Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies General In the normal course of business, the Company guarantees its performance of services or indemnifies third parties against its negligence. In addition, in the normal course of business, the Company guarantees to certain tenants the obligations of the Company’s subsidiaries to complete construction of the building, to pay tenant improvement allowances and brokerage commissions in connection with their leases and limited costs arising from delays in delivery of their premises. The Company had letter of credit and performance obligations related to lender and development requirements that totaled approximately $20.3 million at June 30, 2025. Certain of the Company’s joint venture agreements include provisions whereby, at certain specified times, each partner has the right to initiate a purchase or sale of its interest in the joint venture. From time to time, under certain of the Company’s joint venture agreements, if certain return thresholds are achieved, one or more partners could be entitled to an additional promoted interest or payments. From time to time, the Company (or ventures in which the Company has an ownership interest) has agreed, and may in the future agree, to (1) guarantee portions of the principal, interest and other amounts in connection with their borrowings, (2) provide customary environmental indemnifications and nonrecourse carve-outs (e.g., guarantees against fraud, misrepresentation and bankruptcy) in connection with their borrowings and (3) provide guarantees to lenders, tenants and other third parties for the completion of development projects. The Company has agreements with its third-party joint venture partners whereby the partners agree to reimburse the joint venture for their share of any payments made under the guarantee. In some cases, the Company earns a fee from the applicable joint venture for providing the guarantee. In connection with the sale of Metropolitan Square, an approximately 657,000 square foot office building in Washington, DC in which the Company had a 20% equity interest, the Company agreed to become a co-lender of up to $20.0 million under a mezzanine loan. The mezzanine loan has a maximum principal amount of $100.0 million, and it is subordinate only to an existing senior loan. The mezzanine loan may be drawn upon for future lease-up, operating and other costs on an as-needed basis, and amounts borrowed will bear interest at a per annum rate of 12%, compounded monthly. As of June 30, 2025, the Company has funded approximately $6.7 million under the mezzanine loan. Legal Matters The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. These matters are generally covered by insurance. Management believes that the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or liquidity of the Company. In connection with the acquisition of an office property in New York City in 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with the seller pursuant to which the seller could earn various fees (i.e., Fixed, Additional and Final Fees) based on the future leasing performance of the property. The Company initially accrued approximately $1.5 million as an estimate of the fees it would owe the seller. In 2020, the seller filed suit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, claiming that consideration significantly in excess of the initial reserve amount is owed under the agreement. The disagreement between the Company and the seller involves material issues of contract interpretation and, more importantly, the method of calculating fees, including various inputs (both facts and assumptions) that drive the calculations. On January 25, 2024, the New York Supreme Court granted in part the seller’s motion for summary judgment finding that the Company owes the seller an “Additional Fee” and a “Final Fee” under the terms of the parties’ purchase agreement. The court issued a follow-on order on February 8, 2024, confirming its earlier order that the seller is entitled to the fees described in the parties’ agreement. Other than the “Fixed Fee,” which the Company agreed to pay and for which it had established a reserve of approximately $2.2 million (including interest), the amount of the fees (if any) that are due to the seller has not been determined. On December 9, 2024, the court issued a judgment awarding the seller the Fixed Fee (including interest) of approximately $2.7 million and the Company paid this fee following the judgment. For the Additional Fee and Final Fee, the seller submitted a request for the appointment of a Special Referee on January 7, 2025. Separately, the Company filed a notice of appeal on January 15, 2025 to preserve the Company’s ability to appeal the grant of summary judgment on the question of whether the Company is liable for payment of the Additional Fee and Final Fee. The Company subsequently entered into a stipulation that extended the deadline to perfect the appeal from July 15, 2025 (six months from the notice of appeal) to September 13, 2025. The issue of an award of damages for the Additional Fee and the Final Fee remains outstanding with the court pending a determination by the Special Referee, which the court appointed on February 18, 2025. The Company disputes the seller’s calculations and intends to continue defending itself vigorously. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the lawsuit. If the court ultimately agrees with the seller’s calculations, then amounts due to the seller could theoretically be as high as the additional $31 million claimed in the seller’s complaint, plus interest. Although the Company disputes those calculations, there can be no assurance that the Company’s ultimate liability will not be material. On April 26, 2024, Brammer Bio MA, LLC (“Brammer”), a subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and an abutter to the Company’s 290 Binney Street development project located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, filed a complaint in Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts against the Company relating to certain ongoing construction activities. In the first quarter of 2023, the Company commenced development of 290 Binney Street, an approximately 573,000 net rentable square foot laboratory/life sciences property that is 100% pre-leased to AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals (“AstraZeneca”). The Company has a 55% interest in the joint venture that owns 290 Binney Street. Brammer subleases the premises at 250 Binney Street, the Company’s approximately 67,000 net rentable square foot life sciences property that is adjacent to 290 Binney Street. Brammer alleged that, as a result of the Company’s construction of 290 Binney Street, it is threatened with irreparable harm due to intrusion onto the 250 Binney Street premises and the loss of its property rights. Brammer also alleged that the 290 Binney Street development project has caused and is causing major disruption to its manufacturing operations, and that it has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of losses to its clients and customers. Brammer brought the action for quiet title, breach of contract, trespass and nuisance, and it is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and specific performance purportedly to protect its property interests in the premises located at 250 Binney Street. On May 16, 2024, Brammer’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied by the trial court. Brammer subsequently appealed that decision, electing pursuant to Massachusetts civil procedure rules to petition for appeals to both a single justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court and to a full appellate panel. On July 16, 2024, the single justice assigned to the appeal issued an order declining to rule on the substance of the appeal petition. Brammer still has the right to pursue the full panel hearing, although no date has been set for any such hearing. In the meantime, the remainder of the case is proceeding on the standard litigation timeline. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses against Brammer’s claims and intends to defend against them vigorously. However, there can be no assurance the Company will prevail in the litigation. If the Company is enjoined from further construction activities, it could suffer delays in construction that could result in its failure to deliver a completed building on the schedule contemplated by the Company’s lease with AstraZeneca or at all, and this could result in owing financial penalties to AstraZeneca and other third parties. Although the Company is unable to estimate a range of loss for all related matters for which losses are reasonably possible, if the court grants injunctive relief or awards monetary damages to Brammer, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and financial condition. The Company is a named defendant in an alleged collective and class action wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of certain individuals who provided off-duty, uniformed security services at the Company’s buildings in New York City pursuant to the New York Police Department’s Paid Detail Program. In addition to the Company, the plaintiffs also named as defendants more than ninety (90) other entities and institutions in the city. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 24, 2025, and brought the claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the Freelance Isn’t Free Act. The plaintiffs subsequently amended the complaint on February 7, 2025 and on February 24, 2025. Each of the complaints alleges that the plaintiffs were not paid certain wages owed to them or were not paid in a timely manner and that the plaintiffs did not receive certain wage payment notices required by law. The Company has not yet filed a responsive pleading and discovery has not yet commenced. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a range of loss for which losses are reasonably possible. Although the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to defend against them vigorously, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the lawsuit.

In the normal course of business, the Company guarantees its performance of services or indemnifies third parties against its negligence. In addition, in the normal course of business, the Company guarantees to certain tenants the obligations of the Company’s subsidiaries to complete construction of the building, to pay tenant improvement allowances and brokerage commissions in connection with their leases and limited costs arising from delays in delivery of their premises.

Certain of the Company’s joint venture agreements include provisions whereby, at certain specified times, each partner has the right to initiate a purchase or sale of its interest in the joint venture. From time to time, under certain of the Company’s joint venture agreements, if certain return thresholds are achieved, one or more partners could be entitled to an additional promoted interest or payments.

From time to time, the Company (or ventures in which the Company has an ownership interest) has agreed, and may in the future agree, to (1) guarantee portions of the principal, interest and other amounts in connection with their borrowings, (2) provide customary environmental indemnifications and nonrecourse carve-outs (e.g., guarantees against fraud, misrepresentation and bankruptcy) in connection with their borrowings and (3) provide guarantees to lenders, tenants and other third parties for the completion of development projects. The Company has agreements with its third-party joint venture partners whereby the partners agree to reimburse the joint venture for their share of any payments made under the guarantee. In some cases, the Company earns a fee from the applicable joint venture for providing the guarantee.

In connection with the sale of Metropolitan Square, an approximately 657,000 square foot office building in Washington, DC in which the Company had a 20% equity interest, the Company agreed to become a co-lender of up to $20.0 million under a mezzanine loan. The mezzanine loan has a maximum principal amount of $100.0 million, and it is subordinate only to an existing senior loan. The mezzanine loan may be drawn upon for future lease-up, operating and other costs on an as-needed basis, and amounts borrowed will bear interest at a per annum rate of 12%, compounded monthly. As of June 30, 2025, the Company has funded approximately $6.7 million under the mezzanine loan.

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. These matters are generally covered by insurance. Management believes that the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.

In connection with the acquisition of an office property in New York City in 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with the seller pursuant to which the seller could earn various fees (i.e., Fixed, Additional and Final Fees) based on the future leasing performance of the property. The Company initially accrued approximately $1.5 million as an estimate of the fees it would owe the seller. In 2020, the seller filed suit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, claiming that consideration significantly in excess of the initial reserve amount is owed under the agreement. The disagreement between the Company and the seller involves material issues of contract interpretation and, more importantly, the method of calculating fees, including various inputs (both facts and assumptions) that drive the calculations.

On January 25, 2024, the New York Supreme Court granted in part the seller’s motion for summary judgment finding that the Company owes the seller an “Additional Fee” and a “Final Fee” under the terms of the parties’ purchase agreement. The court issued a follow-on order on February 8, 2024, confirming its earlier order that the seller is entitled to the fees described in the parties’ agreement. Other than the “Fixed Fee,” which the Company agreed to pay and for which it had established a reserve of approximately $2.2 million (including interest), the amount of the fees (if any) that are due to the seller has not been determined. On December 9, 2024, the court issued a judgment awarding the seller the Fixed Fee (including interest) of approximately $2.7 million and the Company paid this fee following the judgment. For the Additional Fee and Final Fee, the seller submitted a request for the appointment of a Special Referee on January 7, 2025. Separately, the Company filed a notice of appeal on January 15, 2025 to preserve the Company’s ability to appeal the grant of summary judgment on the question of whether the Company is liable for payment of the Additional Fee and Final Fee. The Company subsequently

The issue of an award of damages for the Additional Fee and the Final Fee remains outstanding with the court pending a determination by the Special Referee, which the court appointed on February 18, 2025. The Company disputes the seller’s calculations and intends to continue defending itself vigorously. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the lawsuit. If the court ultimately agrees with the seller’s calculations, then amounts due to the seller could theoretically be as high as the additional $31 million claimed in the seller’s complaint, plus interest. Although the Company disputes those calculations, there can be no assurance that the Company’s ultimate liability will not be material.

On April 26, 2024, Brammer Bio MA, LLC (“Brammer”), a subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and an abutter to the Company’s 290 Binney Street development project located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, filed a complaint in Superior Court in Suffolk County, Massachusetts against the Company relating to certain ongoing construction activities.

In the first quarter of 2023, the Company commenced development of 290 Binney Street, an approximately 573,000 net rentable square foot laboratory/life sciences property that is 100% pre-leased to AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals (“AstraZeneca”). The Company has a 55% interest in the joint venture that owns 290 Binney Street. Brammer subleases the premises at 250 Binney Street, the Company’s approximately 67,000 net rentable square foot life sciences property that is adjacent to 290 Binney Street.

Brammer alleged that, as a result of the Company’s construction of 290 Binney Street, it is threatened with irreparable harm due to intrusion onto the 250 Binney Street premises and the loss of its property rights. Brammer also alleged that the 290 Binney Street development project has caused and is causing major disruption to its manufacturing operations, and that it has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of losses to its clients and customers. Brammer brought the action for quiet title, breach of contract, trespass and nuisance, and it is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and specific performance purportedly to protect its property interests in the premises located at 250 Binney Street.

On May 16, 2024, Brammer’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied by the trial court. Brammer subsequently appealed that decision, electing pursuant to Massachusetts civil procedure rules to petition for appeals to both a single justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court and to a full appellate panel. On July 16, 2024, the single justice assigned to the appeal issued an order declining to rule on the substance of the appeal petition. Brammer still has the right to pursue the full panel hearing, although no date has been set for any such hearing. In the meantime, the remainder of the case is proceeding on the standard litigation timeline.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses against Brammer’s claims and intends to defend against them vigorously. However, there can be no assurance the Company will prevail in the litigation. If the Company is enjoined from further construction activities, it could suffer delays in construction that could result in its failure to deliver a completed building on the schedule contemplated by the Company’s lease with AstraZeneca or at all, and this could result in owing financial penalties to AstraZeneca and other third parties. Although the Company is unable to estimate a range of loss for all related matters for which losses are reasonably possible, if the court grants injunctive relief or awards monetary damages to Brammer, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and financial condition.

The Company is a named defendant in an alleged collective and class action wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of certain individuals who provided off-duty, uniformed security services at the Company’s buildings in New York City pursuant to the New York Police Department’s Paid Detail Program. In addition to the Company, the plaintiffs also named as defendants more than ninety (90) other entities and institutions in the city. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 24, 2025, and brought the claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the Freelance Isn’t Free Act. The plaintiffs subsequently amended the complaint on February 7, 2025 and on February 24, 2025. Each of the complaints alleges that the plaintiffs were not paid certain wages owed to them or were not paid in a timely manner and that the plaintiffs did not receive certain wage payment notices required by law. The Company has not yet filed a responsive pleading and discovery has not yet commenced. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a range of loss for which losses are reasonably possible. Although the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to defend against them vigorously, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the lawsuit.