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, 20092010

or

 

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

For the transition period fromto

Commission File Number 1-12298 (Regency Centers Corporation)

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

 

 

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

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

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

 

(I.R.S. Employer

identification No.)

One Independent Drive, Suite 114

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

 

(904) 598-7000

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

 

 

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

Regency Centers Corporation

 

Title of each class

 

Name of each exchange on which registered

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

Regency Centers, L.P.

Title of each class

 

Name of each exchange on which registered

None N/A

 

 

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

Regency Centers Corporation: None

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

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


Index to Financial Statements

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

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

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

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’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.

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

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

Regency Centers, L.P.:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The number of shares outstanding of the Regency Centers Corporation’s voting common stock was 81,561,95281,888,361 as of February 26, 2010.23, 2011.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of Regency Centers Corporation’s proxy statement in connection with its 20102011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference in Part III.

 

 

 


Index to Financial Statements

EXPLANATORY NOTE

This report combines the annual reports on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20092010 of Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, references to “Regency Centers Corporation” or the “Parent Company” mean Regency Centers Corporation and its controlled subsidiaries; and references to “Regency Centers, L.P.” or the “Operating Partnership” mean Regency Centers, L.P. and its controlled subsidiaries. The term “the Company” or “Regency” means the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, collectively.

The Parent Company is a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) and the general partner of the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership’s capital includes general and limited common Partnership Units (“Units”). As of December 31, 2009,2010, the Parent Company owned approximately 99%99.8% of the Units in the Operating Partnership and the remaining limited Units are owned by investors. The Parent Company owns all of the Series 3, 4 and 5 Preferred Units of the Operating Partnership. As the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, the Parent Company has exclusive control of the Operating Partnership’s day-to-day management.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

The Company believes it is important to understand the few differences between the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership in the context of how the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership operate as a consolidated company. The Parent Company is a REIT, whose only material asset is its ownership of partnership interests of the Operating Partnership. As a result, the Parent Company does not conduct business itself, other than acting as the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, issuing public equity from time to time and guaranteeing certain debt of the Operating Partnership. The Parent Company does not hold any indebtedness, but guarantees all of the unsecured public debt and less than 10%9% of the secured debt of the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership holds all the assets of the Company and retains the ownership interests in the Company’s joint ventures. Except for net proceeds from public equity issuances by the Parent Company, which are contributed to the Operating Partnership in exchange for partnership units, the Operating Partnership generates all remaining capital required by the Company’s business. These sources include the Operating Partnership’s operations, its direct or indirect incurrence of indebtedness, and the issuance of partnership units.

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


Index to Financial Statements

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


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

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


Index to Financial Statements

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Form 10-K

 

Item No.

Item No.

  Form 10-K
Report Page
   Report Page 
 PART I  
PART I

1.

  

Business

  1 Business   1  

1A.

  

Risk Factors

  4 Risk Factors   4  

1B.

  

Unresolved Staff Comments

  12 Unresolved Staff Comments   15  

2.

  

Properties

  13 Properties   15  

3.

  

Legal Proceedings

  29 Legal Proceedings   33  

4.

  

Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

  29 (Removed and Reserved)   33  
PART II
 PART II  

5.

  

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

  29 Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters, and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities   33  

6.

  

Selected Financial Data

  32 Selected Financial Data   35  

7.

  

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

  34 Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations   37  

7A.

  

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

  63 Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk   64  

8.

  

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

  65 Financial Statements and Supplementary Data   66  

9.

  

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

  128 Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure   127  

9A.

  

Controls and Procedures

  128 Controls and Procedures   127  

9B.

  

Other Information

  129 Other Information   128  
PART III
 PART III  

10.

  

Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance

  130 Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance   129  

11.

  

Executive Compensation

  130 Executive Compensation   129  

12.

  

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

  131 Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters   129  

13.

  

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

  131 Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence   130  

14.

  

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

  131 Principal Accountant Fees and Services   130  
PART IV
 PART IV  

15.

  

Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

  132 Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules   131  
SIGNATURES
 SIGNATURES  

16.

  

Signatures

  137 Signatures   135  


Index to Financial Statements

Forward-Looking Statements

In addition to historical information, the following information contains forward-looking statements as defined under federal securities laws. These forward-looking statements include statements about anticipated changes in our revenues, the size of our development program, earnings per share and unit, returns and portfolio value, and expectations about our liquidity. These statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about the industry and markets in which Regency Centers Corporation (the “Parent Company”) and Regency Centers, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”), collectively “Regency” or “the Company”, operate, and management’s beliefs and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, changes in national and local economic conditions including the impact of a slowing economy;conditions; 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;starts; meeting development schedules; our inability to exercise voting control over the co-investment partnerships through which we own or develop many of our properties; 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 Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. appearing elsewhere herein.

PART I

 

Item 1.Business

Regency Centers Corporation began its operations as a Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”) in 1993 and is the managing general partner in Regency Centers, L.P. ). The term “the Company” or “Regency” means the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, collectively. Our key strategic goals are focused on producing superior results for our shareholders by achieving total share and unit holder returnshareholder returns in excess of peer indicesREIT shopping center averages, and sustaining growth in our net asset value and earnings.our earnings over an extended period of time. We will achieve these goals through owning, operating andby investing in and operating a high-quality portfolio of primarily grocery-anchored shopping centers that are tenanted by market-dominant grocers, category-leading anchors, specialty retailers, and restaurants located in areas with above average household incomes and population densities. All of our operating, investing, and financing activities are performed through the Operating Partnership, its wholly-owned subsidiaries, and through its investments in real estate partnerships with third parties (also referred to as co-investment partnerships or joint ventures). The Parent Company currently owns 99% of the outstanding common partnership units of the Operating Partnership. Because of our structure and certain public debt financing, the Operating Partnership is also a registrant.

At December 31, 2009,2010, we directly owned 216215 shopping centers located in 23 states representing 23.023.3 million square feet of gross leasable area (“GLA”). Through co-investment partnerships, we own partial ownership interests in 184181 shopping centers located in 25 states and the District of Columbia representing 22.021.8 million square feet of GLA. The shopping center portfolio that we manage, on a Combined Basis,“Combined Basis” (total of consolidated and unconsolidated properties), represents 400396 shopping centers located in 28 states and the District of Columbia and contains 45.045.1 million square feet of GLA.

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

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

anchor relationships to invest in value-added opportunities sourced from distressedland owners and joint venture partners, the redevelopment of existing centers, developing land that we already own, and other opportunities. Development is customer driven meaning we generally have an executed lease from the anchor before we start construction. Developments serveand serves the growth needs of our anchors and specialty retailers, resulting in new modern shopping centers with long-term anchor leases that produce attractive returns on our invested capital. This

Maintaining a high quality portfolio also involves identifying and selling assets that are at risk of not achieving our long-term investment goals. Proceeds from these sales are targeted for reinvestment into higher quality new development, process typically requires three to five years from initial landredevelopment of existing centers, or redevelopment acquisition through construction, lease-up,acquisitions that will generate sustainable revenue growth and stabilization of rental income, but can take longer depending upon tenant demand for new stores and the size of the project.higher returns.

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

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

Competition

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

Changes in Policies

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

Index to Financial Statements

Employees

Our headquarters are located at One Independent Drive, Suite 114, Jacksonville, Florida. We presently maintain 1817 market offices nationwide where we conduct management, leasing, construction, and investment activities. At December 31, 2009,2010, we had 380392 employees and we believe that our relations with our employees are good.

Compliance with Governmental Regulations

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

Executive Officers

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

Name

  Age  

Title

  Executive Officer in
Position Shown
Since
   Age   Title  Executive Officer in
Position Shown  Since
 

Martin E. Stein, Jr.

  57  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  1993     58    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer   1993  

Brian M. Smith

  55  President and Chief Operating Officer  2005(1)    56    President and Chief Operating Officer   2009(1) 

Bruce M. Johnson

  62  

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

  1993     63    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   1993  

 

(1)(1)

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

Company Website Access and SEC Filings

The Company’s website may be accessed 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 CompanyWells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“AST”Wells Fargo Shareowner Services”), New York, New York.South St. Paul, MN. The Company offers a dividend reinvestment plan (“DRIP”) that enables its stockholders to reinvest dividends automatically, as well as to make voluntary cash payments toward the purchase of additional shares. For more information, contact AST’s Shareholder Services GroupWells Fargo toll free at (866) 668-6550(800) 468-9716 or the Company’s Shareholder Relations Department.

Index to Financial Statements

The Company’s Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm is KPMG LLP, Jacksonville, Florida. The Company’s General Counsellegal 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 4, 2010.3, 2011.

Item 1A.Risk Factors

Risk Factors Related to Our Industry and Real Estate Investments

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

Our performance depends on theThe economic conditions in markets in which our properties are concentrated.concentrated greatly influence our financial performance. During the year ended December 31, 2009,2010, our properties in California, Florida, and Texas accounted for 32.0%32.6%, 13.6%14.3%, and 15.4%13.4%, respectively, of our consolidated net operating income. Our revenues and cash available for distribution to stock and unit holders could be adversely affected by this geographic concentration if market conditions, such as supply of retail space or demand for shopping centers, deteriorate in California, Florida, and Texas relative to other geographic areas.

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

We derive significant revenues from anchor tenants such as Kroger, Publix and Safeway that occupy more than one center. Kroger, Publix, and Safewaywhich are our three largest anchor tenants and accounted for 4.9%4.4%, 4.2%4.4%, and 3.7%3.8%, respectively, of our annualized base rent on a pro-rata basis for the year ended December 31, 2009.2010. Distributions to stock and unit holders could be adversely affected by the loss of revenues in the event a major tenant:

 

becomes bankrupt or insolvent;

 

experiences a downturn in its business;

 

materially defaults on its leases;

 

does not renew its leases as they expire; or

 

renews at lower rental rates.

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

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

the adverse financial condition of someconditions for large retail companies;

 

the ongoing consolidation in the retail sector;

 

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

increasing consumer purchases through 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;

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Our real estate assets may be subject to impairment charges.

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

Index to Financial Statements

property is impaired and a provision for impairment in relation to that property would be recorded by us either directly or through a reduction of our equity in income of real estate properties and other investments may be impaired.partnerships. A property’s value is impaired only if our estimate of the aggregate future cash flows (undiscounted and without interest charges) to be generated by the property are less than the carrying value of the property. If the aggregate future cash flows are less than the carrying value of property, we write down the property to its fair value. In our estimate of cash flows, we consider factors such as expected future operating income, trends and prospects, the effects of demand, competition and other factors. We are required to makeThese 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.

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

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

Unsuccessful development activities or a slowdown in development activities could reduce distributions to stockwill have a direct impact on our revenues and unit holders.our revenue growth.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

delays in the development and construction process; and

 

the lack of cash flow during the construction period.period; and

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

If our developments are unsuccessful funding provided from sales to co-investment partnerships and 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 ifor we experience a significant slowdown in development activities, our development activities.revenue growth may be adversely impacted.

Index to Financial Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

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

Loss of our key personnel 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 propertiesour performance and investments that could result in a substantial decrease inour Parent Company’s stock price.

We depend on the value thereof. No assurance can be given that we will be able to recover the current carrying amount of allefforts of our properties, investments and intangibles and thosekey executive personnel. Although we believe qualified replacements could be found for our key executives, the loss 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, whichtheir services could materially and adversely affect usperformance 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.Parent Company’s stock price.

We face competition from numerous sources.

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

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

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

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our co-investment partnerships have $2.5$2.1 billion of debt as of December 31, 2009,2010, of which 54.8%35.0% will mature through 2012, which is subject to significant refinancing risks. We anticipate that as real estate values decline, the refinancing of maturing loans, including those maturing in our joint ventures, will require us and our

Index to Financial Statements

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

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

We invest in retail shopping centers through the Operating Partnership in which the Parent Company currently owns 99%approximately 99.8% of the outstanding common partnership units. From time to time, we have acquired properties through the Operating Partnership in exchange for limited partnership interests. This acquisition structure may permit limited partners who contribute properties to us to defer some, if not all, of the income tax liability that they would incur if they sold the property for cash.

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

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

Risk Factors Related to Our Capital Recycling and Capital Structure

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. Whether the credit markets will 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 higherHigher market capitalization rates for our properties could adversely impact our ability to recycle capital and fund developments and acquisitions, and could dilute earnings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we elect to settle all or a portion of a number ofthe 8 million shares of common stock equalincluded in the Agreements in cash, then we would expect the Forward Purchasers to repurchase our common stock in the number ofopen market to cover their obligation to return the shares of common stock to bethat they borrowed and sold by each forward seller. Depending onin connection with the priceAgreements. If the market value of our common stock at the time of settlement andtheir repurchase is above the relevant settlement method,forward price, we may receive proceeds fromwould pay the Forward Purchasers an amount in cash equal to the difference. Thus, we would potentially be responsible for a substantial cash payment if our stock price were to rise substantially above the forward sale price on the date

Index to Financial Statements

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

The Agreements provide the forward sale agreements to repay or refinance maturing 2010 debt which may include a portion of our pro-rata share ofForward Purchasers 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 madein common shares by a specific date upon the occurrence of certain events, irrespective of our interests, including our need for capital. In such cases,a case, we couldwould 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,Agreements, which would result in dilution to our earnings per share and unit, and our return on equity. In addition, upon certain events of bankruptcy, insolvency, or reorganization relating to

us, the forward sale agreements willAgreements would terminate without further liability of either party. Following any such termination,party, and we would not issue any shares, andnor would 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.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$402.0 million maturing and our joint ventures have $1.3 billion$741.5 million maturing (our pro-rata share is $333.8$284.6 million). In addition to finding creditors willing to lend to us, we are dependent upon our joint venture partners to contribute their share of any amount needed to repay or refinance existing debt when lenders reduce the amount of debt our joint ventures are refinancing.

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

We are obligated on floating rate debt, of 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 our floating rate debt.

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

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

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

The price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly.

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

 

actual or anticipated variations in our operating results or dividends;

 

changes in our funds from operations or earnings estimates;

 

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

 

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

 

Index to Financial Statements

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

 

changes in market valuations of similar companies;

 

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

 

any future issuances of equity securities;

 

additions or departures of key management personnel;

 

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

 

actions by institutional stockholders;

 

speculation in the press or investment community; and

 

general market and economic conditions.

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

Risk Factors Related to Federal Income Tax Laws

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

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

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

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Index to Financial Statements
Item 1B.Unresolved Staff Comments

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. have received no written comments regarding itstheir periodic or current reports from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission that were issued 180 days or more preceding December 31, 20092010 that remain unresolved.

Item 2.Properties

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

 

  December 31, 2009 December 31, 2008   December 31, 2010 December 31, 2009 

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

  71  8,743,529  19.4 92.5 76  9,597,194  19.3 91.9   69     8,766,970     19.4  94.0  71     8,743,529     19.4  92.5

Florida

  56  5,432,000  12.1 91.3 60  6,050,697  12.2 93.9   55     5,308,855     11.8  92.4  56     5,432,000     12.1  91.3

Texas

  35  4,358,457  9.7 89.8 36  4,404,025  8.9 90.5   33     4,153,026     9.2  90.3  35     4,358,457     9.7  89.8

Virginia

  29  3,635,546  8.1 94.9 30  3,799,919  7.6 95.6   29     3,699,659     8.2  94.6  29     3,635,546     8.1  94.9

Illinois

  23  2,769,037  6.2 89.7 24  2,901,919  5.8 90.0   24     3,143,802     7.0  92.8  23     2,769,037     6.2  89.7

Missouri

  23  2,265,466  5.0 96.8 23  2,265,422  4.6 96.8   23     2,265,467     5.0  96.8  23     2,265,466     5.0  96.8

Ohio

  15  2,245,341  5.0 93.1 17  2,631,530  5.3 86.7   15     2,235,335     5.0  92.9  15     2,245,341     5.0  93.1

North Carolina

  15  2,073,487  4.6 89.7 15  2,107,442  4.2 91.9   16     2,189,581     4.9  92.9  15     2,073,487     4.6  89.7

Colorado

  20  2,070,251  4.6 90.4 22  2,285,926  4.6 91.4   20     2,064,400     4.6  90.5  20     2,070,251     4.6  90.4

Maryland

  16  1,873,908  4.2 92.8 16  1,873,759  3.8 94.0   16     1,860,710     4.1  89.8  16     1,873,908     4.2  92.8

Georgia

  19  1,661,612  3.7 92.0 30  2,648,555  5.3 92.7   19     1,671,632     3.7  88.9  19     1,661,612     3.7  92.0

Pennsylvania

  12  1,414,123  3.1 92.4 12  1,441,791  2.9 90.1   11     1,287,079     2.9  93.5  12     1,414,123     3.1  92.4

Washington

  11  1,038,514  2.3 95.4 13  1,255,836  2.5 97.0   11     1,038,514     2.3  92.7  11     1,038,514     2.3  95.4

Oregon

  8  752,162  1.7 98.1 11  1,087,738  2.2 97.1   8     752,161     1.7  96.7  8     752,162     1.7  98.1

Tennessee

  7  565,386  1.3 91.8 8  574,114  1.2 92.0   7     565,386     1.2  92.7  7     565,386     1.3  91.8

Massachusetts

  3  564,386  1.2 95.2 3  561,186  1.1 93.4   3     557,037     1.2  95.8  3     564,386     1.2  95.2

Arizona

  4  496,073  1.1 89.4 4  496,073  1.0 94.3   4     496,073     1.1  91.1  4     496,073     1.1  89.4

Minnesota

  3  483,938  1.1 97.3 3  483,938  1.0 92.9   3     483,520     1.1  97.4  3     483,938     1.1  97.3

Delaware

  4  472,005  1.0 91.0 4  472,005  0.9 95.2   4     474,267     1.0  88.1  4     472,005     1.0  91.0

Nevada

  2  432,990  1.0 78.0 3  528,368  1.1 83.4   2     439,422     1.0  79.5  2     432,990     1.0  78.0

South Carolina

  6  360,718  0.8 95.2 8  451,494  0.9 96.7   6     360,718     0.8  96.3  6     360,718     0.8  95.2

Indiana

  6  273,253  0.6 80.3 6  273,279  0.6 76.4   6     273,253     0.6  85.5  6     273,253     0.6  80.3

Wisconsin

  2  269,128  0.6 97.7 2  269,128  0.5 97.7   2     269,128     0.6  94.2  2     269,128     0.6  97.7

Alabama

  2  203,206  0.4 72.0 3  278,299  0.6 78.3   2     203,206     0.4  70.1  2     203,206     0.4  72.0

Connecticut

  1  179,860  0.4 100.0 1  179,860  0.4 100.0   1     179,863     0.4  99.8  1     179,860     0.4  100.0

New Jersey

  2  156,482  0.3 95.2 2  156,482  0.3 96.2   2     156,482     0.3  93.8  2     156,482     0.3  95.2

Michigan

  2  118,273  0.3 85.8 2  118,273  0.2 84.9   2     118,273     0.3  84.6  2     118,273     0.3  85.8

Dist. of Columbia

  2  39,647  0.1 100.0 2  39,647  0.1 100.0   2     39,647     0.1  90.6  2     39,647     0.1  100.0

Kentucky

  1  23,184  0.1 63.7 3  325,853  0.7 90.2   1     23,186     0.1  81.9  1     23,184     0.1  63.7

New Hampshire

  —    —    —     —     1  84,793  0.2 80.4
                                                      

Total

  400  44,971,962  100.0 92.1 440  49,644,545  100.0 92.3   396     45,076,652     100.0  92.6  400     44,971,962     100.0  92.1
                                                      

The Combined Properties include the consolidated and unconsolidated properties encumbered by mortgage loans of $404.4$413.3 million and $2.5$2.1 billion, respectively.respectively, as of December 31, 2010.

Item 2.Properties (continued)

Index to Financial Statements

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

 

  December 31, 2009 December 31, 2008   December 31, 2010 December 31, 2009 

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

  44  5,340,854  23.3 93.1 46  5,668,350  23.5 89.7   42     5,211,886     22.4  93.7  44     5,340,854     23.3  93.1

Florida

  44  4,421,788  19.2 91.2 41  4,198,414  17.4 94.4   44     4,467,696     19.2  92.5  44     4,421,788     19.2  91.2

Texas

  24  2,978,018  13.0 88.8 28  3,371,380  13.9 89.9   23     2,875,917     12.4  89.9  24     2,978,018     13.0  88.8

Ohio

  13  1,708,268  7.4 93.6 14  1,985,392  8.2 85.3   13     1,698,262     7.3  93.2  13     1,708,268     7.4  93.6

Georgia

  16  1,418,261  6.2 91.4 16  1,409,622  5.8 92.0   16     1,428,281     6.1  88.2  16     1,418,261     6.2  91.4

Colorado

  14  1,123,006  4.9 87.1 14  1,130,771  4.7 86.2   14     1,117,074     4.8  86.8  14     1,123,006     4.9  87.1

Virginia

   7     910,740     3.9  93.9  7     864,116     3.8  93.2

Illinois

   5     885,581     3.8  94.4  3     414,168     1.8  85.2

North Carolina

  9  873,943  3.8 92.3 9  951,177  3.9 94.6   9     874,238     3.8  87.8  9     873,943     3.8  92.3

Virginia

  7  864,116  3.8 93.2 7  958,825  4.0 90.8

Oregon

  7  659,061  2.9 98.0 8  733,068  3.0 98.4   7     659,060     2.8  96.8  7     659,061     2.9  98.0

Tennessee

  6  479,321  2.1 91.3 7  488,049  2.0 91.2   6     479,321     2.1  92.3  6     479,321     2.1  91.3

Washington

  6  461,073  2.0 93.5 7  538,155  2.2 95.9   6     461,073     2.0  94.0  6     461,073     2.0  93.5

Nevada

  2  432,990  1.9 78.0 2  429,304  1.8 81.1   2     439,422     1.9  79.5  2     432,990     1.9  78.0

Illinois

  3  414,168  1.8 85.2 3  414,996  1.7 84.7

Arizona

  3  388,440  1.7 90.4 3  388,440  1.6 93.0   3     388,440     1.7  90.6  3     388,440     1.7  90.4

Massachusetts

  2  379,107  1.6 92.9 2  375,907  1.6 90.5   2     371,758     1.6  93.7  2     379,107     1.6  92.9

Pennsylvania

  4  320,279  1.4 88.7 4  347,430  1.4 77.6   4     305,444     1.3  94.0  4     320,279     1.4  88.7

Delaware

  2  240,418  1.0 93.3 2  240,418  1.0 99.2   2     242,680     1.0  89.8  2     240,418     1.0  93.3

Michigan

  2  118,273  0.5 85.8 2  118,273  0.5 84.9   2     118,273     0.5  84.6  2     118,273     0.5  85.8

Maryland

  1  107,063  0.5 75.4 1  106,915  0.4 77.8   1     95,010     0.4  90.1  1     107,063     0.5  75.4

Alabama

  1  84,740  0.4 76.2 1  84,741  0.4 68.7   1     84,740     0.4  77.8  1     84,740     0.4  76.2

South Carolina

  2  74,421  0.3 90.6 2  74,422  0.3 90.6   2     74,421     0.3  96.2  2     74,421     0.3  90.6

Indiana

  3  54,484  0.2 44.7 3  54,510  0.2 34.1   3     54,484     0.2  62.9  3     54,484     0.2  44.7

Kentucky

  1  23,184  0.1 63.7 1  23,184  0.1 33.6   1     23,186     0.1  81.9  1     23,184     0.1  63.7

New Hampshire

  —    —    —     —     1  84,793  0.4 80.4
                                                      

Total

  216  22,965,276  100.0 91.0 224  24,176,536  100.0 90.2   215     23,266,987     100.0  91.6  216     22,965,276     100.0  91.0
                                                      

The Consolidated Properties are encumbered by mortgage loans of $404.4 million.$413.3 million as of December 31, 2010.

Item 2.Properties (continued)

Index to Financial Statements

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

 

  December 31, 2009 December 31, 2008   December 31, 2010 December 31, 2009 

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

  27  3,402,675  15.5 91.6 30  3,928,844  15.4 94.9   27     3,555,084     16.3  94.4  27     3,402,675     15.5  91.6

Virginia

  22  2,771,430  12.6 95.4 23  2,841,094  11.2 97.2   22     2,788,919     12.8  94.8  22     2,771,430     12.6  95.4

Missouri

   23     2,265,467     10.4  96.8  23     2,265,466     10.3  96.8

Illinois

  20  2,354,869  10.7 90.5 21  2,486,923  9.8 90.9   19     2,258,221     10.4  92.1  20     2,354,869     10.7  90.5

Missouri

  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   15     1,765,700     8.1  89.8  15     1,766,845     8.0  93.8

North Carolina

   7     1,315,343     6.0  96.3  6     1,199,544     5.5  87.8

Texas

  11  1,380,439  6.3 92.1 8  1,032,645  4.0 92.6   10     1,277,109     5.9  91.4  11     1,380,439     6.3  92.1

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   7     981,635     4.5  93.3  8     1,093,844     5.0  93.5

Colorado

   6     947,326     4.3  94.8  6     947,245     4.3  94.4

Florida

  12  1,010,212  4.6 92.0 19  1,852,283  7.3 92.6   11     841,159     3.9  92.0  12     1,010,212     4.6  92.0

Colorado

  6  947,245  4.3 94.4 8  1,155,155  4.5 96.4

Washington

  5  577,441  2.6 96.9 6  717,681  2.8 97.8   5     577,441     2.6  91.7  5     577,441     2.6  96.9

Ohio

  2  537,073  2.4 91.6 3  646,138  2.5 91.0   2     537,073     2.5  92.0  2     537,073     2.4  91.6

Minnesota

  3  483,938  2.2 97.3 3  483,938  1.9 92.9   3     483,520     2.2  97.4  3     483,938     2.2  97.3

South Carolina

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

Wisconsin

  2  269,128  1.2 97.7 2  269,128  1.1 97.7   2     269,128     1.2  94.2  2     269,128     1.2  97.7

Georgia

  3  243,351  1.1 95.6 14  1,238,933  4.9 93.6   3     243,351     1.1  92.8  3     243,351     1.1  95.6

Delaware

  2  231,587  1.1 88.5 2  231,587  0.9 91.1   2     231,587     1.1  86.2  2     231,587     1.1  88.5

Indiana

  3  218,769  1.0 89.1 3  218,769  0.9 87.0   3     218,769     1.0  91.1  3     218,769     1.0  89.1

Massachusetts

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

Connecticut

  1  179,860  0.8 100.0 1  179,860  0.7 100.0   1     179,863     0.8  99.8  1     179,860     0.8  100.0

New Jersey

  2  156,482  0.7 95.2 2  156,482  0.6 96.2   2     156,482     0.7  93.8  2     156,482     0.7  95.2

Alabama

  1  118,466  0.5 69.1 2  193,558  0.8 82.5   1     118,466     0.6  64.6  1     118,466     0.5  69.1

Arizona

  1  107,633  0.5 85.8 1  107,633  0.4 98.9   1     107,633     0.5  93.2  1     107,633     0.5  85.8

Oregon

  1  93,101  0.4 98.1 3  354,670  1.4 94.3   1     93,101     0.4  95.9  1     93,101     0.4  98.1

Tennessee

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

Dist. of Columbia

  2  39,647  0.2 100.0 2  39,647  0.2 100.0   2     39,647     0.2  90.6  2     39,647     0.2  100.0

Nevada

  —    —    —     —     1  99,064  0.4 93.0

Kentucky

  —    —    —     —     2  302,669  1.2 94.6
                                                      

Total

  184  22,006,686  100.0 93.2 216  25,468,009  100.0 94.3   181     21,809,665     100.0  93.6  184     22,006,686     100.0  93.2
                                                      

The Unconsolidated Properties are encumbered by mortgage loans of $2.5 billion.$2.1 billion as of December 31, 2010.

Item 2.Properties (continued)

Index to Financial Statements

The following table summarizes the largest tenants occupying our shopping centers for Consolidated Properties plus Regency’s pro-rata share of Unconsolidated Properties as of December 31, 20092010, based upon a percentage of total annualized base rent exceeding or equal to .5%. (dollars in thousands):

 

Tenant

  GLA  Percent to
Company
Owned GLA
 Rent  Percentage of
Annualized
Base Rent
 Number of
Leased
Stores
  Anchor
Owned
Stores (a)
  GLA   Percent to
Company
Owned GLA
 Rent   Percentage of
Annualized
Base Rent
 Number of
Leased
Stores
   Anchor
Owned
Stores (1)
 

Kroger

  2,209,184  8.0 $20,462,378  4.8 46  9   2,148,362     7.3 $19,991     4.4  44     10  

Publix

  1,902,503  6.9  17,615,932  4.2 54  1   2,018,569     6.9  19,800     4.4  55     1  

Safeway

  1,601,669  5.8  15,488,636  3.7 55  6   1,726,446     5.9  16,966     3.8  53     6  

Supervalu

  882,406  3.2  10,337,559  2.4 28  3   925,485     3.2  10,721     2.4  27     2  

CVS

  449,045  1.6  6,923,620  1.6 50  —     525,840     1.8  7,681     1.7  50     —    

Whole Foods

   239,460     0.8  6,382     1.4  7     —    

TJX Companies

   497,326     1.7  5,770     1.3  25     —    

Ahold

   348,705     1.2  4,674     1.0  13     —    

Blockbuster Video

  268,623  1.0  5,708,551  1.4 71  —     200,866     0.7  4,445     1.0  52     —    

TJX Companies

  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  —     278,612     1.0  4,201     0.9  17     —    

Walgreens

   190,201     0.6  3,602     0.8  16     —    

Starbucks

   103,351     0.4  3,573     0.8  86     —    

Sports Authority

  181,523  0.7  3,458,514  0.8 5  —     181,523     0.6  3,459     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  —     182,874     0.6  3,443     0.8  21     —    

Wells Fargo Bank

  61,579  0.2  3,178,196  0.8 49  —     68,038     0.2  3,387     0.8  41     —    

Walgreens

  176,165  0.6  2,971,809  0.7 17  —  

Sears Holdings

   442,433     1.5  3,380     0.7  11     1  

Rite Aid

  198,992  0.7  2,924,740  0.7 25  —     227,758     0.8  3,214     0.7  26     —    

Bank of America

   77,429     0.3  3,171     0.7  28     —    

PetSmart

   178,850     0.6  2,917     0.6  10     —    

Target

   349,683     1.2  2,884     0.6  4     20  

Subway

   99,496     0.3  2,871     0.6  113     —    

Harris Teeter

   245,746     0.8  2,836     0.6  8     —    

H.E.B.

  210,413  0.8  2,771,745  0.7 4  —     210,413     0.7  2,772     0.6  4     —    

Schnucks

  308,578  1.1  2,687,565  0.6 31  —     308,578     1.1  2,688     0.6  31     —    

Bank of America

  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  —     97,975     0.3  2,548     0.6  97     —    

Target

  268,922  1.0  2,392,748  0.6 4  20

Hallmark

  135,374  0.5  2,366,096  0.6 51  —  

Ahold

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

Harris Teeter

  182,108  0.7  2,315,621  0.5 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  —     61,213     0.2  2,379     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.

  139,961  0.5  2,122,914  0.5 4  —  

Staples

  147,382  0.5  2,116,261  0.5 12  —  

Trader Joe’s

   89,994     0.3  2,266     0.5  11     —    

 

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

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

Item 2.Properties (continued)

Index to Financial Statements

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

 

Lease Expiration Year

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

Expiring
GLA (2)

   

Percent of
Total
Company
GLA (2)

 

Minimum
Rent
Expiring
Leases (3)

   

Percent of
Minimum
Rent (3)

 

(1)

  332,341  1.3 $6,597,904  1.6   347,598     1.3 $6,116     1.4

2010

  2,403,843  9.6  46,441,879  11.0

2011

  2,865,300  11.5  50,980,187  12.1   2,457,614     9.1  43,108     9.6

2012

  3,305,426  13.2  61,187,816  14.5   3,512,975     13.1  65,097     14.4

2013

  2,435,983  9.7  46,169,653  10.9   2,657,644     9.9  50,376     11.2

2014

  2,254,932  9.0  42,849,004  10.1   2,480,093     9.2  47,374     10.5

2015

  756,837  3.0  12,883,157  3.0   2,179,022     8.1  42,775     9.5

2016

  700,283  2.8  12,135,224  2.9   1,359,450     5.1  22,926     5.1

2017

  1,215,920  4.9  21,081,969  5.0   1,389,524     5.2  24,538     5.4

2018

  1,251,759  5.0  19,545,813  4.6   1,359,345     5.1  21,280     4.7

2019

  1,127,900  4.5  16,444,918  3.9   1,202,740     4.5  18,435     4.1

2020

   1,465,468     5.4  22,012     4.9

Thereafter

  6,350,888  25.5  86,676,290  20.4   6,479,513     24.0  87,005     19.2
                            

Total

  25,001,412  100.0 $422,993,814  100.0   26,890,986     100.0 $451,042     100.0
                            

 

(1)leasedLeased currently under month to month rent or in process of renewalrenewal.
(2)representsRepresents GLA for Consolidated Properties plus Regency’s pro-rata share of Unconsolidated PropertiesProperties.
(3)minimumMinimum rent includes current minimum rent and future contractual rent steps for the Consolidated Properties plus Regency’s pro-rata share from Unconsolidated Properties, but excludes additional rent such as percentage rent, common area maintenance, real estate taxes and insurance reimbursementsreimbursements.

Index to Financial Statements

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

 

Property Name

  Year
Acquired
  Year
Constructed
(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
Con-
structed  (1)
 Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
 Percent
Leased (2)
 Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf
 

Drug Store & Other Anchors >
10,000 Sq Ft

CALIFORNIA

                 

Los Angeles/ Southern CA

                 

4S Commons Town Center

  2004  2004  240,060  96.6 Ralphs, Jimbo’s...Naturally!  Bed Bath & Beyond, Cost Plus World Market, CVS, Griffin Ace Hardware  2004    2004    240,060    96.2  
 
Ralphs,
Jimbo’s...Naturally!
  
  
 Bed Bath & Beyond, Cost Plus World Market, CVS, Griffin Ace Hardware

Amerige Heights Town Center

  2000  2000  96,680  98.0 Albertsons, (Target)    2000    2000    96,680    100.0  
 
Albertsons,
(Target)
  
  
 —  

Brea Marketplace (4)

  2005  1987  193,235  84.2 Sprout’s Markets  24 Hour Fitness, Big 5 Sporting Goods, Beverages & More!, Childtime Childcare  2005    1987    352,022    98.0  Sprout’s Markets   24 Hour Fitness, Big 5 Sporting Goods, Beverages & More!, Childtime Childcare

Costa Verde Center

  1999  1988  178,623  92.2 Bristol Farms  Bookstar, The Boxing Club, Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy  1999    1988    178,623    91.5  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    99.0  
 
Von’s Food &
Drug
  
  
 Sav-On Drugs

El Norte Pkwy Plaza

  1999  1984  90,549  95.9 Von’s Food & Drug  Longs Drug  1999    1984    90,549    93.9  
 
Von’s Food &
Drug
  
  
 Longs Drug

Falcon Ridge Town Center Phase I (4)

  2003  2004  232,754  85.2 Stater Bros., (Target)  Sports Authority, Ross Dress for Less, Party City, Michaels, Pier 1 Imports  2003    2004    232,754    98.0  
 
Stater Bros.,
(Target)
  
  
 Sports Authority, Ross Dress for Less, Party City, Michaels, Pier 1 Imports

Falcon Ridge Town Center Phase II (4)

  2005  2005  66,864  100.0 24 Hour Fitness  CVS  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    97.0  Albertsons   Longs Drug, Ross Dress for Less, Big 5 Sporting Goods

French Valley Village Center

  2004  2004  98,752  92.7 Stater Bros.  CVS  2004    2004    98,752    94.1  Stater Bros.   CVS

Friars Mission Center

  1999  1989  146,898  98.6 Ralphs  Longs Drug  1999    1989    146,897    95.6  Ralphs   Longs Drug

Gelson’s Westlake Market Plaza

  2002  2002  84,975  90.8 Gelson’s Markets    2002    2002    84,975    93.4  Gelson’s Markets   —  

Golden Hills Promenade (3)

  2006  2006  216,846  92.7 Lowe’s  Bed Bath & Beyond  2006    2006    216,846    91.1  Lowe’s   Bed Bath & Beyond

Granada Village (4)

  2005  1965  224,649  68.9   Rite Aid, TJ Maxx, Stein Mart  2005    1965    224,649    76.9  —     Rite Aid, TJ Maxx, Stein Mart

Hasley Canyon Village (4)

  2003  2003  65,801  95.7 Ralphs    2003    2003    65,801    98.2  Ralphs   —  

Heritage Plaza

  1999  1981  231,582  99.7 Ralphs  CVS, Hands On Bicycles, Total Woman, Ace Hardware  1999    1981    231,582    92.7  Ralphs   CVS, Hands On Bicycles, Total Woman, Ace Hardware

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  2006    2006    132,678    59.0  
 
(Home Depot),
(WinCo)
  
  
 CVS, 24 Hour Fitness, PETCO

Indio Towne Center Phase II (3)

  2010    2010    46,827    100.0  
 
Toys “R” Us/
Babies “R” Us
 
  
 —  

Jefferson Square (3)

  2007  2007  38,013  74.7 Fresh & Easy  CVS  2007    2007    38,013    74.7  Fresh & Easy   CVS

Laguna Niguel Plaza (4)

  2005  1985  41,943  96.1 (Albertsons)  CVS  2005    1985    41,943    96.7  (Albertsons)   CVS

Marina Shores (4)

  2008  2001  67,727  89.5   PETCO  2008    2001    67,727    100.0  Whole Foods   PETCO

Morningside Plaza

  1999  1996  91,212  93.1 Stater Bros.    1999    1996    91,212    93.8  Stater Bros.   —  

Navajo Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1964  102,138  97.7 Albertsons  Rite Aid, Kragen Auto Parts  2005    1964    102,139    94.6  Albertsons   Rite Aid, Kragen Auto Parts

Newland Center

  1999  1985  149,140  100.0 Albertsons    1999    1985    149,140    98.8  Albertsons   —  

Oakbrook Plaza

  1999  1982  83,279  97.2 Albertsons  (Longs Drug)  1999    1982    83,286    94.5  Albertsons   (Longs Drug)

Park Plaza Shopping Center (4)

  2001  1991  194,396  93.6 Henry’s Marketplace  CVS, PETCO, Ross Dress For Less, Office Depot, Tuesday Morning  2001    1991    194,396    94.4  
 
Henry’s
Marketplace
  
  
 CVS, PETCO, Ross Dress For Less, Office Depot, Tuesday Morning

Plaza Hermosa

  1999  1984  94,940  100.0 Von’s Food & Drug  Sav-On Drugs  1999    1984    94,940    92.9  
 
Von’s Food &
Drug
  
  
 Sav-On Drugs

Point Loma Plaza (4)

  2005  1987  212,415  96.3 Von’s Food & Drug  Sport Chalet 5, 24 Hour Fitness, Jo-Ann Fabrics  2005    1987    212,415    96.4  
 
Von’s Food &
Drug
  
  
 Sport Chalet 5, 24 Hour Fitness, Jo-Ann Fabrics

Rancho San Diego Village (4)

  2005  1981  153,256  94.1 Von’s Food & Drug  (Longs Drug), 24 Hour Fitness  2005    1981    153,256    92.3  
 
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    67,622    83.6  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  90.7 Food 4 Less  Famsa, Inc.

Seal Beach (4)

  2002  1966  96,858  91.7 Von’s Food & Drug  CVS

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

Twin Peaks

  1999  1988  198,139  95.5 Albertsons, Target  

Valencia Crossroads

  2002  2003  172,856  94.1 Whole Foods, Kohl’s  

Ventura Village

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

Vine at Castaic (3)

  2005  2005  30,236  62.6   

Vista Village Phase I (4)

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

Vista Village Phase II (4)

  2002  2003  55,000  45.5 Sprout’s Markets  

Vista Village IV

  2006  2006  11,000  100.0   

Westlake Village Plaza and Center

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

Westridge Village

  2001  2003  92,287  100.0 Albertsons  Beverages & More!

Woodman Van Nuys

  1999  1992  107,614  100.0 El Super  

San Francisco/ Northern CA

           

Applegate Ranch Shopping Center (3)

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

Auburn Village (4)

  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

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

CALIFORNIA (continued)

           

Blossom Valley (4)

  1999  1990  93,316  93.8 Safeway  Longs Drug

Clayton Valley Shopping Center

  2003  2004  260,671  96.8 Fresh & Easy, Home Depot  Longs Drugs, Dollar Tree, Ross Dress For Less

Clovis Commons

  2004  2004  174,990  98.4 (Super Target)  Petsmart, TJ Maxx, Office Depot, Best Buy

Corral Hollow (4)

  2000  2000  167,184  98.7 Safeway, Orchard Supply & Hardware  Longs Drug

Diablo Plaza

  1999  1982  63,265  96.7 (Safeway)  (Longs Drug), Jo-Ann Fabrics

El Cerrito Plaza

  2000  2000  256,035  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  95.8 Safeway  Walgreens

Folsom Prairie City Crossing

  1999  1999  90,237  95.7 Safeway  

Gateway 101

  2008  2008  92,110  100.0 (Home Depot), (Best Buy), Sports Authority, Nordstrom Rack  

Loehmanns Plaza California

  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

Pleasant Hill Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1970  234,061  83.6 Target, Toys “R” Us  Barnes & Noble

Powell Street Plaza

  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  

San Leandro Plaza

  1999  1982  50,432  100.0 (Safeway)  (Longs Drug)

Sequoia Station

  1999  1996  103,148  86.3 (Safeway)  Longs Drug, Barnes & Noble, Old Navy

Silverado Plaza (4)

  2005  1974  84,916  100.0 Nob Hill  Longs Drug

Snell & Branham Plaza (4)

  2005  1988  99,350  98.3 Safeway  

Stanford Ranch Village (4)

  2005  1991  89,875  95.1 Bel Air Market  

Strawflower Village

  1999  1985  78,827  94.4 Safeway  (Longs Drug)

Tassajara Crossing

  1999  1990  146,188  96.7 Safeway  Longs Drug, Ace Hardware

West Park Plaza

  1999  1996  88,104  98.0 Safeway  Rite Aid

Woodside Central

  1999  1993  80,591  100.0 (Target)  Chuck E. Cheese, Marshalls

Ygnacio Plaza (4)

  2005  1968  109,701  99.0 Fresh & Easy  Sports Basement
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (CA)

      8,743,529  92.5   
              

FLORIDA

           

Ft. Myers / Cape Coral

           

Corkscrew Village

  2007  1997  82,011  91.9 Publix  

First Street Village (3)

  2006  2006  54,926  89.4 Publix  

Grande Oak

  2000  2000  78,784  100.0 Publix  

Jacksonville / North Florida

           

Anastasia Plaza

  1993  1988  102,342  95.0 Publix  

Canopy Oak Center (3)(4)

  2006  2006  90,041  77.8 Publix  

Carriage Gate

  1994  1978  76,784  91.4   Leon County Tax Collector, TJ Maxx

Courtyard Shopping Center

  1993  1987  137,256  100.0 (Publix), Target  

Fleming Island

  1998  2000  136,663  63.9 Publix, (Target)  

Hibernia Pavilion (3)

  2006  2006  51,298  92.5 Publix  

Hibernia Plaza (3)

  2006  2006  8,400  33.3   (Walgreens)

Horton’s Corner

  2007  2007  14,820  100.0   Walgreens

John’s Creek Center (4)

  2003  2004  75,101  100.0 Publix  

Julington Village (4)

  1999  1999  81,820  100.0 Publix  (CVS)

Millhopper Shopping Center

  1993  1974  84,065  100.0 Publix  CVS, Jo-Ann Fabrics

Newberry Square

  1994  1986  180,524  95.6 Publix, K-Mart  Jo-Ann Fabrics

Nocatee Town Center (3)

  2007  2007  69,679  86.0 Publix  

Oakleaf Commons (3)

  2006  2006  73,717  79.1 Publix  (Walgreens)

Old St Augustine Plaza

  1996  1990  232,459  99.1 Publix, Burlington Coat Factory, Hobby Lobby  CVS

Pine Tree Plaza

  1997  1999  63,387  98.4 Publix  

Plantation Plaza (4)

  2004  2004  77,747  98.2 Publix  

Seminole Shoppes (3)

  2009  2009  73,240  74.2 Publix  

Shoppes at Bartram Park (4)

  2005  2004  105,319  95.3 Publix, (Kohl’s)  Toll Brothers

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

  2008  2008  14,639  49.3   (Tutor Time)

Shops at John’s Creek

  2003  2004  15,490  72.6   

Starke

  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

CALIFORNIA (continued)

      

Seal Beach (4)

  2002    1966    96,858    93.5  Von’s Food & Drug   CVS

Paseo Del Sol (3)

  2004    2004    49,680    77.2  Whole Foods   —  

Twin Oaks Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1978    98,399    94.4  Ralphs   Rite Aid

Twin Peaks

  1999    1988    198,139    99.4  Albertsons, Target   —  

Valencia Crossroads

  2002    2003    172,856    98.8  
 
Whole Foods,
Kohl’s
  
  
 —  

Ventura Village

  1999    1984    76,070    92.1  Von’s Food & Drug   —  

Vine at Castaic

  2005    2005    27,314    66.4  —     —  

Vista Village Phase I (4)

  2002    2003    129,009    91.1  
 
Krikorian Theaters,
(Lowe’s)
  
  
 —  

Vista Village Phase II (4)

  2002    2003    55,000    45.5  Frazier Farms   —  

Vista Village IV

  2006    2006    11,000    100.0  —     —  

Westlake Village Plaza and Center

  1999    1975    190,529    92.7  Von’s Food & Drug   (CVS), Longs Drug, Total Woman

Westridge Village

  2001    2003    92,287    95.7  Albertsons   Beverages & More!

Woodman Van Nuys

  1999    1992    107,614    95.7  El Super   —  

San Francisco/ Northern CA

      

Applegate Ranch Shopping Center (3)

  2006    2006    144,444    75.0  
 
(Super Target),
(Home Depot)
  
  
 Marshalls, PETCO, Big 5 Sporting Goods

Auburn Village (4)

  2005    1990    133,944    89.4  Bel Air Market   Dollar Tree, Goodwill Industries, (Longs Drug)

Bayhill Shopping Center (4)

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

Blossom Valley (4)

  1999    1990    93,316    94.1  Safeway   Longs Drug

Clayton Valley Shopping Center

  2003    2004    260,205    94.0  
 
Fresh & Easy,
Home Depot
  
  
 Longs Drugs, Dollar Tree, Ross Dress For Less

Clovis Commons

  2004    2004    174,990    95.9  (Super Target)   Petsmart, TJ Maxx, Office Depot, Best Buy

Corral Hollow (4)

  2000    2000    167,184    98.1  
 
Safeway, Orchard
Supply & Hardware
  
  
 Longs Drug

Diablo Plaza

  1999    1982    63,265    96.7  (Safeway)   (Longs Drug), Jo-Ann Fabrics

El Cerrito Plaza

  2000    2000    256,035    97.9  (Lucky’s)   (Longs Drug), Bed Bath & Beyond, Barnes & Noble, Jo-Ann Fabrics, PETCO, Ross Dress For Less

Encina Grande

  1999    1965    102,413    98.3  Safeway   Walgreens

Folsom Prairie City Crossing

  1999    1999    90,237    98.0  Safeway   —  

Gateway 101

  2008    2008    92,110    100.0  
 
 
 
(Home Depot),
(Best Buy), Sports
Authority,
Nordstrom Rack
  
  
  
  
 —  

Loehmanns Plaza California

  1999    1983    113,310    98.2  (Safeway)   Longs Drug, Loehmann’s

Mariposa Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1957    126,658    96.8  Safeway   Longs Drug, Ross Dress for Less

Pleasant Hill Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1970    227,681    99.1  Target, Toys “R” Us   Barnes & Noble

Powell Street Plaza

  2001    1987    165,928    100.0  Trader Joe’s   PETCO, Beverages & More!, Ross Dress For Less, DB Shoe Company

Raley’s Supermarket (4)

  2007    1964    62,827    100.0  Raley’s   —  

San Leandro Plaza

  1999    1982    50,432    100.0  (Safeway)   (Longs Drug)

Sequoia Station

  1999    1996    103,148    88.5  (Safeway)   Longs Drug, Barnes & Noble, Old Navy

Silverado Plaza (4)

  2005    1974    84,916    100.0  Nob Hill   Longs Drug

Snell & Branham Plaza (4)

  2005    1988    99,351    95.5  Safeway   —  

Stanford Ranch Village (4)

  2005    1991    89,875    95.1  Bel Air Market   —  

Strawflower Village

  1999    1985    78,827    98.9  Safeway   (Longs Drug)

Tassajara Crossing

  1999    1990    146,188    95.8  Safeway   Longs Drug, Ace Hardware

West Park Plaza

  1999    1996    88,104    98.0  Safeway   Rite Aid

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

FLORIDA (continued)

           

Vineyard Shopping Center (4)

  2001  2002  62,821  88.9 Publix  

Miami / Fort Lauderdale

           

Aventura Shopping Center

  1994  1974  102,876  92.2 Publix  CVS

Berkshire Commons

  1994  1992  106,354  100.0 Publix  Walgreens

Caligo Crossing (3)

  2007  2007  10,762  74.9 (Kohl’s)  

Five Corners Plaza (4)

  2005  2001  44,647  88.1 Publix  

Garden Square

  1997  1991  90,258  98.6 Publix  CVS

Naples Walk Shopping Center

  2007  1999  125,390  91.7 Publix  

Pebblebrook Plaza (4)

  2000  2000  76,767  100.0 Publix  (Walgreens)

Shoppes @ 104

  1998  1990  108,192  97.4 Winn-Dixie  Navarro Discount Pharmacies

Welleby Plaza

  1996  1982  109,949  93.1 Publix  Bealls

Tampa / Orlando

           

Beneva Village Shops

  1998  1987  141,532  79.6 Publix  Walgreens, Harbor Freight Tools

Bloomingdale Square

  1998  1987  267,736  96.7 Publix, Wal-Mart, Bealls  Ace Hardware

East Towne Center

  2002  2003  69,841  92.0 Publix  

Kings Crossing Sun City

  1999  1999  75,020  98.4 Publix  

Lynnhaven (4)

  2001  2001  63,871  100.0 Publix  

Marketplace Shopping Center

  1995  1983  90,296  33.2   

Regency Square

  1993  1986  349,848  93.1 AMC Theater, Michaels, (Best Buy), (Macdill)  Dollar Tree, Marshalls, Shoe Carnival, Staples, TJ Maxx, PETCO, Hobbytown USA

Suncoast Crossing Phase I (3)

  2007  2007  108,434  91.9 Kohl’s  

Suncoast Crossing Phase II (3)

  2008  2008  9,451  0.0 (Target)  

Town Square

  1997  1999  44,380  100.0   PETCO, Pier 1 Imports

Village Center

  1995  1993  181,110  96.5 Publix  Walgreens, Stein Mart

Northgate Square

  2007  1995  75,495  100.0 Publix  

Westchase

  2007  1998  78,998  95.2 Publix  

Willa Springs (4)

  2000  2000  89,930  98.3 Publix  

West Palm Beach / Treasure Cove

           

Boynton Lakes Plaza

  1997  1993  124,924  83.5 Winn-Dixie  Citi Trends

Chasewood Plaza

  1993  1986  155,603  97.7 Publix  Bealls, Books-A-Million

East Port Plaza

  1997  1991  113,281  90.4 Publix  Walgreens

Island Crossing (4)

  2007  1996  58,456  100.0 Publix  

Martin Downs Village Center

  1993  1985  112,666  87.3   Bealls, Coastal Care

Martin Downs Village Shoppes

  1993  1998  48,937  87.1   Walgreens

Town Center at Martin Downs

  1996  1996  64,546  100.0 Publix  

Village Commons Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1986  169,053  80.6 Publix  CVS

Wellington Town Square

  1996  1982  107,325  98.9 Publix  CVS
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (FL)

      5,432,000  91.3   
              

TEXAS

           

Austin

           

Hancock

  1999  1998  410,438  96.0 H.E.B., Sears  Twin Liquors, PETCO, 24 Hour Fitness

Market at Round Rock

  1999  1987  122,646  57.7 Sprout’s Markets  

North Hills

  1999  1995  144,020  95.1 H.E.B.  

Dallas / Ft. Worth

           

Bethany Park Place (4)

  1998  1998  98,906  96.6 Kroger  

Cooper Street

  1999  1992  133,196  91.5 (Home Depot)  Office Max, K&G Men’s Company

Hickory Creek Plaza (3)

  2006  2006  28,134  47.2 (Kroger)  

Highland Village (3)

  2005  2005  351,635  79.2 AMC Theater  Barnes & Noble

Hillcrest Village

  1999  1991  14,530  100.0   

Keller Town Center

  1999  1999  114,937  95.2 Tom Thumb  

Lebanon/Legacy Center

  2000  2002  56,674  91.8 (Albertsons)  

Main Street Center (4)

  2002  2002  42,754  59.3 (Albertsons)  

Market at Preston Forest

  1999  1990  96,353  100.0 Tom Thumb  

Mockingbird Common

  1999  1987  120,321  100.0 Tom Thumb  Ogle School of Hair Design

Preston Park

  1999  1985  239,333  92.9 Tom Thumb  Gap

Prestonbrook

  1998  1998  91,537  95.3 Kroger  

Prestonwood Park

  1999  1999  101,167  51.4 (Albertsons)  

Rockwall Town Center

  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

CALIFORNIA (continued)

      

Woodside Central

  1999    1993    80,591    94.0  (Target)   Chuck E. Cheese, Marshalls

Ygnacio Plaza (4)

  2005    1968    109,701    100.0  Fresh & Easy   Sports Basement
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (CA)

    8,766,970    94.0  
            

FLORIDA

      

Ft. Myers / Cape Coral

      

Corkscrew Village

  2007    1997    82,011    93.6  Publix   —  

First Street Village

  2006    2006    54,926    89.4  Publix   —  

Grande Oak

  2000    2000    78,784    100.0  Publix   —  

Jacksonville / North Florida

      

Anastasia Plaza

  1993    1988    102,342    97.6  Publix   —  

Canopy Oak Center (3)(4)

  2006    2006    90,041    77.8  Publix   —  

Carriage Gate

  1994    1978    76,784    93.2  —     Leon County Tax Collector, TJ Maxx

Courtyard Shopping Center

  1993    1987    137,256    100.0  (Publix), Target   —  

Fleming Island

  1998    2000    136,663    67.7  Publix, (Target)   —  

Hibernia Pavilion

  2006    2006    51,298    94.9  Publix   —  

Hibernia Plaza

  2006    2006    8,400    16.7  —     (Walgreens)

Horton’s Corner

  2007    2007    14,820    100.0  —     Walgreens

John’s Creek Center (4)

  2003    2004    75,101    92.5  Publix   —  

Julington Village (4)

  1999    1999    81,820    100.0  Publix   (CVS)

Millhopper Shopping Center

  1993    1974    80,421    100.0  Publix   CVS, Jo-Ann Fabrics

Newberry Square

  1994    1986    180,524    95.5  Publix, K-Mart   Jo-Ann Fabrics

Nocatee Town Center (3)

  2007    2007    69,679    88.0  Publix   —  

Oakleaf Commons

  2006    2006    73,717    81.0  Publix   (Walgreens)

Old St Augustine Plaza

  1996    1990    232,459    99.1  
 
 
Publix, Burlington
Coat Factory,
Hobby Lobby
  
  
  
 CVS

Pine Tree Plaza

  1997    1999    63,387    96.8  Publix   —  

Plantation Plaza (4)

  2004    2004    77,747    89.1  Publix   —  

Seminole Shoppes (3)

  2009    2009    73,241    91.6  Publix   —  

Shoppes at Bartram Park (4)

  2005    2004    105,319    94.0  Publix, (Kohl’s)   Toll Brothers

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

  2008    2008    14,639    30.1  —     (Tutor Time)

Shops at John’s Creek

  2003    2004    15,490    65.0  —     —  

Starke

  2000    2000    12,739    100.0  —     CVS

Vineyard Shopping Center (4)

  2001    2002    62,821    81.6  Publix   —  

Miami / Fort Lauderdale

      

Aventura Shopping Center

  1994    1974    102,876    87.3  Publix   CVS

Berkshire Commons

  1994    1992    106,354    98.9  Publix   Walgreens

Caligo Crossing (3)

  2007    2007    10,763    87.0  (Kohl’s)   —  

Five Corners Plaza (4)

  2005    2001    44,647    88.1  Publix   —  

Garden Square

  1997    1991    90,258    95.7  Publix   CVS

Naples Walk Shopping Center

  2007    1999    125,390    87.9  Publix   —  

Pebblebrook Plaza (4)

  2000    2000    76,767    100.0  Publix   (Walgreens)

Shoppes @ 104

  1998    1990    108,192    94.9  Winn-Dixie   Navarro Discount Pharmacies

Welleby Plaza

  1996    1982    109,949    93.5  Publix   Bealls

Tampa / Orlando

      

Beneva Village Shops

  1998    1987    141,532    90.4  Publix   Walgreens, Harbor Freight Tools

Bloomingdale Square

  1998    1987    267,736    97.0  
 
Publix, Wal-Mart,
Bealls
  
  
 Ace Hardware

East Towne Center

  2002    2003    69,841    84.0  Publix   —  

Kings Crossing Sun City

  1999    1999    75,020    95.7  Publix   —  

Lynnhaven (4)

  2001    2001    63,871    100.0  Publix   —  

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

TEXAS (continued)

           

Shiloh Springs (4)

  1998  1998  110,040  91.2 Kroger  

Signature Plaza

  2003  2004  32,414  68.8 (Kroger)  

Trophy Club

  1999  1999  106,507  88.6 Tom Thumb  (Walgreens)

Houston

           

Alden Bridge (4)

  2002  1998  138,953  91.1 Kroger  Walgreens

Atascocita Center

  2002  2003  97,240  94.3 Kroger  

Cochran’s Crossing

  2002  1994  138,192  97.1 Kroger  CVS

Fort Bend Center

  2000  2000  30,164  92.1 (Kroger)  

Indian Springs Center (4)

  2002  2003  136,625  98.9 H.E.B.  

Kleinwood Center (4)

  2002  2003  148,964  79.7 H.E.B.  (Walgreens)

Memorial Collection Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1974  103,330  97.5 Randall’s Food  Walgreens

Panther Creek

  2002  1994  165,560  92.1 Randall’s Food  CVS, Sears Paint & Hardware

Sterling Ridge

  2002  2000  128,643  100.0 Kroger  CVS

Sweetwater Plaza (4)

  2001  2000  134,045  96.6 Kroger  Walgreens

Waterside Marketplace (3)

  2007  2007  24,858  92.5 (Kroger)  

Weslayan Plaza East (4)

  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  185,964  98.8 Randall’s Food  Walgreens, PETCO, Jo Ann’s, Office Max, Tuesday Morning

Westwood Village (3)

  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  85.1 Randall’s Food  
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (TX)

      4,358,457  89.8   
              

VIRGINIA

           

Richmond

           

Gayton Crossing (4)

  2005  1983  156,917  97.1 Ukrop’s  

Hanover Village Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1971  93,147  72.2   Tractor Supply Company

Village Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1948  111,177  100.0 Ukrop’s  CVS

Other Virginia

           

601 King Street (4)

  2005  1980  8,349  73.7   

Ashburn Farm Market Center

  2000  2000  91,905  95.7 Giant Food  

Ashburn Farm Village Center (4)

  2005  1996  88,897  89.3 Shoppers Food Warehouse  

Braemar Shopping Center (4)

  2004  2004  96,439  94.8 Safeway  

Centre Ridge Marketplace (4)

  2005  1996  104,100  94.5 Shoppers Food Warehouse  Sears

Cheshire Station

  2000  2000  97,156  100.0 Safeway  PETCO

Culpeper Colonnade

  2006  2006  62,114  93.8 Martin’s, (Target)  PetSmart, Staples

Fairfax Shopping Center

  2007  1955  78,711  78.2 --  Direct Furniture

Festival at Manchester Lakes (4)

  2005  1990  165,130  97.9 Shoppers Food Warehouse  

Fortuna Center Plaza (4)

  2004  2004  90,131  100.0 Shoppers Food Warehouse, (Target)  Rite Aid

Fox Mill Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1977  103,269  96.1 Giant Food  

Greenbriar Town Center (4)

  2005  1972  340,006  97.6 Giant Food  CVS, HMY Roomstore, Total Beverage, Ross Dress for Less, Marshalls, PETCO

Hollymead Town Center (4)

  2003  2004  153,739  97.0 Harris Teeter, (Target)  Petsmart

Kamp Washington Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1960  71,825  95.8   Borders Books

Kings Park Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1966  74,702  95.6 Giant Food  CVS

Lorton Station Marketplace (4)

  2006  2005  132,445  97.3 Shoppers Food Warehouse  Advanced Design Group

Lorton Town Center (4)

  2006  2005  51,807  88.5   ReMax

Market at Opitz Crossing

  2003  2003  149,791  91.4 Safeway  Boat U.S.

Saratoga Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1977  113,013  97.8 Giant Food  

Shops at County Center

  2005  2005  96,695  96.9 Harris Teeter  

Signal Hill (4)

  2003  2004  95,172  97.5 Shoppers Food Warehouse  

Stonewall (3)

  2007  2007  287,744  93.8 Wegmans  Staples, Ross Dress For Less, Bed Bath & Beyond, Michaels

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
  Year
Con-
structed  (1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased (2)
  Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf
 

Drug Store & Other Anchors >
10,000 Sq Ft

FLORIDA (continued)

      

Marketplace Shopping Center

  1995    1983    90,296    75.5 LA Fitness —  

Regency Square

  1993    1986    349,848    95.8 AMC Theater,
Michaels, (Best
Buy), (Macdill)
 Dollar Tree, Marshalls, Shoe Carnival, Staples, TJ Maxx, PETCO, Hobbytown USA

Suncoast Crossing Phase I (3)

  2007    2007    108,434    93.2 Kohl’s —  

Suncoast Crossing Phase II (3)

  2008    2008    9,451    44.5 (Target) —  

Town Square

  1997    1999    44,380    100.0 —   PETCO, Pier 1 Imports

Village Center

  1995    1993    181,110    97.1 Publix Walgreens, Stein Mart

Northgate Square

  2007    1995    75,495    100.0 Publix —  

Westchase

  2007    1998    78,998    95.2 Publix —  

Willa Springs (4)

  2000    2000    89,930    100.0 Publix —  

West Palm Beach / Treasure Cove

      

Boynton Lakes Plaza

  1997    1993    124,924    84.7 Winn-Dixie Citi Trends

Chasewood Plaza

  1993    1986    155,603    95.5 Publix Bealls, Books-A-Million

East Port Plaza

  1997    1991    162,831    84.9 Publix Walgreens

Island Crossing (4)

  2007    1996    58,456    100.0 Publix —  

Martin Downs Village Center

  1993    1985    112,666    87.3 —   Bealls, Coastal Care

Martin Downs Village Shoppes

  1993    1998    48,937    83.4 —   Walgreens

Town Center at Martin Downs

  1996    1996    64,546    100.0 Publix —  

Wellington Town Square

  1996    1982    107,325    97.0 Publix CVS
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (FL)

    5,308,855    92.4  
            

TEXAS

      

Austin

      

Hancock

  1999    1998    410,438    94.6 H.E.B., Sears Twin Liquors, PETCO, 24 Hour Fitness

Market at Round Rock

  1999    1987    122,646    60.2 Sprout’s Markets —  

North Hills

  1999    1995    144,020    98.6 H.E.B. —  

Dallas / Ft. Worth

      

Bethany Park Place (4)

  1998    1998    98,906    96.6 Kroger —  

Cooper Street

  1999    1992    127,696    87.6 (Home Depot) Office Max, K&G Men’s Company

Hickory Creek Plaza (3)

  2006    2006    28,134    77.6 (Kroger) —  

Shops at Highland Village

  2005    2005    351,635    83.1 AMC Theater Barnes & Noble

Hillcrest Village

  1999    1991    14,530    100.0 —   —  

Keller Town Center

  1999    1999    114,937    95.2 Tom Thumb —  

Lebanon/Legacy Center

  2000    2002    56,674    76.5 (Albertsons) —  

Main Street Center (4)

  2002    2002    42,754    51.4 (Albertsons) —  

Market at Preston Forest

  1999    1990    96,353    97.4 Tom Thumb —  

Mockingbird Common

  1999    1987    120,321    100.0 Tom Thumb Ogle School of Hair Design

Preston Park

  1999    1985    239,333    90.6 Tom Thumb Gap

Prestonbrook

  1998    1998    91,537    93.5 Kroger —  

Prestonwood Park

  1999    1999    101,167    61.7 (Albertsons) —  

Rockwall Town Center

  2002    2004    46,095    100.0 (Kroger) (Walgreens)

Shiloh Springs (4)

  1998    1998    110,040    83.6 Kroger —  

Signature Plaza

  2003    2004    32,415    75.9 (Kroger) —  

Trophy Club

  1999    1999    106,507    85.7 Tom Thumb (Walgreens)

Houston

      

Alden Bridge (4)

  2002    1998    138,953    94.5 Kroger Walgreens

Cochran’s Crossing

  2002    1994    138,192    93.4 Kroger CVS

Fort Bend Center

  2000    2000    30,164    83.3 (Kroger) —  

Indian Springs Center (4)

  2002    2003    136,625    98.5 H.E.B. —  

Kleinwood Center (4)

  2002    2003    148,964    81.2 H.E.B. (Walgreens)

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

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  1986  127,449  96.0 Safeway, (Target)  
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (VA)

      3,635,546  94.9   
              

ILLINOIS

           

Chicago

           

Baker Hill Center (4)

  2004  1998  135,355  94.6 Dominick’s  

Brentwood Commons (4)

  2005  1962  125,585  91.8 Dominick’s  Dollar Tree

Civic Center Plaza (4)

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

Deer Grove Center (4)

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

Frankfort Crossing Shpg Ctr

  2003  1992  114,534  91.8 Jewel / OSCO  Ace Hardware

Geneva Crossing (4)

  2004  1997  123,182  98.8 Dominick’s  Goodwill

Hinsdale

  1998  1986  178,960  81.0 Dominick’s  Ace Hardware

McHenry Commons Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1988  100,526  16.6   

Oaks Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1983  135,005  87.3 Dominick’s  

Riverside Sq & River’s Edge (4)

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

Riverview Plaza (4)

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

Shorewood Crossing (4)

  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

Stearns Crossing (4)

  2004  1999  96,613  92.6 Dominick’s  

Stonebrook Plaza Shopping Center (4)

  2005  1984  95,825  100.0 Dominick’s  

Westbrook Commons

  2001  1984  120,674  85.2 Dominick’s  

Champaign/Urbana

           

Champaign Commons (4)

  2007  1990  88,105  90.7 Schnucks  

Urbana Crossing (4)

  2007  1997  85,196  96.7 Schnucks  

Springfield

           

Montvale Commons (4)

  2007  1996  73,937  98.1 Schnucks  

Other Illinois

           

Carbondale Center (4)

  2007  1997  59,726  100.0 Schnucks  

Country Club Plaza (4)

  2007  2001  86,867  98.4 Schnucks  

Granite City (4)

  2007  2004  46,237  100.0 Schnucks  

Swansea Plaza (4)

  2007  1988  118,892  97.1 Schnucks  Fashion Bug
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (IL)

      2,769,037  89.7   
              

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

TEXAS (continued)

      

Panther Creek

  2002    1994    166,076    100.0  Randall’s Food   CVS, Sears Paint & Hardware

Sterling Ridge

  2002    2000    128,643    100.0  Kroger   CVS

Sweetwater Plaza (4)

  2001    2000    134,045    92.7  Kroger   Walgreens

Waterside Marketplace (3)

  2007    2007    24,858    92.5  (Kroger)   —  

Weslayan Plaza East (4)

  2005    1969    169,693    100.0  —     Berings, Ross Dress for Less, Michaels, Berings Warehouse, Chuck E. Cheese, The Next Level Fitness, Spec’s Liquor

Weslayan Plaza West (4)

  2005    1969    185,964    98.5  Randall’s Food   Walgreens, PETCO, Jo Ann’s, Office Max, Tuesday Morning

Westwood Village

  2006    2006    183,546    94.9  (Target)   Gold’s Gym, PetSmart, Office Max, Ross Dress For Less, TJ Maxx

Woodway Collection (4)

  2005    1974    111,165    84.5  Randall’s Food   —  
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (TX)

    4,153,026    90.3  
            

VIRGINIA

      

Richmond

      

Gayton Crossing (4)

  2005    1983    156,917    93.6  Ukrop’s   —  

Hanover Village Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1971    88,006    85.0     Tractor Supply Company

Village Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1948    111,177    93.2  Ukrop’s   CVS

Other Virginia

      

601 King Street (4)

  2005    1980    8,003    87.3     —  

Ashburn Farm Market Center

  2000    2000    91,905    97.2  Giant Food   —  

Ashburn Farm Village Center (4)

  2005    1996    88,897    89.3  
 
Shoppers Food
Warehouse
  
  
 —  

Braemar Shopping Center (4)

  2004    2004    96,439    94.8  Safeway   —  

Centre Ridge Marketplace (4)

  2005    1996    104,100    94.5  
 
Shoppers Food
Warehouse
  
  
 Sears

Cheshire Station

  2000    2000    97,156    100.0  Safeway   PETCO

Culpeper Colonnade

  2006    2006    131,707    96.1  Martin’s, (Target)   PetSmart, Staples

Fairfax Shopping Center

  2007    1955    76,311    80.8     Direct Furniture

Festival at Manchester Lakes (4)

  2005    1990    165,130    95.3  
 
Shoppers Food
Warehouse
  
  
 —  

Fortuna Center Plaza (4)

  2004    2004    104,694    100.0  
 
 
Shoppers Food
Warehouse,
(Target)
  
  
  
 Rite Aid

Fox Mill Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1977    103,269    96.1  Giant Food   —  

Greenbriar Town Center (4)

  2005    1972    340,006    96.9  Giant Food   CVS, HMY Roomstore, Total Beverage, Ross Dress for Less, Marshalls, PETCO

Hollymead Town Center (4)

  2003    2004    153,739    98.1  

 

Harris Teeter,

(Target)

 

  

 Petsmart

Kamp Washington Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1960    71,825    95.8     Borders Books

Kings Park Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1966    74,702    95.6  Giant Food   CVS

Lorton Station Marketplace (4)

  2006    2005    132,445    97.7  
 
Shoppers Food
Warehouse
  
  
 Advanced Design Group

Lorton Town Center (4)

  2006    2005    51,807    94.7     ReMax

Market at Opitz Crossing

  2003    2003    149,791    88.4  Safeway   Boat U.S.

Saratoga Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1977    113,013    94.7  Giant Food   —  

Shops at County Center

  2005    2005    96,695    96.9  Harris Teeter   —  

Signal Hill (4)

  2003    2004    95,172    100.0  
 
Shoppers Food
Warehouse
  
  
 —  

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

VIRGINIA (continued)

      

Stonewall

  2007    2007    267,175    95.3  Wegmans   Staples, Ross Dress For Less, Bed Bath & Beyond, Michaels

Town Center at Sterling Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1980    190,069    88.3  Giant Food   Washington Sports Club, Party Depot

Village Center at Dulles (4)

  2002    1991    298,271    98.3  
 
 
Shoppers Food
Warehouse,
Gold’s Gym
  
  
  
 CVS, Advance Auto Parts, Chuck E. Cheese, PETCO, Staples, The Thrift Store

Willston Centre I (4)

  2005    1952    105,376    85.9     CVS, Baileys Health Care

Willston Centre II (4)

  2005    1986    135,862    94.6  Safeway, (Target)   —  
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (VA)

    3,699,659    94.6  
            

ILLINOIS

      

Chicago

      

Baker Hill Center (4)

  2004    1998    135,355    99.1  Dominick’s   —  

Brentwood Commons (4)

  2005    1962    125,550    99.1  Dominick’s   Dollar Tree

Civic Center Plaza (4)

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

Deer Grove Center (4)

  2004    1996    236,173    79.0  

 

Dominick’s,

(Target)

  

  

 Michaels, PETCO, Factory Card Outlet, Dress Barn, Staples

Frankfort Crossing Shpg Ctr

  2003    1992    114,534    87.1  Jewel / OSCO   Ace Hardware

Geneva Crossing (4)

  2004    1997    123,182    96.7  Dominick’s   Goodwill

Glen Oak Plaza

  2010    1967    62,616    97.6  Trader Joe’s   Walgreens, ENH Medical Offices

Hinsdale

  1998    1986    178,960    97.5  Dominick’s   Ace Hardware

McHenry Commons Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1988    100,526    38.2     —  

Oaks Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1983    135,005    91.5  Dominick’s   —  

Riverside Sq & River’s Edge (4)

  2005    1986    169,435    95.8  Dominick’s   Ace Hardware, Party City

Riverview Plaza (4)

  2005    1981    139,256    93.1  Dominick’s   Walgreens, Toys “R” Us

Shorewood Crossing (4)

  2004    2001    87,705    98.4  Dominick’s   —  

Shorewood Crossing II (4)

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

Stonebrook Plaza Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1984    95,825    100.0  Dominick’s   —  

Westbrook Commons

  2001    1984    123,855    91.5  Dominick’s   —  

Willow Festival

  2010    2007    405,616    95.5  
 
Whole Foods, Best
Buy, Lowe’s
  
  
 CVS, DSW Warehouse, HomeGoods, Recreational Equipment

Champaign/Urbana

      

Champaign Commons (4)

  2007    1990    88,105    90.7  Schnucks   —  

Urbana Crossing (4)

  2007    1997    85,196    95.3  Schnucks   —  

Springfield

      

Montvale Commons (4)

  2007    1996    73,937    98.1  Schnucks   —  

Other Illinois

      

Carbondale Center (4)

  2007    1997    59,726    100.0  Schnucks   —  

Country Club Plaza (4)

  2007    2001    86,867    94.4  Schnucks   —  

Granite City (4)

  2007    2004    46,237    100.0  Schnucks   —  

Swansea Plaza (4)

  2007    1988    118,892    95.9  Schnucks   Fashion Bug
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (IL)

    3,143,802    92.8  
            

MISSOURI

      

St. Louis

      

Affton Plaza (4)

  2007    2000    67,760    100.0  Schnucks   —  

Bellerive Plaza (4)

  2007    2000    115,252    93.3  Schnucks   —  

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

MISSOURI (continued)

      

Brentwood Plaza (4)

  2007    2002    60,452    96.5  Schnucks   —  

Bridgeton (4)

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

Butler Hill Centre (4)

  2007    1987    90,889    96.3  Schnucks   —  

City Plaza (4)

  2007    1998    80,150    100.0  Schnucks   —  

Crestwood Commons (4)

  2007    1994    67,285    100.0  

 

Schnucks, (Best Buy),

(Gordman’s)

 

  

 —  

Dardenne Crossing (4)

  2007    1996    67,430    100.0  Schnucks   —  

Dorsett Village (4)

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

Kirkwood Commons (4)

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

Lake St. Louis (4)

  2007    2004    75,643    96.3  Schnucks   —  

O’Fallon Centre (4)

  2007    1984    71,300    89.0  Schnucks   —  

Plaza 94 (4)

  2007    2005    66,555    95.4  Schnucks   —  

Richardson Crossing (4)

  2007    2000    82,994    97.1  Schnucks   —  

Shackelford Center (4)

  2007    2006    49,635    95.8  Schnucks   —  

Sierra Vista Plaza (4)

  2007    1993    74,666    98.4  Schnucks   —  

Twin Oaks (4)

  2007    2006    71,682    100.0  Schnucks   (Walgreens)

University City Square (4)

  2007    1997    79,230    100.0  Schnucks   —  

Washington Crossing (4)

  2007    1999    117,626    97.1  Schnucks   Michaels, Altmueller Jewelry

Wentzville Commons (4)

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

Wildwood Crossing (4)

  2007    1997    108,200    74.4  Schnucks   —  

Zumbehl Commons (4)

  2007    1990    116,682    95.7  Schnucks   Ace Hardware

Other Missouri

      

Capital Crossing (4)

  2007    2002    85,149    94.4  Schnucks   —  
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MO)

    2,265,467    96.8  
            

OHIO

      

Cincinnati

      

Beckett Commons

  1998    1995    121,498    81.8  Kroger   —  

Cherry Grove

  1998    1997    195,513    98.0  Kroger   Hancock Fabrics, Shoe Carnival, TJ Maxx

Hyde Park

  1997    1995    396,861    97.4  Kroger, Biggs   Walgreens, Jo-Ann Fabrics, Ace Hardware, Michaels, Staples

Indian Springs Market Center (4)

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

Red Bank Village

  2006    2006    164,317    96.5  Wal-Mart   —  

Regency Commons

  2004    2004    30,770    80.5     —  

Shoppes at Mason

  1998    1997    80,800    100.0  Kroger   —  

Sycamore Crossing & Sycamore Plaza (4)

  2008    1966    390,957    89.0  
 
 
 
Fresh Market, Macy’s
Furniture Gallery,
Toys ‘R Us, Dick’s
Sporting Goods
  
  
  
  
 Barnes & Noble, Old Navy, Staples, Identity Salon & Day Spa

Westchester Plaza

  1998    1988    88,181    98.4  Kroger   —  

Columbus

      

East Pointe

  1998    1993    86,503    98.4  Kroger   —  

Kroger New Albany Center

  1999    1999    93,286    91.8  Kroger   —  

Maxtown Road (Northgate)

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

Park Place Shopping Center

  1998    1988    106,832    61.2     Big Lots

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

OHIO (continued)

      

Windmiller Plaza Phase I

  1998    1997    140,437    98.5  Kroger   Sears Hardware

Wadsworth Crossing

  2005    2005    108,164    88.7  
 
(Kohl’s), (Lowe’s),
(Target)
  
  
 Office Max, Bed, Bath & Beyond, MC Sports, PETCO
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (OH)

    2,235,335    92.9  
            

NORTH CAROLINA

      

Charlotte

      

Carmel Commons

  1997    1979    132,651    90.5  Fresh Market   Chuck E. Cheese, Party City, Eckerd, Casual Furniture Marketplace

Cochran Commons (4)

  2007    2003    66,020    91.6  Harris Teeter   (Walgreens)

Providence Commons (4)

  2010    1994    197,801    100.0  Lowe’s   Rite Aid

Greensboro

      

Harris Crossing (3)

  2007    2007    65,151    84.8  Harris Teeter   —  

Raleigh / Durham

      

Cameron Village (4)

  2004    1949    554,738    96.9  
 
Harris Teeter, Fresh
Market
  
  
 Eckerd, Talbots, Wake County Public Library, Great Outdoor Provision Co., York Properties, The Bargain Box, K&W Cafeteria, Johnson-Lambe Sporting Goods, Pier 1 Imports, Pirate’s Chest Fine Antiques

Colonnade Center (3)

  2009    2009    57,511    76.5  Whole Foods   —  

Fuquay Crossing (4)

  2004    2002    124,774    94.6  Kroger   Peak’s Fitness, Dollar Tree

Garner Towne Square

  1998    1998    221,776    78.9  
 
Kroger, (Home
Depot), (Target)
  
  
 Office Max, Petsmart, Shoe Carnival, United Artist Theater

Glenwood Village

  1997    1983    42,864    96.8  Harris Teeter   —  

Lake Pine Plaza

  1998    1997    87,690    89.6  Kroger   —  

Maynard Crossing (4)

  1998    1997    122,782    93.2  Kroger   —  

Middle Creek Commons

  2006    2006    73,634    92.7  Lowes Foods   —  

Shoppes of Kildaire (4)

  2005    1986    148,204    97.8  Trader Joe’s   Home Comfort Furniture, Gold’s Gym, Staples

Southpoint Crossing

  1998    1998    103,128    96.4  Kroger   —  

Sutton Square (4)

  2006    1985    101,024    91.9  Fresh Market   Rite Aid

Woodcroft Shopping Center

  1996    1984    89,833    95.4  Food Lion   Triangle True Value Hardware
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (NC)

    2,189,581    92.9  
            

COLORADO

      

Colorado Springs

      

Falcon Marketplace

  2005    2005    22,491    66.2  
 
(Wal-Mart
Supercenter)
  
  
 —  

Marketplace at Briargate

  2006    2006    29,075    90.0  (King Soopers)   —  

Monument Jackson Creek

  1998    1999    85,263    100.0  King Soopers   —  

Woodmen Plaza

  1998    1998    116,233    89.9  King Soopers   —  

Denver

      

Applewood Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1956    375,522    96.1  
 
King Soopers, Wal-
Mart
 
  
 Applejack Liquors, PetSmart, Wells Fargo Bank

Arapahoe Village (4)

  2005    1957    159,237    90.4  Safeway   Jo-Ann Fabrics, PETCO, Pier 1 Imports, Bottles Wine & Spirit

Belleview Square

  2004    1978    117,335    100.0  King Soopers   —  

Boulevard Center

  1999    1986    88,579    89.2  (Safeway)   One Hour Optical

Buckley Square

  1999    1978    116,147    92.2  King Soopers   Ace Hardware

Centerplace of Greeley Phase III (3)

  2007    2007    94,090    81.5  Sports Authority   Best Buy

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

WASHINGTON (continued)

           

Southcenter

  1999  1990  58,282  77.2 (Target)  —  

Thomas Lake

  1999  1998  103,872  96.4 Albertsons  Rite Aid
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (WA)

      1,038,514  95.4   
              

OREGON

           

Portland

           

Greenway Town Center (4)

  2005  1979  93,101  98.1 Lamb’s Thriftway  Rite Aid, Dollar Tree

Murrayhill Marketplace

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

Sherwood Crossroads

  1999  1999  87,966  98.4 Safeway  —  

Sherwood Market Center

  1999  1995  124,259  98.6 Albertsons  —  

Sunnyside 205

  1999  1988  52,710  88.3   —  

Tanasbourne Market

  2006  2006  71,000  100.0 Whole Foods  —  

Walker Center

  1999  1987  89,610  100.0 Sports Authority  —  

Other Oregon

           

Corvallis Market Center

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

Subtotal/Weighted Average (OR)

      752,162  98.1   
              

TENNESSEE

           

Memphis

           

Collierville Crossing (4)

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

Nashville

           

Lebanon Center (3)

  2006  2006  63,800  86.8 Publix  —  

Harpeth Village Fieldstone

  1997  1998  70,091  100.0 Publix  —  

Nashboro Village

  1998  1998  86,811  95.2 Kroger  (Walgreens)

Northlake Village

  2000  1988  137,807  80.6 Kroger  PETCO

Peartree Village

  1997  1997  109,904  97.9 Harris Teeter  Eckerd, Office Max

Other Tennessee

           

Dickson Tn

  1998  1998  10,908  100.0   Eckerd
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (TN)

      565,386  91.8   
              

MASSACHUSETTS

           

Boston

           

Shops at Saugus (3)

  2006  2006  97,404  91.3 Trader Joe’s  La-Z-Boy, PetSmart

Speedway Plaza (4)

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

Twin City Plaza

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

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MA)

      564,386  95.2   
              

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

COLORADO (continued)

      

Cherrywood Square (4)

  2005    1978    86,162    93.3  King Soopers   —  

Crossroads Commons (4)

  2001    1986    143,625    96.7  Whole Foods   Barnes & Noble, Bicycle Village

Hilltop Village (4)

  2002    2003    100,030    93.8  King Soopers   —  

NorthGate Village (3)

  2008    2008    19,376    5.3  (King Soopers)   —  

South Lowry Square

  1999    1993    119,916    82.3  Safeway   —  

Littleton Square

  1999    1997    94,222    70.9  King Soopers   Walgreens

Lloyd King Center

  1998    1998    83,326    91.6  King Soopers   —  

Ralston Square Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1977    82,750    96.2  King Soopers   —  

Shops at Quail Creek (3)

  2008    2008    37,585    76.5  (King Soopers)   —  

Stroh Ranch

  1998    1998    93,436    93.3  King Soopers   —  
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (CO)

    2,064,400    90.5  
            

MARYLAND

      

Baltimore

      

Elkridge Corners (4)

  2005    1990    73,529    100.0  Super Fresh   Rite Aid

Festival at Woodholme (4)

  2005    1986    81,016    85.8  Trader Joe’s   —  

Village at Lee Airpark (3)

  2005    2005    95,010    90.1  

 

Giant Food,

(Sunrise)

 

  

 —  

Parkville Shopping Center (4)

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

Southside Marketplace (4)

  2005    1990    125,146    86.8  
 
Shoppers Food
Warehouse
  
  
 Rite Aid

Valley Centre (4)

  2005    1987    247,837    81.6     TJ Maxx, Sony Theatres, Ross Dress for Less, HomeGoods, Staples, PetSmart

Other Maryland

      

Bowie Plaza (4)

  2005    1966    102,904    89.3     CVS

Clinton Park (4)

  2003    2003    206,050    94.1  
 
Giant Food, Sears,
(Toys “R” Us)
  
  
 Fitness For Less

Cloppers Mill Village (4)

  2005    1995    137,035    87.7  
 
Shoppers Food
Warehouse
  
  
 CVS

Firstfield Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1978    22,328    93.3     —  

Goshen Plaza (4)

  2005    1987    45,654    88.1     CVS

King Farm Village Center (4)

  2004    2001    118,326    96.4  Safeway   —  

Mitchellville Plaza (4)

  2005    1991    156,125    81.4  Food Lion   —  

Takoma Park (4)

  2005    1960    106,469    93.4  
 
Shoppers Food
Warehouse
  
  
 —  

Watkins Park Plaza (4)

  2005    1985    113,443    94.8  Safeway   CVS

Woodmoor Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1954    67,403    88.6     CVS
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MD)

    1,860,710    89.8  
            

GEORGIA

      

Atlanta

      

Ashford Place

  1997    1993    53,345    59.7  —     —  

Briarcliff La Vista

  1997    1962    39,204    100.0  —     Michaels

Briarcliff Village

  1997    1990    187,156    87.2  Publix   Office Depot, Party City, PETCO, TJ Maxx

Buckhead Court

  1997    1984    48,338    98.4  —     —  

Cambridge Square

  1996    1979    71,474    99.9  Kroger   —  

Chapel Hill Centre

  2005    2005    66,970    94.3  
 
(Kohl’s), Hobby
Lobby
  
  
 —  

Cromwell Square

  1997    1990    80,406    92.5  —     CVS, Hancock Fabrics, Antiques & Interiors of Sandy Springs

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

DELAWARE

           

Dover

           

White Oak—Dover, DE

  2000  2000  10,908  100.0   Eckerd

Wilmington

           

First State Plaza (4)

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

Pike Creek

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

Shoppes of Graylyn (4)

  2005  1971  66,808  92.9   Rite Aid
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (DE)

      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  —  

Orangeburg

  2006  2006  14,820  100.0   Walgreens

Queensborough Shopping Center (4)

  1998  1993  82,333  95.9 Publix  —  

Columbia

           

Murray Landing (4)

  2002  2003  64,359  97.8 Publix  —  

Greenville

           

Other South Carolina

           

Buckwalter Village (3)

  2006  2006  59,601  88.3 Publix  —  

Surfside Beach Commons (4)

  2007  1999  59,881  94.7 Bi-Lo  —  
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (SC)

      360,718  95.2   
              

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  84,740  76.2 Publix  —  

Valleydale Village Shop Center (4)

  2002  2003  118,466  69.1 Publix  —  
              

Subtotal/Weighted Average (AL)

      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

GEORGIA (continued)

      

Delk Spectrum

  1998    1991    100,539    82.0  Publix   Eckerd

Dunwoody Hall (4)

  1997    1986    89,351    100.0  Publix   Eckerd

Dunwoody Village

  1997    1975    120,598    87.4  Fresh Market   Walgreens, Dunwoody Prep

Howell Mill Village

  2004    1984    97,990    88.7  Publix   Eckerd

King Plaza (4)

  2007    1998    81,432    84.6  Publix   —  

Loehmanns Plaza Georgia

  1997    1986    137,139    92.4  —     Loehmann’s, Dance 101, Office Max

Lost Mountain Crossing (4)

  2007    1994    72,568    93.0  Publix   —  

Paces Ferry Plaza

  1997    1987    61,697    100.0  —     Harry Norman Realtors

Powers Ferry Square

  1997    1987    95,703    78.8  —     CVS, Pearl Arts & Crafts

Powers Ferry Village

  1997    1994    78,896    96.2  Publix   CVS, Mardi Gras

Rivermont Station

  1997    1996    90,267    69.7  Kroger   —  

Russell Ridge

  1994    1995    98,559    92.6  Kroger   —  
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (GA)

    1,671,632    88.9  
            

PENNSYLVANIA

      

Allentown / Bethlehem

      

Allen Street Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1958    46,228    100.0  Ahart Market   Rite Aid

Lower Nazareth Commons (3)

  2007    2007    65,367    92.0  
 
(Target), Sports
Authority
  
  
 —  

Stefko Boulevard Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1976    133,824    89.9  
 
Valley Farm
Market
  
  
 —  

Harrisburg

      

Silver Spring Square (4)

  2005    2005    314,449    95.4  Wegmans, (Target)   Ross Dress For Less, Bed Bath and Beyond, Best Buy, Office Max, Ulta, PETCO

Philadelphia

      

City Avenue Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1960    159,095    92.8  —     Ross Dress for Less, TJ Maxx, Sears

Gateway Shopping Center

  2004    1960    219,257    94.0  Trader Joe’s   Staples, TJ Maxx, Famous Footwear, Jo-Ann Fabrics

Kulpsville Village Center

  2006    2006    14,820    100.0  —     Walgreens

Mercer Square Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1988    91,400    90.1  Genuardi’s   —  

Newtown Square Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1970    146,959    92.8  Acme Markets   Rite Aid

Warwick Square Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1999    89,680    92.5  Genuardi’s   —  

Other Pennsylvania

      

Hershey

  2000    2000    6,000    100.0  —     —  
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (PA)

    1,287,079    93.5  
            

WASHINGTON

      

Portland

      

Orchards Market Center I (4)

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

Orchards Market Center II

  2005    2005    77,478    87.3  LA Fitness   Office Depot

Seattle

      

Aurora Marketplace (4)

  2005    1991    106,921    95.9  Safeway   TJ Maxx

Cascade Plaza (4)

  1999    1999    211,072    80.5  Safeway   Bally Total Fitness, Fashion Bug, Jo-Ann Fabrics, Ross Dress For Less, Big Lots

Eastgate Plaza (4)

  2005    1956    78,230    100.0  Albertsons   Rite Aid

Inglewood Plaza

  1999    1985    17,253    100.0  —     —  

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   
              

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
  Year
Con-
structed  (1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased (2)
  Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf
  

Drug Store & Other Anchors >
10,000 Sq Ft

WASHINGTON(continued)

      

Overlake Fashion Plaza (4)

  2005    1987    80,555    96.9  (Sears)   Marshalls

Pine Lake Village

  1999    1989    102,899    100.0  Quality Foods   Rite Aid

Sammamish-Highlands

  1999    1992    101,289    95.5  (Safeway)   Bartell Drugs, Ace Hardware

WASHINGTON (continued)

      

Southcenter

  1999    1990    58,282    90.0  (Target)   —  

Thomas Lake

  1999    1998    103,872    92.8  Albertsons   Rite Aid
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (WA)

    1,038,514    92.7  
            

OREGON

      

Portland

      

Greenway Town Center (4)

  2005    1979    93,101    95.9  Lamb’s Thriftway   Rite Aid, Dollar Tree

Murrayhill Marketplace

  1999    1988    148,967    93.5  Safeway   Segal’s Baby News

Sherwood Crossroads

  1999    1999    87,966    93.3  Safeway   —  

Sherwood Market Center

  1999    1995    124,259    97.8  Albertsons   —  

Sunnyside 205

  1999    1988    52,710    98.4  —     —  

Tanasbourne Market

  2006    2006    71,000    97.3  Whole Foods   —  

Walker Center

  1999    1987    89,610    100.0  Sports Authority   —  

Other Oregon

      

Corvallis Market Center

  2006    2006    84,548    100.0  Trader Joe’s   TJ Maxx, Michael’s
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (OR)

    752,161    96.7  
            

TENNESSEE

      

Memphis

      

Collierville Crossing (4)

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

Nashville

      

Lebanon Center

  2006    2006    63,800    89.0  Publix   —  

Harpeth Village Fieldstone

  1997    1998    70,091    100.0  Publix   —  

Nashboro Village

  1998    1998    86,811    95.2  Kroger   (Walgreens)

Northlake Village

  2000    1988    137,807    88.7  Kroger   PETCO

Peartree Village

  1997    1997    109,904    90.9  Harris Teeter   Eckerd, Office Max

Other Tennessee

      

Dickson Tn

  1998    1998    10,908    100.0  —     Eckerd
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (TN)

    565,386    92.7  
            

MASSACHUSETTS

      

Boston

      

Shops at Saugus (3)

  2006    2006    90,055    91.9  Trader Joe’s   La-Z-Boy, PetSmart

Speedway Plaza (4)

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

Twin City Plaza

  2006    2004    281,703    94.3  Shaw’s, Marshall’s   Rite Aid, K&G Fashion, Dollar Tree, Gold’s Gym, Extra Space Storage
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MA)

    557,037    95.8  
            

ARIZONA

      

Phoenix

      

Anthem Marketplace

  2003    2000    113,292    90.1  Safeway   —  

Palm Valley Marketplace (4)

  2001    1999    107,633    93.2  Safeway   —  

Pima Crossing

  1999    1996    239,438    91.7  
 
Golf & Tennis Pro
Shop, Inc.
  
  
 Life Time Fitness, E & J Designer Shoe Outlet, Paddock Pools Store, Pier 1 Imports, Stein Mart

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
  Year
Con-
structed  (1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased (2)
  Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf
  

Drug Store & Other Anchors >
10,000 Sq Ft

ARIZONA (continued)

      

Shops at Arizona

  2003    2000    35,710    84.2     Ace Hardware
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (AZ)

    496,073    91.1  
            

MINNESOTA

      

Apple Valley Square (4)

  2006    1998    184,841    100.0  
 
 
 
Rainbow
Foods, Jo-Ann
Fabrics, (Burlington
Coat Factory)
  
  
  
  
 Savers, PETCO

Colonial Square (4)

  2005    1959    93,200    100.0  Lund’s   —  

Rockford Road Plaza (4)

  2005    1991    205,479    93.9  Rainbow Foods   PetSmart, HomeGoods, TJ Maxx
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MN)

    483,520    97.4  
            

DELAWARE

      

Dover

      

White Oak—Dover, DE

  2000    2000    10,908    100.0     Eckerd

Wilmington

      

First State Plaza (4)

  2005    1988    164,779    85.1  Shop Rite   Cinemark, Dollar Tree, US Post Office

Pike Creek

  1998    1981    231,772    89.4  
 
Acme Markets,
K-Mart
  
  
 Rite Aid

Shoppes of Graylyn (4)

  2005    1971    66,808    89.1     Rite Aid
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (DE)

    474,267    88.1  
            

NEVADA

      

Anthem Highlands Shopping Center

  2004    2004    108,515    80.6  Albertsons   CVS

Deer Springs Town Center (3)

  2007    2007    330,907    79.2  
 
 
(Target), Home
Depot, Toys
“R” Us
  
  
  
 Party Superstores, PetSmart, Ross Dress For Less, Staples
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (NV)

    439,422    79.5  
            

SOUTH CAROLINA

      

Charleston

      

Merchants Village (4)

  1997    1997    79,724    97.0  Publix   —  

Orangeburg

  2006    2006    14,820    100.0     Walgreens

Queensborough Shopping Center (4)

  1998    1993    82,333    95.9  Publix   —  

Columbia

      

Murray Landing (4)

  2002    2003    64,359    97.8  Publix   —  

Greenville

      

Other South Carolina

      

Buckwalter Village

  2006    2006    59,601    95.3  Publix   —  

Surfside Beach Commons (4)

  2007    1999    59,881    94.7  Bi-Lo   —  
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (SC)

    360,718    96.3  
            

INDIANA

      

Chicago

      

Airport Crossing (3)

  2006    2006    11,924    77.8  (Kohl’s)   —  

Augusta Center

  2006    2006    14,532    75.4  (Menards)   —  

Evansville

      

Evansville West Center (4)

  2007    1989    79,885    91.9  Schnucks   —  

Index to Financial Statements

Property Name

 Year
Acquired
  Year
Con-
structed  (1)
  Gross
Leasable
Area
(GLA)
  Percent
Leased (2)
  Grocer & Major
Tenant(s) >40,000sf
  

Drug Store & Other Anchors >
10,000 Sq Ft

INDIANA (continued)

      

Indianapolis

      

Greenwood Springs

  2004    2004    28,028    50.0  

 

 

(Gander Mountain),

(Wal-Mart

Supercenter)

  

 

 

 —  

Willow Lake Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1987    85,923    84.9  (Kroger)   Factory Card Outlet

Willow Lake West Shopping Center (4)

  2005    2001    52,961    100.0  Trader Joe’s   —  
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (IN)

    273,253    85.5  
            

WISCONSIN

      

Racine Centre Shopping Center (4)

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

Whitnall Square Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1989    133,301    90.0  Pick ‘N’ Save   Harbor Freight Tools, Dollar Tree, Walgreens
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (WI)

    269,128    94.2  
            

ALABAMA

      

Shoppes at Fairhope Village (3)

  2008    2008    84,740    77.8  Publix   —  

Valleydale Village Shop Center (4)

  2002    2003    118,466    64.6  Publix   —  
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (AL)

    203,206    70.1  
            

CONNECTICUT

      

Corbin’s Corner (4)

  2005    1962    179,863    99.8  Trader Joe’s   Toys “R” Us, Best Buy, Old Navy, Office Depot, Pier 1 Imports
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (CT)

    179,863    99.8  
            

NEW JERSEY

      

Haddon Commons (4)

  2005    1985    52,640    93.4  Acme Markets   CVS

Plaza Square (4)

  2005    1990    103,842    94.1  Shop Rite   —  
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (NJ)

    156,482    93.8  
            

MICHIGAN

      

Fenton Marketplace

  1999    1999    97,224    90.0  Farmer Jack   Michaels

State Street Crossing (3)

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

Subtotal/Weighted Average (MI)

    118,273    84.6  
            

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

      

Shops at The Columbia (4)

  2006    2006    22,812    83.7  Trader Joe’s   —  

Spring Valley Shopping Center (4)

  2005    1930    16,835    100.0  —     CVS
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (DC)

    39,647    90.6  
            

KENTUCKY

      

Walton Towne Center (3)

  2007    2007    23,186    81.9  (Kroger)   —  
            

Subtotal/Weighted Average (KY)

    23,186    81.9  
            

Total/Weighted Average

    45,076,652    92.6  
            

 

(1)Or latest renovation.
(2)Includes development properties. If development properties are excluded, the total percentage leased would be 93.1%93.2% for RegencyCompany shopping centers.
(3)Property under development or redevelopment.development.
(4)Owned by a co-investment partnership with outside investors in which the Operating PartnershipRCLP or an affiliate is the general partner.

Note: Shadow anchor is indicated by parentheses.

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(Removed and Reserved)

No matters were submitted for a stockholder vote during the fourth quarter of 2009.

PART II

 

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

Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “REG”. As of February 16, 2010,24, 2011, we had approximately 17,70017,000 holders of common equity. The following table sets forth the high and low prices and the cash dividends declared on our common stock by quarter for 20092010 and 2008.2009:

 

  2009  2008  2010   2009 

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

  $46.54  22.02  .7250  67.08  52.86  .7250  $39.37     32.54     0.4625     46.54     22.02     0.7250  

June 30

   38.63  26.55  .4625  73.52  58.13  .7250   41.96     34.01     0.4625     38.63     26.55     0.4625  

September 30

   41.05  28.50  .4625  73.10  51.67  .7250   40.24     32.25     0.4625     41.05     28.50     0.4625  

December 31

   36.24  31.62  .4625  66.19  23.36  .7250   44.80     39.60     0.4625     36.24     31.62     0.4625  

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

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

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

Item 5.

Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer PurchasesDate

Number of Equity Securities (continued)Shares

12/30/2010

12,000

Index to Financial Statements

The following table provides information about the Company’s purchases of equity securities that are registered by the Company pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act during the quarter ended December 31, 2009:2010:

Period

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

October 1 through October 31, 2009

  197  $36.26  —    —  

November 1 through November 30, 2009

  98   34.19  —    —  

December 1 through December 31, 2009

  —     —    —    —  
           

Total

  295  $35.57  —    —  
           

 

Period

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

October 1 through October 31, 2010

—  —  —  —  

November 1 through November 30, 2010

—  —  —  —  

December 1 through December 31, 2010

—  $—  —  —  

Total

—  $—  —  —  

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

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, 2004.2005. The stock performance graph should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other filing made by us under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate the stock performance graph by reference in another filing.

*$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 share and unit data, number of properties, and ratio of earnings to fixed charges)

The following table setstables set forth Selected Financial Data for Regency on a historical basis for the five years ended December 31, 2009.2010. This historical Selected Financial Data has been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements as reclassified for discontinued operations. This information should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements of Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. (including the related notes thereto) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of the Financial Condition and Results of Operations, each included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

Parent Company

 

  2009 2008 2007 2006 2005   2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 

Operating Data:

            

Revenues

  $489,232   495,895   436,006   405,480   374,112    $486,806    488,073    494,934    434,737    404,602  

Operating expenses

   308,019   277,710   247,912   232,988   200,672     311,622    307,138    277,095    246,924    232,429  

Other expense (income)

   193,479   103,907   30,174   13,748   66,884     153,733    193,479    103,907    30,174    13,748  

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

   (12,266 114,278   157,920   158,744   106,556     21,451    (12,544  113,932    157,639    158,425  

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

   (26,373 5,292   18,093   2,580   (2,908   (12,884  (26,373  5,292    18,093    2,580  

Income (loss) from continuing operations

   (38,639 119,570   176,013   161,324   103,648     8,567    (38,917  119,224    175,732    161,005  

Income (loss) from discontinued operations

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

Income from discontinued operations

   7,632    6,174    22,297    34,284    68,970  

Net income (loss)

   (32,743 141,521   210,016   229,975   174,299     16,199    (32,743  141,521    210,016    229,975  

Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests

   (3,961 (5,333 (6,365 (11,464 (11,652   (4,185  (3,961  (5,333  (6,365  (11,464

Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests

   (36,704 136,188   203,651   218,511   162,647     12,014    (36,704  136,188    203,651    218,511  

Preferred stock dividends

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

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

   (56,379 116,513   183,976   198,836   145,903    $(7,661  (56,379  116,513    183,976    198,836  

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  

Income (loss) per common share – diluted:

      

Income (loss) from continuing operations

  $(0.19  (0.82  1.35    2.16    1.89  

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

  $(0.10  (0.74  1.66    2.65    2.89  

Other Information:

            

Common dividends declared per share

  $2.11   2.90   2.64   2.38   2.20    $1.85    2.11    2.90    2.64    2.38  

Common stock outstanding including exchangeable operating partnership units

   82,008   70,505   70,112   69,759   69,218  ��  82,064    82,008    70,505    70,112    69,759  

Combined Basis gross leasable area (GLA)

   44,972   49,645   51,107   47,187   46,243     45,077    44,972    49,645    51,107    47,187  

Combined Basis number of properties owned

   400   440   451   405   393     396    400    440    451    405  

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges

   1.0   1.6   2.0   2.0   1.9     2.5    1.0    1.6    2.0    2.1  

Balance Sheet Data:

            

Real estate investments before accumulated depreciation

  $4,259,990   4,425,895   4,367,191   3,870,629   3,744,429    $4,417,746    4,259,990    4,425,895    4,367,191    3,870,629  

Total assets

   3,973,806   4,142,375   4,114,773   3,643,546   3,587,976     3,973,648    3,973,806    4,142,375    4,114,773    3,643,546  

Total debt

   1,886,380   2,135,571   2,007,975   1,575,386   1,613,942     2,094,469    1,886,380    2,135,571    2,007,975    1,575,386  

Total liabilities

   2,030,412   2,380,093   2,194,244   1,734,572   1,739,225     2,212,988    2,030,412    2,380,093    2,194,244    1,734,572  

Stockholders’ equity

   1,701,435    1,875,167    1,696,861    1,843,061    1,825,954  

Noncontrolling interests

   68,227   65,421   77,468   83,020   87,305     59,225    68,227    65,421    77,468    83,020  

Stockholders’ equity

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

Index to Financial Statements

Operating Partnership

 

  2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 
  2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 

Operating Data:

            

Revenues

  $489,232   495,895   436,006   405,480   374,112    $486,806    488,073    494,934    434,737    404,602  

Operating expenses

   308,019   277,710   247,912   232,988   200,672     311,622    307,138    277,095    246,924    232,429  

Other expense (income)

   193,479   103,907   30,174   13,748   66,884     153,733    193,479    103,907    30,174    13,748  

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

   (12,266 114,278   157,920   158,744   106,556     21,451    (12,544  113,932    157,639    158,425  

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

   (26,373 5,292   18,093   2,580   (2,908   (12,884  (26,373  5,292    18,093    2,580  

Income (loss) from continuing operations

   (38,639 119,570   176,013   161,324   103,648     8,567    (38,917  119,224    175,732    161,005  

Income (loss) from discontinued operations

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

Income from discontinued operations

   7,632    6,174    22,297    34,284    68,970  

Net income (loss)

   (32,743 141,521   210,016   229,975   174,299     16,199    (32,743  141,521    210,016    229,975  

Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests

   (452 (701 (990 (4,863 (263   (376  (452  (701  (990  (4,863

Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests

   (33,195 140,820   209,026   225,112   174,036     15,823    (33,195  140,820    209,026    225,112  

Preferred unit distributions

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

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

   (56,595 117,420   185,626   201,712   149,187    $(7,577  (56,595  117,420    185,626    201,712  

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  

Income (loss) per common unit - diluted:

      

Income (loss) from continuing operations

  $(0.19  (0.82  1.35    2.16    1.89  

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

  $(0.10  (0.74  1.66    2.65    2.89  

Other Information:

            

Distributions per unit

  $2.11   2.90   2.64   2.38   2.20    $1.85    2.11    2.90    2.64    2.38  

Common units outstanding

   82,008   70,505   70,112   69,759   69,218     82,064    82,008    70,505    70,112    69,759  

Preferred units outstanding

   500   500   500   500   1,040     500    500    500    500    500  

Combined Basis gross leasable area (GLA)

   44,972   49,645   51,107   47,187   46,243     45,077    44,972    49,645    51,107    47,187  

Combined Basis number of properties owned

   400   440   451   405   393     396    400    440    451    405  

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges

   1.0   1.6   2.0   2.0   1.9     2.5    1.0    1.6    2.0    2.1  

Balance Sheet Data:

            

Real estate investments before accumulated depreciation

  $4,259,990   4,425,895   4,367,191   3,870,629   3,744,429    $4,417,746    4,259,990    4,425,895    4,367,191    3,870,629  

Total assets

   3,973,806   4,142,375   4,114,773   3,643,546   3,587,976     3,973,648    3,973,806    4,142,375    4,114,773    3,643,546  

Total debt

   1,886,380   2,135,571   2,007,975   1,575,386   1,613,942     2,094,469    1,886,380    2,135,571    2,007,975    1,575,386  

Total liabilities

   2,030,412   2,380,093   2,194,244   1,734,572   1,739,225     2,212,988    2,030,412    2,380,093    2,194,244    1,734,572  

Partners’ capital

   1,749,831    1,931,646    1,754,302    1,902,138    1,891,177  

Noncontrolling interests

   11,748   7,980   18,391   17,797   11,089     10,829    11,748    7,980    18,391    17,797  

Partners’ capital

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

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

Overview of Our Strategy

Regency Centers Corporation (the “Parent Company”) began its operations as a Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”) in 1993 and is the managing general partner in Regency Centers, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”). The term “the Company” or “Regency” means the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership, collectively. Our key strategic goals are focused on producing superior results to our shareholders by achieving total share and unit holder returnshareholder returns in excess of peer indicesREIT shopping center averages, and sustaining growth in our net asset value and earnings.our earnings over an extended period of time. We will achieve these goals through owning, operating, and investing in a high-quality portfolio of primarily grocery-anchored shopping centers that are tenanted by market-dominant grocers, category-leading anchors, specialty retailers, and restaurants located in areas with above average household incomes and population densities. All of our operating, investing, and financing activities are performed through the Operating Partnership, its wholly-owned subsidiaries, and through its investments in real estate partnerships with third parties (also referred to as co-investment partnerships or joint ventures). The Parent Company currently owns 99%approximately 99.8% of the outstanding common partnership units of the Operating Partnership. Because of our structure and certain public debt financing, the Operating Partnership is also a registrant.

At December 31, 2009,2010, we directly owned 216215 shopping centers (the “Consolidated Properties”) located in 23 states representing 23.023.3 million square feet of gross leasable area (“GLA”). Our cost of these shopping centers and those under development is $3.9$4.0 billion before depreciation. Through co-investment partnerships, we own partial ownership interests in 184181 shopping centers (the “Unconsolidated Properties”) located in 25 states and the District of Columbia representing 22.021.8 million square feet of GLA. Our investment in the partnerships that own the Unconsolidated Properties is $326.2$428.6 million. Certain portfolio information described below is presented (a)(1) on a Combined Basis, which is a total of the Consolidated Properties and the Unconsolidated Properties, (b)(2) for our Consolidated Properties only and (c)(3) for the Unconsolidated Properties that we own through co-investment partnerships. We believe that presenting the information under these methods provides a more complete understanding of the properties that we wholly-own versus those that we indirectly own through entities we do not control, but for which we provide asset management, property management, leasing, investing, and financing services. The shopping center portfolio that we manage, on a Combined Basis, represents 400396 shopping centers located in 28 states and the District of Columbia and contains 45.045.1 million square feet of GLA.

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

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

TheAt December 31, 2010, the operating shopping centers on a Combined Basis were 93.2% leased and unchanged from December 31, 2009. During the recession that ended in 2009 had a significant negative impact on our 2009 operating results. Duringof 2009, we experienced lessdid experience occupancy declines in our

Index to Financial Statements

shopping centers; however, occupancy levels appear to have stabilized as the economy continues its recovery. We continue to produce higher levels of new leasing activity and fewer tenant demand for vacant spacedefaults as well as a higher levelcompared to 2009, and move-outs of retail store closings, althoughweaker tenants hurt by the rate of closure appearsrecession appear to be slowing. Our rent collection losses increased in most

of our shopping centers and markets, as we experienced a higher level of tenants defaulting on their leases, a result of lower retail sales. These factors contributedthe decline. We did however continue to experience a decline in our occupancy percentages, new leasingrental rates. During 2010 and 2009, rental rates in the Combined portfolio declined -2.7% and -2.0%, respectively. We currently expect rental revenues. At December 31, 2009 our operating portfolio of shopping centers including our pro-rata share of our co-investment partnerships,rates to decline moderately in isolated markets as we release vacant space, or renew expiring leases, where the previous tenant’s rental rates 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.above market.

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

We also continue to monitor tenants who have co-tenancy clauses in their lease agreements. These tenants are typically located in larger format community shopping centers that contain multiple anchor tenants whose leases contain these types of clauses. Co-tenancy clauses have several variants: they may allow a tenant to postpone a store opening if certain other tenants fail to open their store; they may allow a tenant the opportunity to close their store prior to lease expiration if another tenant closes their store prior to lease expiration; or more commonly, they may allow a tenant to pay reduced levels of rent until a certain number of tenants open their stores within the same shopping center. As the weak economy continues to depress retail sales,If economic weakness persists in geographic areas where we have centers that contain leases with these types of clauses, 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, dry cleaners, and tanning salons. We are closely monitoring the operating performance, collections, and sales of all of the tenants in our shopping centers especially those tenants operating retail formats that are experiencing significant changes in competition, business practice, reductions in 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 capabilities, market presence, and anchor relationships to invest in value-added opportunities sourced from distressedland owners and joint venture partners, the redevelopment of existing centers, developing land that we already own, and other opportunities.the development of land. Development is customer driven, meaning we generally have an executed lease from the anchor before we start construction. Developments serve the growth needs of our anchors and specialty retailers, resulting in modern shopping centers with long-term anchor leases that produce attractive returns on our invested capital. This development process typically requires three to five years from initial land or redevelopment acquisition through construction, lease-up, and stabilization of rental income, but can take longer depending upon tenant demand for new stores and the size of the project.

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

We strive to maintain a conservative capital structure. 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 future commitments. We endeavor to continue improving our key financial ratios and to maintain a high percentage of unencumbered assets: 81.6%81.5% of our consolidated real estate assets at December 31, 20092010 are unencumbered. Such assets allow us to access the secured and unsecured debt markets and to maintain significant availability on our $713.8 million unsecured line of credit commitment,(“The Line”) and revolving credit facility which had noan outstanding balance of $10.0 million on the Line at December 31, 2009.2010. Our debt to asset ratio (before the effect of accumulated depreciation), including our pro-rata share of the debt and assets of joint ventures is 45.9%48.4% at December 31,

2009, which 2010, and is favorably lowerhigher than our ratio at December 31, 20082009 of 50.0%. If45.9%; however, our ratio could decline in 2011 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. Forsettle the year ended 2009, our$246.0 million forward equity offering during 2011, discussed further below. Our coverage ratio withincluding our pro-rata share of our partnerships declined to 2.0was 2.1 times as compared to 2.4 times in 2008, directly related to a reduction in our EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciationat December 31, 2010 and Amortization), which was negatively impacted by the recent recession.2009. We define our Coveragecoverage ratio as EBITDAearnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) divided by the sum of the gross interest and scheduled mortgage principal paid to our

Index to Financial Statements

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 high quality shopping centers, which in combination with a conservative capital structure should favorably impact our Coveragecoverage ratio on a long-term basis.

Capital recycling involves contributing shopping centers to co-investment partnerships and cullingidentifying non-strategic assets from our real estate portfolio and selling those in the open market. These salesmarket; and reinvesting the sale 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 higher quality developments orand acquisitions that will generate sustainable revenue growth and attractive returns. To the extent that we are unable to generate capital in excess of our current commitments, we willintend to reduce our new investment activity accordingly.

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

Our co-investment partnerships have significant levels of debt that mature through 2012 and are subject to significant borrowing risks if the capital markets again become unavailable as they were during the recent recession. As a result of the declines in commercial real estate values over the past 18 months, the refinancing of maturing loans will require us and our joint venture partners to each contribute our respective pro-rata share of capital to the joint ventures in order to reduce the amount of borrowing to acceptable loan to value levels which we expect will be required for new financings. While we have to date successfully refinanced our maturing loans, the weak U.S. economy mayalthough recovering, remains weak, and could hinder our ability to access capital, including access by our joint venture partners, or to obtain future financing to fund maturing debt. WhileCurrently, 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 weak economy will not inhibit their ability to access capital and meet their future funding commitments.requirements. The impact to the Company ofor a co-investment partner defaulting on its share of a capital call is discussed below under “Liquidity and Capital Resources”.

Shopping Center Portfolio

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

 

   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
  December 31,
2010
  December 31,
2009
 

Number of Properties – Combined Basis (1)(4)

  396    400  

Number of Properties – Consolidated (2)(4)

  215    216  

Number of Properties – Unconsolidated (3)(4)

  181    184  

Properties in Development – Combined Basis (1)

  26    40  

Properties in Development – Consolidated (2)

  25    39  

Properties in Development – Unconsolidated (3)

  1    1  

Gross Leasable Area – Combined Basis (1)

  45,076,652    44,971,962  

Gross Leasable Area – Consolidated (2)

  23,266,987    22,965,276  

Gross Leasable Area – Unconsolidated (3)

  21,809,665    22,006,686  

% Leased – Combined Basis (1)(4)

  92.6  92.1

% Leased – Consolidated Properties (2)(4)

  91.6  91.0

% Leased – Unconsolidated Properties (3)(4)

  93.6  93.2

% Leased – Operating Centers Only Combined Basis (1)

  93.2  93.2

% Leased – Operating Centers Only Consolidated (2)

  92.6  93.2

% Leased – Operating Centers Only Unconsolidated (3)

  93.8  93.3

 

(a)(1)

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

(b)(2)

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

Index to Financial Statements
(c)(3)

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

(d)(4)

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, orcenter locations geographically, and through our tenant andmix, as well as, owning a portion of our shopping centers through co-investment partnerships.

The following table summarizes our four largest tenants, each of which is a grocery tenant, occupying the shopping centers at December 31, 2009:2010:

 

Grocery Anchor

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

Base Rent (b)
   Number of
Stores (1)
   Percentage  of
Company-
owned GLA (2)
 Percentage  of
Annualized
Base Rent (2)
 

Kroger

  55  8.0 4.9   54     7.3  4.4

Publix

  55  6.9 4.2   56     6.9  4.4

Safeway

  61  5.8 3.7   59     5.9  3.8

Super Valu

  31  3.2 2.5   29     3.2  2.4

 

(a)(1)

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

(b)(2)

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

The following table summarizes leasing activity in square feet (“SF”) for the year ended December 31, 20092010 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
   Combined
Properties  (1)
  % of
GLA
  Regency
Pro-rata  (2)
  % of
GLA
 

Leasing Activity:

     

New leases signed

   1,903    4.2  1,357    4.5

Existing leases renewed

   3,776    8.4  2,558    8.5
                 

Total leasing activity

   5,679    12.6  3,915    13.0
                 

Leases moved out

   (1,862  -4.1  (1,313  -4.4
                 

New leases less moveouts

   41    0.1  44    0.1
                 

Rental Rate Growth %

   -2.7   -1.8 

Leases expiring in 2011

   3,408    7.6  2,471    8.3

Leases expiring in 2012

   5,056    11.2  3,544    11.8

Leases expiring in 2013

   4,248    9.4  2,685    9.0

 

(a)(1)

Combined Properties includes Consolidated Properties and Unconsolidated Properties.

(b)(2)

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

Index to Financial Statements

As of December 31, 2009, we had 822010, 56 video rental stores occupyingoccupied our shopping centers on a Combined Basis thatand represent $6.7$4.7 million of annual base rent on a pro-rata basis. Blockbuster Video, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on September 23, 2010, represents the majority of our video rental leases with 7152 stores and annual base rent of $5.7$4.4 million or 1.4%1.0% of our annualized base rent including our pro-rata share of 2820 stores in the Unconsolidated Properties. As of December 31, 2010, Blockbuster has announced publiclyrejected 14 leases. Blockbuster has also provided formal notice that itfive additional stores will close many of its storesin early 2011 and wethose respective leases will be rejected upon closing. We expect that during 2010 they will close some of the stores that they occupy in our shopping centers. additional store closures and lease rejections as their bankruptcy continues.

Movie Gallery/Hollywood Video filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on February 2, 2010. We currently have four Movie Gallery/Hollywood Video2010 and closed all of its stores occupyingin our shopping centers and we anticipate that these stores could close during 2010.centers. The base rent loss associated with these four stores isstore closings was insignificant to our 2010 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,2010, Fili’s Enterprises, Inc. doing business as Daphne’s Café, along with Swoozie’s, Pearl Arts, Trade Secret, Jennifer Convertibles, Urban Brands, A&P, and Max & Erma’s eachLoehmann’s, also filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and InkStop filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation.protection. Of these 2219 leases, six leases11 have been assumed or assigned to a new entity and 14 leasessix have been rejected. The combined annual base rent on a pro-rata basis associated with these leases is approximately $1.3 million or less than 1% of our annual base rent on a pro-rata basis.

In January 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. 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 leases is approximately $1.4 million or less than 1% ofinsignificant to our annual base rent on a pro-rata basis.

We continue tocontinuously monitor andthe financial condition of our tenants. We communicate often with those tenants who have announced store closings or are experiencing financial distress.filed bankruptcy. We expect as the weak economy continues, additional retailers will announce store closings and/or bankruptcies that could negatively impact our shopping centers. While 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 of the pending bankruptcy or announced store closings of any tenants in our shopping centers beyond those described above that would individually cause a material reduction in our revenues, and no tenant represents more than 5% of our annual base rent on a pro-rata basis.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our Parent Company has no capital commitments other than its guarantees of the commitments of our Operating Partnership, which are discussed further below under Contractual Obligations.Partnership. The Parent Company will from time to time access the capital markets for the purpose of issuing new equity and will simultaneously contribute all of the offering proceeds to the Operating Partnership in exchange for additional partnership units. Any new debt is issued by our Operating Partnership or by our co-investment partnerships. Accordingly, the discussion below regarding liquidity and capital resources is presented on a consolidated basis for the Company. The following table summarizes net cash flows related to operating, investing, and financing activities of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008 (in thousands):

 

   2009  2008  2007 

Net cash provided by operating activities

  $193,862   219,169   218,167  

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities

   45,729   (105,775 (412,161

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
           

During 2009, we completed the following capital sourcing transactions:
   2010  2009  2008 

Net cash provided by operating activities

  $141,208    193,862    219,169  

Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities

   (183,997  45,729    (105,775

Net cash used in financing activities

   (34,228  (161,647  (110,529
             

Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents

  $(77,017  77,944    2,865  
             

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

Index to 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.

Financial Statements

On December 31, 20092010 our cash balance was $99.5$22.5 million. We operate our business such that we expect net cash provided by operating activities, before settlements of derivative instruments, in combination with proceeds generated from gains realized on sales of development properties and land will provide the necessary funds to pay our

scheduled mortgage loan principal payments, capital expenditures necessary to maintain our shopping centers, and distributions to our share and unit holders. 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 millionThe following table summarizes these amounts for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 and 2007, respectively. During the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, we incurred capital expenditures to maintain our shopping centers of $14.4 million, $15.4 million, and $15.1 million; we paid scheduled principal payments of $5.2 million, $4.8 million, and $4.5 million; and we paid distributions of $183.1 million, $222.9 million, and $204.3 million, respectively. During 2009, 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 share and unit beginning in May 2009 from the previous $0.725 paid in March 2009 (in thousands):

   2010   2009   2008 

Cash flow from operations

  $141,208     193,862     219,169  

Settlements of derivative instruments

   63,435     19,953     —    

Gains on sales of developments and land

   699     6,050     36,107  
               

Total

  $205,342     219,865     255,276  
               

Scheduled principal payments

  $5,024     5,214     4,806  

Capital expenditures to maintain shopping centers

   12,238     10,072     11,176  

Distributions to share and unit holders

   149,117     159,670     199,528  
               

Total

  $166,379     174,956     215,510  
               

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

CommitmentsAt December 31, 2010 commitments available to us under our Operating Partnership’s unsecured line of credit (the “Line”) and revolving credit facility totaltotaled $713.8 million. As of February 26, 2010, we had nomillion and our outstanding balance outstanding on the Line orwas $10.0 million. In February 2011, the $113.8 million revolving credit facility.facility expired with no balance outstanding. The Line is available to us through January 2011, at which time we have the option to extend $600.0 millionmaturity date of the commitment$600 million Line was extended one year to JanuaryFebruary 2012. Based upon our on-goingWe initiated discussions with our lenders to evaluate our Line banks,requirements and we believe we will be ableexpect to successfully negotiatecomplete and extendclose on a new credit facility prior to the Line at a commitment level sufficient to meet our working capital and investment needs when it matures.maturity date of the Line.

We currently estimate that we will require approximately $916.1$455.8 million through 20122013 primarily to repay $624.7$398.0 million of maturing debt (excluding scheduled principal payments), complete in-process developments, and to fund our pro-rata share of estimated capital contributions to our co-investment partnerships for repayment of debt. Included in these capital requirements are $584.0$374.1 million of unsecured public debt, as further described below under Notes Payable, which we intend to repay at maturity from the proceeds of new unsecured issues.issues of debt or equity. To the extent that issuing unsecured debt is cost prohibitive or unavailable, we believe that we have sufficient unsecured assets available for secured mortgage financing whose proceeds could be used to repay the unsecured debt at maturity. When necessary, the Line is available to fund our capital needs. Also, as mentioned previously, weWe will also receive $235.8 million ofestimated net proceeds of $217.8 million once we settle the 8.0 million common share forward equity offering (“Forward Equity Offering”), as further discussed below under Equity and Capital.

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

At December 31, 20092010 we had 4026 development properties on a Combined Basis that were either under construction or undergoing major renovations on a Combined Basis,in lease up, which when completed, will represent a net investment of $820.7$520.7 million after projected sales of adjacent land and out-parcels. This compares to 4540 development properties that were under construction at December 31, 20082009 representing an investment of $993.2$820.7 million upon completion. We estimate that we will earn an average return on investment from our current development projects of 6.6%6.7% when completed and fully leased. Average returns have declined over previous years’ primarily as a result of longer lease up periods and reduced market rental rates. Costs necessary to complete the currentin-process development projects, net of reimbursements and projected land sales, are estimated to be approximately $34.1$11.4 million.

OurAt December 31, 2010, our joint ventures have $1.3 billionhad $781.4 million of scheduled secured mortgage loans and credit lines maturing through 2012. We believe that in order to refinance the maturing joint venture loans, we, along with2013. On April 30, 2010 our joint venture partners, will be requiredwith Global Retail Investors (“GRI”) prepaid, without penalty, $514.8 million of mortgage loans that would have matured in June and July 2010. Regency and GRI each contributed capital to contribute ourthe joint venture for their respective pro-rata share of the capital necessary to reduce the amount of borrowings to acceptable loan to value levels required for this type of financing. We currently estimate that we will contribute approximately $206.4 million to our joint ventures through 2012 for our pro-rata share of the repayment of maturing debt, net of the proceeds from new debt issues, and we estimaterepayment. On June 2, 2010 our joint venture partners will contribute $304.8with GRI closed on $202.0 million forof new ten year secured mortgage loans and distributed the proceeds to Regency and GRI in proportion to their share.ownership interests. A more detailed loan maturity schedule and further discussion about the repayment of maturing debt is included below under Notes Payable.

We believe that our joint venture partners are financially sound and have sufficient capital or

access thereto to fund future capital requirements. We communicate with our co-investment partners regularly regarding the operating and capital budgets of our co-investment partnerships, and believe that we will successfully complete the refinancing of our joint venture debt as it matures.matures in the future. In the event that a co-investment partner was unable to fund its share of the capital requirements of the co-investment partnership, we would have the right, but not the obligation, to loan the defaulting partner the amount of its capital call at an interest rate at the lesser of prime plus a pre-defined spread or the maximum rate allowed by law. A decision to loan to a defaulting joint venture partner, which would be secured by the defaulting partner’s partnership interest, would be based on the fair value of the co-investment partnership assets, our joint venture partner’s financial health, and would be subject to an evaluation of our own capital commitments and sources to fund those commitments. Alternatively, should we determine that our joint venture partners will not have sufficient capital to meet future capital needs, we could trigger liquidation of the partnership. For the co-investment partnerships that have distribution-in-kind (“DIK”) provisions, and own multiple properties, a liquidation of the co-investment partnership could be completed by either a DIK of the properties to each joint venture partner in proportion to its partnership interest, open market sale, or a combination of both methods. Our co-investment partnership properties have been financed with non-recourse loans that represent 99% of the total debt of the co-investment partnerships at December 31, 2009 including lines of credit.credit as of December 31, 2010. We and our partners have no guarantees related to these loans. In those co-investment partnerships which have DIK provisions, if we trigger liquidation by distribution in kind,distribution-in-kind, each partner would receive title to properties selected in a rotation process for distribution and would assume any related loans secured by the properties distributed. The loan agreements generally provide for assumption by either joint venture partner after obtaining any required lender consent. We would only be responsible for those loans we assume through the DIK and only to the extent of the value of the property we receive, since after assumption through the DIK the loans would remain non-recourse. We also have a 50% investment interest in a single asset joint venture with an $8.5$8.8 million loan which contains guarantees from each partner limited however to their respective interest.

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

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

Although common or preferred equity raised in the public markets by the Parent Company is an option to fund future capital needs, access to these markets could be limited at times. During 2009, we successfully completed $607.9 million of common stock offerings. When conditions for the issuance of equitysecurities are acceptable, we will evaluate issuing debt or equity to fund new acquisition opportunities, fund new developments, or repay maturing debt. At December 31, 2009,2010, the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership each had existing shelf registration statements available for the issuance of new equity or debt securities, respectively.securities.

Investments in Real Estate Partnerships

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

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

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

At December 31, 2009,2010, we had investments in real estate partnerships of $326.2$428.6 million. The following table is a summary of unconsolidated combined assets and liabilities of these co-investment partnerships and our pro-rata share (see note below) at December 31, 20092010 and 20082009 (dollars in thousands):

 

  2009 2008   2010   2009 

Number of Joint Ventures

   18    19     18     18  

Regency’s Ownership

   16.35%-50  16.35%-50   16.35%-50%     16.35%-50%  

Number of Properties

   184    216     181     184  

Combined Assets

  $4,185,181   $4,862,730    $3,983,122    $4,185,181  

Combined Liabilities

   2,644,948    2,973,410    $2,262,476    $2,644,948  

Combined Equity

   1,540,233    1,889,320    $1,720,646    $1,540,233  

Regency’s Share of(a):

   

Regency’s Share of (1):

    

Assets

  $998,960   $1,171,218    $1,263,400    $998,960  

Liabilities

   623,884    705,452    $706,026    $623,884  

 

(a)(1)

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

Investments in real estate partnerships are primarily composed of co-investment partnerships in which we currently invest with fourfive co-investment partners and an open-enda real estate fund (“Regency Retail Partners” or the “Fund”), as further described below. In addition to earningrecognizing our pro-rata share of net income or loss (including impairments) in each of these co-investmentreal estate partnerships, we receivedreceive market-based fees for asset management, disposition, property management, leasing, investment and financing services, ofwhich were $25.1 million, $29.1 million, $31.6 million, and $28.3 million and transaction fees of $7.8 million, $23.7 million, and $4.0$31.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively. We also received fees for specific transactions of $2.6 million, $7.8 million, and 2007, respectively.$23.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively, which are further described below.

Our investments in real estate partnerships as of December 31, 20092010 and 20082009 consist of the following (in thousands):

 

   Ownership  2009  2008

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  351  623

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO (MCWR-DESCO)

  16.35  24,374  21,924

Columbia Regency Retail Partners (Columbia I)

  20.00  28,347  29,704

Columbia Regency Partners II (Columbia II)

  20.00  11,202  12,858

Cameron Village LLC (Cameron)

  30.00  18,285  19,479

RegCal, LLC (RegCal)

  25.00  12,863  13,766

Regency Retail Partners (the Fund)

  20.00  22,114  23,838

US Regency Retail I, LLC (USAA)

  20.01  5,111  —  

Other investments in real estate partnerships

  50.00  49,215  48,717
        

Total

   $326,212  383,408
        
   Ownership  2010   2009 

GRI—Regency, LLC (GRIR)(1)

   40.00 $277,235     154,350  

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III, LLC (MCWR III)

   24.95  63     351  

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO, LLC

     

(MCWR-DESCO)

   16.35  20,050     24,374  

Columbia Regency Retail Partners, LLC (Columbia I)

   20.00  20,025     28,347  

Columbia Regency Partners II, LLC (Columbia II)

   20.00  9,815     11,202  

Cameron Village, LLC (Cameron)

   30.00  17,604     18,285  

RegCal, LLC (RegCal)

   25.00  15,340     12,863  

Regency Retail Partners, LP (the Fund)

   20.00  17,478     22,114  

US Regency Retail I, LLC (USAA)

   20.01  3,941     5,111  

Other investments in real estate partnerships

   50.00  47,041     49,215  
           

Total

   $428,592     326,212  
           

 

(1)

At December 31, 2008,2009, the Company’s ownership interest in MCWR IGRIR (formerly Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II, LLC) 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 $52.0$51.4 million and $88.3$52.0 million at December 31, 20092010 and December 31, 2008,2009, respectively. Cumulative deferred gain amountsgains related to each co-investment partnership are described below.

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

partnerships with OPERF totals $57.8$47.4 million and represents 1.5%1.2% of our total assets at December 31, 2009.2010. At December 31, 2009,2010, the Columbia co-investment partnershipsOPERF joint ventures had total assets of $743.3$686.2 million and net incomeloss of $5.4$15.9 million for the year ended. Our share of Columbia’s total assets was $160.5 million which represents 4.0% of our total assets.

As of December 31, 2009,2010, Columbia I owned 1413 shopping centers, had total assets of $320.4$277.8 million and net incomeloss of $6.7$14.9 million for the year ended.ended, primarily related to a provision for impairment of $23.7 million on two properties it expects to sell in the next three years. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we have applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain that we recognize on property sales to Columbia. During 2009,2010, we did not sell any properties to Columbia I. Since the inception of Columbia I in 2001, we have recognized gain of $2.0 million on partial sales to Columbia I and deferred gaingains of $4.3 million. In December 2008, we earnedDuring 2010, Columbia I sold one shopping center to a third party for $12.4 million and recognized a $19.7 million Portfolio Incentive Return fee from OPERF based on Columbia I’s out performancegain of the cumulative National 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.$1.2 million.

As of December 31, 2009,2010, Columbia II owned 16 shopping centers, had total assets of $313.3$302.4 million, and net incomeloss of approximately $159,000$330,000 for the year ended.ended, primarily related to a provision for impairment of approximately $857,000 on one property it expects to sell in the next three years. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we have applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain that we recognize on property sales to Columbia II. During 2009,2010, we did not sell any properties to Columbia II. Since the inception of Columbia II in 2004, we have recognized gain of $9.1 million on partial sales to Columbia II and deferred gaingains of $15.7 million.

As of December 31, 2009,2010, Cameron owned one shopping center, had total assets of $109.6$106.0 million, and a net loss of $1.4 millionapproximately $708,000 for the year ended. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require us to apply the Restricted Gain Method. Since the inception of Cameron in 2004, we have not sold any properties to Cameron.

We co-invest with the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (“CalSTRS”) in a joint venture (“RegCal”) in which we have a 25% ownership interest. Our investment in the co-investment partnership with CalSTRS totals $15.3 million and represents less than 1% of our total assets at December 31, 2010. As of December 31, 2009,2010, RegCal owned seveneight shopping centers, had total assets of $155.1$183.5 million, and net income of approximately $493,000$858,000 for the year ended. Our share of RegCal’s total assets was $38.8 million which represents 1.0% of our total assets. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we have applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain that we recognize on property sales to RegCal. During 2009,2010, we did not sell any properties to RegCal. Since the inception of RegCal in 2004, we have recognized gain of $10.1 million on partial sales to RegCal and deferred gaingains of $3.4 million. In March 2010, RegCal purchased one property from a third party for $12.9 million, net of assumed debt of $18.0 million, and we contributed $3.3 million for our proportionate share of the purchase price.

We co-invest with Macquarie CountryWide Trust of Australia (“MCW”Regency Retail Partners (the “Fund”) as the only other partner in three co-investment partnerships, one in which we had an ownership interest of 25% (“MCWR I”) which was liquidated during 2009 as discussed below, one, a closed-end, finite life investment fund in which we have an ownership interest of 24.95% (“MCWR III”), and one in which we have an ownership interest of 16.35% (“MCWR-DESCO”)20%. Our investment in the three co-investment partnerships with MCWFund totals $24.7$17.5 million and represents less than 1% of our total assets at December 31, 2009. The MCW co-investment partnerships had total assets of $447.1 million and a net loss of approximately $915,000 for the year ended. Our share of the co-investment partnerships’ total assets was $78.8 million which represents 2.0% of our total assets.

On January 14, 2009, under the terms of the MCWR I partnership agreement, MCW elected to dissolve the partnership. During 2009, we completed the liquidation of the partnership through a DIK, which provided for distribution of the properties to each partner under an alternating selection process, in proportion to the value of each partner’s respective capital account in the partnership as of the date of liquidation. The total fair value of the properties was $467.3 million, net of debt, based on third party appraisals. As a result of the liquidation, MCW received 34 properties and we received six properties through the DIK. 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 net carrying value of our investment of $29.9 million, which is net of deferred gain 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 a third party for $7.8 million and recognized a gain of $3.7 million.

2010. As of December 31, 2009, MCWR III owned four shopping centers, had total assets of $65.1 million, and a net loss of approximately $436,000 for the year ended. Effective January 1, 2010, the partnership agreement was amended to include a unilateral right to elect to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, we will apply the Restricted Gain Method if additional properties are sold to MCWR III 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 III. Since the inception of MCWR III in 2005, we have recognized gain of $14.1 million on partial sales to MCWR III and deferred gain of $4.7 million.

As of December 31, 2009, MCWR-DESCO owned 32 shopping centers, had total assets of $382.1 million and recorded a net loss of $5.3 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 the 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, 2009, the Fund owned nine shopping centers, had total assets of $367.4$341.1 million, and recorded a net loss of $3.4$18.9 million for the year ended. Our shareended, primarily related to provisions for impairment of $18.1 million recorded on four properties that are expected to sell during the Fund’s total assets was $73.4 million which represents 1.8% of our total assets.next three years. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require us to apply the Restricted Gain Method. During 2009,2010, we did not sell any properties to the Fund. Since the inception of the Fund in 2006, we have recognized gains of $71.6 million on partial sales to the Fund and deferred gains of $17.9 million.

On October 27, 2009, we finalized the formation of a new real estate partnership, US Regency Retail I, LLC,We co-invest 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. Our investment in the USAA partnership on November 3, 2009. The eight properties were sold for $133.9totals $3.9 million and represents less than 1% of our total assets at December 31, 2010. As of December 31, 2010, the USAA partnership owned eight shopping centers, had total assets of $134.3 million, and recorded a net proceeds fromloss of approximately $441,000 for the sale to the Company were $103.4 million.year ended. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right to electfor election 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

Index to Financial Statements

recognized gainon property sales to the USAA partnership. During 2010, we did not sell any properties to the USAA partnership. Since the inception of $19.1 million and deferred gainthe USAA partnership in 2009, we recognized gains of $8.1$19.4 million on these partial sales to the USAA partnership.

partnership and deferred gains of $8.0 million.

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

Contractual Obligations

We have debt obligations related to our mortgage loans, unsecured notes, and our Unsecured credit facilities as described further below. We have shopping centers that are subject to non-cancelable long-term ground leases where a third party owns and has leased the underlying land to us to construct and/or operate a shopping center. In addition, we have non-cancelable operating leases pertaining to office space from which we conduct our business. The table excludes reserves for approximately $3.2$2.9 million related to environmental remediation as discussed below under Environmental Matters as the timing of the remediation is not currently known. The table also excludes obligations related to construction or development contracts because payments are only due upon satisfactory performance under the contract.

The following table of Contractual Obligations summarizes our debt maturities including interest, (excluding recorded debt premiums or discounts that are not obligations), and our obligations under non-cancelable operating and ground leases as of December 31, 20092010 including our pro-rata share of obligations within co-investment partnerships excluding interest (in thousands):

 

  Payments Due by Period  Total  Payments Due by Period     
  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  Beyond 5
years
    2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   Beyond 5
years
   Total 

Notes Payable:

                            

Regency (1)

  $280,083  316,704  344,807  93,822  241,097  1,120,511  2,397,024  $303,818     303,736     116,093     261,241     463,869     1,263,574     2,712,331  

Regency’s share of JV(2)

   160,173  112,037  61,551  8,982  21,540  220,159  584,442   185,651     98,977     14,567     24,346     72,614     265,959     662,114  

Operating Leases:

                            

Regency

   4,990  4,898  4,612  4,405  3,465  8,113  30,483   4,695     4,390     4,267     3,562     3,535     4,709     25,158  

Regency’s share of JV

   —    —    —    —    —    —    —     —       —       —       —       —       —       —    

Ground Leases:

                            

Regency

   2,108  2,123  2,211  2,521  2,525  110,475  121,963   3,346     3,357     3,354     3,361     3,151     103,958     120,527  

Regency’s share of JV

   204  204  204  204  204  7,255  8,275   264     264     265     265     258     9,946     11,262  
                                                 

Total

  $447,558  435,966  413,385  109,934  268,831  1,466,513  3,142,187  $497,774     410,724     138,546     292,775     543,427     1,648,146     3,531,392  
                                                 

 

(1)

Amounts include interest payments

(2)

Amounts exclude interest payments

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

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

Index to Financial Statements

Notes Payable and Unsecured Credit Facilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have a $600.0 million Line commitment is currently $600.0 million under an agreement with Wells Fargo Bank and a syndicate of other banks that matures in February 2011 with a one-year extension at our option. We have the right to expand the Line commitment by an additional $150.0 million subject to additional lender syndication.2012. The Line has a current interest rate of LIBOR plus 55 basis points and an annual facility fee of 15 basis points subject to maintaining our corporate credit and senior unsecured ratings at BBB. In April, 2009, we paid downThe outstanding balance on the Line balance to zeroline was $10.0 million at December 31, 2010 and there was no outstanding balance at December 31, 2009. The balanceWe initiated discussions with our lender to enter into a new Line commitment and term, and we expect to close on the Line was $70.0new commitment prior to February 2012.

We had a $113.8 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 loanrevolving credit facility (the “Term Facility”) under an agreement with Wells Fargo Bank and a syndicate of other banks that maturesmatured 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, 20092010 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 an annual facility fee of 20 basis points subject to maintaining our corporate credit and senior unsecured ratings at BBB. AtThere was no balance outstanding at December 31, 2008, the term loan had a variable2010 or 2009, and we will not renew this facility.

The 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 ratespread paid 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 Facilityrevolving credit facility (collectively, “Unsecured credit facilities”), we currently have $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 EBITDAEarnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization (“EBITDA”) to Fixed Charges, and other covenants customary with this type of unsecured financing. As of December 31, 2009,2010, management believes we are in compliance with all financial covenants for ourthe Unsecured credit facilities. OurThe Unsecured credit facilities are used to finance the acquisition and development of real estate and 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

Index 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 2019, whereas, interest on unsecured public debt is payable semi-annually and matures over various terms through 2017. We intend to repay mortgage loans at maturity with proceeds from similar new issues or from the Line. Fixed interest rates on mortgage notes payable range from 4.44% to 8.40% and average 6.63%. During 2009, we completed the following financing transactions:

Financial Statements

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 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.

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 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, 2009, 99.7% of our total debt had fixed interest rates, compared with 85.8% at December 31, 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 less than 1% of our total debt.

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 areour notes payable is estimated using cash flows discounted atbased on the current market rates available to us for debt with similarof the same terms and remaining maturities. Fixed rate loans assumed in connection with real estate acquisitions are recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements at fair value at the time of acquisition excluding those loans assumed in DIK liquidations which are assumed at carrying value.liquidations. Based on the estimates used, the fair value of notes payable and the Unsecured credit facilities is approximately $1.4was $1.7 billion and $1.3$1.4 billion at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Total outstanding debt at December 31, 2010 and 2008, respectively.2009 consists of the following (in thousands):

   2010   2009 

Notes payable:

    

Fixed rate mortgage loans

  $402,151     398,820  

Variable rate mortgage loans

   11,189     5,596  

Fixed rate unsecured loans

   1,671,129     1,481,964  
          

Total notes payable

   2,084,469     1,886,380  

Unsecured credit facilities

   10,000     —    
          

Total

  $2,094,469     1,886,380  
          

As of December 31, 2009,2010, 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
Public Debt
 Total   Scheduled
Principal
Payments
   Mortgage Loan
Maturities
   Unsecured
Maturities (1)
 Total 

2010

  $4,986  28,523   140,461   173,970  

2011

   4,837  12,268   193,486   210,591    $4,957    ��7,665     181,691    194,313  

2012

   5,105  —     250,000   255,105     5,267     —       202,377    207,644  

2013

   4,979  16,348   —     21,327     5,151     16,341     —      21,492  

2014

   8,168  11,916   150,000   170,084     4,515     21,076     150,000    175,591  

2015

   3,075     46,312     350,000    399,387  

Beyond 5 Years

   8,853  299,280   750,000   1,058,133     5,716     292,535     800,000    1,098,251  

Unamortized debt discounts, net

   —    (847 (1,983 (2,830   —       730     (2,939  (2,209
                            

Total

  $36,928  367,488   1,481,964   1,886,380    $28,681     384,659     1,681,129    2,094,469  
                            

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

At December 31, 2009,2010, our investments in real estate partnerships had notes payable of $2.5$2.1 billion maturing through 2028, of which 97.0%99.1% had weighted average fixed interest rates of 5.6%5.8%. The remaining notes payable had variable interest rates based on LIBOR plus a spread in a range of 14573 to 150270 basis points. Our pro-rata share of these loans was $585.5$663.1 million. We and our partners have no guarantees related to these loans except for an $8.5$8.8 million loan related to our 50% ownership interest in one single asset real estate partnership where we are only responsible for our pro-rata share of the loan. As of December 31, 2009,2010, scheduled principal repayments on notes payable held by our investments in real estate partnerships were as follows (in thousands):

Scheduled Principal Payments by Year:

  Scheduled
Principal
Payments
   Mortgage
Loan
Maturities
   Unsecured
Maturities
   Total   Regency’s
Pro-Rata
Share
 

2011

  $4,275     466,470     8,759     479,504     185,651  

2012

   6,489     244,418     11,046     261,953     98,977  

2013

   7,530     32,447     —       39,977     14,567  

2014

   7,714     77,304     —       85,018     24,346  

2015

   7,493     299,978     —       307,471     72,614  

Beyond 5 Years

   41,658     897,535     —       939,193     265,959  

Unamortized debt premiums, net

   —       4,579     —       4,579     942  
                         

Total

  $75,159     2,022,731     19,805     2,117,695     663,056  
                         

Scheduled Principal Payments by Year:

  Scheduled
Principal
Payments
  Mortgage Loan
Maturities
  Unsecured
Maturities
  Total  Regency’s
Pro-Rata
Share

2010

  $3,642  613,310  26,858  643,810  160,173

2011

   3,578  448,787  —    452,365  112,037

2012

   4,396  244,418  —    248,814  61,551

2013

   4,226  32,447  —    36,673  8,982

2014

   4,213  77,290  —    81,503  21,540

Beyond 5 Years

   25,555  983,875  —    1,009,430  220,159

Unamortized debt premiums, net

   —    5,333  —    5,333  1,030
                

Total

  $45,610  2,405,460  26,858  2,477,928  585,472
                

We are exposed

Index to capital market risk such as changesFinancial Statements

On April 30, 2010, GRIR prepaid $514.8 million of $562.0 million mortgage debt maturing in interest rates. In2010, without penalty, in order to manage the volatility related tominimize its refinancing and interest rate risk, we originaterisks. Regency and GRI each contributed their pro-rata share of the repayment as a capital contribution to GRIR. In June 2010, the joint venture executed 13 new mortgage loans representing $202.0 million with ten year terms and rates of 5.825%. The net proceeds were distributed to us and GRI in proportion to our ownership interests in GRIR. An additional $47.2 million of mortgage debt with fixed interest rates, or we may enter intowas repaid in September 2010, which also required pro-rata contributions from each joint venture partner.

GRIR recently locked the interest rate hedging arrangements. We do not utilize derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes. 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%. On April 16, 2009, we paid $20.0 million to partially settle $106.0on $340.0 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 continuefinancings to expect to issue newbe secured or unsecured debt for a term of 7 to 12 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 March 31, 2011. The fair value of these swaps was a liability of $28.4 million at December 31, 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 changeby 19 assets in the fair value of these Swapspartnership 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 delayingrepay a portion of ourthe partnership’s $430.4 million of secured debt maturing in 2011. The refinance includes a weighted average interest rate of 4.9% over a weighted average 11-year term and is interest-only for the first year. The closing is expected issuances into 2011. Although we still expect to issue new debt withinoccur in 2011 prior to 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 termsmaturity dates of the derivatives, including the periodloans. The GRIR partners intend to maturity, and uses observable market-based inputs, including interest rate curves, and implied volatilities. We 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 majoritycontribute their pro-rata share of the inputs usedcapital necessary to value our derivatives fall within Level 2repay the balance of the fair value hierarchy,2011 maturities not repaid from 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.new loans.

Equity and Capital

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

Equity of the Parent Company

The Series 3, 4, and 5 preferred shares are perpetual, are not convertible into common stock of the Parent Company, and are redeemable at par upon our election beginning five years after the issuance date. None of the terms of the preferred stock contain any unconditional obligations that would require us to redeem the securities at any time or for any purpose and we do not currently anticipate redeeming any preferred stock. Terms and conditions of the three series of preferred stock outstanding as of December 31, 20092010 are summarized as follows:

Series

  Shares
Outstanding
  Liquidation
Preference
  Distribution
Rate
 Callable
By Company
  Shares
Outstanding
   Liquidation
Preference
   Distribution
Rate
 Callable
By Company
 

Series 3

  3,000,000  $75,000,000  7.45 04/03/08   3,000,000    $75,000,000     7.45  4/3/2008  

Series 4

  5,000,000   125,000,000  7.25 08/31/09   5,000,000     125,000,000     7.25  8/31/2009  

Series 5

  3,000,000   75,000,000  6.70 08/02/10   3,000,000     75,000,000     6.70  8/2/2010  
                    
  11,000,000  $275,000,000      11,000,000    $275,000,000     
                    

Common Stock

On December 9, 2009, the Parent Company completed a public offering of 8.0 million common shares at $30.75 per share in connection with forward sale agreements entered into with J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo Securities, which will result in estimated future net proceeds of $235.8,$217.8 million, net of issuance costs. These sharescosts, once the agreements are subjectsettled. We expect to settle the agreements by March 2011 unless we enter into an extension with the forward sale agreements described below. Thispurchasers. The offering also included an over-allotment option of 1.2 million shares, which closed simultaneously for proceedswith the execution of $35.4 million.

In connection with this offering, the Parent Company entered into forward sale agreements, with affiliatesand provided proceeds of J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo Securities, as forward purchasers.$34.9 million to us during 2010. We intend to use the proceeds uponfrom the settlement of the forward sale agreements to refinancerepay debt maturing in 2010, which includes a portion2011 and outstanding balances on our line of our pro-rata share of existing debt of MCWR II, as such joint venture debt matures, and for general corporate purposes.credit.

On April 24, 2009, the Parent Companywe 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 fundsnet proceeds were used to pay-offrepay the $180.0 millionbalance of the Line balance, with the remaining funds retained for futureand general working capital needs including repayment of maturing debt, investments in real estate partnership capital callspurposes.

Index 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.

Financial Statements

Noncontrolling Interests of Preferred Units

We have issued Preferred Units through the Operating Partnership in various amounts since 1998 primarily to institutional investors in private placements. Generally, the Preferred Units may be exchanged by the holders for Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock of the Parent Company after a specified date at an exchange rate of one share for one unit. The Preferred Units of the Operating Partnership and the related Preferred Stock of the Parent Company are not convertible into common stock of the Parent Company. At December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, only the Series D Preferred Units were outstanding with a face value of $50.0 million and a fixed distribution rate of 7.45%. These Units could be calledare callable by the Parent Company beginning September 29, 2009, and have no stated maturity or mandatory redemption. Included in the Series D Preferred Units are original issuance costs of approximately $842,000 that will be expensed if they are redeemed in the future.$842,000.

Noncontrolling Interest of Exchangeable Operating Partnerships Units

As of December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, the Operating Partnership had 177,164 and 468,211 limited Partnership Units outstanding that were not owned by the Parent Company, representing less than 1% of the outstanding Partnership Units of the Operating Partnership. The redemption value of the limited Partnership Units is based on the closing market price of the Parent Company’s common stock, which was $35.06$42.24 and $46.70$35.06 per share as of December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, respectively, an aggregate redemption value of $7.5 million and $16.4 million, and $21.9 million, respectively.

Noncontrolling Interests of Limited Partners’ InterestInterests 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, 20092010 and 2008,2009, the noncontrolling interest in these consolidated partnerships was $11.7$10.8 million and $8.0$11.7 million, respectively.

Capital of the Operating Partnership

Preferred Units

The Series D Preferred Units are owned by institutional investors. At December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, the face value of the Series D Preferred Units was $50.0 million with a fixed distribution rate of 7.45% and recorded in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets net of original issuance costs of approximately $842,000 that will be expensed if redeemed in the future.$842,000. See above for further discussion.

Preferred Units of General Partner

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

General Partner

As of December 31, 2009,2010, the Parent Company, as general partner, owned approximately 99%99.8% or 81,539,29681,886,872 of the total 82,007,50782,064,036 Partnership Units outstanding.

Limited Partners

As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, theThe Operating Partnership had 177,164 and 468,211 limited Partnership Units outstanding.outstanding as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Index to Financial Statements

Noncontrolling Interests of Limited Partners’ Interests in Consolidated Partnerships

See above for further discussion.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

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

Revenue Recognition and Accounts Receivable – Accounts receivable represent revenues recognized in our financial statements, and include base rent, percentage rent, and expense recoveries from tenants for common area maintenance costs, insurance and real estate taxes. We analyze tenant receivables, historical bad debt levels, customer credit-worthiness and current economic trends when

evaluating the adequacy of our allowance for doubtful accounts. Our reported net income (loss) is directly affected by our estimate of the recoverability of accounts receivable.

Recognition of Gains from the Sales of Real Estate – Profits from sales of real estate are not recognized under the full accrual method by us unlesswhen a sale is consummated; the buyer’s initial and continuing investment is adequate to demonstrate a commitment to pay for the property; a receivable, if applicable, is not subject to future subordination; we have transferred to the buyer the usual risks and rewards of ownership; and we do not have substantial continuing involvement with the property.

We sell shopping center properties to joint ventures in exchange for cash equal to the fair value of the percentage interest acquired by our partners. We have accounted for those sales as “partial sales” and recognized gains on those partial sales in the period the properties were sold to the extent of the percentage interest sold, and in the case of certain joint venture partnerships, we apply a more restrictive method of recognizing gains as discussed further below. The gains and operations associated with properties sold to these joint venture partnerships are not classified as discontinued operations because we continue to partially own and manage these shopping centers.

Certain DIK-JVs give either partner the unilateral right to elect to dissolve the joint venture partnership and, upon such an election, receive a distribution in-kind of the assets of the joint venture partnership equal to its respective ownership interests. The liquidation provisions 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 and we have the right to choose the next property that we 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 is 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. 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, and represent a form of continuing involvement with respect to property that we sold to these joint venture partnerships, limiting our recognition of gain related to the partial sale. This more restrictive method of gain recognition, the Restricted Gain Method, considers our potential ability to receive property through a DIK on which partial gain has been recognized, and ensures, 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.

Profit 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 equal to our capital account. For purposes of calculating the gain to be deferred, we assume that the Company will select properties in a DIK liquidation that would otherwise have generated the highest gain to us when originally sold to the DIK-JV and include for such determination the fair value in properties that could be received in excess of the Company’s capital account. The 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 periods when there are no property sales to a DIK-JV, the deferred gain is not recalculated.

Because the contingency associated with the possibility of receiving a particular property back

upon liquidation, which forms the basis of the Restricted Gain Method, is not satisfied at the property level, but at the aggregate level, no gain is recognized on property sold by the DIK-JV to a third party or received by us upon actual dissolution. Instead, the property received upon actual dissolution is recorded at the carrying 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. In summary, a project changes from non-operating to operating when it is substantially completed and held available for occupancy. At that time, costs are no longer capitalized. Other development costs include pre-development costs essential to the development of the property, as well as, interest, real estate taxes, and direct employee costs incurred during the development period. Pre-development

Index to Financial Statements

costs are incurred prior to land acquisition during the due diligence phase and include contract deposits, legal, engineering, and other professional fees related to evaluating the feasibility of developing a shopping center. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, and 2008, we had capitalized pre-development costs of approximately $816,000$899,000 and $7.7 million,$816,000, respectively, of which approximately $325,000$840,000 and $2.3 million,$325,000, respectively, were refundable contract deposits. If we determine that the development of a specific project undergoing due diligence is no longer probable, we immediately expense all related capitalized pre-development costs not considered recoverable. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007,2008, we expensed pre-development costs of approximately $520,000, $3.8 million, $15.5 million, and $5.3$15.5 million, respectively, recorded in other expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. Interest costs are capitalized into each development project based on applying our weighted average borrowing rate to that portion of the actual development costs expended. We cease interest cost capitalization when the property is no longer being developed or is available for occupancy upon substantial completion of tenant improvements, but in no event would we capitalize interest on the project beyond 12 months after substantial completion of the building shell. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007,2008, we capitalized interest of $5.1 million, $19.1 million, $36.5 million, and $35.4$36.5 million, respectively, on our development projects. We have a staff of employees (the “Investment Group”) who directly support our development program. All direct internal costs attributable to these development activities are capitalized as part of each development project. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007,2008, we capitalized $2.7 million, $6.5 million, $27.8 million, and $39.0$27.8 million, respectively, of direct costs incurred by the Investment Group.to support our development program. 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 2009 resulting in a reduction in capitalized costs and a corresponding increase in general and administrative expenses 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 additional increases in general and administrative expenses which would further reduce net income.

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

Valuation of Real Estate Investments – Our long-lived assets, primarily real estate held for investment, are carried at cost unless circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the assets may not be recoverable. We review long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate such an evaluation is warranted. In addition, we perform an annual review to re-evaluate market-based capitalization rates, estimated holding periods, expected future operating income, trends and prospects, the effects of demand, competition and other factors. If we determine that the carrying amount of a property is not recoverable, we write down the asset to fair value. For properties to be “held and used” for long term investment, to determine recoverability, we estimate undiscounted future cash flows over the expected investment term

including the estimated future value of the asset upon sale at the end of the investment period. Future value is generally determined by applying a market-based capitalization rate to the estimated future net operating income in the final year of the expected investment term. If after applying this method a propertythe estimated undiscounted cash flows used in the recoverability test are less than the long-lived asset’s carrying amount, management then determines the fair value of the long-lived asset and if the carrying amount of the long-lived asset exceeds its fair value, an impairment loss is determinedrecognized equal to be impaired, we determine the provision for impairment based upon current market resale valuesexcess of carrying value over fair value. Fair value is determined through comparable sales information and other market data if available, or by applying a marketthrough use of an income approach such as the direct capitalization rate to current estimated net operating income.method or the traditional discounted cash flow approach. For properties “held for sale”, we estimate current market resale values through appraisal less expected costs to sell. A loss in value of an investment under the equity method of accounting, which is other than a temporary decline, must be recognized in the period in which the loss occurs. In the case of our investments in unconsolidated real estate partnerships, we calculate the present value of our investment by discounting estimated future cash flows over the expected term of the investment. Methods of determining fairFair value can

Index to Financial Statements

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

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

Investments in Real Estate Partnerships – In addition to owning real estate directly, we invest in

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

Index to Financial Statements

Income Tax Status – The prevailing assumption underlying the operation of our business is that the Parent Company willbelieves it qualifies, and intends to continue to operate in order to qualify, as a REIT as defined under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). The Parent Company is required to meet certain income and asset tests on a periodic basis to ensure that it continues to qualify as a REIT. As a REIT, the Parent Company is allowed to reduce taxable income by all or a portion of its distributions to stockholders.shareholders. We evaluate the transactions that we enter into and determine their impact on our REIT status. Determiningprojects. We have a staff of employees who directly support our taxable income, calculating distributions,development program. All direct internal costs attributable to these development activities are capitalized as part of each development project. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and evaluating transactions requires us2008, we capitalized $2.7 million, $6.5 million, and $27.8 million, respectively, of direct costs incurred to make certain judgments and estimates assupport our development program. The capitalization of costs is directly related to the positionsactual level of development activity occurring. If accounting standards issued in the future were to limit the amount of internal costs that may be capitalized we takecould incur additional increases in our interpretation of the Code. Because many types of transactions are susceptible to varying interpretations under federalgeneral and state income tax laws and regulations, our positions are subject to change at a later date upon final determination by the taxing authorities, however, we reassess such positions at each reporting period.administrative expenses which would further reduce net income.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

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

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

Results from Operations – 20092010 vs. 20082009

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 20092010 to 2008:2009:

At December 31, 2009,2010, on a Combined Basis, we were operating or developing 400396 shopping centers, as compared to 440400 shopping centers at December 31, 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.

2009. We identify our shopping centers as either properties in development or operating properties. Properties in development are defined as properties that are in the construction or lease-up process and have not reached their initial full occupancy. A development property becomes an operating property at the earlier to occur of attaining 95% leased and rent paying or four years from the start of site work, regardless of the %percentage leased. At December 31, 2009,2010, on a Combined Basis, we had 4026 development properties, as compared to 4540 properties at December 31, 2008.2009.

Index to Financial Statements

Our revenues decreased by $6.7$1.3 million or 1.3%0.3% to $489.2$486.8 million in 2009,2010, as summarized in the following table (in thousands):

 

  2009  2008  Change   2010   2009   Change 

Minimum rent

  $345,610  334,509  11,101    $347,122     344,709     2,413  

Percentage rent

   3,585  4,258  (673   2,540     3,585     (1,045

Recoveries from tenants and other income

   101,748  101,096  652     107,744     101,490     6,254  

Management, transaction, and other fees

   38,289  56,032  (17,743   29,400     38,289     (8,889
                      

Total revenues

  $489,232  495,895  (6,663  $486,806     488,073     (1,267
                      

Our decline in revenues was related toGenerally, leased percentages were unchanged between 2010 and 2009; however, the percent leased of a one-time transaction fee earneddevelopment property may not reflect rent paying occupancy if a tenant’s space is under construction for a portion of the year and recognized in 2008, which is more fully described in the table and discussion below. Thenot yet rent paying. Therefore, increase in minimum rent relateswas related primarily to tenants opening new stores in our development properties distributedduring 2010, or operating for a full 12 months during 2010, as compared to us as part2009. Declines in percentage rent were a result of the MCWR I DIK liquidation and newchange in percentage rent generated bylease terms due to the development properties. In addition to collectingincrease in minimum rent from our tenants, we also collect percentage rent fromfor 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. Recoveriesrenewal. The increase in recoveries from tenants represent reimbursementsand other income resulted from tenants fora significant increase in termination fees received during 2010 related to weak tenant operators negotiating an early end to their pro-rata share of thelease agreements, as well as, higher operating maintenance, and real estate tax expenses thatexpenses. The decrease in management, transaction, and other fees relates primarily to a $7.8 million disposition fee we incur to operate our shopping centers. Recoveriesreceived from tenants were higherCHRR in 2009 dueequal to increases in our operating expenses, but our recoveries as a percentage1% 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 grewgross sales price paid 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.GRI described below.

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

 

  2009  2008  Change   2010   2009   Change 

Asset management fees

  $9,671  11,673  (2,002  $6,695     9,671     (2,976

Property management fees

   15,031  16,132  (1,101   15,599     15,031     568  

Leasing commissions

   4,012  2,363  1,649  

Transaction fees

   9,249  25,155  (15,906   2,594     7,781     (5,187

Other third party fees

   326  709  (383

Leasing commissions and other fees

   4,512     5,806     (1,294
                      
  $38,289  56,032  (17,743  $29,400     38,289     (8,889
                      

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

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

   2010   2009   Change 

Operating, maintenance and real estate taxes

  $125,131     119,585     5,546  

General and administrative

   56,324     54,136     2,188  

Depreciation and amortization

   123,731     116,456     7,275  

Provision for doubtful accounts

   3,941     8,677     (4,736

Other expenses

   2,495     8,284     (5,789
               

Total operating expenses

  $311,622     307,138     4,484  
               

Index to Financial Statements

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

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

   2010  2009  Change 

Interest on Unsecured credit facilities

  $1,430    5,985    (4,555

Interest on notes payable

   125,788    123,778    2,010  

Capitalized interest

   (5,099  (19,062  13,963  

Hedge interest

   5,576    2,305    3,271  

Interest income

   (2,408  (3,767  1,359  
             
  $125,287    109,239    16,048  
             

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

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

   Ownership  2010  2009  Change 

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency (MCWR I) (1)

   —     $—      1,207    (1,207

GRI—Regency, LLC (GRIR) (2)

   40.00  (6,672  (28,308  21,636  

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III, LLC (MCWR III)

   24.95  (108  150    (258

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO, LLC (MCWR-DESCO)

   16.35  (817  (883  66  

Columbia Regency Retail Partners, LLC (Columbia I)

   20.00  (2,970  914    (3,884

Columbia Regency Partners II, LLC (Columbia II)

   20.00  (69  28    (97

Cameron Village, LLC (Cameron)

   30.00  (221  (436  215  

RegCal, LLC (RegCal)

   25.00  194    123    71  

Regency Retail Partners, LP (the Fund)

   20.00  (3,565  (464  (3,101

US Regency Retail I, LLC (USAA)

   20.01  (88  (6  (82

Other investments in real estate partnerships

   50.00  1,432    1,302    130  
              

Total

   $(12,884  (26,373  13,489  
              

(1)At December 31, 2008, our ownership interest in MCWR I was 25%. The liquidation of MCWR I was complete December 31, 2009.
(2)At December 31, 2009, our ownership interest in GRIR (formerly Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II, LLC) was 25%.

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

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

Results from Operations – 2009 vs. 2008

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

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

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

   2009   2008   Change 

Minimum rent

  $344,709     333,659     11,050  

Percentage rent

   3,585     4,258     (673

Recoveries from tenants and other income

   101,490     100,985     505  

Management, transaction, and other fees

   38,289     56,032     (17,743
               

Total revenues

  $488,073     494,934     (6,861
               

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

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

   2009   2008   Change 

Asset management fees

  $9,671     11,673     (2,002

Property management fees

   15,031     16,132     (1,101

Transaction fees

   7,781     25,155     (17,374

Leasing commissions and other fees

   5,806     3,072     2,734  
               
  $38,289     56,032     (17,743
               

Asset management fees, which are tied to the value of the real estate we manage for our co-investment partners, decreased in 2009 due to an overall decline in commercial real estate values,

during the past 18 months, and also due to as well as, a reduction in the number of joint venture partnership properties we manage as a result of the DIK liquidation of MCWR I. Property managementTransaction fees which are calculated based on a percentage of revenues earned in the joint venture partnerships, declineddecreased 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 athe $19.7 million Portfolio Incentive Return Fee earned and recognized in 2008, and not recurring in 2009. During 2009 we received a $7.8 million disposition fee from MCW in relation

Index to MCW’s partial sale of its investment in MCWR II to GRI.

Financial Statements

Our operating expenses increased by $30.3$30.0 million or 10.9%10.8% to $308.0$307.1 million in 2009. The following table summarizes our operating expenses (in thousands):

 

  2009  2008  Change   2009   2008   Change 

Operating, maintenance and real estate taxes

  $119,884  107,652  12,232    $119,585     107,487     12,098  

General and administrative

   54,136  49,495  4,641     54,136     49,495     4,641  

Depreciation and amortization

   116,924  104,569  12,355     116,456     104,159     12,297  

Provision for doubtful accounts

   8,791  1,170  7,621     8,677     1,130     7,547  

Other expenses, net

   8,284  14,824  (6,540

Other expenses

   8,284     14,824     (6,540
                      

Total operating expenses

  $308,019  277,710  30,309    $307,138     277,095     30,043  
                      

Increases in operating, maintenance, and real estate taxes along with depreciation and amortization expense arewere 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 commencingthat commenced operations in the current year,2009, and general increases in expenses incurred by the operating properties. General and administrative expense iswas 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 reductionsreduction in incentive compensation for not achieving targeted performance levels. During 2009, we increased the allowanceprovision 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 periodduring the recession of much lower consumer spending.2009. The declinedecrease in other expenses iswas due to a reduction in pre-acquisition developmentpre-development costs being written off as a result of much lowerpursuing less new development pursuit activity.

The following table presents the change in interest expense from 2009 to 2008 (in thousands):

 

  2009 2008 Change   2009 2008 Change 

Interest on Unsecured credit facilities

  $5,985   12,655   (6,670  $5,985    12,655    (6,670

Interest on notes payable

   126,083   121,335   4,748     123,778    120,029    3,749  

Capitalized interest

   (19,062 (36,510 17,448     (19,062  (36,510  17,448  

Hedge interest

   2,305    1,306    999  

Interest income

   (3,767 (4,696 929     (3,767  (4,696  929  
                    
  $109,239   92,784   16,455    $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 declineddecreased as in-process developments were completed during 2009 and new development activity declined.

During 2009, we sold 18 out-parcels for net proceeds of $27.8 million and recognized a gain of approximately $219,000, whereas during 2008, we sold 12 out-parcels for net proceeds of $38.2 million and recognized a gain of $5.3 million. During 2008, we also recognized a $1.2 million.million gain on two out-parcels originally deferred at the time of sale. During 2009, we also sold eight operating properties to the USAA

partnership for net proceeds of $103.3 million and recognized gains of $19.1 million recorded under the Restricted Gain Method. During 2008, we sold four properties to several joint ventures for net proceeds of $110.5 million and recognized gains of $13.8 million recorded under the Restricted Gain Method.

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

Index to Financial Statements

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

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

 

   Ownership  2009  2008  Change 

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency (MCWR I)(1)

  —     $1,207   488   719  

Macquarie CountryWide Direct (MCWR I)(1)

  —      —     697   (697

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
            
   Ownership  2009  2008  Change 

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency (MCWR I) (1)

   —     $1,207    488    719  

Macquarie CountryWide Direct (MCWR I) (1)

   —      —      697    (697

GRI—Regency, LLC (GRIR) (2)

   25.00  (28,308  (672  (27,636

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III, LLC (MCWR III)

   24.95  150    203    (53

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO, LLC

     

(MCWR-DESCO)

   16.35  (883  (823  (60

Columbia Regency Retail Partners, LLC (Columbia I)

   20.00  914    2,105    (1,191

Columbia Regency Partners II, LLC (Columbia II)

   20.00  28    169    (141

Cameron Village, LLC (Cameron)

   30.00  (436  (65  (371

RegCal, LLC (RegCal)

   25.00  123    1,678    (1,555

Regency Retail Partners, LP (the Fund)

   20.00  (464  (233  (231

US Regency Retail I, LLC (USAA)

   20.01  (6  —      (6

Other investments in real estate partnerships

   50.00  1,302    1,745    (443
              

Total

   $(26,373  5,292    (31,665
              

 

(1)

At December 31, 2008, the Company’sour ownership interest in MCWR I was 25.00%25%. The liquidation of MCWR I was complete effective December 31, 2009.

(2)

At December 31, 2008, the Company’sour ownership interest in MCWRGRIR (formerly Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II, LLC) was 24.95%.

The decrease in our equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships is primarily related to a provision for impairment of $104.4 million recognized by MCWR IIGRIR 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$6.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 related to the operations of shopping centers sold or classified as held-for-sale in 2010, 2009, and 2008 whereas income from discontinued operations was $22.0$22.3 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

Index to Financial Statements

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

Related to our Parent Company’s results, our net loss attributable to common stockholders for the year ended December 31, 2009 was $56.4 million, a decrease of $172.9 million as compared with net income of $116.5 million infor the year ended December 31, 2008. The declinedecrease in net income was primarily related to the $104.4 millionlarge 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 estaterecognized during 2009 as compared to 2008.2009. Our diluted net loss per share was $0.74 in 2009 as compared to diluted net income per share of $1.66 in 2008.

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

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2008 to 2007:

Our revenues increased by $59.9 million, or 13.7%, to $495.9 million in 2008 as summarized in the following table (in thousands):

   2008  2007  Change 

Minimum rent

  $334,509  308,108  26,401  

Percentage rent

   4,258  4,655  (397

Recoveries from tenants and other income

   101,096  90,179  10,917  

Management, transaction, and other fees

   56,032  33,064  22,968  
           

Total revenues

  $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. Recoveries increased as a result of an increase in our operating expenses. The increase in management, 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 based upon Columbia outperforming the NCREIF index since the inception of the partnership and a 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 portion of 2007 when MCWR-DESCO was formed.

Our operating expenses increased by $29.8 million, or 12.0%, to $277.7 million in 2008 as summarized in the following table (in thousands):

   2008  2007  Change 

Operating, maintenance and real estate taxes

  $107,652  97,910  9,742  

General and administrative

   49,495  50,580  (1,085

Depreciation and amortization

   104,569  89,365  15,204  

Provision for doubtful accounts

   1,170  —    1,170  

Other expenses, net

   14,824  10,057  4,767  
           

Total operating expenses

  $277,710  247,912  29,798  
           

The increase in operating, maintenance, and real estate taxes was primarily due to new properties acquired during 2007 operating for the entire year during 2008, recently completed developments commencing operations 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 earning metrics, both of which were directly impacted by the economic downturn during 2008. During 2008, we also recorded restructuring charges of $2.4 million for employee severance and benefits related to employee reductions in force. The increase in depreciation and 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 due 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, $3.4 million of which was reclassed to discontinued operations when the property was sold in 2009. Included in the 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 

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency (MCWR I)

  25.00 $488   9,871   (9,383

Macquarie CountryWide Direct (MCWR I)

  25.00  697   457   240  

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II (MCWR II)

  24.95  (672 (3,236 2,564  

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III (MCWR III)

  24.95  203   67   136  

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO (MCWR-DESCO)

  16.35  (823 (465 (358

Columbia Regency Retail Partners (Columbia I)

  20.00  2,105   2,440   (335

Columbia Regency Partners II (Columbia II)

  20.00  169   189   (20

Cameron Village LLC (Cameron)

  30.00  (65 (74 9  

RegCal, LLC (RegCal)

  25.00  1,678   662   1,016  

Regency Retail Partners (the Fund)

  20.00  (233 326   (559

Other investments in real estate partnerships

  50.00  1,745   7,856   (6,111
            

Total

   $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 $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 $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.

Related to our Parent Company’s results, net income attributable to common stockholders for the year ended decreased $67.5 million to $116.5 million in 2008 as compared with $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.

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$2.9 million and $3.2 million, all of which has been reserved.accrued as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. We believe that the ultimate disposition of currently known environmental matters will not have a material effect on our financial position, liquidity, or results of operations; however, we can give no assurance that existing environmental studies on our shopping centers have revealed all potential environmental liabilities; that any previous owner, occupant or tenant did not create any material environmental condition not known to us; that the current environmental condition of the shopping centers will not be affected by tenants and occupants, by the condition of nearby properties, or by unrelated third parties; or that changes in applicable environmental laws and regulations or their interpretation will not result in additional environmental liability to us.

Inflation/Deflation

Inflation has been historically low and has had a minimal impact on the operating performance of our shopping centers; however, more recent data suggests inflation will eventually become a greater concern as the economy beginscontinues 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

Index to Financial Statements

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

Item 7A.Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Market Risk

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

We have $375.2 million of fixed rate debt maturing in 2010 and 2011 that has a weighted average fixed interest rate of 7.95%, which includes $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%. WeAt inception, we designated these Swaps as cash flow hedges to lock in the underlying treasury rates on $334.0$400.0 million of thefixed rate financing that was 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, 2009 is reflected as a liability of $28.4 million in 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 debt. On April 16, 2009, we paid $20.0 million to settle and partially settle $106.0 million of ourthe $396.7 million of interest rate swapsSwaps in place to hedge forecasted debt. Onthe $106.0 million mortgage loan issued on July 1, 2009,2009. On June 1, 2010, we closed on mortgage loans of $106.0paid $26.8 million secured by eight properties with an interest rate of 7.75% and a 10-year term. For $90.7to partially settle $150.0 million of the remaining $290.7 million Swaps in place to hedge the $150.0 million ten-year senior unsecured notes issued on June 2, 2010. On September 30, 2010, we continuepaid $36.7 million to expectsettle the remaining $140.7 million of Swaps to issue new secured orhedge the $250.0 million ten-year senior unsecured debt for a term ofnotes issued on October 7, to 12 years prior to July 1, 2010. For $200.0the year ended December 31, 2010, we recognized income of $1.4 million for changes in hedge ineffectiveness attributable to revised inputs used in valuation models to estimate effectiveness.

We have $374.7 million of the remaining Swaps, we continue to expect to issue newfixed rate debt formaturing in 2011 and 2012 that has a termweighted average fixed interest rate of 7 to 12 years during the period between March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2011.7.29%, which includes $374.1 million of unsecured long-term debt. We continuously monitor the capital markets and evaluate our ability to issue new debt to repay maturing debt or fund our commitments. Based upon the current capital markets, our current credit ratings, and the number of high quality, unencumbered properties that we own which could collateralize borrowings, we expect that we will be able to successfully issue new secured or unsecured debt to fund ourthese debt obligations. An increase of 1.0% in the interest rate of new debt issued, above that of maturing debt, would result in additional annual interest expense of $3.3 million subject 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, 2009,2010, by year of expected maturity to evaluate the expected cash flows and sensitivity to interest rate changes. Although the average interest rate for variable rate debt is included in the table, those rates represent rates that existed at December 31, 20092010 and are subject to change on a monthly basis.

Index to Financial Statements

The table below incorporates only those exposures that exist as of December 31, 20092010 and does not consider exposures or positions that could arise after that date. Since firm commitments are not presented, the table has limited predictive value. As a result, our ultimate realized gain or loss with respect to interest rate fluctuations will depend on the exposures that arise during the period, our hedging strategies at that time, and actual interest rates.

 

  2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Thereafter Total  Fair
Value
 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Thereafter Total Value 

Fixed rate debt

  $173,766   209,395   254,901   21,123   166,296   1,058,133   1,883,614  1,433,836 $187,049    197,440    21,288    172,074    399,387    1,098,251    2,075,489    1,657,995  

Average interest rate forall fixed rate debt (a)

   6.19 5.96 5.80 5.78 5.90 6.26 —    —  

Average interest rate for all fixed rate debt (1)

  5.78  5.67  5.65  5.72  5.87  5.87  —      —    

Variable rate LIBOR debt

  $204   1,196   204   204   3,788   —     5,596  4,573 $7,264    10,204    204    3,517    —      —      21,189    20,232  

Average interest rate forall variable rate debt(a)

   5.33 5.80 5.80 5.80 —     —     —    —  

Average interest rate for all variable rate debt (1)

  2.25  5.80  5.80  —      —      —      —      —    

 

(a)(1)

Average interest rates at the end of each year presented.

The fair value of total debt in the table above is $1.4$1.7 billion versus the face value of $1.9$2.1 billion, which suggests that as new debt is issued in the future to repay maturing debt, the cost of new debt issuances will be higher than the current cost of existing debt.

Index to Financial Statements
Item 8.Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Index to Financial Statements

 

Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

  6667

Regency Centers Corporation:

  

Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20092010 and 20082009

  7071

Consolidated Statements of Operations for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008

  7172

Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss)
for the years ended December  31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008

  7273

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008

  7375

Regency Centers, L.P.:

  

Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20092010 and 20082009

  7577

Consolidated Statements of Operations for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008

  7678

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Capital and Comprehensive
Income (Loss) for the years ended December  31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008

  7779

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008

  7880

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

  8082

Financial Statement Schedule

  

Schedule III – CombinedIII—Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation –
Depreciation—December 31, 20092010

  123119

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, 20092010 and 2008,2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearthree–year period ended December 31, 2009.2010. In connection with our audits of the consolidated financial statements, we also have audited financial statement Schedule III. These consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Regency Centers Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearthree–year period ended December 31, 2009,2010, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

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, 2009,2010, 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, 2010March 1, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

/s/ KPMG LLP

February 26, 2010March 1, 2011

Jacksonville, Florida

Certified Public Accountants

Index to Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

Regency Centers Corporation:

We have audited Regency Centers Corporation’s (the Company’s) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009,2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Regency Centers Corporation’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment,assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control andbased on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, Regency Centers Corporation maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009,2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Control – Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).Commission.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 20092010 and the related financial statement schedule, and our report dated February 26, 2010March 1, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and the related financial statement schedule.

/s/ KPMG LLP

February 26, 2010March 1, 2011

Jacksonville, Florida

Certified Public Accountants

Index to Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Unit holdersHolders 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, 20092010 and 2008,2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in capital and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearthree–year period ended December 31, 2009.2010. In connection with our audits of the consolidated financial statements, we also have audited financial statement Schedule III. These consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Regency Centers, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearthree–year period ended December 31, 2009,2010, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

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, 2009,2010, based on criteria established inInternal Control – Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report dated February 26, 2010March 1, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

/s/ KPMG LLP

February 26, 2010March 1, 2011

Jacksonville, Florida

Certified Public Accountants

Index to Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

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

the Board of Directors and Stockholders of

Regency Centers Corporation:

We have audited Regency Centers, L.P.’s (the Partnership’s) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009,2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Regency Centers, L.P.’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment,assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control andbased on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, Regency Centers, L.P. maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009,2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Control – Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).Commission.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in capital and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 20092010 and the related financial statement schedule, and our report dated February 26, 2010March 1, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and the related financial statement schedule.

/s/ KPMG LLP

February 26, 2010March 1, 2011

Jacksonville, Florida

Certified Public Accountants

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Balance Sheets

December 31, 20092010 and 20082009

(in thousands, except share data)

 

  2009 2008   2010 2009 

Assets

      

Real estate investments at cost (notes 2, 3, 4, and 14):

      

Land

  $975,861   923,062    $1,093,700    975,861  

Buildings and improvements

   2,017,843   1,974,093     2,284,522    2,017,843  

Properties in development

   920,427   1,078,885     610,932    920,427  
              
   3,914,131   3,976,040     3,989,154    3,914,131  

Less: accumulated depreciation

   622,163   554,595     700,878    622,163  
              
   3,291,968   3,421,445     3,288,276    3,291,968  

Operating properties held for sale, net

   19,647   66,447     —      19,647  

Investments in real estate partnerships

   326,212   383,408     428,592    326,212  
              

Net real estate investments

   3,637,827   3,871,300     3,716,868    3,637,827  

Cash and cash equivalents

   99,477   21,533     22,460    99,477  

Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $4,819 and $6,567 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively

   36,600    40,871  

Straight-line rent receivable, net of reserve of $1,396 and $1,899 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively

   45,241    39,292  

Notes receivable (note 5)

   37,753   31,438     35,931    37,753  

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  

Deferred costs, less accumulated amortization of $69,158 and $58,861 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively

   63,165    58,376  

Acquired lease intangible assets, less accumulated amortization of $13,996 and $11,632 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively (note 6)

   18,219    10,007  

Other assets

   50,203   43,928     35,164    50,203  
              

Total assets

  $3,973,806   4,142,375    $3,973,648    3,973,806  
              

Liabilities and Equity

   

Liabilities and Equity

   

Liabilities:

      

Notes payable (note 8)

  $1,886,380   1,837,904    $2,084,469    1,886,380  

Unsecured credit facilities (note 8)

   —     297,667     10,000    —    

Accounts payable and other liabilities

   99,145   141,395     101,047    99,145  

Derivative instruments, at fair value (note 9)

   28,363   83,691     —      28,363  

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  

Acquired lease intangible liabilities, less accumulated accretion of $11,010 and $9,715 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively (note 6)

   6,682    5,896  

Tenants’ security and escrow deposits

   10,628   11,571     10,790    10,628  
              

Total liabilities

   2,030,412   2,380,093     2,212,988    2,030,412  
              

Commitments and contingencies (notes 14 and 15)

      

Equity:

      

Stockholders’ equity (notes 9, 11, 12, and 13):

   

Preferred stock, $.01 par value per share, 30,000,000 shares authorized; 11,000,000 Series 3-5 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 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

Stockholders' equity (notes 9, 11, 12, and 13):

   

Preferred stock, $.01 par value per share, 30,000,000 shares authorized; 11,000,000 Series 3-5 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009 with liquidation preferences of $25 per share

   275,000    275,000  

Common stock $.01 par value per share, 150,000,000 shares authorized; 81,886,872 and 81,539,296 shares issued at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively

   819    815  

Additional paid in capital

   2,022,670   1,778,265     2,038,006    2,022,670  

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

   (49,973 (90,689

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

   (80,885  (49,973

Distributions in excess of net income

   (373,345 (155,057   (531,505  (373,345
              

Total stockholders’ equity

   1,875,167   1,696,861  

Total stockholders' equity

   1,701,435    1,875,167  
              

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  

Series D preferred units, aggregate redemption value of $50,000 at December 31, 2010 and 2009

   49,158    49,158  

Exchangeable operating partnership units, aggregate redemption value of $7,483 and $16,415 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively (note 10)

   (762  7,321  

Limited partners' interests in consolidated partnerships

   10,829    11,748  
              

Total noncontrolling interests

   68,227   65,421     59,225    68,227  
              

Total equity

   1,943,394   1,762,282     1,760,660    1,943,394  
              

Total liabilities and equity

  $3,973,806   4,142,375    $3,973,648    3,973,806  
              

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Operations

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 20072008

(in thousands, except per share data)

 

  2009 2008 2007   2010 2009 2008 

Revenues:

        

Minimum rent (note 14)

  $345,610   334,509   308,108    $347,122    344,709    333,659  

Percentage rent

   3,585   4,258   4,655     2,540    3,585    4,258  

Recoveries from tenants and other income

   101,748   101,096   90,179     107,744    101,490    100,985  

Management, transaction, and other fees

   38,289   56,032   33,064     29,400    38,289    56,032  
                    

Total revenues

   489,232   495,895   436,006     486,806    488,073    494,934  
          
          

Operating expenses:

        

Depreciation and amortization

   116,924   104,569   89,365     123,731    116,456    104,159  

Operating and maintenance

   66,061   59,140   54,095     70,375    65,887    58,961  

General and administrative

   54,136   49,495   50,580     56,324    54,136    49,495  

Real estate taxes

   53,823   48,512   43,815     54,756    53,698    48,526  

Provision for doubtful accounts

   8,791   1,170   —       3,941    8,677    1,130  

Other expenses

   8,284   14,824   10,057     2,495    8,284    14,824  
                    

Total operating expenses

   308,019   277,710   247,912     311,622    307,138    277,095  
                    

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  

Interest expense, net of interest income of $2,408, $3,767, and $4,696 in 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively

   125,287    109,239    92,784  

Gain on sale of operating properties and properties in development

   (19,357 (20,346 (52,215   (993  (19,357  (20,346

Provision for impairment

   97,519   31,469   —       26,615    97,519    31,469  

Early extinguishment of debt

   2,784   —     —       4,243    2,784    —    

Loss on derivative instruments (note 9)

   3,294   —     —    

Loss (gain) on derivative instruments (note 9)

   (1,419  3,294    —    
                    

Total other expense (income)

   193,479   103,907   30,174     153,733    193,479    103,907  
          
          

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

   (12,266 114,278   157,920     21,451    (12,544  113,932  

Equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships (note 4)

   (26,373 5,292   18,093     (12,884  (26,373  5,292  
                    

Income (loss) from continuing operations

   (38,639 119,570   176,013     8,567    (38,917  119,224  

Discontinued operations, net (note 3):

        

Operating income (loss) from discontinued operations

   61   4,570   8,718  

Operating income

   55    339    4,916  

Gain on sale of operating properties and properties in development

   5,835   17,381   25,285     7,577    5,835    17,381  
                    

Income (loss) from discontinued operations

   5,896   21,951   34,003  
          

Income from discontinued operations

   7,632    6,174    22,297  
          

Net income (loss)

   (32,743 141,521   210,016     16,199    (32,743  141,521  

Noncontrolling interests:

        

Preferred units

   (3,725 (3,725 (3,725   (3,725  (3,725  (3,725

Exchangeable operating partnership units

   216   (907 (1,650   (84  216    (907

Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships

   (452 (701 (990   (376  (452  (701
                    

Net income attributable to controlling interests

   (3,961 (5,333 (6,365
          

Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests

   (4,185  (3,961  (5,333
          

Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests

   (36,704 136,188   203,651     12,014    (36,704  136,188  

Preferred stock dividends

   (19,675 (19,675 (19,675   (19,675  (19,675  (19,675
                    

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

  $(7,661  (56,379  116,513  
          

Income (loss) per common share – basic (note 13):

    

Continuing operations

  $(0.19  (0.82  1.35  

Discontinued operations

   0.09    0.08    0.31  
          

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

  $(56,379 116,513   183,976    $(0.10  (0.74  1.66  
                    

Income (loss) per common share - basic (note 13):

    

Income (loss) per common share – diluted (note 13):

    

Continuing operations

  $(0.82 1.35   2.16    $(0.19  (0.82  1.35  

Discontinued operations

   0.08   0.31   0.49     0.09    0.08    0.31  
                    

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders per share

  $(0.74 1.66   2.65  

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

  $(0.10  (0.74  1.66  
                    

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.

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss)

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 20072008

(Inin thousands, except per share data)

 

   Noncontrolling Interests                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
                                    Preferred
Stock
 Common
Stock
 Treasury
Stock
 Additional
Paid In
Capital
 Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Loss
 Distributions
in Excess of
Net Income
 Total
Stockholders'
Equity
 Preferred
Units
 Exchangeable
Operating
Partnership
Units
 Limited
Partners'
Interest in
Consolidated
Partnerships
 Total
Noncontrolling
Interests
 Total
Equity
 

Balance at December 31, 2007

 $275,000 752   (111,414 1,766,280   (18,622 (68,935 1,843,061   49,158   9,919   18,391   77,468   1,920,529   $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    —      —      —      —      —      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    —      —      —      —      1,297    —      1,297    —      9    —      9    1,306  

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  —   —     —     —     (73,364 —     (73,364 —     (491 —     (491 (73,855  —      —      —      —      (73,364  —      (73,364  —      (491  —      (491  (73,855
                                    

Total comprehensive income (loss)

       64,121      4,851   68,972  

Total comprehensive income

        64,121       4,851    68,972  

Restricted stock issued, net of amortization (note 12)

  —   3   —     8,190   —     —     8,193   —     —     —     —     8,193    —      3    —      8,190    —      —      8,193    —      —      —      —      8,193  

Common stock redeemed for taxes withheld for stock based compensation, net

  —   —     —     (3,659 —     —     (3,659 —     —     —     —     (3,659  —      —      —      (3,659  —      —      (3,659  —      —      —      —      (3,659

Common stock issued for dividend reinvestment plan

  —   1   —     4,473   —     —     4,474   —     —     —     —     4,474    —      1    —      4,473    —      —      4,474    —      —      —      —      4,474  

Tax benefit for issuance of stock options

  —   —     —     2,285   —     —     2,285   —     —     —     —     2,285    —      —      —      2,285    —      —      2,285    —      —      —      —      2,285  

Common stock issued for partnership units exchanged

  —   —     —     232   —     —     232   —     (232 —     (232 —      —      —      —      232    —      —      232    —      (232  —      (232  —    

Reallocation of limited partners’ interest

  —   —     —     464   —     —     464   —     (464 —     (464 —    

Reallocation of limited partners' interest

  —      —      —      464    —      —      464    —      (464  —      (464  —    

Contributions from partners

  —   —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     3,157   3,157   3,157    —      —      —      —      —      —      —      —      —      3,157    3,157    3,157  

Distributions to partners

  —   —     —     —     —     —     —     —     —     (14,269 (14,269 (14,269  —      —      —      —      —      —      —      —      —      (14,269  (14,269  (14,269

Cash dividends declared:

                        

Preferred stock/unit

  —   —     —     —     —     (19,675 (19,675 (3,725 —     —     (3,725 (23,400  —      —      —      —      —      (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  —      —      —      —      —      (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   $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  —      —      —      —      —      (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    —      —      —      —      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    —      —      —      —      38,424    —      38,424    —      221    —      221    38,645  
                                    

Total comprehensive income (loss)

       4,012      4,195   8,207  

Total comprehensive income

        4,012       4,195    8,207  

Restricted stock issued, net of amortization (note 12)

  —   2   —     5,961   —     —     5,963   —     —     —     —     5,963    —      2    —      5,961    —      —      5,963    —      —      —      —      5,963  

Common stock redeemed for taxes withheld for stock based compensation, net

  —   —     —     343   —     —     343   —     —     —     —     343    —      —      —      343    —      —      343    —      —      —      —      343  

Common stock issued for dividend reinvestment plan

  —   1   —     3,222   —     —     3,223   —     —     —     —     3,223    —      1    —      3,222    —      —      3,223    —      —      —      —      3,223  

Tax benefit for issuance of stock options

  —   —     —     552   —     —     552   —     —     —     —     552    —      —      —      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  
                                   

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss)

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

(in thousands, except per share data)

                       Noncontrolling Interests 
  Preferred
Stock
  Common
Stock
  Treasury
Stock
  Additional
Paid In
Capital
  Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Loss
  Distributions
in Excess of
Net Income
  Total
Stockholders'
Equity
  Preferred
Units
  Exchangeable
Operating
Partnership
Units
  Limited
Partners'
Interest in
Consolidated
Partnerships
  Total
Noncontrolling
Interests
  Total
Equity
 

Common stock issued for stock offerings, net of issuance costs

  —      112    —      345,685    —      —      345,797    —      —      —      —      345,797  

Treasury stock cancellation

  —      (56  111,414    (111,358  —      —      —      —      —      —      —      —    

Contributions from partners

  —      —      —      —      —      —      —      —      —      4,197    4,197    4,197  

Distributions to partners

  —      —      —      —      —      —      —      —      —      (881  (881  (881

Cash dividends declared:

            

Preferred stock/unit

  —      —      —      —      —      (19,675  (19,675  (3,725  —      —      (3,725  (23,400

Common stock/unit ($2.11 per share)

  —      —      —      —      —      (161,909  (161,909  —      (980  —      (980  (162,889
                                                

Balance at December 31, 2009

 $275,000    815    —      2,022,670    (49,973  (373,345  1,875,167    49,158    7,321    11,748    68,227    1,943,394  

Comprehensive Income (note 9):

            

Net income

  —      —      —      —      —      12,014    12,014    3,725    84    376    4,185    16,199  

Amortization of loss on derivative instruments

  —      —      —      —      5,563    —      5,563    —      12    —      12    5,575  

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  —      —      —      —      (36,475  —      (36,475  —      (81  —      (81  (36,556
                     

Total comprehensive income (loss)

        (18,898     4,116    (14,782

Restricted stock issued, net of amortization (note 12)

  —      —      —      7,236    —      —      7,236    —      —      —      —      7,236  

Common stock redeemed for taxes withheld for stock based compensation, net

  —      —      —      (1,374  —      —      (1,374  —      —      —      —      (1,374

Common stock issued for dividend reinvestment plan

  —      1    —      1,847    —      —      1,848    —      —      —      —      1,848  

Common stock issued for partnership units exchanged

  —      3    —      7,627    —      —      7,630    —      (7,630  —      (7,630  —    

Contributions from partners

  —      —      —      —      —      —      —      —      —      161    161    161  

Distributions to partners

  —      —      —      —      —      —      —      —      —      (1,456  (1,456  (1,456

Cash dividends declared:

            

Preferred stock/unit

  —      —      —      —      —      (19,675  (19,675  (3,725  —      —      (3,725  (23,400

Common stock/unit ($1.85 per share)

  —      —      —      —      —      (150,499  (150,499  —      (468  —      (468  (150,967
                                                

Balance at December 31, 2010

 $275,000    819    —      2,038,006    (80,885  (531,505  1,701,435    49,158    (762  10,829    59,225    1,760,660  
                                                

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008

(in thousands)

 

  2009 2008 2007   2010 2009 2008 

Cash flows from operating activities:

        

Net income (loss)

  $(32,743 141,521   210,016    $16,199    (32,743  141,521  

Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:

        

Depreciation and amortization

   117,979   107,846   93,508     123,933    117,979    107,846  

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

Amortization of deferred loan cost and debt premium

   8,533    5,822    4,287  

Amortization and (accretion) of above and below market lease intangibles, net

   (1,161  (1,867  (2,376

Stock-based compensation, net of capitalization

   4,668   5,950   11,572     6,615    4,668    5,950  

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

   26,373   (5,292 (18,093

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

   12,884    26,373    (5,292

Net gain on sale of properties

   (25,192 (37,843 (79,627   (8,648  (25,192  (37,843

Provision for doubtful accounts

   9,078   1,197   —       3,954    9,078    1,197  

Provision for impairment

   104,402   34,855   —       26,615    104,402    34,855  

Early extinguishment of debt

   2,784   —     —       4,243    2,784    —    

Distribution of earnings from operations of investments in real estate partnerships

   31,252   30,730   30,547     41,054    31,252    30,730  

Settlement of derivative instruments

   (19,953 —     —       (63,435  (19,953  —    

Loss on derivative instruments

   3,294   —     —    

Loss (gain) on derivative instruments

   (1,419  3,294    —    

Changes in assets and liabilities:

        

Accounts receivable

   (2,995 (6,621 (5,665   (1,297  (2,995  (6,621

Straight-line rent receivables, net

   (3,959 (3,709 (4,375   (6,202  (3,959  (3,709

Other receivables

   19,700   (19,700 —       —      19,700    (19,700

Deferred leasing costs

   (9,799 (6,734 (8,126   (15,563  (9,799  (6,734

Other assets

   (16,493 (12,839 (15,861   (4,681  (16,493  (12,839

Accounts payable and other liabilities

   (18,035 (12,423 2,101     (449  (18,035  (12,423

Tenants’ security and escrow deposits

   (454 320   847  

Tenants' security and escrow deposits

   33    (454  320  
                    

Net cash provided by operating activities

   193,862   219,169   218,167     141,208    193,862    219,169  
          
          

Cash flows from investing activities:

        

Acquisition of operating real estate

   —     —     (63,117   (24,569  —      —    

Development of real estate including acquisition of land

   (142,989 (388,783 (619,282   (65,889  (142,989  (388,783

Proceeds from sale of real estate investments

   180,307   274,417   270,981     47,333    180,307    274,417  

Collection of notes receivable

   13,572   28,287   545     883    13,572    28,287  

Investments in real estate partnerships

   (28,709 (48,619 (42,660   (231,847  (28,709  (48,619

Distributions received from investments in real estate partnerships

   23,548   28,923   41,372     90,092    23,548    28,923  
                    

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities

   45,729   (105,775 (412,161
          

Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities

   (183,997  45,729    (105,775
          

Cash flows from financing activities:

        

Net proceeds from common stock issuance

   345,800   1,020   2,383     —      345,800    1,020  

Distributions to limited partners in consolidated partnerships, net

   (872 (14,134 (4,632   (1,427  (872  (14,134

Distributions to exchangeable operating partnership unit holders

   (980 (1,363 (1,572   (468  (980  (1,363

Distributions to preferred unit holders

   (3,725 (3,725 (3,725   (3,725  (3,725  (3,725

Dividends paid to common stockholders

   (158,690 (198,165 (179,325   (148,649  (158,690  (198,165

Dividends paid to preferred stockholders

   (19,675 (19,675 (19,675   (19,675  (19,675  (19,675

Repayment of fixed rate unsecured notes

   (116,053 —     —       (209,879  (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 issuance of fixed rate unsecured notes, net

   398,599    —      —    

Proceeds from unsecured credit facilities

   250,000    135,000    89,667  

Repayment of unsecured credit facilities

   (240,000  (432,667  —    

Proceeds from notes payable

   106,992   62,500   —       6,068    106,992    62,500  

Repayment of notes payable

   (8,056 (19,932 (89,719   (51,687  (8,056  (19,932

Scheduled principal payments

   (5,214 (4,806 (4,545   (5,024  (5,214  (4,806

Payment of loan costs

   (1,195 (1,916 (5,682   (4,361  (1,195  (1,916

Payment of premium on tender offer

   (2,312 —     —       (4,000  (2,312  —    
                    

Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities

   (161,647 (110,529 178,616  

Net cash used in financing activities

   (34,228  (161,647  (110,529
                    

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

   77,944   2,865   (15,378

Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents

   (77,017  77,944    2,865  

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of the year

   21,533   18,668   34,046     99,477    21,533    18,668  
          
          

Cash and cash equivalents at end of the year

  $99,477   21,533   18,668    $22,460    99,477    21,533  
                    

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008

(in thousands)

 

  2009  2008 2007   2010   2009   2008 

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  
          

Cash paid for interest (net of capitalized interest of $5,099, $19,062, and $36,510 in 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively)

  $127,591     112,730     94,632  
            

Supplemental disclosure of non-cash transactions:

           

Common stock issued for partnership units exchanged

  $—    232   8,607    $7,630     —       232  
          
            

Real estate received through distribution in kind

  $100,717  —     —      $—       100,717     —    
                      

Mortgage loans assumed through distribution in kind

  $70,541  —     —      $—       70,541     —    
                      

Security deposits received through distribution in kind

  $265  —     —    
          

Mortgage loans assumed for the acquisition of real estate

  $—    —     42,272  
          

Mortgage loans assumed for the acquisition of operating real estate

  $58,981     —       —    
            

Real estate contributed for investments in real estate partnerships

  $26,410  6,825   11,007    $—       26,410     6,825  
                      

Notes receivable taken in connection with sales of properties in development

  $11,413  16,294   25,099    $—       11,413     16,294  
                      

Real estate received through foreclosure on notes receivable

  $990     —       —    
            

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  $55,328  (73,855 (6,905  $28,363     55,328     (73,855
                      

Common stock issued for dividend reinvestment plan

  $3,219  4,470   4,070    $1,847     3,219     4,470  
          
            

Stock-based compensation capitalized

  $1,574  3,606   7,565    $852     1,574     3,606  
                      

Contributions from limited partners in consolidated partnerships, net

  $4,188  3,020   4,237    $132     4,188     3,020  
                      

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

December 31, 20092010 and 20082009

(in thousands, except unit data)

 

  2009 2008   2010 2009 

Assets

      

Real estate investments at cost (notes 2, 3, 4, and 14):

      

Land

  $975,861   923,062    $1,093,700    975,861  

Buildings and improvements

   2,017,843   1,974,093     2,284,522    2,017,843  

Properties in development

   920,427   1,078,885     610,932    920,427  
              
   3,914,131   3,976,040     3,989,154    3,914,131  

Less: accumulated depreciation

   622,163   554,595     700,878    622,163  
              
   3,291,968   3,421,445     3,288,276    3,291,968  

Operating properties held for sale, net

   19,647   66,447     —      19,647  

Investments in real estate partnerships

   326,212   383,408     428,592    326,212  
              

Net real estate investments

   3,637,827   3,871,300     3,716,868    3,637,827  

Cash and cash equivalents

   99,477   21,533     22,460    99,477  

Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $4,819 and $6,567 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively

   36,600    40,871  

Straight-line rent receivable, net of reserve of $1,396 and $1,899 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively

   45,241    39,292  

Notes receivable (note 5)

   37,753   31,438     35,931    37,753  

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  

Deferred costs, less accumulated amortization of $69,158 and $58,861 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively

   63,165    58,376  

Acquired lease intangible assets, less accumulated amortization of $13,996 and $11,632 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively (note 6)

   18,219    10,007  

Other assets

   50,203   43,928     35,164    50,203  
              

Total assets

  $3,973,806   4,142,375    $3,973,648    3,973,806  
       
       

Liabilities and Capital

      

Liabilities:

      

Notes payable (note 8)

  $1,886,380   1,837,904    $2,084,469    1,886,380  

Unsecured credit facilities (note 8)

   —     297,667     10,000    —    

Accounts payable and other liabilities

   99,145   141,395     101,047    99,145  

Derivative instruments, at fair value (note 9)

   28,363   83,691     —      28,363  

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  

Acquired lease intangible liabilities, less accumulated accretion of $11,010 and $9,715 at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively (note 6)

   6,682    5,896  

Tenants' security and escrow deposits

   10,790    10,628  
              

Total liabilities

   2,030,412   2,380,093     2,212,988    2,030,412  
              

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

Partners' capital (note 9, 11, 12, and 13):

   

Series D preferred units, par value $100: 500,000 units issued and outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009

   49,158    49,158  

Preferred units of general partner, $.01 par value per unit, 11,000,000 units issued and outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009, liquidation preference of $25 per unit

   275,000    275,000  

General partner; 81,886,872 and 81,539,296 units outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively

   1,507,320    1,650,140  

Limited partners; 177,164 and 468,211 units outstanding at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively

   (762  7,321  

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

   (80,885  (49,973
              

Total partners’ capital

   1,931,646   1,754,302     1,749,831    1,931,646  
              

Noncontrolling interests:

      

Limited partners’ interest in consolidated partnerships

   11,748   7,980  

Limited partners' interests in consolidated partnerships

   10,829    11,748  
              

Total noncontrolling interests

   11,748   7,980     10,829    11,748  
              

Total capital

   1,943,394   1,762,282     1,760,660    1,943,394  
              

Total liabilities and capital

  $3,973,806   4,142,375    $3,973,648    3,973,806  
              

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, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008

(in thousands, except per unit data)

 

  2009 2008 2007   2010 2009 2008 

Revenues:

        

Minimum rent (note 14)

  $345,610   334,509   308,108    $347,122    344,709    333,659  

Percentage rent

   3,585   4,258   4,655     2,540    3,585    4,258  

Recoveries from tenants and other income

   101,748   101,096   90,179     107,744    101,490    100,985  

Management, transaction, and other fees

   38,289   56,032   33,064     29,400    38,289    56,032  
                    

Total revenues

   489,232   495,895   436,006     486,806    488,073    494,934  
          
          

Operating expenses:

        

Depreciation and amortization

   116,924   104,569   89,365     123,731    116,456    104,159  

Operating and maintenance

   66,061   59,140   54,095     70,375    65,887    58,961  

General and administrative

   54,136   49,495   50,580     56,324    54,136    49,495  

Real estate taxes

   53,823   48,512   43,815     54,756    53,698    48,526  

Provision for doubtful accounts

   8,791   1,170   —       3,941    8,677    1,130  

Other expenses

   8,284   14,824   10,057     2,495    8,284    14,824  
                    

Total operating expenses

   308,019   277,710   247,912     311,622    307,138    277,095  
                    

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  

Interest expense, net of interest income of $2,408, $3,767, and $4,696 in 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively

   125,287    109,239    92,784  

Gain on sale of operating properties and properties in development

   (19,357 (20,346 (52,215   (993  (19,357  (20,346

Provision for impairment

   97,519   31,469   —       26,615    97,519    31,469  

Early extinguishment of debt

   2,784   —     —       4,243    2,784    —    

Loss on derivative instruments (note 9)

   3,294   —     —    

Loss (gain) on derivative instruments (note 9)

   (1,419  3,294    —    
                    

Total other expense (income)

   193,479   103,907   30,174     153,733    193,479    103,907  
          
          

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

   (12,266 114,278   157,920     21,451    (12,544  113,932  

Equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships (note 4)

   (26,373 5,292   18,093     (12,884  (26,373  5,292  
                    

Income (loss) from continuing operations

   (38,639 119,570   176,013     8,567    (38,917  119,224  

Discontinued operations, net (note 3):

        

Operating income (loss) from discontinued operations

   61   4,570   8,718  

Operating income

   55    339    4,916  

Gain on sale of operating properties and properties in development

   5,835   17,381   25,285     7,577    5,835    17,381  
                    

Income (loss) from discontinued operations

   5,896   21,951   34,003  
          

Income from discontinued operations

   7,632    6,174    22,297  
          

Net income (loss)

   (32,743 141,521   210,016     16,199    (32,743  141,521  

Noncontrolling interests:

    

Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships

   (376  (452  (701
          

Noncontrolling interests:

    

Limited partners’ interest in consolidated partnerships

   (452 (701 (990

Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests

   (376  (452  (701
                    

Net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests

   (452 (701 (990
          

Net income attributable to controlling interests

   (33,195 140,820   209,026  

Net income (loss) attributable to controlling interests

   15,823    (33,195  140,820  

Preferred unit distributions

   (23,400 (23,400 (23,400   (23,400  (23,400  (23,400
          
          

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

  $(56,595 117,420   185,626    $(7,577  (56,595  117,420  
                    

Income (loss) per common unit - basic (note 13):

    

Income (loss) per common unit—basic (note 13):

    

Continuing operations

  $(0.82 1.35   2.16    $(0.19  (0.82  1.35  

Discontinued operations

   0.08   0.31   0.49     0.09    0.08    0.31  
                    

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders per unit

  $(0.74 1.66   2.65  

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

  $(0.10  (0.74  1.66  
                    

Income (loss) per common unit - diluted (note 13):

    

Income (loss) per common unit—diluted (note 13):

    

Continuing operations

  $(0.82 1.35   2.16    $(0.19  (0.82  1.35  

Discontinued operations

   0.08   0.31   0.49     0.09    0.08    0.31  
                    

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders per unit

  $(0.74 1.66   2.65  

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

  $(0.10  (0.74  1.66  
                    

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss)

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008

(in thousands)

 

 Preferred Units General Partner
Preferred and
Common Units
 Limited
Partners
 Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
 Total
Partners’
Capital
 Noncontrolling
Interests in
Limited Partners’
Interest in
Consolidated
Partnerships
 Total
Capital
 

Balance at December 31, 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   —     —     —     —    
                      Preferred
Units
 General Partner
Preferred and
Common Units
 Limited
Partners
 Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
 Total
Partners’
Capital
 Noncontrolling
Interests in
Limited Partners’
Interest in
Consolidated
Partnerships
 Total
Capital
 

Balance at December 31, 2007

 $49,158   1,861,683   9,919   (18,622 1,902,138   18,391   1,920,529   $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    3,725    136,188    907    —      140,820    701    141,521  

Amortization of loss on derivative instruments

  —     —     9   1,297   1,306   —     1,306    —      —      9    1,297    1,306    —      1,306  

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  —     —     (491 (73,364 (73,855 —     (73,855  —      —      (491  (73,364  (73,855  —      (73,855
                      

Total comprehensive income (loss)

     68,271    68,972  

Total comprehensive income

      68,271     68,972  

Contributions from partners

  —     —     —     —     —     3,157   3,157    —      —      —      —      —      3,157    3,157  

Distributions to partners

  —     (202,635 (1,365 —     (204,000 (14,269 (218,269  —      (202,635  (1,365  —      (204,000  (14,269  (218,269

Preferred unit distributions

  (3,725 (19,675 —     —     (23,400 —     (23,400  (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    —      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    —      3,100    —      —      3,100    —      3,100  

Common units exchanged for common stock of Parent Company

  —     232   (232 —     —     —     —      —      232    (232  —      —      —      —    

Reallocation of limited partners’ interest

  —     464   (464 —     —     —     —      —      464    (464  —      —      —      —    
                                          

Balance at December 31, 2008

 $49,158   1,787,550   8,283   (90,689 1,754,302   7,980   1,762,282   $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  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    —      —      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    —      —      221    38,424    38,645    —      38,645  
                      

Total comprehensive income (loss)

     7,755    8,207  

Total comprehensive income

      7,755     8,207  

Contributions from partners

  —     —     —     —     —     4,197   4,197    —      —      —      —      —      4,197    4,197  

Distributions to partners

  —     (161,909 (980 —     (162,889 (881 (163,770  —      (161,909  (980  —      (162,889  (881  (163,770

Preferred unit distributions

  (3,725 (19,675 —     —     (23,400 —     (23,400  (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    —      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    —      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   $49,158    1,925,140    7,321    (49,973  1,931,646    11,748    1,943,394  

Comprehensive income (note 9):

       

Net income

  3,725    12,014    84    —      15,823    376    16,199  

Amortization of loss on derivative instruments

  —      —      12    5,563    5,575    —      5,575  

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  —      —      (81  (36,475  (36,556  —      (36,556
                                

Total comprehensive loss

      (15,158   (14,782

Contributions from partners

  —      —      —      —      —      161    161  

Distributions to partners

  —      (150,499  (468  —      (150,967  (1,456  (152,423

Preferred unit distributions

  (3,725  (19,675  —      —      (23,400  —      (23,400

Restricted stock issued by Parent Company, net of amortization
(note 12)

  —      7,236    —      —      7,236    —      7,236  

Common units issued as a result of common stock issued by Parent Company, net of repurchases

  —      474    —      —      474    —      474  

Common units exchanged for common stock of Parent Company

  —      7,630    (7,630  —      —      —      —    
                     

Balance at December 31, 2010

 $49,158    1,782,320    (762  (80,885  1,749,831    10,829    1,760,660  
                     

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008

(in thousands)

 

  2009 2008 2007   2010 2009 2008 

Cash flows from operating activities:

        

Net income (loss)

  $(32,743 141,521   210,016    $16,199    (32,743  141,521  

Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:

        

Depreciation and amortization

   117,979   107,846   93,508     123,933    117,979    107,846  

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

Amortization of deferred loan cost and debt premium

   8,533    5,822    4,287  

Amortization and (accretion) of above and below market lease intangibles, net

   (1,161  (1,867  (2,376

Stock-based compensation, net of capitalization

   4,668   5,950   11,572     6,615    4,668    5,950  

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

   26,373   (5,292 (18,093

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

   12,884    26,373    (5,292

Net gain on sale of properties

   (25,192 (37,843 (79,627   (8,648  (25,192  (37,843

Provision for doubtful accounts

   9,078   1,197   —       3,954    9,078    1,197  

Provision for impairment

   104,402   34,855   —       26,615    104,402    34,855  

Early extinguishment of debt

   2,784   —     —       4,243    2,784    —    

Distribution of earnings from operations of investments in real estate partnerships

   31,252   30,730   30,547     41,054    31,252    30,730  

Settlement of derivative instruments

   (19,953 —     —       (63,435  (19,953  —    

Loss on derivative instruments

   3,294   —     —    

Loss (gain) on derivative instruments

   (1,419  3,294    —    

Changes in assets and liabilities:

        

Accounts receivable

   (2,995 (6,621 (5,665   (1,297  (2,995  (6,621

Straight-line rent receivables, net

   (3,959 (3,709 (4,375   (6,202  (3,959  (3,709

Other receivables

   19,700   (19,700 —       —      19,700    (19,700

Deferred leasing costs

   (9,799 (6,734 (8,126   (15,563  (9,799  (6,734

Other assets

   (16,493 (12,839 (15,861   (4,681  (16,493  (12,839

Accounts payable and other liabilities

   (18,035 (12,423 2,101     (449  (18,035  (12,423

Tenants’ security and escrow deposits

   (454 320   847     33    (454  320  
                    

Net cash provided by operating activities

   193,862   219,169   218,167     141,208    193,862    219,169  
                    

Cash flows from investing activities:

        

Acquisition of operating real estate

   —     —     (63,117   (24,569  —      —    

Development of real estate including acquisition of land

   (142,989 (388,783 (619,282   (65,889  (142,989  (388,783

Proceeds from sale of real estate investments

   180,307   274,417   270,981     47,333    180,307    274,417  

Collection of notes receivable

   13,572   28,287   545     883    13,572    28,287  

Investments in real estate partnerships

   (28,709 (48,619 (42,660   (231,847  (28,709  (48,619

Distributions received from investments in real estate partnerships

   23,548   28,923   41,372     90,092    23,548    28,923  
                    

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities

   45,729   (105,775 (412,161
          

Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities

   (183,997  45,729    (105,775
          

Cash flows from financing activities:

        

Net proceeds from Common Units issued as a result of common stock issued by Parent Company

   345,800   1,020   2,383  

Net proceeds from common units issued as a result of common stock issued by Parent Company

   —      345,800    1,020  

Distributions to limited partners in consolidated partnerships, net

   (872 (14,134 (4,632   (1,427  (872  (14,134

Distributions paid to preferred unit holders

   (159,670 (199,528 (180,897

Cash distributions to partners

   (23,400 (23,400 (23,400

Distributions to partners

   (149,117  (159,670  (199,528

Preferred unit distributions

   (23,400  (23,400  (23,400

Repayment of fixed rate unsecured notes

   (116,053 —     —       (209,879  (116,053  —    

Proceeds from issuance of fixed rate unsecured notes, net

   —     —     398,108     398,599    —      —    

(Repayment of) proceeds from unsecured credit facilities

   (297,667 89,667   87,000  

Proceeds from unsecured credit facilities

   250,000    135,000    89,667  

Repayment of unsecured credit facilities

   (240,000  (432,667  —    

Proceeds from notes payable

   106,992   62,500   —       6,068    106,992    62,500  

Repayment of notes payable

   (8,056 (19,932 (89,719   (51,687  (8,056  (19,932

Scheduled principal payments

   (5,214 (4,806 (4,545   (5,024  (5,214  (4,806

Payment of loan costs

   (1,195 (1,916 (5,682   (4,361  (1,195  (1,916

Payment of premium on tender offer

   (2,312 —     —       (4,000  (2,312  —    
                    

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

   (161,647 (110,529 178,616  

Net cash used in financing activities

   (34,228  (161,647  (110,529
                    

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

   77,944   2,865   (15,378

Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents

   (77,017  77,944    2,865  

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of the year

   21,533   18,668   34,046     99,477    21,533    18,668  
          
          

Cash and cash equivalents at end of the year

  $99,477   21,533   18,668    $22,460    99,477    21,533  
                    

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS, L.P.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008

(in thousands)

 

  2009  2008 2007   2010   2009   2008 

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  
          

Cash paid for interest (net of capitalized interest of $5,099, $19,062, and $36,510 in 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively)

  $127,591     112,730     94,632  
            

Supplemental disclosure of non-cash transactions:

           

Parent common stock issued for partnership units exchanged

  $—    232   8,607  
          

Common stock issued by Parent Company for partnership units exchanged

  $7,630     —       232  
            

Real estate received through distribution in kind

  $100,717  —     —      $—       100,717     —    
                      

Mortgage loans assumed through distribution in kind

  $70,541  —     —      $—       70,541     —    
                      

Security deposits received through distribution in kind

  $265  —     —    
          

Mortgage loans assumed for the acquisition of real estate

  $—    —     42,272  
          

Mortgage loans assumed for the acquisition of operating real estate

  $58,981     —       —    
            

Real estate contributed for investments in real estate partnerships

  $26,410  6,825   11,007    $—       26,410     6,825  
                      

Notes receivable taken in connection with sales of properties in development

  $11,413  16,294   25,099    $—       11,413     16,294  
                      

Real estate received through foreclosure on notes receivable

  $990     —       —    
            

Change in fair value of derivative instruments

  $55,328  (73,855 (6,905  $28,363     55,328     (73,855
                      

Common stock issued by Parent Company for dividend reinvestment plan

  $3,219  4,470   4,070    $1,847     3,219     4,470  
          
            

Stock-based compensation capitalized

  $1,574  3,606   7,565    $852     1,574     3,606  
                      

Contributions from limited partners in consolidated partnerships, net

  $4,188  3,020   4,237    $132     4,188     3,020  
                      

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, 20092010

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 (the “Parent Company”) began its operations as a Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”) in 1993 and is the managing general partner of Regency Centers, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”). The Parent Company currently owns approximately 99%99.8% of the outstanding common Partnership Units of the Operating Partnership. The Parent Company engages in the ownership, management, leasing, acquisition, and development of retail shopping centers through the Operating Partnership, and has no other assets or liabilities other than through its investment in the Operating Partnership. At December 31, 2009,2010, the Parent Company, the Operating Partnership and their controlled subsidiaries on a consolidated basis (“the Company” or “Regency”) directly owned 216215 retail shopping centers and held partial interests in an additional 184181 retail shopping centers through investments in real estate partnerships (also referred to as joint ventures or real estate partnerships).

Estimates, Risks, and Uncertainties

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principlesGenerally Accepted Accounting Principles (“U.S. GAAP”) requires the Company’s management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities, at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. The most significant estimates in the Company’s financial statements relate to the carrying values of its investments in real estate including its shopping centers, properties in development and its investments in real estate partnerships, accounts receivable, net, and derivative instruments. EachAlthough the U.S. economy is recovering from the recession of these items could be significantly affected by the continued weak economy.

Because of the adverse2009, economic conditions that exist in the real estate markets, as well as, the creditremain challenging, and financial markets,therefore, 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 relatessignificantly, if economic conditions where to the Company’s business, the current weak economic period is expected to result in a higher level of retail store closings nationally, which could reduce the demand for leasing space in the Company’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 Company’s ability to sell shopping centers to raise capital. The reduction in the demand for new retail space and available capital have caused the Company to significantly reduce its new shopping center development program until markets become less volatile.weaken.

Consolidation

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

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

Ownership of the Parent Company

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

Ownership of the Operating Partnership

The Operating Partnership’s capital includes general and limited common Partnership Units, Series 3, 4, and 5 Preferred Units owned by the Parent Company, and Series D Preferred Units owned by institutional investors. At December 31, 2009,2010, the Parent Company owned approximately 99%99.8% or 81,539,29681,886,872 of the total 82,007,50782,064,036 Partnership Units outstanding.

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

Investments in Real Estate Partnerships

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

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

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

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

Noncontrolling Interests

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

Noncontrolling Interests of the Parent Company

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)Statements

December 31, 20092010

 

Noncontrolling Interests of the Operating Partnership

The Operating Partnership has determined that Limited partners’ interestinterests 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

(b)Revenues

The Company leases space to tenants under agreements with varying terms. Leases are accounted for as operating leases with minimum rent recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease regardless of when payments are due. The Company estimates the collectibility of the accounts receivable related to base rents, straight-line rents, expense reimbursements, and other revenue taking into consideration the Company’s experience in the retail sector, available internal and external tenant credit information, payment history, industry trends, tenant credit-worthiness, and remaining lease terms. In some cases, primarily related to straight-line rents, the ultimate collection of these amounts are associated with increased rents to be collected in future years which extend beyond one year. During 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, 2010, 2009, and 2008, the Company recorded provisions for doubtful accounts of $4.0 million, $9.1 million, and $1.2 million respectively, of which approximately $287,000$13,000, $401,000, and $41,000,$66,000 respectively, is included in discontinued operations.

The following table represents the components of accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts, as of December 31, 20092010 and 20082009 in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):

 

  2009  2008  2010 2009 

Tenant receivables

  $22,395  20,942  $19,314   $22,395  

CAM and tax reimbursements

   15,099  15,697   13,629    15,099  

Other receivables

   9,944  11,699   8,476    9,944  

Less: allowance for doubtful accounts

   6,567  1,837   (4,819  (6,567
             

Total

  $40,871  46,501  $36,600   $40,871  
             

Substantially all of the lease agreements with anchor tenants contain provisions that provide for additional rents based on tenants’ sales volume (percentage rent) and. Percentage rents are recognized when the tenants achieve the specified targets as defined in their lease agreements. Substantially all lease agreements contain provisions for reimbursement of the tenants’ share of real estate taxes, insurance and common area maintenance (“CAM”) costs. 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 Company may provide the lessee with an allowance for the construction of leasehold improvements. These leasehold improvements are capitalized and recorded as tenant improvements, and depreciated over the shorter of the useful life of the improvements or the remaining lease term. If the allowance represents a payment for a purpose other than funding leasehold improvements, or in the event the Company is not considered the owner of the improvements, the allowance is considered to be a lease incentive and is recognized over the lease term as a reduction of

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

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

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

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

As of December 31, 2009, four2010, six of the Company’s joint ventures (“DIK-JV”) give each partner the unilateral right to elect to dissolve the real estate partnership and, upon such an election, receive a distribution in-kind (“DIK”) of the assets of the real estate partnership equal to their respective capital account, which could include properties the Company previously sold to the real estate partnership. The liquidation provisions require that all of the properties owned by the real estate partnership be appraised to determine their respective fair values. As a general rule, if the Company initiates the liquidation process, its partner has the right to choose the first property that it will receive in liquidation with the Company choosing the next property that it will receive in liquidation. If the Company’s partner initiates the liquidation process, the order of the selection process is reversed. The process then continues with an alternating selection of properties by each partner until the balance of each partner’s capital account, on a fair value basis, has been distributed. After the final selection, to the extent that the fair value of properties in the DIK-JV are not distributable in a manner that equals the balance of each partner’s capital account, a cash payment would be made to the other partner by the partner receiving a property distribution in excess of its capital account. The

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

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

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

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

The Company has beenis 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. The Company also receives transaction fees, as contractually agreed upon with a joint venture, which include fees such as acquisition fees, disposition fees, “promotes”, or “earnouts”.

(c) Real Estate Investments

(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 processphase and have not reached their initial full occupancy. In summary, a project changes from non-operating to operating when it is substantially completed and available for occupancy. At that time, costs are no longer capitalized. The capitalized costs include pre-development costs essential to the development of the property, development costs, construction costs, interest costs, real estate taxes, and allocated direct employee costs incurred during the period of development. Interest costs are capitalized into each development project based onupon applying the Company’s weighted average borrowing rate to that portion of the actual development costs expended. The Company ceasesdiscontinues interest cost capitalization when the property is no longer being developed or is available for occupancy upon substantial completion of tenant improvements, but in no event would the Company capitalize interest on the project beyond 12 months after substantial completion of the building shell.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

The following table represents the components of properties in development as of December 31, 20092010 and 20082009 in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):

 

  2009  2008  2010   2009 

Construction in process

  $127,376  338,606  $41,611    $127,376  

Construction complete and in lease-up

   673,052  548,132   459,231     673,052  

Land held for future development

   119,999  192,147   110,090     119,999  
              

Total

  $920,427  1,078,885  $610,932    $920,427  
              

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

The Company incurs costs prior to land acquisition including contract deposits, as well as legal, engineering, and other external professional fees related to evaluating the feasibility of developing a shopping center. These pre-development costs are included in properties in development in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, the Company had capitalized pre-development costs of approximately $816,000$899,000 and $7.7 million,$816,000, respectively, of which approximately $325,000$840,000 and $2.3 million,$325,000, respectively, were refundable deposits. If the Company determines that the development of a particular shopping center is no longer probable, any related pre-development costs previously capitalized are immediately expensed in other expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007,2008, the Company expensed pre-development costs of approximately $520,000, $3.8 million, $15.5 million, and $5.3$15.5 million, respectively, in other expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.

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

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

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

The Company and the real estate partnerships allocateaccount for business combinations using the purchase price ofacquisition method by recognizing and measuring the identifiable assets acquired, (net tangible and identifiable intangible assets) andthe liabilities assumed, based onand any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree at their relativeacquisition date fair values atvalues. The Company expenses transaction costs associated with business combinations in the date of acquisition. period incurred.

The Company’s methodology for this allocation includes estimating an “as-if vacant” fair value of the physical property, which is allocated toincludes land, building, and improvements. The difference betweenIn addition, the purchase price andCompany determines the “as-if vacant”estimated fair value is allocated to intangible assets. There are three categories of identifiable intangible assets, considered:considering the following three categories: (i) value of in-place leases, (ii) above and below-market value of in-place leases, and (iii) customer relationship value.

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

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

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

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency 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 period of the subsequent decision not to sell. If a property is reclassified as heldsell 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.

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

market-based capitalization rate to the estimated future net operating income in the final year of the expected investment term. If after applying this method a propertythe estimated undiscounted cash flows used in the recoverability test are less than the long-lived asset’s carrying amount, management then determines the fair value of the long-lived asset and if the carrying amount of the long-lived asset exceeds its fair value, an impairment loss is recognized equal to the excess of carrying value over fair value. Fair value is determined to be impaired,through comparable sales information and other market data if available, or through use of an income approach such as the Company determinesdirect capitalization method or 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.traditional discounted cash flow approach. For properties “held-for-sale”, the Company estimates current resale values through appraisal information and other market data, less expected costs to sell. These methods of determining fair value can fluctuate significantly as a result of a number of factors, including changes in the general economy for those markets in which the Company operates, the Company’s estimated holding period of the property, tenant credit quality, ongoing leasing activity, and demand for new retail stores. If as a result of a change in the Company’s strategy for a specific property which the Company owns directly or through real estate partnerships, a property previously classified as held and used is changed to held-for-sale, or if its estimated holding period changes, such change could cause the Company to determine that the property is impaired and a provision for impairment would be recorded by the Company 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, 2010, 2009, and 2008, the Company established a provision for impairment on consolidated properties of $104.4$23.9 million, $103.9 million, and $34.9$27.8 million, respectively, of which there was no impact to discontinued operations in 2010, and $6.9 million and $3.4 million respectively, iswere included in discontinued operations.operations for 2009 and 2008, respectively. See Note 10 for further discussion.

A loss in value of investments in real estate partnerships under the equity method of accounting, other than a temporary decline, must be recognized in the period in which the loss occurs. To evaluate the Company’s investment in real estate partnerships, the Company calculates the fair value of the investment by discounting estimated future cash flows over the expected term of the investment. During the year ended December 31, 2008,As a result of this evaluation, the Company established a $6.0 million provision for impairment of $2.7 million on one investment in real estate partnership and $6.0 million on two investments in real estate partnerships as a result of this evaluation.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

for the years ended December 31, 20092010 and 2008, respectively. No provision for impairment for investments in real estate partnerships was recorded during the year ended December 31, 2009.

 

(d) Cash and Cash Equivalents

(d)Cash and Cash Equivalents

Any instruments which have an original maturity of 90 days or less when purchased are considered cash equivalents. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, and 2008, $3.6$5.4 million and $8.7$3.6 million, respectively, of cash was restricted through escrow agreements required for a development and certain mortgage loans.

(e) Notes Receivable

(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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

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

(f) Deferred Costs

(f)Deferred Costs

Deferred costs include leasing costs and loan costs, net of accumulated amortization. Such costs are amortized over the periods through lease expiration or loan maturity, respectively. If the lease is terminated early, or if the loan is repaid prior to maturity, the remaining leasing costs or loan costs are written off. Deferred leasing costs consist of internal and external commissions associated with leasing the Company’s shopping centers. Net deferred leasing costs were $49.9$52.9 million and $46.8$49.9 million at December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, respectively. Deferred loan costs consist of initial direct and incremental costs associated with financing activities. Net deferred loan costs were $8.5$10.2 million and $10.7$8.5 million at December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, respectively.

(g) Derivative Financial Instruments

(g)Derivative Financial Instruments

All derivative instruments, whether designated in hedging relationships or not, are recorded on the balance sheetaccompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets at their fair values.value. The accounting for changes in the fair value of derivatives depends on the intended use of the derivative, whether the Company has elected to designate a derivative in a hedging relationship and apply hedge accounting, and whether the hedging relationship has satisfied the criteria necessary to apply hedge accounting. Derivatives designated and qualifying as a hedge of the exposure to changes in the fair value of an asset, liability, or firm commitment attributable to a particular risk, such as interest rate risk, are considered fair value hedges. Derivatives designated and qualifying as a hedge of the exposure to variability in expected future cash flows, or other types of

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

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

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

(h) Income Taxes

(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%approximately 99.8% owner, is allocated its pro-rata share of tax attributes.

Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the estimated tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using the enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which these temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. 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,shopping centers, as well as other timing differences. See Note 7 for further discussion.

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

(i) Earnings per Share and Unit

(i)Earnings per Share and Unit

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

(j) Treasury Stock

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Repurchases of the Parent Company’s common stock are recorded at cost and are reflected as treasury stock in the accompanyingNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Parent Company and in general partner preferred and common units in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Changes in Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Operating Partnership. Concurrent with stock repurchases by the Parent Company, the Operating Partnership repurchases the same amount of Partnership Units from the Parent Company.

In 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 the stated value.31, 2010

k) Stock-Based Compensation

(j)Stock-Based Compensation

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

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

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 the Parent Company for stock-based compensation, the Operating Partnership accounts for stock-based compensation in the same manner as the Parent Company.

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

(l) Segment Reporting

(k)Segment Reporting

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

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

(m) Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity

(l)Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity

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

(n) Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value

(m)Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

Levels 1 and 2 of the hierarchy) and the Company’s own assumptions about market participant assumptions

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

(unobservable (unobservable inputs classified within Level 3 of the hierarchy). The three levels of inputs used to measure fair value are as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

(o) Recent Accounting Pronouncements

(n)Recent Accounting Pronouncements

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

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

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

 

(p) Reclassifications

(o)Reclassifications

Certain reclassifications have been made to the 20082009 and 20072008 amounts to conform to classifications adopted in 2009.2010.

2. Real Estate Investments

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

During 2009Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

2.Real Estate Investments

On December 15, 2010, the Company acquired a shopping center for a purchase price of $64.0 million which included the assumption of $51.1 million in debt, recorded net of a $1.6 million debt premium. Acquired lease intangible assets and 2008,acquired lease intangible liabilities of $9.2 million and $1.5 million, respectively, were recorded for this acquisition. On September 1, 2010, the Company acquired a shopping center for a purchase price of $18.0 million which included the assumption of $7.9 million in debt. Acquired lease intangible assets and acquired lease intangible liabilities of $1.5 million and approximately $562,000, respectively, were recorded for this acquisition. The acquisitions were accounted for as purchase business combinations and the results are included in the consolidated financial statements from the date of acquisition. The Company did not have any acquisition activity, other than through its investments in real estate partnerships.partnerships during 2009.

3. Discontinued Operations

3.Discontinued Operations

The Company 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 meetsDuring the Company’s investment standards. This recycling strategy calls foryear ended December 31, 2010, the Company to sell non-strategic assetssold 100% of its ownership interest in two operating properties and re-deploy theone property in development for net proceeds into new, high-quality developments and acquisitions that are expected to generate sustainable revenue growth and more attractive returns.

of $34.9 million. During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company sold 100% of its ownership interest in one operating property and four properties in development for proceeds of $73.0 million, net of notes receivable taken by the Company of $20.4 million of which $8.9 million was subsequently paid in full in May 2009. During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company sold 100% of its ownership interest in three operating properties and seven properties in development for net proceeds of $86.2 million. The combined operating income and gain on the sale of these properties and properties classified as held-for-sale were reclassified to discontinued operations. The revenues from properties included in discontinued operations were $8.7 million, $16.4approximately $759,000, $9.8 million, and $19.9$17.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007,2008, respectively. The operating income and gains on sales of properties included in discontinued operations are reported net of income taxes, if the property is sold by the TRS. During 2009, approximately $2.1 million of incomeIncome tax benefit was allocated to operating income (loss) from discontinued operations. During 2007,of approximately $85,000 of income tax expense$166,000 and $2.1 million was allocated to operating income (loss) from discontinued operations at December 31, 2010 and $1.9 million of2009, respectively. There was no income taxes wastax benefit or expense allocated to gain on sale of operating properties and properties in development.2008.

4. Investments in Real Estate Partnerships

4.Investments in Real Estate Partnerships

The Company’s investments in real estate partnerships were $326.2$428.6 million and $383.4$326.2 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, and 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 Company in accordance with the respective partnership agreements. Such allocations of net income or loss are recorded in equity in income (loss) of investments in real estate partnerships in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. The net difference between theCompany’s carrying amount of these investments was $128.8 million and $48.9 million lower than the underlying equity in net assets was $43.8 million and $77.3 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, and 2008, respectively. For 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, 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 distribution 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 real estate partnerships where the Company invests with fourfive co-investment partners and an open-enda close-ended real estate fund (“Regency Retail Partners” or the “Fund”), as further described below. In addition to earning its pro-rata share of net income or loss in each of these real estate partnerships, the Company received recurring market-based fees for asset management, property management, and leasing as well as fees for investment and financing services, of $25.1 million, $29.1 million $31.6 million, and $28.3$31.6 million and transaction fees of $2.6 million, $7.8 million $23.7 million, and $4.0$23.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and 2007, respectively.Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

Investments in real estate partnerships as of December 31, 20092010 and 20082009 consist of the following (in thousands):

 

   Ownership  2009  2008

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  351  623

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO (MCWR-DESCO)

  16.35  24,374  21,924

Columbia Regency Retail Partners (Columbia I)

  20.00  28,347  29,704

Columbia Regency Partners II (Columbia II)

  20.00  11,202  12,858

Cameron Village LLC (Cameron)

  30.00  18,285  19,479

RegCal, LLC (RegCal)

  25.00  12,863  13,766

Regency Retail Partners (the Fund)

  20.00  22,114  23,838

US Regency Retail I, LLC (USAA)

  20.01  5,111  —  

Other investments in real estate partnerships

  50.00  49,215  48,717
        

Total

   $326,212  383,408
        
   Ownership  2010   2009 

GRI - Regency, LLC (GRIR)(1)

   40.00 $277,235     154,350  

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency III, LLC (MCWR III)

   24.95  63     351  

Macquarie CountryWide-Regency-DESCO, LLC

     

(MCWR-DESCO)

   16.35  20,050     24,374  

Columbia Regency Retail Partners, LLC (Columbia I)

   20.00  20,025     28,347  

Columbia Regency Partners II, LLC (Columbia II)

   20.00  9,815     11,202  

Cameron Village, LLC (Cameron)

   30.00  17,604     18,285  

RegCal, LLC (RegCal)

   25.00  15,340     12,863  

Regency Retail Partners, LP (the Fund)

   20.00  17,478     22,114  

US Regency Retail I, LLC (USAA)

   20.01  3,941     5,111  

Other investments in real estate partnerships

   50.00  47,041     49,215  
           

Total

   $428,592     326,212  
           

 

(1)

At December 31, 2008,2009, the Company’s ownership interest in MCWR IGRIR (formerly Macquarie CountryWide-Regency II, LLC) 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 $52.0$51.4 million and $88.3$52.0 million at December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, respectively. Cumulative deferred gain amountsgains related to each real estate partnership are described below.

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

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

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

Company’s investment in these three real estate partnerships totals $57.8$47.4 million and represents 1.5%1.2% of the Company’s total assets at December 31, 2009.2010. At December 31, 2009,

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

2010, the OPERF joint ventures had total assets of $743.3$686.2 million and a net loss of $15.9 million.

As of December 31, 2010, Columbia I owned 13 shopping centers, had total assets of $277.8 million, and net incomeloss of $5.4$14.9 million for the year ended, andprimarily related to the provision for impairment of $23.7 million on two properties that it expects to sell in the next three years. The Company’s share of its total assets and net incomeloss was $160.5$57.8 million and approximately $506,000,$3.0 million, respectively.

As of December 31, 2009, Columbia I owned 14 shopping centers, had total assets of $320.4 million, and net income of $6.7 million for the year ended. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right to electfor election to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the Company has applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain recognized on property sales to Columbia I. During 2009,2010, the Company did not sell any properties to Columbia I. Since the inception of Columbia I in 2001, the Company has recognized gain of $2.0 million on partial sales to Columbia I and deferred gaingains of $4.3 million. In December 2008, the Company earnedDuring 2010, Columbia I sold one shopping center to a third party for $12.4 million and recognized a $19.7 million Portfolio Incentive Return fee from OPERF based on Columbia I’s outperformancegain of the cumulative National 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 which was reflected in other receivables as of December 31, 2008. The Company collected the receivable in full in April 2009.$1.2 million.

As of December 31, 2009,2010, Columbia II owned 16 shopping centers, had total assets of $313.3$302.4 million and net incomeloss of approximately $159,000$330,000 for the year ended.ended, primarily related to the provision for impairment of approximately $857,000 on one property it expects to sell in the next three years. The Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $59.0 million and approximately $69,000, respectively. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right to electfor election to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the Company has applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain recognized on property sales to Columbia II. During 2009,2010, the Company did not sell any properties to Columbia II. Since the inception of Columbia II in 2004, the Company has recognized gain of $9.1 million on partial sales to Columbia II and deferred gaingains of $15.7 million.

As of December 31, 2009,2010, Cameron owned one shopping center, had total assets of $109.6$106.0 million and a net loss of $1.4 millionapproximately $708,000 for the year ended.ended and the Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $31.9 million and approximately $221,000, respectively. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require the Company to apply the Restricted Gain Method. Since the inception of Cameron in 2004, the Company has not sold any properties to Cameron.the real estate partnership.

The Company co-invests with the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (“CalSTRS”) in a joint venture (“RegCal”) in which the Company has a 25% ownership interest. As of December 31, 2009,2010, RegCal owned seveneight shopping centers, had total assets of $155.1$183.5 million, and net income of approximately $493,000$858,000 for the year ended and the Company’s share of its total assets and net income was $38.8$45.9 million and approximately $123,000,$194,000 respectively. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right to electfor election to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the Company has applied the Restricted Gain Method to determine the amount of gain recognized on property sales to RegCal. During 2009,2010, the Company did not sell any properties to RegCal. Since the inception of RegCal in 2004, the Company has recognized gain of $10.1 million on partial sales to RegCal and deferred gaingains of $3.4 million.

The Company co-invests with Macquarie CountryWide Trust of Australia (“MCW”) as the only other partner in three real estate partnerships, In March 2010, RegCal purchased one in which the Company had an ownership interest of 25% (“MCWR I”) which was liquidated during 2009 as discussed below, one in which the Company has an ownership interest of 24.95% (““MCWR III”), and one in which the Company has an ownership interest of 16.35% (“MCWR-DESCO”). The Company’s investment with MCW totals $24.7 million and represents less than 1% of the Company’s total assets at December 31, 2009.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

On January 14, 2009, under the terms of the MCWR I partnership agreement, MCW elected to dissolve the partnership. During 2009, the Company completed the liquidation of the partnership through a DIK, which provided for distribution of the properties to each partner under an alternating selection process, in proportion to the value of each partner’s respective capital account in the partnership as of the date of liquidation. The total fair value of the properties was $467.3 million, net of debt, based on third party appraisals. As a result of the liquidation, MCW received 34 properties and the Company received six properties through the DIK. 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 net carrying value of its investment of $29.9 million, which is net of deferred gain previously recorded of $40.8 million. As a result, no gain or loss was recognized on the dissolution. MCWR I had net income of $4.8 million for the year ended and the Company’s share was $1.2 million. During 2009, MCWR I sold one shopping center toproperty from a third party for $7.8a sales price of $12.9 million, net of assumed debt of $18.0 million, and recognized a gain of $3.7 million.

As of December 31, 2009, MCWR III owned four shopping centers, had total assets of $65.1the Company contributed $3.3 million and a net loss of approximately $436,000 for the year ended and the Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $16.2 million and net income of approximately $150,000, respectively, which includes the Company’sproportionate share of the net loss offset by the accretion of the basis difference. 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 III 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 III. Since the inception of MCWR III in 2005, the Company has recognized gain of $14.1 million on partial sales to MCWR III and deferred gain of $4.7 million.

As of December 31, 2009, MCWR-DESCO owned 32 shopping centers, had total assets of $382.1 million, and recorded a net loss of $5.3 million for the year ended and 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 Company to apply the Restricted Gain Method. Since the inception of MCWR-DESCO in 2007, the Company has not sold any properties to the real estate partnership.

The Company 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.price.

The Company co-invests with Regency Retail Partners (the “Fund”), an open-ended, infinitea closed-end, finite life investment fund in which the Company has an ownership interest of 20%. As of December 31, 2009,2010, the Fund owned nine shopping centers, had total assets of $367.4$341.1 million, and recorded a net loss of $3.4$18.9 million for the year ended, primarily related to provisions for impairment of $18.1 million recorded on four properties that are expected to sell in the next three years, and the Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $73.4$68.1 million and approximately $464,000,$3.6 million, respectively. The partnership agreement does not contain any DIK provisions that would require the Company to apply the Restricted Gain Method. During 2009,2010, the

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

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

On October 27, 2009 theThe Company finalized the formation of a new real estate partnership, US Regency Retail I, LLC,co-invests 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. As of December 31, 2010, the USAA partnership on November 3, 2009. Theowned eight properties were sold for $133.9shopping centers, had total assets of $134.3 million and recorded a net proceeds toloss of approximately $441,000 for the Company fromyear ended and the sale were $103.3 million.Company’s share of its total assets and net loss was $26.9 million and approximately $88,000, respectively. The partnership agreement has a unilateral right to electfor election to dissolve the partnership and receive a DIK upon liquidation; therefore, the Company has applied the Restricted

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

Gain Method to determine the amount of gain recognized. Therecognized on property sales to the USAA partnership. During 2010, the Company did not sell any properties to the USAA partnership. Since the inception of the USAA partnership in 2009, the Company has recognized gaingains of $19.1 million and deferred gain of $8.1$19.4 million on partial sales to the USAA partnership.partnership and deferred gains of $8.0 million.

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

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

 

  December 30,
2009
  December 31,
2008
  December 31,
2010
   December 31,
2009
 

Investment in real estate, net

  $3,900,277  4,518,783  $3,686,565     3,900,277  

Acquired lease intangible assets, net

   147,151  186,141   120,163     147,151  

Other assets

   137,753  157,806   176,394     137,753  
              

Total assets

  $4,185,181  4,862,730  $3,983,122     4,185,181  
              

Notes payable

  $2,477,928  2,792,450  $2,117,695     2,477,928  

Acquired lease intangible liabilities, net

   87,009  97,146   75,551     87,009  

Other liabilities

   80,011  83,814   69,230     80,011  

Members’ or Partners’ capital

   1,540,233  1,889,320

Capital - Regency

   557,374     375,076  

Capital - Third parties

   1,163,272     1,165,157  
              

Total liabilities and capital

  $4,185,181  4,862,730  $3,983,122     4,185,181  
              

Investments in real estate partnerships had notes payable of $2.5$2.1 billion and $2.8$2.5 billion as of December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, respectively, and the Company’s proportionate share of these loans was $585.5$663.1 million and $664.1$585.5 million, respectively. The Company does not guarantee these loans with the exception of an $8.5$8.8 million loan related to its 50% ownership interest in a single asset real estate partnership where the loan agreement contains “several” guarantees from each partner.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

As of December 31, 2009,2010, scheduled principal repayments on notes payable of the investments in real estate partnerships were as follows (in thousands):

 

Scheduled Principal Payments by Year:

  Scheduled
Principal
Payments
  Mortgage Loan
Maturities
  Unsecured
Maturities
  Total  Regency’s
Pro-Rata
Share

2010

  $3,642  613,310  26,858  643,810  160,173

2011

   3,578  448,787  —    452,365  112,037

2012

   4,396  244,418  —    248,814  61,551

2013

   4,226  32,447  —    36,673  8,982

2014

   4,213  77,290  —    81,503  21,540

Beyond 5 Years

   25,555  983,875  —    1,009,430  220,159

Unamortized debt premiums, net

   —    5,333  —    5,333  1,030
                

Total

  $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

Scheduled Principal Payments by Year:

  Scheduled
Principal
Payments
   Mortgage
Loan
Maturities
   Unsecured
Maturities
   Total   Regency’s
Pro-Rata
Share
 

2011

  $4,275     466,470     8,759     479,504     185,651  

2012

   6,489     244,418     11,046     261,953     98,977  

2013

   7,530     32,447     —       39,977     14,567  

2014

   7,714     77,304     —       85,018     24,346  

2015

   7,493     299,978     —       307,471     72,614  

Beyond 5 Years

   41,658     897,535     —       939,193     265,959  

Unamortized debt premiums, net

   —       4,579     —       4,579     942  
                         

Total

  $75,159     2,022,731     19,805     2,117,695     663,056  
                         

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

 

  For the years ended December 31,   For the years ended December 31, 
  2009 2008 2007   2010 2009 2008 

Total revenues

  $434,050   491,246   453,580    $437,029    434,050    491,246  
          
          

Operating expenses:

        

Depreciation and amortization

   160,484   182,844   176,597     155,146    160,484    182,844  

Operating and maintenance

   63,855   70,158   64,917     67,541    63,855    70,158  

General and administrative

   8,247   8,860   9,589     7,383    8,247    8,860  

Real estate taxes

   59,339   63,393   53,845     55,926    59,339    63,393  

Provision for doubtful accounts

   10,062   2,765   1,512     2,951    10,062    2,765  

Other expenses

   2,098   658   304     715    2,098    658  
                    

Total operating expenses

   304,085   328,678   306,764     289,662    304,085    328,678  
                    

Other expense (income):

        

Interest expense, net

   137,794   146,765   135,760     129,581    137,794    146,765  

Gain on sale of real estate

   (6,141 (14,461 (38,165   (8,976  (6,141  (14,461

Provision for impairment

   104,416   —     —       78,908    104,416    —    

Other income

   72   139   138     (383  72    139  
                    

Total other expense (income)

   236,141   132,443   97,733  
          

Total other expense

   199,130    236,141    132,443  
          

Net income (loss)

  $(106,176 30,125   49,083    $(51,763  (106,176  30,125  
                    

Regency’s share of net income (loss)

  $(12,884  (26,373  5,292  

5. Notes Receivable

5.Notes Receivable

The Company had notes receivable outstanding of $37.8$35.9 million and $31.4$37.8 million at December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, respectively. The notes receivable have fixed interest rates ranging from 6.0% to 10.0%9.0% with maturity dates through January 2019.2019 and are secured by property held as collateral. There was no provision for impairment recorded for notes receivable during 2010. During the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, impairment losses of approximately $465,000 related to an $879,000 note receivable and $1.1 million related to a $3.6 million note receivable, respectively, were recorded in 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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

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 2010.31, 2010

6. Acquired Lease Intangibles

6.Acquired Lease Intangibles

The Company had acquired lease intangible assets, net of amortization, of $10.0$18.2 million and $12.9$10.0 million at December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, respectively, of which $9.7$15.7 million and $12.5$9.7 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 5.6 years and the7.9 years. The aggregate amortization expense recorded for these in-place leases was approximately$2.3 million, $2.7 million, $4.2 million, and $4.3$4.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007,2008, respectively. The Company had above-market lease intangible assets, net of amortization, of approximately $341,000$974,000 and $442,000$341,000 at December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, respectively. The remaining weighted average amortization period was 3.4 years and the6.0 years. The aggregate amortization expense recorded as a reduction to minimum rent for these above-market leases was approximately $108,000, $102,000 $113,000, and $115,000$113,000 for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, and 2007, respectively. In 2010, the Company acquired an above-market ground rent lease intangible asset in the amount of $1.6 million with a remaining life of 91 years. There were no above-market ground rent lease intangible assets recorded as of December 31, 2009.

The Company had acquired lease intangible liabilities, net of accretion, of $5.9$6.7 million and $7.9$5.9 million as of December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, respectively. The remaining weighted average accretion period is 4.0 years and the8.4 years. The aggregate amount recorded as an increase to minimum rent for these below-market rents was approximately$1.3 million, $1.9 million, $2.5 million, and $2.0$2.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007,2008, respectively.

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

 

Year Ending December 31,

  Amortization
Expense
  Minimum
Rent, Net
  Amortization
Expense
   Minimum
Rent, net
 

2010

  $2,100  752

2011

   1,614  676  $2,715     859  

2012

   1,203  607   2,233     793  

2013

   1,049  598   1,907     715  

2014

   851  581   1,585     530  

2015

   1,319     474  

7. Income Taxes

7.Income Taxes

The net book basis of the Company’s real estate assets exceeds the tax basis by approximately $78.7$40.2 million and $97.5$78.7 million at December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, respectively, primarily due to the difference between the cost basis of the assets acquired and their carryover basis recorded for tax purposes.

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

 

   2009  2008  2007 

Dividend per share

  $2.11   2.90   2.64  

Ordinary income

   54 73 85

Capital gain

   14 22 15

Return of capital

   32 5 —    

   2010  2009  2008 

Dividend per share

  $1.85    2.11    2.90  

Ordinary income

   40  54  73

Capital gain

   2  14  22

Return of capital

   58  32  5

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)Statements

December 31, 20092010

 

RRG is subject to federal and state income taxes and files separate tax returns. Income tax expense (benefit) is included in other expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations and consists of the following for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008 (in thousands):

 

  2009 2008 2007  2010 2009 2008 

Income tax (benefit) expense:

        

Current

  $4,692   88   5,669  $(639  4,692    88  

Deferred

   (4,894 (1,688 530   (860  (4,894  (1,688
                   

Total income tax (benefit) expense

  $(202 (1,600 6,199

Total income tax benefit

  $(1,499  (202  (1,600
                   

Income tax expense (benefit) is included in either other expenses if the related income is from continuing operations or discontinued operations on the Consolidated Statements of Operations as follows for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008 (in thousands):

 

  2009 2008 2007  2010 2009 2008 

Income tax expense (benefit) from:

        

Continuing operations

  $1,883   (1,600 4,197  $(1,333  1,883    (1,600

Discontinued operations

   (2,085 —     2,002   (166  (2,085  —    
                   

Total income tax expense (benefit)

  $(202 (1,600 6,199

Total income tax benefit

  $(1,499  (202  (1,600
                   

Income tax expense (benefit)benefit differed from the amounts computed by applying the U.S. Federal income tax rate of 34% to pretax income of RRG for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007,2008, respectively as follows (in thousands):

 

   2009  2008  2007

Computed expected tax expense (benefit)

  $(4,791 (2,324 3,974

Increase in income tax resulting from state taxes

   (558 (197 443

Provision for valuation allowance

   4,755   —     —  

All other items

   392   921   1,782
          

Total income tax expense (benefit)

  $(202 (1,600 6,199
          
   2010  2009  2008 

Computed expected tax benefit

  $(3,368  (4,791  (2,324

Increase in income tax resulting from state taxes

   (392  (558  (197

Provision for valuation allowance

   286    4,755    —    

Straight-line rent and all other items

   1,975    392    921  
             

Total income tax benefit

  $(1,499  (202  (1,600
             

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

2008.

The following table represents the Company’s net deferred tax assets as of December 31, 20092010 and 20082009 recorded in other assets in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands):

 

  2009 2008   2010 2009 

Deferred tax assets

  $19,802   17,887    $23,189    19,802  

Deferred tax liabilities

   (1,057 (825   (1,999  (1,057

Provision for valuation allowance

   (4,755 —       (5,041  (4,755
              

Total

  $13,990   17,062    $16,149    13,990  
              

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

determined to be more likely than not that it willthe asset would not be realized. Other deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities relate primarily to differences in the timing of the recognition of income or loss between U.S. GAAP and tax basis of accounting. Excluding the provision for valuation allowance, significant portions of the deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities include a $5.6$5.1 million deferred tax asset for capitalized costs under Section 263A of the Code, an $8.0a $9.0 million deferred tax asset related to the provision for impairment, a $2.7 million deferred tax asset related to a net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforward and approximately $811,000a $1.7 million deferred tax liability related to straight line rents. Our estimated Federal NOL generated in 2010 is $7.6 million of which we carryback two years and forward 20 years. We intend to carryback approximately $527,000 to 2009 and the balance forward, expiring in 2030. We assessed the components of the net deferred tax asset balance at year end, excluding the items for other differences.which a valuation allowance was provided, and determined that it is more likely than not that the assets will be utilized.

The Company accounts for uncertainties in income tax law in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 740. Under FASB ASC Topic 740, tax positions shall initially be recognized in the financial statements when it is more likely than not the position will be sustained upon examination by the tax authorities. Such tax positions shall initially and subsequently be measured as the largest amount of tax benefit that has a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement with the tax authority assuming full knowledge of the position and relevant facts. The Company believes that it has appropriate support for the income tax positions taken and to be taken on its tax returns and that its accruals for tax liabilities are adequate for all open tax years based on an assessment of many factors including past experience and interpretations of tax laws applied to the facts of each matter. Federal and state tax returns are open from 20062007 and forward for the Company and federal returns are open from 2008 and forward for the TRS.

During 2008, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) commenced an examination of RRG’s U.S. income tax returns for 2006 and 2007 which was completed in June 2009. The IRS did not propose anyNo adjustments to the open tax years under audit.were made.

8. Notes Payable and Unsecured Credit Facilities

8.Notes Payable and Unsecured Credit Facilities

The Parent Company does not hold any indebtedness, but guarantees all of the unsecured public debt and less than 10%9% of the secured debt of the Operating Partnership.

Secured debtNotes Payable

On October 23, 2009,Notes payable consist of mortgage loans secured by properties and unsecured public debt. Mortgage loans may be prepaid, but could be subject to yield maintenance premiums. Mortgage loans are generally due in monthly installments of principal and interest or interest only, and mature over various terms through 2020, whereas, interest on unsecured public debt is payable semi-annually and the debt mature over various terms through 2021. Fixed interest rates on mortgage loans range from 5.00% to 8.40% with a weighted average rate of 6.52%. As of December 31, 2010, the Company closed on an amendment of its onlyhad two variable rate mortgage loanloans, one in the amount of $5.0$4.1 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.

Regency Centers Corporationpoints maturing on October 1, 2014 and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

On September 3, 2009, the Company closed on a $10.7 million two-yearone construction loan forwith a development projectcurrent balance of $7.1 million with ana variable interest rate of LIBOR plus 300 basis points. The balance was approximately $992,000 atpoints maturing on September 2, 2011. During the year ended December 31, 2009.2010, $6.1 million was funded from the construction loan for a development project.

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

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

On July 1, 2009,October 29, 2010, RCLP completed a tender offer for outstanding debt by purchasing $11.8 million of its $173.5 million 7.95% unsecured notes maturing in January 2011, and $57.6 million of its $250.0 million 6.75% unsecured notes maturing in January 2012 (collectively, the Company closed on mortgage loans of $106.0“Notes”). The total consideration paid for the Notes was $74.8 million secured by eight properties with an interest rate of 7.75% and a ten-year term.

In conjunction with properties distributed to the Company as partor $1,066.25 per $1,000 in principal amount of the liquidation6.75% Notes and $1,015.50 per $1,000 in principal amount of MCWR I, the 7.95% Notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest. The Company assumed four mortgage loans. In January 2009,recognized a $4.2 million expense for the Company assumed two mortgage loans with carrying valuesearly extinguishment 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%.this debt.

Unsecured debtCredit Facilities

The Line commitment is currentlyCompany has a $600.0 million line of credit (the “Line”) commitment under an agreement with Wells Fargo Bank and a syndicate of other banks that matures in February 2011 with a one-year extension at the Company’s option. The Company has the right to expand the Line commitment by an additional $150.0 million subject to additional lender syndication.2012. The Line has a current interest rate of LIBOR plus 55 basis points and an annual facility fee of 15 basis points subject to Regency maintaining its corporate credit and senior unsecured ratings at BBB. In April, 2009, the Company paid down the Line balance to zero and there was no balance at December 31, 2009. The balance on the Line was $70.0$10.0 million at December 31, 20082010 and there was no balance outstanding at December 31, 2009. The Company initiated discussions with a contractual interest rate of 1.34% based on LIBOR plus 40 basis points.

During 2008, the Company enteredits lender to enter into a $341.5new Line commitment and term, and expects to close on a new commitment prior to February 2012.

The Company had a $113.8 million term loanrevolving credit facility (the “Term Facility”) under an agreement with Wells Fargo Bank and a syndicate of other banks that maturesmatured 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, 20092010 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 an annual facility fee of 20 basis points subject to maintaining its corporate credit and senior unsecured ratings at BBB. AtThere was no balance outstanding at December 31, 2008, the term loan had a variable interest rate of 3.30%2010 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.Company did not renew this facility.

Including both the Line commitment and the Term Facilityrevolving credit facility (collectively, “Unsecured credit facilities”), the Company currently has $713.8$703.8 million of total capacityavailability as of December 31, 2010 and the spread paid is dependent upon the Company maintaining specific investment-grade ratings. The Company is also required to comply with certain financial covenants as defined in the Credit Agreement such as Minimum Net Worth, Ratio of Total Liabilities to Gross Asset Value (“GAV”) and Ratio of Recourse Secured Indebtedness to GAV, Ratio of Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation

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, 2009,2010, management of the Company believes it is in compliance with all financial covenants for the Unsecured credit facilities. The Unsecured credit facilities are used to finance the acquisition and development of real estate and for general working-capital purposes.

Notes payable consist of mortgage loans secured by properties and unsecured public debt. Mortgage loans may be prepaid, but could be subject to yield maintenance premiums. Mortgage loans are generally due in monthly installments of principal and interest or interest only, and mature over various terms through 2019, whereas, interest on unsecured public debt is payable semi-annually and the debt matures over various terms through 2017. Fixed interest rates on mortgage loans range from 4.44% to 8.40% and average 6.63%. As of December 31, 2009, the Company had one variable rate mortgage loan in the amount of $4.6 million with an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 380 basis points maturing on October 1, 2014. The Company has a variable rate construction loan in 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, 20092010 and 20082009 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
       

   2010   2009 

Notes payable:

    

Fixed rate mortgage loans

  $402,151     398,820  

Variable rate mortgage loans

   11,189     5,596  

Fixed rate unsecured loans

   1,671,129     1,481,964  
          

Total notes payable

   2,084,469     1,886,380  

Unsecured credit facilities

   10,000     —    
          

Total

  $2,094,469     1,886,380  
          

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)Statements

December 31, 20092010

 

As of December 31, 2009,2010, 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
Public Debt
 Total   Scheduled
Principal
Payments
   Mortgage
Loan
Maturities
   Unsecured
Maturities (1)
 Total 

2010

  $4,986  28,523   140,461   173,970  

2011

   4,837  12,268   193,486   210,591    $4,957     7,665     181,691    194,313  

2012

   5,105  —     250,000   255,105     5,267     —       202,377    207,644  

2013

   4,979  16,348   —     21,327     5,151     16,341     —      21,492  

2014

   8,168  11,916   150,000   170,084     4,515     21,076     150,000    175,591  

2015

   3,075     46,312     350,000    399,387  

Beyond 5 Years

   8,853  299,280   750,000   1,058,133     5,716     292,535     800,000    1,098,251  

Unamortized debt discounts, net

   —    (847 (1,983 (2,830   —       730     (2,939  (2,209
                            

Total

  $36,928  367,488   1,481,964   1,886,380    $28,681     384,659     1,681,129    2,094,469  
                            

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

9.Derivative Financial Instruments

9. Derivative Financial Instruments

Risk Management Objective of Using Derivatives

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

Cash Flow Hedges of Interest Rate Risk

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

The effective portion of changes in the fair value of derivatives designated that qualifyand qualifying as cash flow hedges is recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss and subsequently reclassified into earnings in the period that the hedged forecasted transaction affects earnings. During 2009,2010, such derivatives were used to hedge the variable cash flows associated with forecasted issuances of debt (see “Objectives and Strategies” below for further discussion). The ineffective portion of the change in fair value of the derivatives is recognized directly in earnings as gain or loss on derivative instruments. During the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Company recognized a gain of $1.4 million and loss of $3.3 million, respectively, for changes in hedge ineffectiveness attributable to revised inputs used in the valuation models to estimate effectiveness. There was no hedge ineffectiveness recognized for the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company had $3.3 million of hedge ineffectiveness recognized in earnings attributable2008.

Index to the Company’s revised assumptions of future debt issuances.

Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)Statements

December 31, 20092010

 

On April 16, 2009,October 7, 2010, the Company paid $20.0$36.7 million to settle and partially settle $106.0 million of its $396.7the remaining $140.7 million of interest rate swaps in place to hedge forecasted debt.then outstanding. On July 1, 2009,October 7, 2010, the Company closed on mortgage loans$250.0 million of $106.0 million secured by eight properties with a fixed interest rate of 7.75% and a4.80% ten-year term.senior unsecured notes The $20.0Company began amortizing the $36.7 million loss realized from the swap settlement began amortizationin October 2010 over a ten year period in July 2009;period; therefore, the effective interest rate on these mortgage loansnotes is 9.63%6.26%.

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

Realized gains and losses associated with the settled interest rate swaps settled in 2004, 2005, and 2009 and unrealized gains or losses associated with the swaps entered into in 2006 have been included in accumulated other comprehensive loss in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Parent Company and the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Changes in Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Operating Partnership. Unrealized gains or losses will not bePartnership and are amortized until such time that the probable debt issuances are completed as long as the corresponding hedged interest rate swaps continue to qualify for hedge accounting.payments are made in future periods.

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

 

Derivatives in FASB
ASC Topic 815
Cash Flow Hedging
Relationships:
 Amount of
Gain (Loss)
Recognized
in OCI on
Derivative
(Effective Portion)
  Location of
Gain (Loss)
Reclassified
from
Accumulated
OCI into
Income
(Effective
Portion)
  Amount of
Gain (Loss)
Reclassified
from Accumulated
OCI into Income
(Effective Portion)
  

Location of

Gain or (Loss)

Recognized in
Income on
Derivative
(Ineffective
Portion and
Amount
Excluded
from
Effectiveness
Testing)

 Amount of
Gain or (Loss)
Recognized in

Income on
Derivative (Ineffective
Portion and

Amount Excluded
from Effectiveness
Testing)
 
  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, December 31,    December 31,   December 31, 
  2009 2008  2007     2009  2008  2007 2010 2009   2008 2010 2009 2008 2010   2009 2008 

Interest rate products

  $(17,672 1,306  1,306  

Interest expense

  $2,305  1,306  1,306 $(36,556  38,645     (73,855  Interest expense   $(5,575  (2,305  (1,306 Gain (loss) on derivative instruments $1,419     (3,294  —    

The unamortized balance of the settled interest rate swaps at December 31, 2010 and 2009 was $81.5 million and 2008 was $25.4 million, and $7.8 million, respectively.

Asrespectively, of December 31, 2009,which the Company had the following outstanding interest rate derivatives that were designated as cash flow hedges of interest 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
        

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notesexpects to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

amortize $9.5 million over 2011.

The table below presents the fair value of the Company’s derivative financial instruments as well as their classification on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 20092010 and 20082009 (in thousands):

 

Liability Derivatives

Liability Derivatives

 

Liability Derivatives

 

2009

 

2008

 

2010

2010

   

2009

 

Balance Sheet Location

  Fair Value 

Balance Sheet Location

  Fair Value   Fair Value   

Balance Sheet

Location

  Fair Value 

Derivative instruments

  $(28,363 

Derivative instruments

  $(83,691  $—      Derivative instruments  $(28,363

Non-designated Hedges

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

Objectives and Strategies

For $90.7 million of the remaining Swaps, the Company continues to expect to issue new secured or unsecured debt for a term of 7 to 12 years prior to July 1, 2010. For $200.0 million of the remaining Swaps, the Company continues to expect to issue new debt for a term of 7 to 12 years during the period between March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2011. The Company continuously monitors the capital markets and evaluates its ability to issue new debt to repay maturing debt or fund its commitments. Based upon the current capital markets, the Company’s current credit ratings, and the number of high quality, unencumbered properties that it owns which could collateralize borrowings, the Company expects that it will successfully issue new secured or unsecured debt to fund its obligations. However, in the current environment, interest rates on new loans are expected to be significantly higher than on historical issuances. An increase of 1.0% in the interest rate of new debt issued above that of maturing debt would result in additional annual interest expense of $3.3 million in addition to the impact of the annual amortization that would be incurred as a result of settling the respective interest rate swaps.

10. Fair Value Measurements

10.Fair Value Measurements

Derivative Financial Instruments

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

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

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

As of December 31, 2009

2010, there were no liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis.

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

 

    Fair Value Measurements Using:    Fair Value Measurements Using: 

Liabilities

  Balance Quoted
Prices in
Active
Markets for
Identical
Liabilities
(Level 1)
  Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs (Level 2)
 Significant
Unobservable
Inputs (Level 3)
  Total Gains  Balance Quoted
Prices in
Active Markets
for Identical
Liabilities
(Level 1)
   Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs (Level 2)
 Significant
Unobservable
Inputs (Level 3)
 

Derivative instruments

  $(28,363 —    (29,040 677  55,328  $(28,363  —       (29,040  677  

Changes in Level 3 inputs are not considered significant enough to warrant reconciliation for the year endedas of December 31, 2009.

Impairment of Long-lived Assets

Long-lived assets held and used are comprised primarily of real estate. During the years ended December 31, 20092010 and 20082009, the Company established provisions for impairment of long-lived assets as follows:follows (in thousands):

 

  2009  2008  2010   2009 

Land held for future development or sale

  $93,710  7,216  $2,177     93,710  

Operating and development properties

   10,227  20,527   21,688     10,227  
              

Total

  $103,937  27,743  $23,865     103,937  
              

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

The principal triggering event that led to the impairment charges during 2009 related2010 was primarily due to a prospective anchor tenantchange in the expected investment holding period 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.certain properties. 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,evaluated the current fair value of said properties 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.recorded an impairment loss during 2010. Additional impairments may be necessary in the future, in the event that market conditions continue to deterioratechange 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 andLevel 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 2009.2010. The assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis are as follows:follows (in thousands):

 

   Fair Value Measurements Using: 

Assets

  Balance  Quoted
Prices in
Active
Markets for
Identical
Assets
(Level 1)
  Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
  Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
  Total
(Losses)
 

Long-lived assets held and used:

          

Land held for future development or sale

  $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 represent additional fair value disclosures for other assets and liabilities that are included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

   Fair Value Measurements Using: 

Assets

  Balance   Quoted
Prices in
Active
Markets for
Identical
Assets
(Level 1)
   Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
   Significant
Unobservable
Inputs

(Level 3)
   Total
(Losses)
 

Long-lived assets held and used:

          

Land held for future development or sale

  $5,638     —       —       5,638     (2,177

Operating and development properties

   93,510     —       —       93,510     (21,688

Investment in real estate partnerships

   20,050     —       —       20,050     (2,750
                         

Total

  $119,198     —       —       119,198     (26,615
                         

Notes Payable

The carryingfair value of the Company’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 loansnotes payable are estimated using cash flows discounted atbased on the current market rates available to the Company for debt with similarof the same terms and remaining maturities. Fixed rate loans assumed in connection with real estate acquisitions are recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements at fair value at the time of acquisition excluding those loans assumed in DIK liquidations. Each of these fair value measurements fall within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Based on the estimates used by the Company, the fair value of notes payable and the Unsecured credit facilities was approximately $1.4$1.7 billion and $1.3$1.4 billion at December 31, 2010 and 2009, and 2008.respectively.

Noncontrolling Interests of the Parent Company and Partners’ Capital

As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, theThe Operating Partnership had 177,164 and 468,211 limited Partnership Units outstanding.outstanding as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The limited Partnership Units are exchangeable for the Parent Company’s common stock. The redemption value of the limited Partnership Units areis based on the closing market price of the Parent Company’s common stock whichand is used to calculate the fair value measurement. Therefore, the fair value measurements fall within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. The Parent Company’s closing common stock price was $35.06$42.24 and $46.70$35.06 per share as of December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, respectively, and the aggregate redemption value of the limited Partnership Units was $7.5 million and $16.4 million, and $21.9 million, respectively.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

Noncontrolling Interests of the Parent Company and the Operating Partnership

At December 31, 2009,2010, the Company held a majority interest in four consolidated entities with specified termination dates through 2049. The noncontrolling interests in these entities will be settled upon termination by distribution or transfer of either cash or specific assets of the

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

underlying entities. The estimated fair value of the noncontrolling interests in entities with specified termination dates was approximately $9.1$9.3 million and $9.5$9.1 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and 2008, respectively.is generally determined by applying a market-based capitalization rate to net operating income. Each of the inputs used in calculating these fair value measurements fall within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Their related carrying value was $6.6$6.8 million and $6.3$6.6 million as of December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, respectively, which is included within noncontrolling interests of Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.

11. Equity and Capital

11.Equity and Capital

Equity of the Parent Company

Preferred Stock

The Series 3, 4, and 5 preferred shares are perpetual, are not convertible into common stock of the Parent Company, and are redeemable at par upon the Company’s election beginning five years after the issuance date. None of the terms of the preferred stock contain any unconditional obligations that would require the Company to redeem the securities at any time or for any purpose and the Company does not currently anticipate redeeming any preferred stock. Terms and conditions of the three series of preferred stock outstanding as of December 31, 20092010 are summarized as follows:

 

Series

  Shares
Outstanding
  Liquidation
Preference
  Distribution
Rate
 Callable
By Company
  Shares
Outstanding
   Liquidation
Preference
   Distribution
Rate
 Callable
By Company
 

Series 3

  3,000,000  $75,000,000  7.45 04/03/08   3,000,000    $75,000,000     7.45   4/3/2008  

Series 4

  5,000,000   125,000,000  7.25 08/31/09   5,000,000     125,000,000     7.25   8/31/2009  

Series 5

  3,000,000   75,000,000  6.70 08/02/10   3,000,000     75,000,000     6.70   8/2/2010  
                    
  11,000,000  $275,000,000      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 entered into with affiliates of J.P.J.P Morgan and Wells Fargo Securities, aswhich will result in estimated future net proceeds of $217.8 million, net of issuance costs, once the agreements are settled by March 2011, unless the Company and the forward purchasers.purchasers agree to extend the settlement date. This offering included an over-allotment option of 1.2 million shares which closed simultaneously with the offering and provided the Company with net proceeds of $34.9 million during 2010. The Company intends to use the proceeds it receives upon settlement of the forward sale agreements to repay debt maturing orin 2011 and outstanding debt balances. This offering also included an over-allotment optionbalances on its line of 1.2 million shares which closed simultaneously with the offering providing the Company with net proceeds of $35.4 million.credit.

On April 24, 2009, the Parent Company completed a public offering of 10.0 million common shares at $32.50 per share resulting in proceeds of $310.9 million, net of issuance costs. The fundsnet proceeds were used to pay offrepay 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 partnershipspurposes.

Index 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.

Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)Statements

December 31, 20092010

 

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, 20092010 and 2008,2009, the face value of the Series D preferred units was $50.0 million with a fixed distribution rate of 7.45% andwhich are 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.$842,000.

Terms and conditions for the Series D preferred units outstanding as of December 31, 20092010 and 20082009 are summarized as follows:

 

Units
Outstanding
 Amount
Outstanding
 Distribution
Rate
 Callable
by Company
 Exchangeable
by Unit holder
  Amount
Outstanding
   Distribution
Rate
 Callable by
Company
   Exchangeable
by Unit  holder
 
500,000 $50,000,000 7.45 09/29/09 01/01/14  $50,000,000     7.45   9/29/2009     1/1/2014  

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

Noncontrolling Interest of Exchangeable Operating Partnership Units

As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, theThe Operating Partnership had 177,164 and 468,211 limited Partnership Units outstanding.not owned by the Parent Company outstanding as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. See Note 10 for further discussion.

Noncontrolling Interests of Limited Partners’ Interests in Consolidated Partnerships

Limited partners’ interests in consolidated partnerships not owned by the Company are classified as noncontrolling interests on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets of the Parent Company. Subject to certain conditions and pursuant to the conditions of the agreement, the Company has the right, but not the obligation, to purchase the other member’s interest or sell its own interest in these consolidated partnerships. At December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, the Company’s noncontrolling interest in these consolidated partnerships was $11.7$10.8 million and $8.0$11.7 million, respectively.

Capital of the Operating Partnership

Preferred Units

The Series D Preferred Units are owned by institutional investors. AtAs of December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, the face value of the Series D Preferred Units was $50.0 million with a fixed distribution rate of 7.45% and are recorded in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets net of original issuance costs of approximately $842,000 that will be expensed if redeemed in the future. See above for further discussion.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.$842,000.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

Preferred Units of General Partner

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

General Partner

As of December 31, 2009,2010, the Parent Company, as general partner, owned approximately 99%99.8% or 81,539,29681,886,872 of the total 82,007,50782,064,036 Partnership Units outstanding.

Limited Partners

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

As of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2009 and 2008, the2010

Limited Partners

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

Noncontrolling Interests of Limited Partners’ Interests in Consolidated Partnerships

See above for further discussion.

12. Stock-Based Compensation

12.Stock-Based Compensation

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

 

  2009  2008  2007  2010 2009 2008 

Restricted stock

  $5,227  8,193  17,725  $7,236    5,227    8,193  

Stock options

   —    988  1,024   —      —      988  

Directors’ fees paid in common stock

   279  375  389   231    279    375  

Capitalized stock-based compensation

   (852  (1,574  (3,606
                   

Total

  $5,506  9,556  19,138  $6,615    3,932    5,950  
                   

The recorded amounts of stock-based compensation expense represent amortization of deferred compensation related to share-based payments. During 2009 and 2008, compensation expense declined as a result of the Company reducing estimated payout amounts related to incentive compensation tied directly to Company performance. Compensation expense specifically identifiable to development and leasing activities is capitalized and included above. During the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, compensation expense of approximately $1.6 million, $3.6 million, and $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. The plan permits the grant of any type of stock-based award but limits non-option awards to no more than 2.75 million shares. At December 31, 2009,2010, there were approximately 2.42.2 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. Options granted under the reload buy-out plan do not earn dividend equivalents.

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 FASB ASC Topic 718 and reflects all substantive characteristics of the instruments being valued.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

The following table reports stock option activity during the year ended December 31, 2009:2010:

 

  Number of
Options
  Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
  Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Term
(in years)
  Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
(in thousands)
   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    

Outstanding December 31, 2009

   453,463    $51.90      

Less: Exercised

  9,032   30.28       1,996     41.44      

Less: Forfeited

  36,113   54.33       2,580     51.36      

Less: Expired

  75,419   48.25       6,007     59.68      
                      

Outstanding December 31, 2010

   442,880    $51.85     3.5    $(4,255
                

Outstanding December 31, 2009

  453,463  $51.90  4.5  (7,638

Vested and expected to vest – December 31, 2010

   442,880    $51.85     3.5    $(4,255
                             

Exercisable December 31, 2010

   440,695    $51.67     3.5    $(4,154
                

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 2010, 2009, orand 2008. The weighted-average grant price for stock options granted during 2007 was $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, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 20072008 was approximately $19,000,$1,000, $40,000, and $2.3 million, and $20.2 million, respectively. The Company received cash proceeds for stock option exercises of $1.0 million and $2.4 million during 2008 and 2007, respectively.2008. The Company issues new shares to fulfill option exercises from its authorized shares available.

The following table presents information regarding non-vested option activity during the year ended December 31, 2009:2010:

 

   Non-vested
Number of
Options
  Weighted
Average
Grant-Date
Fair Value

Non-vested at December 31, 2008

  180,020  $6.04

Less: Forfeited

  2,307   8.78

Less: 2009 Vesting

  173,344   5.96
       

Non-vested at December 31, 2009

  4,369  $8.78
       
   Non-vested
Number of
Options
   Weighted
Average
Grant-Date
Fair Value
 

Non-vested at December 31, 2009

   4,369    $8.78  

Less: 2010 Vesting

   2,184     8.78  
          

Non-vested at December 31, 2010

   2,185    $8.78  
          

The Company grants restricted stock under the Plan to its employees as a form of long-term compensation and retention. The terms of each grant vary depending upon the participant’s responsibilities and position within the Company. The Company’s stock grants can be categorized into three types: (i) 4-year vesting, (ii)as either time-based awards, performance-based vesting, and (iii) 8-year cliff vesting.

The 4-year vesting grants vest 25% per year beginningawards, or market-based awards. All awards were valued at the fair market value 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,grant, earn dividends throughout the vesting of these grants may be accelerated over a shorter term.

Performance-based vesting grantsperiod, 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.have no voting rights. Compensation expense is measured at the grant date and recognized over the vesting period.

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

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)Statements

December 31, 20092010

 

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

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

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

   Number of
Shares
   Intrinsic
Value
(in thousands)
   Weighted
Average
Grant
Price
 

Non-vested at December 31, 2009

   367,662      

Add: Time-based awards

   181,309      $35.85  

Add: Market-based awards

   93,688      $35.26  

Less: Vested and Distributed

   173,076      $35.21  

Less: Forfeited

   33,024      $67.49  
         

Non-vested at December 31, 2010

   436,559     $18,440    
         

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

 

   Number of
Shares
  Intrinsic
Value
(in thousands)
  Weighted
Average
Grant
Price

Non-vested at December 31, 2008

  508,773    

Add: Granted

  285,542    $38.91

Less: Vested and Distributed

  253,723    $37.88

Less: Forfeited

  172,930    $62.39
       

Non-vested at December 31, 2009

  367,662  $12,890  
       
   2010   2009 

Time-based awards

   108,637     138,773  

Performance-based awards

   40,618     87,723  

Market-based awards earned

   23,821     27,227  
          

Total vested and distributed

   173,076     253,723  
          

The weighted-average grant price for restricted stock granted during the years 2010, 2009, and 2008 was $35.65, $38.91, and 2007 was $38.91, $63.76, and $84.52, respectively. The total intrinsic value of restricted stock vested during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 and 2007 was $6.1 million, $9.6 million, and $12.3 million, and $29.7 million, respectively.

As of December 31, 2009,2010, there was 11.0$11.4 million of unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested restricted stock granted under the Plan, whenPlan. When recognized, is recordedthis compensation results in additional paid in capital ofin the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Parent Company and in Generalgeneral partner preferred and common units ofin the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Changes in Capital and Comprehensive Income (Loss) of the Operating Partnership. This unrecognized compensation cost is expected to be recognized over the next fourthree years, through 2013. The Company issues new restricted stock from its authorized shares available at the date of grant.

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

The Company maintains a 401(k) retirement plan covering substantially all employees, which permits participants to defer up to the maximum allowable amount determined by the IRS of their eligible compensation. This deferred compensation, together with Company matching contributions equal to 100% of employee deferrals up to a maximum of $3,800$3,900 of their eligible compensation, is fully vested and funded as of December 31, 2009.2010. Costs related to the matching portion of the plan were approximately$1.1 million, $1.4 million, $1.5 million, and $1.3$1.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008, and 2007, respectively.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

 

13.Earnings per Share and 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, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007,2008, respectively (in thousands except per share data):

 

  2009 2008  2007  2010 2009 2008 

Numerator:

         

Income (loss) from continuing operations

  $(38,639 119,570  176,013  $8,567    (38,917  119,224  

Discontinued operations

   5,896   21,951  34,003   7,632    6,174    22,297  
                   

Net income (loss)

   (32,743 141,521  210,016   16,199    (32,743  141,521  

Less: Preferred stock dividends

   19,675   19,675  19,675   19,675    19,675    19,675  

Less: Noncontrolling interests

   3,961   5,333  6,365   4,185    3,961    5,333  
                   

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

   (56,379 116,513  183,976   (7,661  (56,379  116,513  

Less: Dividends paid on unvested restricted stock

   488   733  842   542    488    733  
                   

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
         

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders – basic and diluted

  $(8,203  (56,867  115,780  
          

Denominator:

         

Weighted average common shares outstanding for basic EPS

   76,829   69,578  68,954   81,414    76,829    69,578  

Incremental shares to be issued under common stock options

   —     84  244   —      —      84  

Incremental shares to be issued under Forward Equity Offering

   67   —    —     1,534    67    —    
                   

Weighted average common shares outstanding for diluted EPS

   76,896   69,662  69,198   82,948    76,896    69,662  
                   

Income (loss) per common share – basic

         

Continuing operations

  $(0.82 1.35  2.16  $(0.19  (0.82  1.35  

Discontinued operations

   0.08   0.31  0.49   0.09    0.08    0.31  
                   

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders per share

  $(0.74 1.66  2.65
         

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

  $(0.10  (0.74  1.66  
          

Income (loss) per common share – diluted

         

Continuing operations

  $(0.82 1.35  2.16  $(0.19  (0.82  1.35  

Discontinued operations

   0.08   0.31  0.49   0.09    0.08    0.31  
                   

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders per share

  $(0.74 1.66  2.65

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

  $(0.10  (0.74  1.66  
                   

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)Statements

December 31, 20092010

 

Operating Partnership Earnings per Unit

The following summarizes the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per unit for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007,2008, respectively (in thousands except per unit 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 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
          

   2010  2009  2008 

Numerator:

    

Income (loss) from continuing operations

  $8,567    (38,917  119,224  

Discontinued operations

   7,632    6,174    22,297  
             

Net income (loss)

   16,199    (32,743  141,521  

Less: Preferred unit distributions

   23,400    23,400    23,400  

Less: Noncontrolling interests

   376    452    701  
             

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

   (7,577  (56,595  117,420  

Less: Dividends paid on unvested restricted stock

   542    488    733  
             

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders – basic and diluted

  $(8,119  (57,083  116,687  
             

Denominator:

    

Weighted average common units outstanding for basic EPU

   81,685    77,297    70,048  

Incremental units to be issued under common stock options

   —      —      84  

Incremental units to be issued under Forward Equity Offering

   1,534    67    —    
             

Weighted average common units outstanding for diluted EPU

   83,219    77,364    70,132  
             

Income (loss) per common unit – basic

    

Continuing operations

  $(0.19  (0.82  1.35  

Discontinued operations

   0.09    0.08    0.31  
             

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

  $(0.10  (0.74  1.66  
             

Income (loss) per common unit – diluted

    

Continuing operations

  $(0.19  (0.82  1.35  

Discontinued operations

   0.09    0.08    0.31  
             

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

  $(0.10  (0.74  1.66  
             

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)Statements

December 31, 20092010

 

14. 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, 2009,2010, excluding both tenant reimbursements of operating expenses and additional percentage rent based on tenants’ sales volume, are as follows (in thousands):

 

Year Ending December 31,

  Amount  Amount 

2010

  $320,361

2011

   299,131  $330,503  

2012

   255,441   303,970  

2013

   211,214   262,040  

2014

   174,950   226,918  

2015

   192,837  

Thereafter

   1,046,337   1,149,219  
       

Total

  $2,307,434  $2,465,487  
       

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

The Company has shopping centers that are subject to non-cancelable long-term ground leases where a third party owns and has leased the underlying land to the Company to construct and/or operate a shopping center. Ground leases expire through the year 2085 and in most cases provide for renewal options. In addition, the Company has non-cancelable operating leases pertaining to office space from which it conducts its business. Office leases expire through the year 2017 and in most cases provide for renewal options. Leasehold improvements are capitalized, recorded as tenant improvements, and depreciated over the shorter of the useful life of the improvements or the lease term. Operating lease expense, including capitalized ground lease payments on properties in development, was $8.1 million, $7.9 million, $8.1 million, and $7.5$8.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007,2008, respectively. The following table summarizes the future obligations under non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 20092010, (in thousands):

 

Year Ending December 31,

  Amount

2010

  $7,098

2011

   7,021

2012

   6,823

2013

   6,926

2014

   5,990

Thereafter

   118,588
    

Total

  $152,446
    

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

Year Ending December 31,

  Amount 

2011

  $8,041  

2012

   7,747  

2013

   7,621  

2014

   6,923  

2015

   6,686  

Thereafter

   108,667  
     

Total

  $145,685  
     

 

15. Commitments and Contingencies

15.Commitments and Contingencies

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

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

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

The Company has the right to issue letters of credit under the Line discussed above up to an amount not to exceed $50.0 million that reducewhich reduces the credit availability under the Line. The Company also has stand alone letters of credit with other banks. These letters of credit are primarily issued as collateral to facilitate the construction of development projects. As of December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, the Company had $9.5$5.3 million and $16.2$9.5 million letters of credit outstanding, respectively.

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

 

16. Reorganization and Restructuring Charges

16.Reorganization and Restructuring Charges

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

 

  2009  2008  2010   2009   2008 

Severance

  $5,966  2,086  $—       5,966     2,086  

Health insurance

   1,092  150   —       1,092     150  

Placement services

   431  187   —       431     187  
                  

Total

  $7,489  2,423  $—       7,489     2,423  
                  

Index to Financial Statements

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2010

As of December 31, 20092010 and 2008,2009, the remaining accrued liabilities are as follows:follows (in thousands):

 

   2009  2008

Accrued Liabilities:

    

Compensation

  $1,160  1,046

Insurance

   —    150

Other

   —    51
       

Total

  $1,160  1,247
       

Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

December 31, 2009

   2010   2009 

Compensation

  $—       1,160  

Insurance

   —       —    

Other

   —       —    
          
  $—       1,160  
          

 

17. Summary of Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)

17.Summary of Quarterly Financial Data (Unaudited)

The following table sets forth selected Quarterly Financial Data for the Company on a historical basis for each of the years ended December 31, 20092010 and 20082009 and has been derived from the accompanying consolidated financial statements as reclassified for discontinued operations.operations (in thousands except per share and per unit data):

 

   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
             

    First
Quarter
  Second
Quarter
  Third
Quarter
  Fourth
Quarter
 

2010:

     

Operating Data:

     

Revenues as originally reported

  $124,368    121,600    121,410    119,901  

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   (290  (348  165    —    
                 

Adjusted Revenues

  $124,078    121,252    121,575    119,901  
                 

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

  $12,368    6,753    9,885    (36,667

Net income (loss) of limited partners

   94    27    34    (71
                 

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

  $12,462    6,780    9,919    (36,738
                 

Net income (loss) attributable to common stock and unit holders per share and unit:

     

Basic

  $0.15    0.08    0.12    (0.45
                 

Diluted

  $0.15    0.08    0.12    (0.44
                 

2009:

     

Operating Data:

     

Revenues as originally reported

  $120,159    116,461    133,742    121,625  

Reclassified to discontinued operations

   (744  (1,466  (1,421  (283
                 

Adjusted Revenues

  $119,415    114,995    132,321    121,342  
                 

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders

  $19,563    (17,180  (84,092  25,330  

Net income (loss) of limited partners

   164    (92  (462  174  
                 

Net income (loss) attributable to common unit holders

  $19,727    (17,272  (84,554  25,504  
                 

Net income (loss) attributable to common stock and unit holders per share and unit:

     

Basic

  $0.28    (0.23  (1.05  0.31  
                 

Diluted

  $0.28    (0.23  (1.05  0.31  
                 

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

CombinedConsolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 20092010

(in thousands)

 

  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 Accumulated
Depreciation
  Mortgages

4S Commons Town Center

 30,760 35,830 (240 30,812 35,538 —   66,350 5,835 60,515 62,500

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 1,187 19,437 —  

Anthem Marketplace

 6,714 13,696 35   6,714 13,731 —   20,445 3,118 17,327 —  

Ashburn Farm Market Center

 9,835 4,812 9   9,835 4,821 —   14,656 2,122 12,534 —  

Ashford Place

 2,584 9,865 25   2,584 9,890 —   12,474 4,180 8,294 —  

Atascocita Center

 3,997 6,279 13   3,997 6,292 —   10,289 1,549 8,740 —  

Augusta Center

 5,142 2,720 (1,376 3,740 2,746 —   6,486 330 6,156 —  

Aventura Shopping Center

 2,751 10,459 32   2,751 10,491 —   13,242 8,040 5,202 —  

Beckett Commons

 1,625 10,960 69   1,625 11,029 —   12,654 3,049 9,605 —  

Belleview Square

 8,132 9,756 58   8,132 9,814 —   17,946 2,502 15,444 8,373

Beneva Village Shops

 2,484 10,162 281   2,484 10,443 —   12,927 3,289 9,638 —  

Berkshire Commons

 2,295 9,551 49   2,295 9,600 —   11,895 4,130 7,765 7,500

Bloomingdale Square

 3,940 14,912 89   3,940 15,001 —   18,941 4,913 14,028 —  

Boulevard Center

 3,659 10,787 477   3,659 11,264 —   14,923 3,350 11,573 —  

Boynton Lakes Plaza

 2,628 11,236 185   2,628 11,421 —   14,049 3,764 10,285 —  

Briarcliff La Vista

 694 3,292 143   694 3,435 —   4,129 1,680 2,449 —  

Briarcliff Village

 4,597 24,836 292   4,597 25,128 —   29,725 10,782 18,943 —  

Buckhead Court

 1,417 7,432 82   1,417 7,514 —   8,931 3,451 5,480 —  

Buckley Square

 2,970 5,978 93   2,970 6,071 —   9,041 2,063 6,978 —  

Cambridge Square

 774 4,347 216   774 4,563 —   5,337 1,636 3,701 —  

Carmel Commons

 2,466 12,548 149   2,466 12,697 —   15,163 4,348 10,815 —  

Carriage Gate

 833 4,974 30   833 5,004 —   5,837 2,972 2,865 —  

Chapel Hill Centre

 3,932 3,897 2,317   4,062 6,084 —   10,146 437 9,709 —  

Chasewood Plaza

 4,612 20,829 24   4,612 20,853 —   25,465 9,939 15,526 —  

Cherry Grove

 3,533 15,862 145   3,533 16,007 —   19,540 4,944 14,596 —  

Cheshire Station

 9,896 8,344 26   9,896 8,370 —   18,266 4,324 13,942 —  

Clayton Valley Shopping Center

 24,189 35,422 854   24,465 36,000 —   60,465 6,729 53,736 —  

Clovis Commons

 11,100 32,692 98   11,100 32,790 —   43,890 3,721 40,169 —  

Cochran'S Crossing

 13,154 12,315 98   13,154 12,413 —   25,567 4,310 21,257 —  

Cooper Street

 2,079 10,682 13   2,079 10,695 —   12,774 3,130 9,644 —  

Corkscrew Village

 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 26,868 111   12,740 26,979 —   39,719 9,027 30,692 —  

Courtyard Shopping Center

 5,867 4 3   5,867 7 —   5,874 —   5,874 —  

Cromwell Square

 1,772 6,944 7   1,772 6,951 —   8,723 2,935 5,788 —  

Culpeper Colonnade

 15,944 10,601 —     15,944 10,601 —   26,545 1,553 24,992 —  

Delk Spectrum

 2,985 12,001 21   2,985 12,022 —   15,007 3,819 11,188 —  

Diablo Plaza

 5,300 8,181 55   5,300 8,236 —   13,536 2,465 11,071 —  

Dickson Tn

 675 1,568 —     675 1,568 —   2,243 400 1,843 —  

Dunwoody Village

 3,342 15,934 334   3,342 16,268 —   19,610 6,746 12,864 —  

East Pointe

 1,730 7,189 3   1,730 7,192 —   8,922 2,667 6,255 —  

East Port Plaza

 3,257 10,051 348   3,257 10,399 —   13,656 2,825 10,831 —  

East Towne Center

 2,957 4,938 (113 2,957 4,825 —   7,782 1,492 6,290 —  

El Camino Shopping Center

 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 7,370 49   2,834 7,419 —   10,253 2,332 7,921 —  

Encina Grande

 5,040 11,572 32   5,040 11,604 —   16,644 3,473 13,171 —  

Fairfax Shopping Center

 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 —  

Shopping Centers(1)

 Initial Cost  Cost  Capitalized
Subsequent to
Acquisition (2)
  Total Cost  Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
  Mortgages 
 Land  Building &
Improvements
   Land  Building &
Improvements
  Properties held
for Sale
  Total  Accumulated
Depreciation
   

4S COMMONS TOWN CENTER

 $30,760    35,830    (200  30,811    35,579    —      66,390    7,868    58,522    62,500  

AMERIGE HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER

  10,109    11,288    79    10,108    11,368    —      21,476    890    20,586    17,000  

ANASTASIA PLAZA

  9,065    —      (101  3,328    5,636    —      8,964    232    8,732    —    

ANTHEM HIGHLANDS SHOPPING CTR

  8,643    11,981    (24  8,643    11,957    —      20,600    1,651    18,949    —    

ANTHEM MARKETPLACE

  6,714    13,696    (5,931  4,889    9,590    —      14,479    —      14,479    —    

ASHBURN FARM MARKET CENTER

  9,835    4,812    13    9,835    4,825    —      14,660    2,394    12,266    —    

ASHFORD PLACE

  2,584    9,865    143    2,584    10,008    —      12,592    4,513    8,079    —    

AUGUSTA CENTER

  5,142    2,720    (5,763  1,326    773    —      2,099    —      2,099    —    

AVENTURA SHOPPING CENTER

  2,751    10,459    51    2,751    10,510    —      13,261    8,557    4,704    —    

BECKETT COMMONS

  1,625    10,960    407    1,625    11,367    —      12,992    3,387    9,605    —    

BELLEVIEW SQUARE

  8,132    9,756    107    8,132    9,863    —      17,995    3,055    14,940    8,008  

BENEVA VILLAGE SHOPS

  2,484    10,162    778    2,484    10,940    —      13,424    3,642    9,782    —    

BERKSHIRE COMMONS

  2,295    9,551    131    2,295    9,682    —      11,977    4,574    7,403    7,500  

BLOOMINGDALE SQUARE

  3,940    14,912    148    3,940    15,060    —      19,000    5,338    13,662    —    

BOULEVARD CENTER

  3,659    10,787    662    3,659    11,449    —      15,108    3,763    11,345    —    

BOYNTON LAKES PLAZA

  2,628    11,236    250    2,628    11,486    —      14,114    4,142    9,972    —    

BRIARCLIFF LA VISTA

  694    3,292    150    694    3,442    —      4,136    1,799    2,337    —    

BRIARCLIFF VILLAGE

  4,597    24,836    287    4,597    25,123    —      29,720    11,439    18,281    —    

BUCKHEAD COURT

  1,417    7,432    104    1,417    7,536    —      8,953    3,739    5,214    —    

BUCKLEY SQUARE

  2,970    5,978    206    2,970    6,184    —      9,154    2,294    6,860    —    

BUCKWALTER PLACE SHOPPING CTR

  6,563    6,590    —      6,563    6,590    —      13,153    901    12,252    —    

CAMBRIDGE SQUARE

  774    4,347    588    774    4,935    —      5,709    1,820    3,889    —    

CARMEL COMMONS

  2,466    12,548    310    2,466    12,858    —      15,324    4,650    10,674    —    

CARRIAGE GATE

  833    4,974    155    833    5,129    —      5,962    3,203    2,759    —    

CHAPEL HILL CENTRE

  3,932    3,897    (160  2,988    4,681    —      7,669    —      7,669    —    

CHASEWOOD PLAZA

  4,612    20,829    173    4,612    21,002    —      25,614    10,727    14,887    —    

CHERRY GROVE

  3,533    15,862    334    3,533    16,196    —      19,729    5,478    14,251    —    

CHESHIRE STATION

  9,896    8,344    39    9,896    8,383    —      18,279    4,887    13,392    —    

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

CombinedConsolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 20092010

(in thousands)

 

  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 Accumulated
Depreciation
   Mortgages

Frankfort Crossing Shpg Ctr

 7,417 8,065 235   7,418 8,299 —   15,717 3,070  12,647 —  

French Valley Village Center

 11,924 16,856 (33 11,924 16,823 —   28,747 3,142  25,605 —  

Friars Mission Center

 6,660 28,021 135   6,660 28,156 —   34,816 7,712  27,104 704

Gardens Square

 2,136 8,273 180   2,136 8,453 —   10,589 2,715  7,874 —  

Garner Towne Square

 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

 52,665 7,134 29   52,665 7,163 —   59,828 4,301  55,527 19,296

Gelson'S Westlake Market Plaza

 3,157 11,153 110   3,157 11,263 —   14,420 2,401  12,019 —  

Glenwood Village

 1,194 5,381 38   1,194 5,419 —   6,613 2,476  4,137 —  

Greenwood Springs

 2,720 3,059 (17 2,665 3,097 —   5,762 656  5,106 —  

Hancock

 8,232 28,260 207   8,232 28,467 —   36,699 8,705  27,994 —  

Harpeth Village Fieldstone

 2,284 9,443 —     2,284 9,443 —   11,727 2,868  8,859 —  

Heritage Land

 12,390 —   —     12,390 —   —   12,390 —    12,390 —  

Heritage Plaza

 —   26,097 261   —   26,358 —   26,358 8,140  18,218 —  

Hershey

 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 1,909 —     1,600 1,909 —   3,509 537  2,972 —  

Hinsdale

 5,734 16,709 279   5,734 16,988 —   22,722 5,098  17,624 —  

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

 9,809 39,905 349   9,809 40,254 —   50,063 13,545  36,518 —  

Inglewood Plaza

 1,300 2,159 28   1,300 2,187 —   3,487 671  2,816 —  

Keller Town Center

 2,294 12,841 24   2,294 12,865 —   15,159 3,600  11,559 —  

Kings Crossing Sun City

 515 1,246 (1 514 1,246 —   1,760 55  1,705 —  

Kroger New Albany Center

 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 7,632 27   2,029 7,638 —   9,667 2,325  7,342 —  

Lebanon/Legacy Center

 3,913 7,874 237   3,913 8,111 —   12,024 2,828  9,196 —  

Legacy West

 1,770 —   (241 1,529 —   —   1,529 —    1,529 —  

Littleton Square

 2,030 8,859 60   2,030 8,919 —   10,949 2,488  8,461 —  

Lloyd King Center

 1,779 10,060 56   1,779 10,116 —   11,895 3,015  8,880 —  

Loehmanns Plaza

 3,983 18,687 39   3,983 18,726 —   22,709 7,041  15,668 —  

Loehmanns Plaza California

 5,420 9,450 140   5,420 9,590 —   15,010 2,869  12,141 —  

Loveland Shopping Center

 157 —   —     157 —   —   157 —    157 —  

Market At Opitz Crossing

 9,902 9,248 20   9,902 9,268 —   19,170 3,153  16,017 11,517

Market At Preston Forest

 4,400 11,445 573   4,400 12,018 —   16,418 3,141  13,277 —  

Market At Round Rock

 2,000 9,676 527   2,000 10,203 —   12,203 2,904  9,299 —  

Marketplace At Briargate

 1,706 4,885 47   1,727 4,911 —   6,638 602  6,036 —  

Marketplace Shopping Center

 1,287 5,509 —     1,287 5,509 —   6,796 2,111  4,685 —  

Martin Downs Town Center

 1,364 5,187 15   1,364 5,202 —   6,566 1,753  4,813 —  

Martin Downs Village Center

 2,438 9,142 223   2,438 9,365 —   11,803 5,104  6,699 —  

Martin Downs Village Shoppes

 817 4,965 29   817 4,994 —   5,811 2,253  3,558 —  

Maxtown Road (Northgate)

 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 —  

Shopping Centers(1)

 Initial Cost  Cost  Capitalized
Subsequent to
Acquisition (2)
  Total Cost  Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
  Mortgages 
 Land  Building &
Improvements
   Land  Building &
Improvements
  Properties held
for Sale
  Total  Accumulated
Depreciation
   

CLAYTON VALLEY SHOPPING CENTER

  24,189    35,422    995    24,528    36,078    —      60,606    8,743    51,863    —    

CLOVIS COMMONS

  11,100    32,692    1,229    12,134    32,887    —      45,021    4,935    40,086    —    

COCHRAN'S CROSSING

  13,154    12,315    261    13,154    12,576    —      25,730    4,914    20,816    —    

COOPER STREET

  2,079    10,682    (725  1,954    10,082    —      12,036    3,200    8,836    —    

CORKSCREW VILLAGE

  8,407    8,004    21    8,407    8,025    —      16,432    1,124    15,308    8,890  

CORVALLIS MARKET CENTER

  6,674    12,244    34    6,696    12,256    —      18,952    1,384    17,568    —    

COSTA VERDE CENTER

  12,740    26,868    513    12,798    27,323    —      40,121    9,867    30,254    —    

COURTYARD SHOPPING CENTER

  5,867    4    3    5,867    7    —      5,874    —      5,874    —    

CROMWELL SQUARE

  1,772    6,944    7    1,772    6,951    —      8,723    3,183    5,540    —    

CULPEPER COLONNADE

  15,944    10,601    34    15,945    10,634    —      26,579    2,387    24,192    —    

DELK SPECTRUM

  2,985    12,001    116    2,985    12,117    —      15,102    4,189    10,913    —    

DIABLO PLAZA

  5,300    8,181    172    5,300    8,353    —      13,653    2,716    10,937    —    

DICKSON TN

  675    1,568    —      675    1,568    —      2,243    439    1,804    —    

DUNWOODY VILLAGE

  3,342    15,934    722    3,342    16,656    —      19,998    7,543    12,455    —    

EAST POINTE

  1,730    7,189    8    1,730    7,197    —      8,927    2,904    6,023    —    

EAST PORT PLAZA

  3,257    10,051    2,981    3,758    12,531    —      16,289    3,339    12,950    —    

EAST TOWNE CENTER

  2,957    4,938    (84  2,957    4,854    —      7,811    1,739    6,072    —    

EL CAMINO SHOPPING CENTER

  7,600    11,538    42    7,600    11,580    —      19,180    3,762    15,418    —    

EL CERRITO PLAZA

  11,025    27,371    32    11,025    27,403    —      38,428    1,960    36,468    41,106  

EL NORTE PKWY PLAZA

  2,834    7,370    55    2,840    7,419    —      10,259    2,593    7,666    —    

ENCINA GRANDE

  5,040    11,572    (45  5,040    11,527    —      16,567    3,828    12,739    —    

FAIRFAX SHOPPING CENTER

  15,239    11,367    (5,557  13,111    7,938    —      21,049    411    20,638    —    

FALCON

  1,340    4,168    —      1,340    4,168    —      5,508    590    4,918    —    

FENTON MARKETPLACE

  2,298    8,510    (5  2,298    8,505    —      10,803    2,344    8,459    —    

FIRST STREET VILLAGE

  4,161    8,103    —      4,161    8,103    —      12,264    1,277    10,987    —    

FLEMING ISLAND

  3,077    11,587    542    3,077    12,129    —      15,206    3,750    11,456    1,338  

FORT BEND CENTER

  2,594    3,175    (1,800  1,885    2,084    —      3,969    1,348    2,621    —    

FORTUNA

  2,025    —      883    2,908    —      —      2,908    —      2,908    —    

FRANKFORT CROSSING SHPG CTR

  7,417    8,065    408    7,418    8,472    —      15,890    3,547    12,343    —    

FRENCH VALLEY VILLAGE CENTER

  11,924    16,856    82    11,924    16,938    —      28,862    4,164    24,698    —    

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

CombinedConsolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 20092010

(in thousands)

 

  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 Accumulated
Depreciation
  Mortgages

Northgate Square

 5,011 8,692 18   5,011 8,710 —   13,721 820 12,901 6,364

Northlake Village

 2,662 11,284 67   2,662 11,351 —   14,013 2,989 11,024 —  

Oakbrook Plaza

 4,000 6,668 20   4,000 6,688 —   10,688 2,113 8,575 —  

Old St Augustine Plaza

 2,368 11,405 174   2,368 11,579 —   13,947 4,080 9,867 —  

Orangeburg & Central

 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 12,639 31   2,812 12,670 —   15,482 5,153 10,329 —  

Panther Creek

 14,414 14,748 84   14,414 14,832 —   29,246 5,222 24,024 9,698

Park Place Shopping Center

 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 19,746 1   5,197 19,747 —   24,944 6,690 18,254 9,927

Phenix Crossing

 1,544 —   (26 1,518 —   —   1,518 —   1,518 —  

Pike Creek

 5,153 20,652 161   5,153 20,813 —   25,966 6,647 19,319 —  

Pima Crossing

 5,800 28,143 90   5,800 28,233 —   34,033 8,191 25,842 —  

Pine Lake Village

 6,300 10,991 461   6,300 11,452 —   17,752 3,108 14,644 —  

Pine Tree Plaza

 668 6,220 1   668 6,221 —   6,889 1,929 4,960 —  

Plaza Hermosa

 4,200 10,109 68   4,200 10,177 —   14,377 2,840 11,537 13,800

Powell Street Plaza

 8,248 30,716 319   8,248 31,035 —   39,283 6,389 32,894 —  

Powers Ferry Square

 3,687 17,965 57   3,687 18,022 —   21,709 7,511 14,198 —  

Powers Ferry Village

 1,191 4,672 46   1,191 4,718 —   5,909 1,960 3,949 2,378

Prairie City Crossing

 4,164 13,032 344   4,164 13,376 —   17,540 2,939 14,601 —  

Preston Park

 6,400 54,817 (611 5,733 54,873 —   60,606 16,205 44,401 —  

Prestonbrook

 7,069 8,622 4   7,069 8,626 —   15,695 3,786 11,909 6,800

Prestonwood Park

 7,399 9,012 13   7,399 9,025 —   16,424 4,483 11,941 —  

Regency Commons

 3,917 3,616 37   3,917 3,653 —   7,570 844 6,726 —  

Regency Square

 4,770 25,191 112   4,770 25,303 —   30,073 14,977 15,096 —  

Rivermont Station

 2,887 10,648 20   2,887 10,668 —   13,555 3,396 10,159 —  

Rockwall Town Center

 4,438 5,140 (68 4,438 5,072 —   9,510 992 8,518 —  

Rona Plaza

 1,500 4,917 11   1,500 4,928 —   6,428 1,470 4,958 —  

Russell Ridge

 2,234 6,903 141   2,233 7,045 —   9,278 2,755 6,523 5,231

Sammamish-Highlands

 9,300 8,075 195   9,300 8,270 —   17,570 2,320 15,250 —  

San Leandro Plaza

 1,300 8,226 7   1,300 8,233 —   9,533 2,409 7,124 —  

Santa Ana Downtown Plaza

 4,240 8,514 (2,823 —   —   9,931 9,931 —   9,931 —  

Sequoia Station

 9,100 18,356 28   9,100 18,384 —   27,484 5,113 22,371 21,100

Sherwood Crossroads

 2,731 6,360 32   2,731 6,392 —   9,123 1,255 7,868 —  

Sherwood Market Center

 3,475 16,362 9   3,475 16,371 —   19,846 4,801 15,045 —  

Shoppes @ 104

 11,193 —   —     11,193 —   —   11,193 —   11,193 7,000

Shoppes At Mason

 1,577 5,685 111   1,577 5,796 —   7,373 1,760 5,613 —  

Shoppes Of Grande Oak

 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

Shopping Centers(1)

 Initial Cost  Cost  Capitalized
Subsequent to
Acquisition (2)
  Total Cost  Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
  Mortgages 
 Land  Building &
Improvements
   Land  Building &
Improvements
  Properties held
for Sale
  Total  Accumulated
Depreciation
   

FRIARS MISSION CENTER

  6,660    28,021    208    6,660    28,229    —      34,889    8,492    26,397    609  

GARDENS SQUARE

  2,136    8,273    194    2,136    8,467    —      10,603    2,958    7,645    —    

GARNER TOWNE SQUARE

  5,591    21,866    93    5,591    21,959    —      27,550    6,888    20,662    —    

GATEWAY 101

  24,971    9,113    —      24,971    9,113    —      34,084    768    33,316    —    

GATEWAY SHOPPING CENTER

  52,665    7,134    323    52,665    7,457    —      60,122    5,267    54,855    18,476  

GELSON'S WESTLAKE MARKET PLAZA

  3,157    11,153    174    3,157    11,327    —      14,484    2,812    11,672    —    

GLEN OAK PLAZA

  4,103    12,951    —      4,103    12,951    —      17,054    162    16,892    6,266  

GLENWOOD VILLAGE

  1,194    5,381    38    1,194    5,419    —      6,613    2,694    3,919    —    

GREENWOOD SPRINGS

  2,720    3,059    (3,726  889    1,164    —      2,053    —      2,053    —    

HANCOCK

  8,232    28,260    318    8,232    28,578    —      36,810    9,581    27,229    —    

HARPETH VILLAGE FIELDSTONE

  2,284    9,443    5    2,284    9,448    —      11,732    3,123    8,609    —    

HERITAGE LAND

  12,390    —      —      12,390    —      —      12,390    —      12,390    —    

HERITAGE PLAZA

  —      26,097    286    —      26,383    —      26,383    8,917    17,466    —    

HERSHEY

  7    808    —      7    808    —      815    207    608    —    

HIGHLAND CROSSROADS

  2,260    4,924    (7,184  —      —      —      —      —      —      —    

HIBERNIA PAVILION

  4,929    5,065    —      4,929    5,065    —      9,994    671    9,323    —    

HIBERNIA PLAZA

  267    230    —      267    230    —      497    —      497    —    

HILLCREST VILLAGE

  1,600    1,909    —      1,600    1,909    —      3,509    589    2,920    —    

HINSDALE

  5,734    16,709    558    5,734    17,267    —      23,001    5,638    17,363    —    

HORTON'S CORNER

  3,137    2,779    25    3,213    2,728    —      5,941    354    5,587    —    

HOWELL MILL VILLAGE

  5,157    14,279    28    5,157    14,307    —      19,464    909    18,555    —    

HYDE PARK

  9,809    39,905    678    9,809    40,583    —      50,392    14,842    35,550    —    

INGLEWOOD PLAZA

  1,300    2,159    28    1,300    2,187    —      3,487    742    2,745    —    

KELLER TOWN CENTER

  2,294    12,841    73    2,294    12,914    —      15,208    3,946    11,262    —    

KINGS CROSSING SUN CITY

  515    1,246    (10  515    1,236    —      1,751    124    1,627    —    

KROGER NEW ALBANY CENTER

  3,844    6,599    228    3,844    6,827    —      10,671    3,224    7,447    4,130  

KULPSVILLE

  5,518    3,756    148    5,614    3,808    —      9,422    279    9,143    —    

LAKE PINE PLAZA

  2,008    7,632    32    2,029    7,643    —      9,672    2,536    7,136    —    

LEBANON/LEGACY CENTER

  3,913    7,874    94    3,913    7,968    —      11,881    3,201    8,680    —    

LEBANON CENTER

  3,865    5,751    —      3,865    5,751    —      9,616    873    8,743    —    

LEGACY WEST

  1,770    —      (1,000  770    —      —      770    —      770    —    

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

CombinedConsolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 20092010

(in thousands)

 

   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  Accumulated
Depreciation
    Mortgages

Thomas Lake

  6,000   10,628  —     6,000  10,628  —    16,628  3,054  13,574  —  

Town Square

  883   8,132  —     883  8,132  —    9,015  2,798  6,217  —  

Trace Crossing

  279   —    —     279  —    —    279  —    279  —  

Trophy Club

  2,595   11,023  7   2,595  11,030  —    13,625  2,998  10,627  —  

Twin City Plaza

  17,245   44,225  554   17,263  44,761  —    62,024  4,975  57,049  43,085

Twin Peaks

  5,200   25,827  47   5,200  25,874  —    31,074  7,188  23,886  —  

Valencia Crossroads

  17,921   17,659  40   17,921  17,699  —    35,620  7,424  28,196  —  

Ventura Village

  4,300   6,648  42   4,300  6,690  —    10,990  1,917  9,073  —  

Village Center

  3,885   14,131  119   3,885  14,250  —    18,135  5,037  13,098  —  

Vista Village IV

  2,287   2,765  15   2,287  2,780  —    5,067  651  4,416  —  

Walker Center

  3,840   7,232  30   3,840  7,262  —    11,102  2,178  8,924  —  

Welleby Plaza

  1,496   7,787  69   1,496  7,856  —    9,352  3,946  5,406  —  

Wellington Town Square

  2,041   12,131  50   2,041  12,181  —    14,222  3,771  10,451  12,800

West Park Plaza

  5,840   5,759  90   5,840  5,849  —    11,689  1,638  10,051  —  

Westbrook Commons

  3,366   11,751  361   3,366  12,112  —    15,478  3,197  12,281  —  

Westchase

  5,302   8,273  31   5,302  8,304  —    13,606  741  12,865  8,526

Westchester Plaza

  1,857   7,572  32   1,857  7,604  —    9,461  3,034  6,427  —  

Westlake Plaza And Center

  7,043   27,195  130   7,043  27,325  —    34,368  8,365  26,003  —  

Westridge Village

  9,529   11,397  70   9,529  11,467  —    20,996  3,019  17,977  —  

White Oak—Dover, De

  2,144   3,069  —     2,144  3,069  —    5,213  2,372  2,841  —  

Windmiller Plaza Phase I

  2,638   13,241  7   2,638  13,248  —    15,886  4,191  11,695  —  

Woodcroft Shopping Center

  1,419   6,284  68   1,421  6,350  —    7,771  2,339  5,432  —  

Woodman Van Nuys

  5,500   7,195  17   5,500  7,212  —    12,712  2,166  10,546  —  

Woodmen Plaza

  7,621   11,018  90   7,621  11,108  —    18,729  5,779  12,950  —  

Woodside Central

  3,500   9,288  44   3,500  9,332  —    12,832  2,621  10,211  —  

Properties In Development

  (200 1,078,886  (158,260 —    920,426  —    920,426  28,170  892,256  992
                              
  978,196   3,085,138  (129,556 975,861  2,938,270  19,647  3,933,778  622,163  3,311,615  405,263
                              

Shopping Centers(1)

 Initial Cost  Cost  Capitalized
Subsequent to
Acquisition (2)
  Total Cost  Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
  Mortgages 
 Land  Building &
Improvements
   Land  Building &
Improvements
  Properties held
for Sale
  Total  Accumulated
Depreciation
   

LITTLETON SQUARE

  2,030    8,859    113    2,030    8,972    —      11,002    2,761    8,241    —    

LLOYD KING CENTER

  1,779    10,060    93    1,779    10,153    —      11,932    3,297    8,635    —    

LOEHMANNS PLAZA

  3,983    18,687    167    3,983    18,854    —      22,837    7,713    15,124    —    

LOEHMANNS PLAZA CALIFORNIA

  5,420    9,450    391    5,420    9,841    —      15,261    3,200    12,061    —    

LOVELAND SHOPPING CENTER

  157    —      —      157    —      —      157    —      157    —    

MARKET AT OPITZ CROSSING

  9,902    9,248    (6,100  6,597    6,453    —      13,050    —      13,050    —    

MARKET AT PRESTON FOREST

  4,400    11,445    661    4,400    12,106    —      16,506    3,555    12,951    —    

MARKET AT ROUND ROCK

  2,000    9,676    3,064    2,000    12,740    —      14,740    3,342    11,398    —    

MARKETPLACE AT BRIARGATE

  1,706    4,885    47    1,727    4,911    —      6,638    894    5,744    —    

MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CENTER

  1,287    5,509    14    1,287    5,523    —      6,810    2,245    4,565    —    

MARTIN DOWNS TOWN CENTER

  1,364    5,187    30    1,364    5,217    —      6,581    1,894    4,687    —    

MARTIN DOWNS VILLAGE CENTER

  2,438    9,142    522    2,438    9,664    —      12,102    5,425    6,677    —    

MARTIN DOWNS VILLAGE SHOPPES

  817    4,965    54    817    5,019    —      5,836    2,427    3,409    —    

MERRIMACK SHOPPING CENTER

  285    —      (285  —      —      —      —      —      —      —    

MIDDLE CREEK COMMONS

  5,042    8,100    —      5,042    8,100    —      13,142    1,243    11,899    —    

MILLHOPPER SHOPPING CENTER

  1,073    5,358    4,405    1,784    9,052    —      10,836    4,065    6,771    —    

MOCKINGBIRD COMMON

  3,000    10,728    384    3,000    11,112    —      14,112    3,751    10,361    10,300  

MONUMENT JACKSON CREEK

  2,999    6,765    259    2,999    7,024    —      10,023    3,094    6,929    —    

MORNINGSIDE PLAZA

  4,300    13,951    127    4,300    14,078    —      18,378    4,466    13,912    —    

MURRAYHILL MARKETPLACE

  2,670    18,401    78    2,670    18,479    —      21,149    6,340    14,809    7,787  

NAPLES WALK

  18,173    13,554    18    18,173    13,572    —      31,745    1,820    29,925    16,859  

NASHBORO VILLAGE

  1,824    7,678    —      1,824    7,678    —      9,502    2,295    7,207    —    

NEWBERRY SQUARE

  2,412    10,150    225    2,412    10,375    —      12,787    5,513    7,274    —    

NEWLAND CENTER

  12,500    10,697    178    12,500    10,875    —      23,375    3,990    19,385    —    

NORTH HILLS

  4,900    19,774    512    4,900    20,286    —      25,186    6,087    19,099    —    

NORTHGATE PLAZA (MAXTOWN ROAD)

  1,769    6,652    23    1,769    6,675    —      8,444    2,351    6,093    —    

NORTHGATE SQUARE

  5,011    8,692    85    5,011    8,777    —      13,788    1,150    12,638    6,173  

NORTHLAKE VILLAGE

  2,662    11,284    84    2,662    11,368    —      14,030    3,342    10,688    —    

OAKBROOK PLAZA

  4,000    6,668    164    4,000    6,832    —      10,832    2,305    8,527    —    

OAKLEAF COMMONS

  3,503    11,671    —      3,503    11,671    —      15,174    1,647    13,527    —    

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 2010

(in thousands)

Shopping Centers(1)

 Initial Cost  Cost  Capitalized
Subsequent to
Acquisition (2)
  Total Cost  Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
  Mortgages 
 Land  Building &
Improvements
   Land  Building &
Improvements
  Properties held
for Sale
  Total  Accumulated
Depreciation
   

OLD ST AUGUSTINE PLAZA

  2,368    11,405    241    2,368    11,646    —      14,014    4,475    9,539    —    

ORANGEBURG & CENTRAL

  2,071    2,384    (85  2,071    2,299    —      4,370    314    4,056    —    

ORCHARDS MARKET CENTER II

  6,602    9,690    (3,016  5,497    7,779    —      13,276    —      13,276    —    

PACES FERRY PLAZA

  2,812    12,639    49    2,812    12,688    —      15,500    5,588    9,912    —    

PANTHER CREEK

  14,414    14,748    488    14,414    15,236    —      29,650    5,997    23,653    —    

PARK PLACE SHOPPING CENTER

  2,232    5,027    (1,983  1,332    3,944    —      5,276    2,819    2,457    —    

PASEO DEL SOL

  9,477    1,331    19,492    17,788    12,512    —      30,300    2,423    27,877    —    

PEARTREE VILLAGE

  5,197    19,746    322    5,197    20,068    —      25,265    7,263    18,002    9,513  

PHENIX CROSSING

  1,544    —      (500  1,044    —      —      1,044    —      1,044    —    

PIKE CREEK

  5,153    20,652    224    5,153    20,876    —      26,029    7,250    18,779    —    

PIMA CROSSING

  5,800    28,143    830    5,800    28,973    —      34,773    9,191    25,582    —    

PINE LAKE VILLAGE

  6,300    10,991    467    6,300    11,458    —      17,758    3,494    14,264    —    

PINE TREE PLAZA

  668    6,220    36    668    6,256    —      6,924    2,130    4,794    —    

PLAZA HERMOSA

  4,200    10,109    138    4,200    10,247    —      14,447    3,121    11,326    13,800  

POWELL STREET PLAZA

  8,248    30,716    1,108    8,248    31,824    —      40,072    7,353    32,719    —    

POWERS FERRY SQUARE

  3,687    17,965    119    3,687    18,084    —      21,771    8,187    13,584    —    

POWERS FERRY VILLAGE

  1,191    4,672    65    1,191    4,737    —      5,928    2,136    3,792    —    

PRAIRIE CITY CROSSING

  4,164    13,032    384    4,164    13,416    —      17,580    3,338    14,242    —    

PRESTON PARK

  6,400    54,817    (344  5,733    55,140    —      60,873    18,122    42,751    —    

PRESTONBROOK

  7,069    8,622    (17  7,069    8,605    —      15,674    4,153    11,521    6,800  

PRESTONWOOD PARK

  7,399    9,012    (2,417  6,274    7,720    —      13,994    4,204    9,790    —    

RED BANK

  10,336    9,505    —      10,336    9,505    —      19,841    324    19,517    —    

REGENCY COMMONS

  3,917    3,616    12    3,917    3,628    —      7,545    1,046    6,499    —    

REGENCY SQUARE

  4,770    25,191    818    4,770    26,009    —      30,779    15,813    14,966    —    

RIVERMONT STATION

  2,887    10,648    (4,505  2,636    6,394    —      9,030    —      9,030    —    

ROCKWALL TOWN CENTER

  4,438    5,140    (82  4,438    5,058    —      9,496    1,283    8,213    —    

RONA PLAZA

  1,500    4,917    53    1,500    4,970    —      6,470    1,667    4,803    —    

RUSSELL RIDGE

  2,234    6,903    194    2,234    7,097    —      9,331    2,983    6,348    —    

SAMMAMISH-HIGHLANDS

  9,300    8,075    350    9,300    8,425    —      17,725    2,595    15,130    —    

SAN LEANDRO PLAZA

  1,300    8,226    30    1,300    8,256    —      9,556    2,630    6,926    —    

SANTA ANA DOWNTOWN PLAZA

  4,240    8,514    (12,754  —      —      —      —      —      —      —    

SEQUOIA STATION

  9,100    18,356    137    9,100    18,493    —      27,593    5,624    21,969    21,100  

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 2010

(in thousands)

Shopping Centers(1)

 Initial Cost  Cost  Capitalized
Subsequent to
Acquisition (2)
  Total Cost  Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
  Mortgages 
 Land  Building &
Improvements
   Land  Building &
Improvements
  Properties held
for Sale
  Total  Accumulated
Depreciation
   

SHERWOOD CROSSROADS

  2,731    6,360    (52  2,731    6,308    —      9,039    1,391    7,648    —    

SHERWOOD MARKET CENTER

  3,475    16,362    3    3,475    16,365    —      19,840    5,283    14,557    —    

SHOPPES @ 104

  11,193    —      (279  6,652    4,262    —      10,914    206    10,708    —    

SHOPPES AT MASON

  1,577    5,685    119    1,577    5,804    —      7,381    1,944    5,437    —    

SHOPPES OF GRANDE OAK

  5,091    5,985    55    5,091    6,040    —      11,131    2,598    8,533    —    

SHOPS AT ARIZONA

  3,063    3,243    38    3,063    3,281    —      6,344    1,160    5,184    —    

SHOPS AT COUNTY CENTER

  9,957    11,269    83    9,990    11,319    —      21,309    2,426    18,883    —    

SHOPS AT HIGHLAND VILLAGE

  33,145    66,926    —      33,145    66,926    —      100,071    12,485    87,586    —    

SHOPS AT JOHN'S CREEK

  1,863    2,014    —      1,870    2,006    —      3,876    537    3,339   ��—    

SIGNATURE PLAZA

  2,396    3,898    129    2,396    4,028    —      6,424    1,365    5,059    —    

SOUTH LOWRY SQUARE

  3,434    10,445    114    3,434    10,559    —      13,993    3,318    10,675    —    

SOUTH MOUNTAIN

  146    —      465    611    —      —      611    —      611    —    

SOUTHCENTER

  1,300    12,750    405    1,300    13,155    —      14,455    3,874    10,581    —    

SOUTHPOINT CROSSING

  4,412    12,235    62    4,412    12,297    —      16,709    3,850    12,859    —    

STARKE

  71    1,683    —      71    1,683    —      1,754    427    1,327    —    

STERLING RIDGE

  12,846    12,162    217    12,846    12,379    —      25,225    4,875    20,350    13,900  

STONEWALL

  27,511    22,123    —      27,511    22,123    —      49,634    3,484    46,150    —    

STRAWFLOWER VILLAGE

  4,060    8,084    183    4,060    8,267    —      12,327    2,756    9,571    —    

STROH RANCH

  4,280    8,189    83    4,280    8,272    —      12,552    3,682    8,870    —    

SUNNYSIDE 205

  1,200    9,459    327    1,200    9,786    —      10,986    3,092    7,894    —    

TANASBOURNE MARKET

  3,269    10,861    (297  3,269    10,564    —      13,833    1,297    12,536    —    

TASSAJARA CROSSING

  8,560    15,464    158    8,560    15,622    —      24,182    4,794    19,388    19,800  

THOMAS LAKE

  6,000    10,628    (66  6,000    10,562    —      16,562    3,287    13,275    —    

TOWN SQUARE

  883    8,132    —      883    8,132    —      9,015    3,089    5,926    —    

TRACE CROSSING

  279    —      —      279    —      —      279    —      279    —    

TROPHY CLUB

  2,595    11,023    17    2,595    11,040    —      13,635    3,289    10,346    —    

TWIN CITY PLAZA

  17,245    44,225    771    17,263    44,978    —      62,241    6,312    55,929    42,489  

TWIN PEAKS

  5,200    25,827    196    5,200    26,023    —      31,223    7,900    23,323    —    

VALENCIA CROSSROADS

  17,921    17,659    201    17,921    17,860    —      35,781    8,643    27,138    —    

VENTURA VILLAGE

  4,300    6,648    115    4,300    6,763    —      11,063    2,103    8,960    —    

VILLAGE CENTER

  3,885    14,131    427    3,885    14,558    —      18,443    5,487    12,956    —    

VINE AT CASTAIC

  4,799    5,884    —      4,799    5,884    —      10,683    902    9,781    —    

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

Consolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 2010

(in thousands)

Shopping Centers(1)

 Initial Cost  Cost  Capitalized
Subsequent to
Acquisition (2)
  Total Cost  Total Cost
Net of
Accumulated
Depreciation
  Mortgages 
 Land  Building &
Improvements
   Land  Building &
Improvements
  Properties held
for Sale
  Total  Accumulated
Depreciation
   

VISTA VILLAGE IV

  2,287    2,765    15    2,287    2,780    —      5,067    979    4,088    —    

WADSWORTH CROSSING

  12,093    14,101    —      12,093    14,101    —      26,194    1,731    24,463    —    

WALKER CENTER

  3,840    7,232    165    3,840    7,397    —      11,237    2,434    8,803    —    

WELLEBY PLAZA

  1,496    7,787    182    1,496    7,969    —      9,465    4,322    5,143    —    

WELLINGTON TOWN SQUARE

  2,041    12,131    76    2,041    12,207    —      14,248    4,157    10,091    12,800  

WEST PARK PLAZA

  5,840    5,759    206    5,840    5,965    —      11,805    1,853    9,952    —    

WESTBROOK COMMONS

  3,366    11,751    (1,156  3,091    10,870    —      13,961    2,809    11,152    —    

WESTCHASE

  5,302    8,273    63    5,302    8,336    —      13,638    1,038    12,600    8,297  

WESTCHESTER PLAZA

  1,857    7,572    40    1,857    7,612    —      9,469    3,313    6,156    —    

WESTLAKE PLAZA AND CENTER

  7,043    27,195    239    7,043    27,434    —      34,477    9,117    25,360    —    

WESTRIDGE VILLAGE

  9,529    11,397    92    9,529    11,489    —      21,018    3,526    17,492    —    

WESTWOOD VILLAGE

  19,933    25,301    —      19,933    25,301    —      45,234    3,379    41,855    —    

WHITE OAK—DOVER, DE

  2,144    3,069    —      2,144    3,069    —      5,213    1,524    3,689    —    

WILLOW FESTIVAL

  1,954    56,501    —      1,954    56,501    —      58,455    142    58,313    39,505  

WINDMILLER PLAZA PHASE I

  2,638    13,241    25    2,638    13,266    —      15,904    4,625    11,279    —    

WOODCROFT SHOPPING CENTER

  1,419    6,284    97    1,421    6,379    —      7,800    2,537    5,263    —    

WOODMAN VAN NUYS

  5,500    7,195    24    5,500    7,219    —      12,719    2,356    10,363    —    

WOODMEN PLAZA

  7,621    11,018    223    7,621    11,241    —      18,862    6,448    12,414    —    

WOODSIDE CENTRAL

  3,500    9,288    133    3,500    9,421    —      12,921    2,908    10,013    —    

CORPORATELY HELD ASSETS

  —      —      2,800    670    2,130    —      2,800    2,042    758    605  

PROPERTIES IN DEVELOPMENT

  (200  1,078,886    (467,754  —      610,932    —      610,932    21,127    589,805    7,059  
                                        
 $1,117,743    3,341,829    (470,418  1,093,700    2,895,454    —      3,989,154    700,878    3,288,276    412,610  
                                        

 

(a)(1)

See Item 2. Properties for geographic location and year acquired.

(b)(2)

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

See accompanying report of independent registered public accounting firm.

Index to Financial Statements

REGENCY CENTERS CORPORATION

CombinedConsolidated Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation

December 31, 20092010

(in thousands)

Depreciation and amortization of the Company'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 or more years

The aggregate cost for Federal income tax purposes was approximately $3.2 billion at December 31, 2009.2010.

The changes in total real estate assets for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007:2008:

 

  2009 2008 2007   2010 2009 2008 

Balance, beginning of year

  $4,042,487   3,965,285   3,467,543    $3,933,778    4,042,487    3,965,284  

Developed or acquired properties

   180,346   358,155   545,814     93,759    180,346    358,156  

Improvements

   15,617   15,995   18,022     18,772    15,617    15,995  

Sale of properties

   (150,792 (202,758 (66,094   (14,503  (150,792  (202,758

Properties held for sale

   (19,647 (66,447 —       —      (19,647  (66,447

Properties reclassed to held for use

   (30,296 —     —       —      (30,296  —    

Provision for loss

   (103,937 (27,743 —    

Provision for impairment

   (42,652  (103,937  (27,743
                    

Balance, end of year

  $3,933,778   4,042,487   3,965,285    $3,989,154    3,933,778    4,042,487  
                    
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  
          

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

   2010  2009  2008 

Balance, beginning of year

  $622,163    554,595    497,498  

Depreciation for year

   99,554    97,019    88,509  

Sale of properties

   (2,052  (31,792  (19,771

Accumulated depreciation related to properties held for sale

   —      (3,066  (11,641

Accumulated depreciation related to properties reclassed to held for use

   —      5,407    —    

Provision for impairment

   (18,787  —      —    
             

Balance, end of year

  $700,878    622,163    554,595  
             

Index to Financial Statements
Item 9.Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None.

 

Item 9A.Controls and Procedures (Regency Centers Corporation)

Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

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

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

The Parent Company’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, the Parent Company conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting based on the framework inInternal Control - Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on its evaluation under the framework inInternal Control - Control—Integrated Framework, the Parent Company’s management concluded that its internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2009.2010.

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

The Parent Company’s system of internal control over financial reporting was designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance and may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Changes in Internal Controls

There have been no changes in the Parent Company’s internal controls over financial reporting identified in connection with this evaluation that occurred during the fourth quarter of 20092010 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

Index to Financial Statements

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

be disclosed by the Operating Partnership in the reports it files or submits is accumulated and communicated to management, including the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of its general partner, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

The Operating Partnership’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of its general partner, the Operating Partnership conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting based on the framework inInternal Control - Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on its evaluation under the framework inInternal Control - Control—Integrated Framework, the Operating Partnership’s management concluded that its internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2009.2010.

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

The Operating Partnership’s system of internal control over financial reporting was designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance and may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Changes in Internal Controls

There have been no changes in the Operating Partnership’s internal controls over financial reporting identified in connection with this evaluation that occurred during the fourth quarter of 20092010 and that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, its 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 20102011 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 ExpertsExperts.. 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 20102011 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 20102011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

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

 

Item 11.Executive Compensation

Incorporated herein by reference to Regency’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K with respect to its 20102011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

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

Equity Compensation Plan Information

 

  (a)  (b)  (c)  (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 (a)) (2)
 

Equity compensation plans approved by security holders

  453,463  $51.90     442,880    $51.85     735,297  

Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders

  N/A   N/A  N/A   N/A     N/A     N/A  
         
            

Total

  453,463  $51.90     442,880    $51.85     735,297  
                     

 

(1)

The weighted average exercise price excludes stock rights awards, which weis sometimes referreferred to as unvested restricted stock.

Index to Financial Statements
(2)

Our Long Term Omnibus Plan, as amended and approved by stockholders at our 2003 annual meeting, provides for the issuance of up to 5.0 million shares of common stock or stock options for stock compensation; however, outstanding unvested grants plus vested but unexercised options cannot exceed 12% of our outstanding common stock and common stock equivalents (excluding options and other stock equivalents outstanding under the plan). The plan permits the grant of any type of share-based award but limits restricted stock awards, stock rights awards, performance shares, dividend equivalents settled in stock and other forms of stock grants to 2.75 million shares, of which 924,402735,297 shares were available at December 31, 20092010 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 20102011 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 20102011 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 20102011 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. 2009 financial statements and financial statement schedule, together with the reports of KPMG LLP are listed on the index immediately preceding the financial statements in Item 8, Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplemental Data.

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

 

 (b)Exhibits:

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

 

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

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;

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

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.

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

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

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

3. Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws

3.Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

4. Instruments Defining Rights of Security Holders

4.Instruments Defining Rights of Security Holders

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 (f)

Confirmation of Forward Sale Transaction dated as of December 4, 2009 among Regency Centers Corporation and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National

Association (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed December 7, 2009) .

10. Material Contracts

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).

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

 

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

 

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

 

 ~(c)20082011 Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement dated as of January 1, 20082011 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)3, 2011).

 

 ~(d)20082011 Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement dated as of January 1, 20082011 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)3, 2011).

 

 ~(e)20082011 Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement dated as of January 1, 20082011 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)3, 2011).

 

 (f)Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of February 9, 2007 by and among Regency Centers, L.P., the Company, each of the financial institutions initially a signatory thereto, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.110.A to the Company’s Form 10-Q filed May 9, 2007)August 6, 2010).

 

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

 

 (g)Credit Agreement dated as of March 5, 2008 by and among Regency Centers, L.P., the Company, each of the financial institutions party thereto and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.110.B to the Company’s Form 10-Q filed May 8, 2008)August 6, 2010).

 

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

 

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

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

21. Subsidiaries of Regency Centers Corporation.

21.Subsidiaries of Regency Centers Corporation.

23. Consents of KPMG LLP.

23.Consents of KPMG LLP.

 

 23.1Consent of KPMG LLP for Regency Centers Corporation.

 

 23.2Consent of KPMG LLP for Regency Centers, L.P.

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

23.3Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for GRI-Regency, LLC.

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

 

 31.1Rule 13a-14 Certification of Chief Executive Officer for Regency Centers Corporation.

 

~Management contract or compensatory plan

Index to Financial Statements
 31.2Rule 13a-14 Certification of Chief Financial 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.

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.

 

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

 

 32.218 U.S.C. § 1350 Certification of Chief Financial 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.

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

99.1Financial Statements of GRI-Regency, LLC.

101.Interactive Data Files

101.INS**+XBRL Instance Document

101.SCH**+XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document

101.CAL**+XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document

101.DEF**+XBRL Taxonomy Definition Linkbase Document

101.LAB**+XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document

101.PRE**+XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document

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

+Submitted electronically with this Annual Report

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.
February 26, 2010

March 1, 2011

 

/S/    MARTIN E. STEIN, JR.        

 

/s/ Martin E. Stein, Jr.

Martin E. Stein, Jr.,

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

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

 

February 26, 2010

March 1, 2011

 

/S/    MARTINs/ Martin E. STEIN, JR.        Stein, Jr.

Martin E. Stein, Jr.,

Chairman of the Board and

Chief Executive Officer

February 26, 2010

March 1, 2011

 

/S/    MARY LOU FIALA        

Mary Lou Fiala,s/ Brian M. Smith

Vice Chairman of the BoardBrian M. Smith, President, Chief Operating Officer and Director

February 26, 2010

March 1, 2011

 

/S/    BRIANs/ Bruce M. SMITH        

Brian M. Smith,Johnson

Bruce M. Johnson, Executive Vice President, Chief OperatingFinancial Officer (Principal Financial Officer), and Director

February 26, 2010

March 1, 2011

 

/S/    BRUCE M. JOHNSON        

Bruce M. Johnson,s/ J. Christian Leavitt

ExecutiveJ. Christian Leavitt, Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financialand Treasurer (Principal Accounting Officer), and Director

February 26, 2010

March 1, 2011

 

/S/    J. CHRISTIAN LEAVITT        

J. Christian Leavitt,s/ Raymond L. Bank

Senior Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer

(Principal Accounting Officer)Raymond L. Bank, Director

February 26, 2010

March 1, 2011

 

/S/    RAYMOND L. BANK        

Raymond L. Bank,s/ C. Ronald Blankenship

C. Ronald Blankenship, Director

February 26, 2010

March 1, 2011

 

/S/    C. RONALD BLANKENSHIP        

C. Ronald Blankenship,s/ A. R. Carpenter

A. R. Carpenter, Director

February 26, 2010

March 1, 2011

 

/S/    A. R. CARPENTER        

A. R. Carpenter,

Director

February 26, 2010

/S/    J. DIX DRUCE        

s/ J. Dix Druce

J. Dix Druce, Director

February 26, 2010March 1, 2011 

/S/    DOUGLAS S. LUKE        

Douglas S. Luke,s/ Mary Lou Fiala

Mary Lou Fiala, Director

February 26, 2010March 1, 2011 

/S/    JOHN C. SCHWEITZER        

John C. Schweitzer,s/ Douglas S. Luke

Douglas S. Luke, Director

February 26, 2010March 1, 2011 

/S/    THOMAS G. WATTLES        s/ John C. Schweitzer

John C. Schweitzer, Director

March 1, 2011 

/s/ Thomas G. Wattles

Thomas G. Wattles, Director

 

138135