Note 11—Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments—Future minimum lease obligations under non-cancelable operating leases as of June 30, 2026 are as follows ($ in thousands):⁽¹⁾

​

Unfunded Commitments—The Company has unfunded commitments to certain of its Ground Lease tenants related to leasehold improvement allowances that it expects to fund upon the completion of certain conditions. As of June 30, 2026, the Company had $188.5 million of such commitments, excluding commitments to be funded by noncontrolling interests.

Other Commitments—The Company funds construction and development loans and build-outs of space in real estate assets over a period of time, both individually and through the Leasehold Loan Fund, if and when the borrowers and tenants meet established milestones and other performance criteria. We refer to these arrangements as performance-based commitments. As of June 30, 2026, the Company had $143.8 million of such commitments.

Legal Proceedings—The Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings that could require a liability to be accrued and/or disclosed.

On October 22, 2025, the Company sent the tenant under the Park Hotels master lease (“Park Tenant”) a termination notice for all five hotels and commenced litigation against the Park Tenant and Park Intermediate Holdings LLC, guarantor under the master lease, for certain breaches, among other things, related to the maintenance and operations of the hotels. The litigation is captioned In re Park Hotels Litigation, C.A. No. 2025-1210-LWW, pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Park Tenant has disputed the Company’s right to terminate the lease, and that issue, among others, is subject to the litigation, which includes counterclaims filed by the Park Tenant. Although the Company believes its claims and defenses are meritorious, there are no assurances that it will prevail in its litigation.

​

On May 11, 2026, the Company sent the tenant (TD 135 West 50 LLC a/k/a TD 135 West 50, LLC) under one of its New York office properties a lease termination notice for certain breaches, among other things, related to its failure to pay property taxes as required under the lease. Additionally, the Company commenced a lawsuit against the tenant in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, captioned 135 West 50th Street Ground Owner LLC

v. TD 135 West 50 LLC, Index No. 652773/2026 (the “First Action”), asserting claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, including a declaration that the tenant’s lease has been terminated and an order of ejectment, as well as for certain monetary damages. On May 20, 2026, the tenant commenced a separate action against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, captioned TD 135 West 50 LLC v. 135 West 50th Street Ground Owner LLC, Index No. 156448/2026 (the “Second Action” and, collectively, with the First Action, the “Lawsuits”), asserting claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, including a declaration that the Company’s termination notice is not a viable predicate for termination of the lease, as well as damages for an alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an amount to be determined at trial. On June 4, 2026, a Justice of the Supreme Court entered an order to show cause and a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) stating that, pending determination of tenant’s pending motion for a preliminary injunction, the Company is stayed from, inter alia, taking further action upon its termination notice or taking further steps to prosecute its ejectment action, terminate or purport to terminate the lease based on the allegations contained in termination notice, or otherwise interfere with the tenant’s tenancy. On June 12, 2026, the Company filed a motion in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department, for an order modifying the TRO, and the tenant filed an answer to the Company’s complaint in the First Action, in which it denied that the Company is entitled to any of the relief sought therein. The tenant’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the Second Action, and the Company’s motion for an order modifying the TRO, both remain pending at this time. The Company maintains that the tenant’s claims and allegations lack merit and the lease has been duly terminated, and it intends to defend vigorously against all claims asserted by the tenant in the Second Action, and to pursue all available rights and remedies in respect of its termination of the tenant’s lease. Although the Company believes that its claims, defenses, and allegations in the Lawsuits are meritorious, there are no assurances that it will prevail in its litigation.

​

Based on its current knowledge, and after consultation with legal counsel, the Company believes it is not a party to, nor are any of its properties the subject of, any other pending legal proceeding that would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.