Target) Office Max, Bed, Bath & Beyond, MC Sports, PETCO
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (OH)

   2,631,530 86.7%  
         
COLORADO      
Colorado Springs      

Cheyenne Meadows (4)

 1998 1998 89,893 100.0% King Soopers —  

Falcon Marketplace (3)

 2005 2005 22,491 72.5% (Wal-Mart Supercenter) —  

Marketplace at Briargate

 2006 2006 29,075 100.0% (King Soopers) —  

Monument Jackson Creek

 1998 1999 85,263 100.0% King Soopers —  

Woodmen Plaza

 1998 1998 116,233 87.5% King Soopers —  

Denver

      

Applewood Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1956 375,622 96.4% King Soopers, Wal-Mart Applejack Liquors, PetSmart, Wells Fargo Bank

Arapahoe Village (4)

 2005 1957 159,237 97.3% Safeway Jo-Ann Fabrics, PETCO, Pier 1 Imports, Bottles Wine & Spirit

Belleview Square

 2004 1978 117,335 100.0% King Soopers —  

Boulevard Center

 1999 1986 88,512 72.8% (Safeway) One Hour Optical

Buckley Square

 1999 1978 116,147 90.6% King Soopers Ace Hardware

Centerplace of Greeley (4)

 2002 2003 148,575 95.8% Safeway, (Target), (Kohl’s) Ross Dress For Less, Famous Footwear

Centerplace of Greeley Phase III (3)

 2007 2007 94,090 76.6% Sports Authority Best Buy

Cherrywood Square (4)

 2005 1978 86,162 94.9% King Soopers —  

Crossroads Commons (4)

 2001 1986 112,887 95.2% Whole Foods Barnes & Noble, Bicycle Village

Hilltop Village (4)

 2002 2003 100,029 95.9% King Soopers —  

NorthGate Village (3)

 2008 2008 33,140 0.0% (King Soopers) —  

South Lowry Square

 1999 1993 119,916 87.0% Safeway —  

Littleton Square

 1999 1997 94,222 92.5% King Soopers Walgreens

Lloyd King Center

 1998 1998 83,326 100.0% King Soopers —  

Property Name

  Year
Acquired
  Year
Constructed
(1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased
(2)
  

Grocer & Major

Tenant(s) >40,000sf

  

Drug Store & Other Anchors >

10,000 Sq Ft

MISSOURI (continued)

           

Plaza 94 (4)

  2007  2005  66,555  95.4 Schnucks  —  

Richardson Crossing (4)

  2007  2000  82,994  97.1 Schnucks  —  

Shackelford Center (4)

  2007  2006  49,635  97.4 Schnucks  —  

Sierra Vista Plaza (4)

  2007  1993  74,666  98.4 Schnucks  —  

Twin Oaks (4)

  2007  2006  71,682  98.3 Schnucks  (Walgreens)

University City Square (4)

  2007  1997  79,230  100.0 Schnucks  —  

Washington Crossing (4)

  2007  1999  117,626  95.1 Schnucks  Michaels, Altmueller Jewelry

Wentzville Commons (4)

  2007  2000  74,205  98.1 Schnucks, (Home Depot)  —  

Wildwood Crossing (4)

  2007  1997  108,200  79.5 Schnucks  —  

Zumbehl Commons (4)

  2007  1990  116,682  94.2 Schnucks  Ace Hardware

Other Missouri

           

Capital Crossing (4)

  2007  2002  85,149  98.6 Schnucks  —  
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MO)

      2,265,466  96.8   
              

OHIO

           

Cincinnati

           

Beckett Commons

  1998  1995  121,498  100.0 Kroger  Stein Mart

Cherry Grove

  1998  1997  195,513  95.5 Kroger  Hancock Fabrics, Shoe Carnival, TJ Maxx

Hyde Park

  1997  1995  396,861  96.5 Kroger, Biggs  Walgreens, Jo-Ann Fabrics, Ace Hardware, Michaels, Staples

Indian Springs Market Center (4)

  2005  2005  146,116  100.0 Kohl’s, (Wal-Mart Supercenter)  Office Depot, HH Gregg Appliances

Red Bank Village (3)

  2006  2006  174,315  91.0 Wal-Mart  —  

Regency Commons

  2004  2004  30,770  80.5   —  

Shoppes at Mason

  1998  1997  80,800  96.5 Kroger  —  

Sycamore Crossing & Sycamore Plaza (4)

  2008  1966  390,957  88.4 Fresh Market, Macy’s Furniture Gallery, Toys ‘R Us, Dick’s Sporting Goods  Barnes & Noble, Old Navy, Staples, Identity Salon & Day Spa

Westchester Plaza

  1998  1988  88,181  98.4 Kroger  —  

Columbus

           

East Pointe

  1998  1993  86,503  100.0 Kroger  —  

Kroger New Albany Center

  1999  1999  93,285  96.6 Kroger  —  

Maxtown Road (Northgate)

  1998  1996  85,100  98.4 Kroger, (Home Depot)  —  

Park Place Shopping Center

  1998  1988  106,832  61.2   Big Lots

Windmiller Plaza Phase I

  1998  1997  140,437  98.5 Kroger  Sears Hardware

Wadsworth Crossing (3)

  2005  2005  108,173  88.7 (Kohl’s), (Lowe’s), (Target)  Office Max, Bed, Bath & Beyond, MC Sports, PETCO
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (OH)

      2,245,341  93.1   
              

NORTH CAROLINA

           

Charlotte

           

Carmel Commons

  1997  1979  132,651  99.1 Fresh Market  Chuck E. Cheese, Party City, Eckerd, Casual Furniture Marketplace

Cochran Commons (4)

  2007  2003  66,020  91.6 Harris Teeter  (Walgreens)

Greensboro

           

Harris Crossing (3)

  2007  2007  65,367  83.9 Harris Teeter  —  

Raleigh / Durham

           

Cameron Village (4)

  2004  1949  635,918  84.5 Harris Teeter, Fresh Market  Eckerd, Talbots, Wake County Public Library, Great Outdoor Provision Co., York Properties, The Bargain Box, K&W Cafeteria, Johnson-Lambe Sporting Goods, Pier 1 Imports, Pirate’s Chest Fine Antiques

Colonnade Center (3)

  2009  2009  57,000  70.2 Whole Foods  —  

Fuquay Crossing (4)

  2004  2002  124,774  97.1 Kroger  Peak’s Fitness, Dollar Tree

Garner Towne Square

  1998  1998  221,776  95.8 Kroger, (Home Depot), (Target)  Office Max, Petsmart, Shoe Carnival, United Artist Theater

Glenwood Village

  1997  1983  42,864  100.0 Harris Teeter  —  

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
 Year
Con-
structed (1)
 Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
 Percent
Leased (2)
  

Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf

 

Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft

COLORADO (continued)      

Ralston Square Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1977 82,750 96.1% King Soopers —  

Shops at Quail Creek (3)

 2008 2008 37,585 45.9% (King Soopers) —  

Stroh Ranch

 1998 1998 93,436 97.8% King Soopers —  
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (CO)

   2,285,926 91.4%  
         
MISSOURI      
St. Louis      

Affton Plaza (4)

 2007 2000 67,760 100.0% Schnucks —  

Bellerive Plaza (4)

 2007 2000 115,208 91.2% Schnucks —  

Brentwood Plaza (4)

 2007 2002 60,452 100.0% Schnucks —  

Bridgeton (4)

 2007 2005 70,762 100.0% Schnucks, (Home Depot) —  

Butler Hill Centre (4)

 2007 1987 90,889 97.0% Schnucks —  

City Plaza (4)

 2007 1998 80,149 100.0% Schnucks —  

Crestwood Commons (4)

 2007 1994 67,285 100.0% Schnucks,
(Best Buy), (Gordman’s)
 —  

Dardenne Crossing (4)

 2007 1996 67,430 100.0% Schnucks —  

Dorsett Village (4)

 2007 1998 104,217 82.7% Schnucks, (Orlando Gardens Banquet Center) —  

Kirkwood Commons (4)

 2007 2000 467,703 100.0% Wal-Mart, (Target), (Lowe’s) TJ Maxx, Homegoods, Famous Footwear

Lake St. Louis (4)

 2007 2004 75,643 100.0% Schnucks —  

O’Fallon Centre (4)

 2007 1984 71,300 90.2% Schnucks —  

Plaza 94 (4)

 2007 2005 66,555 97.2% Schnucks —  

Richardson Crossing (4)

 2007 2000 82,994 98.6% Schnucks —  

Shackelford Center (4)

 2007 2006 49,635 97.4% Schnucks —  

Sierra Vista Plaza (4)

 2007 1993 74,666 100.0% Schnucks —  

Twin Oaks (4)

 2007 2006 71,682 98.3% Schnucks (Walgreens)

University City Square (4)

 2007 1997 79,230 100.0% Schnucks —  

Washington Crossing (4)

 2007 1999 117,626 95.9% Schnucks Michaels, Altmueller Jewelry

Wentzville Commons (4)

 2007 2000 74,205 100.0% Schnucks, (Home Depot) —  

Wildwood Crossing (4)

 2007 1997 108,200 85.1% Schnucks —  

Zumbehl Commons (4)

 2007 1990 116,682 94.2% Schnucks Ace Hardware

Other Missouri

      

Capital Crossing (4)

 2007 2002 85,149 98.6% Schnucks —  
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MO)

   2,265,422 96.8%  
         
NORTH CAROLINA      
Charlotte      

Carmel Commons

 1997 1979 132,651 100.0% Fresh Market Chuck E. Cheese, Party City, Eckerd, Casual Furniture Marketplace

Cochran Commons (4)

 2007 2003 66,020 100.0% Harris Teeter (Walgreens)

Greensboro

      

Harris Crossing (3)

 2007 2007 76,818 71.4% Harris Teeter —  

Raleigh / Durham

      

Bent Tree Plaza (4)

 1998 1994 79,503 98.5% Kroger —  

Cameron Village (4)

 2004 1949 635,918 85.6% Harris Teeter, Fresh Market Eckerd, Talbots, Wake County Public Library, Great Outdoor Provision Co., Blockbuster Video, York Properties, The Junior League of Raleigh, K&W Cafeteria, Johnson-Lambe Sporting Goods, Pier 1 Imports, Pirate’s Chest Fine Antiques

Fuquay Crossing (4)

 2004 2002 124,774 93.5% Kroger Peak’s Fitness, Dollar Tree

Garner Towne Square

 1998 1998 221,776 98.3% Kroger, (Home Depot), (Target) Office Max, Petsmart, Shoe Carnival, United Artist Theater

Glenwood Village

 1997 1983 42,864 100.0% Harris Teeter —  

Lake Pine Plaza

 1998 1997 87,690 98.4% Kroger —  

Maynard Crossing

 1998 1997 122,782 95.0% Kroger —  

Middle Creek Commons (3)

 2006 2006 73,635 79.6% Lowes Foods —  

Shoppes of Kildaire (4)

 2005 1986 148,204 95.0% Trader Joe’s Home Comfort Furniture, Gold’s Gym, Staples

Southpoint Crossing

 1998 1998 103,128 98.6% Kroger —  

Sutton Square (4)

 2006 1985 101,846 89.5%  Eckerd

Property Name

  Year
Acquired
  Year
Constructed
(1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased
(2)
  

Grocer & Major

Tenant(s) >40,000sf

  

Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000
Sq Ft

NORTH CAROLINA (continued)

           

Lake Pine Plaza

  1998  1997  87,690  88.0 Kroger  —  

Maynard Crossing (4)

  1998  1997  122,782  95.3 Kroger  —  

Middle Creek Commons (3)

  2006  2006  73,634  81.3 Lowes Foods  —  

Shoppes of Kildaire (4)

  2005  1986  148,204  92.4 Trader Joe’s  Home Comfort Furniture, Gold’s Gym, Staples

Southpoint Crossing

  1998  1998  103,128  97.8 Kroger  —  

Sutton Square (4)

  2006  1985  101,846  79.0 Fresh Market  Rite Aid

Woodcroft Shopping Center

  1996  1984  89,833  97.0 Food Lion  Triangle True Value Hardware
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (NC)

      2,073,487  89.7   
              

COLORADO

           

Colorado Springs

           

Falcon Marketplace (3)

  2005  2005  22,491  65.8 (Wal-Mart Supercenter)  —  

Marketplace at Briargate

  2006  2006  29,075  90.0 (King Soopers)  —  

Monument Jackson Creek

  1998  1999  85,263  100.0 King Soopers  —  

Woodmen Plaza

  1998  1998  116,233  86.3 King Soopers  —  

Denver

           

Applewood Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1956  375,622  93.5 King Soopers, Wal-Mart  Applejack Liquors, PetSmart, Wells Fargo Bank

Arapahoe Village (4)

  2005  1957  159,237  94.2 Safeway  Jo-Ann Fabrics, PETCO, Pier 1 Imports, Bottles Wine & Spirit

Belleview Square

  2004  1978  117,335  100.0 King Soopers  —  

Boulevard Center

  1999  1986  88,512  76.7 (Safeway)  One Hour Optical

Buckley Square

  1999  1978  116,147  91.4 King Soopers  Ace Hardware

Centerplace of Greeley Phase III (3)

  2007  2007  94,090  76.6 Sports Authority  Best Buy

Cherrywood Square (4)

  2005  1978  86,162  93.6 King Soopers  —  

Crossroads Commons (4)

  2001  1986  143,444  96.8 Whole Foods  Barnes & Noble, Bicycle Village

Hilltop Village (4)

  2002  2003  100,030  93.7 King Soopers  —  

NorthGate Village (3)

  2008  2008  25,375  0.0 (King Soopers)  —  

South Lowry Square

  1999  1993  119,916  87.7 Safeway  —  

Littleton Square

  1999  1997  94,222  91.2 King Soopers  Walgreens

Lloyd King Center

  1998  1998  83,326  100.0 King Soopers  —  

Ralston Square Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1977  82,750  96.1 King Soopers  —  

Shops at Quail Creek (3)

  2008  2008  37,585  61.5 (King Soopers)  —  

Stroh Ranch

  1998  1998  93,436  97.0 King Soopers  —  
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (CO)

      2,070,251  90.4   
              

MARYLAND

           

Baltimore

           

Elkridge Corners (4)

  2005  1990  73,529  100.0 Super Fresh  Rite Aid

Festival at Woodholme (4)

  2005  1986  81,028  88.1 Trader Joe’s  —  

Lee Airport (3)

  2005  2005  107,063  75.4 Giant Food, (Sunrise)  —  

Parkville Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1961  162,435  96.7 Super Fresh  Rite Aid, Parkville Lanes, Castlewood Realty

Southside Marketplace (4)

  2005  1990  125,146  95.6 Shoppers Food Warehouse  Rite Aid

Valley Centre (4)

  2005  1987  247,837  95.8   TJ Maxx, Sony Theatres, Ross Dress for Less, HomeGoods, Staples, PetSmart

Other Maryland

           

Bowie Plaza (4)

  2005  1966  104,037  80.8 Giant Food  CVS

Clinton Park (4)

  2003  2003  206,050  95.3 Giant Food, Sears, (Toys “R” Us)  Fitness For Less

Cloppers Mill Village (4)

  2005  1995  137,035  95.5 Shoppers Food Warehouse  CVS

Firstfield Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1978  22,328  93.3   —  

Goshen Plaza (4)

  2005  1987  45,654  84.6   CVS

King Farm Village Center (4)

  2004  2001  118,326  96.4 Safeway  —  

Mitchellville Plaza (4)

  2005  1991  156,125  90.1 Food Lion  —  

Takoma Park (4)

  2005  1960  106,469  99.5 Shoppers Food Warehouse  —  

Watkins Park Plaza (4)

  2005  1985  113,443  94.9 Safeway  CVS

Woodmoor Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1954  67,403  88.5   CVS
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MD)

      1,873,908  92.8   
              

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
 Year
Con-
structed (1)
 Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
 Percent
Leased (2)
  

Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf

 

Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft

NORTH CAROLINA (continued)      

Woodcroft Shopping Center

 1996 1984 89,833 98.6% Food Lion Triangle True Value Hardware
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (NC)

   2,107,442 91.9%  
         
MARYLAND      
Baltimore      

Elkridge Corners (4)

 2005 1990 73,529 100.0% Super Fresh Rite Aid

Festival at Woodholme (4)

 2005 1986 81,028 96.5% Trader Joe’s —  

Lee Airport (3)

 2005 2005 106,915 77.8% Giant Food, (Sunrise) —  

Parkville Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1961 162,435 97.2% Super Fresh Rite Aid, Parkville Lanes, Castlewood Realty

Southside Marketplace (4)

 2005 1990 125,146 95.3% Shoppers Food Warehouse Rite Aid

Valley Centre (4)

 2005 1987 247,836 93.8%  TJ Maxx, Sony Theatres, Ross Dress for Less, Homegoods, Staples, PetSmart
Other Maryland      

Bowie Plaza (4)

 2005 1966 104,037 84.8% Giant Food CVS

Clinton Park (4)

 2003 2003 206,050 94.1% Giant Food, Sears, (Toys “R” Us) —  

Cloppers Mill Village (4)

 2005 1995 137,035 100.0% Shoppers Food Warehouse CVS

Firstfield Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1978 22,328 86.6%  —  

Goshen Plaza (4)

 2005 1987 45,654 96.9%  CVS

King Farm Village Center (4)

 2004 2001 118,326 97.3% Safeway —  

Mitchellville Plaza (4)

 2005 1991 156,125 90.8% Food Lion —  

Takoma Park (4)

 2005 1960 106,469 99.5% Shoppers Food Warehouse —  

Watkins Park Plaza (4)

 2005 1985 113,443 97.1% Safeway CVS

Woodmoor Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1954 67,403 90.2%  CVS
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MD)

   1,873,759 94.0%  
         
PENNSYLVANIA      
Allentown / Bethlehem      

Allen Street Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1958 46,420 90.2% Ahart Market Rite Aid

Lower Nazareth Commons (3)

 2007 2007 107,273 48.6% (Target), Sports Authority —  

Stefko Boulevard Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1976 133,824 88.1% Valley Farm Market —  
Harrisburg      

Silver Spring Square

 2005 2005 314,449 97.0% Wegmans, (Target) Ross Dress For Less, Bed Bath and Beyond, Best Buy, Office Max, Ulta, PETCO
Philadelphia      

City Avenue Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1960 159,419 95.5%  Ross Dress for Less, TJ Maxx, Sears

Gateway Shopping Center

 2004 1960 219,337 89.6% Trader Joe’s Staples, TJ Maxx, Famous Footwear, Jo-Ann Fabrics

Kulpsville Village Center (3)

 2006 2006 14,820 100.0%  Walgreens

Mayfair Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1988 112,276 94.4% Shop ‘N Bag Rite Aid, Dollar Tree

Mercer Square Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1988 91,400 92.1% Genuardi’s —  

Newtown Square Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1970 146,893 92.8% Acme Markets Rite Aid

Warwick Square Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1999 89,680 96.5% Genuardi’s —  
Other Pennsylvania      
Hershey 2000 2000 6,000 100.0%  —  
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (PA)

   1,441,791 90.1%  
         
WASHINGTON      
Portland      

Orchards Market Center I (4)

 2002 2004 100,663 100.0% Sportsman’s Warehouse Jo-Ann Fabrics, PETCO, (Rite Aid)

Orchards Market Center II (3)

 2005 2005 77,478 89.9% LA Fitness Office Depot
Seattle      

Aurora Marketplace (4)

 2005 1991 106,921 98.3% Safeway TJ Maxx

Cascade Plaza (4)

 1999 1999 211,072 97.1% Safeway Bally Total Fitness, Fashion Bug, Jo-Ann Fabrics, Ross Dress For Less, Big Lots

Property Name

  Year
Acquired
  Year
Constructed
(1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased
(2)
  

Grocer & Major

Tenant(s) >40,000sf

  

Drug Store & Other Anchors >

10,000 Sq Ft

GEORGIA

           

Atlanta

           

Ashford Place

  1997  1993  53,449  78.3 —    —  

Briarcliff La Vista

  1997  1962  39,204  100.0 —    Michaels

Briarcliff Village

  1997  1990  187,156  88.3 Publix  Office Depot, Party City, PETCO, TJ Maxx

Buckhead Court

  1997  1984  48,338  97.7 —    —  

Cambridge Square

  1996  1979  71,474  99.9 Kroger  —  

Chapel Hill Centre

  2005  2005  66,970  96.4 (Kohl’s), Hobby Lobby  —  

Cromwell Square

  1997  1990  70,282  91.5 —    CVS, Hancock Fabrics, Antiques & Interiors of Sandy Springs

Delk Spectrum

  1998  1991  100,539  84.3 Publix  Eckerd

Dunwoody Hall (4)

  1997  1986  89,351  100.0 Publix  Eckerd

Dunwoody Village

  1997  1975  120,598  89.8 Fresh Market  Walgreens, Dunwoody Prep

Howell Mill Village

  2004  1984  97,990  87.7 Publix  Eckerd

King Plaza (4)

  2007  1998  81,432  94.3 Publix  —  

Loehmanns Plaza Georgia

  1997  1986  137,139  96.5 —    Loehmann’s, Dance 101, Office Max

Lost Mountain Crossing (4)

  2007  1994  72,568  91.5 Publix  —  

Paces Ferry Plaza

  1997  1987  61,697  100.0 —    Harry Norman Realtors

Powers Ferry Square

  1997  1987  95,703  93.4 —    CVS, Pearl Arts & Crafts

Powers Ferry Village

  1997  1994  78,896  100.0 Publix  CVS, Mardi Gras

Rivermont Station

  1997  1996  90,267  78.0 Kroger  —  

Russell Ridge

  1994  1995  98,559  91.8 Kroger  —  
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (GA)

      1,661,612  92.0   
              

PENNSYLVANIA

           

Allentown / Bethlehem

           

Allen Street Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1958  46,228  96.7 Ahart Market  Rite Aid

Lower Nazareth Commons (3)

  2007  2007  80,122  75.5 (Target), Sports Authority  —  

Stefko Boulevard Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1976  133,824  90.2 Valley Farm Market  —  

Harrisburg

           

Silver Spring Square (4)

  2005  2005  314,449  95.9 Wegmans, (Target)  Ross Dress For Less, Bed Bath and Beyond, Best Buy, Office Max, Ulta, PETCO

Philadelphia

           

City Avenue Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1960  159,094  95.6 —    Ross Dress for Less, TJ Maxx, Sears

Gateway Shopping Center

  2004  1960  219,337  92.4 Trader Joe’s  Staples, TJ Maxx, Famous Footwear, Jo-Ann Fabrics

Kulpsville Village Center

  2006  2006  14,820  100.0 —    Walgreens

Mayfair Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1988  112,276  89.7 Shop ‘N Bag  Dollar Tree

Mercer Square Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1988  91,400  92.1 Genuardi’s  —  

Newtown Square Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1970  146,893  88.8 Acme Markets  Rite Aid

Warwick Square Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1999  89,680  98.0 Genuardi’s  —  

Other Pennsylvania

           

Hershey

  2000  2000  6,000  100.0 —    —  
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (PA)

      1,414,123  92.4   
              

WASHINGTON

           

Portland

           

Orchards Market Center I (4)

  2002  2004  100,663  100.0 Wholesale Sports  Jo-Ann Fabrics, PETCO, (Rite Aid)

Orchards Market Center II

  2005  2005  77,478  89.9 LA Fitness  Office Depot

Seattle

           

Aurora Marketplace (4)

  2005  1991  106,921  97.2 Safeway  TJ Maxx

Cascade Plaza (4)

  1999  1999  211,072  94.2 Safeway  Bally Total Fitness, Fashion Bug, Jo-Ann Fabrics, Ross Dress For Less, Big Lots

Eastgate Plaza (4)

  2005  1956  78,230  100.0 Albertsons  Rite Aid

Inglewood Plaza

  1999  1985  17,253  100.0 —    —  

Overlake Fashion Plaza (4)

  2005  1987  80,555  96.9 (Sears)  Marshalls

Pine Lake Village

  1999  1989  102,899  100.0 Quality Foods  Rite Aid

Sammamish-Highlands

  1999  1992  101,289  95.1 (Safeway)  Bartell Drugs, Ace Hardware

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
 Year
Con-
structed (1)
 Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
 Percent
Leased (2)
 

Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf

 

Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft

  Year
Acquired
  Year
Constructed
(1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased
(2)
 

Grocer & Major

Tenant(s) >40,000sf

  

Drug Store & Other Anchors >

10,000 Sq Ft

WASHINGTON (continued)                 

Eastgate Plaza (4)

 2005 1956 78,230 100.0% Albertsons Rite Aid

Inglewood Plaza

 1999 1985 17,253 88.4%  —  

James Center (4)

 1999 1999 140,240 94.5% Fred Myer Rite Aid

Lynnwood - H Mart

 2007 2007 77,028 100.0% H Mart —  

Overlake Fashion Plaza (4)

 2005 1987 80,555 100.0% (Sears) Marshalls

Pine Lake Village

 1999 1989 102,953 94.0% Quality Foods Rite Aid

Sammamish-Highlands

 1999 1992 101,289 100.0% (Safeway) Bartell Drugs, Ace Hardware

Southcenter

 1999 1990 58,282 94.4% (Target) —    1999  1990  58,282  77.2 (Target)  —  

Thomas Lake

 1999 1998 103,872 97.3% Albertsons Rite Aid  1999  1998  103,872  96.4 Albertsons  Rite Aid
                       

Subtotal/Weighted Average (WA)

   1,255,836 97.0%        1,038,514  95.4   
                       
OREGON                 
Portland                 

Cherry Park Market (4)

 1999 1997 113,518 88.8% Safeway —  

Greenway Town Center (4)

 2005 1979 93,101 100.0% Unified Western Grocers Rite Aid, Dollar Tree  2005  1979  93,101  98.1 Lamb’s Thriftway  Rite Aid, Dollar Tree

Hillsboro Market Center (4)

 2000 2000 148,051 95.0% Albertsons Petsmart, Marshalls

Hillsboro - Sports Authority/Best Buy

 2006 2006 76,483 100.0% Sports Authority Best Buy

Murrayhill Marketplace

 1999 1988 148,967 98.2% Safeway Segal’s Baby News  1999  1988  148,967  97.6 Safeway  Segal’s Baby News

Sherwood Crossroads

 1999 1999 87,966 98.6% Safeway —    1999  1999  87,966  98.4 Safeway  —  

Sherwood Market Center

 1999 1995 124,259 99.0% Albertsons —    1999  1995  124,259  98.6 Albertsons  —  

Sunnyside 205

 1999 1988 52,710 100.0%  —    1999  1988  52,710  88.3   —  

Tanasbourne Market

 2006 2006 71,000 100.0% Whole Foods —    2006  2006  71,000  100.0 Whole Foods  —  

Walker Center

 1999 1987 89,610 100.0% Sports Authority —    1999  1987  89,610  100.0 Sports Authority  —  
Other Oregon                 

Corvallis Market Center (3)

 2006 2006 82,073 91.8%  TJ Maxx, Michael’s

Corvallis Market Center

  2006  2006  84,549  100.0 Trader Joe’s  TJ Maxx, Michael’s
                       

Subtotal/Weighted Average (OR)

   1,087,738 97.1%        752,162  98.1   
                       
TENNESSEE                 
Memphis                 

Collierville Crossing (4)

 2007 2004 86,065 96.2% Schnucks, (Target) —    2007  2004  86,065  94.8 Schnucks, (Target)  —  

Nashville

                 

Harding Place

 2004 2004 4,848 0.0% (Wal-Mart) —  

Lebanon Center (3)

 2006 2006 63,802 78.1% Publix —    2006  2006  63,800  86.8 Publix  —  

Harpeth Village Fieldstone

 1997 1998 70,091 100.0% Publix —    1997  1998  70,091  100.0 Publix  —  

Nashboro Village

 1998 1998 86,811 98.4% Kroger (Walgreens)  1998  1998  86,811  95.2 Kroger  (Walgreens)

Northlake Village I & II

 2000 1988 141,685 85.6% Kroger CVS, PETCO

Northlake Village

  2000  1988  137,807  80.6 Kroger  PETCO

Peartree Village

 1997 1997 109,904 97.9% Harris Teeter Eckerd, Office Max  1997  1997  109,904  97.9 Harris Teeter  Eckerd, Office Max
Other Tennessee                 

Dickson Tn

 1998 1998 10,908 100.0%  Eckerd  1998  1998  10,908  100.0   Eckerd
                       

Subtotal/Weighted Average (TN)

   574,114 92.0%        565,386  91.8   
                       
MASSACHUSETTS                 
Boston                 

Shops at Saugus (3)

 2006 2006 94,204 81.8% Trader Joe’s La-Z-Boy, PetSmart  2006  2006  97,404  91.3 Trader Joe’s  La-Z-Boy, PetSmart

Speedway Plaza (4)

 2006 1988 185,279 99.4% Stop & Shop, BJ’s Wholesale —    2006  1988  185,279  100.0 Stop & Shop, BJ’s Warehouse  —  

Twin City Plaza

 2006 2004 281,703 93.4% Shaw’s, Marshall’s Rite Aid, K&G Fashion, Dollar Tree, Gold’s Gym  2006  2004  281,703  93.4 Shaw’s, Marshall’s  Rite Aid, K&G Fashion, Dollar Tree, Gold’s Gym, Extra Space Storage
                       

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MA)

   561,186 93.4%        564,386  95.2   
                       
NEVADA      

Anthem Highlands Shopping Center

 2004 2004 93,516 85.9% Albertsons CVS

Centennial Crossroads Plaza (4)

 2007 2002 99,064 93.0% Von’s Food & Drug, (Target) —  

Deer Springs Town Center (3)

 2007 2007 335,788 79.8% (Target), Home Depot, Toys “R” Us Party Superstores, PetSmart, Ross Dress For Less, Staples
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (NV)

   528,368 83.4%  

ARIZONA

           
         

Phoenix

           

Anthem Marketplace

  2003  2000  113,292  91.8 Safeway  —  

Palm Valley Marketplace (4)

  2001  1999  107,633  85.8 Safeway  —  

Pima Crossing

  1999  1996  239,438  90.1 Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc.  Life Time Fitness, E & J Designer Shoe Outlet, Paddock Pools Store, Pier 1 Imports, Stein Mart

Shops at Arizona

  2003  2000  35,710  87.7   Ace Hardware
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (AZ)

      496,073  89.4   
              

MINNESOTA

           

Apple Valley Square (4)

  2006  1998  184,841  98.8 Rainbow Foods, Jo-Ann Fabrics, (Burlington Coat Factory)  Savers, PETCO

Colonial Square (4)

  2005  1959  93,200  98.3 Lund’s  —  

Rockford Road Plaza (4)

  2005  1991  205,897  95.5 Rainbow Foods  PetSmart, Homegoods, TJ Maxx
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MN)

      483,938  97.3   
              

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
 Year
Con-
structed (1)
 Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
 Percent
Leased (2)
 

Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf

 

Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft

  Year
Acquired
  Year
Constructed
(1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased
(2)
 

Grocer & Major

Tenant(s) >40,000sf

  

Drug Store & Other Anchors >

10,000 Sq Ft

ARIZONA      
Phoenix      

Anthem Marketplace

 2003 2000 113,292 94.4% Safeway —  

Palm Valley Marketplace (4)

 2001 1999 107,633 98.9% Safeway —  

Pima Crossing

 1999 1996 239,438 93.0% Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. Bally Total Fitness, E & J Designer Shoe Outlet, Paddock Pools Store, Pier 1 Imports, Stein Mart

Shops at Arizona

 2003 2000 35,710 88.6% —   Ace Hardware
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (AZ)

   496,073 94.3%  
         
MINNESOTA      

Apple Valley Square (4)

 2006 1998 184,841 90.0% Rainbow Foods, Jo-Ann Fabrics, (Burlington Coat Factory) PETCO

Colonial Square (4)

 2005 1959 93,200 94.0% Lund’s —  

Rockford Road Plaza (4)

 2005 1991 205,897 94.9% Rainbow Foods PetSmart, Homegoods, TJ Maxx
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MN)

   483,938 92.9%  
         
DELAWARE                 
Dover                 

White Oak - Dover, DE

 2000 2000 10,908 100.0% —   Eckerd

White Oak—Dover, DE

  2000  2000  10,908  100.0   Eckerd

Wilmington

                 

First State Plaza (4)

 2005 1988 164,779 90.3% Shop Rite Cinemark, Dollar Tree, US Post Office  2005  1988  164,779  86.8 Shop Rite  Cinemark, Dollar Tree, US Post Office

Pike Creek

 1998 1981 229,510 99.2% Acme Markets, K-Mart Rite Aid  1998  1981  229,510  93.0 Acme Markets, K-Mart  Rite Aid

Shoppes of Graylyn (4)

 2005 1971 66,808 92.9% —   Rite Aid  2005  1971  66,808  92.9   Rite Aid
                       

Subtotal/Weighted Average (DE)

   472,005 95.2%        472,005  91.0   
                       

NEVADA

           

Anthem Highlands Shopping Center

  2004  2004  93,516  79.2 Albertsons  CVS

Deer Springs Town Center (3)

  2007  2007  339,474  77.6 (Target), Home Depot, Toys “R” Us  Party Superstores, PetSmart, Ross Dress For Less, Staples
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (NV)

      432,990  78.0   
              
SOUTH CAROLINA                 
Charleston                 

Merchants Village (4)

 1997 1997 79,724 97.0% Publix —    1997  1997  79,724  97.0 Publix  —  

Orangeburg

 2006 2006 14,820 100.0% —   Walgreens  2006  2006  14,820  100.0   Walgreens

Queensborough Shopping Center (4)

 1998 1993 82,333 100.0% Publix —    1998  1993  82,333  95.9 Publix  —  
Columbia                 

Murray Landing (4)

 2002 2003 64,359 97.8% Publix —    2002  2003  64,359  97.8 Publix  —  

Rosewood Shopping Center (4)

 2001 2001 36,887 96.7% Publix —  
Greenville                 

Fairview Market (4)

 2004 1998 53,888 97.4% Publix —  

Other South Carolina

                 

Buckwalter Village (3)

 2006 2006 59,602 88.3% Publix —    2006  2006  59,601  88.3 Publix  —  

Surfside Beach Commons (4)

 2007 1999 59,881 97.8% Bi-Lo —    2007  1999  59,881  94.7 Bi-Lo  —  
                       

Subtotal/Weighted Average (SC)

   451,494 96.7%        360,718  95.2   
                       
KENTUCKY      

Franklin Square (4)

 1998 1988 203,317 93.1% Kroger Rite Aid, Chakeres Theatre, JC Penney, Office Depot

Silverlake (4)

 1998 1988 99,352 97.6% Kroger —  

Walton Towne Center (3)

 2007 2007 23,184 33.6% (Kroger) —  
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (KY)

   325,853 90.2%  

INDIANA

           

Chicago

           

Airport Crossing (3)

  2006  2006  11,924  66.4 (Kohl’s)  —  

Augusta Center

  2006  2006  14,532  55.5 (Menards)  —  

Evansville

           

Evansville West Center (4)

  2007  1989  79,885  91.9 Schnucks  —  

Indianapolis

           

Greenwood Springs

  2004  2004  28,028  29.9 (Gander Mountain), (Wal-Mart Supercenter)  —  

Willow Lake Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1987  85,923  79.8 (Kroger)  Factory Card Outlet

Willow Lake West Shopping Center (4)

  2005  2001  52,961  100.0 Trader Joe’s  —  
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (IN)

      273,253  80.3   
              

WISCONSIN

           

Racine Centre Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1988  135,827  98.2 Piggly Wiggly  Office Depot, Factory Card Outlet, Dollar Tree

Whitnall Square Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1989  133,301  97.2 Pick ‘N’ Save  Harbor Freight Tools, Dollar Tree, Walgreens
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (WI)

      269,128  97.7   
              
         
ALABAMA                 

Shoppes at Fairhope Village (3)

 2008 2008 84,741 68.7% Publix —    2008  2008  84,740  76.2 Publix  —  

Southgate Village (4)

 2001 1988 75,092 100.0% Publix Pet Supplies Plus

Valleydale Village Shop Center (4)

 2002 2003 118,466 71.4% Publix —    2002  2003  118,466  69.1 Publix  —  
                       

Subtotal/Weighted Average (AL)

   278,299 78.3%        203,206  72.0   
                       

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
 Year
Con-
structed (1)
 Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
 Percent
Leased (2)
  

Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf

 

Drug Store & Other Anchors > 10,000 Sq Ft

INDIANA      
Chicago      

Airport Crossing (3)

 2006 2006 11,945 11.3% (Kohl’s) —  

Augusta Center

��2006 2006 14,537 70.1% (Menards) —  
Evansville      

Evansville West Center (4)

 2007 1989 79,885 91.9% Schnucks —  
Indianapolis      

Greenwood Springs

 2004 2004 28,028 25.0% (Gander Mountain),
(Wal-Mart Supercenter)
 —  

Willow Lake Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1987 85,923 74.4% (Kroger) Factory Card Outlet

Willow Lake West Shopping Center (4)

 2005 2001 52,961 100.0% Trader Joe’s —  
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (IN)

   273,279 76.4%  
         
WISCONSIN      

Racine Centre Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1988 135,827 98.2% Piggly Wiggly Office Depot, Factory Card Outlet, Dollar Tree

Whitnall Square Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1989 133,301 97.2% Pick ‘N’ Save Harbor Freight Tools, Dollar Tree, Walgreens
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (WI)

   269,128 97.7%  
         
CONNECTICUT      

Corbin’s Corner (4)

 2005 1962 179,860 100.0% Trader Joe’s Toys “R” Us, Best Buy, Old Navy, Office Depot, Pier 1 Imports
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (CT)

   179,860 100.0%  
         
NEW JERSEY      

Haddon Commons (4)

 2005 1985 52,640 93.4% Acme Markets CVS

Plaza Square (4)

 2005 1990 103,842 97.6% Shop Rite —  
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (NJ)

   156,482 96.2%  
         
MICHIGAN      

Fenton Marketplace

 1999 1999 97,224 92.9% Farmer Jack Michaels

State Street Crossing (3)

 2006 2006 21,049 48.3% (Wal-Mart) —  
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MI)

   118,273 84.9%  
         
NEW HAMPSHIRE      

Merrimack Shopping Center

 2004 2004 84,793 80.4% Shaw’s —  
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (NH)

   84,793 80.4%  
         
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA      

Shops at The Columbia (4)

 2006 2006 22,812 100.0% Trader Joe’s —  

Spring Valley Shopping Center (4)

 2005 1930 16,835 100.0% —   CVS
         

Subtotal/Weighted Average (DC)

   39,647 100.0%  
         

Total/Weighted Average

   49,644,545 92.3%  
         

Property Name

  Year
Acquired
  Year
Constructed
(1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased
(2)
  

Grocer & Major

Tenant(s) >40,000sf

  

Drug Store & Other Anchors >

10,000 Sq Ft

CONNECTICUT

           

Corbin’s Corner (4)

  2005  1962  179,860  100.0 Trader Joe’s  Toys “R” Us, Best Buy, Old Navy, Office Depot, Pier 1 Imports
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (CT)

      179,860  100.0   
              

NEW JERSEY

           

Haddon Commons (4)

  2005  1985  52,640  93.4 Acme Markets  CVS

Plaza Square (4)

  2005  1990  103,842  96.1 Shop Rite  —  
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (NJ)

      156,482  95.2   
              

MICHIGAN

           

Fenton Marketplace

  1999  1999  97,224  91.4 Farmer Jack  Michaels

State Street Crossing (3)

  2006  2006  21,049  60.0 (Wal-Mart)  —  
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MI)

      118,273  85.8   
              

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

           

Shops at The Columbia (4)

  2006  2006  22,812  100.0 Trader Joe’s  —  

Spring Valley Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1930  16,835  100.0 —    CVS
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (DC)

      39,647  100.0   
              

KENTUCKY

           

Walton Towne Center (3)

  2007  2007  23,184  63.7 (Kroger)  —  
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (KY)

      23,184  63.7   
              

Total/Weighted Average

      44,971,962  92.1   
              

 

(1)Or latest renovation.

(2)Includes development properties. If development properties are excluded, the total percentage leased would be 93.8%93.1% for RCLPRegency shopping centers.
(3)Property under development or redevelopment.

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

Note: Shadow anchor is indicated by parentheses.

Index to Financial Statements
Item 3.Legal Proceedings

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

 

Item 4.Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

No matters were submitted for a stockholder vote by Regency during the fourth quarter of 2008.2009.

PART II

 

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

There is no established public trading market for the units of partnership interest in the Partnership (“Units”), and Units may be transferred only with the consent of the general partner as provided in the Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership (the “Partnership Agreement”). As of December 31, 2008 there were approximately 19 holders of record in the aggregate of Original Limited Partnership Units, Additional Units and Series D Preferred Units, determined in accordance with Rule 12g5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. To the Partnership’s knowledge, there have been no bids for the Units and, accordingly, there is no available information with respect to the high and low quotation of the Units for any quarter since Regency became the general partner of the Partnership. Regency directly or indirectly through a subsidiary holds 99% of the Common Units. Each outstanding Unit other than the Units held directly or indirectly by Regency and the Series D Preferred Units which are convertible into Regency preferred stock may be exchangeable by its holder on a one share per one Unit basis, for the common stock of Regency or for cash, at Regency’s election.

The Partnership Agreement provides that the Partnership will make priority distributions of Available Cash (as defined in the Partnership Agreement) first to Series D Preferred Units on each March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31 in a distribution amount equal to 7.45% of the original capital contribution per Series D Preferred Units. Subject to the prior right of the holders of Series D Preferred Units to receive all distributions accumulated on such Units in full, at the time of each distribution to holders of common stock of Regency, distributions of Available Cash will then be made pro-rata to the holders of common Units, including Regency.

Regency’sOur common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “REG”. As of February 24, 2009, Regency16, 2010, we had approximately 20,500 stockholders17,700 holders of record.common equity. The following table sets forth the high and low prices and the cash dividends declared on Regencyour common stock by quarter for 20082009 and 2007.2008.

 

  2008  2007  2009  2008

Quarter Ended

  High
Price
  Low
Price
  Cash
Dividends
Declared
  High
Price
  Low
Price
  Cash
Dividends
Declared
  High
Price
  Low
Price
  Cash
Dividends
Declared
  High
Price
  Low
Price
  Cash
Dividends
Declared

March 31

  $67.08  52.86  .725  93.48  75.90  .66  $46.54  22.02  .7250  67.08  52.86  .7250

June 30

   73.52  58.13  .725  85.30  67.64  .66   38.63  26.55  .4625  73.52  58.13  .7250

September 30

   73.10  51.67  .725  77.00  61.99  .66   41.05  28.50  .4625  73.10  51.67  .7250

December 31

   66.19  23.36  .725  80.68  61.41  .66   36.24  31.62  .4625  66.19  23.36  .7250

Regency intendsWe intend to pay regular quarterly distributionsdividends to theirRegency Centers Corporations’ common stockholders. Future distributionsdividends will be declared and paid at the discretion of Regency’sour Board of Directors, and will depend upon cash generated by operating activities, our financial condition, capital requirements, annual distributiondividend requirements under the REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and such other factors as Regency’sour Board of Directors deem relevant. Distributions by Regencyus to the extent of Regency’sour current and accumulated earnings and profits for federal income tax purposes will be taxable to their stockholders as either ordinary dividend income or capital gain income if so declared by Regency.us. Distributions in excess of earnings and profits generally will be treated as a non-taxable return of capital. Such distributions have the effect of deferring taxation until the sale of a Regency stockholder’s common stock. In order to maintain Regency’sRegency Centers Corporation’s qualification as a REIT, Regencywe must make

Index to Financial Statements

annual distributions to their stockholders of at least 90% of Regency’sour taxable income. Under certain circumstances, which Regency doeswe do not expect to occur, Regencywe could be required to make distributions in excess of cash available for distributions in order to meet such requirements. RegencyWe currently maintainsmaintain the Regency Centers Corporation Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan which enables Regency’sour stockholders to automatically reinvest distributions,dividends, as well as make voluntary cash payments towards the purchase of additional shares.

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

There were no sales
Item 5.Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities (continued)

The following table provides information about the Company’s purchases of unregisteredequity securities that are registered by Regency during the periods covered by this report other than a total of 5,400 shares issued during 2008 on a one-for-one basis for exchangeable common units of Regency Centers, L.P.,Company pursuant to Section 4(2)12 of the Exchange Act during the quarter ended December 31, 2009:

Period

  Total number
of shares
purchased (1)
  Average price
paid per
share
  Total number of
shares purchased as
part of publicly announced
plans or programs
  Maximum number or
approximate dollar
value of shares that may yet
be purchased under the
plans or programs

October 1 through October 31, 2009

  197  $36.26  —    —  

November 1 through November 30, 2009

  98   34.19  —    —  

December 1 through December 31, 2009

  —     —    —    —  
           

Total

  295  $35.57  —    —  
           

(1)

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

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

The performance graph furnished below compares Regency’s cumulative total stockholder return since December 31, 2004. The stock performance graph should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other filing made by us under the Securities Act of 1933.1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate the stock performance graph by reference in another filing.

*$100 invested on 12/31/04 in stock or index, including reinvestment of dividends. Fiscal year ending December 31.

Copyright© 2010 S&P, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.

Index to Financial Statements
Item 6.Selected Financial Data (in thousands, except per share and unit data, number of properties, and ratio of earnings to fixed charges)

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

The following table sets forth Selected Financial Data for RCLPRegency on a historical basis for the five years ended December 31, 2008.2009. This historical Selected Financial Data has been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements as reclassified for discontinued operations. As previously disclosed in our Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 12, 2009, Regency’s Audit Committee determined on March 12, 2009, after discussions with management, that our previously-issued consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2008, should no longer be relied upon because of an error in our calculation of the gain on sale of properties to certain co-investment partnerships (DIK-JVs). Such error came to light as a result of the determination that for certain of our co-investment partnerships, the in-kind liquidation provisions contained within such co-investment partnership agreements constitute in-substance call/put options, a form of continuing involvement under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 66, “Accounting for Sales of Real Estate”. As a result, the Partnership has reevaluated its accounting policy for such sales and has adopted a Restricted Gain Method of gain recognition, as described more fully in our Critical Accounting Policies, which considers the Partnership’s ability to receive property previously sold to a co-investment partnership upon liquidation. The revised method of recognizing gain on sale of properties to co-investment partnerships with in-kind liquidation provisions has been applied in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. As a result, in the financial data presented below, the Partnership corrected its reported gains on sales of properties in 2005 and 2004. There was no impact to gains on sale of properties in 2007 or 2006. The Partnership also recorded a correction to previously reported real estate investments before accumulated depreciation, total assets, and partners’ capital in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 related to the cumulative correction of gains reported during the periods 2001 to 2005 as described in the notes below. This information should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements of RCLPRegency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. (including the related notes thereto) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of the Financial Condition and Results of Operations, each included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

Parent Company

Index to Financial Statements
   2008  2007  2006  2005  2004
            (as restated)  (as restated)

Operating Data:

         

Revenues

  $493,421  436,582  404,034  371,411  335,836

Operating expenses(a)

   277,064  247,835  231,857  197,561  187,291

Other expenses (income)(b)

   107,293  30,174  13,748  82,760  39,540

Minority interests

   701  990  4,863  263  319

Equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships(c)

   5,292  18,093  2,580  (2,907) 9,962

Income from continuing operations(d)

   113,655  175,676  156,146  87,921  118,647

Income from discontinued operations

   27,165  33,350  68,966  70,907  41,685

Net income(e)

   140,820  209,026  225,112  158,828  160,332

Preferred unit distributions and original issuance costs

   23,400  23,400  23,400  24,849  28,462

Net income for common unit holders(f)

   117,420  185,626  201,712  133,979  131,870

Income per common unit - diluted:

         

Income from continuing operations(g)

  $1.28  2.18  1.90  0.93  1.43

Net income for common unit holders(h)

  $1.66  2.65  2.89  2.00  2.11

Other Information:

         

Distributions per unit

  $2.90  2.64  2.38  2.20  2.12

Common units outstanding

   70,505  70,112  69,759  69,218  64,297

Series D-F Preferred Units outstanding

   500  500  500  1,040  1,040

Combined Basis gross leasable area (GLA)

   49,645  51,107  47,187  46,243  33,816

Combined Basis number of properties owned

   440  451  405  393  291

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges

   1.6  2.1  2.2  1.9  2.0
   2008  2007  2006  2005  2004
      (as restated)  (as restated)  (as restated)  (as restated)

Balance Sheet Data:

         

Real estate investments before accumulated depreciation(i) (m)

  $4,425,895  4,367,191  3,870,629  3,744,429  3,317,904

Total assets (j) (m)

   4,142,375  4,114,773  3,643,546  3,587,976  3,230,793

Total debt

   2,135,571  2,007,975  1,575,386  1,613,942  1,493,090

Total liabilities

   2,380,093  2,194,244  1,734,572  1,739,225  1,610,743

General partner’s capital(k) (m)

   1,512,550  1,586,683  1,564,015  1,497,898  1,308,140

Limited partners’ capital(l) (m)

   9,059  10,212  16,321  27,299  30,456

 

(a)
   2009  2008  2007  2006  2005 

Operating Data:

      

Revenues

  $489,232   495,895   436,006   405,480   374,112  

Operating expenses

   308,019   277,710   247,912   232,988   200,672  

Other expense (income)

   193,479   103,907   30,174   13,748   66,884  

Income (loss) before equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships

   (12,266 114,278   157,920   158,744   106,556  

Equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships

   (26,373 5,292   18,093   2,580   (2,908

Income (loss) from continuing operations

   (38,639 119,570   176,013   161,324   103,648  

Income (loss) from discontinued operations

   5,896   21,951   34,003   68,651   70,651  

Net income (loss)

   (32,743 141,521   210,016   229,975   174,299  

Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests

   (3,961 (5,333 (6,365 (11,464 (11,652

Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests

   (36,704 136,188   203,651   218,511   162,647  

Preferred stock dividends

   (19,675 (19,675 (19,675 (19,675 (16,744

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

   (56,379 116,513   183,976   198,836   145,903  

Income per common share - diluted:

      

Income (loss) attributable continuing operations

  $(0.82 1.35   2.16   1.89   1.15  

Net income (loss) for common stockholders

  $(0.74 1.66   2.65   2.89   2.23  

Other Information:

      

Common dividends declared per share

  $2.11   2.90   2.64   2.38   2.20  

Common stock outstanding including exchangeable operating partnership units

   82,008   70,505   70,112   69,759   69,218  

Combined Basis gross leasable area (GLA)

   44,972   49,645   51,107   47,187   46,243  

Combined Basis number of properties owned

   400   440   451   405   393  

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges

   1.0   1.6   2.0   2.0   1.9  

Balance Sheet Data:

      

Real estate investments before accumulated depreciation

  $4,259,990   4,425,895   4,367,191   3,870,629   3,744,429  

Total assets

   3,973,806   4,142,375   4,114,773   3,643,546   3,587,976  

Total debt

   1,886,380   2,135,571   2,007,975   1,575,386   1,613,942  

Total liabilities

   2,030,412   2,380,093   2,194,244   1,734,572   1,739,225  

Noncontrolling interests

   68,227   65,421   77,468   83,020   87,305  

Stockholders’ equity

   1,875,167   1,696,861   1,843,061   1,825,954   1,761,446  

Operating Partnership

Operating expenses - Impact to tax benefit for deferral of gains on sales to DIK-JVs

 

   2005  2004 

As previously reported and reclassified for discontinued operations

  $198,591  $189,026 

Correction

   (1,030)  (1,735)
         

As restated

  $197,561  $187,291 
         

(b)

Other expenses (income) – Deferral of gains on sales to DIK-JVs

   2005  2004 

As previously reported and reclassified for discontinued operations

  $66,521  $39,635 

Correction

   16,239   (95)
         

As restated

  $82,760  $39,540 
         

(c)

Equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships - Reversal of recognition of previously deferred gains on subsequent sales to third parties from DIK-JVs

   2005  2004 

As previously reported

  $(2,908) $10,194 

Correction

  $1  $(232)
         

As restated

  $(2,907) $9,962 
         
   2009  2008  2007  2006  2005 

Operating Data:

      

Revenues

  $489,232   495,895   436,006   405,480   374,112  

Operating expenses

   308,019   277,710   247,912   232,988   200,672  

Other expense (income)

   193,479   103,907   30,174   13,748   66,884  

Income (loss) before equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships

   (12,266 114,278   157,920   158,744   106,556  

Equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships

   (26,373 5,292   18,093   2,580   (2,908

Income (loss) from continuing operations

   (38,639 119,570   176,013   161,324   103,648  

Income (loss) from discontinued operations

   5,896   21,951   34,003   68,651   70,651  

Net income (loss)

   (32,743 141,521   210,016   229,975   174,299  

Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests

   (452 (701 (990 (4,863 (263

Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests

   (33,195 140,820   209,026   225,112   174,036  

Preferred unit distributions

   (23,400 (23,400 (23,400 (23,400 (24,849

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

   (56,595 117,420   185,626   201,712   149,187  

Income per common unit - diluted:

      

Income (loss) attributable continuing operations

  $(0.82 1.35   2.16   1.89   1.15  

Net income (loss) for common unit holders

  $(0.74 1.66   2.65   2.89   2.23  

Other Information:

      

Distributions per unit

  $2.11   2.90   2.64   2.38   2.20  

Common units outstanding

   82,008   70,505   70,112   69,759   69,218  

Preferred units outstanding

   500   500   500   500   1,040  

Combined Basis gross leasable area (GLA)

   44,972   49,645   51,107   47,187   46,243  

Combined Basis number of properties owned

   400   440   451   405   393  

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges

   1.0   1.6   2.0   2.0   1.9  

Balance Sheet Data:

      

Real estate investments before accumulated depreciation

  $4,259,990   4,425,895   4,367,191   3,870,629   3,744,429  

Total assets

   3,973,806   4,142,375   4,114,773   3,643,546   3,587,976  

Total debt

   1,886,380   2,135,571   2,007,975   1,575,386   1,613,942  

Total liabilities

   2,030,412   2,380,093   2,194,244   1,734,572   1,739,225  

Noncontrolling interests

   11,748   7,980   18,391   17,797   11,089  

Partners’ capital

   1,931,646   1,754,302   1,902,138   1,891,177   1,837,662  

Index to Financial Statements

(d)

Income from continuing operations - Deferral of gains on sales to and reversal of recognition of gains from DIK-JVs, net

   2005  2004

As previously reported and reclassified for discontinued operations

  $103,128  $117,050

Correction

   (15,207)  1,597
        

As restated

  $87,921  $118,647
        

(e)

Net income - Deferral of gains on sales to and reversal of recognition of gains from DIK-JVs, net

   2005  2004

As previously reported and reclassified for discontinued operations

  $174,035  $158,735

Correction

   (15,207)  1,597
        

As restated

  $158,828  $160,332
        

(f)

Net income for common unit holders - Deferral of gains on sales to and reversal of recognition of gains from DIK-JVs, net

   2005  2004

As previously reported and reclassified for discontinued operations

  $149,186  $130,273

Correction

   (15,207)  1,597
        

As restated

  $133,979  $131,870
        

(g)

Income from continuing operations per common unit - diluted - Deferral of gains on sales to and reversal of recognition of gains from DIK-JVs, net

   2005  2004

As previously reported and reclassified for discontinued operations

  $      1.16  $      1.40

Correction

   (0.23)  0.03
        

As restated

  $0.93  $1.43
        

(h)

Net income for common unit holders per unit - diluted - Deferral of gains on sales to and reversal of recognition of gains from DIK-JVs, net

   2005  2004

As previously reported

  $      2.23  $      2.08

Correction

   (0.23)  0.03
        

As restated

  $2.00  $2.11
        

(i)

Real estate investments before accumulated depreciation - Cumulative gross deferral of gains on sales to and reversal of recognition of gains from DIK-JVs

   2007  2006  2005  2004 

As previously reported

  $4,398,195  3,901,633  3,775,433  3,332,671 

Correction

   (31,004) (31,004) (31,004) (14,767)
              

As restated

  $4,367,191  3,870,629  3,744,429  3,317,904 
              

(j)

Total assets - Cumulative deferral of gains on sales to and reversal of recognition of gains from DIK-JVs, net of tax benefit

   2007  2006  2005  2004 

As previously reported

  $4,143,012  3,671,785  3,616,215  3,243,824 

Correction

   (28,239) (28,239) (28,239) (13,031)
              

As restated

  $4,114,773  3,643,546  3,587,976  3,230,793 
              

(k)

General partner’s capital - General partner’s share of cumulative impact to net income for deferral of gains on sales to and reversal of recognition of gains from DIK-JVs, net of tax benefit

   2007  2006  2005  2004 

As previously reported

  $1,614,302  1,591,634  1,525,517  1,320,852 

Correction

   (27,619) (27,619) (27,619) (12,712)
              

As restated

  $1,586,683  1,564,015  1,497,898  1,308,140 
              

(l)

Limited partners’ capital - Limited partners’ share of cumulative impact to net income for deferral of gains on sales to and reversal of recognition of gains from DIK-JVs

   2007  2006  2005  2004 

As previously reported

  $10,832  16,941  27,919  30,775 

Correction

   (620) (620) (620) (319)
              

As restated

  $10,212  16,321  27,299  30,456 
              

(m)

2004 opening balance sheet data reflects cumulative prior period adjustments recorded to defer reported gains on sales of properties to and reverse recognition of previously deferred gains on subsequent sales to third parties from DIK-JVs in 2003 and prior. As a result of this adjustment, real estate investments before accumulated depreciation and total assets decreased $14.6 million, general partner’s capital decreased $14.3 million, and limited partners’ capital decreased approximately $349,000.

Index to Financial Statements
Item 7.Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Overview of Our Operating Strategy

Regency isCenters Corporation (the “Parent Company”) began its operations as a qualified real estate investment trustReal Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”), which began operations in 1993.1993 and is the managing general partner in Regency Centers, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”). The term “the Company” or “Regency” means the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, collectively. Our primary operatingkey strategic goals are focused on total share and investment goal is long-term growth in earnings and total unit holder return which we work toin excess of peer indices and sustaining growth in net asset value and earnings. We will achieve by focusing on a strategy ofthese goals through owning, operating and developinginvesting in a high-quality community and neighborhoodportfolio of primarily grocery-anchored shopping centers that are tenanted by market-dominant grocers, category-leading anchors, specialty retailers, and restaurants located in areas with above average household incomes and population densities. All of our operating, investing, and financing activities are performed through our operating partnership, Regency Centers, L.P. (“RCLP” or “Partnership”), RCLP’s wholly ownedthe Operating Partnership, its wholly-owned subsidiaries, and through its investments in real estate partnerships with third parties (also referred to as co-investment partnerships or joint ventures). RegencyThe Parent Company currently owns 99% of the outstanding operatingcommon partnership units of RCLP.the Operating Partnership. Because of our structure and certain public debt financing, the Operating Partnership is also a registrant.

At December 31, 2008,2009, we directly owned 224216 shopping centers (the “Consolidated Properties”) located in 2423 states representing 24.223.0 million square feet of gross leasable area (“GLA”). Our cost of these shopping centers and those under development is $4.0$3.9 billion before depreciation. Through co-investment partnerships, we own partial ownership interests in 216184 shopping centers (the “Unconsolidated Properties”) located in 2725 states and the District of Columbia representing 25.422.0 million square feet of GLA. Our investment in the partnerships that own the Unconsolidated Properties is $383.4$326.2 million. Certain portfolio information described below is presented (a) on a Combined Basis, which is a total of the Consolidated Properties and the Unconsolidated Properties, (b) for our Consolidated Properties only and (c) for the Unconsolidated Properties that we own through co-investment partnerships. We believe that presenting the information under these methods provides a more complete understanding of the properties that we wholly-own versus those that we indirectly own through entities we do not control, but for which we provide asset management, property management, leasing, investing, and financing services. The shopping center portfolio that we manage, on a Combined Basis, represents 440400 shopping centers located in 2928 states and the District of Columbia and contains 49.645.0 million square feet of GLA.

We earn revenues and generate cash flow by leasing space in our shopping centers to market-leading grocers,grocery stores, major retail anchors, specialty side-shop retailers, and restaurants, including ground leasing or selling building pads (out-parcels) to these potentialsame types of tenants. We experienceHistorically, we have experienced growth in revenues by increasing occupancy and rental rates at currently ownedin our existing shopping centers, and by acquiring and developing new shopping centers. Community and neighborhoodOur shopping centers generate substantial daily traffic by conveniently offering necessities and services. This high traffic generates increased sales, thereby driving higher occupancy and rental-rate growth, which we expect will sustain ourprovide sustained growth in earnings per share and unit and increase thenet asset value of our portfolio over the long term.

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

The current economic recession is resultingthat ended in 2009 had a significant negative impact on our 2009 operating results. During 2009 we experienced less tenant demand for vacant space as well as a higher level of retail store closings, and is limitingalthough the demand for leasing spacerate of closure appears to be slowing. Our rent collection losses increased in most

of our shopping centers resulting inand markets, as we experienced a higher level of tenants defaulting on their leases, a result of lower retail sales. These factors contributed to a decline in our occupancy percentages, new leasing rental rates, and rental revenues. Additionally, certain nationalAt December 31, 2009 our operating portfolio of shopping centers including our pro-rata share of our co-investment partnerships, were 93.1% leased as compared to 93.8% at the end of 2008 and 95.0% leased at the end of 2007. Increasing occupancy in our shopping centers to historical levels of 95% is a key objective of our strategic plan that should generate substantial growth in our future earnings and net asset value, but will likely require several years to accomplish.

We continue to closely monitor tenants negotiatewho have co-tenancy clauses intoin their lease agreements, which allow them to reduce their rents or close their storesagreements. These tenants are typically located in the event that a co-tenant closes their store. We believe that our investment focus on neighborhood andlarger format community shopping centers that conveniently provide daily necessities will help lessencontain multiple anchor tenants whose leases contain these types of clauses. Co-tenancy clauses have several variants: they may allow a tenant to postpone a store opening if certain other tenants fail to open their store; they may allow a tenant the current economy’s negative impactopportunity to ourclose their store prior to lease expiration if another tenant closes their store prior to lease expiration; or more commonly, they may allow a tenant to pay reduced levels of rent until a certain number of tenants open their stores within the same shopping center. As the weak economy continues to depress retail sales, we could experience further reductions in rent and occupancy related to tenants exercising their co-tenancy clauses.

During 2009 we experienced a higher tenant default rate as compared to previous years due to a national decline in retail sales. These defaults were primarily local tenants, which are generally defined as tenants operating five or fewer stores, such as restaurants, fitness centers, although the negative impact could still be significant.dry cleaners, and tanning salons. We are

Index to Financial Statements

closely monitoring the operating performance, collections, and tenants’ sales of all of the tenants in our shopping centers includingespecially those tenants operating retail formats that are experiencing significant changes in competition, business practice, or reductions in sales.sales, and store closings in other locations. We expect that as the current economy remains weak, additional retailers will announce store closings and/or bankruptcies that could negatively impact our shopping centers.

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

In the near term, reducedfewer new store openings amongstby retailers isare resulting in reduced demand for new retail space and is causing corresponding reductions in new leasing rental rates and development pre-leasing. As a result, we are significantly reducinghave scaled back our development program by reducingdecreasing the number of new projects started, phasing existing developments that lack retail demand, and reducing related general and administrative expense.decreasing overhead costs through reductions in force. Although our development program will continue to beplay a significant part of our long term business strategy, new development projects will be rigorously evaluated in regard to the cost and availability of capital, visibility of tenant demand to achieve 95%a stabilized occupancy, and sufficient investment returns.

We intendstrive to maintain a conservative capital structurestructure. We will continue to cost effectively and opportunistically strengthen our balance sheet, which should allow us to access various sources of capital to fund our growth program, which should preservefuture commitments. We endeavor to continue improving our investment-grade ratings. Our approach is foundedkey financial ratios and to maintain a high percentage of unencumbered assets: 81.6% of our consolidated real estate assets at December 31, 2009 are unencumbered. Such assets allow us to access the secured and unsecured debt markets and maintain significant availability on our self-funding$713.8 million line of credit commitment, which had no outstanding balance at December 31, 2009. Our debt to asset ratio (before the effect of accumulated depreciation), including our pro-rata share of the debt and assets of joint ventures is 45.9% at December 31,

2009, which is favorably lower than our ratio at December 31, 2008 of 50.0%. If we were to repay a portion of our outstanding debt with our available cash balances, our current debt to asset ratio would fall to 44.9% at December 31, 2009. For the year ended 2009, our coverage ratio with our pro-rata share of our partnerships declined to 2.0 times as compared to 2.4 times in 2008, directly related to a reduction in our EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization), which was negatively impacted by the recent recession. We define our Coverage ratio as EBITDA divided by the sum of the gross interest and scheduled mortgage principal paid to our lenders plus dividends paid to our preferred stockholders. During 2009, Standard and Poor’s Rating Services lowered our corporate credit rating and senior unsecured debt rating from BBB+ to BBB primarily due to the decline in our Coverage ratio and a negative retail outlook. We plan to grow EBITDA through growth in net operating income by returning the occupancy percentages in our shopping centers back to historic levels and by acquiring or developing shopping centers, which in combination with a conservative capital strategystructure should favorably impact our Coverage ratio on a long-term basis.

Capital recycling involves contributing shopping centers to fund our growth. Theco-investment partnerships and culling of non-strategic assets from our real estate portfolio and our industry-leading co-investment partnership program are integral components of this strategy. We also develop certain retail centers because of their attractive profit margins withselling those in the intent of selling them to third parties upon completion.open market. These sales proceeds are either reserved for future capital commitments related to in process development, redevelopments or debt maturities, or re-deployed into even higher-quality new high-quality developments andor acquisitions that are expected towill generate sustainable revenue growth and attractive returns. To the extent that we are unable to executegenerate capital in excess of our capital recycling program to generate adequate sources of capital,current commitments, we will significantly reduce and even stopour new investment activity until there is adequate visibility and reliability to sources of capital for RCLP.accordingly.

Joint venturing of shopping centers providesCo-investment partnerships provide us with a reliable capital source for new developments andshopping center acquisitions, as well as the opportunity to earn fees for asset andmanagement, property management, and other investing and financing services. As asset manager, we are engaged by our partners to apply similar operating, investment and capital strategies to the portfolios owned by the co-investment partnerships.partnerships as those applied to the portfolio that we wholly-own. Co-investment partnerships grow their shopping center investments through acquisitions from third parties or direct purchases from us. Although selling properties to co-investment partnerships reduces our direct ownership interest, it provides a source of capital that further strengthens our balance sheet while we continue to share, to the extent of our ownership interest, in the risks and rewards of shopping centers that meet our high quality standards and long-term investment strategy. We have no obligations or liabilities within the co-investment partnerships beyond our ownership interest.

The current lack of liquidity in the capital markets is having a corresponding effect on new investment activity in our co-investment partnerships. Our co-investment partnerships have significant levels of debt 67.5% of which willthat mature through 2012 and are subject to significant refinancing risks. We anticipate thatborrowing risks if the capital markets again become unavailable as they were during the recent recession. As a result of the declines in commercial real estate values decline,over the past 18 months, the refinancing of maturing loans including those maturing in our joint ventures, will require us and our joint venture partners to each contribute our respective pro-rata sharesshare of capital to the joint ventures in order to reduce refinancing requirementsthe amount of borrowing to acceptable loan to value levels which we expect will be required for new financings. While we have been successful refinancingto date successfully refinanced our maturing loans, the longer-term impact of the current economic crisis onweak U.S. economy may hinder our ability to access capital, including access by our joint venture partners, or to obtain future financing to fund maturing debt is unclear.debt. While we believe that our joint venture partners have sufficient capital or access thereto for these future capital requirements, we can provide no assurance that the constrained capital marketsweak economy will not inhibit their ability to access capital and meet their future funding requirements.commitments. The impact to the Company of a co-investment partner defaulting on its share of a capital call is discussed below under “Liquidity and Capital Resources”.

Index to Financial Statements

Shopping Center Portfolio

The following tables summarize general information related to our shopping center portfolio, which we use to evaluate and monitor our performance.

 

   December 31,
2008
  December 31,
2007
 

Number of Properties(a)

  440  451 

Number of Properties(b)

  224  232 

Number of Properties(c)

  216  219 

Properties in Development(a)

  45  49 

Properties in Development(b)

  44  48 

Properties in Development(c)

  1  1 

Gross Leasable Area(a)

  49,644,545  51,106,824 

Gross Leasable Area(b)

  24,176,536  25,722,665 

Gross Leasable Area(c)

  25,468,009  25,384,159 

Percent Leased(a)

  92.3% 91.7%

Percent Leased(b)

  90.2% 88.1%

Percent Leased(c)

  94.3% 95.2%
   December 31,
2009
  December 31,
2008
 

Number of Properties(a) (d)

  400   440  

Number of Properties(b) (d)

  216   224  

Number of Properties(c) (d)

  184   216  

Properties in Development(a)

  40   45  

Properties in Development(b)

  39   44  

Properties in Development(c)

  1   1  

Gross Leasable Area(a)

  44,971,962   49,644,545  

Gross Leasable Area(b)

  22,965,276   24,176,536  

Gross Leasable Area(c)

  22,006,686   25,468,009  

% Leased – Operating and Development(a)

  92.1 92.3

% Leased – Operating and Development(b)

  91.0 90.2

% Leased – Operating and Development(c)

  93.2 94.3

% Leased – Operating(a)

  93.2 94.1

% Leased – Operating(b)

  93.2 93.7

% Leased – Operating(c)

  93.3 94.4

 

(a)

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

(b)(

b)

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

(c)

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

(d)

Includes Properties in Development

We seek to reduce our operating and leasing risks through diversification which we achieve by geographically diversifying our shopping centers, avoiding dependence on any single property, market, or tenant, and owning a portion of our shopping centers through co-investment partnerships.

The following table summarizes our four largest tenants, each of which is a grocery tenantstenant, occupying the shopping centers at December 31, 2008:2009:

 

Grocery Anchor

  Number of
Stores(a)
  Percentage of
Partnership-
owned GLA (b)
 Percentage of
Annualized

Base Rent(b)
   Number of
Stores(a)
  Percentage of
Company-
owned GLA (b)
 Percentage of
Annualized

Base Rent (b)
 

Kroger

  66  9.0% 5.7%  55  8.0 4.9

Publix

  67  6.8% 4.2%  55  6.9 4.2

Safeway

  64  5.7% 3.8%  61  5.8 3.7

Super Valu

  36  3.2% 2.4%  31  3.2 2.5

 

(a)

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

(b)

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

The following table summarizes leasing activity in square feet (“SF”) for the year ended December 31, 2009 for the Combined Properties and Regency Pro-rata GLA (in thousands):

   Combined
Properties (a)
  % of
GLA
  Regency
Pro-rata (b)
  % of
GLA
 

Leasing Activity:

     

New Leases Signed

  1,442   3.2 1,056   3.7

Existing Leases Renewed

  3,889   8.6 2,241   7.9
             

Total Leasing Activity

  5,331   11.8 3,297   11.6
             

Leases Moved Out

  (2,042 -4.5 (1,382 -4.9
             

New Leases less Moveouts

  (600 -1.3 (326 -1.1
             

Rental Rate Growth %

  -2.0  -2.7 

Leases Expiring in 2010(c)

  3,894   9.6 2,404   9.6

Leases Expiring in 2011

  4,298   10.6 2,865   11.5

Leases Expiring in 2012

  5,092   12.6 3,305   13.2

(a)

Combined Properties includes Consolidated Properties and Unconsolidated Properties.

(b)

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

(c)

Excludes 604 (Combined Properties) and 332 (Regency Pro-rata) SF of leases under month to month rental agreements or leases in process of renewal

Although base rent is supported by long-term lease contracts, tenants who file bankruptcy are given the right to cancel any or all of their leases and close related stores, or continue to operate. In the event that a tenant with a significant number of leases in our shopping centers files bankruptcy and cancels its leases, we could experience a significant reduction in our revenues.revenues and tenant receivables. We are closely monitoring industry trends and sales data to help us identify declines in retail categories or tenants who

Index to Financial Statements

might be experiencing financial difficulties as a result of slowing sales, lack of credit, changes in retail formats or increased competition, especially in light of the current downturn in the economy.competition. As a result of our findings, we may reduce new leasing, suspend leasing, or curtail the allowance for the construction of leasehold improvements within a certain retail category or to a specific retailer.

In October 2007,As of December 31, 2009, we had 82 video rental stores occupying our shopping centers on a Combined Basis that represent $6.7 million of annual base rent on a pro-rata basis. Blockbuster Video represents the majority of our video rental leases with 71 stores and annual base rent of $5.7 million or 1.4% of our annualized base rent including our pro-rata share of 28 stores in the Unconsolidated Properties. Blockbuster has announced publicly that it will close many of its stores and we expect that during 2010 they will close some of the stores that they occupy in our shopping centers. Movie GalleryGallery/Hollywood Video filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.protection on February 2, 2010. We currently have 21four Movie GalleryGallery/Hollywood Video stores occupying our shopping centers.centers and we anticipate that these stores could close during 2010. The base rent associated with these four stores is insignificant to our annual base rent on a pro-rata basis.

During 2009, EJ’s Shoes, Eddie Bauer, Bi-Lo Supermarkets, Ritz Camera/Wolf Camera/Boater’s World, the Walking Company, and Max & Erma’s each filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and InkStop filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation. Of these 22 leases, six leases have been assumed and 14 leases have been rejected. The combined annual base rent on a pro-rata basis associated with these 21 storesleases is approximately $1.2 million or less than 1%. At December 31, 2008, we were closely monitoring leases with 107 video rental stores including Movie Gallery representing $7.8 million of annual base rent on a pro-rata basis.

In May 2008, Linens-n-Things (“LNT”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. LNT has closed all five stores in our shopping centers. The annual base rent associated with these five stores is approximately $452,000 or less than 1% of our annual base rent on a pro-rata basis.

In November 2008, Circuit City filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Circuit City has rejected all three leases in our shopping centers. The annual base rent associated with these stores is $1.1$1.3 million or less than 1% of our annual base rent on a pro-rata basis.

In November 2008, Brooke InvestmentsJanuary and February 2010, Fili’s Enterprises, Inc. doing business as Daphne’s Cafe, along with Pizzeria Uno, and Hollywood Video/Movie Gallery, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Brooke Investments has closed all five stores in our shopping centers.Of these 20 leases, none have been assumed and 11 leases have been rejected. The combined annual

base rent on a pro-rata basis associated with these five storesleases is approximately $127,000$1.4 million or less than 1% of our annual base rent on a pro-rata basis.

In December 2008, Bally’s Total Fitness filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Bally’s Total Fitness has rejected one lease in our shopping centers. The annual base rent on a pro-rata basis associated with this store is approximately $331,000 or less than 1%.

In February 2009, S&K Menswear filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. S&K Menswear has rejected two leases in our shopping centers. The annual base rent on a pro-rata basis associated with these stores is approximately $89,000 or less than 1%.

We continue to monitor and communicate with those tenants who have announced store closings. Starbucks recently announced that it would close approximately 900 of its stores. Of the 900 stores, Starbucks has closed two stores in our shopping centers and fourclosings or are expected to close. The annual base rent associated with these six stores is approximately $251,000 or less than 1% of our annual base rent on a pro-rata basis. Washington Mutual has also closed two stores in our shopping centers. The annual base rent on a pro-rata basis associated with these two stores is approximately $208,000 or less than 1%.

experiencing financial distress. We expect as the current economic downturnweak economy continues, additional retailers will announce store closings and/or bankruptcies that could affectnegatively impact our shopping centers. WeWhile retail sales remain depressed, we could experience further reductions in rent and occupancy related to tenants exercising their co-tenancy clauses as discussed previously. However, we are not currently aware at this time of the pending bankruptcy or announced store closings of any other tenants in our shopping centers beyond those described above that would individually cause a significantmaterial reduction in our revenues. Norevenues, and no tenant represents more than 6%5% of our annual base rent on a pro-rata basis.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our Parent Company has no capital commitments other than its guarantees of the commitments of our Operating Partnership, which are discussed further below under Contractual Obligations. The Parent Company will from time to time access the capital markets for the purpose of issuing new equity and will simultaneously contribute all of the offering proceeds to the Operating Partnership in exchange for additional partnership units. Any new debt is issued by our Operating Partnership or by our co-investment partnerships. Accordingly, the discussion below regarding liquidity and capital resources is presented on a consolidated basis for the Company. The following table summarizes net cash flows related to operating, investing, and financing activities of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 20062007 (in thousands):

 

  2008 2007 2006   2009 2008 2007 

Net cash provided by operating activities

  $219,169  218,167  211,659   $193,862   219,169   218,167  

Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities

   (105,775) (412,161) 43,387 

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities

   45,729   (105,775 (412,161

Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities

   (110,529) 178,616  (263,458)   (161,647 (110,529 178,616  
                    

Net increase (decrease) in cash and equivalents

  $2,865  (15,378) (8,412)

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

  $77,944   2,865   (15,378
                    

During 2009, we completed the following capital sourcing transactions:

Index

On April 24, 2009, we completed a public offering of 10.0 million common shares at $32.50 per share resulting in proceeds of $310.9 million, net of issuance costs, a portion of which was used to Financial Statements

fully repay the Company’s $180.0 million balance on its line of credit and fund construction costs.

On July 1, 2009, we closed on mortgage loans of $106.0 million secured by eight wholly-owned properties (the “Allianz Loan”). Additionally, during 2009, our co-investment partnerships closed on $348.3 million of mortgage loans for which our pro-rata share based upon our partnership ownership interests was $77.2 million.

On October 27, 2009 we finalized the formation of a new co-investment partnership with the United Services Automobile Association (the “USAA” partnership) in which we have a 20% ownership interest. During 2009, we sold eight operating properties to the USAA partnership for $133.9 million, providing us with net proceeds of $103.3 million.

On December 9, 2009, we completed a public offering of 8,000,000 common shares at $30.75 per share which will result in net proceeds of $235.8, net of issuance costs at a future settlement date expected to occur no later than 2011. In connection with this offering, we entered into forward sale agreements with affiliates of J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, as forward purchasers. We intend to use the proceeds, once settled, to repay debt of the Operating Partnership. This offering also included an over-allotment option of 1,200,000 shares which closed simultaneously with the offering providing us with additional net proceeds of $35.4 million.

On December 31, 2009 our cash balance was $99.5 million. We operate our business such that we expect thatnet cash provided by operating activities in combination with proceeds generated from operating activitiesgains realized on sales of development properties and land will provide the necessary funds to pay our operating expenses, interest expense,

scheduled mortgage loan principal payments, on outstanding debt, and capital expenditures necessary to maintain our shopping centers.centers, and distributions to our share and unit holders. Net cash provided by operating activities plus gains from the sale of development properties and land of $5.8 million, $34.3 million and $63.9 million totaled $199.7 million, $253.5 million, and $282.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. During the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006,2007, we incurred capital expenditures to maintain our shopping centers of $14.4 million, $15.4 million, $15.1 million, and $14.0$15.1 million; we paid scheduled principal payments of $4.8$5.2 million, $4.5$4.8 million, and $4.5 million to our lenders on mortgage loans;million; and we paid distributions to our unit holders of $183.1 million, $222.9 million, $204.3 million, and $185.2$204.3 million, respectively. During 2008 Regency’s annual2009, these expenditures and distributions exceeded our cash provided by operating activities and gains by $3.0 million due to a decline in our revenues and gains, which is discussed further below under Results from Operations. Our Board of Directors anticipated these declines; and accordingly, reduced our quarterly dividend to $0.4625 per common share increasedand unit beginning in May 2009 from the previous $0.725 paid in March 2009 Our dividend distribution policy is set by 9.8%. Regency expectsour Board of Directors who continuously review our financial results and make decisions they believe prudent about distribution rates. We plan to continue paying dividendsan aggregate amount of distributions to their shareholders basedour stock and unit holders that at a minimum meet the requirements to continue qualifying as a REIT for Federal income tax purposes.

Commitments available to us under our Operating Partnership’s unsecured line of credit (the “Line”) and revolving credit facility total $713.8 million. As of February 26, 2010, we had no balance outstanding on the Line or the revolving credit facility. The Line is available to us through January 2011, at which time we have the option to extend $600.0 million of the commitment to January 2012. Based upon availabilityour on-going discussions with our Line banks, we believe we will be able to successfully negotiate and extend the Line at a commitment level sufficient to meet our working capital and investment needs when it matures.

We currently estimate that we will require approximately $916.1 million through 2012 primarily to repay $624.7 million of cash flowmaturing debt, complete in-process developments, and to maintain compliance with REIT tax laws. On February 3, 2009, Regency’s Boardfund our pro-rata share of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividendestimated capital contributions to our co-investment partnerships for repayment of $0.725 perdebt. Included in these capital requirements are $584.0 million of unsecured public debt as further described below under Notes Payable, which we intend to repay at maturity from the proceeds of new unsecured issues. To the extent that issuing unsecured debt is cost prohibitive or unavailable, we believe that we have sufficient unsecured assets available for secured mortgage financing whose proceeds could be used to repay the unsecured debt at maturity. When necessary, the Line is available to fund our capital needs. Also, as mentioned previously, we will receive $235.8 million of net proceeds once we settle the 8.0 million common share payable on March 4, 2009 to Regency shareholders of record on February 18, 2009 and determined that it in light of the current recession and the strains it is placing on our business, they will not increase the dividend rate per share during 2009, and may find it necessary to reduce future dividends or pay a portion of the dividendforward equity offering in the form of stock. Regency’s Board of Directors continuously reviews Regency’s operations and will make decisions about future dividend payments on a quarterly basis.future.

At December 31, 20082009 we had 4540 properties under construction or undergoing major renovations on a Combined Basis, which when completed, will represent a net investment of $993.2$820.7 million after projected sales of adjacent land and out-parcels. This compares to 4945 properties that were under construction at December 31, 20072008 representing an investment of $1.1 billion$993.2 million upon completion. We estimate that we will earn an average return on investment from our current development projects of 7.5% on a6.6% when completed and fully allocated basis including direct internal costs and the cost to acquire any residual ownership interests held by minority development partners.leased. Average returns have declined over previous yearsyears’ primarily as a result of higher costs associated with the acquisition of landlonger lease up periods and construction. Returns are also being pressured by reduced competition among retailers resulting in decliningmarket rental rates. Costs necessary to complete the current development projects, net of reimbursements and projected land sales, are estimated to be approximately $141.9 million and will likely be expended through 2012. The costs to complete these developments will be funded from our $941.5 million Unsecured credit facilities (defined under Notes Payable), which had $643.8 million of available funding at December 31, 2008. The Unsecured credit facilities mature in 2011 but $600.0 million contains a one year extension option as discussed further below.$34.1 million.

Our strategy is to continue growing our shopping center portfolio by investing in shopping centers through new development or by acquiring existing centers, while at the same time selling non-performing shopping centers and a percentage of our completed developments as a means to generate the capital required by this new investment activity. In the near term, reduced store demand or failures among national retailers is resulting in reduced demand for new retail space and is causing corresponding reductions in new leasing rental rates and development pre-leasing. As a result, we have significantly reduced our development program by reducing the number of new projects started, phasing existing developments that lack retail demand, and reducing related general and administrative expense. Also, to the extent that we are unable to execute our capital recycling program in the current economic environment in order to generate new capital, or we find it necessary to provide financing to buyers of our shopping centers resulting in reduced sales proceeds, we will significantly reduce, and if necessary, stop new investment activity until the capital markets become less volatile.

We expect to repay maturing secured mortgage loans and credit lines primarily from similar new issues. We have $25.1 million of secured mortgage loans maturing through 2010. Our joint ventures have $936.5 million$1.3 billion of secured mortgage loans and credit lines maturing through 2010, and our pro-rata share is $248.8 million.2012. We believe that in order to refinance the maturing joint venture loans, we, along with our joint venture partners, will likely be required to contribute our pro-rata share based on our respective ownership interest percentage of the capital necessary to reduce the refinancing amountsamount of borrowings to acceptable loan to value levels required for this type of financing in the current capital markets environment. Currently, the expected partner capital requirements for maturing debt infinancing. We currently estimate that we will contribute approximately $206.4 million to our joint ventures is estimated to be in a range of 20% - 30% of the loan balances at maturity based upon prevailing market terms at the time of refinancing. We would fundthrough 2012 for our pro-rata share of a capital call, if any,the repayment of maturing debt, net of the proceeds from new debt issues, and we estimate our Unsecured credit facilities. We believe that ourjoint venture partners have sufficient capital or access theretowill contribute $304.8 million for these future capital

Index to Financial Statements

requirements, however, we can provide no assurance that the current economic crisis will not inhibit their ability to access capital and meet their future funding requirements.share. A more detailed loan maturity schedule is included below under Notes Payable.

We would expectbelieve that maturing unsecured public debt would be repaid fromour joint venture partners are financially sound and have sufficient capital or

access thereto to fund future capital requirements. We communicate with our co-investment partners regularly regarding the proceedsoperating and capital budgets of similar new unsecured issues in the future if those capital markets are available, although in the current environment, new issues are significantly more expensive than historical issues. To the extent that issuing unsecured debt in the public markets is cost prohibitive or unavailable, weour co-investment partnerships, and believe that we will successfully complete the refinancing of our joint venture debt as it matures. In the event that a co-investment partner was unable to fund its share of the capital requirements of the co-investment partnership, we would have the right, but not the obligation, to loan the defaulting partner the amount of its capital call at an interest rate at the lesser of prime plus a pre-defined spread or the maximum rate allowed by law. A decision to loan to a defaulting joint venture partner, which would be secured by the defaulting partner’s partnership interest, would be based on the fair value of the co-investment partnership assets, our joint venture partner’s financial health and would be subject to an evaluation of our own capital commitments and sources to fund those commitments. Alternatively, should we determine that our joint venture partners will not have sufficient unsecured assets thatcapital to meet future capital needs, we could financetrigger liquidation of the partnership. For the co-investment partnerships that have distribution-in-kind (“DIK”) provisions, and own multiple properties, a liquidation of the co-investment partnership could be completed by either a DIK of the properties to each joint venture partner in proportion to its partnership interest, open market sale, or a combination of both methods. Our co-investment partnership properties have been financed with non-recourse loans that represent 99% of the total debt of the co-investment partnerships at December 31, 2009 including lines of credit. We and our partners have no guarantees related to these loans. In those co-investment partnerships which have DIK provisions, if we trigger liquidation by distribution in kind, each partner would receive title to properties selected in a rotation process for distribution and would assume any related loans secured mortgagesby the properties distributed. The loan agreements generally provide for assumption by either joint venture partner after obtaining any required lender consent. We would only be responsible for those loans we assume through the DIK, and repayonly to the unsecured public debt.extent of the value of the property we receive since after assumption through the DIK the loans would remain non-recourse. We also have $50.0a 50% investment interest in a single asset joint venture with an $8.5 million loan which contains guarantees from each partner limited however to their respective interest.

Our preferred stock and $160.0 million of public debt maturing in 2009 and 2010, respectively. The joint venturespreferred units, though callable by us, are not rated and therefore do not issue and have no unsecured public debt outstanding.redeemable in cash at the option of the holders.

Although common or preferred equity raised in the public markets by the Parent Company is a fundingan option given the state of the currentto fund future capital markets, ourneeds, access to these markets maycould be limited.limited at times. During 2009, we successfully completed $607.9 million of common stock offerings. When the conditions for the issuance of equity are more favorable,acceptable, we might considerwill evaluate issuing equity to fund new investmentacquisition opportunities, fund our development programnew developments, or repay maturing debt, which would result in dilution to our existing shareholders. We would also consider issuing equity as part of a financing plan to maintain our leverage ratios at acceptable levels as determined by Regency’s Board of Directors.debt. At December 31, 2008, Regency2009, the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership each had an unlimited amount available under itsexisting shelf registration statements available for the issuance of new equity or debt securities, and RCLP had an unlimited amount available under its shelf registration for debt.respectively.

Investments in Real Estate Partnerships

We account for certain investments in real estate partnerships using the equity method. We have determined that these investments are not variable interest entities as defined inand do not require consolidation under Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 46(R) “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities”Accounting Standards Codification (“FIN 46(R)”ASC”) and do not require consolidation under Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 04-5 “Determining Whether a General Partner, or the General Partners as a Group, Controls a Limited Partnership or Similar Entity When the Limited Partners Have Certain Rights” (“EITF 04-5”) or the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ (“AICPA”) Statement of Position 78-9, “Accounting for Investments in Real Estate Ventures” (“SOP 78-9”),Topic 810, and therefore are subject to the voting interest model in determining our basis of accounting. Major decisions, including property acquisitions not meeting pre-established investment criteria, dispositions, financings, annual budgets and dissolution of the joint ventures are subject to the approval of all partners.

We account for profit recognition on sales of real estate in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 66, “Accounting for Sales of Real Estate” (“Statement 66”). Recognition of gains from sales to co-investment partnerships is recorded on only that portion of the sales not attributable to our ownership interest unless there are certain provisions in the partnership agreement which allow the Company a unilateral right to initiate a distribution in kind (“DIK”)DIK upon liquidation, as described further below under our Critical Accounting Policies and Note 1(b) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies in our Consolidated Financial Statements each included herein. The presence of such DIK provisions requires that we apply a more restrictive method of gain recognition (“Restricted Gain Method”) on sales of properties to these co-investment partnerships. This method considers our potential ability to receive property through a DIK on which partial gain has been recognized, and ensures maximum gain deferral upon sale to a co-investment partnership containing these unilateral DIK rights (“DIK-JV”). We have concluded, through consultation with our auditors and the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), that these dissolution provisions constitute in-substance call/put options under the guidance of Statement 66, and represent a form of continuing involvement with respect to property that we sold to these DIK-JV’s.

The operations and gains related to properties sold to our investments in all real estate partnerships are not recordedclassified as discontinued operations because we continue to provide to these shopping centers property management services under market rate agreements with our co-investment partnerships. For those properties acquired by the joint venture from unrelated parties, we are required to

Index to Financial Statements

contribute our pro-rata share based on our ownership interest of the purchase price to the co-investment partnerships.

At December 31, 2008,2009, we had investments in real estate partnerships of $383.4$326.2 million. The following table is a summary of unconsolidated combined assets and liabilities of these co-investment partnerships and our pro-rata share (see note below) at December 31, 20082009 and 20072008 (dollars in thousands):

 

  2008 2007   2009 2008 

Number of Joint Ventures

   19   19    18    19  

RCLP’s Ownership

   16.35%-50%  16.35%-50%

Regency’s Ownership

   16.35%-50  16.35%-50

Number of Properties

   216   219    184    216  

Combined Assets

  $4,862,730  $4,767,553   $4,185,181   $4,862,730  

Combined Liabilities

   2,973,410   2,889,238    2,644,948    2,973,410  

Combined Equity

   1,889,320   1,878,315    1,540,233    1,889,320  

RCLP’s Share of(1):

   

Regency’s Share of(a):

   

Assets

  $1,171,218  $1,151,872   $998,960   $1,171,218  

Liabilities

   705,452   692,804    623,884    705,452  

 

(1)(

a)

Pro-rata financial information is not, and is not intended to be, a presentation in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. However, management believes that providing such information is useful to investors in assessing the impact of its investments in real estate partnership activities on the operations of RCLP,Regency, which includes such items on a single line presentation under the equity method in its consolidated financial statements.

Investments in real estate partnerships are primarily composed of co-investment partnerships wherein which we currently invest with threefour co-investment partners and an open-end real estate fund (“Regency Retail Partners” or the “Fund”), as further described below. In addition to earning our pro-rata share of net income or loss (including impairments) in each of these co-investment partnerships, we receivereceived market-based fees for asset management, disposition, property management, leasing, investment, and financing services. During 2008, 2007, and 2006, we received fees from these co-investment partnershipsservices of $31.7 million, $29.1 million, $31.6 million, and $22.1$28.3 million and transaction fees of $7.8 million, $23.7 million, and $4.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively.

Our investments in real estate partnerships as of December 31, 20082009 and 20072008 consist of the following (in thousands):

 

  Ownership 2008  2007  Ownership 2009  2008
      (as restated)

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency (MCWR I)

  25.00% $11,137  15,463

Macquarie CountryWide Direct (MCWR I)

  25.00%  3,760  4,061

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II (MCWR II)

  24.95%  197,602  214,450

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency (MCWR I) (1)

  —     $—    11,137

Macquarie CountryWide Direct (MCWR I)(1)

  —      —    3,760

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II (MCWR II) (2)

  25.00  154,350  197,602

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III (MCWR III)

  24.95%  623  812  24.95  351  623

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO (MCWR-DESCO)

  16.35%  21,924  29,478  16.35  24,374  21,924

Columbia Regency Retail Partners (Columbia)

  20.00%  29,704  29,978

Columbia Regency Retail Partners (Columbia I)

  20.00  28,347  29,704

Columbia Regency Partners II (Columbia II)

  20.00%  12,858  20,326  20.00  11,202  12,858

Cameron Village LLC (Cameron)

  30.00%  19,479  20,364  30.00  18,285  19,479

RegCal, LLC (RegCal)

  25.00%  13,766  17,113  25.00  12,863  13,766

Regency Retail Partners (the Fund)

  20.00%  23,838  13,296  20.00  22,114  23,838

US Regency Retail I, LLC (USAA)

  20.01  5,111  —  

Other investments in real estate partnerships

  50.00%  48,717  36,565  50.00  49,215  48,717
              

Total

   $383,408  401,906   $326,212  383,408
              

(1)

At December 31, 2008, the Company’s ownership interest in MCWR I was 25.00%. The liquidation of MCWR I was completed in 2009.

(2)

At December 31, 2008, the Company’s ownership interest in MCWR II was 24.95%.

Investments in real estate partnerships are reported net of deferred gains of $87.2$52.0 million and $69.5$88.3 million at December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, and 2007, respectively. After applying the Restricted Gain Method, cumulative deferred gains in 2007 have increased by $30.5 million to correct gains from partial sales recorded during the periods 2001 to 2005 and have been noted as restated. Cumulative deferred gain amounts related to each co-investment partnership are described below.

Index to Financial Statements

We co-invest with the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund (“OPERF”) in three co-investment partnerships, two of which we have ownership interests of 20% (“Columbia”Columbia I” and “Columbia II”) and one in which we have an ownership interest of 30% (“Cameron”). Our investment in the three co-investment partnerships with OPERF totals $62.0$57.8 million and represents 1.5% of our total assets at December 31, 2008.2009. At December 31, 2008,2009, the Columbia co-investment partnerships had total assets of $762.7$743.3 million and net income of $11.0 million.$5.4 million for the year ended. Our share of the co-investment partnerships’Columbia’s total assets and net income was $164.8$160.5 million and $2.2 million, respectively, which represents 4.0% of our total assets and 1.9% of our net income available for common unit holders, respectively.assets.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, Columbia I owned 14 shopping centers, had total assets of $321.9$320.4 million, and net income of $10.2$6.7 million for the year ended. We haveThe partnership agreement has a unilateral DIK right to liquidateelect to dissolve the partnership;partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we have applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain that we recognize on property sales to Columbia. During 2006 to 2008,2009, we did not sell any properties to Columbia.Columbia I. Since itsthe inception of Columbia in 2001, we have recognized gain of $2.0 million on partial sales to Columbia and deferred gain of $4.3 million. In December 2008, we earned and recognized a $19.7 million Portfolio Incentive Return fee from OPERF based on Columbia’s outperformanceColumbia I’s out performance of the cumulative NCREIFNational Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (“NCREIF”) index since the inception of the partnership and a hurdle rate as outlined in the partnership agreement. We collected this fee in full in April 2009.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, Columbia II owned 16 shopping centers, had total assets of $327.5$313.3 million, and net income of $1.1 millionapproximately $159,000 for the year ended. During 2008, Columbia II purchased one operating property from a third party for a purchase price of $28.5 million and we contributed $5.7 million for our proportionate share. We haveThe partnership agreement has a unilateral DIK right to liquidateelect to dissolve the partnership;partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we have applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain that we recognize on property sales to Columbia II. In September 2008, Columbia II acquired three completed development properties from us for a purchase price of $83.4 million, and as a result, we recognized gain of $9.1 million and deferred gain of $15.7 million. As more thoroughly described in Note 18 to our accompanying consolidated financial statements, the amount of gain previously recorded during September 2008 was subsequently adjusted by a reduction of $10.7 million. During 2006 and 2007,2009, we did not sell any properties to Columbia II. Since the inception of Columbia II in 2004, we have recognized gain of $9.1 million on partial sales to Columbia II and deferred gain of $15.7 million. During 2008, Columbia II sold one shopping center to an unrelated party for $13.8 million and recognized a gain of approximately $256,000.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, Cameron owned one shopping center, had total assets of $113.3$109.6 million, and a net loss of approximately $187,000$1.4 million for the year ended. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require us to apply the Restricted Gain Method. Since itsthe inception of Cameron in 2004, we have not sold any properties to Cameron.

We co-invest with the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (“CalSTRS”) in a joint venture (“RegCal”) in which we have a 25% ownership interest. As of December 31, 2008,2009, RegCal owned seven shopping centers, had total assets of $158.1$155.1 million, and net income of $5.9 millionapproximately $493,000 for the year ended. Our share of RegCal’s total assets and net income represent 1% and 1.3%was $38.8 million which represents 1.0% of our total assets and net income available for common unit holders, respectively. We haveassets. The partnership agreement has a unilateral DIK right to liquidateelect to dissolve the partnership;partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we have applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain that we recognize on property sales to RegCal. During 2006 to 2008,2009, we did not sell any properties to RegCal. Since itsthe inception of RegCal in 2004, we have recognized gain of $10.1 million on partial sales to RegCal and deferred gain of $3.4 million. During 2008, RegCal sold one shopping center to an unrelated party for $9.5 million and recognized a gain of $4.2 million.

We co-invest with Macquarie CountryWide Trust of Australia (“MCW”) as the only other partner in fivethree co-investment partnerships, twoone in which we havehad an ownership interest of 25% (collectively “MCWR(“MCWR I”), two which was liquidated during 2009 as discussed below, one in which we have an ownership interest of 24.95% (“MCWR II” and “MCWR III”), and one in which we have an ownership interest of 16.35% (“MCWR-DESCO”). Our investment in the fivethree co-investment partnerships with MCW totals $235.0$24.7 million and represents 5.7%less than 1% of our total assets at December 31, 2008. At December 31, 2008,2009. The MCW co-investment partnerships had total assets of $3.4 billion$447.1 million and a net incomeloss of $11.6 million.approximately $915,000 for the year ended. Our share of

Index to Financial Statements

the co-investment partnerships’ total assets and net income was $823.9$78.8 million and $2.1 million, respectively, which represents 19.9%2.0% of our total assets and 1.8% of our net income available for common unit holders, respectively.assets.

As of December 31, 2008, MCWR I owned 42 shopping centers, had total assets of $593.9 million, and net income of $11.1 million for the year ended. We have a unilateral DIK right to liquidate the partnership; therefore, we have applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain we recognize on property sales to MCWR I. During 2006 to 2008, we did not sell any properties to MCWR I. Since its inception in 2001, we have recognized gains of $27.5 million on partial sales to MCWR I and deferred gains of $46.9 million. Subsequent to December 31, 2008,On January 14, 2009, under the terms of the MCWR I partnership agreement, MCW elected to dissolve the partnership. In JanuaryDuring 2009, we began liquidatingcompleted the liquidation of the partnership through a DIK, which providesprovided for distributingdistribution of the properties to each partner under an alternating selection process, ultimately in proportion to the value of each partner’s respective capital account in the partnership interest as determined by appraisal.of the date of liquidation. The total fair value of the properties based on appraisals,was $467.3 million, net of debt, is estimated to be approximately $482.7 million. Thebased on third party appraisals. As a result of the liquidation, MCW received 34 properties whichand we receivereceived six properties through the DIK will beDIK. The six properties the Company received had a fair value of $131.9 million, net of debt, which represents a return of our investment and a $13.1 million promote, which was not recognized in net income in accordance with the Restricted Gain Method. Consistent with the Restricted Gain Method, the properties that we received in liquidation were recorded at the amount of thenet carrying value of our equity investment of $29.9 million, which is net of deferred gain. The dissolution is expectedgain previously recorded of $40.8 million. As a result, no gain or loss was recognized on the dissolution. During 2009, MCWR I sold one shopping center to be completed during 2009 subject to required lender consents for ownership transfer.

As of December 31, 2008, MCWR II owned 85 shopping centers, had total assets of $2.4 billion and net income of $5.6 million for the year ended. During 2008, MCWR II sold a portfolio of seven shopping centers to an unrelatedthird party for $108.1$7.8 million and recognized a gain of $8.9 million. At December 31, 2008, the partnership agreement did not contain any DIK provisions that would require us to apply the Restricted Gain Method. However, in January 2009, the partnership agreement was amended to include DIK provisions; therefore, we will apply the Restricted Gain Method if additional properties are sold to MCWR II in the future. During the period 2006 to 2008, we did not sell any properties to MCWR II. Since its inception in 2005, we have recognized gain of $2.3 million on partial sales to MCWR II and deferred gain of approximately $766,000. In June 2008, we earned additional acquisition fees of $5.2 million (the “Contingent Acquisition Fees”) deferred from the original acquisition date since we achieved the cumulative targeted income levels specified in the Amended and Restated Income Target Agreement between RCLP and MCW dated March 22, 2006. The Contingent Acquisition Fees recognized were limited to that percentage of MCWR II, or 75.05%, of the joint venture not owned by us and amounted to $3.9$3.7 million.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, MCWR III owned four shopping centers, had total assets of $67.5$65.1 million, and a net loss of approximately $238,000$436,000 for the year ended. At December 31, 2008, the partnership agreement did not contain any DIK provisions that would require us to apply the Restricted Gain Method. However, inEffective January 2009,1, 2010, the partnership agreement was amended to include a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK provisions;upon liquidation; therefore, we will apply the Restricted Gain Method if additional properties are sold to MCWR III inon or after January 1, 2010. Accordingly, we will recognize gains on such future sales only when such gains exceed amounts required to be deferred under the future.Restricted Gain Method. During 2009, we did not sell any properties to MCWR III. Since itsthe inception of MCWR III in 2005, we have recognized gain of $14.1 million on partial sales to MCWR III and deferred gain of $4.7 million.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, MCWR-DESCO owned 32 shopping centers, had total assets of $395.6$382.1 million and recorded a net loss of $4.9$5.3 million for the year ended primarily related to depreciation and amortization expense, but produced positive cash flow from operations.ended. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require us to apply the Restricted Gain Method. Since itsthe inception of MCWR-DESCO in 2007, we have not sold any properties to MCWR-DESCO.

We co-invest with MCW and Global Retail Investors LLC (“GRI”), a joint venture between the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) and an affiliate of First Washington Realty, Inc. in one co-investment partnership in which we have an ownership interest of 25% (“MCWR II”). Our

investment in MCWR II totals $154.4 million and represents 3.9% of our total assets at December 31, 2009.

On July 17, 2009, we announced that MCW had agreed to sell 60% of its partnership interest in MCWR II to GRI in two closings. The initial closing was completed on July 31, 2009, with MCW selling 45% of its 75% interest to GRI. As part of the closing, we acquired Macquarie-Regency Management, LLC’s (“US Manager”) 0.1% ownership of MCWR II. US Manager was owned 50/50 by us and an affiliate of Macquarie Bank Limited. The transaction increased our ownership in MCWR II to 25% from 24.95%. At the initial closing we received a disposition fee of $7.8 million from MCW equal to 1% of the gross sales price paid by GRI. At the second closing, GRI will acquire from MCW, an incremental 15% interest increasing its total ownership in MCWR II to 60%. We expect this to occur during 2010 once the existing mortgage lenders consent to the transaction. We will retain asset management, property management, and leasing responsibilities. For our ongoing services, we are to receive an additional disposition fee from MCW equal to 1% of the gross sales price paid by GRI at future closings. As part of the agreement, we negotiated two separate options to acquire additional interests in the partnership less a discount of 7.7%. If both options were exercised, we would acquire 15% interest in MCWR II, increasing our total ownership to 40%. In November 2009, we exercised our two options to acquire the additional 15% interest in MCWR II. Closing is contingent upon obtaining lender consents and is expected in early 2010. We funded the purchase price of $16.0 million on December 23, 2009, which will be held in escrow until closing.

As of December 31, 2009, MCWR II owned 86 shopping centers, had total assets of $2.2 billion and net loss of $112.4 million for the year ended. The net loss was primarily related to the provision for impairment recorded during 2009 as a result of MCW’s decision to sell its interest in MCWR II which resulted in a change in holding period for certain properties. As part of the sale negotiations, the joint venture identified 14 properties that it would target for sale over the next three years. These properties were previously expected to be held and used long term and this change in the properties’ holding periods resulted in a provision for impairment of $104.4 million. Effective January 1, 2010, the partnership agreement was amended to include a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we will apply the Restricted Gain Method if additional properties are sold to MCWR II on or after January 1, 2010. Accordingly, we will recognize gains on such future sales only when such gains exceed amounts required to be deferred under the Restricted Gain Method. During 2009, we did not sell any properties to MCWR II. Since the inception of MCWR II in 2005, we have recognized gain of $2.3 million on partial sales to MCWR II and deferred gain of approximately $766,000.

We co-invest with Regency Retail Partners (the “Fund”), an open-ended, infinite life investment fund in which we have an ownership interest of 20%. As of December 31, 2008,2009, the Fund owned nine shopping centers, had total assets of $381.2$367.4 million, and recorded a net loss of $2.1$3.4 million for the year ended. The FundOur share of the Fund’s total assets was $73.4 million which represents 1.8% and less than 1% of our total assets and net income available for common unit holders, respectively. During 2008, the Fund purchased one shopping center from a third party for $93.3 million that included $66.0 million of assumed mortgage debt and we contributed $18.7 million for our proportionate share of the purchase price. During 2008, the Fund also acquired one property in development from us for a sales price of $74.5 million and we recognized a gain of $4.7

Index to Financial Statements

million after excluding our ownership interest.assets. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require us to apply the Restricted Gain Method. During 2009, we did not sell any properties to the Fund. Since itsthe inception of the Fund in 2006, we have recognized gains of $71.6 million on partial sales to the Fund and deferred gains of $17.9 million.

On October 27, 2009, we finalized the formation of a new real estate partnership, US Regency Retail I, LLC, with United Services Automobile Association (the “USAA partnership”) in which we have an ownership interest of 20.01%, and sold seven shopping centers to the real estate partnership. One additional property was sold to the USAA partnership on November 3, 2009. The eight properties were sold for $133.9 million and net proceeds from the sale to the Company were $103.4 million. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain recognized. We recognized gain of $19.1 million and deferred gain of $8.1 million on these partial sales to the USAA partnership.

Contractual Obligations

We have debt obligations related to our mortgage loans, unsecured notes, and our Unsecured credit facilities as described further below. We have shopping centers that are subject to non-cancelable long-term ground leases where a third party owns and has leased the underlying land to us to construct and/or operate a shopping center. In addition, we have non-cancelable operating leases pertaining to office space from which we conduct our business. The table excludes reserves for approximately $3.2 million related to environmental remediation as discussed below under Environmental Matters as the timing of the remediation is not currently known. The table also excludes obligations related to construction or development contracts because payments are only due upon satisfactory performance under the contract. Costs necessary to complete the 49 development projects currently in process are estimated to be $141.9 million and will likely be expended through 2012.

The following table of Contractual Obligations summarizes our debt maturities including interest, (excluding recorded debt premiums or discounts that are not obligations), and our obligations under non-cancelable operating and ground leases as of December 31, 20082009 including our pro-rata share of obligations within unconsolidated co-investment partnerships excluding interest (in thousands):

 

   2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  Beyond 5
years
  Total

Notes Payable:

              

RCLP (1)

  $179,973  283,837  632,038  315,670  80,233  1,114,734  2,606,485

RCLP’s share of JV(2)

   30,382  195,461  126,401  91,182  8,997  210,174  662,597

Operating Leases:

              

RCLP

   5,433  5,436  5,415  5,025  4,820  14,262  40,391

RCLP’s share of JV

   —    —    —    —    —    —    —  

Ground Leases:

              

RCLP

   1,828  1,867  1,921  1,896  1,905  53,083  62,500

RCLP’s share of JV

   398  400  400  400  402  14,949  16,949
                      

Total

  $218,014  487,001  766,175  414,173  96,357  1,407,202  3,388,922
                      
   Payments Due by Period  Total
   2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  Beyond 5
years
  

Notes Payable:

              

Regency (1)

  $280,083  316,704  344,807  93,822  241,097  1,120,511  2,397,024

Regency’s share of JV(2)

   160,173  112,037  61,551  8,982  21,540  220,159  584,442

Operating Leases:

              

Regency

   4,990  4,898  4,612  4,405  3,465  8,113  30,483

Regency’s share of JV

   —    —    —    —    —    —    —  

Ground Leases:

              

Regency

   2,108  2,123  2,211  2,521  2,525  110,475  121,963

Regency’s share of JV

   204  204  204  204  204  7,255  8,275
                      

Total

  $447,558  435,966  413,385  109,934  268,831  1,466,513  3,142,187
                      

 

(1)

Amounts include interest payments

(2)

Amounts exclude interest payments

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

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

Notes Payable

Outstanding debt at December 31, 2008 and 2007 consists of the following (in thousands):

Index to Financial Statements
   2008  2007

Notes payable:

    

Fixed rate mortgage loans

  $235,150  196,915

Variable rate mortgage loans

   5,130  5,821

Fixed rate unsecured loans

   1,597,624  1,597,239
       

Total notes payable

   1,837,904  1,799,975

Unsecured credit facilities

   297,667  208,000
       

Total

  $2,135,571  2,007,975
       

During 2008, we placed a $62.5The Line commitment is currently $600.0 million mortgage loan on a property. The loan has a nine-year term and is interest only atunder an all-in coupon rate of 6.0% (or 230 basis points over an interpolated 9-year US Treasury).

On March 5, 2008, we entered into a Credit Agreementagreement with Wells Fargo Bank and a groupsyndicate of other banks to provide usthat matures in February 2011 with a $341.5 million, three-year term loan facility (the “Term Facility”). The Term Facility includes a term loan amount of $227.7 million plus a $113.8 million revolving credit facility that is accessibleone-year extension at our discretion. The term loan has a variable interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 105 basis points which was 3.300% at December 31, 2008 and the revolving portion has a variable interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 90 basis points. The proceeds from the funding of the Term Facility were used to reduce the balance on the unsecured line of credit (the “Line”). The balance on the term loan was $227.7 million at December 31, 2008.

During 2007, we entered into a new loan agreement under the Line with a commitment of $600.0 million andoption. We have the right to expand the Line commitment by an additional $150.0 million subject to additional lender syndication. The Line has a four-year term with a one-year extension at our option and a current interest rate of LIBOR plus 4055 basis points and an annual facility fee of 15 basis points subject to maintaining our corporate credit and senior unsecured ratings at BBB+.

Contractual interest rates were 1.338%BBB. In April, 2009, we paid down the Line balance to zero and 5.425%there was no balance at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively based on LIBOR plus 40 basis points and LIBOR plus 55 basis points, respectively.2009. The balance on the Line was $70.0 million at December 31, 2008 with a contractual interest rate of 1.34% based on LIBOR plus 40 basis points.

During 2008 we entered into a $341.5 million, term loan facility (the “Term Facility”) under an agreement with Wells Fargo Bank and $208.0a syndicate of other banks that matures in February 2011. The Term Facility originally included a term loan of $227.7 million plus a $113.8 million revolving credit facility. In December, 2009, we paid off the balance of the term loan and it is no longer available to us; however, the revolving credit facility remains available to us at our discretion. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the balance on the Term Facility was zero and $227.7 million, respectively. At December 31, 2009, the revolving credit facility had a variable interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 100 basis points as compared to LIBOR plus 90 basis points at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.an annual facility fee of 20 basis points subject to maintaining our corporate credit and senior unsecured ratings at BBB. At December 31, 2008, the term loan had a variable interest rate of 3.30% or LIBOR plus 105 basis points.

On September 30, 2009 Standard and Poor’s Rating Services lowered our corporate credit rating and senior unsecured debt rating to BBB from BBB+ primarily related to the reduction in our Coverage ratio in 2009. As a result of this downgrade, the interest rate on the Line increased to LIBOR plus 55 basis points and the interest rate on the revolving portion of the Term Facility increased to LIBOR plus 100 basis points, respectively, effective October 1, 2009.

Including both the Line commitment and the Term Facility (collectively, “Unsecured credit facilities”), we currently have $941.5$713.8 million of total capacity and the interest rate spread paid is dependent upon our maintaining specific investment-grade ratings. We are also required to comply with certain financial covenants as defined in the Credit Agreement such as Minimum Net Worth, Ratio of Total Liabilities to Gross Asset Value (“GAV”) and Ratio of Recourse Secured Indebtedness to GAV, Ratio of Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization (“EBITDA”)EBITDA to Fixed Charges, and other covenants customary with this type of unsecured financing. As of December 31, 2008,2009, management believes we are in compliance with all financial covenants for our Unsecured credit facilities. Our Unsecured credit facilities are used primarily to finance the acquisition and development of real estate, but are also availableand for general working-capital purposes.

Notes payable consist of secured mortgage loans and unsecured public debt. Mortgage loans may be prepaid, but could be subject to yield maintenance premiums. Mortgage loans are generally due in monthly installments of principal and interest or interest only, and mature over various terms through 2018,2019, whereas, interest on unsecured pubicpublic debt is payable semi-annually and the debt matures over various terms through 2017. We intend to repay mortgage loans at maturity with proceeds from similar new issues or from the Unsecured credit facilities.Line. Fixed interest rates on mortgage notes payable range from 5.22%4.44% to 8.95%8.40% and average 6.32%6.63%. We have oneDuring 2009, we completed the following financing transactions:

On October 23, 2009, we closed on an amendment on our only variable rate mortgage loan in the amount of $5.0 million with an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 100350 basis points that maturesoriginally maturing on October 1, 2009 extending the loan maturity to October 1, 2014 with an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 380 basis points.

On September 3, 2009, we closed on a $10.7 million two-year construction loan for a development project with an interest rate of LIBOR plus 300 basis points. The balance outstanding was approximately $992,000 at December 31, 2009.

On July 1, 2009, we closed on mortgage loans of $106.0 million secured by eight properties with an interest rate of 7.75% and a ten-year term.

In conjunction with properties distributed to us as part of the liquidation of MCWR I, we assumed four mortgage loans. During January 2009, we assumed two mortgage loans with carrying values of $17.0 million and $42.1 million with ten-year terms and interest rates of 6.13% and 6.38%, respectively. During December 2009, we assumed two mortgage loans with carrying values of $4.5 million and $7.0 million maturing on May 1, 2010 with interest rates of 4.44%.

On August 18, 2009, we completed a cash tender offer and purchased $19.5 million in 2009.principal of our $150 million 8.45% unsecured notes due September 1, 2010 and $46.5 million in principal of our $220 million 7.95% unsecured notes due January 15, 2011 (the “Notes”). The total consideration paid for the Notes was $69.5 million or $1,035 per $1,000 in principal, plus accrued and unpaid interest. The

payment was funded from available cash and we recorded a loss of $2.7 million for this early extinguishment of debt.

Outstanding debt at December 31, 2009 and 2008 consists of the following (in thousands):

   2009  2008

Notes payable:

    

Fixed rate mortgage loans

  $398,820  235,150

Variable rate mortgage loans

   5,596  5,130

Fixed rate unsecured loans

   1,481,964  1,597,624
       

Total notes payable

   1,886,380  1,837,904

Unsecured credit facilities

   —    297,667
       

Total

  $1,886,380  2,135,571
       

At December 31, 2008, 85.8%2009, 99.7% of our total debt had fixed interest rates, compared with 89.4%85.8% at December 31, 2007.2008. We intend to limit the percentage of variable interest rate debt to be no more than 30% of total debt, which we believe to be an acceptable risk. Currently, our variable rate debt represents

Index to Financial Statements

14.2% less than 1% of our total debt. Based upon the variable interest rate debt outstanding at December 31, 2008, if variable interest rates were to increase by 1%, our annual interest expense would increase by $3.0 million.

The carrying value of our variable rate notes payable and the Unsecured credit facilities are based upon a spread above LIBOR which is lower than the spreads available in the current credit market, causing the fair value of such variable rate debt to be below its carrying value. The fair value of fixed rate loans are estimated using cash flows discounted at current market rates available to us for debt with similar terms and maturities. Fixed rate loans assumed in connection with real estate acquisitions are recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements at fair value at the time of acquisition.acquisition excluding those loans assumed in DIK liquidations which are assumed at carrying value. Based on the estimates used, the fair value of notes payable and the Unsecured credit facilities is approximately $1.4 billion and $1.3 billion at December 31, 2008.2009 and 2008, respectively.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, scheduled principal repayments on notes payable and the Unsecured credit facilities were as follows (in thousands):

 

Scheduled Principal Payments by Year:

  Scheduled
Principal
Payments
  Mortgage Loan
Maturities
 Unsecured
Maturitiesa
 Total   Scheduled
Principal
Payments
  Mortgage Loan
Maturities
 Unsecured
Public Debt
 Total 

2009

   4,832  8,077  50,000  62,909 

2010

   4,880  17,043  160,000  181,923   $4,986  28,523   140,461   173,970  

2011

   4,744  11,276  537,667  553,687    4,837  12,268   193,486   210,591  

2012

   5,027  —    250,000  255,027    5,105  —     250,000   255,105  

2013

   4,712  16,353  —    21,065    4,979  16,348   —     21,327  

2014

   8,168  11,916   150,000   170,084  

Beyond 5 Years

   13,897  150,159  900,000  1,064,056    8,853  299,280   750,000   1,058,133  

Unamortized debt discounts, net

   —    (719) (2,377) (3,096)   —    (847 (1,983 (2,830
                          

Total

  $38,092  202,189  1,895,290  2,135,571   $36,928  367,488   1,481,964   1,886,380  
                          

a

Includes unsecured public debt and Unsecured credit facilities

OurAt December 31, 2009, our investments in real estate partnerships had notes payable of $2.8$2.5 billion at December 31, 2008, which maturematuring through 2028, of which 94.0%97.0% had weighted average fixed interest rates of 5.4% and the5.6%. The remaining notes payable had variable interest rates based on LIBOR plus a spread in a range of 50145 to 200150 basis points. Our pro-rata share of these loans was $664.1$585.5 million. TheWe and our partners have no guarantees related to these loans are primarily non-recourse, butexcept for those that are guaranteed by a joint venture, our liability does not extend beyondan $8.5 million loan related to our ownership interest in one single asset real estate partnership where we are only responsible for our pro-rata share of the joint venture.loan. As of December 31, 2008,2009, scheduled principal repayments on notes payable held by our investments in real estate partnerships were as follows (in thousands):

Scheduled Principal Payments by Year:

  Scheduled
Principal
Payments
  Mortgage Loan
Maturities
  Unsecured
Maturities
  Total  RCLP’s
Pro-Rata
Share
  Scheduled
Principal
Payments
  Mortgage Loan
Maturities
  Unsecured
Maturities
  Total  Regency’s
Pro-Rata
Share

2009

  $4,824  138,800  12,848  156,472  30,382

2010

   4,569  695,563  89,333  789,465  195,461  $3,642  613,310  26,858  643,810  160,173

2011

   3,632  506,846  —    510,478  126,401   3,578  448,787  —    452,365  112,037

2012

   4,327  408,215  —    412,542  91,182   4,396  244,418  —    248,814  61,551

2013

   4,105  32,447  —    36,552  8,997   4,226  32,447  —    36,673  8,982

2014

   4,213  77,290  —    81,503  21,540

Beyond 5 Years

   29,875  849,714  —    879,589  210,174   25,555  983,875  —    1,009,430  220,159

Unamortized debt premiums, net

   —    7,352  —    7,352  1,462   —    5,333  —    5,333  1,030
                              

Total

  $51,332  2,638,937  102,181  2,792,450  664,059  $45,610  2,405,460  26,858  2,477,928  585,472
                              

We are exposed to capital market risk such as changes in interest rates. In order to manage the volatility related to interest rate risk, we originate new debt with fixed interest rates, or we may enter into interest rate hedging arrangements. We do not utilize derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes. We account for derivative instruments under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” as amended

Index to Financial Statements

(“Statement 133”). On March 10, 2006, we entered into four forward-starting interest rate swaps totaling $396.7 million with fixed rates of 5.399%, 5.415%, 5.399%, and 5.415%. We designated these swaps as cash flow hedgesOn April 16, 2009, we paid $20.0 million to fix the rate on $400.0partially settle $106.0 million of the $396.7 million interest rate swaps in place to hedge the $106.0 million mortgage loan issued on July 1, 2009 described previously. For $90.7 million of the remaining Swaps, we continue to expect to issue new financing expectedsecured or unsecured debt for a term of 7 to occur in12 years prior to July 1, 2010. For $200.0 million of the remaining Swaps, we continue to expect to issue new debt for a term of 7 to 12 years during the period between March 31, 2010 and 2011, and these proceeds will be used to repay maturing debt at that time.March 31, 2011. The change in fair value of these swaps from inception was a liability of $83.7$28.4 million at December 31, 2008.2009. If we were to no longer expect to issue new debt within the terms and periods described above, we would be required to immediately charge the change in the fair value of these Swaps to net income as well as all future changes in value. During December 2009, following the successful completion of our 8.0 million share common stock offering discussed previously, we revised our assumptions of future debt issues by delaying a portion of our expected issuances into 2011. Although we still expect to issue new debt within the time frames originally contemplated, the change in our issuance assumptions caused a portion of our Swaps to become ineffective due to an over-hedged position and resulted in us recognizing a loss on hedge ineffectiveness of $3.3 million. The valuation of these derivative instruments is determined using widely accepted valuation techniques including discounted cash flow analysis on the expected cash flows of each derivative. This analysis reflects the contractual terms of the derivatives, including the period to maturity, and uses observable market-based inputs, including interest rate curves, foreign exchange rates, and implied volatilities. To comply with the provisions of SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (“Statement 157”) as amended by FASB Staff Position “Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157” (“FSP FAS 157-2”), weWe incorporate credit valuation adjustments to appropriately reflect both our nonperformance risk and the respective counterparty’s nonperformance risk in the fair value measurements. Although we have determined that the majority of the inputs used to value our derivatives fall within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, the credit valuation adjustments associated with our derivatives utilize Level 3 inputs, such as estimates of current credit spreads, to evaluate the likelihood of default by ourselves and our counterparties.

Equity Transactionsand Capital

From time to time, we issue equity inWe have issued common and preferred stock from the form of exchangeable operating partnership units orParent Company and common and preferred units from the Operating Partnership to fund our capital commitments and to maintain a conservative capital structure as described below.

Equity of RCLP, or in the formParent Company

The Series 3, 4, and 5 preferred shares are perpetual, are not convertible into common stock of common orthe Parent Company, and are redeemable at par upon our election beginning five years after the issuance date. None of the terms of the preferred stock contain any unconditional obligations that would require us to redeem the securities at any time or for any purpose and we do not currently anticipate redeeming any preferred stock. Terms and conditions of Regencythe three series of preferred stock outstanding as of December 31, 2009 are summarized as follows:

Series

  Shares
Outstanding
  Liquidation
Preference
  Distribution
Rate
  Callable
By Company

Series 3

  3,000,000  $75,000,000  7.45 04/03/08

Series 4

  5,000,000   125,000,000  7.25 08/31/09

Series 5

  3,000,000   75,000,000  6.70 08/02/10
          
  11,000,000  $275,000,000   
          

Common Stock

On December 9, 2009, the Parent Company completed a public offering of 8.0 million common shares at $30.75 per share which will result in net proceeds of $235.8, net of issuance costs. These shares are subject to the forward sale agreements described below. This offering also included an over-allotment option of 1.2 million shares which closed simultaneously for proceeds of $35.4 million.

In connection with this offering, the Parent Company entered into forward sale agreements with affiliates of J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo Securities, as forward purchasers. We intend to use the proceeds upon settlement of the forward sale agreements to refinance debt maturing in 2010, which includes a portion of our pro-rata share of existing debt of MCWR II, as such joint venture debt matures, and for general corporate purposes.

On April 24, 2009, the Parent Company completed a public offering of 10.0 million common shares at $32.50 per share resulting in proceeds of $310.9 million, net of issuance costs. The funds were used to pay-off the $180.0 million Line balance, with the remaining funds retained for future working capital needs including repayment of maturing debt, investments in real estate partnership capital calls to the extent required based on our respective ownership interest in such partnership, and costs to complete in-process development projects.

Treasury Stock

On December 31, 2009, the Parent Company cancelled the 5,661,520 treasury shares outstanding.

Noncontrolling Interests of Preferred Units

We have issued Preferred Units through RCLPthe Operating Partnership in various amounts since 1998 the net proceeds of which were used to reduce the balance of the Line. We issue Preferred Units primarily to institutional investors in private placements. Generally, the Preferred Units may be exchanged by the holders for Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock of the Parent Company after a specified date at an exchange rate of one share for one unit. The Preferred Units of the Operating Partnership and the related Preferred Stock of the Parent Company are not convertible into our common stock.stock of the Parent Company. At December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, only the Series D Preferred Units were outstanding with a face value of $50.0 million and a fixed distribution rate of 7.45%. These Units maycould be called by usthe Parent Company beginning September 29, 2009, and have no stated maturity or mandatory redemption. Included in the Series D Preferred Units are original issuance costs of $842,023approximately $842,000 that will be expensed if they are redeemed in the future.

Noncontrolling Interest of Exchangeable Operating Partnerships Units

As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and 2007, wethe Operating Partnership had 468,211 and 473,611 redeemable operating partnership units (“OP Units”)limited Partnership Units outstanding respectively.that were not owned by the Parent Company, representing less than 1% of the outstanding Partnership Units of the Operating Partnership. The redemption value of the redeemable OPlimited Partnership Units is based on the closing market price of Regency’sthe Parent Company’s common stock, which was $35.06 and $46.70 per share as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, an aggregate redemption value of $16.4 million and $64.49 per share$21.9 million, respectively.

Noncontrolling Interests of Limited Partners’ Interest in Consolidated Partnerships

Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships not owned by us are classified as noncontrolling interests on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. Subject to certain conditions and pursuant to the conditions of the agreement, we have the right, but not the obligation, to purchase the other member’s interest or sell our own interest in these consolidated partnerships. At December 31, 2007, aggregated $21.92009 and 2008, the noncontrolling interest in these consolidated partnerships was $11.7 million and $30.5$8.0 million, respectively.

Capital of the Operating Partnership

Preferred Units

The Series D Preferred Units are owned by institutional investors. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the face value of the Series D Preferred Units was $50.0 million with a fixed distribution rate of 7.45% and recorded in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets net of original issuance costs of approximately $842,000 that will be expensed if redeemed in the future. See above for further discussion.

Preferred Units of General Partner and Regency Preferred Stock

The Parent Company, as general partner, owns corresponding Series 3, 4, and 5 preferred shares are perpetual, are not convertible into Regency’s common stock,unit interests (“Series 3, 4, and are redeemable at par upon our election beginning five years after5 Preferred Units”) in the issuance date. None of the terms of the Preferred Stock contain any unconditional obligations that would require us to redeem the securities at any time orOperating Partnership. See above for any purpose. Terms and conditions of the three series of Preferred stock outstanding asfurther discussion.

General Partner

As of December 31, 2008 are summarized2009, the Parent Company, as follows:

general partner, owned approximately 99% or 81,539,296 of the total 82,007,507 Partnership Units outstanding.

Index to Financial Statements

Series

  Shares
Outstanding
  Liquidation
Preference
  Distribution
Rate
  Callable
By Company

Series 3

  3,000,000  $75,000,000  7.45% 04/03/08

Series 4

  5,000,000   125,000,000  7.25% 08/31/09

Series 5

  3,000,000   75,000,000  6.70% 08/02/10
          
  11,000,000  $275,000,000   
          

On January 1, 2008, we split each share of existing Series 3 and Series 4 Preferred Stock, each having a liquidation preference of $250 per share and a redemption price of $250 per share into ten shares of Series 3 and Series 4 Stock, respectively, each having a liquidation preference and a redemption price of $25 per share. We then exchanged each Series 3 and 4 Depositary Share into shares of New Series 3 and 4 Stock, respectively, which have the same dividend rights and other rights and preferences identical to the depositary shares.Limited Partners

Regency Common Stock

AtAs of December 31, 2009 and 2008, 75,634,881 common sharesthe Operating Partnership had been issued. The carrying value of the Common stock was $756,349 with a par value of $.01.468,211 limited Partnership Units outstanding.

Noncontrolling Interests of Limited Partners’ Interests in Consolidated Partnerships

See above for further discussion.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

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

Revenue Recognition and Tenant ReceivablesAccounts ReceivableTenant receivablesAccounts receivable represent revenues recognized in our financial statements, and include base rent, percentage rent, and expense recoveries from tenants for common area maintenance costs, insurance and real estate taxes. We analyze tenant receivables, historical bad debt levels, customer credit-worthiness and current economic trends when

evaluating the adequacy of our allowance for doubtful accounts. In addition, we analyze the accounts of tenants in bankruptcy, and we estimate the recovery of pre-petition and post-petition claims. Our reported net income (loss) is directly affected by our estimate of the recoverability of tenant receivables.accounts receivable.

Recognition of Gains from the Sales of Real Estate – We account for profit recognition on sales of real estate in accordance with Statement 66. In summary, profitsProfits from sales of real estate are not recognized under the full accrual method by us unless a sale is consummated; the buyer’s initial and continuing investment is adequate to demonstrate a commitment to pay for the property; a receivable, if applicable, is not subject to future subordination; we have transferred to the buyer the usual risks and rewards of ownership; and we do not have substantial continuing involvement with the property.

We sell shopping center properties to joint ventures in exchange for cash equal to the fair value of the percentage interest ownedacquired by our partners. We have accounted for those sales as “partial sales” and recognized gains on those partial sales in the period the properties were sold to the extent of the percentage interest sold, under the guidance of Statement 66, and in the case of certain joint venture partnerships, we apply a more restrictive method of recognizing gains, as discussed further below. The gains and operations associated with properties sold to these joint venture partnerships are not recordedclassified as discontinued operations because we continue to partially own and manage these shopping centers.

Index to Financial Statements

Five of our joint ventures (“DIK-JV”)Certain DIK-JVs give either partner the unilateral right to elect to dissolve the joint venture partnership and, upon such an election, receive a distribution in-kind (“DIK”) of the assets of the joint venture partnership equal to theirits respective ownership interests. The liquidation procedures wouldprovisions require that all of the properties owned by the joint venture partnership be appraised to determine their respective and collective fair values. As a general rule, if we initiate the liquidation process, our partner has the right to choose the first property that it will receive in liquidation with the Company havingand we have the right to choose the next property that itwe will receive in liquidation; if our partner initiates the liquidation process, the order of the selection process is reversed. The process then continues with alternating selection of properties by each partner until the balance of each partner’s capital account on a fair value basis has been distributed. After the final selection, to the extent that the fair value of properties in the DIK-JV areis not distributable in a manner that equals the balance of each partner’s capital account, a cash payment would be made to the other partner by the partner receiving a fair value in excess of its capital account to the other partner.account. The partners may also elect to liquidate some or all of the properties through sales rather than through the DIK process.

We have concluded that these DIK dissolution provisions constitute in-substance call/put options, under the guidance of Statement 66, and represent a form of continuing involvement with respect to property that we sold to these joint venture partnerships, limiting our recognition of gain related to the partial sale. To the extent that the DIK-JV owns more than one property and we are unable to obtain all of the properties we sold to the DIK-JV in liquidation, we apply aThis more restrictive method of gain recognition, (“the Restricted Gain Method”) whichMethod, considers our potential ability to receive property through a DIK on which partial gain has been recognized, and ensures, as discussed below, maximum gain deferral upon sale to a DIK-JV. We have applied the Restricted Gain Method to partial sales of property to joint venture partnerships that contain such unilateral DIK provisions.

Under current guidance, (Statement 66, paragraph 25), profitProfit shall be recognized by a method determined by the nature and extent of the seller’s continuing involvement and the profit recognized shall be reduced by the maximum exposure to loss. We have concluded that the Restricted Gain Method accomplishes this objective.

Under the Restricted Gain Method, for purposes of gain deferral, we consider the aggregate pool of properties sold into the DIK-JV as well as the aggregate pool of properties which will be distributed in the DIK process. As a result, upon the sale of properties to a DIK-JV, we perform a hypothetical DIK liquidation analysis assuming that we would choose only those properties that we have sold to the DIK-JV in an amount equivalentequal to our capital account. For purposes of calculating the gain to be deferred, we assume that the Company assumes that it will select properties uponin a DIK liquidation that would otherwise have generated the highest gain to the Companyus when originally sold to the DIK-JV and includesinclude for such determination the fair value in properties that could be received in excess of itsthe Company’s capital account. The DIK deferred gain to be recorded upon a sale of a property to a DIK-JV is calculated whenever a property is sold to the DIK-JV by us. During the yearsperiods when there are no property sales to a DIK-JV, the DIK deferred gain is not recalculated.

Because the contingency associated with the possibility of receiving a particular property back

upon liquidation, which forms the basis of the Restricted Gain Method, is not satisfied at the property level, but at the aggregate level, no gain or loss is recognized on property sold by the DIK-JV to a third party or received by the Companyus upon actual dissolution. Instead, the property received upon actual dissolution is recorded at the Company’s historical costcarrying value of our investment in the DIK-JV on the date of dissolution, reduced by the deferred gain.

Capitalization of Costs – We capitalize the acquisition of land, the construction of buildings and other specifically identifiable development costs incurred by recording them into properties in development in our accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets and account for them in accordance with SFAS No. 67, “Accounting for Costs and Initial Rental Operations of Real Estate Projects” (“Statement 67”) and EITF 97-11, “Accounting for Internal Costs Relating to Real Estate Property Acquisitions” (“EITF 97-11”).Sheets. In summary, Statement 67 establishes that a rental project changes from non-operating to operating when it is substantially completed and held available for occupancy. At that time, costs shouldare no longer be capitalized. Other development costs include pre-development costs essential to the development of the property, as well as, interest, real estate taxes, and direct employee

Index to Financial Statements

costs incurred during the development period. Pre-development costs are incurred prior to land acquisition during the due diligence phase and include contract deposits, legal, engineering, and other professional fees related to evaluating the feasibility of developing a shopping center. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, we had $7.7 million of capitalized pre-development costs of approximately $816,000 and $7.7 million, respectively, of which $3.0approximately $325,000 and $2.3 million, representedrespectively, were refundable contract deposits. If we determine that the development of a specific project undergoing due diligence is no longer probable, we immediately expense all related capitalized pre-development costs not considered recoverable. During the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, we expensed pre-development costs of approximately $3.8 million, $15.5 million, and $5.3 million, respectively, recorded in other expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. As a result of the economic downturn primarily during the month of December 2008, we evaluated our pre-development costs and determined that certain projects were no longer likely to be executed; therefore, we expensed those costs resulting in significantly higher expensed amounts in 2008 than in 2007. In accordance with SFAS No. 34, “Capitalization of Interest Cost” (“Statement 34”), interest costs are capitalized into each development project based on applying our weighted average borrowing rate to that portion of the actual development costs expended. We cease interest cost capitalization when the property is no longer being developed or is available for occupancy upon substantial completion of tenant improvements, but in no event would we capitalize interest on the project beyond 12 months after substantial completion of the building shell. During the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, we capitalized interest of $19.1 million, $36.5 million, and $35.4 million, respectively, on our development projects. We have a large staff of employees (the “Investment Group”) who support our development program. All direct internal costs attributable to these development activities are capitalized as part of each development project. During the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, we capitalized $6.5 million, $27.8 million, and $39.0 million, respectively, of direct costs incurred by the Investment Group. The capitalization of costs is directly related to the actual level of development activity occurring. As a result of the current economic downturn, development activity slowed significantly during 20082009 resulting in a reduction in capitalized costs which increasedand a corresponding increase in general and administrative expenses. Also, ifexpenses as non-capitalized Investment Group costs were charged to earnings. During 2009 we significantly reduced our Investment Group staff to adjust to a lower level of development activity expected in the future, as compared to periods prior to 2009. If accounting standards issued in the future were to limit the amount of internal costs that may be capitalized we could incur a significant increaseadditional increases in our operatinggeneral and administrative expenses and a reduction inwhich would further reduce net income.

Real Estate Acquisitions - Upon acquisition of operating real estate properties, we estimate the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, building and improvements), and identifiedidentify intangible assets and liabilities (consisting of above- and below-market leases, in-place leases and tenant relationships) and assumed debt in accordance with SFAS No. 141, “Business Combinations” (“Statement 141”).debt. Based on these estimates, we allocate the purchase price to the applicable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, and liabilities assumed.any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree. We utilize methods similar to those used by independent appraisers in estimating the fair value of acquired assets and liabilities. We evaluate the useful lives of amortizable intangible assets each reporting period and account for any changes in estimated useful lives over the revised remaining useful life.

Valuation of Real Estate Investments - Our long-lived assets, primarily real estate held for investment, are carried at cost unless circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. We review long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate such an evaluation is warranted. The review involves a number of assumptions and estimates used to determine whether impairment exists and if so, to what extent. Depending on the asset, we use varying methods to determine fair value of the asset. If we determine that the carrying amount of a property is not recoverable, and exceeds its fair value, we will write down the asset to fair value. For properties to be “held and used” for long term investment, we estimate undiscounted future cash flows over the expected investment term

including the estimated future value of the asset upon sale at the end of the investment period. Future value is generally determined by applying a market-based capitalization rate to the estimated future net operating income in the final year of the expected investment term. If after applying this method a property is determined to be impaired, we determine the provision for impairment based upon current market resale values through comparable sales information and other market data if available, or by applying a market capitalization rate to current estimated net operating income as if the sale were to occur immediately.income. For properties “held for sale”, we estimate current market resale values by market through appraisal information and other market data less expected costs to sell. In accordance with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 18 “The Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stock” (“APB 18”), aA loss in value of an investment under the equity method of accounting, which is other than a temporary decline, must be recognized.recognized in the period in which the loss occurs. In the case of our investments in unconsolidated real estate partnerships, we calculate the present value of our

Index to Financial Statements

investment by discounting estimated future cash flows over the expected term of the investment. These methodsMethods of determining fair value can fluctuate significantly as a result of a number of factors, including changes in the general economy of those markets in which we operate, our estimated holding period of the property, tenant credit quality, and demand for new retail stores. The significant economic downturn that began during the fourth quarter of 2008 and the corresponding rise in capitalization rates caused us to evaluate our properties for impairment including our investments in unconsolidated real estate partnerships. AsIf as a result of a change in our analysis,strategy for a specific property which we recorded an additional $33.1 millionown directly or through our co-investment partnerships, a property previously classified as held and used is changed to held for sale, or if its estimated holding period changes, such change could cause us to determine that the property is impaired and a provision for impairment during the three months ended December 31, 2008 in additionrelation to the $1.8 millionthat property would be recorded by us either directly or through September 30, 2008. In summary, during the year we recorded $20.6 million related to eight shopping centers, $7.2 million related to several land parcels, $6.0 million related toa reduction of our investmentequity in two partnerships, and $1.1 million related to a note receivable. If capitalization rates continue to rise in the future, or if a property categorized as “held and used” were changed to “held for sale”, we could record additional impairments in subsequent periods.income of real estate partnerships.

Discontinued Operations - The application of current accounting principles that govern the classification of any of our properties as held-for-sale on the balance sheet, or the presentation of results of operations and gains on the sale of these properties as discontinued, requires management to make certain significant judgments. In evaluating whetherWe classify an operating property or a property meetsin development as held-for-sale when we determine that the criteria set forth by SFAS No. 144 “Accountingproperty is available for immediate sale in its present condition, the Impairmentproperty is being actively marketed for sale, and Disposal of Long-Lived Assets” (“Statement 144”), we make a determination as to the point in time whethermanagement believes it is probable that a sale will be consummated.consummated within one year. Given the nature of real estate sales contracts, it is not unusual for such contracts to allow potential buyers a contractual buyer a due diligence period of time to evaluate the property priorwith the right to formal acceptance ofcancel the contract.contract without any financial loss. In addition, certain other matters critical to the final sale, such as financing arrangements often remain pending even upon contract acceptance. As a result, properties under contract may not close within the expected time period, or may not close at all. Therefore, any properties categorized as held-for-sale represent only those properties that management has determined are probablelikely to close within the requirements set forth in Statement 144.above. In order to determine if the results of operations and gain on sale should be reflected as discontinued operations, prior to the sale, we evaluate the extent of involvement and significance of cash flows the sale will have with a property after the sale. Consistent with Statement 144, anyAny property sold in which we have significant continuing involvement or cash flows (most often sales to co-investment partnerships in which we continue to manage the property) is not considered to be discontinued. In addition, any property which we sell to an unrelated third party, but which we retain a property management function, is not considered discontinued. Therefore, based on our evaluation of Statement 144 and in accordance with EITF 03-13 “Applying the Conditions in Paragraph 42 of FASB Statement No. 144 in Determining Whether to Report Discontinued Operations” (“EITF 03-13”), only properties sold, or to be sold, to unrelated third parties, where we will have no significant continuing involvement or significant cash flows are classified as discontinued. In accordance with EITF 87-24 “Allocation of Interest to Discontinued Operations” (“EITF 87-24”),discontinued and its operations, including any mortgage interest and gain on sale, are reported in discontinued operations so that the operations are clearly distinguished. Prior periods are also reclassified to reflect the operations of these properties as discontinued operations. When we sell operating properties to our joint ventures or to third parties, and will have continuing involvement, the operations and gains on sales are included in income from continuing operations. If circumstances arise that previously were considered unlikely and, as a result, we decide not to sell a property previously classified as held for sale, the property is reclassified as held and used and is measured individually at the lower of its (i) carrying amount before the property was classified as held for sale, adjusted for any depreciation and amortization expense that would have been recognized had the property been continuously classified as held and used or (ii) the fair value at the date of the subsequent decision not to sell. Any required adjustment to the carrying amount of the property reclassified as held and used is included in income from continuing operations in the period of the subsequent decision not to sell. If a property is reclassified as held and used, the results of operations of the property previously reported in discontinued operations are reclassified and included in income from continuing operations for all periods presented.

Investments in Real Estate Partnerships – In addition to owning real estate directly, we invest in

real estate through our co-investment partnerships. Joint venturing provides us with a capital source to acquire real estate, and to earn our pro-rata share of the net income or loss from the co-investment partnerships in addition to fees for services. As asset and property manager, we conduct the business of the Unconsolidated Properties held in the co-investment partnerships in the same way that we conduct the business of the Consolidated Properties that are wholly-owned; therefore, the Critical Accounting Policies as described are also applicable to our investments in the co-investmentreal estate partnerships. We account for all investments in which we do not have a controlling financial ownership interest using the equity method. We have determined that these investments are not variable interest entities as defined in FIN 46(R) and do not require consolidation, under EITF 04-5 or SOP 78-9, and therefore, are subject to the voting interest model in determining our basis of accounting. Decisions, including property acquisitions and dispositions, financings, certain leasing arrangements, annual budgets and dissolution of the joint ventures are subject to the approval of all partners, or in the case of the Fund, its advisory committee.

Index to Financial Statements

Income Tax Status - The prevailing assumption underlying the operation of our business is that Regencythe Parent Company will continue to operate in order to qualify as a REIT, as defined under the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). RegencyThe Parent Company is required to meet certain income and asset tests on a periodic basis to ensure that Regencyit continues to qualify as a REIT. As a REIT, Regencythe Parent Company is allowed to reduce taxable income by all or a portion of theirits distributions to stockholders. Regency evaluatesWe evaluate the transactions that theywe enter into and determine their impact on Regency’sour REIT status. Determining Regency’sour taxable income, calculating distributions, and evaluating transactions requires Regencyus to make certain judgments and estimates as to the positions Regency takeswe take in theirour interpretation of the Code. Because many types of transactions are susceptible to varying interpretations under federal and state income tax laws and regulations, Regency’sour positions are subject to change at a later date upon final determination by the taxing authorities, however, Regency reassesseswe reassess such positions at each reporting period.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2008,January 2010, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP)Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. FAS 142-3 “Determination2010-06, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (820) – Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements” (“ASU 2010-06”). ASU 2010-06 provides amendments to Subtopic 820-10 and requires new disclosures for transfers in and out of Levels 1 and 2 and activity in Level 3 fair value measurements. ASU 2010-06 also clarifies existing disclosure requirements for the Useful Lifelevel of Intangible Assets” (“FAS 142-3”). This FSP amendsdisaggregation for each class of assets and liabilities and for the factors that should be considered in developing renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under Statement 142. The intent of this FSP is to improve the consistency between the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under Statement 142inputs and the period of expected cash flowsvaluation techniques used to measure the fair value of the asset under FASB Statement No. 141R, and other U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. This FSPvalue. ASU 2010-06 is effective for financial statements issued for interim and annual periods ending after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements in the roll forward of activity in Level 3 fair value measurements which is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008,2010, and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is prohibited. The impact of adoptingWe adopted this statement is not considered to be material.ASU on December 31, 2009.

In March 2008,December 2009, the FASB issued SFASASU No. 161 “Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities”2009-17 “Improvements to Financial Reporting by Enterprises Involved with Variable Interest Entities” (“Statement 161”ASU 2009-17”). ThisASU 2009-17 was issued to reflect the amendments from Statement amends Statement 133 and167 “Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R)” as a revision to FASB Interpretation No. 46 (Revised December 2003), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities”. ASU 2009-17 changes the disclosure requirements for derivative instruments and hedging activities. Entities arehow a reporting entity determines when an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or is not controlled through voting (or similar rights) should be consolidated. The determination of whether a reporting entity is required to provide enhanced disclosures about (a) howconsolidate another entity is based on, among other things, the other entity’s purpose and why andesign and the reporting entity’s ability to direct the activities of the other entity uses derivative instruments, (b) how derivative instrumentsthat most significantly impact the other entity’s economic performance. ASU 2009-17 was effective January 1, 2010 and related hedged items are accounted for under Statement 133 and its related interpretations, and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. This Statement is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008, with early application encouraged. This Statement encourages, but does not require, comparative disclosures for earlier periods at initial adoption. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting this statement although the impact is not considered to be material as only further disclosure is required.

In February 2008, the FASB amended Statement 157 with FSP FAS 157-2 “Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157” (FSP FAS 157-2) to delay the effective date of Statement 157 for nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities to be effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008.permitted. We do not believehave evaluated the adoption of FSP FAS 157-2 for our nonfinancial assetsthis ASU and liabilitiesit will not have a material impactan effect on our results of operations or financial statements.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160 “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements” (“Statement 160”). This Statement, among other things, establishes accounting and reporting standards for a parent company’s ownership interest in a subsidiary (previously referred toposition, as a minority interest). This Statement is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008 with early adoption prohibited. Once adopted, we will report minority interest as a component of equity in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R) “Business Combinations” (“Statement 141(R)”). This Statement, among other things, establishes principles and requirements for how an acquirer recognizes and measures in its financial statements the identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, anddo not currently have any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree. This Statement also establishes disclosure requirements of the acquirer to enable users of the financial statements to evaluate the effect of the business combination. This Statement is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008 and early adoption is prohibited. The impact on our financial

Index to Financial Statements

statements and the financial statements of our co-investment partnerships will be reflected at the time of any acquisition after the implementation datevariable interests that meets the requirements above.we believe would require consolidation.

Results from Operations – 20082009 vs. 20072008

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 20082009 to 2007:2008:

At December 31, 2008,2009, on a Combined Basis, we were operating or developing 440400 shopping centers, as compared to 451440 shopping centers at December 31, 2007. 2008. The decline in properties is related to the liquidation of the assets of MCWR I where the properties were distributed through a DIK to

MCW and Regency, and in which we received six properties.

We identify our shopping centers as either properties in development or operating properties. Properties in development are defined as properties that are in the construction or initial lease-up process and have not reached their initial full occupancy (reaching full occupancy generally means achievingoccupancy. A development property becomes an operating property at leastthe earlier to occur of attaining 95% leased and rent paying on newly constructed or renovated GLA).four years from the start of site work, regardless of the % leased. At December 31, 2008,2009, on a Combined Basis, we were developing 45had 40 development properties, as compared to 4945 properties at December 31, 2007.2008.

Our revenues decreased by $6.7 million or 1.3% to $489.2 million in 2009, as summarized in the following table (in thousands):

   2009  2008  Change 

Minimum rent

  $345,610  334,509  11,101  

Percentage rent

   3,585  4,258  (673

Recoveries from tenants and other income

   101,748  101,096  652  

Management, transaction, and other fees

   38,289  56,032  (17,743
           

Total revenues

  $489,232  495,895  (6,663
           

Our decline in revenues was related to a one-time transaction fee earned and recognized in 2008, which is more fully described in the table and discussion below. The increase in minimum rent relates primarily to new properties distributed to us as part of the MCWR I DIK liquidation and new rent generated by the development properties. In addition to collecting minimum rent from our tenants, we also collect percentage rent from certain tenants based on their sales volumes, which is lower than 2008 due to previous percentage rent tenants renewing their leases upon expiration and converting their percentage rent to higher base rent. Recoveries from tenants represent reimbursements from tenants for their pro-rata share of the operating, maintenance, and real estate tax expenses that we incur to operate our shopping centers. Recoveries from tenants were higher in 2009 due to increases in our operating expenses, but our recoveries as a percentage of the expenses related only to our operating properties declined to 77.3% from 83.0% in 2008 as a result of a decline in our occupancy percentage and an increase in non-recoverable expenses.

Our operating properties, excluding those in development, on a pro-rata basis were 93.1% leased at December 31, 2009 as compared to 93.8% at the end of 2008. Our renewal rate of expiring leases was 74.7% for the year ended, but rental rates on leases executed during 2009 declined 2.7% as compared to the previous rental rates earned on the same GLA under previous leases. During 2008, our renewal rate was 79.5% and rental rates on leases executed grew by 10.6%. Our lease renewal rates and rental growth rates in 2009 were severely impacted by the recent recession. We anticipate that occupancy levels in our operating properties could fluctuate between 90.0% and 92.5% during 2010 and average rental rates on leases executed in 2010 could decline by 2% to 8%, both of which could result in reduced revenues through 2010.

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

   2009  2008  Change 

Asset management fees

  $9,671  11,673  (2,002

Property management fees

   15,031  16,132  (1,101

Leasing commissions

   4,012  2,363  1,649  

Transaction fees

   9,249  25,155  (15,906

Other third party fees

   326  709  (383
           
  $38,289  56,032  (17,743
           

Asset management fees, which are tied to the value of the real estate we manage in the co-investment partnerships, declined during 2009 due to an overall decline in commercial real estate values

during the past 18 months, and also due to a reduction in the number of joint venture partnership properties we manage as a result of the DIK liquidation of MCWR I. Property management fees, which are calculated based on a percentage of revenues earned in the joint venture partnerships, declined as a result of an 11.6% decline in 2009 joint venture partnership revenues as compared to 2008. Leasing commissions were higher in 2009 as we leased more space in 2009 as compared to 2008, however, tenant moveouts, on a square foot basis outpaced new leasing during 2009 causing a net decline in our occupancy rate. The decrease in transaction fees relates to a $19.7 million Portfolio Incentive Return Fee earned and recognized in 2008 not recurring in 2009. During 2009 we received a $7.8 million disposition fee from MCW in relation to MCW’s partial sale of its investment in MCWR II to GRI.

Our operating expenses increased by $30.3 million or 10.9% to $308.0 million in 2009. The following table summarizes our operating expenses (in thousands):

   2009  2008  Change 

Operating, maintenance and real estate taxes

  $119,884  107,652  12,232  

General and administrative

   54,136  49,495  4,641  

Depreciation and amortization

   116,924  104,569  12,355  

Provision for doubtful accounts

   8,791  1,170  7,621  

Other expenses, net

   8,284  14,824  (6,540
           

Total operating expenses

  $308,019  277,710  30,309  
           

Increases in operating, maintenance, and real estate taxes along with depreciation and amortization expense are primarily related to the six properties distributed to us as part of the MCWR I DIK liquidation during 2009 not included in the 2008 amounts, $111.3 million of recently completed developments commencing operations in the current year, and general increases in expenses incurred by the operating properties. General and administrative expense is 9.4% higher in 2009 primarily related to $7.5 million in severance and benefit payments associated with two reductions in force completed during 2009, offset by reductions in incentive compensation for not achieving targeted performance levels. During 2009 we increased the allowance for doubtful accounts to reserve for past due amounts reflecting to a significantly higher tenant default rate on rental payments as tenants struggled in a period of much lower consumer spending. The decline in other expenses is due to a reduction in pre-acquisition development costs being written off as a result of much lower new development pursuit activity.

The following table presents the change in interest expense from 2009 to 2008 (in thousands):

   2009  2008  Change 

Interest on Unsecured credit facilities

  $5,985   12,655   (6,670

Interest on notes payable

   126,083   121,335   4,748  

Capitalized interest

   (19,062 (36,510 17,448  

Interest income

   (3,767 (4,696 929  
           
  $109,239   92,784   16,455  
           

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

During 2009, we sold 18 out-parcels for net proceeds of $27.8 million and recognized a gain of approximately $219,000, whereas during 2008, we sold 12 out-parcels for net proceeds of $38.2 million and recognized a gain of $1.2 million. During 2009, we also sold eight operating properties to the USAA

partnership for net proceeds of $103.3 million and recognized gains of $19.1 million recorded under the Restricted Gain Method. During 2008, we sold four properties to several joint ventures for net proceeds of $110.5 million and recognized gains of $13.8 million recorded under the Restricted Gain Method.

During the year ended December 31, 2009, we recorded a provision for impairment of $104.4 million, of which $93.7 million related to land held for future development or sale. During 2009, a prospective anchor tenant for several development sites expressed considerable uncertainty about the timing and location of future stores given the continuation of the weak economy and reductions in consumer spending. As a result, we reevaluated and reduced the probability of future development at these sites and accordingly reduced our carrying value in the land parcels to estimated fair value. Included in the impairment loss was a $10.2 million provision related to operating properties that became targeted for sale in the near future, which caused us to re-evaluate and reduce our expected holding periods for these assets and corresponding future cash flows. We also recorded a reserve of $465,000 on a note receivable in default. During the year ended December 31, 2008, we recorded a provision for impairment of $34.9 million of which $7.2 million related to land held for future development or sale, $20.6 million related to operating properties, $1.1 million related to a note receivable in default, and $6.0 related to our investment in real estate partnerships.

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

   Ownership  2009  2008  Change 

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency (MCWR I)(1)

  —     $1,207   488   719  

Macquarie CountryWide Direct (MCWR I)(1)

  —      —     697   (697

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II (MCWR II) (2)

  25.00  (28,308 (672 (27,636

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III (MCWR III)

  24.95  150   203   (53

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO (MCWR-DESCO)

  16.35  (883 (823 (60

Columbia Regency Retail Partners (Columbia I)

  20.00  914   2,105   (1,191

Columbia Regency Partners II (Columbia II)

  20.00  28   169   (141

Cameron Village LLC (Cameron)

  30.00  (436 (65 (371

RegCal, LLC (RegCal)

  25.00  123   1,678   (1,555

Regency Retail Partners (the Fund)

  20.00  (464 (233 (231

US Regency Retail I, LLC (USAA)

  20.01  (6 —     (6

Other investments in real estate partnerships

  50.00  1,302   1,745   (443
            

Total

   $(26,373 5,292   (31,665
            

(1)

At December 31, 2008, the Company’s ownership interest in MCWR I was 25.00%. The liquidation of MCWR I was complete effective December 31, 2009.

(2)

At December 31, 2008, the Company’s ownership interest in MCWR II was 24.95%.

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

Income from discontinued operations was $5.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 related to the operations of shopping centers sold or classified as held-for-sale in 2009 and 2008 whereas income from discontinued operations was $22.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Income from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2009 includes gains from the sale of four properties in development for net proceeds of $29.8 million and gains of $5.6 million, one operating

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

Related to our Parent Company’s results, our net loss attributable to common stockholders for the year ended 2009 was $56.4 million, a decrease of $172.9 million as compared with net income of $116.5 million in 2008. The decline in net income was primarily related to the $104.4 million provision for impairment recorded in 2009, our $26.1 million pro-rata share of the provision for impairment recorded by MCWR II, and a reduction in gains from the sale of real estate during 2009 as compared to 2008. Our diluted net loss per share was $0.74 in 2009 as compared to diluted net income per share of $1.66 in 2008.

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

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2008 to 2007:

Our revenues increased by $56.8$59.9 million, or 13.0%13.7%, to $493.4$495.9 million in 2008 as summarized in the following table (in thousands):

 

  2008  2007  Change   2008  2007  Change 

Minimum rent

  $334,332  308,720  25,612   $334,509  308,108  26,401  

Percentage rent

   4,260  4,661  (401)   4,258  4,655  (397

Recoveries from tenants and other income

   98,797  90,137  8,660    101,096  90,179  10,917  

Management, acquisition, and other fees

   56,032  33,064  22,968 

Management, transaction, and other fees

   56,032  33,064  22,968  
                    

Total revenues

  $493,421  436,582  56,839   $495,895  436,006  59,889  
                    

The increase in revenues was primarily related to higher minimum rent from (i) growth in rental rates from the renewal of expiring leases or re-leasing vacant space in the operating properties, (ii) minimum rent generated from shopping center acquisitions in 2007, and (iii) recently completed shopping center developments commencing operations in the current year. In addition to collecting minimum rent from our tenants, we also collect percentage rent based upon their sales volumes. Recoveries from tenants represent reimbursements from tenants for their pro-rata share of the operating, maintenance, and real estate tax expenses that we incur to operate our shopping centers. Recoveries increased as a result of an increase in our operating expenses.

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

   2008  2007  Change 

Asset management fees

  $11,673  11,021  652 

Property management fees

   16,132  13,865  2,267 

Leasing commissions

   2,363  2,319  44 

Acquisition and financing fees

   5,455  5,055  400 

Portfolio Incentive Return Fee

   19,700  —    19,700 

Other third party fees

   709  804  (95)
           
  $56,032  33,064  22,968 
           

The increase in management, acquisition,transaction, and other fees is primarily related to the recognition of a $19.7 million Portfolio Incentive Return fee in December 2008. The fee was earned by the Company based upon Columbia outperforming the NCREIF index since the inception of the partnership and a cumulative hurdle rate outlined in the partnership agreement.

Fees earned for asset management, disposition, property management, leasing, acquisition, and financing services from our co-investment partnerships and third parties are summarized as follows (in thousands):

   2008  2007  Change 

Asset management fees

  $11,673  11,021  652  

Property management fees

   16,132  13,865  2,267  

Leasing commissions

   2,363  2,319  44  

Transaction fees

   25,155  5,055  20,100  

Other third party fees

   709  804  (95
           
  $56,032  33,064  22,968  
           

The increase in transaction fees of $20.1 million is related to the $19.7 million Portfolio Incentive Return fee discussed above. Asset and property management fees increased during 2008 as a result of providing those management services to MCWR-DESCO for the entire year during 2008 as compared to only a joint venture formed in 2007.portion of 2007 when MCWR-DESCO was formed.

Our operating expenses increased by $29.2$29.8 million, or 11.8%12.0%, to $277.1$277.7 million in 2008 related to increased operating and maintenance costs and depreciation expense as further described below. The

Index to Financial Statements

summarized in the following table summarizes our operating expenses (in thousands):

 

  2008  2007  Change   2008  2007  Change 

Operating, maintenance and real estate taxes

  $108,006  97,635  10,371   $107,652  97,910  9,742  

General and administrative

   49,495  50,580  (1,085

Depreciation and amortization

   104,739  89,539  15,200    104,569  89,365  15,204  

General and administrative

   49,495  50,580  (1,085)

Provision for doubtful accounts

   1,170  —    1,170  

Other expenses, net

   14,824  10,081  4,743    14,824  10,057  4,767  
                    

Total operating expenses

  $277,064  247,835  29,229   $277,710  247,912  29,798  
                    

The increase in depreciation and amortization expense is primarily related to acquisitions in 2007 and recently completed developments commencing operations in the current year. The increase in operating, maintenance, and real estate taxes was primarily due to acquisitions innew properties acquired during 2007 operating for the entire year during 2008, recently completed developments commencing operations in the current year,during 2007, and to general increases in expenses incurred by the operating properties. On average, approximately 79% of these costs are recovered from our tenants through recoveries included in our revenues. General and administrative expense declined as a result of reducing incentive compensation directly tied to performance targets associated with reductions in new development and reduced earningsearning metrics, both of which have beenwere directly impacted by the current economic downturn.downturn during 2008. During 2008, we also recorded restructuring charges of $2.4 million for employee severance and benefits related to employee reductions across various functional areas in generalforce. The increase in depreciation and administrative expense.amortization expense is primarily related to acquisitions in 2007 operating for a full year in 2008 and recently completed developments commencing operations in the current year. The increase in other expenses is related to expensing more pre-development costs in 2008 than in 2007 directly related to a slowing development program indue to the current economic environment.

The following table presents the change in interest expense from 2008 to 2007 (in thousands):

 

   2008  2007  Change 

Interest on Unsecured credit facilities

  $12,655   10,117   2,538  

Interest on notes payable

   121,335   110,775   10,560  

Capitalized interest

   (36,510 (35,424 (1,086

Interest income

   (4,696 (3,079 (1,617
           
  $92,784   82,389   10,395  
           

Interest on Unsecured credit facilities increased during 2008 by $2.5 million due to the increase in the outstanding balance under the Unsecured credit facilities. Interest expense on notes payable increased during 2008 by $10.6 million due to higher outstanding debt balances including the issuance of $400.0 million of unsecured debt in September 2007, the acquisition of shopping centers in 2007, and the mortgage debt placed on a consolidated joint venture in 2008. The higher development project costs also

resulted in an increase in capitalized interest.

Gains on sale of real estate included in continuing operations were $20.3 million in 2008 as compared to $52.2 million in 2007. Included in 2008 gains are a $5.3 million gain from the sale of 12 out-parcels for net proceeds of $38.2 million, a $1.2 million gain recognized on two out-parcels originally deferred at the time of sale, and a $13.8 million gain (net of the greater of our ownership interest or the gain deferral under the Restricted Gain Method described in our Critical Accounting Policies) from the sale of four properties in development to joint ventures for net proceeds of $110.5 million. Included in 2007 gains are a $7.2 million gain from the sale of 27 out-parcels for net proceeds of $55.9 million, a $40.9 million gain from the sale of five properties in development to the Fund for net proceeds of $102.8 million, a $2.2 million gain related to the partial sale of our interest in the Fund, and a $1.9 million gain from our share of a contractual earn out payment related to a property previously sold to a joint venture. There were no property sales to DIK-JV’s in 2007.

During 2008, we established a provision for impairment of approximately $34.9 million, as described above$3.4 million of which was reclassed to discontinued operations when the property was sold in our Critical Accounting Policies under Valuations of Real Estate.2009. Included in the

Index to Financial Statements

provision is $27.8 million for estimated impairment losses on eight operating properties, one large parcel of land held for future development, along with several smaller land out-parcels; $6.0 million on two of our investments in real estate partnerships; and $1.1 million related to a note receivable.

Our equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships decreased by $12.8 million during 2008 as follows (in thousands):

 

  Ownership 2008 2007 Change   Ownership 2008 2007 Change 

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency (MCWR I)

  25.00% $488  9,871  (9,383)  25.00 $488   9,871   (9,383

Macquarie CountryWide Direct (MCWR I)

  25.00%  697  457  240   25.00  697   457   240  

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II (MCWR II)

  24.95%  (672) (3,236) 2,564   24.95  (672 (3,236 2,564  

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III (MCWR III)

  24.95%  203  67  136   24.95  203   67   136  

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO (MCWR-DESCO)

  16.35%  (823) (465) (358)  16.35  (823 (465 (358

Columbia Regency Retail Partners (Columbia)

  20.00%  2,105  2,440  (335)

Columbia Regency Retail Partners (Columbia I)

  20.00  2,105   2,440   (335

Columbia Regency Partners II (Columbia II)

  20.00%  169  189  (20)  20.00  169   189   (20

Cameron Village LLC (Cameron)

  30.00%  (65) (74) 9   30.00  (65 (74 9  

RegCal, LLC (RegCal)

  25.00%  1,678  662  1,016   25.00  1,678   662   1,016  

Regency Retail Partners (the Fund)

  20.00%  (233) 326  (559)  20.00  (233 326   (559

Other investments in real estate partnerships

  50.00%  1,745  7,856  (6,111)  50.00  1,745   7,856   (6,111
                      

Total

   $5,292  18,093  (12,801)   $5,292   18,093   (12,801
                      

The decrease in our equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships is primarily related to higher gains recorded in 2007 from the sale of shopping centers sold by MCWR I, as well as, the sale of a shopping center owned by a joint venture classified above in other investments in real estate partnerships.

Income from discontinued operations was $27.2$22.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2008 related to the sale of seven properties in development and three operating properties sold to unrelated parties for net proceeds of $86.2 million, including the operations of shopping centers sold or classified as held-for-sale in 2008. Income from discontinued operations was $33.4$34.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 related to the sale of four properties in development and three operating properties to unrelated parties for net proceeds of $112.3 million and including the operations of shopping centers sold or classified as held-for-sale in 2008 and 2007. In compliance with Statement 144, if we sell a property or classify a property as held-for-sale, we are required to reclassify its operations into discontinued operations for all prior periods which results in a reclassification of amounts previously reported as continuing operations into discontinued operations. Our income from discontinued operations is shown net of income taxes of $2.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2007.

Net

Related to our Parent Company’s results, net income forattributable to common unit holdersstockholders for the year ended decreased $68.2$67.5 million to $117.4$116.5 million in 2008 as compared with $185.6$184.0 million in 2007 primarily related to lower gains recognized from the sale of real estate and the provision for impairment recorded in 2008 as discussed previously. Diluted earnings per share was $1.66 in 2008 as compared to $2.65 in 2007.

Related to our Operating Partnership’s results, net income attributable to common unit holders for the year ended decreased $68.2 million to $117.4 million in 2008 as compared with $185.6 million in 2007 for the reasons stated above. Diluted earnings per unit was $1.66 in 2008 as compared to $2.65 in 2007 or 37.4% lower.2007.

Results from Operations – 2007 vs. 2006

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2007 to 2006:

Our revenues increased by $32.5 million, or 8.1% to $436.6 million in 2007 as summarized in the following table (in thousands):

Index to Financial Statements
   2007  2006  Change

Minimum rent

  $308,720  284,751  23,969

Percentage rent

   4,661  4,430  231

Recoveries from tenants and other income

   90,137  83,048  7,089

Management, acquisition, and other fees

   33,064  31,805  1,259
          

Total revenues

  $436,582  404,034  32,548
          

The increase in revenues was primarily related to higher minimum rent from (i) growth in rental rates from the renewal of expiring leases or re-leasing vacant space in the operating properties, (ii) minimum rent generated from shopping center acquisitions, and (iii) recently completed shopping center developments commencing operations in the current year. In addition to collecting minimum rent from our tenants, we also collect percentage rent based upon their sales volumes. Recoveries increased as a result of an increase in our operating expenses

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

   2007  2006  Change 

Asset management fees

  $11,021  5,977  5,044 

Property management fees

   13,865  11,041  2,824 

Leasing commissions

   2,319  2,210  109 

Acquisition and financing fees

   5,055  11,683  (6,628)

Other third party fees

   804  894  (90)
           
  $33,064  31,805  1,259 
           

Asset management fees were higher in 2007 because the agreement to provide asset management services to MCWR II did not commence until December 2006; and the closing and related commencement of the agreements with the Fund did not occur until December 2006. Property management fees increased in 2007 as a result of providing property management services to MCWR-DESCO and the Fund. Acquisition and financing fees earned in 2007 include a $3.2 million acquisition fee from MCWR-DESCO related to the acquisition of 32 retail centers described above. Acquisition and financing fees earned in 2006 include fees earned as part of the acquisition of the First Washington portfolio by MCWR II.

Our operating expenses increased by $16.0 million, or 6.9%, to $247.8 million in 2007 related to increased operating and maintenance costs, general and administrative costs, and depreciation expense, as further described below. The following table summarizes our operating expenses (in thousands):

   2007  2006  Change 

Operating, maintenance and real estate taxes

  $97,635  89,406  8,229 

Depreciation and amortization

   89,539  81,028  8,511 

General and administrative

   50,580  45,495  5,085 

Other expenses, net

   10,081  15,928  (5,847)
           

Total operating expenses

  $247,835  231,857  15,978 
           

The increase in operating, maintenance, and real estate taxes was primarily due to acquisitions and completed developments commencing operations in 2007, and to general increases in expenses incurred by the operating properties. On average, approximately 79% of these costs are recovered from our tenants through recoveries included in our revenues. The increase in general and administrative expense was related to annual salary increases and higher costs associated with incentive compensation, in addition to, increased staffing and recruiting costs to manage the growth in our shopping center development program. The increase in depreciation and amortization expense was

Index to Financial Statements

primarily related to acquisitions and recently completed developments commencing operations in 2007, net of properties sold. The decrease in other expenses was related to lower income tax expense incurred by Regency Realty Group, Inc. (“RRG”), our taxable REIT subsidiary. RRG is subject to federal and state income taxes and files separate tax returns.

The following table presents the change in interest expense from 2007 to 2006 (in thousands):

   2007  2006  Change 

Interest on Unsecured credit facilities

  $10,117  7,557  2,560 

Interest on notes payable

   110,775  99,975  10,800 

Capitalized interest

   (35,424) (23,952) (11,472)

Interest income

   (3,079) (4,232) 1,153 
           
  $82,389  79,348  3,041 
           

Interest expense on the Unsecured credit facilities and notes payable increased during 2007 by $13.4 million due to higher outstanding debt balances including the issuance of $400.0 million of unsecured debt in June 2007, increased development activity and the acquisition of shopping centers. The higher development project costs also resulted in an increase in capitalized interest.

Gains from the sale of real estate included in continuing operations were $52.2 million in 2007 as compared to $65.6 million in 2006. Included in 2007 gains are a $7.2 million gain from the sale of 27 out-parcels for net proceeds of $55.9 million, a $40.9 million gain from the sale of five properties in development to the Fund for net proceeds of $102.8 million, a $2.2 million gain related to the partial sale of our ownership interest in the Fund, and a $1.9 million gain from our share of a contractual earn out payment related to a property previously sold to a joint venture. Included in 2006 gains are a $20.2 million gain from the sale of 30 out-parcels for net proceeds of $53.5 million, a $35.9 million gain from the sale of six shopping centers to co-investment partnerships for net proceeds of $122.7 million; as well as a $9.5 million gain related to the partial sale of our ownership interest in MCWR II. There were no sales to DIK-JV’s in 2007 or 2006.

Our equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships increased approximately $15.5 million during 2007 as follows (in thousands):

   Ownership  2007  2006  Change 

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency (MCWR I)

  25.00% $9,871  4,747  5,124 

Macquarie CountryWide Direct (MCWR I)

  25.00%  457  615  (158)

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II (MCWR II)

  24.95%  (3,236) (7,005) 3,769 

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III (MCWR III)

  24.95%  67  (38) 105 

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO

    —     

(MCWR-DESCO)

  16.35%  (465) —    (465)

Columbia Regency Retail Partners (Columbia)

  20.00%  2,440  2,350  90 

Columbia Regency Partners II (Columbia II)

  20.00%  189  62  127 

Cameron Village LLC (Cameron)

  30.00%  (74) (119) 45 

RegCal, LLC (RegCal)

  25.00%  662  517  145 

Regency Retail Partners (the Fund)

  20.00%  326  7  319 

Other investments in real estate partnerships

  50.00%  7,856  1,444  6,412 
            

Total

   $18,093  2,580  15,513 
            

The increase in our equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships is primarily related to growth in rental income generally realized in all of the joint venture portfolios and higher gains from the sale of shopping centers sold by MCWR I, as well as, the sale of a shopping center owned by a joint venture classified above in Other investments.

Income from discontinued operations was $33.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 related to the sale of four development properties and three operating properties to unrelated parties for

Index to Financial Statements

net proceeds of $112.3 million, and including the operations of shopping centers sold or classified as held-for-sale in 2008 and 2007. Income from discontinued operations was $69.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 related to the sale of three development properties and eight operating properties to unrelated parties for net proceeds of $149.6 million, and including the operations of shopping centers sold or classified as held-for-sale in 2008, 2007, and 2006. In compliance with Statement 144, if we sell an asset in the current year, we are required to reclassify its operations into discontinued operations for all prior periods. This practice results in a reclassification of amounts previously reported as continuing operations into discontinued operations. Our income from discontinued operations is shown net of income taxes totaling $2.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2007.

Net income for common unit holders decreased $16.1 million to $185.6 million in 2007 as compared with $201.7 million in 2006 primarily related to lower gains recognized from the sale of 15 properties as compared to 22 in 2006. Diluted earnings per unit was $2.65 in 2007 as compared to $2.89 in 2006 or 8.3% lower.

Environmental Matters

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

InflationInflation/Deflation

Inflation has been historically low and has had a minimal impact on the operating performance of our shopping centers; however, more recent data suggests inflation has been increasing and maywill eventually become a greater concern inas the current economy.economy begins to recover from the recent recession. Substantially all of our long-term leases contain provisions designed to mitigate the adverse impact of inflation. Such provisions include clauses enabling us to receive percentage rent based on tenants’ gross sales, which generally increase as prices rise; and/or escalation clauses, which generally increase rental rates during the terms of the leases. Such escalation clauses are often related to increases in the consumer price index or similar inflation indices. In addition, many of our leases are for terms of less than ten years, which permits us to seek increased rents upon re-rental at market rates. Most of our leases require tenants to pay their pro-rata share of operating expenses, including common-area maintenance, real estate taxes, insurance and utilities, thereby reducing our exposure to increases in costs and operating expenses resulting from inflation. However, during deflationary periods or periods of economic weakness, minimum rents and percentage rents will decline as the supply of available retail space exceeds demand and consumer spending declines. Occupancy declines resulting from a weak economic period will also likely result in lower recovery rates of our operating expenses.

Index to Financial Statements
Item 7A.Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Market Risk

We are exposed to two significant components of interest rate risk. Our Line commitment has a variable interest rate that is based upon LIBOR plus a spread of 4055 basis points and the term loan within our Term Facilityrevolving credit facility has a variable interest rate based upon LIBOR plus a spread of 105100 basis points. LIBOR rates charged on our Unsecured credit facilities change monthly. Based upon the current balance of our Unsecured credit facilities, a 1% increase in LIBOR would equate to an additional $3.0 million of interest costs per year. The spread on the Unsecured credit facilities is dependent upon maintaining specific credit ratings. If our credit ratings wereare downgraded, the spread on the Unsecured credit facilities would increase, resulting in higher interest costs. We are also exposed to higher interest rates when we refinance our existing long-term fixed rate debt. The objective of our interest rate risk management is to limit the impact of interest rate changes on earnings and cash flows and to lower our overall borrowing costs. To achieve these objectives, we borrow primarily at fixed interest rates and may enter into derivative financial instruments such as interest rate swaps, caps, or treasury locks in order to mitigate our interest rate risk on a related financial instrument. We do not enter into derivative or interest rate transactions for speculative purposes.

We have $428.3$375.2 million of fixed rate debt maturing in 2010 and 2011 that havehas a weighted average fixed interest rate of 8.07%7.95%, which includes $400.0$334.0 million of unsecured long-term debt. During 2006 we entered into four forward-starting interest rate swaps (the “Swaps”) totaling $396.7 million with fixed rates of 5.399%, 5.415%, 5.399%, and 5.415%. We designated these Swaps as cash flow hedges to fixlock in the future interestunderlying treasury rates on $400.0$334.0 million of the financing expected to occur in 2010 and 2011. As a result of a decline in 10 year Treasury interest rates since the inception of the Swaps, the fair value of the Swaps as of December 31, 20082009 is reflected as a liability of $83.7$28.4 million in our accompanying consolidated balance sheet. It remains highly probable that the forecasted transactions will occur as projected at the inception of the Swaps and therefore, the change in fair value of the Swaps is reflected in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. If we were to no longer expect to issue debt as originally forecasted, we would be required to immediately expense the change in fair value of the Swaps to net income including all future changes until settled. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we had $3.3 million of hedge ineffectiveness recognized in earnings attributable to our revised assumptions of future debt issues. To the extent that future 10-year Treasury rates (at the future settlement dates) are higher than current rates, this liability will decline. If a liability exists at the dates the Swaps are settled, the liability will be amortized over the term of the respective debt issuances as additional interest expense in addition to the stated interest rates on the new issuances. In the case of $196.7debt. On April 16, 2009, we paid $20.0 million to settle and partially settle $106.0 million of our $396.7 million of interest rate swaps in place to hedge forecasted debt. On July 1, 2009, we closed on mortgage loans of $106.0 million secured by eight properties with an interest rate of 7.75% and a 10-year term. For $90.7 million of the remaining Swaps, we continue to expect to issue new secured or unsecured debt for a term of 7 to 12 years during the period between June 30, 2009 and June 30,prior to July 1, 2010. In the case ofFor $200.0 million of the remaining Swaps, we continue to expect to issue new debt for a term of 7 to 12 years during the period between March 30,31, 2010 and March 30,31, 2011. We continuously monitor the capital markets and evaluate our ability to issue new debt to repay maturing debt or fund our commitments. Based upon the current capital markets, our current credit ratings, and the number of high quality, unencumbered properties that we own which could collateralize borrowings, we expect that we will be able to successfully issue new secured or unsecured debt to fund our obligations. However, in the current environment, we expect interest rates on new issuances to be significantly higher than on historical issuances. An increase of 1.0% in the interest rate of new debt issuesissued, above that of maturing debt, would result in additional annual interest expense of $4.3$3.3 million in additionsubject to the impact of the annual amortization that would be incurred as a result of settling the Swaps.

Our interest rate risk is monitored using a variety of techniques. The table below presents the principal cash flows (in thousands), weighted average interest rates of remaining debt, and the fair value of total debt (in thousands) as of December 31, 2008,2009, by year of expected maturity to evaluate the expected cash flows and sensitivity to interest rate changes. Although the average interest rate for variable rate debt is included in the table, those rates represent rates that existed at December 31, 20082009 and are subject to change on a monthly basis.

The table incorporates only those exposures that exist as of December 31, 20082009 and does not consider those exposures or positions that could arise after that date. Since firm commitments are not presented, the table has limited predictive value. As a result, our ultimate realized gain or loss with

Index to Financial Statements

respect to interest rate fluctuations will depend on the exposures that arise during the period, our hedging strategies at that time, and actual interest rates.

 

  2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Thereafter Total  Fair
Value
  2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Thereafter Total  Fair
Value

Fixed rate debt

  $57,780  181,923  256,020  255,027  21,065  1,064,056  1,835,871  1,043,017  $173,766   209,395   254,901   21,123   166,296   1,058,133   1,883,614  1,433,836

Average interest rate for all fixed rate debt

   6.36% 6.14% 5.81% 5.59% 5.56% 5.65% —    —  

Average interest rate forall fixed rate debt (a)

   6.19 5.96 5.80 5.78 5.90 6.26 —    —  

Variable rate LIBOR debt

  $5,130  —    297,667  —    —    —    302,796  285,920  $204   1,196   204   204   3,788   —     5,596  4,573

Average interest rate for all variable rate debt

   1.34% 1.34% —    —    —    —    —    —  

Average interest rate forall variable rate debt(a)

   5.33 5.80 5.80 5.80 —     —     —    —  

(a)

Average interest rates at the end of each year presented.

The fair value of total debt in the table above is $1.3$1.4 billion versus the face value of $2.1$1.9 billion, which suggests that as new debt is issued in the future to repay maturing debt, the cost of new debt issuances will be higher than the current cost of existing debt.

Index to Financial Statements
Item 8.Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Index to Financial Statements

 

Regency Centers, L.P.

Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

  6066

Regency Centers Corporation:

Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20082009 and 20072008

  6270

Consolidated Statements of Operations for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 20062007

  6371

Consolidated Statements of Partners’ CapitalEquity and Comprehensive Income (Loss)
for the years ended December  31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 20062007

  6472

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 20062007

  6573

Regency Centers, L.P.:

Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2009 and 2008

75

Consolidated Statements of Operations for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007

76

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Capital and Comprehensive
Income (Loss) for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007

77

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007

78

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

  6780

Financial Statement Schedule

  

Schedule III - Regency Centers, L.P. Combined Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation -
December 31, 2008
2009

  105123

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

Index to Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

Regency Centers Corporation:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009. In connection with our audits of the consolidated financial statements, we also have audited financial statement Schedule III. These consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Regency Centers Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

As discussed in note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, in 2009 the Company retrospectively changed its method of accounting for noncontrolling interests due to the adoption of new accounting requirements.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Regency Centers Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on criteria established inInternal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report dated February 26, 2010 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

February 26, 2010

Jacksonville, Florida

Certified Public Accountants

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

Regency Centers Corporation:

We have audited Regency Centers Corporation’s (the Company’s) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Regency Centers Corporation’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, Regency Centers Corporation maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009 and the related financial statement schedule, and our report dated February 26, 2010 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and the related financial statement schedule.

February 26, 2010

Jacksonville, Florida

Certified Public Accountants

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

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

the Board of Directors and Stockholders of

Regency Centers Corporation:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers, L.P. and subsidiaries (the Partnership) as of December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in partners’ capital and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008.2009. In connection with our audits of the consolidated financial statements, we also have audited financial statement Schedule III. These consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Regency Centers, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008,2009, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

As discussed in note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, in 2009 the Company retrospectively changed its method of accounting for noncontrolling interests due to the adoption of new accounting requirements.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Regency Centers, L.P.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008,2009, based on criteria established inInternal Control - Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report dated March 17, 2009February 26, 2010 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.reporting.

/s/ KPMG LLP

March 17, 2009February 26, 2010

Jacksonville, Florida

Certified Public Accountants

Index to Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Unit holders of Regency Centers, L.P. and the

the Board of Directors and Stockholders of

Regency Centers Corporation:

We have audited Regency Centers, L.P.’s (the Partnership’s) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008,2009, based on criteria established inInternal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Regency Centers, Corporation’sL.P.’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, andevaluating management’s assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, based on the assessed risk. Our audit also includedand performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, Regency Centers, L.P. maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008,2009, based on criteria established inInternal Control - Control—Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.Commission (COSO).

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in partners’ capital and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 20082009 and the related financial statement schedule, and our report dated March 17, 2009February 26, 2010 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.statements and the related financial statement schedule.

/s/ KPMG LLP

March 17, 2009February 26, 2010

Jacksonville, Florida

Certified Public Accountants

IndexREGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Balance Sheets

December 31, 2009 and 2008

(in thousands, except share data)

   2009  2008 

Assets

   

Real estate investments at cost (notes 2, 3, 4, and 14):

   

Land

  $975,861   923,062  

Buildings and improvements

   2,017,843   1,974,093  

Properties in development

   920,427   1,078,885  
        
   3,914,131   3,976,040  

Less: accumulated depreciation

   622,163   554,595  
        
   3,291,968   3,421,445  

Operating properties held for sale, net

   19,647   66,447  

Investments in real estate partnerships

   326,212   383,408  
        

Net real estate investments

   3,637,827   3,871,300  

Cash and cash equivalents

   99,477   21,533  

Notes receivable (note 5)

   37,753   31,438  

Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $6,567 and $1,837 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively

   40,871   46,501  

Straight line rent receivable, net of reserve of $1,899 at December 31, 2009

   39,292   37,595  

Other receivables (note 4)

   —     19,700  

Deferred costs, less accumulated amortization of $58,861 and $51,549 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively

   58,376   57,477  

Acquired lease intangible assets, less accumulated amortization of $11,632 and $11,204 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively (note 6)

   10,007   12,903  

Other assets

   50,203   43,928  
        

Total assets

  $3,973,806   4,142,375  
        

Liabilities and Equity

   

Liabilities:

   

Notes payable (note 8)

  $1,886,380   1,837,904  

Unsecured credit facilities (note 8)

   —     297,667  

Accounts payable and other liabilities

   99,145   141,395  

Derivative instruments, at fair value (note 9)

   28,363   83,691  

Acquired lease intangible liabilities, less accumulated accretion of $9,715 and $8,829 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively (note 6)

   5,896   7,865  

Tenants’ security and escrow deposits

   10,628   11,571  
        

Total liabilities

   2,030,412   2,380,093  
        

Commitments and contingencies (notes 14 and 15)

   

Equity:

   

Stockholders’ equity (notes 9, 11, 12, and 13):

   

Preferred stock, $.01 par value per share, 30,000,000 shares authorized; 11,000,000 Series 3-5 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2009 and 2008 with liquidation preferences of $25 per share

   275,000   275,000  

Common stock $.01 par value per share, 150,000,000 shares authorized; 81,539,296 and 75,634,881 shares issued at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively

   815   756  

Treasury stock at cost, 5,598,211 shares held at December 31, 2008

   —     (111,414

Additional paid in capital

   2,022,670   1,778,265  

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

   (49,973 (90,689

Distributions in excess of net income

   (373,345 (155,057
        

Total stockholders’ equity

   1,875,167   1,696,861  
        

Noncontrolling interests:

   

Series D preferred units, aggregate redemption value of $50,000 at December 31, 2009 and 2008

   49,158   49,158  

Exchangeable operating partnership units, aggregate redemption value of $16,415 and $21,865 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively (note 10)

   7,321   8,283  

Limited partners’ interest in consolidated partnerships

   11,748   7,980  
        

Total noncontrolling interests

   68,227   65,421  
        

Total equity

   1,943,394   1,762,282  
        

Total liabilities and equity

  $3,973,806   4,142,375  
        

See accompanying notes to Financialconsolidated financial statements.

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Operations

For the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007

(in thousands, except per share data)

   2009  2008  2007 

Revenues:

    

Minimum rent (note 14)

  $345,610   334,509   308,108  

Percentage rent

   3,585   4,258   4,655  

Recoveries from tenants and other income

   101,748   101,096   90,179  

Management, transaction, and other fees

   38,289   56,032   33,064  
           

Total revenues

   489,232   495,895   436,006  
           

Operating expenses:

    

Depreciation and amortization

   116,924   104,569   89,365  

Operating and maintenance

   66,061   59,140   54,095  

General and administrative

   54,136   49,495   50,580  

Real estate taxes

   53,823   48,512   43,815  

Provision for doubtful accounts

   8,791   1,170   —    

Other expenses

   8,284   14,824   10,057  
           

Total operating expenses

   308,019   277,710   247,912  
           

Other expense (income):

    

Interest expense, net of interest income of $3,767, $4,696 and $3,079 in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively

   109,239   92,784   82,389  

Gain on sale of operating properties and properties in development

   (19,357 (20,346 (52,215

Provision for impairment

   97,519   31,469   —    

Early extinguishment of debt

   2,784   —     —    

Loss on derivative instruments (note 9)

   3,294   —     —    
           

Total other expense (income)

   193,479   103,907   30,174  
           

Income (loss) before equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships

   (12,266 114,278   157,920  

Equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships (note 4)

   (26,373 5,292   18,093  
           

Income (loss) from continuing operations

   (38,639 119,570   176,013  

Discontinued operations, net (note 3):

    

Operating income (loss) from discontinued operations

   61   4,570   8,718  

Gain on sale of operating properties and properties in development

   5,835   17,381   25,285  
           

Income (loss) from discontinued operations

   5,896   21,951   34,003  
           

Net income (loss)

   (32,743 141,521   210,016  

Noncontrolling interests:

    

Preferred units

   (3,725 (3,725 (3,725

Exchangeable operating partnership units

   216   (907 (1,650

Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships

   (452 (701 (990
           

Net income attributable to controlling interests

   (3,961 (5,333 (6,365
           

Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests

   (36,704 136,188   203,651  

Preferred stock dividends

   (19,675 (19,675 (19,675
           

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

  $(56,379 116,513   183,976  
           

Income (loss) per common share - basic (note 13):

    

Continuing operations

  $(0.82 1.35   2.16  

Discontinued operations

   0.08   0.31   0.49  
           

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders per share

  $(0.74 1.66   2.65  
           

Income (loss) per common share - diluted (note 13):

    

Continuing operations

  $(0.82 1.35   2.16  

Discontinued operations

   0.08   0.31   0.49  
           

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders per share

  $(0.74 1.66   2.65  
           

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss)

For the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007

(In thousands, except per share data)

                      Noncontrolling Interests    
  Preferred
Stock
 Common
Stock
  Treasury
Stock
  Additional
Paid In
Capital
  Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Loss
  Distributions
in Excess of
Net Income
  Total
Stockholders’
Equity
  Preferred
Units
  Exchangeable
Operating
Partnership
Units
  Limited
Partners’
Interest in
Consolidated
Partnerships
  Total
Noncontrolling
Interests
  Total
Equity
 

Balance at December 31, 2006

 $275,000 744   (111,414 1,744,201   (13,061 (69,516 1,825,954   49,158   16,065   17,797   83,020   1,908,974  

Comprehensive Income (note 9):

            

Net income

  —   —     —     —     —     203,651   203,651   3,725   1,650   990   6,365   210,016  

Amortization of loss on derivative instruments

  —   —     —     —     1,297   —     1,297   —     9   —     9   1,306  

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  —   —     —     —     (6,858 —     (6,858 —     (47 —     (47 (6,905
                  

Total comprehensive income (loss)

       198,090      6,327   204,417  

Restricted stock issued, net of amortization (note 12)

  —   2   —     17,723   —     —     17,725   —     —     —     —     17,725  

Common stock redeemed for taxes withheld for stock based compensation, net

  —   2   —     (7,813 —     —     (7,811 —     —     —     —     (7,811

Common stock issued for dividend reinvestment plan

  —   1   —     4,075   —     —     4,076   —     —     —     —     4,076  

Tax benefit for issuance of stock options

  —   —     —     1,909   —     —     1,909   —     —     —     —     1,909  

Common stock issued for partnership units exchanged

  —   3   —     8,604   —     —     8,607   —     (8,607 —     (8,607 —    

Reallocation of limited partners’ interest

  —   —     —     (2,419 —     —     (2,419 —     2,419   —     2,419   —    

Contributions from partners

  —   —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     4,483   4,483   4,483  

Distributions to partners

  —   —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     (4,879 (4,879 (4,879

Cash dividends declared:

            

Preferred stock/unit

  —   —     —     —     —     (19,675 (19,675 (3,725 —     —     (3,725 (23,400

Common stock/unit ($2.64 per share)

  —   —     —     —     —     (183,395 (183,395 —     (1,570 —     (1,570 (184,965
                                    

Balance at December 31, 2007

 $275,000 752   (111,414 1,766,280   (18,622 (68,935 1,843,061   49,158   9,919   18,391   77,468   1,920,529  

Comprehensive Income (note 9):

            

Net income

  —   —     —     —     —     136,188   136,188   3,725   907   701   5,333   141,521  

Amortization of loss on derivative instruments

  —   —     —     —     1,297   —     1,297   —     9   —     9   1,306  

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  —   —     —     —     (73,364 —     (73,364 —     (491 —     (491 (73,855
                  

Total comprehensive income (loss)

       64,121      4,851   68,972  

Restricted stock issued, net of amortization (note 12)

  —   3   —     8,190   —     —     8,193   —     —     —     —     8,193  

Common stock redeemed for taxes withheld for stock based compensation, net

  —   —     —     (3,659 —     —     (3,659 —     —     —     —     (3,659

Common stock issued for dividend reinvestment plan

  —   1   —     4,473   —     —     4,474   —     —     —     —     4,474  

Tax benefit for issuance of stock options

  —   —     —     2,285   —     —     2,285   —     —     —     —     2,285  

Common stock issued for partnership units exchanged

  —   —     —     232   —     —     232   —     (232 —     (232 —    

Reallocation of limited partners’ interest

  —   —     —     464   —     —     464   —     (464 —     (464 —    

Contributions from partners

  —   —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     3,157   3,157   3,157  

Distributions to partners

  —   —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     (14,269 (14,269 (14,269

Cash dividends declared:

            

Preferred stock/unit

  —   —     —     —     —     (19,675 (19,675 (3,725 —     —     (3,725 (23,400

Common stock/unit ($2.90 per share)

  —   —     —     —     —     (202,635 (202,635 —     (1,365 —     (1,365 (204,000
                                    

Balance at December 31, 2008

 $275,000 756   (111,414 1,778,265   (90,689 (155,057 1,696,861   49,158   8,283   7,980   65,421   1,762,282  

Comprehensive Income (note 9):

            

Net income (loss)

  —   —     —     —     —     (36,704 (36,704 3,725   (216 452   3,961   (32,743

Loss on settlement of derivative instruments

  —   —     —     —     (19,863 —     (19,863 —     (114 —     (114 (19,977

Amortization of loss on derivative instruments

  —   —     —     —     2,292   —     2,292   —     13   —     13   2,305  

Loss on derivative instruments

  —   —     —     —     3,275   —     3,275   —     19   —     19   3,294  

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  —   —     —     —     55,012   —     55,012   —     316   —     316   55,328  
                  

Total comprehensive income (loss)

       4,012      4,195   8,207  

Restricted stock issued, net of amortization (note 12)

  —   2   —     5,961   —     —     5,963   —     —     —     —     5,963  

Common stock redeemed for taxes withheld for stock based compensation, net

  —   —     —     343   —     —     343   —     —     —     —     343  

Common stock issued for dividend reinvestment plan

  —   1   —     3,222   —     —     3,223   —     —     —     —     3,223  

Tax benefit for issuance of stock options

  —   —     —     552   —     —     552   —     —     —     —     552  

Common stock issued for stock offerings, net of issuance costs

  —   112   —     345,685   —     —     345,797   —     —     —     —     345,797  

Treasury stock cancellation

  —   (56 111,414   (111,358 —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —    

Contributions from partners

  —   —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     4,197   4,197   4,197  

Distributions to partners

  —   —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     (881 (881 (881

Cash dividends declared:

            

Preferred stock/unit

  —   —     —     —     —     (19,675 (19,675 (3,725 —     —     (3,725 (23,400

Common stock/unit ($2.11 per share)

  —   —     —     —     —     (161,909 (161,909 —     (980 —     (980 (162,889
                                    

Balance at December 31, 2009

 $275,000 815   —     2,022,670   (49,973 (373,345 1,875,167   49,158   7,321   11,748   68,227   1,943,394  
                                    

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007

(in thousands)

   2009  2008  2007 

Cash flows from operating activities:

    

Net income (loss)

  $(32,743 141,521   210,016  

Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:

    

Depreciation and amortization

   117,979   107,846   93,508  

Deferred loan cost and debt premium amortization

   5,822   4,287   3,249  

Above and below market lease intangibles amortization and accretion

   (1,867 (2,376 (1,926

Stock-based compensation, net of capitalization

   4,668   5,950   11,572  

Equity in (income) loss of investments in real estate partnerships

   26,373   (5,292 (18,093

Net gain on sale of properties

   (25,192 (37,843 (79,627

Provision for doubtful accounts

   9,078   1,197   —    

Provision for impairment

   104,402   34,855   —    

Early extinguishment of debt

   2,784   —     —    

Distribution of earnings from operations of investments in real estate partnerships

   31,252   30,730   30,547  

Settlement of derivative instruments

   (19,953 —     —    

Loss on derivative instruments

   3,294   —     —    

Changes in assets and liabilities:

    

Accounts receivable

   (2,995 (6,621 (5,665

Straight-line rent receivables, net

   (3,959 (3,709 (4,375

Other receivables

   19,700   (19,700 —    

Deferred leasing costs

   (9,799 (6,734 (8,126

Other assets

   (16,493 (12,839 (15,861

Accounts payable and other liabilities

   (18,035 (12,423 2,101  

Tenants’ security and escrow deposits

   (454 320   847  
           

Net cash provided by operating activities

   193,862   219,169   218,167  
           

Cash flows from investing activities:

    

Acquisition of operating real estate

   —     —     (63,117

Development of real estate including acquisition of land

   (142,989 (388,783 (619,282

Proceeds from sale of real estate investments

   180,307   274,417   270,981  

Collection of notes receivable

   13,572   28,287   545  

Investments in real estate partnerships

   (28,709 (48,619 (42,660

Distributions received from investments in real estate partnerships

   23,548   28,923   41,372  
           

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities

   45,729   (105,775 (412,161
           

Cash flows from financing activities:

    

Net proceeds from common stock issuance

   345,800   1,020   2,383  

Distributions to limited partners in consolidated partnerships, net

   (872 (14,134 (4,632

Distributions to exchangeable operating partnership unit holders

   (980 (1,363 (1,572

Distributions to preferred unit holders

   (3,725 (3,725 (3,725

Dividends paid to common stockholders

   (158,690 (198,165 (179,325

Dividends paid to preferred stockholders

   (19,675 (19,675 (19,675

Repayment of fixed rate unsecured notes

   (116,053 —     —    

Proceeds from issuance of fixed rate unsecured notes

   —     —     398,108  

(Repayment of) proceeds from unsecured credit facilities

   (297,667 89,667   87,000  

Proceeds from notes payable

   106,992   62,500   —    

Repayment of notes payable

   (8,056 (19,932 (89,719

Scheduled principal payments

   (5,214 (4,806 (4,545

Payment of loan costs

   (1,195 (1,916 (5,682

Payment of premium on tender offer

   (2,312 —     —    
           

Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities

   (161,647 (110,529 178,616  
           

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

   77,944   2,865   (15,378

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of the year

   21,533   18,668   34,046  
           

Cash and cash equivalents at end of the year

  $99,477   21,533   18,668  
           

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007

(in thousands)

   2009  2008  2007 

Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:

     

Cash paid for interest (net of capitalized interest of $19,062 $36,510 and $35,424 in 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively)

  $112,730  94,632   82,833  
           

Supplemental disclosure of non-cash transactions:

     

Common stock issued for partnership units exchanged

  $—    232   8,607  
           

Real estate received through distribution in kind

  $100,717  —     —    
           

Mortgage loans assumed through distribution in kind

  $70,541  —     —    
           

Security deposits received through distribution in kind

  $265  —     —    
           

Mortgage loans assumed for the acquisition of real estate

  $—    —     42,272  
           

Real estate contributed for investments in real estate partnerships

  $26,410  6,825   11,007  
           

Notes receivable taken in connection with sales of properties in development

  $11,413  16,294   25,099  
           

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  $55,328  (73,855 (6,905
           

Common stock issued for dividend reinvestment plan

  $3,219  4,470   4,070  
           

Stock-based compensation capitalized

  $1,574  3,606   7,565  
           

Contributions from limited partners in consolidated partnerships, net

  $4,188  3,020   4,237  
           

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

December 31, 20082009 and 20072008

(in thousands, except unit data)

 

   2008  2007 
      (as restated) 

Assets

   

Real estate investments at cost (notes 3, 4, 5, and 15):

   

Land

  $923,062  968,859 

Buildings and improvements

   1,974,093  2,090,497 
        
   2,897,155  3,059,356 

Less: accumulated depreciation

   554,595  497,498 
        
   2,342,560  2,561,858 

Properties in development

   1,078,885  905,929 

Operating properties held for sale, net

   66,447  —   

Investments in real estate partnerships

   383,408  401,906 
        

Net real estate investments

   3,871,300  3,869,693 

Cash and cash equivalents

   21,533  18,668 

Notes receivable (note 6)

   31,438  44,543 

Tenant receivables, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $1,593 and $2,482 at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively

   84,096  75,441 

Other receivables (note 5)

   19,700  —   

Deferred costs, less accumulated amortization of $51,549 and $43,470 at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively

   57,477  52,784 

Acquired lease intangible assets, less accumulated amortization of $11,204 and $7,362 at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively (note 7)

   12,903  17,228 

Other assets

   43,928  36,416 
        

Total assets

  $4,142,375  4,114,773 
        

Liabilities, Limited Partners’ Interests, and Partners’ Capital

   

Liabilities:

   

Notes payable (note 9)

  $1,837,904  1,799,975 

Unsecured credit facilities (note 9)

   297,667  208,000 

Accounts payable and other liabilities

   141,395  154,643 

Derivative instruments, at fair value (notes 10 and 11)

   83,691  9,836 

Acquired lease intangible liabilities, less accumulated accretion of $8,829 and $6,371 at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively (note 7)

   7,865  10,354 

Tenants’ security and escrow deposits

   11,571  11,436 
        

Total liabilities

   2,380,093  2,194,244 
        

Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships

   7,980  18,392 
        

Commitments and contingencies (notes 15 and 16)

   

Partners’ Capital (notes 10, 12, 13, and 14):

   

Series D preferred units, par value $100: 500,000 units issued and outstanding at December 31, 2008 and 2007

   49,158  49,158 

Preferred units of general partner, $.01 par value per unit, 11,000,000 units issued and outstanding at December 31, 2008, liquidation preference $25; 3,000,000 and 800,000 units issued and outstanding at December 31, 2007 with liquidation preferences of $25 and $250 per unit, respectively

   275,000  275,000 

General partner; 70,036,670 and 69,638,637 units outstanding at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively

   1,512,550  1,586,683 

Limited partners; 468,211 and 473,611 units outstanding at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively

   9,059  10,212 

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

   (91,465) (18,916)
        

Total partners’ capital

   1,754,302  1,902,137 
        

Total liabilities, limited partners’ interests, and partners’ capital

  $4,142,375  4,114,773 
        
   2009  2008 

Assets

   

Real estate investments at cost (notes 2, 3, 4, and 14):

   

Land

  $975,861   923,062  

Buildings and improvements

   2,017,843   1,974,093  

Properties in development

   920,427   1,078,885  
        
   3,914,131   3,976,040  

Less: accumulated depreciation

   622,163   554,595  
        
   3,291,968   3,421,445  

Operating properties held for sale, net

   19,647   66,447  

Investments in real estate partnerships

   326,212   383,408  
        

Net real estate investments

   3,637,827   3,871,300  

Cash and cash equivalents

   99,477   21,533  

Notes receivable (note 5)

   37,753   31,438  

Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $6,567 and $1,837 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively

   40,871   46,501  

Straight line rent receivable, net of reserve of $1,899 at December 31, 2009

   39,292   37,595  

Other receivables (note 4)

   —     19,700  

Deferred costs, less accumulated amortization of $58,861 and $51,549 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively

   58,376   57,477  

Acquired lease intangible assets, less accumulated amortization of $11,632 and $11,204 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively (note 6)

   10,007   12,903  

Other assets

   50,203   43,928  
        

Total assets

  $3,973,806   4,142,375  
        

Liabilities and Capital

   

Liabilities:

   

Notes payable (note 8)

  $1,886,380   1,837,904  

Unsecured credit facilities (note 8)

   —     297,667  

Accounts payable and other liabilities

   99,145   141,395  

Derivative instruments, at fair value (note 9)

   28,363   83,691  

Acquired lease intangible liabilities, less accumulated accretion of $9,715 and $8,829 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively (note 6)

   5,896   7,865  

Tenants’ security and escrow deposits

   10,628   11,571  
        

Total liabilities

   2,030,412   2,380,093  
        

Commitments and contingencies (notes 14 and 15)

   

Capital:

   

Partners’ capital (notes 9, 11, 12, and 13):

   

Series D preferred units, par value $100: 500,000 units issued and outstanding at December 31, 2009 and 2008

   49,158   49,158  

Preferred units of general partner, $.01 par value per unit, 11,000,000 units issued and outstanding at December 31, 2009 and 2008, liquidation preference of $25 per unit

   275,000   275,000  

General partner; 81,539,296 and 70,036,670 units outstanding at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively

   1,650,140   1,512,550  

Limited partners; 468,211 units outstanding at December 31, 2009 and 2008

   7,321   8,283  

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

   (49,973 (90,689
        

Total partners’ capital

   1,931,646   1,754,302  
        

Noncontrolling interests:

   

Limited partners’ interest in consolidated partnerships

   11,748   7,980  
        

Total noncontrolling interests

   11,748   7,980  
        

Total capital

   1,943,394   1,762,282  
        

Total liabilities and capital

  $3,973,806   4,142,375  
        

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated Statements of Operations

For the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 20062007

(in thousands, except per unit data)

 

  2008 2007 2006   2009 2008 2007 

Revenues:

        

Minimum rent (note 15)

  $334,332  308,720  284,751 

Minimum rent (note 14)

  $345,610   334,509   308,108  

Percentage rent

   4,260  4,661  4,430    3,585   4,258   4,655  

Recoveries from tenants and other income

   98,797  90,137  83,048    101,748   101,096   90,179  

Management, acquisition, and other fees

   56,032  33,064  31,805 

Management, transaction, and other fees

   38,289   56,032   33,064  
                    

Total revenues

   493,421  436,582  404,034    489,232   495,895   436,006  
          
          

Operating expenses:

        

Depreciation and amortization

   104,739  89,539  81,028    116,924   104,569   89,365  

Operating and maintenance

   59,368  54,232  49,022    66,061   59,140   54,095  

General and administrative

   49,495  50,580  45,495    54,136   49,495   50,580  

Real estate taxes

   48,638  43,403  40,384    53,823   48,512   43,815  

Provision for doubtful accounts

   8,791   1,170   —    

Other expenses

   14,824  10,081  15,928    8,284   14,824   10,057  
                    

Total operating expenses

   277,064  247,835  231,857    308,019   277,710   247,912  
                    

Other expense (income):

        

Interest expense, net of interest income of $4,696, $3,079 and $4,232 in 2008, 2007 and 2006, respectively

   92,784  82,389  79,348 

Interest expense, net of interest income of $3,767, $4,696 and $3,079 in 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively

   109,239   92,784   82,389  

Gain on sale of operating properties and properties in development

   (20,346) (52,215) (65,600)   (19,357 (20,346 (52,215

Provision for impairment

   34,855  —    —      97,519   31,469   —    

Early extinguishment of debt

   2,784   —     —    

Loss on derivative instruments (note 9)

   3,294   —     —    
                    

Total other expense (income)

   107,293  30,174  13,748    193,479   103,907   30,174  
                    

Income before minority interests and equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships

   109,064  158,573  158,429 

Minority interest of limited partners

   (701) (990) (4,863)

Equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships (note 5)

   5,292  18,093  2,580 
          

Income from continuing operations

   113,655  175,676  156,146 

Discontinued operations, net (note 4):

    

Operating income from discontinued operations

   9,668  7,855  9,785 

Income (loss) before equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships

   (12,266 114,278   157,920  

Equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships (note 4)

   (26,373 5,292   18,093  
          

Income (loss) from continuing operations

   (38,639 119,570   176,013  

Discontinued operations, net (note 3):

    

Operating income (loss) from discontinued operations

   61   4,570   8,718  

Gain on sale of operating properties and properties in development

   17,497  25,495  59,181    5,835   17,381   25,285  
                    

Income from discontinued operations

   27,165  33,350  68,966 

Income (loss) from discontinued operations

   5,896   21,951   34,003  
                    

Net income

   140,820  209,026  225,112 

Net income (loss)

   (32,743 141,521   210,016  

Noncontrolling interests:

    

Limited partners’ interest in consolidated partnerships

   (452 (701 (990
          

Net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests

   (452 (701 (990
          

Net income attributable to controlling interests

   (33,195 140,820   209,026  

Preferred unit distributions

   (23,400) (23,400) (23,400)   (23,400 (23,400 (23,400
                    

Net income for common unit holders

  $117,420  185,626  201,712 
          

Income per common unit - basic (note 14):

    

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

  $(56,595 117,420   185,626  
          

Income (loss) per common unit - basic (note 13):

    

Continuing operations

  $1.28  2.18  1.91   $(0.82 1.35   2.16  

Discontinued operations

   0.38  0.47  1.00    0.08   0.31   0.49  
                    

Net income for common unit holders per unit

  $1.66  2.65  2.91 

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders per unit

  $(0.74 1.66   2.65  
                    

Income per common unit - diluted (note 14):

    

Income (loss) per common unit - diluted (note 13):

    

Continuing operations

  $1.28  2.18  1.90   $(0.82 1.35   2.16  

Discontinued operations

   0.38  0.47  0.99    0.08   0.31   0.49  
                    

Net income for common unit holders per unit

  $1.66  2.65  2.89 

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders per unit

  $(0.74 1.66   2.65  
                    

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated StatementStatements of Changes in Partners’ Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss)

For the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 20062007

(in thousands)

 

   Preferred Units  General Partner
Preferred and
Common Units
  Limited
Partners
  Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
  Total
Partners’
Capital
 

Balance at December 31, 2005, as previously reported

  $49,158  1,800,517  27,919  (11,692) 1,865,902 

Restatement adjustments (note 2)

   —    (27,619) (620) —    (28,239)
                 

Balance at December 31, 2005, as restated

  $49,158  1,772,898  27,299  (11,692) 1,837,663 

Comprehensive income (note 10):

      

Net income

   3,725  218,511  2,876  —    225,112 

Amortization of loss on derivative instruments

   —    —    —    1,306  1,306 

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

   —    —    —    (2,931) (2,931)
        

Total comprehensive income

      223,487 

Distributions to partners

   —    (163,311) (2,642) —    (165,953)

Preferred unit distribution

   (3,725) (19,675) —    —    (23,400)

Regency Restricted Stock issued, net of amortization (note 13)

   —    16,584  —    —    16,584 

Common Units issued as a result of common stock issued by Regency, net of repurchases

   —    2,796  —    —    2,796 

Common Units exchanged for common stock of Regency

   —    21,495  (21,495) —    —   

Reallocation of limited partners’ interest

   —    (10,283) 10,283  —    —   
                 

Balance at December 31, 2006, as restated

  $49,158  1,839,015  16,321  (13,317) 1,891,177 

Comprehensive income (note 10):

      

Net income

   3,725  203,651  1,650  —    209,026 

Amortization of loss on derivative instruments

   —    —    —    1,306  1,306 

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

   —    —    —    (6,905) (6,905)
        

Total comprehensive income

      203,427 

Distributions to partners

   —    (183,395) (1,571) —    (184,966)

Preferred unit distribution

   (3,725) (19,675) —    —    (23,400)

Regency Restricted Stock issued, net of amortization (note 13)

   —    17,725  —    —    17,725 

Common Units issued as a result of common stock issued by Regency, net of repurchases

   (1,826) —    —    (1,826)

Common Units exchanged for common stock of Regency

   —    8,607  (8,607) —    —   

Reallocation of limited partners’ interest

   —    (2,419) 2,419  —    —   
                 

Balance at December 31, 2007, as restated

  $49,158  1,861,683  10,212  (18,916) 1,902,137 

Comprehensive income (note 10):

      

Net income

   3,725  136,188  907  —    140,820 

Amortization of loss on derivative instruments

   —    —    —    1,306  1,306 

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

   —    —    —    (73,855) (73,855)
        

Total comprehensive income

      68,271 

Distributions to partners

   —    (202,635) (1,364) —    (203,999)

Preferred unit distribution

   (3,725) (19,675) —    —    (23,400)

Regency Restricted Stock issued, net of amortization (note 13)

   —    8,193  —    —    8,193 

Common Units issued as a result of common stock issued by Regency, net of repurchases

   —    3,100  —    —    3,100 

Common Units exchanged for common stock of Regency

   —    232  (232) —    —   

Reallocation of limited partners’ interest

   —    464  (464) —    —   
                 

Balance at December 31, 2008

  $49,158  1,787,550  9,059  (91,465) 1,754,302 
                 
  Preferred Units  General Partner
Preferred and
Common Units
  Limited
Partners
  Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
  Total
Partners’
Capital
  Noncontrolling
Interests in
Limited Partners’
Interest in
Consolidated
Partnerships
  Total
Capital
 

Balance at December 31, 2006

 $49,158   1,839,015   16,065   (13,061 1,891,177   17,797   1,908,974  

Comprehensive income (note 9):

       

Net income

  3,725   203,651   1,650   —     209,026   990   210,016  

Amortization of loss on derivative instruments

  —     —     9   1,297   1,306   —     1,306  

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  —     —     (47 (6,858 (6,905 —     (6,905
           

Total comprehensive income (loss)

     203,427    204,417  

Contributions from partners

  —     —     —     —     —     4,483   4,483  

Distributions to partners

  —     (183,395 (1,570 —     (184,965 (4,879 (189,844

Preferred unit distributions

  (3,725 (19,675 —     —     (23,400 —     (23,400

Restricted stock issued by Parent Company, net of amortization (note 12)

  —     17,725   —     —     17,725   —     17,725  

Common units issued as a result of common stock issued by Parent Company, net of repurchases

  —     (1,826 —     —     (1,826 —     (1,826

Common units exchanged for common stock of Parent Company

  —     8,607   (8,607 —     —     —     —    

Reallocation of limited partners’ interest

  —     (2,419 2,419   —     —     —     —    
                      

Balance at December 31, 2007

 $49,158   1,861,683   9,919   (18,622 1,902,138   18,391   1,920,529  

Comprehensive income (note 9):

       

Net income

  3,725   136,188   907   —     140,820   701   141,521  

Amortization of loss on derivative instruments

  —     —     9   1,297   1,306   —     1,306  

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  —     —     (491 (73,364 (73,855 —     (73,855
           

Total comprehensive income (loss)

     68,271    68,972  

Contributions from partners

  —     —     —     —     —     3,157   3,157  

Distributions to partners

  —     (202,635 (1,365 —     (204,000 (14,269 (218,269

Preferred unit distributions

  (3,725 (19,675 —     —     (23,400 —     (23,400

Restricted stock issued by Parent Company, net of amortization (note 12)

  —     8,193   —     —     8,193   —     8,193  

Common units issued as a result of common stock issued by Parent Company, net of repurchases

  —     3,100   —     —     3,100   —     3,100  

Common units exchanged for common stock of Parent Company

  —     232   (232 —     —     —     —    

Reallocation of limited partners’ interest

  —     464   (464 —     —     —     —    
                      

Balance at December 31, 2008

 $49,158   1,787,550   8,283   (90,689 1,754,302   7,980   1,762,282  

Comprehensive income (note 9):

       

Net income (loss)

  3,725   (36,704 (216 —     (33,195 452   (32,743

Loss on settlement of derivative instruments

  —     —     (114 (19,863 (19,977 —     (19,977

Amortization of loss on derivative instruments

  —     —     13   2,292   2,305   —     2,305  

Loss on derivative instruments

  —     —     19   3,275   3,294   —     3,294  

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  —     —     316   55,012   55,328   —     55,328  
           

Total comprehensive income (loss)

     7,755    8,207  

Contributions from partners

  —     —     —     —     —     4,197   4,197  

Distributions to partners

  —     (161,909 (980 —     (162,889 (881 (163,770

Preferred unit distributions

  (3,725 (19,675 —     —     (23,400 —     (23,400

Restricted stock issued by Parent Company, net of amortization (note 12)

  —     5,963   —     —     5,963   —     5,963  

Common units issued as a result of common stock issued by Parent Company, net of repurchases

  —     349,915   —     —     349,915   —     349,915  
                      

Balance at December 31, 2009

  49,158   1,925,140   7,321   (49,973 1,931,646   11,748   1,943,394  
                      

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 20062007

(in thousands)

 

  2008 2007 2006   2009 2008 2007 

Cash flows from operating activities:

        

Net income

  $140,820  209,026  225,112 

Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:

    

Net income (loss)

  $(32,743 141,521   210,016  

Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:

    

Depreciation and amortization

   107,846  93,508  87,413    117,979   107,846   93,508  

Deferred loan cost and debt premium amortization

   4,287  3,249  4,411    5,822   4,287   3,249  

Above and below market lease intangibles amortization and accretion

   (2,376) (1,926) (1,387)   (1,867 (2,376 (1,926

Stock-based compensation, net of capitalization

   5,950  11,572  11,096    4,668   5,950   11,572  

Minority interest of limited partners

   701  990  4,863 

Equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships

   (5,292) (18,093) (2,580)

Equity in (income) loss of investments in real estate partnerships

   26,373   (5,292 (18,093

Net gain on sale of properties

   (37,843) (79,627) (124,781)   (25,192 (37,843 (79,627

Provision for doubtful accounts

   9,078   1,197   —    

Provision for impairment

   34,855  —    500    104,402   34,855   —    

Early extinguishment of debt

   2,784   —     —    

Distribution of earnings from operations of investments in real estate partnerships

   30,730  30,547  28,788    31,252   30,730   30,547  

Settlement of derivative instruments

   (19,953 —     —    

Loss on derivative instruments

   3,294   —     —    

Changes in assets and liabilities:

        

Tenant receivables

   (28,833) (10,040) (10,284)

Accounts receivable

   (2,995 (6,621 (5,665

Straight-line rent receivables, net

   (3,959 (3,709 (4,375

Other receivables

   19,700   (19,700 —    

Deferred leasing costs

   (6,734) (8,126) (5,587)   (9,799 (6,734 (8,126

Other assets

   (12,839) (15,861) (3,508)   (16,493 (12,839 (15,861

Accounts payable and other liabilities

   (12,423) 2,101  (2,638)   (18,035 (12,423 2,101  

Tenants’ security and escrow deposits

   320  847  241    (454 320   847  
                    

Net cash provided by operating activities

   219,169  218,167  211,659    193,862   219,169   218,167  
          
          

Cash flows from investing activities:

        

Acquisition of operating real estate

   —    (63,117) (19,337)   —     —     (63,117

Development of real estate including acquisition of land

   (388,783) (619,282) (399,680)   (142,989 (388,783 (619,282

Proceeds from sale of real estate investments

   274,417  270,981  455,972    180,307   274,417   270,981  

Collection of notes receivable

   28,287  545  14,770    13,572   28,287   545  

Investments in real estate partnerships

   (48,619) (42,660) (21,790)   (28,709 (48,619 (42,660

Distributions received from investments in real estate partnerships

   28,923  41,372  13,452    23,548   28,923   41,372  
                    

Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities

   (105,775) (412,161) 43,387 

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities

   45,729   (105,775 (412,161
          
          

Cash flows from financing activities:

        

Net proceeds from Common Units issued as a result of Common Stock issued by Regency

   1,020  2,383  5,994 

Net proceeds from Common Units issued as a result of common stock issued by Parent Company

   345,800   1,020   2,383  

Distributions to limited partners in consolidated partnerships, net

   (14,134) (4,632) (2,619)   (872 (14,134 (4,632

Distributions to preferred unit holders

   (23,400) (23,400) (23,400)

Distributions to partners

   (199,528) (180,897) (161,777)

Proceeds from issuance of fixed rate unsecured notes

   —    398,108  —   

Proceeds from (repayment of) unsecured credit facilities, net

   89,667  87,000  (41,000)

Distributions paid to preferred unit holders

   (159,670 (199,528 (180,897

Cash distributions to partners

   (23,400 (23,400 (23,400

Repayment of fixed rate unsecured notes

   (116,053 —     —    

Proceeds from issuance of fixed rate unsecured notes, net

   —     —     398,108  

(Repayment of) proceeds from unsecured credit facilities

   (297,667 89,667   87,000  

Proceeds from notes payable

   62,500  —    —      106,992   62,500   —    

Repayment of notes payable

   (19,932) (89,719) (36,131)   (8,056 (19,932 (89,719

Scheduled principal payments

   (4,806) (4,545) (4,516)   (5,214 (4,806 (4,545

Payment of loan costs

   (1,916) (5,682) (9)   (1,195 (1,916 (5,682

Payment of premium on tender offer

   (2,312 —     —    
                    

Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities

   (110,529) 178,616  (263,458)

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

   (161,647 (110,529 178,616  
          
          

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

   2,865  (15,378) (8,412)   77,944   2,865   (15,378

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of the year

   18,668  34,046  42,458    21,533   18,668   34,046  
          
          

Cash and cash equivalents at end of the year

  $21,533  18,668  34,046   $99,477   21,533   18,668  
                    

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 20062007

(in thousands)

 

  2008 ��2007 2006   2009  2008 2007 

Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:

         

Cash paid for interest (net of capitalized interest of $36,510, $35,424, and $23,952 in 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively)

  $94,632  82,833  82,285 

Cash paid for interest (net of capitalized interest of $19,062 $36,510 and $35,424 in 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively)

  $112,730  94,632   82,833  
          
          

Supplemental disclosure of non-cash transactions:

         

Common stock issued for partnership units exchanged

  $232  8,607  21,495 

Parent common stock issued for partnership units exchanged

  $—    232   8,607  
          

Real estate received through distribution in kind

  $100,717  —     —    
          

Mortgage loans assumed through distribution in kind

  $70,541  —     —    
          

Security deposits received through distribution in kind

  $265  —     —    
          
          

Mortgage loans assumed for the acquisition of real estate

  $—    42,272  44,000   $—    —     42,272  
                    

Real estate contributed as investments in real estate partnerships

  $6,825  11,007  15,967 
          

Notes receivable taken in connection with sales of properties in development and out-parcels

  $16,294  25,099  490 

Real estate contributed for investments in real estate partnerships

  $26,410  6,825   11,007  
          

Notes receivable taken in connection with sales of properties in development

  $11,413  16,294   25,099  
          
          

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  $(73,855) (6,905) (2,931)  $55,328  (73,855 (6,905
                    

Common stock issued for dividend reinvestment plan

  $4,470  4,070  3,804 

Common stock issued by Parent Company for dividend reinvestment plan

  $3,219  4,470   4,070  
          
          

Stock-based compensation capitalized

  $3,606  7,565  6,854   $1,574  3,606   7,565  
                    

Contributions from limited partners in consolidated partnerships, net

  $4,188  3,020   4,237  
          

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 20082009

1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

1.Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

(a)Organization and Principles of Consolidation

(a) Organization and Principles of Consolidation

General

Regency Centers Corporation (“Regency” or the “Company”(the “Parent Company”) began its operations as a Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”) in 1993 and is the managing general partner of its operating partnership, Regency Centers, L.P. (“RCLP” or the “Partnership”(the “Operating Partnership”). RegencyThe Parent Company currently owns approximately 99% of the outstanding common partnership units (“Units”)Partnership Units of the Operating Partnership. RegencyThe Parent Company engages in the ownership, management, leasing, acquisition, and development of retail shopping centers through the Operating Partnership, and has no other assets or liabilities other than through its investment in the Operating Partnership. At December 31, 2008,2009, the Parent Company, the Operating Partnership and their controlled subsidiaries on a consolidated basis (“the Company” or “Regency”) directly owned 224216 retail shopping centers and held partial interests in an additional 216184 retail shopping centers through investments in real estate partnerships (also referred to as co-investment partnershipsjoint ventures or joint ventures)real estate partnerships).

Estimates, Risks, and Uncertainties

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) requires RCLP’sthe Company’s management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities, at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. The most significant estimates in the Partnership’sCompany’s financial statements relate to the carrying values of its investments in real estate including its shopping centers, properties in development and its unconsolidated investments in real estate partnerships, tenant receivables,accounts receivable, net, and derivative instruments. Each of these items could be significantly affected by the current economic recession.continued weak economy.

Because of the adverse conditions that exist in the real estate markets, as well as, the credit and financial markets, it is possible that the estimates and assumptions that have been utilized in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements could change significantly. Specifically as it relates to the Partnership’sCompany’s business, the current weak economic recessionperiod is expected to result in a higher level of retail store closings nationally, which could reduce the demand for leasing space in the Partnership’sCompany’s shopping centers and result in a decline in occupancy and rental revenues in its real estate portfolio. The lack of available credit in the commercial real estate market is causing a decline in the values of commercial real estate nationally and the Partnership’sCompany’s ability to sell shopping centers to raise capital. AThe reduction in the demand for new retail space and available capital availability have caused the PartnershipCompany to significantly reduce its new shopping center development program until markets become less volatile.

Consolidation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Parent Company, the Operating Partnership, its wholly ownedwholly-owned subsidiaries, and joint venturesconsolidated partnerships in which the PartnershipCompany has a controlling ownership interest. The equity interests of third parties held in the Partnership or its controlled joint ventures are included under the heading Minority Interests in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as preferred units, exchangeable operating partnership units,

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

or limited partners’ interest in consolidated partnerships. All significant inter-company balances and transactions are eliminated in the consolidated financial statements.

Investments in real estate partnerships not controlled by the Partnership are accounted for under the equity method. The Partnership has evaluated its investment in the real estate partnerships

Regency Centers Corporation and has concluded that they are not variable interest entities as defined inRegency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 46(R) “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities” (“FIN 46(R)”). Further, the venture partners in the real estate partnerships have significant ownership rights, including approval over operating budgets and strategic plans, capital spending, sale or financing, and admission of new partners. Upon formation of the investment in real estate partnership, the Partnership also became the managing member, responsible for the day-to-day operations of the partnership. The Partnership evaluated its investment in the partnership and concluded that the partner has substantive participating rights and, therefore, the Partnership has concluded that the equity method of accounting is appropriate for these investments and they do not require consolidation under Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 04-5 “Determining Whether a General Partner, or the General Partners as a Group, Controls a Limited Partnership or Similar Entity When the Limited Partners Have Certain Rights” (“EITF 04-5”), or the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ (“AICPA”) Statement of Position 78-9, “Accounting for Investments in Real Estate Ventures” (“SOP 78-9”). Under the equity method of accounting, investments in the real estate partnerships are initially recorded at cost, subsequently increased for additional contributions and allocations of income, and reduced for distributions received and allocations of loss. These investments are included in the consolidated financial statements as investments in real estate partnerships.Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

Ownership of the Parent Company

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

Ownership of the Operating Partnership

The Operating Partnership’s capital includes general and limited common Partnership Units, Series 3, 4, and 5 Preferred Units owned by the Parent Company, and Series D Preferred Units owned by institutional investors.

At December 31, 2008,2009, the Parent Company owned approximately 99% or 70,036,670 Partnership Units81,539,296 of the total 70,504,88182,007,507 Partnership Units outstanding. Each outstanding common Partnership Unit not owned by the Company is exchangeable for one share of Regency common stock or can be redeemed for cash, at the Company’s discretion (see Note 1(l)). The Company revalues the minority interest associated with the Partnership Units each quarter to maintain a proportional relationship between the book value of equity associated with common stockholders relative to that of the Partnership Unit holders since both have equivalent rights and the Partnership Units are convertible into shares of common stock on a one-for-one basis.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

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

Investments in Real Estate Partnerships

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

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

 

(b)Revenues

Noncontrolling Interests

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

Noncontrolling Interests of the Parent Company

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

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

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

Noncontrolling Interests of the Operating Partnership

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

(b) Revenues

The Company leases space to tenants under agreements with varying terms. Leases are accounted for as operating leases with minimum rent recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease regardless of when payments are due. Accrued rents are included in tenant receivables. The PartnershipCompany estimates the collectibility of the accounts receivable related to base rents, straight-line rents, expense reimbursements, and other revenue taking into consideration the Partnership’sCompany’s experience in the retail sector, available internal and external tenant credit information, payment history, industry trends, tenant credit-worthiness, and remaining lease terms. In some cases, primarily relatingrelated to straight-line rents, the ultimate collection of these amounts extendsare associated with increased rents to be collected in future years which extend beyond one year. During 2009, the Company experienced a significant increase in tenant defaults, as well as, deterioration in tenant receivable collection rates, as compared to historical collection rates. As a result, the Company increased its allowance for doubtful accounts to fully reserve for these specifically identified tenant defaults and adjusted the collectibility rates used to estimate the allowance to reflect such deterioration in collection rates. During the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Company recorded provisions for doubtful accounts of $9.1 million and $1.2 million, respectively, of which approximately $287,000 and $41,000, respectively, is included in discontinued operations.

The following table represents the components of accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts, as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):

   2009  2008

Tenant receivables

  $22,395  20,942

CAM and tax reimbursements

   15,099  15,697

Other receivables

   9,944  11,699

Less: allowance for doubtful accounts

   6,567  1,837
       

Total

  $40,871  46,501
       

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

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

As part of the leasing process, the PartnershipCompany may provide the lessee with an allowance for the construction of leasehold improvements. These leasehold improvements are capitalized and recorded as tenant improvements, and depreciated over the shorter of the useful life of the improvements or the lease term. If the allowance represents a payment for a purpose other than funding leasehold improvements, or in the event the PartnershipCompany is not considered the owner of the improvements, the allowance is considered to be a lease incentive and is recognized over the lease term as a reduction of rental revenue.minimum rent. Factors considered during this evaluation include, among other things, who holds legal title to the improvements as well as other controlling rights provided by the lease agreement and provisions for substantiation of such costs (e.g. unilateral control of the tenant space during the build-out process). Determination of the appropriate accounting for the payment of a tenant allowance is made on a lease-by-lease basis, considering the facts and circumstances of the individual tenant lease. RecognitionWhen the Company is the owner of the leasehold improvements, recognition of lease revenue commences when the lessee is given possession of the leased space upon completion of tenant improvements when the Partnership is the owner of the leasehold improvements. However, when the leasehold improvements are owned by the tenant, the lease inception date is the date the tenant obtains possession of the leased space for purposes of constructing its leasehold improvements.

The Partnership accounts for profit recognition on sales of real estate in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 66, “Accounting for Sales of Real Estate” (“Statement 66”). In summary, profitsProfits from sales of real estate are not recognized under the full accrual method by the PartnershipCompany unless a sale is consummated; the buyer’s initial and continuing investment is adequate to demonstrate a commitment to pay for the property; the Partnership’sCompany’s receivable, if applicable, is not subject to future subordination; the PartnershipCompany has transferred to the buyer the usual risks and rewards of ownership; and the PartnershipCompany does not have substantial continuing involvement with the property.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

The PartnershipCompany sells shopping center properties to joint ventures in exchange for cash equal to the fair value of the percentageownership interest owned byof its partners. The PartnershipCompany accounts for those sales as “partial sales” and recognizes gains on those partial sales in the period the properties were sold to the extent of the percentage interest sold, under the guidance of Statement 66, and in the case of certain real estate partnerships, applies a more restrictive method of recognizing gains, as discussed further below. The gains and operations associated with properties sold to these real estate partnerships are not recordedclassified as discontinued operations because the PartnershipCompany continues to partially own and manage these shopping centers.

FiveAs of December 31, 2009, four of the Partnership’sCompany’s joint ventures (“DIK-JV”) give eithereach partner the unilateral right to elect to dissolve the real estate partnership and, upon such an election, receive a distribution in-kind (“DIK”) of the assets of the real estate partnership equal to their respective ownership interests,capital account, which could include properties the PartnershipCompany previously sold to the real estate partnership. The liquidation procedures wouldprovisions require that all of the properties owned by the real estate partnership be appraised to determine their respective and collective fair values. As a general rule, if the PartnershipCompany initiates the liquidation process, its partner has the right to choose the first property that it will receive in liquidation with the Partnership having the right to chooseCompany choosing the next property that it will receive in liquidation. If the Partnership’sCompany’s partner initiates the liquidation process, the order of the selection process is reversed. The process then continues with an alternating selection of properties by each partner until the balance of each partner’s capital account on a fair value basis has been distributed. After the final selection, to the extent that the fair value of properties in the DIK-JV are not distributable in a manner that equals the balance of each partner’s capital account, a cash payment would be made to the other partner by the partner receiving a fair valueproperty distribution in excess of its capital accountaccount. The

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to the other partner. The Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

partners may also elect to liquidate some or all of the properties through sales rather than through the DIK process.

The PartnershipCompany has concluded that these DIK dissolution provisions constitute in-substance call/put options under the guidance of Statement 66, and represent a form of continuing involvement with respect to property that the PartnershipCompany has sold to these real estate partnerships, limiting the Partnership’sCompany’s recognition of gain related to the partial sale. To the extent that the DIK-JV owns more than one property and the Partnership is unable to obtain all of the properties it sold to the DIK-JV in liquidation, the Partnership applies aThis more restrictive method of gain recognition (“Restricted Gain Method”) which considers the Partnership’sCompany’s potential ability to receive property through a DIK on which partial gain has been recognized, and ensures, as discussed below, maximum gain deferral upon sale to a DIK-JV. The PartnershipCompany has applied the Restricted Gain Method to partial sales of property to real estate partnerships that contain unilateral DIK provisions.

Under current guidance, (Statement 66, paragraph 25), profitProfit shall be recognized byunder a method determined by the nature and extent of the seller’s continuing involvement and the profit recognized shall be reduced by the maximum exposure to loss. The PartnershipCompany has concluded that the Restricted Gain Method accomplishes this objective.

Under the Restricted Gain Method, for purposes of gain deferral, the PartnershipCompany considers the aggregate pool of properties sold into the DIK-JV as well as the aggregate pool of properties which will be distributed in the DIK process. As a result, upon the sale of properties to a DIK-JV, the PartnershipCompany performs a hypothetical DIK liquidation assuming that it would choose only those properties that it has sold to the DIK-JV in an amount equivalentequal to its capital account. For purposes of calculating the gain to be deferred, the PartnershipCompany assumes that it will select properties uponin a DIK liquidation that would otherwise have generated the

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

highest gain to the PartnershipCompany when originally sold to the DIK-JV. The DIK deferred gain recorded upon the sale of a property to a DIK-JV is calculated whenever a property is sold to the DIK-JV by the Partnership.Company. During the yearsperiods when there are no property sales to a DIK-JV, the DIK deferred gain is not recalculated.

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

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

(c) Real Estate Investments

(c)Real Estate Investments

Land, buildings, and improvements are recorded at cost. All specifically identifiable costs related to development activities are capitalized into properties in development on the

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. Properties in development are defined as properties that are in the construction or initial lease-up process and have not reached their initial full occupancy (reaching full occupancy generally means achieving at least 95% leased and rent paying on newly constructed or renovated GLA) and are accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 67, “Accounting for Costs and Initial Rental Operations of Real Estate Projects” (“Statement 67”).occupancy. In summary, Statement 67 establishes that a rental project changes from non-operating to operating when it is substantially completed and available for occupancy. At that time, costs shouldare no longer be capitalized. The capitalized costs include pre-development costs essential to the development of the property, development costs, construction costs, interest costs, real estate taxes, and allocated direct employee costs incurred during the period of development. In accordance with SFAS No. 34, “Capitalization of Interest Cost” (“Statement 34”), interest costs are capitalized into each development project based on applying the Partnership’sCompany’s weighted average borrowing rate to that portion of the actual development costs expended. The PartnershipCompany ceases interest cost capitalization when the property is no longer being developed or is available for occupancy upon substantial completion of tenant improvements, but in no event would the PartnershipCompany capitalize interest on the project beyond 12 months after substantial completion of the building shell.

The Partnershipfollowing table represents the components of properties in development as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):

   2009  2008

Construction in process

  $127,376  338,606

Construction complete and in lease-up

   673,052  548,132

Land held for future development

   119,999  192,147
       

Total

  $920,427  1,078,885
       

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

The Company incurs costs prior to land acquisition including contract deposits, as well as legal, engineering, and other external professional fees related to evaluating the feasibility of developing a shopping center. These pre-development costs are included in properties in development in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, and 2007, the Partnership hadCompany capitalized pre-development costs of $7.7 millionapproximately $816,000 and $22.7$7.7 million, respectively, of which approximately $3.0 million$325,000 and $10.8$2.3 million, respectively, were refundable deposits. If the PartnershipCompany determines that the development of a particular shopping center is no longer probable, any related pre-development costs previously capitalized are immediately expensed in other expenses in the accompanying

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

Consolidated Statements of Operations. During the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, and 2006, the PartnershipCompany expensed pre-development costs of $3.8 million, $15.5 million, $5.3 million, and $2.4$5.3 million, respectively, in other expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.

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

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

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

The PartnershipCompany and the real estate partnerships allocate the purchase price of assets acquired (net tangible and identifiable intangible assets) and liabilities assumed based on their relative fair values at the date of acquisition pursuant to the provisions of SFAS No. 141, “Business Combinations” (“Statement 141”). Statement 141 provides guidance on the allocation of a portion of the purchase price of a property to intangible assets.acquisition. The Partnership’sCompany’s methodology for this allocation includes estimating an “as-if vacant” fair value of the physical property, which is allocated to land, building, and improvements. The difference between the purchase price and the “as-if vacant” fair value is allocated to intangible assets. There are three categories of intangible assets to be considered: (i) value of in-place leases, (ii) above and below-market value of in-place leases, and (iii) customer relationship value.

The value of in-place leases is estimated based on the value associated with the costs avoided in originating leases compared to the acquired in-place leases as well as the value associated with lost rental and recovery revenue during the assumed lease-up period. The value of in-place leases is recorded to amortization expense over the remaining initial term of the respective leases in accordance with SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” (“Statement 142”).leases.

Above-market and below-market in-place lease values for acquired properties are recorded based on the present value of the difference between (i) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to the in-place leases and (ii) management’s estimate of fair market lease rates for comparable in-place leases, measured over a period equal to the remaining non-cancelable term of the lease. The value of above-market leases is amortized as a reduction of minimum rent over the remaining terms of the respective leases as required by Statement 142. Theand the value of below-market leases is accreted to minimum rent over the remaining terms of the respective leases, including below-market renewal options, if applicable,applicable. If a tenant exercises an option to renew a lease as required by Statement 142.per the lease agreement, the Company capitalizes any related leasing commissions and recognizes any related option fees as agreed upon. The PartnershipCompany does not allocate value to customer relationship intangibles if it has pre-existing business relationships with the major retailers in the acquired property since they do not provide incremental value over the Partnership’sCompany’s existing relationships.

The Partnership and its investments in real estate partnerships follow the provisions of SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets” (“Statement 144”). In accordance with Statement 144, the PartnershipCompany classifies an operating property or a property in development as held-for-sale when the PartnershipCompany determines that the property is available for immediate sale in its present condition, the property is being actively marketed for sale, and management believes it is probable that a

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

sale will be consummated within one year. Given the nature of all real estate sales contracts, it is not unusual for such contracts to allow prospective buyers a period of time to evaluate the property prior to formal acceptance of the contract. In addition, certain other matters critical to the final sale, such as financing arrangements, often remain pending even upon contract acceptance. As a result, properties under contract may not close within the expected time period, or may not close at all. Therefore, any properties categorized as held-for-sale represent only those properties that management has determined are probable to close within the requirements set forth in Statement 144.above. Operating properties held-for-sale are carried at the lower of cost or fair value less costs to sell. The recording of depreciation and amortization expense is suspended during the held-for-sale period. If circumstances arise that previously were considered unlikely and, as a result, the Company decides not to sell a property previously classified as held-for-sale, the property is reclassified as held and used and is measured individually at the lower of its (i) carrying amount before the property was classified as held-for-sale, adjusted for any depreciation and amortization expense that would have been recognized had the property been continuously classified as held and used or (ii) the fair value at the date of the subsequent decision not to sell. Any required adjustment to the carrying amount of the property

In accordance with Statement 144

Regency Centers Corporation and EITF 03-13 “ApplyingRegency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

reclassified as held and used is included in income from continuing operations in the Conditionsperiod of the subsequent decision not to sell. If a property is reclassified as held and used, the results of operations of the property previously reported in Paragraph 42 of FASB Statement 144discontinued operations are reclassified and included in Determining Whether to Report Discontinued Operations” (“EITF 03-13”), whenincome from continuing operations for all periods presented.

When the PartnershipCompany sells a property or classifies a property as held-for-sale and will not have significant continuing involvement in the operation of the property, the operations of the property are eliminated from ongoing operations and classified in discontinued operations. In accordance with EITF 87-24 “Allocation of Interest to Discontinued Operations” (“EITF 87-24”), itsIts operations, including any mortgage interest and gain on sale, are reported in discontinued operations so that the operations are clearly distinguished. Prior periods are also reclassified to reflect the operations of these propertiesthe property as discontinued operations. When the PartnershipCompany sells an operating propertiesproperty to itsa joint venturesventure or to a third parties,party, and will continue to manage the properties,property, the operations and gainsgain on salessale are included in income from continuing operations.

The PartnershipCompany reviews its real estate portfolio including the properties owned through investments in real estate partnerships for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. For properties to be “held and used” for long term investment, the PartnershipCompany estimates undiscounted future cash flows over the expected investment term including the estimated future value of the asset upon sale at the end of the investment period. Future value is generally determined by applying a market basedmarket-based capitalization rate to the estimated future net operating income in the final year of the expected investment term. If after applying this method a property is determined to be impaired, the PartnershipCompany determines the provision for impairment based upon applying a market capitalization rate to current estimated net operating income as if the sale were to occur immediately. For properties “held for sale”“held-for-sale”, the PartnershipCompany estimates current resale values by market through appraisal information and other market data, less expected costs to sell. These methods of determining fair value can fluctuate significantly as a result of a number of factors, including changes in the general economy offor those markets in which the PartnershipCompany operates, the Company’s estimated holding period of the property, tenant credit quality, and demand for new retail stores. The significant economic downturn that began duringIf as a result of a change in the fourth quarter of 2008 andCompany’s strategy for a specific property which the corresponding rise in market capitalization rates caused the Partnership to evaluate itsCompany owns directly or through real estate investments for impairment. Aspartnerships, a result,property previously classified as held and used is changed to held-for-sale, or if its estimated holding period changes, such change could cause the Partnership recorded an additional $33.1 millionCompany to determine that the property is impaired and a provision for impairment duringwould be recorded by the three monthsCompany either directly or through a reduction of the Company’s equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships. During the years ended December 31, 2008 in addition to the $1.8 million recorded through September 30, 2008. In summary, during2009 and 2008, the Partnership recorded $20.6Company established a provision for impairment of $104.4 million related to eight shopping centers, $7.2and $34.9 million, related to several land parcels,respectively, of which $6.9 million and $1.1$3.4 million, related to a note receivable. In accordance with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 18 “The Equity Method of Accountingrespectively, is included in discontinued operations. See Note 10 for Investments in Common Stock” (“APB 18”), afurther discussion.

A loss in value of an investmentinvestments in real estate partnerships under the equity method of accounting, which is other than a temporary decline, must be recognized.recognized in the period in which the loss occurs. To evaluate the Partnership’sCompany’s investment in real estate partnerships, the PartnershipCompany calculates

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

the fair value of the investment by discounting estimated future cash flows over the expected term of the investment. As a result, duringDuring the year ended December 31, 2008, the PartnershipCompany established a $6.0 million provision for impairment on two investments in real estate partnerships.partnerships as a result of this evaluation.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

(d) Cash and Cash Equivalents

Any instruments which have an original maturity of 90 days or less when purchased are considered cash equivalents. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, $3.6 million and $8.7 million, respectively, of cash was restricted through escrow agreements required for a development and certain mortgage loans.

(e) Notes Receivable

The Company records notes receivable at cost on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets and interest income is accrued as earned and netted against interest expense in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. If a note receivable is past due, meaning the debtor is past due per contractual obligations, the Company ceases to accrue interest. However, in the event the debtor subsequently becomes current, the Company will resume accruing interest and record the interest income accordingly. The Company evaluates the collectibility of both interest and principal for all notes receivable to determine whether impairment exists using the present value of expected cash flows discounted at the note receivable’s effective interest rate or, alternatively, at the observable market price of the loan or the fair value of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent. In the event the Company determines a note receivable or a portion thereof is considered uncollectible, the Company records a provision for impairment. The Company estimates the collectibility of notes receivable taking into consideration the Company’s experience in the retail sector, available internal and external credit information, payment history, market and industry trends, and debtor credit-worthiness. During 2006, the Partnership establishedyears ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Company recorded a provision for impairment of $500,000approximately $465,000 and the amount is now included in discontinued operations.

(d)Income Taxes

The Partnership’s taxable income and loss is reported by its partners, of which the Company as general partner and 99% owner, is allocated its pro-rata share of tax attributes.

The Company believes it qualifies, and intends to continue to qualify, as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). As a REIT, the Company will generally not be subject to federal income tax, provided that distributions to its stockholders are at least equal to REIT taxable income.

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

Earnings and profits, which determine the taxability of dividends to stockholders, differs from net income reported for financial reporting purposes primarily because of differences in depreciable lives and cost bases of the shopping centers, as well as other timing differences.$1.1 million, respectively. See Note 8Notes 5 for further discussion.

(f) Deferred Costs

(e)Deferred Costs

Deferred costs include leasing costs and loan costs, net of accumulated amortization. Such costs are amortized over the periods through lease expiration or loan maturity, respectively. If the lease is terminated early or if the loan is repaid prior to maturity, the remaining leasing costs or loan costs are written off. Deferred leasing costs consist of internal and external commissions associated with leasing the Company’s shopping centers. Net deferred leasing costs were $46.8$49.9 million and $41.2$46.8 million at December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively. Deferred loan costs consist of initial direct and incremental costs associated with financing activities. Net deferred loan costs were $10.7$8.5 million and $11.6$10.7 million at December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively.

(g) Derivative Financial Instruments

(f)Earnings per Unit and Treasury Stock

All derivative instruments, whether designated in hedging relationships or not, are recorded on the balance sheet at their fair values. The accounting for changes in the fair value of derivatives depends on the intended use of the derivative, whether the Company has elected to designate a derivative in a hedging relationship and apply hedge accounting and whether the hedging relationship has satisfied the criteria necessary to apply hedge accounting. Derivatives designated and qualifying as a hedge of the exposure to changes in the fair value of an asset, liability, or firm commitment attributable to a particular risk, such as interest rate risk, are considered fair value hedges. Derivatives designated and qualifying as a hedge of the exposure to variability in expected future cash flows, or other types of

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

forecasted transactions, are considered cash flow hedges. Hedge accounting generally provides for the matching of the timing of gain or loss recognition on the hedging instrument with the recognition of the changes in the fair value of the hedged asset or liability attributable to the hedged risk in a fair value hedge or the earnings effect of the hedged forecasted transactions in a cash flow hedge. The Company may enter into derivative contracts that are intended to economically hedge certain risks, even though hedge accounting does not apply or the Company elects not to apply hedge accounting.

The Partnership calculates earnings per unitCompany’s use of derivative financial instruments is intended to mitigate its interest rate risk on a related financial instrument or forecasted transaction through the use of interest rate swaps (the “Swaps”) and the Company designates these interest rate swaps as cash flow hedges. The gains or losses resulting from changes in accordance with SFAS No. 128, “Earnings per Share”fair value of derivatives that qualify as cash flow hedges are recognized in other comprehensive income (“Statement 128”OCI”) while the ineffective portion of the derivative’s change in fair value is recognized in the income statement as a loss on derivative instruments. Upon the settlement of a hedge, gains and losses remaining in OCI are amortized over the underlying term of the hedged transaction. The Company formally documents all relationships between hedging instruments and hedged items, as well as its risk management objectives and strategies for undertaking various hedge transactions. The Company assesses, both at inception of the hedge and on an ongoing basis, whether the derivatives that are used in hedging transactions are highly effective in offsetting changes in the cash flows and/or forecasted cash flows of the hedged items.

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

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

(h) Income Taxes

The Parent Company believes it qualifies, and intends to continue to qualify, as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). As a REIT, the Parent Company will generally not be subject to federal income tax, provided that distributions to its stockholders are at least equal to REIT taxable income. Regency Realty Group, Inc. (“RRG”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Operating Partnership, is a Taxable REIT Subsidiary (“TRS”) as defined in Section 856(l) of the Code. RRG is subject to federal and state income taxes and files separate tax returns. As a pass through entity, the Operating Partnership’s taxable income or loss is reported by its partners, of which the Parent Company as general partner and 99% owner, is allocated its pro-rata share of tax attributes.

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

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

allowance is required and if, based on available evidence, it is more likely than not that all or some portion of the asset will not be realized, the Company records a valuation allowance.

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

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

(i) Earnings per Share and Unit

Basic earnings per share of common stock and unit isare computed based upon the weighted average number of common shares and units, respectively, outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share and unit reflectsreflect the conversion of obligations and the assumed exercises of securities including the effects of unitsshares issuable under Regency’sthe Company’s share-based payment arrangements, if dilutive. Dividends paid on the Company’s share-based payment transactions are not participating securities as they are forfeitable. See Note 1413 for the calculation of earnings per share (“EPS”) and earnings per unit (“EPU”).

(j) Treasury Stock

Repurchases of the Parent Company’s common stock are recorded at cost and are reflected as treasury stock in Regency’sthe accompanying Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity and

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

Comprehensive Income (Loss) and recorded in General Partner Preferred and Common Units of the Partnership’sParent Company and in general partner preferred and common units in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss). Regency’s outstanding shares do not include treasury shares. of the Operating Partnership. Concurrent with treasury stock repurchases by Regency, the Parent Company, the Operating Partnership repurchases the same amount of general partnerships unitsPartnership Units from Regency.the Parent Company.

(g)Cash and Cash Equivalents

Any instruments which have an original maturityIn December 2009, the Company cancelled all 5,661,520 shares classified as treasury shares. As a result, additional paid-in capital was reduced by the amount in excess of 90 days or less when purchased are considered cash equivalents. At December 31, 2008 and 2007, $8.7 million and $8.0 million, respectively of cash was restricted through escrow agreements required for a development and certain mortgage loans.the stated value.

k) Stock-Based Compensation

(h)Notes Receivable

The Partnership records notes receivable at cost on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets and interest income is accrued as earned in interest expense, net in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. If a note receivable is past due, meaning the debtor is past due per contractual obligations, the Partnership will no longer accrue interest income. However, in the event the debtor subsequently becomes current, the Partnership will resume accruing interest. The Partnership evaluates the collectibility of both interest and principal for all notes receivable to determine whether impairment exists using the present value of expected cash flows discounted at the note receivable’s effective interest rate or in accordance with SFAS No. 114, “Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan—Income Recognition and Disclosures” (“Statement 114”) as amended by SFAS No. 118, “Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan—Income Recognition and Disclosures” (“Statement 118”) which is based on observable market prices. In the event the Partnership determines a note receivable or a portion thereof is considered uncollectible, the Partnership records an allowance for credit loss. The Partnership estimates the collectibility of notes receivable taking into consideration the Partnership’s experience in the retail sector, available internal and external credit information, payment history, market and industry trends, and debtor credit-worthiness. See Note 6 for further discussion.

(i)Stock-Based Compensation

RegencyCompany grants stock-based compensation to its employees and directors. When Regencythe Parent Company issues common shares as compensation, it receives a like number of common units from the Operating Partnership. RegencyThe Company is committed to contribute to the Operating Partnership all proceeds from the exercise of stock options or other share-based awards granted under Regency’sthe Parent Company’s Long-Term Omnibus Plan (the “Plan”). Accordingly, Regency’sthe Parent Company’s ownership in the Operating Partnership will increase

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

based on the amount of proceeds contributed to the Operating Partnership for the common units it receives. As a result of the issuance of common units to Regencythe Parent Company for stock-based compensation, the Operating Partnership accounts for stock-based compensation in the same manner as Regency.the Parent Company.

The PartnershipCompany recognizes stock-based compensation in accordance with SFAS No. 123(R) “Share-Based Payment” (“Statement 123(R)”) which requires companies to measure the cost of stock-based compensation based on the grant-date fair value of the award. Theaward and the cost of the stock-based compensation is expensed over the vesting period. See Note 1312 for further discussion.

(l) Segment Reporting

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

(j)Segment Reporting

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

The Partnership’sCompany’s portfolio is located throughout the United States; however, management does not distinguish or group its operations on a geographical basis for purposes of allocating resources or measuring performance. The PartnershipCompany reviews operating and financial data for each property on an individual basis; therefore, the PartnershipCompany defines an operating segment as its individual properties. No individual property constitutes more than 10% of the Partnership’s combined revenue, net income or assets, and thus theThe individual properties have been aggregated into one reportable segment based upon their similarities with regard to both the nature and economics of the centers, tenants and operational processes, as well as long-term average financial performance. In addition, no single tenant accounts for 6%5% or more of revenue and none of the shopping centers are located outside the United States.

(k)Derivative Financial Instruments

The Partnership accounts for all derivative financial instruments in accordance with SFAS No. 133 “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” (“Statement 133”) as amended by SFAS No. 149 “Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” (“Statement 149”). Statement 133 requires that all derivative instruments, whether designated in hedging relationships or not, be recorded on the balance sheet at their fair values. Gains or losses resulting from changes in the fair values of those derivatives are accounted for depending on the use of the derivative and whether it qualifies for hedge accounting. The Partnership’s use of derivative financial instruments is to mitigate its interest rate risk on a related financial instrument or forecasted transaction through the use of interest rate swaps. The Partnership designates these interest rate swaps as cash flow hedges.

Statement 133 requires that changes in fair value of derivatives that qualify as cash flow hedges be recognized in other comprehensive income (“OCI”) while the ineffective portion of the derivative’s change in fair value be recognized in the income statement as interest expense. Upon the settlement of a hedge, gains and losses remaining in OCI are amortized over the underlying term of the hedge transaction. The Partnership formally documents all relationships between hedging instruments and hedged items, as well as its risk management objectives and strategies for undertaking various hedge transactions. The Partnership assesses, both at inception of the hedge and on an ongoing basis, whether the

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

derivatives that are used in hedging transactions are highly effective in offsetting changes in the cash flows and/or forecasted cash flows of the hedged items.

In assessing the valuation of the hedges, the Partnership uses standard market conventions and techniques such as discounted cash flow analysis, option pricing models, and termination costs at each balance sheet date. All methods of assessing fair value result in a general approximation of value, and such value may never actually be realized. See Notes 10 and 11 for further discussion.

(l)Regency’s Redeemable Minority Interests

EITF Topic D-98 “Classification and Measurement of Redeemable Securities” (“EITF Topic D-98”) clarifies Rule 5-02.28 of Regulation S-X and requires securities that are redeemable for cash or other assets to be classified outside of permanent equity if they are redeemable (i) at a fixed or determinable price on a fixed or determinable date; (ii) at the option of the holder; or (iii) upon the occurrence of an event that is not solely within the control of the issuer. Minority interest in the operating partnership is classified as exchangeable operating partnership units (“OP Units”) in Regency’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. The holders may redeem these OP Units for a like number of shares of common stock of Regency or cash, at the Company’s discretion. See Note 11 for further discussion.

(m)Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity

The Partnership accounts for minority interest in consolidated entities in accordance with SFAS No. 150, “Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity” (“Statement 150”) which requires companies havingEquity

The Company accounts for the fair value of noncontrolling interests in consolidated entities with specified termination dates to treat minority owners’ interests in such entities as liabilities in an amount based on the fair value of the entities.accordance with FASB ASC Topic 480. See Note 1110 for further discussion.

(n) Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value

(n)Assets and Liabilities Measured at

Fair Value

On January 1, 2008, the Partnership adopted SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (“Statement 157”) as amended by FASB Staff Position “Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157” (“FSP FAS 157-2”). Statement 157 emphasizes that fair value is a market-based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement. Therefore, a fair value measurement should beis determined based on the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. As a basis for considering market participant assumptions in fair value measurements, Statement 157 establishesthe Company uses a fair value hierarchy that distinguishes between market participant assumptions based on market data obtained from sources independent of the reporting entitysources (observable inputs that are classified within Levels 1 and 2 of the hierarchy) and the reporting entity’sCompany’s own assumptions about market participant assumptions (unobservable

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

(unobservable inputs classified within Level 3 of the hierarchy). The three levels of inputs used to measure fair value are as follows:

 

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

 

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

 

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

In January 2008, the Partnership adopted SFAS No. 159 “The Fair Value Option for Financial AssetsThe Company also remeasures nonfinancial assets and Financial Liabilities” (“Statement 159”). This Statement permits entities to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other itemsnonfinancial liabilities, initially measured at fair value that are not currently required to be measuredin a business combination or other new basis event, at fair value. Although Statement 159 was adopted, the Partnership did not elect to measure any other financial statement items at fair value.value in subsequent periods. See Note 1110 for all fair value measurements of assets and liabilities made on a recurring and nonrecurring basis.

(o) Recent Accounting Pronouncements

(o)Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2008,January 2010, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP)Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. FAS 142-3 “Determination2010-06, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (820) – Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements” (“ASU 2010-06”). ASU 2010-06 provides amendments to Subtopic 820-10 and requires new disclosures for transfers in and out of Levels 1 and 2 and activity in Level 3 fair value measurements. ASU 2010-06 also clarifies existing disclosure requirements for the Useful Lifelevel of Intangible Assets” (“FAS 142-3”). This FSP amendsdisaggregation for each class of assets and liabilities and for the factors that should be considered in developing renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under Statement 142. The intent of this FSP is to improve the consistency between the useful life of a recognized intangible asset under Statement 142inputs and the period of expected cash flowsvaluation techniques used to measure the fair value of the asset under FASB Statement No. 141R, and other U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. This FSPvalue. ASU 2010-06 is effective for financial statements issued for interim and annual periods ending after December 15, 2009, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements in the roll forward of activity in Level 3 fair value measurements which is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008,2010, and for interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is prohibited. The impact of adoptingCompany adopted this statement is not considered to be material.ASU on December 31, 2009.

In March 2008,December 2009, the FASB issued SFASASU No. 161 “Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities”2009-17 “Improvements to Financial Reporting by Enterprises Involved with Variable Interest Entities” (“Statement 161”ASU 2009-17”). ThisASU 2009-17 was issued to reflect the amendments from Statement amends Statement 133 and167 “Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R)” as a revision to FASB Interpretation No. 46 (Revised December 2003), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities”. ASU 2009-17 changes the disclosure requirements for derivative instruments and hedging activities. Entities arehow a reporting entity determines when an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or is not controlled through voting (or similar rights) should be consolidated. The determination of whether a reporting entity is required to provide enhanced disclosures about (a) howconsolidate another entity is based on, among other things, the other entity’s purpose and why andesign and the reporting entity’s ability to direct the activities of the other entity uses derivative instruments, (b) how derivative instrumentsthat most significantly impact the other entity’s economic performance. ASU 2009-17 was effective January 1, 2010 and related hedged items are accounted for under Statement 133 and its related interpretations, and (c) how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. This Statement is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008, with early application encouraged. This Statement encourages, but does not require, comparative disclosures for earlier periods at initial adoption. The Partnership is currently evaluating the impact of adopting this statement although the impact is not considered to be material as only further disclosure is required.

In February 2008, the FASB amended Statement 157 with FSP FAS 157-2 “Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157” (FSP FAS 157-2) to delay the effective date of Statement 157 for nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities to be effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008.permitted. The Partnership does not believeCompany has evaluated the adoption of FSP FAS 157-2 for its nonfinancial assetsthis ASU and liabilitiesit will not have a material impactan effect on its results of operations or financial statements.

In December 2007,position, as the FASB issued SFAS No. 160 “Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements” (“Statement 160”). This Statement, among other things, establishes accounting and reporting standards for a parent company’s ownership interest in a subsidiary (previously referred to as a minority interest). This Statement is effective forCompany does not currently have any variable interests that it believes would require consolidation.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsStatements—(Continued)

December 31, 20082009

 

financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008 with early adoption prohibited. Once adopted, the Partnership will report minority interest as a component of equity in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.(p) Reclassifications

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R) “Business Combinations” (“Statement 141(R)”). This Statement, among other things, establishes principles and requirements for how an acquirer recognizes and measures in its financial statements the identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, and any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree. This Statement also establishes disclosure requirements of the acquirer to enable users of the financial statements to evaluate the effect of the business combination. This Statement is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008 and early adoption is prohibited. The impact on the Partnership’s financial statements and its co-investment partnerships’ financial statements will be reflected at the time of any acquisition after the implementation date that meets the requirements above.

(p)Reclassifications

Certain reclassifications have been made to the 20072008 and 20062007 amounts to conform to classifications adopted in 2008.2009.

2.Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements

As described further in Note 1(b), certain of the Partnership’s co-investment partnership agreements contain unilateral DIK provisions. Such provisions constitute in-substance call/put options on properties sold to co-investment partnerships with unilateral DIK provisions and are a form of continuing involvement under Statement 66. As a result, the Partnership has adopted and applied the Restricted Gain Method, which maximizes gain deferral on partial sales of real estate to DIK-JV’s. The Partnership previously recognized gains from such sales to all co-investment partnerships to the extent of the percentage interest sold and deferred gains to the extent of the Partnership’s ownership interest in the co-investment partnerships.

The Partnership also previously recognized any remaining deferred gain as equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships when a property was sold by a co-investment partnership to a third party. This policy will no longer be applied to any DIK-JV. Instead, the property received upon dissolution will be recorded at the Partnership’s investment in the DIK-JV, reduced by the deferred gain. The Partnership sold properties to DIK-JV’s during 2008 and the years 2001 to 2005. The Partnership did not sell any properties to DIK-JV’s during 2007 or 2006.

The Partnership’s January 1, 2006 opening balance of general partner preferred and common units and limited partners’ capital have been restated in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss) by $28.2 million related to additional gain deferrals on partial sales to DIK-JV’s of $27.7 million, net of tax, and the reversal of gains of approximately $511,000 associated with subsequent DIK-JV property sales to third parties to reflect the retrospective application of the Restricted Gain Method. The Partnership’s December 31, 2007 accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet has been corrected to reflect the adjustments associated with the application of the Restricted Gain Method prior to 2006; accordingly, its investments in real estate partnerships has been decreased by $31.0 million, its net deferred tax asset recorded in other assets has been increased by $2.8 million, limited partners’ capital has been decreased by approximately $620,000, and

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

general partners’ capital has been decreased by $27.6 million. There was no effect on the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations or the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for 2007 or 2006.2. Real Estate Investments

During 20072009 and 2006, the Partnership recognized deferred gains of $2.1 million and approximately $117,000, respectively, related to the subsequent sale of four properties by DIK-JV’s to third parties. As a result, during the fourth quarter of 2008, the Partnership recorded a cumulative adjustment as an immaterial out-of-period correction to its equity in income of real estate partnerships of $2.2 million to reverse the recognition of previously deferred gains. As further described in Note 18, the Partnership also corrected the gains reported in its September 30, 2008 Form 10-Q by a reduction of $10.7 million or $.15 per diluted unit related to partial sales to a DIK-JV that occurred in September 2008.

3.Real Estate Investments

During 2008, the PartnershipCompany did not have any acquisition activity, other than through its investments in real estate partnerships. During 2007, the Partnership acquired five shopping centers for a purchase price of $106.0 million which included the assumption of $42.3 million in debt, recorded net of a $1.2 million debt discount. Acquired lease intangible assets and acquired lease intangible liabilities of $9.3 million and $4.7 million, respectively, were recorded for these acquisitions. The acquisitions in 2007 were accounted for in accordance with the provisions of Statement 141 and their results of operations are included in the consolidated financial statements from the date of acquisition.

3. Discontinued Operations

4.Discontinued Operations

The PartnershipCompany maintains a conservative capital structure to fund its growth program without compromising its investment-grade ratings. This approach is founded on a self-funding business model which utilizes center “recycling” as a key component and requires ongoing monitoring of each center to ensure that it meets RCLP’sthe Company’s investment standards. This recycling strategy calls for the PartnershipCompany to sell non-strategic assets and re-deploy the proceeds into new, high-quality developments and acquisitions that are expected to generate sustainable revenue growth and more attractive returns.

During 2008, the Partnershipyear ended December 31, 2009, the Company sold 100% of its ownership interest in sevenone operating property and four properties in development and three operating properties for net proceeds of $86.2 million.$73.0 million, net of notes receivable taken by the Company of $20.4 million of which $8.9 million was subsequently paid in full in May 2009. The combined operating income and gainsgain on salesthe sale of these properties and properties classified as held-for-sale were reclassified to discontinued operations. The revenues from properties included in discontinued operations were $17.7$8.7 million, $19.3$16.4 million, and $28.4$19.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006,2007, respectively. The operating income and gains on sales of properties included in discontinued operations are reported net of income taxes, if the property is sold by the TRS,TRS. During 2009, approximately $2.1 million of income tax benefit was allocated to operating income (loss) from discontinued operations. During 2007, approximately $85,000 of income tax expense was allocated to operating income (loss) from discontinued operations and are summarized as follows for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007,$1.9 million of income taxes was allocated to gain on sale of operating properties and 2006, respectively (in thousands):

properties in development.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.4. Investments in Real Estate Partnerships

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

   2008  2007  2006
   Operating
Income
  Gain on
sale of
Properties
  Operating
Income
  Gain on
sale of
Properties
  Operating
Income
  Gain on
sale of
Properties

Operations and gain

  $9,668  17,497  7,940  27,412  9,785  59,181

Less: Income taxes

   —    —    85  1,917  —    —  
                   

Discontinued operations, net

  $9,668  17,497  7,855  25,495  9,785  59,181
                   

5.Investments in Real Estate Partnerships

The Partnership’sCompany’s investments in real estate partnerships were $383.4$326.2 million and $401.9$383.4 million (as restated) at December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively. Net income or loss from these real estate partnerships, which includes all operating results (including impairments) and gains on sales of properties within the joint ventures, is allocated to the PartnershipCompany in accordance with the respective partnership agreements. Such allocations of net income or loss are recorded in equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. The net difference between the carrying amount of these investments and the underlying equity in net assets was $77.3$43.8 million and $58.1$77.3 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008, and 2007, respectively. TheFor non-DIK-JV’s, the net difference is accreted to income and recorded in equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations over the expected useful lives of the properties and other intangible assets, which range in lives from 10 to 40 years.years, whereas for DIK-JV’s, the net difference is recognized at liquidation.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

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

Investments in real estate partnerships are primarily composed of co-investmentreal estate partnerships where the PartnershipCompany invests with threefour co-investment partners and an open-end real estate fund (“Regency Retail Partners” or the “Fund”), as further described below. In addition to earning its pro-rata share of net income or loss in each of these real estate partnerships, the Partnership receivesCompany received recurring market-based fees for asset management, property management, leasing, investment, and financing services. During 2008, 2007, and 2006, the Partnership received fees from these co-investment partnershipsservices of $31.7 million, $29.1 million, $31.6 million, and $22.1$28.3 million and transaction fees of $7.8 million, $23.7 million, and $4.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively.

Investments in real estate partnerships as of December 31, 20082009 and 20072008 consist of the following (in thousands):

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

 

  Ownership 2008  2007  Ownership 2009  2008
      (as restated)

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency (MCWR I)

  25.00% $11,137  15,463

Macquarie CountryWide Direct (MCWR I)

  25.00%  3,760  4,061

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II (MCWR II)

  24.95%  197,602  214,450

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency (MCWR I) (1)

  —     $—    11,137

Macquarie CountryWide Direct (MCWR I)(1)

  —      —    3,760

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II (MCWR II) (2)

  25.00  154,350  197,602

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III (MCWR III)

  24.95%  623  812  24.95  351  623

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO (MCWR-DESCO)

  16.35%  21,924  29,478  16.35  24,374  21,924

Columbia Regency Retail Partners (Columbia)

  20.00%  29,704  29,978

Columbia Regency Retail Partners (Columbia I)

  20.00  28,347  29,704

Columbia Regency Partners II (Columbia II)

  20.00%  12,858  20,326  20.00  11,202  12,858

Cameron Village LLC (Cameron)

  30.00%  19,479  20,364  30.00  18,285  19,479

RegCal, LLC (RegCal)

  25.00%  13,766  17,113  25.00  12,863  13,766

Regency Retail Partners (the Fund)

  20.00%  23,838  13,296  20.00  22,114  23,838

US Regency Retail I, LLC (USAA)

  20.01  5,111  —  

Other investments in real estate partnerships

  50.00%  48,717  36,565  50.00  49,215  48,717
              

Total

   $383,408  401,906   $326,212  383,408
              

(1)

At December 31, 2008, the Company’s ownership interest in MCWR I was 25.00%. The liquidation of MCWR I was completed in 2009.

(2)

At December 31, 2008, the Company’s ownership interest in MCWR II was 24.95%.

Investments in real estate partnerships are reported net of deferred gains of $88.3$52.0 million and $69.5$88.3 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008, and 2007, respectively. After applying the Restricted Gain Method as described in Note 1(b) and Note 2, cumulative deferred gains in 2007 have increased by $30.5 million to correct gains from partial sales recorded during the periods 2001 to 2005 and have been noted as restated. Cumulative deferred gain amounts related to each co-investmentreal estate partnership are described below.

The PartnershipCompany co-invests with the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund (“OPERF”) in three co-investmentreal estate partnerships, two of which the PartnershipCompany has ownership interests of 20% (“Columbia”Columbia I” and “Columbia II”) and one in which the PartnershipCompany has an ownership interest of 30% (“Cameron”). The Partnership’sCompany’s investment in thethese three co-investmentreal estate partnerships with OPERF totals $62.0$57.8 million (as restated) and represents 1.5% of the Partnership’sCompany’s total assets at December 31, 2008.2009. At December 31, 2008, 2009,

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

the Columbia co-investment partnershipsOPERF joint ventures had total assets of $762.7$743.3 million and net income of $11.0$5.4 million for the year ended and the Partnership’sCompany’s share of its total assets and net income was $164.8$160.5 million and $2.2 million,approximately $506,000, respectively.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, Columbia I owned 14 shopping centers, had total assets of $321.9$320.4 million, and net income of $10.2$6.7 million for the year ended. The Partnershippartnership agreement has a unilateral DIK right to liquidateelect to dissolve the partnership;partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the PartnershipCompany has applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain that the Partnership recognizesrecognized on property sales to Columbia.Columbia I. During 2006 to 2008,2009, the PartnershipCompany did not sell any properties to Columbia.Columbia I. Since itsthe inception of Columbia I in 2001, the PartnershipCompany has recognized gain of $2.0 million on partial sales to Columbia I and deferred gain of $4.3 million. In December 2008, the PartnershipCompany earned and recognized a $19.7 million Portfolio Incentive Return fee from OPERF based on Columbia’sColumbia I’s outperformance of the cumulative NCREIFNational Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (“NCREIF”) index since the inception of the partnership and a cumulative hurdle rate as outlined in the partnership agreement.agreement which was reflected in other receivables as of December 31, 2008. The Company collected the receivable in full in April 2009.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, Columbia II owned 16 shopping centers, had total assets of $327.5$313.3 million and net income of $1.1 millionapproximately $159,000 for the year ended. During 2008, Columbia II purchased one operating property from a third party for a purchase price of $28.5 million and the Partnership contributed $5.7 million for its proportionate share. The Partnershippartnership agreement has a unilateral DIK right to liquidateelect to dissolve the partnership;partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the PartnershipCompany has applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain that the Partnership recognizesrecognized on property sales to Columbia II. In September 2008, Columbia II acquired three completed development properties fromDuring 2009, the

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

Partnership for a purchase price of $83.4 million, and as a result, the Partnership recognized gain of $9.1 million and deferred gain of $15.7 million. As more thoroughly described in Note 18 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements, the amount of gain previously recorded during September 2008 was subsequently adjusted by a reduction of $10.7 million and the Partnership will file a Form 10Q/A to correct its previous filing. During 2006 and 2007, the Partnership Company did not sell any properties to Columbia II. Since the inception of Columbia II in 2004, the PartnershipCompany has recognized gain of $9.1 million on partial sales to Columbia II and deferred $15.7 million. During 2008, Columbia II sold one shopping center to an unrelated party for $13.8 million and recognized a gain of approximately $256,000.$15.7 million.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, Cameron owned one shopping center, had total assets of $113.3$109.6 million and a net loss of approximately $187,000$1.4 million for the year ended. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require the PartnershipCompany to apply the Restricted Gain Method. Since itsthe inception of Cameron in 2004, the PartnershipCompany has not sold any properties to Cameron.

The PartnershipCompany co-invests with the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (“CalSTRS”) in a joint venture (“RegCal”) in which the PartnershipCompany has a 25% ownership interest. As of December 31, 2008,2009, RegCal owned seven shopping centers, had total assets of $158.1$155.1 million, and net income of $5.9 millionapproximately $493,000 for the year ended.ended and the Company’s share of its total assets and net income was $38.8 million and approximately $123,000, respectively. The Partnershippartnership agreement has a unilateral DIK right to liquidateelect to dissolve the partnership;partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the PartnershipCompany has applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain that the Partnership recognizesrecognized on property sales to RegCal. During 2006 to 2008,2009, the PartnershipCompany did not sell any properties to RegCal. Since itsthe inception of RegCal in 2004, the PartnershipCompany has recognized gain of $10.1 million on partial sales to RegCal and deferred gain of $3.4 million. During 2008, RegCal sold one shopping center to an unrelated party for $9.5 million and recognized a gain of $4.2 million.

The PartnershipCompany co-invests with Macquarie CountryWide Trust of Australia (“MCW”) as the only other partner in five co-investmentthree real estate partnerships, twoone in which the Partnership hasCompany had an ownership interest of 25% (collectively “MCWR(“MCWR I”), two which was liquidated during 2009 as discussed below, one in which the PartnershipCompany has an ownership interest of 24.95% (“MCWR II” and “MCWR III”), and one in which the PartnershipCompany has an ownership interest of 16.35% (“MCWR-DESCO”). The Partnership’sCompany’s investment in the five co-investment partnerships with MCW totals $235.0$24.7 million and represents 5.7%less than 1% of the Partnership’sCompany’s total assets at December 31, 2008. At 2009.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2008, the MCW co-investment partnerships had total assets of $3.4 billion and net income of $11.6 million and the Partnership’s share of its total assets and net income was $823.9 million and $2.1 million, respectively.2009

As of December 31, 2008, MCWR I owned 42 shopping centers, had total assets of $593.9 million, and net income of $11.1 million for the year ended. The Partnership has a unilateral DIK right to liquidate the partnership; therefore, the Partnership has applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain the Partnership recognizes on property sales to MCWR I. During 2006 to 2008, the Partnership did not sell any properties to MCWR I. Since its inception in 2001, the Partnership has recognized gains of $27.5 million on partial sales to MCWR I and deferred gains of $46.9 million. Subsequent to December 31, 2008,

On January 14, 2009, under the terms of the MCWR I partnership agreement, MCW elected to dissolve the partnership. In JanuaryDuring 2009, the Partnership began liquidatingCompany completed the liquidation of the partnership through a DIK, which providesprovided for distributingdistribution of the properties to each partner under an alternating selection process, ultimately in proportion to the value of each partner’s respective capital account in the partnership interest as determined by appraisal. Totalof the date of liquidation. The total fair value of the properties based on appraisals,was $467.3 million, net of debt, is estimated to be approximately $482.7 million. Thebased on third party appraisals. As a result of the liquidation, MCW received 34 properties whichand the Partnership receivesCompany received six properties through the DIK will beDIK. The six properties the Company received had a fair value of $131.9 million, net of debt, which represents a return of the Company’s investment and a $13.1 million promote, which was not recognized in net income in accordance with the Restricted Gain Method. Consistent with the Restricted Gain Method, the properties that the Company received in liquidation were recorded at the amount of

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

thenet carrying value of the Partnership’s equityits investment of $29.9 million, which is net of deferred gain. The dissolution is expected to be completed during 2009 subject to required lender consents for ownership transfer.

gain previously recorded of $40.8 million. As of December 31, 2008,a result, no gain or loss was recognized on the dissolution. MCWR II owned 85 shopping centers,I had total assets of $2.4 billion and net income of $5.6$4.8 million for the year ended.ended and the Company’s share was $1.2 million. During 2008,2009, MCWR III sold one shopping center to a portfolio of seven shopping centers to an unrelatedthird party for $108.1$7.8 million and recognized a gain of $8.9 million. At December 31, 2008, the partnership agreement did not contain any DIK provisions that would require the Partnership to apply the Restricted Gain Method. However, in January 2009, the partnership agreement was amended to include DIK provisions; therefore, the Partnership will apply the Restricted Gain Method if additional properties are sold to MCWR II in the future. During the period 2006 to 2008, the Partnership did not sell any properties to MCWR II. Since its inception in 2005, the Partnership has recognized gain of $2.3 million on partial sales to MCWR II and deferred gain of approximately $766,000. In June 2008, the Partnership earned additional acquisition fees of $5.2 million (the “Contingent Acquisition Fees”) deferred from the original acquisition date since the Partnership achieved the cumulative targeted income levels specified in the Amended and Restated Income Target Agreement between Regency and MCW dated March 22, 2006. The Contingent Acquisition Fees recognized were limited to that percentage of MCWR II, or 75.05%, of the joint venture not owned by the Partnership and amounted to $3.9$3.7 million.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, MCWR III owned four shopping centers, had total assets of $67.5$65.1 million, and a net loss of approximately $238,000$436,000 for the year ended. At December 31, 2008,ended and the partnership agreement did not contain any DIK provisions that would requireCompany’s share of its total assets and net loss was $16.2 million and net income of approximately $150,000, respectively, which includes the Partnership to applyCompany’s share of the Restricted Gain Method. However, innet loss offset by the accretion of the basis difference. Effective January 2009,1, 2010, the partnership agreement was amended to include a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK provisions;upon liquidation; therefore, the PartnershipCompany will apply the Restricted Gain Method if additional properties are sold to MCWR III inon or after January 1, 2010. Accordingly, the future.Company will recognize gains on such future sales only when such gains exceed amounts required to be deferred under the Restricted Gain Method. During 2009, the Company did not sell any properties to MCWR III. Since itsthe inception of MCWR III in 2005, the PartnershipCompany has recognized gain of $14.1 million on partial sales to MCWR III and deferred gain of $4.7 million.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, MCWR-DESCO owned 32 shopping centers, had total assets of $395.6$382.1 million, and recorded a net loss of $4.9$5.3 million for the year ended primarily related to depreciation and amortization expense, but produced positive cash flow from operations.the Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $62.5 million and approximately $883,000, respectively. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require the PartnershipCompany to apply the Restricted Gain Method. Since itsthe inception of MCWR-DESCO in 2007, the PartnershipCompany has not sold any properties to MCWR-DESCO.the real estate partnership.

The PartnershipCompany co-invests with MCW and Global Retail Investors LLC (“GRI”), a joint venture between the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) and an affiliate of First Washington Realty, Inc. in one real estate partnership in which the Company has an ownership interest of 25% (“MCWR II”). The Company’s investment in MCWR II totals $154.4 million and represents 3.9% of the Company’s total assets at December 31, 2009.

On July 17, 2009, the Company announced that MCW had agreed to sell 60% of its partnership interest in MCWR II to GRI in two closings. The initial closing was completed on July 31, 2009, with MCW selling 45% of its 75% interest to GRI. As part of the closing, the Company acquired Macquarie-Regency Management, LLC’s (“US Manager”) 0.1% ownership of MCWR II. US Manager was owned 50/50 by the Company and an affiliate of Macquarie Bank Limited. The transaction increased the Company’s ownership in MCWR II to 25% from 24.95%. At the initial

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

closing the Company received a disposition fee of $7.8 million from MCW equal to 1% of the gross sales price paid by GRI. At the second closing, GRI will acquire from MCW, an incremental 15% interest increasing its total ownership in MCWR II to 60%. The Company expects this to occur once the existing mortgage lenders consent to the transaction or MCW prepays the mortgage loans. The Company will retain asset management, property management, and leasing responsibilities. The Company will receive an additional disposition fee equal to 1% of gross sales price paid by GRI at future closings. As part of the agreement, the Company negotiated two separate options to acquire additional interests in the partnership at a 7.7% discount. If both options were exercised, Regency would acquire MCW’s then remaining 15% interest in MCWR II, increasing Regency’s total ownership to 40%. In November 2009, the Company exercised its two options to acquire the additional 15% interest in MCWR II. Closing is contingent upon obtaining lender consents and is expected in early 2010. The Company funded the purchase price of $16.0 million on December 23, 2009, which will be held in escrow until closing, and the deposit is recorded in other assets in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As of December 31, 2009, MCWR II owned 86 shopping centers, had total assets of $2.2 billion and a net loss of $112.4 million for the year ended and the Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $550.8 million and $28.3 million, respectively. The net loss was primarily related to the provision for impairment recorded during 2009 as a result of MCW’s decision to sell its interest in MCWR II which resulted in a change in holding period for certain properties. As part of the sales negotiation, the joint venture identified 14 properties that it would target for sale over the next three years. These properties were previously expected to be held and used long term and this change in the holding period resulted in a provision for impairment of $104.4 million. Effective January 1, 2010, the partnership agreement was amended to include a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the Company will apply the Restricted Gain Method if properties are sold to MCWR II on or after January 1, 2010. Accordingly, the Company will recognize gains on such future sales only when such gains exceed amounts required to be deferred under the Restricted Gain Method. During 2009, the Company did not sell any properties to MCWR II. Since the inception of MCWR II in 2005, the Company has recognized gain of $2.3 million on partial sales to MCWR II and deferred gain of approximately $766,000.

The Company co-invests with Regency Retail Partners (the “Fund”), an open-ended, infinite life investment fund in which the PartnershipCompany has an ownership interest of 20%. As of December 31, 2008,2009, the Fund owned nine shopping centers, had total assets of $381.2$367.4 million, and recorded a net loss of $2.1$3.4 million for the year ended. During 2008, the Fund purchased one shopping center from a third party for $93.3 million that included $66.0 million of assumed mortgage debtended and the Partnership contributed $18.7 million for the Partnership’s proportionateCompany’s share of the purchase price. During 2008, the Fund also acquired one property in development from the Partnership for a sales price of $74.5its total assets and net loss was $73.4 million and the Partnership recognized a gain of $4.7 million after excluding its ownership interest.approximately $464,000, respectively. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require the PartnershipCompany to apply the Restricted Gain Method. During 2009, the Company did not sell any properties to the Fund. Since itsthe inception of the Fund in 2006, the PartnershipCompany has recognized gains of $71.6 million on partial sales to the Fund and deferred gainsgain of $17.9 million.

On October 27, 2009 the Company finalized the formation of a new real estate partnership, US Regency Retail I, LLC, with United Services Automobile Association (the “USAA partnership”) in which the Company has an ownership interest of 20.01%, and sold seven shopping centers to the real estate partnership. One additional property was sold to the USAA partnership on November 3, 2009. The eight properties were sold for $133.9 million and net proceeds to the Company from the sale were $103.3 million. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the Company applied the Restricted

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsStatements—(Continued)

December 31, 20082009

 

Gain Method to determine the amount of gain recognized. The Company recognized gain of $19.1 million and deferred gain of $8.1 million on partial sales to the USAA partnership.

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

 

   December 31,
2008
  December 31,
2007

Investment in real estate, net

  $4,518,388  4,422,533

Acquired lease intangible assets, net

   186,141  197,495

Other assets

   158,201  147,525
       

Total assets

   4,862,730  4,767,553
       

Notes payable (1)

   2,792,450  2,719,473

Acquired lease intangible liabilities, net

   97,146  86,031

Other liabilities

   83,814  83,734

Members’ or Partners’ capital

   1,889,320  1,878,315
       

Total liabilities and capital

  $4,862,730  4,767,553
       

(1)

Includes $12.1 million note payable to the Partnership at December 31, 2007, as discussed in Note 6.

   December 30,
2009
  December 31,
2008

Investment in real estate, net

  $3,900,277  4,518,783

Acquired lease intangible assets, net

   147,151  186,141

Other assets

   137,753  157,806
       

Total assets

  $4,185,181  4,862,730
       

Notes payable

  $2,477,928  2,792,450

Acquired lease intangible liabilities, net

   87,009  97,146

Other liabilities

   80,011  83,814

Members’ or Partners’ capital

   1,540,233  1,889,320
       

Total liabilities and capital

  $4,185,181  4,862,730
       

Investments in real estate partnerships had notes payable of $2.8$2.5 billion and $2.7$2.8 billion as of December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively, and the Partnership’sCompany’s proportionate share of these loans was $664.1$585.5 million and $653.3$664.1 million, respectively. The loans are primarily non-recourse, but for those that are guaranteed by a joint venture, RCLP’s liabilityCompany does not extend beyondguarantee these loans with the exception of an $8.5 million loan related to its 50% ownership percentage ofinterest in a single asset real estate partnership where the joint venture.loan agreement contains “several” guarantees from each partner.

As of December 31, 2008,2009, scheduled principal repayments on notes payable of the investments in real estate partnerships were as follows (in thousands):

 

Scheduled Principal Payments by Year:

  Scheduled
Principal
Payments
  Mortgage Loan
Maturities
  Unsecured
Maturities
  Total  RCLP’s
Pro-Rata
Share
  Scheduled
Principal
Payments
  Mortgage Loan
Maturities
  Unsecured
Maturities
  Total  Regency’s
Pro-Rata
Share

2009

  $4,824  138,800  12,848  156,472  30,382

2010

   4,569  695,563  89,333  789,465  195,461  $3,642  613,310  26,858  643,810  160,173

2011

   3,632  506,846  —    510,478  126,401   3,578  448,787  —    452,365  112,037

2012

   4,327  408,215  —    412,542  91,182   4,396  244,418  —    248,814  61,551

2013

   4,105  32,447  —    36,552  8,997   4,226  32,447  —    36,673  8,982

2014

   4,213  77,290  —    81,503  21,540

Beyond 5 Years

   29,875  849,714  —    879,589  210,174   25,555  983,875  —    1,009,430  220,159

Unamortized debt premiums, net

   —    7,352  —    7,352  1,462   —    5,333  —    5,333  1,030
                              

Total

  $51,332  2,638,937  102,181  2,792,450  664,059  $45,610  2,405,460  26,858  2,477,928  585,472
                              

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

The revenues and expenses for the investments in real estate partnerships on a combined basis for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively, are summarized as follows (in thousands):

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

 

  For the years ended December 31, 
  2008 2007 2006   2009 2008 2007 

Total revenues

  $488,481  452,068  413,642   $434,050   491,246   453,580  
          
          

Operating expenses:

        

Depreciation and amortization

   182,844  176,597  173,812    160,484   182,844   176,597  

Operating and maintenance

   70,158  64,917  57,844    63,855   70,158   64,917  

General and administrative

   9,518  9,893  6,839    8,247   8,860   9,589  

Real estate taxes

   63,393  53,845  48,983    59,339   63,393   53,845  

Provision for doubtful accounts

   10,062   2,765   1,512  

Other expenses

   2,098   658   304  
                    

Total operating expenses

   325,913  305,252  287,478    304,085   328,678   306,764  
          
          

Other expense (income):

        

Interest expense, net

   146,765  135,760  125,378    137,794   146,765   135,760  

Gain on sale of real estate

   (14,461) (38,165) (9,225)   (6,141 (14,461 (38,165

Provision for impairment

   104,416   —     —    

Other income

   139  138  162    72   139   138  
                    

Total other expense (income)

   132,443  97,733  116,315    236,141   132,443   97,733  
                    

Net income

  $30,125  49,083  9,849 
          

Net income (loss)

  $(106,176 30,125   49,083  
          

5. Notes Receivable

6.Notes Receivable

The PartnershipCompany had notes receivable outstanding of $31.4$37.8 million and $44.5$31.4 million at December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively. The notes receivable have fixed interest rates ranging from 6.0% to 10.0% with maturity dates through November 2014. On January 28,2019. During the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Partnership received $12.1 million from the Fund as repaymentimpairment losses of a loan withapproximately $465,000 related to an original maturity date of March 31, 2008 which was provided to facilitate the Partnership’s sale of a shopping center in December 2007. In September 2008, the Partnership recorded a provision for impairment of$879,000 note receivable and $1.1 million related to a $3.6 million note receivable.receivable, respectively, were recorded in provision for impairment in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. During the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Company recorded approximately $50,000 and $417,000 in interest income related to these impaired loans of which $296,000 was recognized on a cash basis during the year ended December 31, 2008.

On December 18, 2009, the Company provided a $11.4 million note receivable maturing in January 2019 with a fixed interest rate of 7% in connection with a property sale to a third party. On February 20, 2009, the Company received a repayment of a $3.2 million note receivable originally maturing in December 2010.

7.Acquired Lease Intangibles

6. Acquired Lease Intangibles

The PartnershipCompany had acquired lease intangible assets, net of amortization, of $12.9$10.0 million and $17.2$12.9 million at December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively, of which $12.5$9.7 million and $16.7$12.5 million, respectively relates to in-place leases. These in-place leases had a remaining weighted

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

average amortization period of 7.25.6 years and the aggregate amortization expense recorded for these in-place leases was approximately $2.7 million, $4.2 million, $4.3 million, and $3.8$4.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006,2007, respectively. The PartnershipCompany had above-market lease intangible assets, net of amortization, of approximately $442,000$341,000 and $555,000$442,000 at December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively. The remaining weighted average amortization period was 4.33.4 years and the aggregate amortization expense recorded as a reduction to minimum rent for these above-market leases was approximately $102,000, $113,000, $115,000, and $82,000$115,000 for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006,2007, respectively.

The PartnershipCompany had acquired lease intangible liabilities, net of accretion, of $7.9$5.9 million and $10.4$7.9 million as of December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively. The remaining weighted average accretion period is 7.14.0 years and the aggregate amount accretedrecorded as an increase to minimum rent for these below-market rents was approximately $1.9 million, $2.5 million, $2.0 million, and $1.5$2.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, and 2006, respectively.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

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

 

Year Ending December 31,

  Amortization
Expense
  Minimum
Rent, Net
  Amortization
Expense
  Minimum
Rent, Net

2009

  $2,092  1,817

2010

   2,039  1,008  $2,100  752

2011

   1,854  747   1,614  676

2012

   1,759  700   1,203  607

2013

   1,468  639   1,049  598

2014

   851  581

7. Income Taxes

8.Income Taxes

The net book basis of the Partnership’sCompany’s real estate assets exceeds the tax basis by approximately $97.5$78.7 million and $161.2$97.5 million at December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively, primarily due to the difference between the cost basis of the assets acquired and their carryover basis recorded for tax purposes.

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

 

  2008 2007 2006   2009 2008 2007 

Dividend per share

  $2.90  2.64  2.38   $2.11   2.90   2.64  

Ordinary income

   73% 85% 64%   54 73 85

Capital gain

   16% 11% 21%   14 22 15

Return of capital

   5% —    —      32 5 —    

Uncaptured Section 1250 gain

   6% 4% 15%

Regency Realty Group, Inc. (“RRG”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of RCLP, is a Taxable REIT Subsidiary (“TRS”) as defined in Section 856(l) of the Code. Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

RRG is subject to federal and state income taxes and files separate tax returns. Income tax expense is included in other expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and consists of the following for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 20062007 (in thousands):

 

  2008 2007  2006  2009 2008 2007

Income tax (benefit) expense:

         

Current

  $88  5,669  10,256  $4,692   88   5,669

Deferred

   (1,688) 530  1,516   (4,894 (1,688 530
                  

Total income tax (benefit) expense

  $(1,600) 6,199  11,772  $(202 (1,600 6,199
                  

Income tax expense (benefit) expense is included in either other expenses if the related income is from continuing operations or discontinued operations on the Consolidated Statements of Operations as follows for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 20062007 (in thousands):

 

   2008  2007  2006

Income tax (benefit) expense from:

     

Continuing operations

  $(1,600) 4,197  11,772

Discontinued operations

   —    2,002  —  
          

Total income tax (benefit) expense

  $(1,600) 6,199  11,772
          

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

   2009  2008  2007

Income tax expense (benefit) from:

    

Continuing operations

  $1,883   (1,600 4,197

Discontinued operations

   (2,085 —     2,002
          

Total income tax expense (benefit)

  $(202 (1,600 6,199
          

Income tax expense (benefit) expense differed from the amounts computed by applying the U.S. Federal income tax rate of 34% to pretax income of RRG for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006,2007, respectively as follows (in thousands):

 

  2008 2007  2006  2009 2008 2007

Computed expected tax (benefit) expense

  $(2,324) 3,974  4,094

Computed expected tax expense (benefit)

  $(4,791 (2,324 3,974

Increase in income tax resulting from state taxes

   (197) 443  456   (558 (197 443

Provision for valuation allowance

   4,755   —     —  

All other items

   921  1,782  7,222   392   921   1,782
                  

Total income tax (benefit) expense

  $(1,600) 6,199  11,772

Total income tax expense (benefit)

  $(202 (1,600 6,199
                  

All other items principally represent the tax effect of gains associated with the sale of properties to unconsolidatedjoint ventures.

RRG had net deferred tax assets of $17.1 million and $11.6 million (as restated) at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The majority of the deferred tax assets relate to deferred gains, deferred interest expense, and tax costs capitalized on projects under development. No valuation allowance was provided and the Partnership believes it is more likely than not that the future benefits associated with these deferred tax assets will be realized.

Included in the income tax expense (benefit) expense disclosed above, the PartnershipCompany has approximately $600,000 of state income tax expense at the Operating Partnership for the Texas Gross Margin Tax recorded in other expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations in both 2007for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2008.2007.

To the extent of any taxable losses of the TRS, RRG could elect to carryback the loss up to five years under the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

The Partnershipfollowing table represents the Company’s net deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 recorded in other assets in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):

   2009  2008 

Deferred tax assets

  $19,802   17,887  

Deferred tax liabilities

   (1,057 (825

Provision for valuation allowance

   (4,755 —    
        

Total

  $13,990   17,062  
        

During 2009, a valuation allowance of $4.8 million was established representing 100% of the disallowed interest, under Section 163(j) of the Code, included in the deferred tax assets. It was determined to be more likely than not that it will not be realized. Other deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities relate primarily to differences in the timing of the recognition of income or loss between U.S. GAAP and tax basis of accounting. Excluding the provision for valuation allowance, significant portions of the deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities include a $5.6 million deferred tax asset for capitalized costs under Section 263A of the Code, an $8.0 million deferred tax asset related to the provision for impairment, and approximately $811,000 deferred tax liability for other differences.

The Company accounts for uncertainties in income tax law in accordance with FASB Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation ofASC Topic 740. Under FASB Statement No. 109” (“FIN 48”). Under FIN 48,ASC Topic 740, tax positions shall initially be recognized in the financial statements when it is more likely than not the position will be sustained upon examination by the tax authorities. Such tax positions shall initially and subsequently be measured as the largest amount of tax benefit that has a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement with the tax authority assuming full knowledge of the position and relevant facts. The PartnershipCompany believes that it has appropriate support for the income tax positions taken and to be taken on its tax returns and that its accruals for tax liabilities are adequate for all open tax years (after 2004 for federal and state) based on an assessment of many factors including past experience and interpretations of tax laws applied to the facts of each matter. Federal and state tax returns are open from 2006 and forward for the Company and federal returns are open from 2008 and forward for the TRS.

During 2008, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) commenced an examination of the Company’sRRG’s U.S. income tax returns for 2006 and 2007 which should be complete bywas completed in June 2009. The IRS hasdid not proposedpropose any significant adjustments to the open tax years under audit.

8. Notes Payable and Unsecured Credit Facilities

9.Notes Payable and Unsecured Credit Facilities

The Partnership’s outstanding debt at December 31, 2008 and 2007 consistsParent Company does not hold any indebtedness, but guarantees all of the following (in thousands):unsecured public debt and less than 10% of the secured debt of the Operating Partnership.

Secured debt

On October 23, 2009, the Company closed on an amendment of its only variable rate mortgage loan in the amount of $5.0 million with an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 350 basis points originally maturing on October 1, 2009 extending the loan maturity to October 1, 2014 with an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 380 basis points.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsStatements—(Continued)

December 31, 20082009

 

   2008  2007

Notes payable:

    

Fixed rate mortgage loans

  $235,150  196,915

Variable rate mortgage loans

   5,130  5,821

Fixed rate unsecured loans

   1,597,624  1,597,239
       

Total notes payable

   1,837,904  1,799,975

Unsecured credit facilities

   297,667  208,000
       

Total

  $2,135,571  2,007,975
       

During 2008,On September 3, 2009, the Partnership placed a $62.5 million mortgage loanCompany closed on a property. The$10.7 million two-year construction loan hasfor a nine-year term and isdevelopment project with an interest only at an all-in coupon rate of 6.0% (or 230LIBOR plus 300 basis points over an interpolated 9-year US Treasury).points. The balance was approximately $992,000 at December 31, 2009.

On March 5, 2008, RCLP entered intoJuly 1, 2009, the Company closed on mortgage loans of $106.0 million secured by eight properties with an interest rate of 7.75% and a Credit Agreementten-year term.

In conjunction with properties distributed to the Company as part of the liquidation of MCWR I, the Company assumed four mortgage loans. In January 2009, the Company assumed two mortgage loans with carrying values of $17.0 million and $42.1 million with ten-year terms and interest rates of 6.13% and 6.38%, respectively, and in December 2009, the Company assumed two mortgage loans with carrying values of $4.5 million and $7.0 million maturing on May 1, 2010 with interest rates of 4.44%.

Unsecured debt

The Line commitment is currently $600.0 million under an agreement with Wells Fargo Bank and a groupsyndicate of other banks to provide the Partnershipthat matures in February 2011 with a $341.5 million, three-year term loan facility (the “Term Facility”). The Term Facility includes a term loan amount of $227.7 million plus a $113.8 million revolving credit facility that is accessibleone-year extension at the Partnership’s discretion.Company’s option. The term loanCompany has a variable interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 105 basis points which was 3.330% at December 31, 2008 and the revolving portion has a variable interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 90 basis points. The proceeds from the funding of the Term Facility were used to reduce the balance on the unsecured line of credit (the “Line”). The balance on the Term Facility was $227.7 million at December 31, 2008.

During 2007, RCLP completed the sale of $400.0 million of ten-year senior unsecured notes. The 5.875% notes are due June 15, 2017 and were priced at 99.527% to yield 5.938%. The net proceeds were used to reduce the unsecured line of credit (the “Line”).

On February 12, 2007, RCLP entered into a new loan agreement under the Line with a commitment of $600.0 million and the right to expand the Line commitment by an additional $150.0 million subject to additional lender syndication. The Line has a four-year term with a one-year extension at the Partnership’s option and a current interest rate of LIBOR plus 4055 basis points and an annual facility fee of 15 basis points subject to maintaining its corporate credit and senior unsecured ratings at BBB+.

Contractual interest rates were 1.338%BBB. In April, 2009, the Company paid down the Line balance to zero and 5.425%there was no balance at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, based on LIBOR plus 40 basis points and LIBOR plus 55 basis points, respectively.2009. The balance on the Line was $70.0 million at December 31, 2008 with a contractual interest rate of 1.34% based on LIBOR plus 40 basis points.

During 2008, the Company entered into a $341.5 million, term loan facility (the “Term Facility”) under an agreement with Wells Fargo Bank and $208.0a syndicate of other banks that matures in February 2011. The Term Facility originally included a term loan of $227.7 million plus a $113.8 million revolving credit facility. In December 2009, the Company paid off the balance of the term loan and it is no longer available; however, the revolving credit facility remains available to the Company at its discretion. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the balance on the Term Facility was zero and $227.7 million, respectively. At December 31, 2009, the revolving credit facility had a variable interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 100 basis points as compared to LIBOR plus 90 basis points at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.an annual facility fee of 20 basis points subject to maintaining its corporate credit and senior unsecured ratings at BBB. At December 31, 2008, the term loan had a variable interest rate of 3.30% or LIBOR plus 105 basis points.

On September 30, 2009 Standard and Poor’s Rating Services lowered the Company’s corporate credit rating and senior unsecured debt rating to BBB from BBB+ primarily related to the reduction in its fixed charge coverage ratio in 2009. As a result of this downgrade, the interest rate on the Line increased to LIBOR plus 55 basis points and the interest rate on the revolving portion of the Term Facility increased to LIBOR plus 100 basis points effective October 1, 2009.

Including both the Line commitment and the Term Facility (collectively, “Unsecured credit facilities”), RCLPthe Company currently has $941.5$713.8 million of total capacity and the spread paid is dependent upon the PartnershipCompany maintaining specific investment-grade ratings. The PartnershipCompany is also required to comply with certain financial covenants as defined in the Credit Agreement such as Minimum Net Worth, Ratio of Total Liabilities to Gross Asset Value (“GAV”) and Ratio of Recourse Secured Indebtedness to GAV, Ratio of Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

and Amortization (“EBITDA”) to Fixed Charges, and other covenants customary with this type of unsecured financing. As of December 31, 2008,2009, management of the PartnershipCompany believes it is in compliance with all financial covenants for the Unsecured credit facilities. The Unsecured credit facilities are used primarily to finance the acquisition and development of real estate but are also availableand for general working-capital purposes.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

Notes payable consist of secured mortgage loans secured by properties and unsecured public debt. Mortgage loans may be prepaid, but could be subject to yield maintenance premiums. Mortgage loans are generally due in monthly installments of principal and interest or interest only, and mature over various terms through 2018,2019, whereas, interest on unsecured public debt is payable semi-annually and the debt matures over various terms through 2017. The Partnership intends to repay mortgage loans at maturity with proceeds from the Unsecured credit facilities. Fixed interest rates on mortgage notes payableloans range from 5.22%4.44% to 8.95%8.40% and average 6.32%6.63%. As of December 31, 2008,2009, the PartnershipCompany had one variable rate mortgage loan in the amount of $4.6 million with an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 100380 basis points maturing on October 1, 2014. The Company has a variable rate construction loan in 2009.the amount of approximately $992,000 with an interest rate of LIBOR plus 300 basis points maturing on September 2, 2011.

On August 18, 2009, the Company completed a cash tender offer and purchased $19.5 million in principal of its $150.0 million 8.45% unsecured notes due September 1, 2010 and $46.5 million in principal of its $220.0 million 7.95% unsecured notes due January 15, 2011 (the “Notes”). The total consideration paid for the Notes was $69.5 million or $1,035 per $1,000 in principal, plus accrued interest. The payment was funded from available cash and the Company recorded a $2.8 million expense for loss on early extinguishment of debt in the accompanying Consolidated Statement of Operations.

The Company’s outstanding debt at December 31, 2009 and 2008 consists of the following (in thousands):

   2009  2008

Notes payable:

    

Fixed rate mortgage loans

  $398,820  235,150

Variable rate mortgage loans

   5,596  5,130

Fixed rate unsecured loans

   1,481,964  1,597,624
       

Total notes payable

   1,886,380  1,837,904

Unsecured credit facilities

   —    297,667
       

Total

  $1,886,380  2,135,571
       

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

As of December 31, 2008,2009, scheduled principal repayments on notes payable and the Unsecured credit facilities were as follows (in thousands):

 

Scheduled Principal Payments by Year:

  Scheduled
Principal
Payments
  Mortgage Loan
Maturities
 Unsecured
Maturities a
 Total   Scheduled
Principal
Payments
  Mortgage
Loan
Maturities
 Unsecured
Public Debt
 Total 

2009

   4,832  8,077  50,000  62,909 

2010

   4,880  17,043  160,000  181,923   $4,986  28,523   140,461   173,970  

2011

   4,744  11,276  537,667  553,687    4,837  12,268   193,486   210,591  

2012

   5,027  —    250,000  255,027    5,105  —     250,000   255,105  

2013

   4,712  16,353  —    21,065    4,979  16,348   —     21,327  

2014

   8,168  11,916   150,000   170,084  

Beyond 5 Years

   13,897  150,159  900,000  1,064,056    8,853  299,280   750,000   1,058,133  

Unamortized debt discounts, net

   —    (719) (2,377) (3,096)   —    (847 (1,983 (2,830
                          

Total

  $38,092  202,189  1,895,290  2,135,571   $36,928  367,488   1,481,964   1,886,380  
                          

9. Derivative Financial Instruments

a

Risk Management Objective of Using Derivatives

Includes unsecured public debt and Unsecured credit facilities

10.Derivative Financial Instruments

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

Cash Flow Hedges of Interest Rate Risk

The Company’s objectives in using interest rate derivatives are to add stability to interest expense and to manage its exposure to interest rate risks. In order to managemovements. To accomplish this objective, the volatility relating toCompany primarily uses interest rate swaps as part of its interest rate risk management strategy. Interest rate swaps designated as cash flow hedges involve the Partnership may enter into interest rate hedging arrangementsreceipt of variable-rate amounts from time to time. Nonea counterparty in exchange for the Company making fixed-rate payments over the life of the Partnership’s derivatives are designated asagreements without exchange of the underlying notional amount.

The effective portion of changes in the fair value of derivatives designated that qualify as cash flow hedges is recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss and subsequently reclassified into earnings in the Partnership does not utilizeperiod that the hedged forecasted transaction affects earnings. During 2009, such derivatives were used to hedge the variable cash flows associated with forecasted issuances of debt (see “Objectives and Strategies” below for further discussion). The ineffective portion of the change in fair value of the derivatives is recognized directly in earnings as loss on derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes.instruments. During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company had $3.3 million of hedge ineffectiveness recognized in earnings attributable to the Company’s revised assumptions of future debt issuances.

All

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

On April 16, 2009, the Company paid $20.0 million to settle and partially settle $106.0 million of its $396.7 million of interest rate swaps qualify forin place to hedge accounting under Statement 133 as cash flow hedges. forecasted debt. On July 1, 2009, the Company closed on mortgage loans of $106.0 million secured by eight properties with a fixed interest rate of 7.75% and a ten-year term. The $20.0 million loss realized from the swap settlement began amortization over a ten year period in July 2009; therefore, the effective interest rate on these mortgage loans is 9.63%.

Realized losses associated with the interest rate swaps settled in 2004, 2005, and 20052009 and unrealized gains or losses associated with the swaps entered into in 2006 have been included in Accumulatedaccumulated other comprehensive loss in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Parent Company and the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss). of the Operating Partnership. Unrealized gains or losses will not be amortized until such time that the probable debt issuances are completed in 2010 and 2011 as long as the interest rate swaps continue to qualify for hedge accounting.

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

Derivatives in FASB ASC Topic 815 Cash Flow
Hedging Relationships:

  Amount of Gain (Loss)
Recognized in OCI on
Derivative (Effective Portion)
  

Location of Gain (Loss) Reclassified from
Accumulated OCI into Income (Effective
Portion)

  Amount of Gain (Loss)
Reclassified from
Accumulated OCI into
Income (Effective Portion)
   December 31,     December 31,
   2009  2008  2007     2009  2008  2007

Interest rate products

  $(17,672 1,306  1,306  

Interest expense

  $2,305  1,306  1,306

The unamortized balance of the realized losses is being amortized as additionalsettled interest expense over the original ten year terms of the hedged loans. The adjustment to interest expense recorded in 2008, 2007, and 2006 related to previously settledrate swaps is $1.3 million and the unamortized balance at December 31, 2009 and 2008 was $25.4 million and 2007 is $7.8 million, and $9.1 million, respectively.

Terms and conditions forAs of December 31, 2009, the Company had the following outstanding derivative financial instrumentsinterest rate derivatives that were designated as cash flow hedges as of December 31, 2008 were as followsinterest rate risk (dollars in thousands):

Notional Value Interest Rate  Maturity Fair Value 
$100,000 5.415 09/15/20 $(8,805
 90,700 5.399 01/15/20  (10,802
 100,000 5.415 09/15/20  (8,756
        
$290,700   $(28,363
        

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsStatements—(Continued)

December 31, 20082009

 

Notional Value  Interest Rate  Maturity  Fair Value 
$98,350  5.399% 01/15/20  $(21,604)
 100,000  5.415% 09/15/20   (20,251)
 98,350  5.399% 01/15/20   (21,625)
 100,000  5.415% 09/15/20   (20,211)
          
$396,700     $(83,691)
          

The Partnership has $428.3 million of fixed rate debt maturing in 2010 and 2011 that has a weighted average fixed interest rate of 8.07%, which includes $400.0 million of unsecured long-term debt. During 2006 the Partnership entered into four forward-starting interest rate swaps (the “Swaps”) totaling $396.7 million with fixed rates of 5.399%, 5.415%, 5.399%, and 5.415%. The Partnership designated these Swaps as cash flow hedges to fix the future interest rates on $400.0 million of the financing expected to occur in 2010 and 2011. As a result of a decline in 10 year Treasury interest rates since the inception of the Swaps,table below presents the fair value of the SwapsCompany’s derivative financial instruments as well as their classification on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 is reflected(in thousands):

Liability Derivatives

 

2009

  

2008

 

Balance Sheet Location

  Fair Value  

Balance Sheet Location

  Fair Value 

Derivative instruments

  $(28,363 

Derivative instruments

  $(83,691

Non-designated Hedges

The Company does not use derivatives for trading or speculative purposes and currently does not have any derivatives that are not designated as a liability of $83.7 million in the Partnership’s accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. It remains highly probable that the forecasted transactions will occur as projected at the inception of the Swapshedges.

Objectives and therefore, the change in fair value of the Swaps is reflected in accumulated other comprehensive loss in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. To the extent that future 10-year treasury rates (at the future settlement dates) are higher than current rates, this liability will decline. If a liability exists at the dates the Swaps are settled, the liability will be amortized over the term of the respective debt issuances as additional interest expense in addition to the stated interest rates on the new issuances. In the case of $196.7Strategies

For $90.7 million of the remaining Swaps, RCLPthe Company continues to expect to issue new secured or unsecured debt for a term of 7 to 12 years during the period between June 30, 2009 and June 30,prior to July 1, 2010. In the case ofFor $200.0 million of the remaining Swaps, RCLPthe Company continues to expect to issue new debt for a term of 7 to 12 years during the period between March 30,31, 2010 and March 30,31, 2011. The PartnershipCompany continuously monitors the capital markets and evaluates its ability to issue new debt to repay maturing debt or fund its commitments. Based upon the current capital markets, RCLP’sthe Company’s current credit ratings, and the number of high quality, unencumbered properties that it owns which could collateralize borrowings, the PartnershipCompany expects that it will successfully issue new secured or unsecured debt to fund its obligations. However, in the current environment, interest rates on new issuancesloans are expected to be significantly higher than on historical issuances. An increase of 1.0% in the interest rate of new debt issuesissued above that of maturing debt would result in additional annual interest expense of $4.3$3.3 million in addition to the impact of the annual amortization that would be incurred as a result of settling the Swaps.respective interest rate swaps.

10. Fair Value Measurements

11.Fair Value Measurements

Derivative Financial Instruments

The valuation of these instruments is determined using widely accepted valuation techniques including discounted cash flow analysis on the expected cash flows of each derivative. This analysis reflects the contractual terms of the derivatives, including the period to maturity, and uses observable market-based inputs, including interest rate curves, and implied volatilities. To comply with the provisions of Statement 157, the PartnershipThe Company incorporates credit valuation adjustments to appropriately reflect both its own nonperformance risk and the respective counterparty’s nonperformance risk in the fair value measurements.

Although the PartnershipCompany has determined that the majority of the inputs used to value its derivatives fall within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, the credit valuation adjustments

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

associated with its derivatives utilize Level 3 inputs, such as estimates of current credit spreads to evaluate the likelihood of default by itselfthe Company and its counterparties.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

As of December 31, 20082009 the Partnership’sCompany’s liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis, aggregated by the level in the fair value hierarchy within which those measurements fall were as follows (in thousands):

 

  Fair Value Measurements Using:    Fair Value Measurements Using:

Liabilities

  Balance Quoted
Prices in
Active
Markets for
Identical
Liabilties
(Level 1)
  Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs (Level 2)
 Significant
Unobservable
Inputs (Level 3)
  Balance Quoted
Prices in
Active
Markets for
Identical
Liabilities
(Level 1)
  Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs (Level 2)
 Significant
Unobservable
Inputs (Level 3)
  Total Gains

Derivative financial instruments

  $(83,691) —    (86,542) 2,851

Derivative instruments

  $(28,363 —    (29,040 677  55,328

Changes in Level 3 inputs are not considered significant enough to warrant reconciliation for the year ended December 31, 2009.

Impairment of Long-lived Assets

Long-lived assets held and used are comprised primarily of real estate. During the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 the Company established provisions for impairment as follows:

   2009  2008

Land held for future development or sale

  $93,710  7,216

Operating and development properties

   10,227  20,527
       

Total

  $103,937  27,743
       

The principal triggering event that led to the impairment charges during 2009 related to a prospective anchor tenant for several development sites that expressed considerable uncertainty about the timing and location of future stores given the continuation of the weak economy and reductions in consumer spending. As a result, the Company reevaluated its development plans incorporating revisions to its assumptions such as declines in lease up periods, lower rental rates, rising vacancies, and higher capitalization rates. The Company also reduced its overall probability of future development at some of the sites as well as its estimated holding period and corresponding future cash flows on several operating and development properties as a result of weaker operating environments in the markets in which these properties are located. Additional impairments may be necessary in the future in the event that market conditions continue to deteriorate and impact the factors used to estimate fair value, the Company reduces the holding period on properties held and used, or it decides to classify properties as held for sale where they were previously classified as held and used. See Note 1(c) for a discussion of the inputs used in determining the fair value of long-lived assets. The Company has determined that the inputs used to value its long-lived assets fall within Levels 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

The Company’s assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis are those assets for which the Company has recorded a provision for impairment during 2009. The assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis are as follows:

   Fair Value Measurements Using: 

Assets

  Balance  Quoted
Prices in
Active
Markets for
Identical
Assets
(Level 1)
  Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
  Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
  Total
(Losses)
 

Long-lived assets held and used:

          

Land held for future development or sale

  $76,879  —    19,796  57,083  (93,710

Operating and development properties

   49,222  —    27,955  21,267  (10,227

Notes receivable

   414  —    —    414  (465
                 

Total

  $126,515  —    47,751  78,764  (104,402
                 

The following disclosures represent additional fair value measurements ofdisclosures for other assets and liabilities that are not recognizedincluded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Notes Payable

The carrying value of the Partnership’s variable rate notes payable and theCompany’s Unsecured credit facilities are based upon a spread above LIBOR which is lower than the spreads available in the current credit markets, causing the fair value of such variable rate debt to be below its carrying value. The other variable rate loans approximate fair value as they were refinanced or entered into during 2009. The fair value of fixed rate loans are estimated using cash flows discounted at current market rates available to the PartnershipCompany for debt with similar terms and maturities. Fixed rate loans assumed in connection with real estate acquisitions are recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements at fair value at the time of acquisition.acquisition excluding those loans assumed in DIK liquidations. Based on the estimates used by the Partnership,Company, the fair value of notes payable and the Unsecured credit facilities was approximately $1.3$1.4 billion and $1.5$1.3 billion at December 31, 20082009 and 2007.2008.

MinorityNoncontrolling Interests of the Parent Company and Partners’ Capital

As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and 2007, Regencythe Operating Partnership had 468,211 and 473,611 redeemable OPlimited Partnership Units outstanding, respectively.outstanding. The limited Partnership Units are exchangeable for the Parent Company’s common stock. The redemption value of the redeemable OPlimited Partnership Units isare based on the closing market price of Regency’sthe Parent Company’s common stock, which was $46.70$35.06 and $64.49$46.70 per share as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, and 2007, respectively, an aggregatedthe aggregate redemption value ofwas $16.4 million and $21.9 million, respectively.

Noncontrolling Interests of the Parent Company and $30.5 million, respectively.the Operating Partnership

At December 31, 2008,2009, the PartnershipCompany held a majority interest in four consolidated entities with specified termination dates through 2049. The minority owners’noncontrolling interests in these entities will be settled upon termination by distribution or transfer of either cash or specific assets of the

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

underlying entities. The estimated fair value of minoritythe noncontrolling interests in entities with specified termination dates was approximately $9.5$9.1 million and $10.2$9.5 million at December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively. Their related carrying value was $6.3$6.6 million and $5.7$6.3 million as of December 31, 20082009 and 2007,2008, respectively, which is recorded in limitedincluded within noncontrolling interests of Limited partners’ interestinterests in consolidated partnerships in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.

11. Equity and Capital

IndexEquity of the Parent Company

Preferred Stock

The Series 3, 4, and 5 preferred shares are perpetual, are not convertible into common stock of the Parent Company, and are redeemable at par upon the Company’s election beginning five years after the issuance date. None of the terms of the preferred stock contain any unconditional obligations that would require the Company to Financial Statements

redeem the securities at any time or for any purpose and the Company does not currently anticipate redeeming any preferred stock. Terms and conditions of the three series of preferred stock outstanding as of December 31, 2009 are summarized as follows:

Series

  Shares
Outstanding
  Liquidation
Preference
  Distribution
Rate
  Callable
By Company

Series 3

  3,000,000  $75,000,000  7.45 04/03/08

Series 4

  5,000,000   125,000,000  7.25 08/31/09

Series 5

  3,000,000   75,000,000  6.70 08/02/10
          
  11,000,000  $275,000,000   
          

Common Stock

On December 9, 2009, the Parent Company completed a public offering of 8.0 million shares of common stock at $30.75 per share which will result in net proceeds of $235.8 million, net of issuance costs. In connection with this offering, the Parent Company entered into forward sale agreements with affiliates of J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo Securities, as forward purchasers. The Company intends to use the proceeds it receives upon settlement of the forward sale agreements to repay maturing or outstanding debt balances. This offering also included an over-allotment option of 1.2 million shares which closed simultaneously with the offering providing the Company with net proceeds of $35.4 million.

On April 24, 2009, the Parent Company completed a public offering of 10.0 million common shares at $32.50 per share resulting in proceeds of $310.9 million, net of issuance costs. The funds were used to pay off the balance of the Line, which had a balance of $180.0 million, and the remaining amount of approximately $130.0 million was deposited in the Company’s cash accounts and was used for general working capital needs including repayment of maturing debt, capital calls from real estate partnerships to the extent required based on the Company’s respective ownership interest in such real estate partnership, and costs to complete in-process development projects.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsStatements—(Continued)

December 31, 20082009

 

12.Regency’s Stockholders’ Equity and Partners’ Capital

Treasury Stock

On December 31, 2009, the Parent Company cancelled the 5,661,520 treasury shares outstanding.

Noncontrolling Interest of Preferred Units

At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the face value of the Series D preferred units was $50.0 million with a fixed distribution rate of 7.45% and 2007,recorded in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets net of original issuance costs of approximately $842,000 which will be expensed if redeemed in the future.

Terms and conditions for the Series D preferred units outstanding as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 are summarized as follows:

Units
Outstanding
 Amount
Outstanding
 Distribution
Rate
  Callable
by Company
 Exchangeable
by Unit holder
500,000 $50,000,000 7.45 09/29/09 01/01/14

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

Noncontrolling Interest of Exchangeable Operating Partnership Units

As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Operating Partnership had 468,211 limited Partnership Units outstanding. See Note 10 for further discussion.

Noncontrolling Interests of Limited Partners’ Interests in Consolidated Partnerships

Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships not owned by the Company are classified as noncontrolling interests on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets of the Parent Company. Subject to certain conditions and pursuant to the conditions of the agreement, the Company has the right, but not the obligation, to purchase the other member’s interest or sell its own interest in these consolidated partnerships. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Company’s noncontrolling interest in these consolidated partnerships was $11.7 million and $8.0 million, respectively.

Capital of the Operating Partnership

Preferred Units

The Series D Preferred Units are owned by institutional investors. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the face value of the Series D Preferred Units was $50.0 million with a fixed distribution rate of 7.45% and recorded in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets net of original issuance costs.costs of approximately $842,000 that will be expensed if redeemed in the future. See above for further discussion.

Terms

Regency Centers Corporation and conditions for the Series D Preferred Units outstanding as of Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2008 and 2007 are summarized as follows:2009

 

Units
Outstanding
  Amount
Outstanding
  Distribution
Rate
  Callable
by Company
  Exchangeable
by Unit holder
500,000  $50,000,000  7.45% 09/29/09  01/01/16

The Preferred Units, which may be called by Regency (through RCLP) at par beginning September 29, 2009, have no stated maturity or mandatory redemption and pay a cumulative, quarterly dividend at a fixed rate. The Preferred Units may be exchanged by the holder for Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (“Preferred Stock”) at an exchange rate of one unit for one share. The Preferred Units and the related Preferred Stock are not convertible into common stock of the Company.

Units of General Partner and Regency Preferred Stock

The Parent Company, as general partner, owns corresponding Series 3, 4, and 5 preferred shares are perpetual, are not convertible into common stock ofunit interests (“Series 3, 4, and 5 Preferred Units”) in the Company, and are redeemable at par upon Regency’s election beginning five years after the issuance date. None of the terms of the Preferred Stock contain any unconditional obligations that would require the Company to redeem the securities at any time orOperating Partnership. See above for any purpose. Terms and conditions of the three series of Preferred stock outstanding asfurther discussion.

General Partner

As of December 31, 2008 are summarized2009, the Parent Company, as follows:

Series  Shares
Outstanding
  Liquidation
Preference
  Distribution
Rate
  Callable
By Company
Series 3  3,000,000  $75,000,000  7.45% 04/03/08
Series 4  5,000,000   125,000,000  7.25% 08/31/09
Series 5  3,000,000   75,000,000  6.70% 08/02/10
          
  11,000,000  $275,000,000   
          

On January 1, 2008, the Company split each share of existing Series 3 and Series 4 Preferred Stock, each having a liquidation preference of $250 per share, and a redemption price of $250 per share into ten shares of Series 3 and Series 4 Stock, respectively, each having a liquidation preference of $25 per share and a redemption price of $25 per share. The Company then exchanged each Series 3 and 4 Depositary Share into shares of New Series 3 and 4 Stock, respectively, which have the same dividend rights and other rights and preferences identical to the depositary shares.

Regency Common Stock

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

At December 31, 2008 and 2007, 75,634,881 and 75,168,662 common shares had been issued, respectively. The carrying valuesgeneral partner, owned approximately 99% or 81,539,296 of the Common stock were $756,349 and $751,687 with a par value of $.01 and were recorded on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets astotal 82,007,507 Partnership Units outstanding.

Limited Partners

As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and 2007, respectively.the Operating Partnership had 468,211 limited Partnership Units outstanding. See Note 10 for further discussion.

Noncontrolling Interests of Limited Partners’ Interests in Consolidated Partnerships

13.Stock-Based Compensation

See above for further discussion.

12. Stock-Based Compensation

The PartnershipCompany recorded stock-based compensation in general and administrative expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations, for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006 as follows, the components of which are further described below (in thousands):

 

  2008  2007  2006  2009  2008  2007

Restricted stock

  $8,193  17,725  16,584  $5,227  8,193  17,725

Stock options

   988  1,024  960   —    988  1,024

Directors’ fees paid in common stock

   375  389  406   279  375  389
                  

Total

  $9,556  19,138  17,950  $5,506  9,556  19,138
                  

The recorded amounts of stock-based compensation expense represent amortization of deferred compensation related to share-based payments in accordance with Statement 123(R).payments. During 2009 and 2008, compensation expense declined as a result of the PartnershipCompany reducing estimated payout amounts related to incentive compensation tied directly to PartnershipCompany performance. The Partnership recorded a cumulative adjustment during 2008 of $12.7 million relating to this change in estimate of which $4.1 million had been previously capitalized. Compensation expense specifically identifiable to development and leasing activities is capitalized and included above. During the three years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 20062007, compensation expense of approximately $1.6 million, $3.6 million, $7.6 million, and $6.9$7.6 million, respectively, was capitalized.

The Company established the Plan under which the Board of Directors may grant stock options and other stock-based awards to officers, directors, and other key employees. The Plan allows the Company to issue up to 5.0 million shares in the form of the Parent Company’s common stock or stock options,options. The plan permits the grant of any type of stock-based award but limits the issuance of common stock excluding stock optionsnon-option awards to no more than 2.75 million shares. At December 31, 2008,2009, there were approximately 2.32.4 million shares available for grant under the Plan either through options or

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

restricted stock. The Plan also limits outstanding awards to no more than 12% of the Parent Company’s outstanding common stock.

Stock options are granted under the Plan with an exercise price equal to the Parent Company’s stock’s price at the date of grant. All stock options granted have ten-year lives, contain vesting terms of one to five years from the date of grant and some have dividend equivalent rights. Stock options granted prior to 2005 also contained “reload” rights, which allowed an option holder the right to receive new options each time existing options were exercised, if the existing options were exercised under specific criteria provided for in the Plan. In 2005 and 2007, the Parent Company acquired the “reload” rights of existing employees’ and directors’ stock options from the option holders, substantially canceling all of the “reload” rights on existing stock options in exchange for new options. These new stock options vest 25% per year and are expensed ratably over a four-year period beginning in year of grant in accordance with Statement 123(R).grant. Options granted under the reload buy-out plan do not earn dividend equivalents.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes-Merton closed-form (“Black-Scholes”) option valuation model. Expected volatilities are based on historical volatility of the Parent Company’s stock and other factors. The Company uses historical data and other factors to estimate option exercises and employee terminations within the valuation model. The expected term of options granted is derived from the output of the option valuation model and represents the period of time that options granted are expected to be outstanding. The risk-free rate for periods within the contractual life of the option is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant. The Company believes that the use of the Black-Scholes model meets the fair value measurement objectives of Statement 123(R)FASB ASC Topic 718 and reflects all substantive characteristics of the instruments being valued. No stock options were granted during 2008. The following table represents the assumptions used for the Black-Scholes option-pricing model for options granted in the respective year:

   2007  2006 

Per share weighted average value

  $8.27  8.35 

Expected dividend yield

   3.0% 3.8%

Risk-free interest rate

   4.7% 4.9%

Expected volatility

   19.8% 20.0%

Expected term in years

   2.4  2.1 

The following table reports stock option activity during the year ended December 31, 2008:2009:

 

   Number of
Options
  Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
  Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Term
(in years)
  Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
(in thousands)
 

Outstanding - December 31, 2007

  717,561  $50.05    

Less: Exercised

  129,381   44.88    

Less: Forfeited

  3,207   51.36    

Less: Expired

  10,946   48.07    
           

Outstanding - December 31, 2008

  574,027  $51.24  4.9  (2,606)
           

Vested and expected to vest - December 31, 2008

  574,027  $51.24  4.9  (2,606)
              

Exercisable - December 31, 2008

  394,007  $50.20  4.3  (1,379)
              
   Number of
Options
  Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
  Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Term
(in years)
  Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
(in thousands)
 

Outstanding December 31, 2008

  574,027  $51.24    

Less: Exercised

  9,032   30.28    

Less: Forfeited

  36,113   54.33    

Less: Expired

  75,419   48.25    
           

Outstanding December 31, 2009

  453,463  $51.90  4.5  (7,638
              

Vested and expected to vest - December 31, 2009

  453,463  $51.90  4.5  (7,638
              

Exercisable December 31, 2009

  449,094  $51.55  4.4  (7,404
              

There were no stock options granted in 2009 or 2008. The weighted-average grant price for stock options granted during the years 2007 and 2006 was $88.49 and $70.98, respectively.$88.49. The total intrinsic value of options exercised

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

during the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007 and 2006 was approximately $19,000, $2.3 million, and $20.2 million, and $17.3 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2008, there was approximately $88,000 of unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested stock options granted under the Plan all of which is expected to be recognized in 2009. The Company received cash proceeds for stock option

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

exercises of $1.0 million and $2.4 million during 2008 and $6.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. The Company issues new shares to fulfill option exercises from its authorized shares available.

The following table presents information regarding non-vested option activity during the year ended December 31, 2008:2009:

 

  Non-vested
Number of
Options
  Weighted
Average
Grant-Date
Fair Value
  Non-vested
Number of
Options
  Weighted
Average
Grant-Date
Fair Value

Non-vested at December 31, 2007

  392,534  $6.04

Non-vested at December 31, 2008

  180,020  $6.04

Less: Forfeited

  3,207   5.90  2,307   8.78

Less: 2008 Vesting

  209,307   5.95

Less: 2009 Vesting

  173,344   5.96
            

Non-vested at December 31, 2008

  180,020  $6.04
      

Non-vested at December 31, 2009

  4,369  $8.78
      

The Company grants restricted stock under the Plan to its employees as a form of long-term compensation and retention. The terms of each grant vary depending upon the participant’s responsibilities and position within the Company. The Company’s stock grants can be categorized into three types: (a)(i) 4-year vesting, (b)(ii) performance-based vesting, and (c)(iii) 8-year cliff vesting.

 

The 4-year vesting grants vest 25% per year beginning on the date of grant. These grants are not subject to future performance measures, and if such vesting criteria are not met, the compensation cost previously recognized would be reversed.

 

Performance-based vesting grants are earned subject to future performance measurements, which include individual goals, annual growth in earnings, compounded three-year growth in earnings, and a three-year total shareholder return peer comparison (“TSR Grant”). Once the performance criteria are met and the actual number of shares earned is determined, certain shares will vest immediately while others will vest over an additional service period.

 

The 8-year cliff vesting grants fully vest at the end of the eighth year from the date of grant; however, as a result of the achievement of future performance, primarily growth in earnings, the vesting of these grants may be accelerated over a shorter term.

Performance-based vesting grants and 8-year cliff vesting grants are currently only granted to the Company’s senior management. The Company considers the likelihood of meeting the performance criteria based upon managements’ estimates and analysis of future earnings growth from which it determines the amounts recognized as expense on a periodic basis. The Company determines the grant date fair value of TSR Grants based upon a Monte Carlo Simulation model. Compensation expense is measured at the grant date and recognized over the vesting period.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsStatements—(Continued)

December 31, 20082009

 

The following table reports non-vested restricted stock activity during the year ended December 31, 2008:2009:

 

  Number of
Shares
  Intrinsic
Value
(in thousands)
  Weighted
Average
Grant
Price
  Number of
Shares
  Intrinsic
Value
(in thousands)
  Weighted
Average
Grant
Price

Non-vested at December 31, 2007

  622,751    $65.15

Non-vested at December 31, 2008

  508,773    

Add: Granted

  245,843     63.76  285,542    $38.91

Less: Vested and Distributed

  221,213     55.80  253,723    $37.88

Less: Forfeited

  138,608     71.91  172,930    $62.39
              

Non-vested at December 31, 2008

  508,773  $23,760  $66.19

Non-vested at December 31, 2009

  367,662  $12,890  
              

The weighted-average grant price for restricted stock granted during the years 2009, 2008, and 2007 was $38.91, $63.76, and 2006 was $63.76, $84.52, and $63.75, respectively. The total intrinsic value of restricted stock vested during the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007 and 2006 was $23.8$9.6 million, $29.7$12.3 million, and $26.3$29.7 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2008,2009, there was $16.411.0 million of unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested restricted stock granted under the Plan, when recognized is recorded in generaladditional paid in capital of the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Parent Company and in General partner preferred and common units of the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss). of the Operating Partnership. This unrecognized compensation cost is expected to be recognized over the next four years, through 2012.2013. The Company issues new restricted stock from its authorized shares available at the date of grant.

The Company maintains a 401 (k)401(k) retirement plan covering substantially all employees, which permits participants to defer up to the maximum allowable amount determined by the IRS of their eligible compensation. This deferred compensation, together with Company matching contributions equal to 100% of employee deferrals up to a maximum of $3,700$3,800 of their eligible compensation, is fully vested and funded as of December 31, 2008.2009. Costs related to the matching portion of the plan were approximately $1.4 million, $1.5 million, $1.3 million, and $1.1$1.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006,2007, respectively.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsStatements—(Continued)

December 31, 20082009

 

14.Earnings per Unit

13. Earnings per Share and Unit

Parent Company Earnings per Share

The following summarizes the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per share for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively (in thousands except per share data):

   2009  2008  2007

Numerator:

     

Income (loss) from continuing operations

  $(38,639 119,570  176,013

Discontinued operations

   5,896   21,951  34,003
          

Net income (loss)

   (32,743 141,521  210,016

Less: Preferred stock dividends

   19,675   19,675  19,675

Less: Noncontrolling interests

   3,961   5,333  6,365
          

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

   (56,379 116,513  183,976

Less: Dividends paid on unvested restricted stock

   488   733  842
          

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders - basic

   (56,867 115,780  183,134

Add: Dividends paid on Treasury Method restricted stock

   —     —    49
          

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders - diluted

  $(56,867 115,780  183,183
          

Denominator:

     

Weighted average common shares outstanding for basic EPS

   76,829   69,578  68,954

Incremental shares to be issued under common stock options

   —     84  244

Incremental shares to be issued under Forward Equity Offering

   67   —    —  
          

Weighted average common shares outstanding for diluted EPS

   76,896   69,662  69,198
          

Income (loss) per common share – basic

     

Continuing operations

  $(0.82 1.35  2.16

Discontinued operations

   0.08   0.31  0.49
          

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders per share

  $(0.74 1.66  2.65
          

Income (loss) per common share – diluted

     

Continuing operations

  $(0.82 1.35  2.16

Discontinued operations

   0.08   0.31  0.49
          

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders per share

  $(0.74 1.66  2.65
          

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

Operating Partnership Earnings per Unit

The following summarizes the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per unit for the three years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006,2007, respectively (in thousands except per unit data):

 

   2008  2007  2006

Numerator:

      

Income from continuing operations

  $113,655  175,676  156,146

Discontinued operations

   27,165  33,350  68,966
          

Net income

   140,820  209,026  225,112

Less: Preferred unit distributions

   23,400  23,400  23,400
          

Net income for common unit holders

   117,420  185,626  201,712

Less: Dividends paid on unvested restricted stock

   733  842  978
          

Net income for common units holders - basic

   116,687  184,784  200,734

Add: Dividends paid on Treasury Method restricted stock

   —    49  164
          

Net income for common unit holders – diluted

  $116,687  184,833  200,898
          

Denominator:

      

Weighted average common units outstanding for basic EPU

   70,048  69,540  68,979

Incremental units to be issued under common stock options and unvested restricted stock

   84  244  395
          

Weighted average common units outstanding for diluted EPU

   70,132  69,784  69,374
          

Income per common unit – basic

      

Income from continuing operations

  $1.28  2.18  1.91

Discontinued operations

   0.38  0.47  1.00
          

Net income for common unit holders per unit

  $1.66  2.65  2.91
          

Income per common unit – diluted

      

Income from continuing operations

  $1.28  2.18  1.90

Discontinued operations

   0.38  0.47  0.99
          

Net income for common unit holders per unit

  $1.66  2.65  2.89
          
   2009  2008  2007

Numerator:

     

Income (loss) from continuing operations

  $(38,639 119,570  176,013

Discontinued operations

   5,896   21,951  34,003
          

Net income (loss)

   (32,743 141,521  210,016

Less: Preferred unit distributions

   23,400   23,400  23,400

Less: Noncontrolling interests

   452   701  990
          

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

   (56,595 117,420  185,626

Less: Dividends paid on unvested restricted stock

   488   733  842
          

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders - basic

  $(57,083 116,687  184,784

Add: Dividends paid on Treasury Method restricted stock

   —     —    49
          

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders - diluted

  $(57,083 116,687  184,833
          

Denominator:

     

Weighted average common units outstanding for basic EPU

   77,297   70,048  69,540

Incremental units to be issued under common stock options

   —     84  244

Incremental units to be issued under Forward Equity Offering

   67   —    —  
          

Weighted average common units outstanding for diluted EPU

   77,364   70,132  69,784
          

Income (loss) from continuing operations - basic

     

Continuing operations

  $(0.82 1.35  2.16

Discontinued operations

   0.08   0.31  0.49
          

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders per unit

  $(0.74 1.66  2.65
          

Income (loss) from continuing operations - diluted

     

Continuing operations

  $(0.82 1.35  2.16

Discontinued operations

   0.08   0.31  0.49
          

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders per unit

  $(0.74 1.66  2.65
          

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsStatements—(Continued)

December 31, 20082009

 

15.Operating Leases

14. Operating Leases

The Company’s properties are leased to tenants under operating leases with expiration dates extending to the year 2084. Future minimum rents under non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2008,2009, excluding both tenant reimbursements of operating expenses and additional percentage rent based on tenants’ sales volume, are as follows (in thousands):

 

Year Ending December 31,

  Amount  Amount

2009

  $320,707

2010

   301,027  $320,361

2011

   264,606   299,131

2012

   221,395   255,441

2013

   177,638   211,214

2014

   174,950

Thereafter

   1,067,278   1,046,337
      

Total

  $2,352,651  $2,307,434
      

The shopping centers’ tenant base includes primarily national and regional supermarkets, drug stores, discount department stores and other retailers and, consequently, the credit risk is concentrated in the retail industry. There were no tenants that individually represented more than 6%5% of the Partnership’sCompany’s annualized future minimum rents.

The PartnershipCompany has shopping centers that are subject to non-cancelable long-term ground leases where a third party owns and has leased the underlying land to RCLPthe Company to construct and/or operate a shopping center. Ground leases expire through the year 2085 and in most cases provide for renewal options. In addition, the PartnershipCompany has non-cancelable operating leases pertaining to office space from which it conducts its business. Office leases expire through the year 2017 and in most cases provide for renewal options. Leasehold improvements are capitalized, recorded as tenant improvements, and depreciated over the shorter of the useful life of the improvements or the lease term. Operating lease expense, including capitalized ground lease payments on properties in development, was $7.9 million, $8.1 million, and $7.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively. The following table summarizes the future obligations under non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 20082009 (in thousands):

 

Year Ending December 31,

  Amount  Amount

2009

  $7,261

2010

   7,303  $7,098

2011

   7,336   7,021

2012

   6,921   6,823

2013

   6,725   6,926

2014

   5,990

Thereafter

   67,345   118,588
      

Total

  $102,891  $152,446
      

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsStatements—(Continued)

December 31, 20082009

 

16.Commitments and Contingencies

15. Commitments and Contingencies

The PartnershipCompany is involved in litigation on a number of matters and is subject to certain claims which arise in the normal course of business, none of which, in the opinion of management, is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’sCompany’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. The PartnershipCompany is also subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations as they apply to real estate pertaining to chemicals used by the dry cleaning industry, the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers, and underground petroleum storage tanks. The PartnershipCompany believes that the tenants who currently operate dry cleaning plants or gas stations do so in accordance with current laws and regulations. The PartnershipCompany has placed environmental insurance, when possible, on specific properties with known contamination, in order to mitigate its environmental risk. The PartnershipCompany monitors the shopping centers containing environmental issues and in certain cases voluntarily remediates the sites. If an operating or development property requires remediation to be performed by the Company prior to development or as a condition of sale, environmental remediation obligations are estimated and are considered in the assessment of the property’s value. In the event environmental remediation is required, the Company adjusts the sales price of the property for the environmental remediation to be performed, funds the cash in escrow to remediate the environmental issues, or agrees to remain responsible for the future environmental remediation expenses in which case the Company would accrue the estimated maximum potential liability. If the Company is liable for remediation of environmental damage relating to properties previously disposed, the likelihood of a material unfavorable outcome of that contingency is remote, as a thorough environmental assessment is performed during the due diligence required by a sale of a property. The PartnershipCompany also has legal obligations to remediate certain sites and is in the process of doing so. The PartnershipCompany estimates the cost associated with remediating these legalenvironmental obligations to be approximately $3.2 million, all of which has been reserved in accounts payable and other liabilities on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. The PartnershipCompany believes that the ultimate disposition of currently known environmental matters will not have a material effect on its financial position, liquidity, or operations; however, it can give no assurance that existing environmental studies with respect to the shopping centers have revealed all potential environmental liabilities; that any previous owner, occupant or tenant did not create any material environmental condition not known to it; that the current environmental condition of the shopping centers will not be affected by tenants and occupants, by the condition of nearby properties, or by unrelated third parties; or that changes in applicable environmental laws and regulations or their interpretation will not result in additional environmental liability to the Partnership.Company.

The Company has the right to issue letters of credit under the Line discussed above up to an amount not to exceed $50.0 million that reduce the credit availability under the Line. The Company also has stand alone letters of credit with other banks. These letters of credit are primarily issued as collateral to facilitate the construction of development projects. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Company had $9.5 million and $16.2 million letters of credit outstanding, respectively.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

 

17.Restructuring Charges

In November16. Reorganization and Restructuring Charges

During 2009 and 2008, the PartnershipCompany announced a restructuring planplans designed to further align employee headcount with the Partnership’s projected workload. As a result,During 2009, the PartnershipCompany severed 103 employees with no future service requirement and recorded restructuring charges of $7.5 million for employee severance benefits. During 2008, the Company severed 50 employees and recorded restructuring charges of $2.4 million for employee severance and benefits related to employee reductions across various functional areasbenefits. Restructuring charges are included in general and administrative expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. The restructuring charges includedAll severance benefits for 50 employees with no future service requirement andpayouts were completed by January 20092010 and funded using cash from operations. The component charges of the restructuring program for the yearyears ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 associated withfollows (in thousands):

   2009  2008

Severance

  $5,966  2,086

Health insurance

   1,092  150

Placement services

   431  187
       

Total

  $7,489  2,423
       

As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the restructuring programremaining accrued liabilities are as follows:

 

   Total
Restructuring
Charge
  2008
Payments
  Accrual at
December 31,
2008
  Due within 12
months

Severance

  2,086  1,040  1,046  1,046

Health insurance

  150  —    150  150

Placement services

  187  136  51  51
            

Total

  2,423  1,176  1,247  1,247
            
   2009  2008

Accrued Liabilities:

    

Compensation

  $1,160  1,046

Insurance

   —    150

Other

   —    51
       

Total

  $1,160  1,247
       

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial StatementsStatements—(Continued)

December 31, 20082009

 

18.Summary of Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)

17. Summary of Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)

The following table sets forth selected Quarterly Financial Data for RCLPthe Company on a historical basis as of and for each of the quarters and years ended December 31, 20082009 and 20072008 and has been derived from the accompanying consolidated financial statements as reclassified for discontinued operations. As previously disclosed in the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 12, 2009, Regency’s Audit Committee determined on March 12, 2009, after discussions with management, that the Partnership’s previously-issued consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2008 should no longer be relied upon because of an error in the Partnership’s calculation of the gain on the sale of properties to certain co-investment partnerships. Such error came to light as a result of the determination that for certain of the Partnership’s co-investment partnerships, the in-kind liquidation provisions contained within such co-investment partnership agreements constitute in-substance call/put options, a form of continuing involvement under Statement 66. As a result, the Partnership has reevaluated its accounting policy for such sales and has adopted a Restricted Gain Method of gain recognition, as described more fully in Note 1(b), which considers the Partnership’s ability to receive property previously sold to a co-investment partnership upon liquidation. The revised method of recognizing gain on sale of properties to co-investment partnerships with in-kind liquidation provisions has been applied in the preparation of the accompanying consolidated financial statements. As a result, in the financial data presented below, the Partnership restated its reported gains on sales of properties in the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2008 and reduced net income for those periods by $10.7 million or $.15 per unit as detailed below. The Partnership also recorded a correction to previously reported assets ($28.2 million reduction) and partners’ capital ($28.2 million reduction) in the 2006 opening consolidated balance sheet related to the cumulative correction of gains reported as described in the note below. There was also no effect on the operating, financing or investing cash flows in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of cash flows for any quarter of any year previously presented.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

 

   First
Quarter
  Second
Quarter
  Third Quarter  Fourth
Quarter
 

2008:

    Reported  Adj.  Restated  

Operating Data:

       

Revenues as originally reported

  $119,648  123,381  122,798  —    122,798  137,562 

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   (4,143) (3,406) (2,419) —    (2,419) —   
                    

Adjusted Revenues

  $115,505  119,975  120,379  —    120,379  137,562 
                    

Operating expenses as originally reported

  $68,824  68,287  70,154  —    70,154  75,519 

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   (2,401) (2,090) (1,229) —    (1,229) —   
                    

Adjusted Operating expenses

  $66,423  66,197  68,925  —    68,925  75,519 
                    

Other expenses as originally reported

  $20,320  23,453  (1,606) 10,716  9,110  54,410 

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   —    —    —    —    —    —   
                    

Adjusted Other expenses

  $20,320  23,453  (1,606) 10,716  9,110  54,410 
                    

Minority interest of limited partners

  $(257) (225) (122) —    (122) (97)
                    

Equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships

  $2,635  1,122  1,817  —    1,817  (282)
                    

Income from continuing operations as originally reported

  $32,882  32,538  55,945  (10,716) 45,229  7,254 

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   (1,742) (1,316) (1,190) —    (1,190) —   
                    

Adjusted Income from continuing operations

  $31,140  31,222  54,755  (10,716) 44,039  7,254 
                    

Income from discontinued operations as originally reported

  $(100) 5,424  4,849  —    4,849  12,744 

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   1,742  1,316  1,190  —    1,190  —   
                    

Adjusted Income from discontinued operations

  $1,642  6,740  6,039  —    6,039  12,744 
                    

Net income

  $32,782  37,962  60,794  (10,716) 50,078  19,998 
                    

Preferred unit distributions

  $(5,850) (5,850) (5,850) —    (5,850) (5,850)
                    

Net income for common unit holders

  $26,932  32,112  54,944  (10,716) 44,228  14,148 
                    

Net income per unit:

       

Basic

  $0.38  0.45  0.78  (0.15) 0.63  0.20 
                    

Diluted

  $0.38  0.45  0.78  (0.15) 0.63  0.20 
                    

Balance Sheet Data:

       

Total assets(a)

  $4,167,473  4,248,030  4,192,880  (10,716) 4,182,164  

Total debt

  $2,108,500  2,194,662  2,137,007  —    2,137,007  

Total liabilities

  $2,277,344  2,371,115  2,313,813  —    2,313,813  

General partner’s capital(a)

  $1,566,000  1,553,560  1,563,143  (10,645) 1,552,498  

Limited partners’ capital(a)

  $9,911  9,835  9,844  (71) 9,773  
   First
Quarter
  Second
Quarter
  Third
Quarter
  Fourth
Quarter

2009:

     

Operating Data:

     

Revenues as originally reported

  $120,159   116,461   133,742   121,625

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   (445 (1,167 (1,143 —  
             

Adjusted Revenues

  $119,714   115,294   132,599   121,625
             

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

  $19,563   (17,180 (84,092 25,329

Net income (loss) of limited partners

   164   (92 (462 174
             

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

  $19,727   (17,272 (84,554 25,503
             

Net income (loss) attributable to common stock and unit holders per share:

     

Basic

  $0.28   (0.23 (1.05 0.31
             

Diluted

  $0.28   (0.23 (1.05 0.31
             

2008:

     

Operating Data:

     

Revenues as originally reported

  $119,647   123,456   122,798   138,683

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   (4,421 (3,608 (2,626 1,966
             

Adjusted Revenues

  $115,226   119,848   120,172   140,649
             

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

  $26,719   31,866   43,900   14,028

Net income (loss) of limited partners

   213   245   328   121
             

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

  $26,932   32,111   44,228   14,149
             

Net income (loss) attributable to common stock and unit holders per share:

     

Basic

  $0.38   0.45   0.63   0.20
             

Diluted

  $0.38   0.45   0.63   0.20
             

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

2007:

  First
Quarter
  Second
Quarter
  Third
Quarter
Quarter
  Fourth
Quarter
 

Operating Data:

     

Revenues as originally reported

  $106,715  108,760  116,980  119,796 

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   (3,882) (3,888) (4,028) (3,871)
              

Adjusted Revenues

  $102,833  104,872  112,952  115,925 
              

Operating expenses as originally reported

  $58,755  61,065  63,611  73,672 

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   (2,364) (2,275) (2,321) (2,308)
              

Adjusted Operating expenses

  $56,391  58,790  61,290  71,364 
              

Other expenses as originally reported

  $(6,256) 16,862  15,023  4,649 

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   (110) 6  —    —   
              

Adjusted Other expenses

  $(6,366) 16,868  15,023  4,649 
              

Minority interest of limited partners

  $(278) (238) (241) (233)
              

Equity in income of investments in real estate partnerships

  $3,788  780  1,677  11,848 
              

Income from continuing operations as originally reported

  $57,726  31,375  39,782  53,090 

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   (1,408) (1,619) (1,707) (1,563)
              

Adjusted Income from continuing operations

  $56,318  29,756  38,075  51,527 
              

Income from discontinued operations as originally reported

  $740  19,272  3,339  3,702 

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   1,408  1,619  1,707  1,563 
              

Adjusted Income from discontinued operations

  $2,148  20,891  5,046  5,265 
              

Net income

  $58,466  50,647  43,121  56,792 
              

Preferred unit distributions

  $(5,850) (5,850) (5,850) (5,850)
              

Net income for common unit holders

  $52,616  44,797  37,271  50,942 
              

Net income per unit:

     

Basic

  $0.75  0.64  0.53  0.73 
              

Diluted

  $0.75  0.64  0.53  0.73 
              

Balance Sheet Data (as restated):

     

Total assets(a)

  $3,748,695  3,961,573  4,064,846  

Total debt

  $1,674,932  1,840,524  1,952,030  

Total liabilities

  $1,837,702  2,032,833  2,159,333  

General partner’s capital(a)

  $1,568,367  1,574,813  1,574,487  

Limited partners’ capital(a)

  $14,654  13,428  10,354  

(a)

The balance sheet data reflects cumulative prior period adjustments from such balance sheets as previously filed in each respective Form 10-Q recorded to defer reported gains associated with sales of properties to and reverse recognition of previously deferred gains on subsequent sales to third parties from DIK-JVs in 2005 and prior. As a result of this adjustment, total assets decreased $28.2 million, general partner’s capital decreased $27.6 million, and limited partners’ capital decreased approximatley $620,000 as of the end of each quarter presented.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2008

19.Subsequent Events

Subsequent to December 31, 2008, under the terms of the MCWR I partnership agreement, MCW elected to dissolve the partnership. See Note 5 for further discussion.

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS L.P.CORPORATION

Combined Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 20082009

(in thousands)

 

 Initial Cost Cost Capitalized
Subsequent to
Acquisition (b)
  Total Cost Accumulated
Depreciation
 Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
 Mortgages Initial Cost Cost
Capitalized

Subsequent to
Acquisition(b)
  Total Cost Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
 

Shopping Centers (a)

 Land Building &
Improvements
 Land Building &
Improvements
 Properties
held for
Sale
 Total  Land Building &
Improvements
 Land Building &
Improvements
 Properties held
for Sale
 Total Accumulated
Depreciation
 Mortgages

4S Commons Town Center

 28,009 32,692 5,889  30,760 35,830 —   66,590 3,832 62,758 62,500 30,760 35,830 (240 30,812 35,538 —   66,350 5,835 60,515 62,500

Alden Bridge

 12,937 10,146 1,976  13,810 11,249 —   25,059 3,508 21,551 —  

Amerige Heights Town Center

 10,109 11,288 —     10,109 11,288 —   21,397 443 20,954 17,000

Anastasia Plaza

 9,065 —   —     9,065 —   —   9,065 —   9,065 4,480

Anthem Highlands Shopping Ctr

 8,643 11,981 —    8,643 11,981 —   20,624 765 19,859 —   8,643 11,981 —     8,643 11,981 —   20,624 1,187 19,437 —  

Anthem Marketplace

 6,846 13,563 1  6,714 13,696 —   20,410 2,597 17,813 —   6,714 13,696 35   6,714 13,731 —   20,445 3,118 17,327 —  

Ashburn Farm Market Center

 9,869 4,747 31  9,835 4,812 —   14,647 1,851 12,796 —   9,835 4,812 9   9,835 4,821 —   14,656 2,122 12,534 —  

Ashford Place

 2,804 9,944 (299) 2,584 9,865 —   12,449 3,855 8,594 3,089 2,584 9,865 25   2,584 9,890 —   12,474 4,180 8,294 —  

Atascocita Center

 1,008 2,237 7,031  3,997 6,279 —   10,276 1,164 9,112 —   3,997 6,279 13   3,997 6,292 —   10,289 1,549 8,740 —  

Augusta Center

 5,141 2,438 283  5,142 2,720 —   7,862 180 7,682 —   5,142 2,720 (1,376 3,740 2,746 —   6,486 330 6,156 —  

Aventura Shopping Center

 2,751 9,318 1,141  2,751 10,459 —   13,210 7,410 5,800 —   2,751 10,459 32   2,751 10,491 —   13,242 8,040 5,202 —  

Beckett Commons

 1,625 5,845 5,115  1,625 10,960 —   12,585 2,723 9,862 —   1,625 10,960 69   1,625 11,029 —   12,654 3,049 9,605 —  

Belleview Square

 8,132 8,610 1,146  8,132 9,756 —   17,888 1,951 15,937 8,716 8,132 9,756 58   8,132 9,814 —   17,946 2,502 15,444 8,373

Beneva Village Shops

 2,484 8,851 1,311  2,484 10,162 —   12,646 2,925 9,721 —   2,484 10,162 281   2,484 10,443 —   12,927 3,289 9,638 —  

Berkshire Commons

 2,295 8,151 1,400  2,295 9,551 —   11,846 3,689 8,157 —   2,295 9,551 49   2,295 9,600 —   11,895 4,130 7,765 7,500

Bethany Park Place

 4,605 5,792 607  4,290 6,714 —   11,004 3,164 7,840 —  

Bloomingdale Square

 3,862 14,101 889  3,940 14,912 —   18,852 4,497 14,355 —   3,940 14,912 89   3,940 15,001 —   18,941 4,913 14,028 —  

Blossom Valley

 7,804 10,321 622  7,804 10,943 —   18,747 2,879 15,868 —  

Boulevard Center

 3,659 9,658 1,129  3,659 10,787 —   14,446 2,950 11,496 —   3,659 10,787 477   3,659 11,264 —   14,923 3,350 11,573 —  

Boynton Lakes Plaza

 2,783 10,043 1,038  2,628 11,236 —   13,864 3,412 10,452 —   2,628 11,236 185   2,628 11,421 —   14,049 3,764 10,285 —  

Briarcliff La Vista

 694 2,463 829  694 3,292 —   3,986 1,577 2,409 —   694 3,292 143   694 3,435 —   4,129 1,680 2,449 —  

Briarcliff Village

 4,597 16,304 8,532  4,597 24,836 —   29,433 9,869 19,564 —   4,597 24,836 292   4,597 25,128 —   29,725 10,782 18,943 —  

Buckhead Court

 1,738 6,163 948  1,417 7,432 —   8,849 3,177 5,672 —   1,417 7,432 82   1,417 7,514 —   8,931 3,451 5,480 —  

Buckley Square

 2,970 5,126 852  2,970 5,978 —   8,948 1,829 7,119 —   2,970 5,978 93   2,970 6,071 —   9,041 2,063 6,978 —  

Cambridge Square

 792 2,916 1,413  774 4,347 —   5,121 1,492 3,629 —   774 4,347 216   774 4,563 —   5,337 1,636 3,701 —  

Carmel Commons

 2,466 8,903 3,645  2,466 12,548 —   15,014 3,953 11,061 —   2,466 12,548 149   2,466 12,697 —   15,163 4,348 10,815 —  

Carriage Gate

 741 2,495 2,571  833 4,974 —   5,807 2,747 3,060 —   833 4,974 30   833 5,004 —   5,837 2,972 2,865 —  

Chapel Hill Centre

 3,932 3,897 —    3,932 3,897 —   7,829 104 7,725 —   3,932 3,897 2,317   4,062 6,084 —   10,146 437 9,709 —  

Chasewood Plaza

 1,675 11,391 12,375  4,612 20,829 —   25,441 9,154 16,287 —   4,612 20,829 24   4,612 20,853 —   25,465 9,939 15,526 —  

Cherry Grove

 3,533 12,710 3,152  3,533 15,862 —   19,395 4,426 14,969 —   3,533 15,862 145   3,533 16,007 —   19,540 4,944 14,596 —  

Cheshire Station

 10,182 8,443 (385) 9,896 8,344 —   18,240 3,760 14,480 —   9,896 8,344 26   9,896 8,370 —   18,266 4,324 13,942 —  

Clayton Valley Shopping Center

 22,826 31,423 5,362  24,189 35,422 —   59,611 4,722 54,889 —   24,189 35,422 854   24,465 36,000 —   60,465 6,729 53,736 —  

Clovis Commons

 11,097 22,699 9,996  11,100 32,692 —   43,792 2,537 41,255 —   11,100 32,692 98   11,100 32,790 —   43,890 3,721 40,169 —  

Cochran’S Crossing

 13,154 10,066 2,249  13,154 12,315 —   25,469 3,711 21,758 —  

Cochran'S Crossing

 13,154 12,315 98   13,154 12,413 —   25,567 4,310 21,257 —  

Cooper Street

 2,079 10,682 (2,788) —   —   9,973 9,973 —   9,973 —   2,079 10,682 13   2,079 10,695 —   12,774 3,130 9,644 —  

Corkscrew Village

 7,436 8,904 71  8,407 8,004 —   16,411 504 15,907 9,291 8,407 8,004 6   8,407 8,010 —   16,417 815 15,602 9,096

Corvallis Market Center

 6,674 12,244 —     6,674 12,244 —   18,918 837 18,081 —  

Costa Verde Center

 12,740 25,261 1,607  12,740 26,868 —   39,608 8,191 31,417 —   12,740 26,868 111   12,740 26,979 —   39,719 9,027 30,692 —  

Courtyard Shopping Center

 1,762 4,187 (78) 5,867 4 —   5,871 —   5,871 —   5,867 4 3   5,867 7 —   5,874 —   5,874 —  

Cromwell Square

 1,772 6,285 659  1,772 6,944 —   8,716 2,684 6,032 —   1,772 6,944 7   1,772 6,951 —   8,723 2,935 5,788 —  

Culpeper Colonnade

 15,944 10,601 —     15,944 10,601 —   26,545 1,553 24,992 —  

Delk Spectrum

 2,985 11,049 952  2,985 12,001 —   14,986 3,445 11,541 —   2,985 12,001 21   2,985 12,022 —   15,007 3,819 11,188 —  

Diablo Plaza

 5,300 7,536 645  5,300 8,181 —   13,481 2,227 11,254 —   5,300 8,181 55   5,300 8,236 —   13,536 2,465 11,071 —  

Dickson Tn

 675 1,568 —    675 1,568 —   2,243 361 1,882 —   675 1,568 —     675 1,568 —   2,243 400 1,843 —  

Dunwoody Hall

 1,819 6,451 5,836  2,529 11,577 —   14,106 4,255 9,851 —  

Dunwoody Village

 2,326 7,216 9,734  3,342 15,934 —   19,276 5,843 13,433 —   3,342 15,934 334   3,342 16,268 —   19,610 6,746 12,864 —  

East Pointe

 1,868 6,743 308  1,730 7,189 —   8,919 2,432 6,487 —   1,730 7,189 3   1,730 7,192 —   8,922 2,667 6,255 —  

East Port Plaza

 3,257 11,611 (1,560) 3,257 10,051 —   13,308 2,416 10,892 —   3,257 10,051 348   3,257 10,399 —   13,656 2,825 10,831 —  

East Towne Center

 2,957 4,881 57  2,957 4,938 —   7,895 1,245 6,650 —   2,957 4,938 (113 2,957 4,825 —   7,782 1,492 6,290 —  

El Camino Shopping Center

 7,600 10,852 686  7,600 11,538 —   19,138 3,173 15,965 —   7,600 11,538 11   7,600 11,549 —   19,149 3,493 15,656 —  

El Cerrito Plaza

 11,025 27,371 —     11,025 27,371 —   38,396 969 37,427 41,619

El Norte Pkwy Plaza

 2,834 6,332 1,038  2,834 7,370 —   10,204 2,071 8,133 —   2,834 7,370 49   2,834 7,419 —   10,253 2,332 7,921 —  

Encina Grande

 5,040 10,379 1,193  5,040 11,572 —   16,612 3,080 13,532 —   5,040 11,572 32   5,040 11,604 —   16,644 3,473 13,171 —  

Fairfax Shopping Center

 15,193 11,260 153  15,239 11,367 —   26,606 1,413 25,193 —   15,239 11,367 (3,873 13,311 9,422 —   22,733 1,757 20,976 —  

Fenton Marketplace

 2,298 8,510 7   2,298 8,517 —   10,815 2,136 8,679 —  

Fleming Island

 3,077 11,587 167   3,077 11,754 —   14,831 3,351 11,480 1,603

Fort Bend Center

 2,594 3,175 (42 2,552 3,175 —   5,727 1,534 4,193 —  

Fortuna

 2,025 —   —     2,025 —   —   2,025 —   2,025 —  

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS L.P.CORPORATION

Combined Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 20082009

(in thousands)

 

 Initial Cost Cost Capitalized
Subsequent to
Acquisition (b)
  Total Cost Accumulated
Depreciation
 Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
 Mortgages Initial Cost Cost
Capitalized

Subsequent to
Acquisition(b)
  Total Cost   Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
 

Shopping Centers (a)

 Land Building &
Improvements
 Land Building &
Improvements
 Properties
held for
Sale
 Total  Land Building &
Improvements
 Land Building &
Improvements
 Properties held
for Sale
 Total Accumulated
Depreciation
   Mortgages

Fenton Marketplace

 3,020 10,153 (2,365) 2,298 8,510 —   10,808 1,918 8,890 —  

Fleming Island

 3,077 6,292 5,295  3,077 11,587 —   14,664 2,964 11,700 1,848

Fort Bend Center

 6,966 4,197 (5,394) 2,594 3,175 —   5,769 1,348 4,421 —  

Fortuna

 8,336 6,898 (13,209) 2,025 —   —   2,025 —   2,025 —  

Frankfort Crossing Shpg Ctr

 8,325 6,067 1,090  7,417 8,065 —   15,482 2,610 12,872 —   7,417 8,065 235   7,418 8,299 —   15,717 3,070  12,647 —  

French Valley Village Center

 11,792 16,919 69  11,924 16,856 —   28,780 2,131 26,649 —   11,924 16,856 (33 11,924 16,823 —   28,747 3,142  25,605 —  

Friars Mission Center

 6,660 27,277 744  6,660 28,021 —   34,681 6,947 27,734 792 6,660 28,021 135   6,660 28,156 —   34,816 7,712  27,104 704

Gardens Square

 2,074 7,615 720  2,136 8,273 —   10,409 2,476 7,933 —   2,136 8,273 180   2,136 8,453 —   10,589 2,715  7,874 —  

Garner Towne Square

 5,591 19,897 1,969  5,591 21,866 —   27,457 5,700 21,757 —   5,591 21,866 75   5,591 21,941 —   27,532 6,284  21,248 —  

Gateway 101

 24,971 9,113 —     24,971 9,113 —   34,084 289  33,795 —  

Gateway Shopping Center

 51,719 4,545 3,535  52,665 7,134 —   59,799 3,349 56,450 20,060 52,665 7,134 29   52,665 7,163 —   59,828 4,301  55,527 19,296

Gelson’S Westlake Market Plaza

 2,332 8,316 3,662  3,157 11,153 —   14,310 2,003 12,307 —  

Gelson'S Westlake Market Plaza

 3,157 11,153 110   3,157 11,263 —   14,420 2,401  12,019 —  

Glenwood Village

 1,194 4,235 1,146  1,194 5,381 —   6,575 2,224 4,351 —   1,194 5,381 38   1,194 5,419 —   6,613 2,476  4,137 —  

Greenwood Springs

 2,720 3,043 16  2,720 3,059 —   5,779 483 5,296 —   2,720 3,059 (17 2,665 3,097 —   5,762 656  5,106 —  

Hancock

 8,232 24,249 4,011  8,232 28,260 —   36,492 7,824 28,668 —   8,232 28,260 207   8,232 28,467 —   36,699 8,705  27,994 —  

Harding Place

 545 567 (464) 26 622 —   648 44 604 —  

Harpeth Village Fieldstone

 2,284 5,559 3,884  2,284 9,443 —   11,727 2,613 9,114 —   2,284 9,443 —     2,284 9,443 —   11,727 2,868  8,859 —  

Hasley Canyon Village

 6,163 6,569 1,094  6,180 7,646 —   13,826 1,424 12,402 —  

Heritage Land

 12,390 —   —    12,390 —   —   12,390 —   12,390 —   12,390 —   —     12,390 —   —   12,390 —    12,390 —  

Heritage Plaza

 —   23,676 2,421  —   26,097 —   26,097 7,264 18,833 —   —   26,097 261   —   26,358 —   26,358 8,140  18,218 —  

Hershey

 7 807 1  7 808 —   815 166 649 —   7 808 —     7 808 —   815 186  629 —  

Highland Crossroads

 2,260 4,924 2,532   —   —   9,716 9,716 —    9,716 —  

Hillcrest Village

 1,600 1,798 111  1,600 1,909 —   3,509 484 3,025 —   1,600 1,909 —     1,600 1,909 —   3,509 537  2,972 —  

Hillsboro Mervyn’S

 12,483 5,957 —    —   —   18,440 18,440 —   18,440 —  

Hinsdale

 4,218 15,040 3,185  5,734 16,709 —   22,443 4,562 17,881 —   5,734 16,709 279   5,734 16,988 —   22,722 5,098  17,624 —  

Horton’S Corner

 3,137 2,779 —    3,137 2,779 —   5,916 25 5,891 —  

Horton'S Corner

 3,137 2,779 60   3,137 2,839 —   5,976 189  5,787 —  

Howell Mill Village

 5,157 14,279 —     5,157 14,279 —   19,436 447  18,989 —  

Hyde Park

 9,240 33,340 7,134  9,809 39,905 —   49,714 12,235 37,479 —   9,809 39,905 349   9,809 40,254 —   50,063 13,545  36,518 —  

Inglewood Plaza

 1,300 1,862 297  1,300 2,159 —   3,459 605 2,854 —   1,300 2,159 28   1,300 2,187 —   3,487 671  2,816 —  

Keller Town Center

 2,294 12,239 602  2,294 12,841 —   15,135 3,258 11,877 —   2,294 12,841 24   2,294 12,865 —   15,159 3,600  11,559 —  

Kingsdale Shopping Center

 3,867 14,020 1,005  —   —   18,892 18,892 —   18,892 —  

Kleinwood Ii

 3,569 5,015 (762) 2,985 4,837 —   7,822 344 7,478 —  

Kings Crossing Sun City

 515 1,246 (1 514 1,246 —   1,760 55  1,705 —  

Kroger New Albany Center

 2,770 6,379 1,294  3,844 6,599 —   10,443 2,622 7,821 5,130 3,844 6,599 151   3,844 6,750 —   10,594 2,919  7,675 4,604

Kulpsville

 5,518 3,756 —     5,518 3,756 —   9,274 39  9,235 —  

Lake Pine Plaza

 2,008 6,909 723  2,008 7,632 —   9,640 2,117 7,523 —   2,008 7,632 27   2,029 7,638 —   9,667 2,325  7,342 —  

Lebanon/Legacy Center

 3,906 7,391 490  3,913 7,874 —   11,787 2,337 9,450 —   3,913 7,874 237   3,913 8,111 —   12,024 2,828  9,196 —  

Legacy West

 1,770 —   —    1,770 —   —   1,770 —   1,770 —   1,770 —   (241 1,529 —   —   1,529 —    1,529 —  

Littleton Square

 2,030 8,255 604  2,030 8,859 —   10,889 2,214 8,675 —   2,030 8,859 60   2,030 8,919 —   10,949 2,488  8,461 —  

Lloyd King Center

 1,779 8,855 1,205  1,779 10,060 —   11,839 2,720 9,119 —   1,779 10,060 56   1,779 10,116 —   11,895 3,015  8,880 —  

Loehmanns Plaza

 3,982 14,118 4,570  3,983 18,687 —   22,670 6,360 16,310 —   3,983 18,687 39   3,983 18,726 —   22,709 7,041  15,668 —  

Loehmanns Plaza California

 5,420 8,679 771  5,420 9,450 —   14,870 2,576 12,294 —   5,420 9,450 140   5,420 9,590 —   15,010 2,869  12,141 —  

Loveland Shopping Center

 157 —   —    157 —   —   157 —   157 —   157 —   —     157 —   —   157 —    157 —  

Lynnwood - H-Mart

 7,644 1,957 31  —   —   9,632 9,632 —   9,632 —  

Macarthur Park Repurchase

 1,930 —   (1,058) 872 —   —   872 —   872 —  

Market At Opitz Crossing

 9,902 8,339 909  9,902 9,248 —   19,150 2,659 16,491 11,710 9,902 9,248 20   9,902 9,268 —   19,170 3,153  16,017 11,517

Market At Preston Forest

 4,400 10,753 692  4,400 11,445 —   15,845 2,742 13,103 —   4,400 11,445 573   4,400 12,018 —   16,418 3,141  13,277 —  

Market At Round Rock

 2,000 9,676 (2,166) —   —   9,510 9,510 —   9,510 —   2,000 9,676 527   2,000 10,203 —   12,203 2,904  9,299 —  

Marketplace At Briargate

 1,625 4,289 677  1,706 4,885 —   6,591 314 6,277 —   1,706 4,885 47   1,727 4,911 —   6,638 602  6,036 —  

Marketplace Shopping Center

 1,287 4,663 846  1,287 5,509 —   6,796 1,933 4,863 —   1,287 5,509 —     1,287 5,509 —   6,796 2,111  4,685 —  

Martin Downs Town Center

 1,364 4,985 202  1,364 5,187 —   6,551 1,609 4,942 —   1,364 5,187 15   1,364 5,202 —   6,566 1,753  4,813 —  

Martin Downs Village Center

 2,000 5,133 4,447  2,438 9,142 —   11,580 4,815 6,765 —   2,438 9,142 223   2,438 9,365 —   11,803 5,104  6,699 —  

Martin Downs Village Shoppes

 700 1,208 3,874  817 4,965 —   5,782 2,076 3,706 —   817 4,965 29   817 4,994 —   5,811 2,253  3,558 —  

Maxtown Road (Northgate)

 1,753 6,244 424  1,769 6,652 —   8,421 1,922 6,499 —   1,769 6,652 6   1,769 6,658 —   8,427 2,135  6,292 —  

Merrimack Shopping Center

 285 —   —     285 —   —   285 —    285 —  

Millhopper Shopping Center

 1,073 5,358 —     1,073 5,358 —   6,431 3,818  2,613 —  

Mockingbird Common

 3,000 10,728 53   3,000 10,781 —   13,781 3,383  10,398 10,300

Monument Jackson Creek

 2,999 6,765 12   2,999 6,777 —   9,776 2,790  6,986 —  

Morningside Plaza

 4,300 13,951 121   4,300 14,072 —   18,372 4,043  14,329 —  

Murrayhill Marketplace

 2,670 18,401 105   2,670 18,506 —   21,176 5,817  15,359 8,019

Naples Walk

 18,173 13,554 (12 18,173 13,542 —   31,715 1,304  30,411 17,251

Nashboro Village

 1,824 7,678 —     1,824 7,678 —   9,502 2,094  7,408 —  

Newberry Square

 2,412 10,150 205   2,412 10,355 —   12,767 5,149  7,618 —  

Newland Center

 12,500 10,697 29   12,500 10,726 —   23,226 3,665  19,561 —  

North Hills

 4,900 19,774 196   4,900 19,970 —   24,870 5,479  19,391 —  

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS L.P.CORPORATION

Combined Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 20082009

(in thousands)

 

 Initial Cost Cost Capitalized
Subsequent to
Acquisition (b)
  Total Cost Accumulated
Depreciation
 Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
 Mortgages Initial Cost Cost
Capitalized

Subsequent to
Acquisition(b)
  Total Cost Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
 

Shopping Centers (a)

 Land Building &
Improvements
 Land Building &
Improvements
 Properties
held for
Sale
 Total  Land Building &
Improvements
 Land Building &
Improvements
 Properties held
for Sale
 Total Accumulated
Depreciation
 Mortgages

Maynard Crossing

 4,066 14,084 1,507  4,066 15,591 —   19,657 4,318 15,339 —  

Merrimack Shopping Center

 7,819 2,499 —    7,819 2,499 —   10,318 844 9,474 —  

Millhopper Shopping Center

 1,073 3,594 1,764  1,073 5,358 —   6,431 3,569 2,862 —  

Mockingbird Common

 3,000 9,676 1,052  3,000 10,728 —   13,728 3,023 10,705 —  

Monument Jackson Creek

 2,999 6,476 289  2,999 6,765 —   9,764 2,486 7,278 —  

Morningside Plaza

 4,300 13,120 831  4,300 13,951 —   18,251 3,600 14,651 —  

Murrayhill Marketplace

 2,600 15,753 2,718  2,670 18,401 —   21,071 5,239 15,832 8,239

Naples Walk

 16,377 15,000 350  18,173 13,554 —   31,727 779 30,948 17,621

Nashboro Village

 1,824 7,168 510  1,824 7,678 —   9,502 1,892 7,610 —  

Newberry Square

 2,341 8,467 1,754  2,412 10,150 —   12,562 4,786 7,776 —  

Newland Center

 12,500 12,221 (1,524) 12,500 10,697 —   23,197 3,346 19,851 —  

North Hills

 4,900 18,972 802  4,900 19,774 —   24,674 4,894 19,780 5,085

Northgate Square

 3,688 9,951 64  5,011 8,692 —   13,703 491 13,212 6,545 5,011 8,692 18   5,011 8,710 —   13,721 820 12,901 6,364

Northlake Village

 2,662 9,685 1,599  2,662 11,284 —   13,946 2,620 11,326 —   2,662 11,284 67   2,662 11,351 —   14,013 2,989 11,024 —  

Oakbrook Plaza

 4,000 6,366 302  4,000 6,668 —   10,668 1,931 8,737 —   4,000 6,668 20   4,000 6,688 —   10,688 2,113 8,575 —  

Old St Augustine Plaza

 2,047 7,355 4,371  2,368 11,405 —   13,773 3,662 10,111 —   2,368 11,405 174   2,368 11,579 —   13,947 4,080 9,867 —  

Orangeburg & Central

 2,067 2,355 33  2,071 2,384 —   4,455 110 4,345 —   2,071 2,384 —     2,071 2,384 —   4,455 212 4,243 —  

Orchards Market Center II

 6,602 9,690 —     6,602 9,690 —   16,292 1,118 15,174 —  

Paces Ferry Plaza

 2,812 9,968 2,671  2,812 12,639 —   15,451 4,718 10,733 —   2,812 12,639 31   2,812 12,670 —   15,482 5,153 10,329 —  

Panther Creek

 14,414 12,079 2,669  14,414 14,748 —   29,162 4,475 24,687 9,842 14,414 14,748 84   14,414 14,832 —   29,246 5,222 24,024 9,698

Park Place Shopping Center

 2,232 7,974 (2,947) 2,232 5,027 ���   7,259 2,819 4,440 —   2,232 5,027 61   2,232 5,088 —   7,320 3,116 4,204 —  

Pasel Del Sol

 9,477 1,331 18,267   17,246 11,829 —   29,075 1,790 27,285 —  

Peartree Village

 5,197 8,733 11,013  5,197 19,746 —   24,943 6,120 18,823 10,307 5,197 19,746 1   5,197 19,747 —   24,944 6,690 18,254 9,927

Phenix Crossing

 1,544 —   —    1,544 —   —   1,544 —   1,544 —   1,544 —   (26 1,518 —   —   1,518 —   1,518 —  

Pike Creek

 5,077 18,860 1,868  5,153 20,652 —   25,805 6,052 19,753 —   5,153 20,652 161   5,153 20,813 —   25,966 6,647 19,319 —  

Pima Crossing

 5,800 24,892 3,251  5,800 28,143 —   33,943 7,190 26,753 —   5,800 28,143 90   5,800 28,233 —   34,033 8,191 25,842 —  

Pine Lake Village

 6,300 10,522 469  6,300 10,991 —   17,291 2,711 14,580 —   6,300 10,991 461   6,300 11,452 —   17,752 3,108 14,644 —  

Pine Tree Plaza

 539 1,996 4,353  668 6,220 —   6,888 1,725 5,163 —   668 6,220 1   668 6,221 —   6,889 1,929 4,960 —  

Plaza Hermosa

 4,200 9,370 739  4,200 10,109 —   14,309 2,564 11,745 —   4,200 10,109 68   4,200 10,177 —   14,377 2,840 11,537 13,800

Powell Street Plaza

 8,248 29,279 1,437  8,248 30,716 —   38,964 5,466 33,498 —   8,248 30,716 319   8,248 31,035 —   39,283 6,389 32,894 —  

Powers Ferry Square

 3,608 12,791 5,253  3,687 17,965 —   21,652 6,833 14,819 —   3,687 17,965 57   3,687 18,022 —   21,709 7,511 14,198 —  

Powers Ferry Village

 1,191 4,224 448  1,191 4,672 —   5,863 1,790 4,073 2,449 1,191 4,672 46   1,191 4,718 —   5,909 1,960 3,949 2,378

Prairie City Crossing

 3,944 11,258 1,994  4,164 13,032 —   17,196 2,554 14,642 —   4,164 13,032 344   4,164 13,376 —   17,540 2,939 14,601 —  

Preston Park

 6,400 46,896 7,921  6,400 54,817 —   61,217 14,366 46,851 —   6,400 54,817 (611 5,733 54,873 —   60,606 16,205 44,401 —  

Prestonbrook

 4,704 10,762 225  7,069 8,622 —   15,691 3,405 12,286 —   7,069 8,622 4   7,069 8,626 —   15,695 3,786 11,909 6,800

Prestonwood Park

 8,077 14,938 (6,604) 7,399 9,012 —   16,411 4,204 12,207 —   7,399 9,012 13   7,399 9,025 —   16,424 4,483 11,941 —  

Regency Commons

 3,917 3,584 32  3,917 3,616 —   7,533 628 6,905 —   3,917 3,616 37   3,917 3,653 —   7,570 844 6,726 —  

Regency Square

 578 18,157 11,226  4,770 25,191 —   29,961 14,117 15,844 —   4,770 25,191 112   4,770 25,303 —   30,073 14,977 15,096 —  

Rivermont Station

 2,887 10,445 203  2,887 10,648 —   13,535 3,127 10,408 —   2,887 10,648 20   2,887 10,668 —   13,555 3,396 10,159 —  

Rockwall Town Center

 4,438 5,140 —    4,438 5,140 —   9,578 679 8,899 —   4,438 5,140 (68 4,438 5,072 —   9,510 992 8,518 —  

Rona Plaza

 1,500 4,356 561  1,500 4,917 —   6,417 1,271 5,146 —   1,500 4,917 11   1,500 4,928 —   6,428 1,470 4,958 —  

Russell Ridge

 2,153 —   6,984  2,234 6,903 —   9,137 2,548 6,589 5,387 2,234 6,903 141   2,233 7,045 —   9,278 2,755 6,523 5,231

Sammamish-Highlands

 9,300 7,553 522  9,300 8,075 —   17,375 2,055 15,320 —   9,300 8,075 195   9,300 8,270 —   17,570 2,320 15,250 —  

San Leandro Plaza

 1,300 7,891 335  1,300 8,226 —   9,526 2,187 7,339 —   1,300 8,226 7   1,300 8,233 —   9,533 2,409 7,124 —  

Santa Ana Downtown Plaza

 4,240 7,319 1,195  4,240 8,514 —   12,754 2,556 10,198 —   4,240 8,514 (2,823 —   —   9,931 9,931 —   9,931 —  

Sequoia Station

 9,100 17,900 456  9,100 18,356 —   27,456 4,608 22,848 —   9,100 18,356 28   9,100 18,384 —   27,484 5,113 22,371 21,100

Sherwood Crossroads

 2,731 3,612 2,748  2,731 6,360 —   9,091 1,062 8,029 —   2,731 6,360 32   2,731 6,392 —   9,123 1,255 7,868 —  

Sherwood Market Center

 3,475 15,898 464  3,475 16,362 —   19,837 4,310 15,527 —   3,475 16,362 9   3,475 16,371 —   19,846 4,801 15,045 —  

Shiloh Springs

 4,968 7,859 4,608  5,739 11,696 —   17,435 5,565 11,870 —  

Shoppes @ 104

 11,193 —   —     11,193 —   —   11,193 —   11,193 7,000

Shoppes At Mason

 1,577 5,358 327  1,577 5,685 —   7,262 1,576 5,686 —   1,577 5,685 111   1,577 5,796 —   7,373 1,760 5,613 —  

Shoppes Of Grande Oak

 5,569 5,900 (393) 5,091 5,985 —   11,076 1,946 9,130 —   5,091 5,985 43   5,091 6,028 —   11,119 2,267 8,852 —  

Shops At Arizona

 3,063 3,243 28   3,063 3,271 —   6,334 992 5,342 —  

Shops At County Center

 9,957 11,269 48   9,988 11,286 —   21,274 1,700 19,574 —  

Shops At John'S Creek

 1,863 2,014 21   1,870 2,028 —   3,898 433 3,465 —  

Signature Plaza

 2,396 3,898 82   2,396 3,980 —   6,376 1,109 5,267 —  

South Lowry Square

 3,434 10,445 31   3,434 10,476 —   13,910 2,999 10,911 —  

South Mountain

 146 —   —     146 —   —   146 —   146 —  

Southcenter

 1,300 12,750 273   1,300 13,023 —   14,323 3,613 10,710 —  

Southpoint Crossing

 4,412 12,235 45   4,412 12,280 —   16,692 3,517 13,175 —  

Starke

 71 1,683 —     71 1,683 —   1,754 384 1,370 —  

Sterling Ridge

 12,846 12,162 53   12,846 12,215 —   25,061 4,257 20,804 13,900

Strawflower Village

 4,060 8,084 14   4,060 8,098 —   12,158 2,470 9,688 —  

Stroh Ranch

 4,280 8,189 49   4,280 8,238 —   12,518 3,319 9,199 —  

Sunnyside 205

 1,200 9,459 24   1,200 9,483 —   10,683 2,785 7,898 —  

Tanasbourne Market

 3,269 10,861 8   3,269 10,869 —   14,138 843 13,295 —  

Tassajara Crossing

 8,560 15,464 89   8,560 15,553 —   24,113 4,321 19,792 19,800

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS L.P.CORPORATION

Combined Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 20082009

(in thousands)

 

 Initial Cost Cost Capitalized
Subsequent to
Acquisition (b)
  Total Cost Accumulated
Depreciation
 Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
 Mortgages  Initial Cost  Cost
Capitalized

Subsequent to
Acquisition(b)
  Total Cost     Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
   

Shopping Centers (a)

 Land Building &
Improvements
 Land Building &
Improvements
 Properties
held for
Sale
 Total   Land Building &
Improvements
   Land  Building &
Improvements
  Properties held
for Sale
  Total  Accumulated
Depreciation
  Mortgages

Shops At Arizona

 3,293 2,320 693  3,063  3,243 —   6,306 827 5,479 —  

Shops At County Center

 9,766 10,863 597  9,957  11,269 —   21,226 975 20,251 —  

Shops At John’S Creek

 1,863 2,015 (1) 1,863  2,014 —   3,877 316 3,561 —  

Shops Of Santa Barbara

 9,477 1,331 —    9,477  1,331 —   10,808 1,497 9,311 —  

Signature Plaza

 2,055 4,159 80  2,396  3,898 —   6,294 855 5,439 —  

South Lowry Square

 3,420 9,934 525  3,434  10,445 —   13,879 2,685 11,194 —  

South Mountain

 934 —   (788) 146  —   —   146 —   146 —  

Southcenter

 1,300 12,251 499  1,300  12,750 —   14,050 3,226 10,824 —  

Southpoint Crossing

 4,399 11,116 1,132  4,412  12,235 —   16,647 3,182 13,465 —  

Starke

 71 1,674 9  71  1,683 —   1,754 342 1,412 —  

Sterling Ridge

 12,846 10,085 2,077  12,846  12,162 —   25,008 3,659 21,349 —  

Strawflower Village

 4,060 7,233 851  4,060  8,084 —   12,144 2,185 9,959 —  

Stroh Ranch

 4,138 7,111 1,220  4,280  8,189 —   12,469 2,955 9,514 —  

Sunnyside 205

 1,200 8,703 756  1,200  9,459 —   10,659 2,484 8,175 —  

Tanasbourne Market

 3,269 10,861 —    3,269  10,861 —   14,130 377 13,753 —  

Tassajara Crossing

 8,560 14,900 564  8,560  15,464 —   24,024 3,856 20,168 —  

Thomas Lake

 6,000 10,302 326  6,000  10,628 —   16,628 2,773 13,855 —    6,000   10,628  —     6,000  10,628  —    16,628  3,054  13,574  —  

Town Square

 438 1,555 7,022  883  8,132 —   9,015 2,506 6,509 —    883   8,132  —     883  8,132  —    9,015  2,798  6,217  —  

Trace Crossing

 4,356 4,896 (8,973) 279  —   —   279 —   279 —    279   —    —     279  —    —    279  —    279  —  

Trophy Club

 2,595 10,467 556  2,595  11,023 —   13,618 2,671 10,947 —    2,595   11,023  7   2,595  11,030  —    13,625  2,998  10,627  —  

Twin City Plaza

 17,174 44,849 (553) 17,245  44,225 —   61,470 3,669 57,801 43,647  17,245   44,225  554   17,263  44,761  —    62,024  4,975  57,049  43,085

Twin Peaks

 5,200 25,120 707  5,200  25,827 —   31,027 6,476 24,551 —    5,200   25,827  47   5,200  25,874  —    31,074  7,188  23,886  —  

Valencia Crossroads

 17,913 17,357 310  17,921  17,659 —   35,580 6,218 29,362 —    17,921   17,659  40   17,921  17,699  —    35,620  7,424  28,196  —  

Ventura Village

 4,300 6,351 297  4,300  6,648 —   10,948 1,728 9,220 —    4,300   6,648  42   4,300  6,690  —    10,990  1,917  9,073  —  

Village Center

 3,885 10,799 3,332  3,885  14,131 —   18,016 4,595 13,421 —    3,885   14,131  119   3,885  14,250  —    18,135  5,037  13,098  —  

Vista Village Iv

 2,281 2,712 59  2,287  2,765 —   5,052 420 4,632 —  

Vista Village IV

  2,287   2,765  15   2,287  2,780  —    5,067  651  4,416  —  

Walker Center

 3,840 6,418 814  3,840  7,232 —   11,072 1,924 9,148 —    3,840   7,232  30   3,840  7,262  —    11,102  2,178  8,924  —  

Welleby Plaza

 1,496 5,372 2,415  1,496  7,787 —   9,283 3,592 5,691 —    1,496   7,787  69   1,496  7,856  —    9,352  3,946  5,406  —  

Wellington Town Square

 1,914 7,198 5,060  2,041  12,131 —   14,172 3,365 10,807 —    2,041   12,131  50   2,041  12,181  —    14,222  3,771  10,451  12,800

West Park Plaza

 5,840 4,992 767  5,840  5,759 —   11,599 1,435 10,164 —    5,840   5,759  90   5,840  5,849  —    11,689  1,638  10,051  —  

Westbrook Commons

 3,366 11,928 (177) 3,366  11,751 —   15,117 2,809 12,308 —    3,366   11,751  361   3,366  12,112  —    15,478  3,197  12,281  —  

Westchase

 4,390 9,119 66  5,302  8,273 —   13,575 444 13,131 8,743  5,302   8,273  31   5,302  8,304  —    13,606  741  12,865  8,526

Westchester Plaza

 1,857 6,456 1,116  1,857  7,572 —   9,429 2,753 6,676 —    1,857   7,572  32   1,857  7,604  —    9,461  3,034  6,427  —  

Westlake Plaza And Center

 7,043 25,744 1,451  7,043  27,195 —   34,238 7,586 26,652 —    7,043   27,195  130   7,043  27,325  —    34,368  8,365  26,003  —  

Westridge Village

 9,516 10,789 621  9,529  11,397 —   20,926 2,495 18,431 —    9,529   11,397  70   9,529  11,467  —    20,996  3,019  17,977  —  

White Oak - Dover, De

 2,147 2,927 139  2,144  3,069 —   5,213 1,901 3,312 —  

Willa Springs

 2,004 9,267 212  2,144  9,339 —   11,483 2,351 9,132 —  

White Oak—Dover, De

  2,144   3,069  —     2,144  3,069  —    5,213  2,372  2,841  —  

Windmiller Plaza Phase I

 2,620 11,191 2,068  2,638  13,241 —   15,879 3,746 12,133 —    2,638   13,241  7   2,638  13,248  —    15,886  4,191  11,695  —  

Woodcroft Shopping Center

 1,419 5,212 1,072  1,419  6,284 —   7,703 2,145 5,558 —    1,419   6,284  68   1,421  6,350  —    7,771  2,339  5,432  —  

Woodman Van Nuys

 5,500 6,835 360  5,500  7,195 —   12,695 1,968 10,727 —    5,500   7,195  17   5,500  7,212  —    12,712  2,166  10,546  —  

Woodmen Plaza

 6,014 10,078 2,547  7,621  11,018 —   18,639 5,123 13,516 —    7,621   11,018  90   7,621  11,108  —    18,729  5,779  12,950  —  

Woodside Central

 3,500 8,846 439  3,499  9,286 —   12,785 2,336 10,449 —    3,500   9,288  44   3,500  9,332  —    12,832  2,621  10,211  —  

Properties In Development

 —   —   1,078,685  (200) 1,078,885 —   1,078,685 11,561 1,067,124 —    (200 1,078,886  (158,260 —    920,426  —    920,426  28,170  892,256  992
                                                    
 934,401 1,780,990 1,327,096  923,062  3,052,978 66,447 4,042,487 554,595 3,487,892 241,001  978,196   3,085,138  (129,556 975,861  2,938,270  19,647  3,933,778  622,163  3,311,615  405,263
                                                    

 

(a)

See Item 2. Properties for geographic location and year acquired.

(b)

The negative balance for costs capitalized subsequent to acquisitonacquisition could include out-parcels sold, provision for impairmentloss recorded and development transfers subsequent to the initial costs.

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS L.P.CORPORATION

Combined Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 20082009

(in thousands)

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

Buildings and improvements up to 40 years

The aggregate cost for Federal income tax purposes was approximately $3.4$3.2 billion at December 31, 2008.2009.

The changes in total real estate assets for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006:2007:

 

   2008  2007  2006 

Balance, beginning of year

  $3,965,285  3,467,543  3,229,816 

Developed or acquired properties

   365,267  545,814  426,583 

Improvements

   15,995  18,022  16,876 

Sale of properties

   (202,758) (66,094) (179,624)

Properties held for sale

   (66,447) —    (25,608)

Provision for impairment

   (34,855) —    (500)
           

Balance, end of year

  $4,042,487  3,965,285  3,467,543 
           

The changes in accumulated depreciation for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006:
   2009  2008  2007 

Balance, beginning of year

  $4,042,487   3,965,285   3,467,543  

Developed or acquired properties

   180,346   358,155   545,814  

Improvements

   15,617   15,995   18,022  

Sale of properties

   (150,792 (202,758 (66,094

Properties held for sale

   (19,647 (66,447 —    

Properties reclassed to held for use

   (30,296 —     —    

Provision for loss

   (103,937 (27,743 —    
           

Balance, end of year

  $3,933,778   4,042,487   3,965,285  
           
The changes in accumulated depreciation for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007:  
   2,009  2,008  2,007 

Balance, beginning of year

  $554,595   497,498   427,389  

Depreciation for year

   97,020   88,509   76,069  

Sale of properties

   (31,792 (19,771 (5,960

Accumulated depreciation related

    

to properties held for sale

   (3,066 (11,641 —    

Accumulated depreciation related

    

to properties reclassed to held for use

   5,406   —     —    
           

Balance, end of year

  $622,163   554,595   497,498  
           

   2008  2007  2006 

Balance, beginning of year

  $497,498  427,389  380,613 

Depreciation for year

   88,509  76,069  71,847 

Sale of properties

   (19,771) (5,960) (20,907)

Accumulated depreciation related to properties held for sale

   (11,641) —    (4,164)
           

Balance, end of year

  $554,595  497,498  427,389 
           

Index to Financial Statements
Item 9.Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None.

 

Item 9A.Controls and Procedures (Regency Centers Corporation)

Management’s Consideration of Controls over Property Sales to Co-Investment Partnerships

As a result of the error correction and restatement described in Note 2 to the accompanying Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements, the Partnership re-evaluated the effectiveness of internal controls related to accounting for gains on property sales to co-investment partnerships prior to the filing of this Form 10-K. As part of the re-evaluation, we considered the internal controls necessary to effectively ensure that complex business transactions are properly accounted for under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Relevant internal controls should ensure that:

Complex business transactions and provisions are identified.

Appropriate personnel discuss important accounting matters.

Relevant GAAP is identified, including any significant guidance changes.

Professional judgment is exercised in applying GAAP to complex business transactions.

Professional judgment is evaluated objectively by the Audit Committee.

The Partnership identified internal controls related to gains on sales to co-investment partnerships and re-evaluated the effectiveness of those controls in achieving the objectives noted above. The controls identified include:

Appropriate accounting personnel review co-investment partnership agreements prior to execution and amendments thereafter and property sales and distributions from co-investment partnerships to identify accounting implications.

Accounting personnel communicate with senior management to identify all relevant matters.

Experienced accounting personnel review GAAP to identify relevant guidance.

Management reviews GAAP guidance internally to determine how to appropriately account for complex transactions.

After internal discussions, management consults with appropriate accounting and legal experts, determines the appropriate application of GAAP and prepares financial statements.

Senior management communicates to the Audit Committee any significant changes in accounting policies as a result of new transactions or changes in GAAP. The Committee reviews management’s assessment and concurs, if in agreement. Any differences in assessment would be re-evaluated by management and resubmitted to the Committee.

After re-evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of the controls noted above, management has determined that we have effective internal controls to ensure that complex business transactions are properly accounted for under GAAP. Management has determined that the restatement of quarterly financial information and cumulative balance sheet information as described in Note 18 does not indicate a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. Management has determined the restatement was the result of a misinterpretation of relevant guidance in an area where clear guidance is not available and no consensus on accounting treatment has been established among accounting or industry experts. Therefore, the Partnership applied its judgment based on the best information available.

In evaluating the gain treatment, the Partnership properly identified provisions with significant accounting implications; identified relevant GAAP, including SFAS No. 66; discussed important accounting matters with internal personnel, and accounting and legal experts; and exercised professional judgment in applying GAAP to the partial gains on property sales to co-investment partnerships.

Index to Financial Statements

The Partnership has concluded that the controls noted above provide reasonable assurance that GAAP will be applied appropriately to future complex business transactions.

Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

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

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

OurThe Parent Company’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of ourits management, including ourits chief executive officer and chief financial officer, wethe Parent Company conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of ourits internal control over financial reporting based on the framework inInternal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on ourits evaluation under the framework inInternal Control - Integrated Framework our, the Parent Company’s management concluded that ourits internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2008.2009.

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

OurThe Parent Company’s system of internal control over financial reporting was designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance and may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Changes in Internal Controls

In connection with the preparation of the year-end financial statements, management updated its policies and procedures to implement the Restricted Gain Method as described in Note 1(b) to the accompanying Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. The Restricted Gain Method ensures maximum gain deferral on property sales to certain co-investment partnership with distribution-in-kind provisions upon liquidation. The policy and procedure updates consist of new procedures and end user computing applications for the calculation of gain, and monitoring for distributions-in-kind and compliance with the new policies.

Other than described above, thereThere have been no changes in the Parent Company’s internal controls over financial reporting identified in connection with this evaluation that occurred during the fourth quarter of 2009 and that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, its internal controls over financial reporting.

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

Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

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

be disclosed by the Operating Partnership in the reports it files or submits is accumulated and communicated to management, including the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of its general partner, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

The Operating Partnership’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of its general partner, the Operating Partnership conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting based on the framework inInternal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on its evaluation under the framework inInternal Control - Integrated Framework, the Operating Partnership’s management concluded that its internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2009.

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

The Operating Partnership’s system of internal control over financial reporting was designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance and may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Changes in Internal Controls

There have been no changes in the Operating Partnership’s internal controls over financial reporting identified in connection with this evaluation that occurred during the fourth quarter of 20082009 and that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’sits internal controls over financial reporting.

 

Item 9B.Other Information

Not applicable

Index to Financial Statements

PART III

 

Item 10.Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

Information concerning the directors of Regency is incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 20092010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

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

Audit Committee, Independence, Financial Experts.Experts. Incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 20092010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act. Information concerning filings under Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act by the directors or executive officers of Regency is incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 20092010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

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

 

Item 11.Executive Compensation

Incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 20092010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Index to Financial Statements
Item 12.Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

Equity Compensation Plan Information

 

  (a)  (b)  (c)  (a)  (b)  (c)

Plan Category

  Number of
securities to be
issued upon
exercise of
outstanding
options, warrants
and rights
  Weighted-average
exercise price of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights(1)
  Number of securities
remaining available for
future issuance under
equity compensation
plans (excluding
securities reflected in
column(2)
  Number of
securities to be
issued upon
exercise of
outstanding
options, warrants
and rights
  Weighted-average
exercise price of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights(1)
  Number of securities
remaining available for
future issuance under
equity compensation
plans (excluding
securities reflected in
column(2)

Equity compensation plans approved by security holders

  574,027  $51.24    453,463  $51.90  

Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders

  N/A   N/A  N/A  N/A   N/A  N/A
         
         

Total

  574,027  $51.24    453,463  $51.90  
                  

 

(1)

The weighted average exercise price excludes stock rights awards, which we sometimes refer to as unvested restricted stock.

(2)

Regency’sOur Long Term Omnibus Plan, as amended and approved by stockholders at Regency’sour 2003 annual meeting, provides for the issuance of up to 5.0 million shares of common stock or stock options for stock compensation; however, outstanding unvested grants plus vested but unexercised options cannot exceed 12% of Regency’sour outstanding common stock and common stock equivalents (excluding options and other stock equivalents outstanding under the plan). The plan permits the grant of any type of share-based award but limits restricted stock awards, stock rights awards, performance shares, dividend equivalents settled in stock and other forms of stock grants to 2.75 million shares, of which 779,715924,402 shares were available at December 31, 20082009 for future issuance.

Information about security ownership is incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 20092010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

 

Item 13.Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

Incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 20092010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

 

Item 14.Principal Accountant Fees and Services

Incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 20092010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Index to Financial Statements

PART IV

 

Item 15.Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

 

 (a)Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedules:

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. 20072009 financial statements and financial statement schedule, together with the reportreports of KPMG LLP are listed on the index immediately preceding the financial statements in Item 8, Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplemental Data.

 

 (b)Exhibits:

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

3.

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, these representations and warranties may not describe the actual state of affairs as of the date they were made or at any other time. Additional information about the Company may be found elsewhere in this report and the Company’s other public files, which are available without charge through the SEC’s website athttp://www.sec.gov.

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

3. Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws

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

 

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

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

 (b)(d)Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Regency Centers, L.P., as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(l) of Regency Centers Corporation’s10(m) to the Company’s Form 10-K filed March 12, 2004).

 

 (i)Amendment to Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Regency Centers, L.P. relating to 6.70% Series 5 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units effective as of July 28, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.3 to Regency Centers Corporationthe Company’s Form 8-K filed August 1, 2005).

 

 (ii)Amended and Restated Amendment dated January 1, 2008 to Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership Relatingof Regency Centers, L.P. relating to 7.45% Series 3 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of3.1 to Regency Centers, L.P.’s Form 8-K filed January 7, 2008).

 

 (iii)Amended and Restated Amendment dated January 1, 2008 to Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership Relatingof Regency Centers, L.P. relating to 7.25% Series 4 Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of3.2 to Regency Centers, L.P.’s Form 8-K filed January 7, 2008).

4. Instruments Defining Rights of Security Holders

 

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

 

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

 

 (c)Indenture dated December 5, 2001 between Regency Centers, L.P., the guarantors named therein and First Union National Bank, as trustee (incorporated by referencedreference to Exhibit 4.4 of Form 8-K of Regency Centers, L.P. filed December 10, 2001, File No. 0-24763)2001).

 

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

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

 

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

 

 (f)

Confirmation of Forward Sale Transaction dated as of December 4, 2009 among Regency Centers Corporation and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National

Association (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed December 7, 2009) .

10. Material Contracts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~(c)2008 Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement dated as of January 1, 2008 by and between the Company and Martin E. Stein, Jr. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Company’s Form 8-K filed January 7, 2008).

~(d)2008 Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement dated as of January 1, 2008 by and between the Company and Bruce M. Johnson (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Company’s Form 8-K filed January 7, 2008).

~(e)2008 Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement dated as of January 1, 2008 by and between the Company and Brian M. Smith (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of the Company’s Form 8-K filed January 7, 2008).

~(i)Addendum No. 1 dated March 17, 2008 to 2008 Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement dated as of January 1, 2008 by and between the Company and Brian M. Smith (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Company’s Form 8-K filed March 21, 2008).

(f)Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of February 9, 2007 by and among Regency Centers, L.P., Regency,the Company, each of the financial institutions initially a signatory thereto, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Regency Centers Corporationthe Company’s Form 10-Q filed May 9, 2007).

 

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

 

 (b)(g)Credit Agreement dated as of March 5, 2008 by and among Regency Centers, L.P., Regency,the Company, each of the financial institutions party thereto and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 10-Q filed May 8, 2008).

 

 (c)(h)Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II, LLC dated as of June 1, 2005July 31, 2009 by and among Global Retail Investors, LLC, Regency Centers, L.P., and Macquarie CountryWide (US) No. 2 LLC, Macquarie-Regency Management, LLC, Macquarie CountryWide (US) No. 2 Corporation and Macquarie CountryWide Management Limited (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Form 10-Q of Regency Centers Corporation filed August 8, 2005).

(d)Purchase Agreement and Amendment to Amended and Restated Limited Liability Agreement relating to Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II, L.L.C. dated as of January 13, 2006 among Macquarie CountryWide (U.S.) No. 2 LLC, Regency Centers, L.P., and Macquarie-Regency Management, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 10-Q of Regency Centers Corporation filed May 8, 2006)November 6, 2009).

 

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

21. Subsidiaries of Regency Centers Corporation.

23. Consents of KPMG LLP.

23.1Consent of KPMG LLP for Regency Centers Corporation.

 

21.Subsidiaries of the Registrant.
23.23.2Consent of KPMG LLP.LLP for Regency Centers, L.P.

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

31.1Rule 15d-1413a-14 Certification of Chief Executive Officer.Officer for Regency Centers Corporation.

31.2Rule 15d-1413a-14 Certification of Chief Financial Officer.Officer for Regency Centers Corporation.

31.3Rule 13a-14 Certification of Chief Executive Officer for Regency Centers, L.P.

~Management contract or compensatory plan

31.4Rule 13a-14 Certification of Chief Financial Officer for Regency Centers, L.P.

32. Section 1350 Certifications.

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

32.1Section18 U.S.C. § 1350 Certification of Chief Executive Officer.Officer for Regency Centers Corporation.

32.2Section18 U.S.C. § 1350 Certification of Chief Financial Officer.Officer for Regency Centers Corporation.

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

 

 REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION and REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.
March 17, 2009February 26, 2010 

/s/ MartinS/    MARTIN E. Stein, Jr.STEIN, JR.        

 

Martin E. Stein, Jr.,

Chairman of the Board and

Chief Executive Officer

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

 

March 17, 2009February 26, 2010 

/s/ MartinS/    MARTIN E. Stein, Jr.STEIN, JR.        

 

Martin E. Stein, Jr.,

Chairman of the Board and

Chief Executive Officer

March 17, 2009February 26, 2010 

/s/ Mary Lou FialaS/    MARY LOU FIALA        

 

Mary Lou Fiala,

Vice Chairman and Chief

Operating Officerof the Board

March 17, 2009February 26, 2010 

/s/ BrianS/    BRIAN M. SmithSMITH        

 

Brian M. Smith,

President, ManagingChief Operating Officer and Director and

Chief Investment Officer

March 17, 2009February 26, 2010 

/s/ BruceS/    BRUCE M. JohnsonJOHNSON        

 

Bruce M. Johnson,

Executive Vice President,

Managing Director, Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer), and Director

February 26, 2010

/S/    J. CHRISTIAN LEAVITT        

J. Christian Leavitt,

Senior Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer

(Principal Accounting Officer)

February 26, 2010

/S/    RAYMOND L. BANK        

Raymond L. Bank,

Director

February 26, 2010

/S/    C. RONALD BLANKENSHIP        

C. Ronald Blankenship,

Director

February 26, 2010

/S/    A. R. CARPENTER        

A. R. Carpenter,

Director

March 17, 2009February 26, 2010 

/s/S/    J. Christian LeavittDIX DRUCE        

 

J. Christian Leavitt, Senior Vice President,Dix Druce,

Secretary, and Treasurer (Principal Accounting Officer)Director

March 17, 2009February 26, 2010 

/s/ Raymond L. BankS/    DOUGLAS S. LUKE        

 Raymond L. Bank,

Douglas S. Luke,

Director

March 17, 2009February 26, 2010 

/s/S/    JOHN C. Ronald BlankenshipSCHWEITZER        

 

John C. Ronald Blankenship, Schweitzer,

Director

March 17, 2009February 26, 2010 

/s/ A. R. CarpenterS/    THOMAS G. WATTLES        

 A. R. Carpenter, Director

Index to Financial Statements
March 17, 2009/s/ J. Dix Druce

J. Dix Druce, Director

March 17, 2009/s/ Douglas S. Luke
Douglas S. Luke, Director
March 17, 2009/s/ John C. Schweitzer

John C. Schweitzer, Director

March 17, 2009/s/ Thomas G. Wattles,

Thomas G. Wattles, Director

March 17, 2009/s/ Terry N. Worrell

Terry N. Worrell, Director

 

117138