Edgar Filing: Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.

Declaration Date

Record Date

Payment Date

Amount per Share

December 5, 2013

December 16, 2013

December 30, 2013

ESRT 12-31-13 10-K

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K



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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013



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

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number: 001-36105

EMPIRE STATE REALTY TRUST, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)



Maryland		37-1645259
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

One Grand Central Place, 60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10165

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

(212) 687-8700

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)



Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of Each Class		Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
Class A Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share		New York Stock Exchange
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o 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 (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No o

The Registrant became subject to filing requirements on October 1, 2013.

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 (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No o

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 the 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. o

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 definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.



Large accelerated filer		Accelerated filer
Non-accelerated filer x (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)		Smaller reporting company

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No x

As of March 21, 2014, there were 94,650,559 shares of the Registrants' Class A Common Stock outstanding and 1,122,130 shares of the Registrants' Class B Common Stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.'s Proxy Statement for its 2014 Annual Stockholders' Meeting (which is scheduled to be held on June 11, 2014) to be filed within 120 days after the end of the Registrant's fiscal year are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



	EMPIRE STATE REALTY TRUST, INC.
	FORM 10-K
	TABLE OF CONTENTS
		PAGE
PART I.
1.	Business	2
1A.	Risk Factors	11
1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	41
2.	Properties	41
3.	Legal Proceedings	49
4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	52
PART II.
5.	Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholders Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	53
6.	Selected Financial Data	56
7.	Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	58
7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure about Market Risk	86
8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	87
9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	87
9A.	Controls and Procedures	87
9B.	Other Information	87
PART III
10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	87
11.	Executive Compensation	88
12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	88
13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	88
14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	88
PART IV
15.	Exhibits, Financial Statements and Schedules	88

DEFINITIONS


•	"annualized rent" represents annualized base rent and current reimbursement for operating expenses and real estate taxes;

•

"formation transactions" mean a series of transactions pursuant to which we acquired, substantially currently with the completion of the Offering on October 7, 2013 through a series of contributions and merger transactions, our portfolio of real estate assets that were held by the existing entities, the ownership interests in the certain management entities of our predecessor and one development parcel;

•

"fully diluted basis" means all outstanding shares of our Class A common stock at such time plus shares of Class A common stock that may be issuable upon the exchange of operating partnership units on a one-for-one basis and shares of Class A common stock issuable upon the conversion of Class B common stock on a one-for-one basis, which is not the same as the meaning of “fully diluted” under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America, or "GAAP";

•

"enterprise value" means all outstanding shares of our Class A common stock at such time plus shares of Class A common stock that may be issuable upon the exchange of operating partnership units on a one-for-one basis and shares of Class A common stock issuable upon the conversion of Class B common stock on a one-for-one basis multiplied by the Class A common share price at December 31, 2013 plus consolidated debt at December 31, 2013;


•	"greater New York metropolitan area" means Fairfield County, Connecticut and Westchester County, New York;

•

"Malkin Group” means all of the following, as a group: Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin and each of their spouses and lineal descendants (including spouses of such descendants), any estates of any of the foregoing, any trusts now or hereafter established for the benefit of any of the foregoing, or any corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other legal entity controlled by Anthony E. Malkin or any permitted successor in such entity for the benefit of any of the foregoing; provided, however that solely with respect to tax protection rights and parties who entered into the contribution agreements with respect to the formation transactions, the Malkin Group shall also include the lineal descendants of Lawrence A. Wien and his spouse (including spouses of such descendants), any estates of the foregoing, any trusts now or hereafter established for the benefit of any of the foregoing, or any corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other legal entity controlled by Anthony E. Malkin for the benefit of the foregoing;


•	the "Offering" means the initial public offering of our Class A common stock;


•	"option properties" mean our right to acquire long-term leasehold and/or sub-leasehold interests in 1400 Broadway and/or 112 West 34th Street (including fee title interest in a small connected structure at 122 West 34th Street);


•	"our company," "we," "us" and "our" refer to Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland real estate investment trust, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, including Empire State Realty OP, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, which we refer to as "our operating partnership";

•

"our predecessor" means a combination of (i) controlling interests in (a) 16 office and retail properties, (b) one development parcel, and (c) certain management companies, which were owned by certain entities that Anthony E. Malkin and Peter L. Malkin, as sponsors, owned interests in and controlled, which we collectively refer to as the controlled entities, and (ii) non-controlling interests in four office properties (which include two of the 16 properties set forth in (i) above), held through entities which we collectively refer to as the non-controlled entities, and are presented as uncombined entities in our combined financial statements. Specifically, the term “our predecessor” means (i) Malkin Holdings LLC, a New York limited liability company that acted as the supervisor of, and performed various asset management services and

routine administration with respect to, certain of the existing entities, which we refer to as “the supervisor;” (ii) the limited liability companies or limited partnerships that previously (a) owned, directly or indirectly and either through a fee interest or a long-term leasehold in the underlying land, and/or (b) operated, directly or indirectly and through a fee interest, an operating lease, an operating sublease or an operating sub-sublease, the 18 office and retail properties (which include non-controlling interests in four office properties for which Malkin Holdings LLC acted as the supervisor but that are not consolidated into our predecessor for accounting purposes) and entitled land that will support the development of an approximately 380,000 rentable square foot office building and garage that we own after the formation transactions, which we refer to as the “existing entities;” (iii) Malkin Properties, L.L.C., a New York limited liability company that served as the manager and leasing agent for certain of the existing entities in Manhattan, which we refer to as “Malkin Properties;” (iv) Malkin Properties of New York, L.L.C., a New York limited liability company that served as the manager and leasing agent for certain of the existing entities in Westchester County, New York, which we refer to as “Malkin Properties NY;” (v) Malkin Properties of Connecticut, Inc., a Connecticut corporation that served as the manager and leasing agent for certain of the existing entities in the State of Connecticut, which we refer to as “Malkin Properties CT;” and (vi) Malkin Construction Corp., a Connecticut corporation that is a general contractor and provided services to certain of the existing entities and third parties (including certain tenants at the properties in our portfolio), which we refer to as “Malkin Construction.” The term “the predecessor’s management companies” refers to the supervisor, Malkin Properties, Malkin Properties NY, Malkin Properties CT and Malkin Construction, collectively;


•	"securityholder" means holders of our Class A common stock and Class B common stock and holders of our operating partnership's Series ES, Series 250, Series 60 and Series PR operating partnership units.


•	"traded OP units" mean our operating partnership's Series ES, 60 and 250 operating partnership units.

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

We are a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust, or REIT, that owns, manages, operates, acquires and repositions office and retail properties in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area.

As of December 31, 2013, our total portfolio, containing 8.4 million rentable square feet of office and retail space, was 86.1% occupied. Including signed leases not yet commenced, our total portfolio was 87.7% leased. As of December 31, 2013, we owned 12 office properties (including one long-term ground leasehold interest) encompassing approximately 7.7 million rentable square feet of office space, which were approximately 85.6% occupied or 87.3% leased including signed leases not yet commenced. Seven of these properties are located in the midtown Manhattan market and encompass in the aggregate approximately 5.9 million rentable square feet of office space, including the Empire State Building. Our Manhattan office properties also contain an aggregate of 418,377 rentable square feet of premier retail space on their ground floor and/or lower levels. Our remaining five office properties are located in Fairfield County, Connecticut and Westchester County, New York, encompassing in the aggregate approximately 1.8 million rentable square feet. The majority of square footage for these five properties is located in densely populated metropolitan communities with immediate access to mass transportation. Additionally, we have entitled land at the Stamford Transportation Center in Stamford, Connecticut, adjacent to one of our office properties, that will support the development of an approximately 380,000 rentable square foot office building and garage, which we refer to herein as Metro Tower. As of December 31, 2013, our portfolio also included four standalone retail properties located in Manhattan and two standalone retail properties located in the city center of Westport, Connecticut, encompassing 204,175 rentable square feet in the aggregate. As of December 31, 2013, our standalone retail properties were 97.7% leased in the aggregate.

In addition, we have an option to acquire from affiliates of our predecessor two additional Manhattan office properties encompassing approximately 1.5 million rentable square feet of office space and 153,209 rentable square feet of retail space at the base of the buildings. For a description of our option properties, see "Item 2. Properties - Option Properties."

The Empire State Building offers panoramic views of New York and neighboring states from its world-famous 86th and 102nd floor observatories that draw millions of visitors per year. The number of visitors to the observatories was approximately 4.3 million and 4.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The 86th floor observatory has a 360-degree outdoor deck as well as indoor viewing galleries to accommodate guests day and night, all year-round. The 102nd floor observatory is entirely indoors and offers a 360-degree view of New York City from 1,250 feet above ground.

We were organized as a Maryland corporation on July 29, 2011. We did not have any assets other than cash and did not have any meaningful operating activity until the consummation of the Offering and the related acquisition of our predecessor and certain non-controlled entities controlled by our predecessor on October 7, 2013 as part of the formation transactions. Our operations commenced upon completion of the Offering and related formation transactions on October 7, 2013. Our operating partnership holds substantially all of our assets and conducts substantially all of our business. Upon completion of the Offering, we owned approximately 39.1% of the aggregate operating partnership units in our operating partnership. Our company, as the sole general partner in our operating partnership, has responsibility and discretion in the management and control in our operating partnership, and the limited partners of our operating partnership, in such capacity, have no authority to transact business for, or participate in the management activities of our operating partnership. We intend to elect to be taxed as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") and operate in a manner that we believe allows us to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2013.

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe that we distinguish ourselves from other owners and operators of office and retail properties as a result of the following competitive strengths:

•

Irreplaceable Portfolio of Office Properties in Midtown Manhattan. Our Manhattan office properties are located in one of the most prized office markets in the world due to a combination of supply constraints, high barriers to entry, near-term and long-term prospects for job creation, vacancy absorption and rental rate growth. Management believes these properties could not be replaced today on a cost-competitive basis, if at all. As of December 31, 2013, we owned seven Manhattan office properties (including one long-term ground leasehold interest) encompassing approximately 5.9 million rentable square feet of office space, including the Empire State Building, our flagship property. Unlike traditional office buildings, the Empire State Building provides us with a significant source of

income from its observatory and broadcasting operations. All of these properties include premier retail space on their ground floor and/or lower levels, which comprise 418,377 rentable square feet in the aggregate and some of which have recently undergone significant redevelopments. We believe the high quality of our buildings, services and amenities, their desirable locations and commuter access to mass transportation should allow us to increase rents and occupancy to generate positive cash flow and growth.

•

Expertise in Repositioning and Redeveloping Manhattan Office Properties. We have substantial expertise in redeveloping and repositioning Manhattan office properties, having invested a total of approximately $438.0 million (excluding tenant improvement costs and leasing commissions) in our Manhattan office properties since we assumed full control of the day-to-day management of these properties beginning with One Grand Central Place in November 2002 through 2006. We have gained substantial experience in upgrading, redeveloping and modernizing (or are in the process thereof) building lobbies, corridors, bathrooms and elevator cabs and old, antiquated spaces to include new ceilings, lighting, pantries and base building systems (including electric distribution and air conditioning, as well as enhanced tenant amenities. We have successfully aggregated and are continuing to aggregate smaller spaces to offer larger blocks of space, including multiple floors, that are attractive to larger, higher credit-quality tenants and to offer new, pre-built suites with improved layouts. As part of this program, we have converted some or all of the second floor office space of certain of our Manhattan office properties to higher rent retail space. We believe that the post-redevelopment high quality of our buildings and the service we provide also attract higher credit-quality tenants at rents above similar vintage buildings, and below new construction, thus defining a new price point and allowing us to grow cash flow. In addition, we believe that, based on the results of our base building energy efficiency retrofit, and energy efficient tenant build-outs, at the Empire State Building, the lessons of which we are applying throughout our portfolio, we derive cost savings through innovative energy efficiency retrofitting and sustainability initiatives, reducing direct and indirect energy costs paid both by tenants and by us throughout our other Manhattan office properties and greater New York metropolitan area office properties, and that this improves our competitive position.

•

Leader in Energy Efficiency Retrofitting. We have pioneered certain practices in energy efficiency at the Empire State Building where we have partnered with the Clinton Climate Initiative, Johnson Controls Inc., Jones Lang LaSalle and the Rocky Mountain Institute to create and implement a groundbreaking, replicable process for integrating energy efficiency retrofits in the existing built environment. The reduced energy consumption reduces costs for us and our tenants, and we believe creates a competitive advantage for our properties. We believe that higher quality tenants in general place a higher priority on sustainability, controlling costs, and minimizing contributions to greenhouse gases. We believe our expertise in this area gives us the opportunity to attract higher quality tenants at higher rental rates and to reduce our expenses. As a result of our efforts, approximately 53.1% of our portfolio square feet is Energy Star certified, including the Empire State Building. We are implementing cost justified energy efficiency retrofit projects in our Manhattan and greater New York metropolitan area office properties based on our work at the Empire State Building. Finally, we maintain a series of management practices utilizing recycling of tenant and construction waste, recycled content carpets, low off-gassing paints and adhesives, “green” pest control and cleaning solutions, and recycled paper products throughout our office portfolio. We believe that our portfolio’s attractiveness is enhanced by these practices and that this should result in higher rental rates, longer lease terms and higher quality tenants.

•

Attractive Retail Locations in Densely Populated Metropolitan Communities. As of December 31, 2013, our portfolio also included six standalone retail properties and retail space at the ground floor and/or lower levels of our Manhattan office properties, encompassing 622,552 rentable square feet in the aggregate, which were approximately 91.9% occupied in the aggregate. All of these properties are located in premier retail corridors with convenient access to mass transportation, a diverse tenant base and high pedestrian traffic and/or main destination locations. Our retail portfolio includes 601,396 rentable square feet located in Manhattan and 21,156 rentable square feet located in Westport, Connecticut. Our retail tenants cover a number of industries, including financial services, and include Allen Edmonds; Ann Taylor; AT&T; Bank of America; Bank Santander (Sovereign Bank); Best Buy Mobile; Charles Schwab; Chipotle; Duane Reade (a division of Walgreen Co.); Ethan Allen; FedEx/Kinko’s; Food Emporium; Gamestop; HSBC; JP Morgan Chase; Loews Theatre; Lululemon; Men’s Wearhouse; Nike; Panera Bread; Potbelly Sandwich Works; Sprint; Starbucks; Theory; TJ Maxx; Urban Outfitters; and Walgreens. Our Westport, Connecticut retail properties are located on Main Street, the main pedestrian thoroughfare in Westport, Connecticut, and have the advantage of being adjacent to one of the few available large-scale parking lots in town.

•

Experienced and Committed Management Team with Proven Track Record. Our senior management team is highly regarded in the real estate community and has extensive relationships with a broad range of brokers, owners, tenants and lenders. We have developed relationships we believe enable us to both secure high credit-quality tenants on attractive terms, as well as provide us with potential acquisition opportunities. We have substantial in-house expertise

and resources in asset and property management, leasing, marketing, acquisitions, construction, development and financing and a platform that is highly scalable. Members of our senior management team have worked in the real estate industry for an average of approximately 30 years. We take an intensive, hands-on approach to the management of our portfolio and quality brand building. As of December 31, 2013, our senior management team owned 12.5% of our common stock on a fully diluted basis (including shares of common stock as to which Anthony E. Malkin has the right to vote, but does not have a primary interest), and therefore their interests are aligned with those of our stockholders and they are incentivized to maximize returns to our stockholders.

•

Strong Balance Sheet Well Positioned For Future Growth. As of December 31, 2013, we had total debt outstanding of approximately $1.2 billion, with a weighted average interest rate of 4.56% and a weighted average maturity of 3.1 years. Additionally, we had approximately $452.4 million of available borrowing capacity under our loans and secured revolving and term credit facility as of December 31, 2013. Our debt represented 24.3% of enterprise value. We have approximately $197.5 million of debt maturing in 2014 and approximately $90.5 million maturing in 2015. Our low level of leverage gives us flexibility to cover our capital program and to take advantage of opportunities to acquire additional properties as and when we see compelling opportunities. Our fiscal strength and disciplined ownership and operation of our business has enabled us to weather multiple market downturns and challenging financing environments.

Business and Growth Strategies

Our primary business objectives are to maximize cash flow and total returns to our stockholders and to increase the value of our properties through the pursuit of the following business and growth strategies:

•

Vacating, Redeveloping, and Leasing of Redeveloped Space at Our Manhattan Office Properties. As of December 31, 2013, our Manhattan office properties (excluding the retail component of these properties) were approximately 84.4% occupied, or 86.0% leased including signed leases not commenced, and had approximately 0.8 million rentable square feet of available space (excluding signed leases not commenced). Our program of redevelopment necessarily includes vacating older less desirable suites; demolishing them for re-leasing as full or multi-floor blocks, or as new pre-built suites; and re-leasing them. We believe our redevelopment and repositioning program for our Manhattan office properties results in our leasing space to better credit tenants and higher rents. Over time, as we have created and redeveloped large blocks of available space, we have leased them to higher quality tenants at higher rents, and intend to continue to execute on this program over the years to come. To date we believe these efforts have accelerated our ability to lease space to new higher credit-quality tenants, many of which have expanded the office space they lease from us over time. We also employ a pre-built suite strategy in selected portions of some of our properties to appeal to many credit-worthy smaller tenants by fitting out some available space with new ceilings, lighting, pantries and base building systems (including electric distribution and air conditioning) for immediate occupancy. These pre-built suites deploy energy efficiency strategies developed in our work at the Empire State Building and are designed with efficient layouts sought by a wide array of users which we believe will require only minor painting and carpeting for future re-leasing thus reducing our future costs. Over time, as we have redeveloped the spaces in our buildings, we believe we will increase our occupancy.

•

Increase Existing Below-Market Rents. The purpose of our redevelopment is to rent to better credit tenants at higher rents. To date, we have capitalized on this opportunity and we believe we can execute on the successful repositioning of our Manhattan office portfolio and improving market fundamentals to increase rents. For example, we expect to benefit from the re-leasing of 6.3%, or approximately 373,393 rentable square feet (including month-to-month leases), of our Manhattan office leases expiring through December 31, 2014, which we generally believe are currently at below market rates. These expiring leases represent a weighted average base rent of $46.04 per square foot based on current measurements. As older leases expire, we expect to continue to upgrade certain space to further increase rents. Our concentration in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area should also enable us to benefit from increased rents associated with current and anticipated near-term improvements in the financial and economic environment in these areas. We also expect to benefit from our price positioning, above comparable vintage properties, and below new construction.

•

Complete the Redevelopment and Repositioning of Our Current Portfolio. We intend to continue to increase occupancy, improve tenant quality and enhance cash flow and value by completing the redevelopment and repositioning of our Manhattan office properties. We intend selectively to continue to allow leases for smaller spaces to expire or relocate smaller tenants in order to aggregate, demolish and re-demise existing office space into larger blocks of vacant space, which we believe will attract higher credit-quality tenants at higher rental rates. We apply rigorous underwriting analysis to determine if aggregation of vacant space for future leasing to larger tenants will

improve our cash flows over the long term. In addition, we are a leader in developing economically justified energy efficiency retrofitting and sustainability and have made it a portfolio-wide initiative. We believe this makes our properties desirable to high credit-quality tenants at higher rental rates and longer lease terms.

•

Pursue Attractive Acquisition and Development Opportunities. We will opportunistically pursue attractive opportunities to acquire office and retail properties, including the option properties, for which the purchase price is payable in a combination of shares of our common stock and operating partnership units, except with respect to the estate of Leona M. Helmsley, which will have the right to elect to receive all cash. See Note 10 to our consolidated and combined financial statements for further information on our option properties. For the foreseeable future, we intend to focus our acquisition strategy primarily on Manhattan office properties and, to a lesser extent, office and multi-tenanted retail properties in densely populated communities in the greater New York metropolitan area and other markets we may identify in the future. We believe we can utilize our industry relationships (including well-known real estate owners in Manhattan), brand recognition, and our expertise in redeveloping and repositioning office properties to identify acquisition opportunities where we believe we can increase occupancy and rental rates. We also believe there is significant growth opportunity to acquire and reposition additional stand-alone retail spaces. Our strong balance sheet, access to capital, and ability to offer operating partnership units in tax deferred acquisition transactions should give us significant flexibility in structuring and consummating acquisitions. Further, we have a development site, Metro Tower at the Stamford Transportation Center, which is adjacent to our Metro Center property, which we believe to be one of the premier office buildings in Connecticut. All required zoning approvals have been obtained to allow development of an approximately 380,000 rentable square foot office tower and garage. We intend to develop this site when we deem the appropriate combination of market and other conditions are in place.

•

Proactively Manage Our Portfolio. We believe our proactive, service-intensive approach to asset and property management helps increase occupancy and rental rates. We utilize our comprehensive building management services and our strong commitment to tenant and broker relationships and satisfaction to negotiate attractive leasing deals and to attract high credit-quality tenants. We proactively manage our rent roll and maintain continuous communication with our tenants. We foster strong tenant relationships by being responsive to tenant needs. We do this through the amenities we provide, the quality of our buildings and services, our employee screening and training, energy efficiency initiatives, and preventative maintenance and prompt repairs. Our attention to detail is integral to serving our clients and building our brand. Our properties have received numerous industry awards for their operational efficiency. We believe long-term tenant relationships will improve our operating results over time by reducing leasing, marketing and tenant improvement costs and reducing tenant turnover. As a result, we do extensive diligence on our tenants’ (current and prospective) balance sheets, businesses and business models to determine if we will establish long-term relationships in which they will both renew with us and expand over time.

Leasing

We utilize leasing agents at certain of our properties. We are focused on maintaining a brand that tenants associate with a consistently high level of quality of services, installations, maintenance and amenities with long term financial stability. Through our commitment to brokers, we have developed long-term relationships that focus on negotiating attractive deals with high credit-quality tenants. We proactively manage and cultivate our industry relationships and make the most senior members of our management team available to our constituencies. We believe that our consistent, open dialogue with our tenants and brokers enables us to maximize our redevelopment and repositioning opportunities. Our focus on performance and perspective allows us to concentrate on the ongoing management of our portfolio, while seeking opportunities for growth in the future.

Property Management

We protect our investments by regularly monitoring our properties, performing routine preventive maintenance, and implementing capital improvement programs in connection with property redevelopment and life cycle replacement of equipment and systems. We presently utilize property management agents at two of our properties. During March 2014, we gave a 30-day notice to the managing agents at such properties that we were terminating their contracts as of April 1, 2014. After this date, we will be self-managing all of our properties. We proactively manage our properties and rent rolls to (i) aggregate smaller demised spaces to create large blocks of vacant space, to attract high credit-quality tenants at higher rental rates, and (ii) create efficient, modern, pre-built offices that can be rented through several lease cycles and attract better credit-quality tenants. We aggressively manage and control operating expenses at all of our properties. In addition, we have made energy efficiency retrofitting and sustainability a portfolio-wide initiative driven by economic return. We pass on the cost savings achieved by such improvements to our tenants through lower utility costs and reduced operating expense escalations. We believe these initiatives make our properties more desirable to a broader tenant base than the properties of our competitors.

Construction Management

Our construction management business is a general contracting and construction management business in the greater New York metropolitan area with in-depth experience in projects of varying type, complexity, budget and schedule. Our years of experience, combined with a helpful approach, provide solutions that keep our clients’ projects on schedule and on budget.

Business Segments

Our reportable segments consist of a real estate segment and an observatory segment. Our real estate segment includes all activities related to the ownership, management, operation, acquisition, repositioning and disposition of our real estate assets. Our observatory segment operates the 86th and 102nd floor observatories at the Empire State Building. These two lines of businesses are managed separately because each business requires different support infrastructures, provides different services and has dissimilar economic characteristics such as investments needed, stream of revenues and different marketing strategies. We account for intersegment sales and transfers as if the sales or transfers were to third parties, that is, at current market prices. We include our construction operation in "Other" and it includes all activities related to providing construction services to tenants and to other entities within and outside our company. See Note 13 to our consolidated financial statements for further information on our reportable segments.

Regulation

General

The properties in our portfolio are subject to various laws, ordinances and regulations, including regulations relating to common areas. We believe each of the existing properties has the necessary permits and approvals to operate its business.

Americans with Disabilities Act

Our properties must comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, to the extent that such properties are “public accommodations” as defined by the ADA. The ADA may require removal of structural barriers to access by persons with disabilities in certain public areas of our properties where such removal is readily achievable. We believe the existing properties are in substantial compliance with the ADA and that we will not be required to make substantial capital expenditures to address the requirements of the ADA. However, noncompliance with the ADA could result in imposition of fines or an award of damages to private litigants. The obligation to make readily achievable accommodations is an ongoing one, and we will continue to assess our properties and to make alterations as appropriate in this respect.

Environmental Matters

Under various federal, state and/or local laws, ordinances and regulations, as a current or former owner or operator of real property, we may be liable for costs and damages resulting from the presence or release of hazardous substances, waste, or petroleum products at, on, in, under or from such property, including costs for investigation or remediation, natural resource damages, or third party liability for personal injury or property damage. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence or release of such materials, and the liability may be joint and several. Some of our properties have been or may be impacted by contamination arising from current or prior uses of the property or adjacent properties for commercial, industrial or other purposes. Such contamination may arise from spills of petroleum or hazardous substances or releases from tanks used to store such materials. We also may be liable for the costs of remediating contamination at off-site disposal or treatment facilities when we arrange for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at such facilities, without regard to whether we comply with environmental laws in doing so. The presence of contamination or the failure to remediate contamination on our properties may adversely affect our ability to attract and/or retain tenants, and our ability to develop or sell or borrow against those properties. In addition to potential liability for cleanup costs, private plaintiffs may bring claims for personal injury, property damage or for similar reasons. Environmental laws also may create liens on contaminated sites in favor of the government for damages and costs it incurs to address such contamination. Moreover, if contamination is discovered on our properties, environmental laws may impose restrictions on the manner in which that property may be used or how businesses may be operated on that property.

Some of our properties are adjacent to or near other properties used for industrial or commercial purposes or that have contained or currently contain underground storage tanks used to store petroleum products or other hazardous or toxic substances. Releases from these properties could impact our properties. In addition, some of our properties have previously been used by former owners or tenants for commercial or industrial activities, e.g., gas stations and dry cleaners, and a portion of the Metro Tower site is currently used for automobile parking and fueling, that may release petroleum products or other

hazardous or toxic substances at such properties or to surrounding properties. While certain properties contain or contained uses that could have or have impacted our properties, we are not aware of any liabilities related to environmental contamination that we believe will have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Soil contamination has been identified at 69-97 Main Street in Westport, Connecticut. The affected soils are more than four feet below the ground surface. An Environmental Land Use Restriction has been imposed on this site to ensure the soil is not exposed, excavated or disturbed such that it could create a risk of migration of pollutants or a potential hazard to human health or the environment. While the contamination is currently contained, the potential resale value of this property and the company’s ability to finance or refinance this property in the future may be adversely affected as a result of such contamination. In addition, pursuant to the Environmental Land Use Restriction, plans for the redevelopment of the property would be subject to the review of the Town of Westport, Connecticut among other conditions.

The property situated at 500 Mamaroneck Avenue in Harrison, New York was the subject of a voluntary remedial action work cleanup plan performed by the former owner following its conveyance of title to the present owners under an agreement with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, or NYDEC. As a condition to the issuance of a “no further action” letter, NYDEC required that certain restrictive and affirmative covenants be recorded against the subject property. In substantial part, these include prohibition against construction that would disturb the soil cap isolating certain contaminated subsurface soil, limiting the use of such property to commercial uses, implementing engineering controls to assure that improvements be kept in good condition, not using ground water at the site for potable purposes without treatment, implementing safety procedures for workers to follow excavating at the site to protect their health and safety and filing an annual certification that the controls implemented in accordance with the voluntary remedial action work cleanup plan remain in place. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the site that had been substantially unimproved prior to acquisition may not be further developed.

In addition, our properties are subject to various federal, state and local environmental and health and safety laws and regulations. Noncompliance with these environmental and health and safety laws and regulations could subject us or our tenants to liability. These liabilities could affect a tenant’s ability to make rental payments to us. Moreover, changes in laws could increase the potential costs of compliance with such laws and regulations or increase liability for noncompliance. This may result in significant unanticipated expenditures or may otherwise materially and adversely affect our operations, or those of our tenants, which could in turn have a material adverse effect on us. We sometimes require our tenants to comply with environmental and health and safety laws and regulations and to indemnify us for any related liabilities in our leases with them. But in the event of the bankruptcy or inability of any of our tenants to satisfy such obligations, we may be required to satisfy such obligations. We are not presently aware of any instances of material non-compliance with environmental or health and safety laws or regulations at our properties, and we believe that we and/or our tenants have all material permits and approvals necessary under current laws and regulations to operate our properties.

As the owner or operator of real property, we may also incur liability based on various building conditions. For example, buildings and other structures on properties that we currently own or operate or those we acquire or operate in the future contain, may contain, or may have contained, asbestos-containing material, or ACM. Environmental and health and safety laws require that ACM be properly managed and maintained and may impose fines or penalties on owners, operators or employers for non-compliance with those requirements. These requirements include special precautions, such as removal, abatement or air monitoring, if ACM would be disturbed during maintenance, redevelopment or demolition of a building, potentially resulting in substantial costs. In addition, we may be subject to liability for personal injury or property damage sustained as a result of releases of ACM into the environment. We are not presently aware of any material liabilities related to building conditions, including any instances of material non-compliance with asbestos requirements or any material liabilities related to asbestos.

In addition, our properties may contain or develop harmful mold or suffer from other indoor air quality issues, which could lead to liability for adverse health effects or property damage or costs for remediation. When excessive moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials, mold growth may occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or is not addressed over a period of time. Some molds may produce airborne toxins or irritants. Indoor air quality issues can also stem from inadequate ventilation, chemical contamination from indoor or outdoor sources, and other biological contaminants such as pollen, viruses and bacteria. Indoor exposure to airborne toxins or irritants above certain levels can be alleged to cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic or other reactions. As a result, the presence of significant mold or other airborne contaminants at any of our properties could require us to undertake a costly remediation program to contain or remove the mold or other airborne contaminants from the affected property or increase indoor ventilation. In addition, the presence of significant mold or other airborne contaminants could expose us to liability from our tenants, employees of our tenants or others if property damage or personal injury occurs. We are not presently aware of any material adverse indoor air quality issues at our properties.

Insurance

We carry comprehensive liability, fire, extended coverage, earthquake, terrorism and rental loss insurance covering all of our Manhattan properties and our greater New York metropolitan area properties under a blanket policy. We carry additional all-risk property and business insurance, which includes terrorism insurance, on the Empire State Building through ESRT Captive Insurance Company L.L.C., or ESRT Captive Insurance, our wholly owned captive insurance company. ESRT Captive Insurance covers terrorism insurance for $700 million in losses in excess of $800 million per occurrence suffered by the Empire State Building, providing us with aggregate terrorism coverage of $1.5 billion at that property. ESRT Captive Insurance fully reinsures the 15% coinsurance under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (TRIPRA) and the difference between the TRIPRA captive deductible and policy deductible of $25,000 for non-Nuclear, Biological, Chemical and Radiological exposures. As a result, we remain only liable for the 15% coinsurance under TRIPRA for Nuclear, Biological, Chemical and Radiological (NBCR) exposures, as well as a deductible equal to 20% of the prior year’s premium, which premium was approximately $365,000 for the policy period June 30, 2012 through June 30, 2013. As long as we own ESB Captive Insurance, we are responsible for ESB Captive Insurance’s liquidity and capital resources, and ESB Captive Insurance’s accounts are part of our consolidated financial statements. If we experience a loss and our captive insurance company is required to pay under its insurance policy, we would ultimately record the loss to the extent of its required payment.

The policies described above cover certified terrorism losses as defined under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) and subsequent extensions. On December 26, 2007, the President of the United States signed into law TRIPRA, which extends TRIA through December 31, 2014. TRIA provides for a system of shared public and private compensation for insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism. As a result, the certified terrorism coverage provided by ESRT Captive Insurance is eligible for 85% coinsurance provided by the United States Treasury in excess of a statutorily calculated deductible. ESRT Captive Insurance reinsures 100% of their 15% coinsurance for non-NBCR exposures. The 15% coinsurance on NBCR exposures is retained by ESRT Captive Insurance.

Reinsurance contracts do not relieve ESRT Captive Insurance from its primary obligations to its policyholders. Additionally, failure of the various reinsurers to honor their obligations could result in significant losses to ESRT Captive Insurance. The reinsurance has been ceded to reinsurers approved by the State of Vermont. ESRT Captive Insurance continually evaluates the reinsurers’ financial condition by considering published financial stability ratings of the reinsurers and other factors. There can be no assurance that reinsurance will continue to be available to ESRT Captive Insurance to the same extent and at the same cost. ESRT Captive Insurance may choose in the future to reevaluate the use of reinsurance to increase or decrease the amounts of risk it cedes.

In addition to insurance held through our captive insurance company described above, we carry terrorism insurance on all of our properties in an amount and with deductibles which we believe are commercially reasonable.

Competition

The leasing of real estate is highly competitive in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan market in which we operate. We compete with numerous acquirers, developers, owners and operators of commercial real estate, many of which own or may seek to acquire or develop properties similar to ours in the same markets in which our properties are located. The principal means of competition are rent charged, location, services provided and the nature and condition of the facility to be leased. In addition, we face competition from other real estate companies including other REITs, private real estate funds, domestic and foreign financial institutions, life insurance companies, pension trusts, partnerships, individual investors and others that may have greater financial resources or access to capital than we do or that are willing to acquire properties in transactions which are more highly leveraged or are less attractive from a financial viewpoint than we are willing to pursue. In addition, competition from observatory and/or broadcasting operations at One World Trade Center and, to a lesser extent, from the existing observatory at Rockefeller Center and the existing broadcasting facility at Four Times Square, could have a negative impact on revenues from our observatory operations and/or broadcasting revenues. Adverse impacts on domestic travel and changes in foreign currency exchange rates may also decrease demand in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make distributions to our stockholders. If our competitors offer space at rental rates below current market rates, below the rental rates we currently charge our tenants, in better locations within our markets or in higher quality facilities, we may lose potential tenants and we may be pressured to reduce our rental rates below those we currently charge in order to retain tenants when our tenants’ leases expire.

Our Tax Status

We intend to elect to be taxed as a REIT and operate in a manner that we believe allows us to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2013. We believe we have been organized in conformity with the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the ("Code"), and that our intended manner of operation will enable us to meet the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT. So long as we qualify as a REIT, we generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our net taxable income that we distribute currently to our stockholders. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year and do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates and may be precluded from qualifying as a REIT for the subsequent four taxable years following the year during which we lost our REIT qualification. Even if we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain U.S. federal, state and local taxes on our income or property.

Employees

As of December 31, 2013, we had approximately 607 employees, 102 of whom were managers and professionals. There are currently collective bargaining agreements which cover the workforce that services all of our office properties.

Offices

Our principal executive offices are located at One Grand Central Place, 60 East 42^nd Street, New York, New York 10165. In addition, we have six additional regional leasing and property management offices in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area. Our current facilities are adequate for our present and future operations, although we may add regional offices or relocate our headquarters, depending upon our future operations.

Available Information

Our website address is http://www.empirestaterealtytrust.com. The information found on, or otherwise accessible through, our website is not incorporated information and does not form a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any other report or document we file with or furnish to the SEC. We make available, free of charge, on or through the SEC Filings section of our website, annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. We have also posted on our website the Audit Committee Charter, Compensation Committee Charter, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Charter and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which govern our directors, officers and employees. Within the time period required by the SEC, we will post on our website any amendment to our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and any waiver applicable to our senior financial officers, and our executive officers or directors. You can also read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at its Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549 (1-800-SEC-0330). The SEC maintains an Internet site (http://www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider these risk factors, together with all of the other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated and combined financial statements and the related notes thereto, before you decide whether to make an investment in our securities. The risks set out below are not the only risks we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition, cash flows, liquidity, funds from operations, results of operations, share price, ability to service our indebtedness, and/or ability to make cash distributions to our stockholders (including those necessary to maintain our REIT qualification) and unitholders. In such case, the value of our common stock and the trading price of our securities could decline, and you may lose all or a significant part of your investment. Some statements in the following risk factors constitute forward looking statements. See the section entitled “Forward-Looking Statements.”

Risks Related to Our Properties and Our Business

All of our properties are located in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area, in particular midtown Manhattan, and adverse economic or regulatory developments in this area could materially and adversely affect us.

All of our properties are located in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area, in particular midtown Manhattan, as well as nearby markets in Fairfield County, Connecticut and Westchester County, New York. Seven of our 12 office properties are located in midtown Manhattan. As a result, our business is dependent on the condition of the New York City economy in general and the market for office space in midtown Manhattan in particular, which exposes us to greater economic risks than if we owned a more geographically diverse portfolio. We are susceptible to adverse developments in the New York City economic and regulatory environment (such as business layoffs or downsizing, industry slowdowns, relocations of businesses, increases in real estate and other taxes, costs of complying with governmental regulations or increased regulation). Such adverse developments could materially reduce the value of our real estate portfolio and our rental revenues, and thus materially and adversely affect our ability to service current debt and to pay distributions to stockholders. We could also be impacted by adverse developments in the Fairfield County, Connecticut and Westchester County, New York markets. We cannot assure you that these markets will grow or that underlying real estate fundamentals will be favorable to owners and operators of office or retail properties. Our operations may also be affected if competing properties are built in either of these markets.

Adverse economic and geopolitical conditions in general and in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area commercial office and retail markets in particular, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, ability to service debt and our ability to make distributions to our securityholders.

Our business may be affected by the volatility and illiquidity in the financial and credit markets, a general global economic recession and other market or economic challenges experienced by the real estate industry or the U.S. economy as a whole. Our business may also be materially and adversely affected by local economic conditions, as substantially all of our revenues are derived from our properties located in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area, particularly in Manhattan, Fairfield County and Westchester County. Because our portfolio consists primarily of commercial office and retail buildings (as compared to a more diversified real estate portfolio) located principally in Manhattan, if economic conditions persist or deteriorate, then our results of operations, financial condition, ability to service current debt and to make distributions to our securityholders may be materially and adversely affected by the following, among other potential conditions:


•	the financial condition of our tenants, many of which are financial, legal and other professional firms, may be adversely affected, which may result in tenant defaults under leases due to bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failures or other reasons;


•	significant job losses in the financial and professional services industries have occurred and may continue to occur, which may decrease demand for our office space, causing market rental rates and property values to be impacted negatively;

•

our ability to borrow on terms and conditions that we find acceptable, or at all, may be limited, which could reduce our ability to pursue acquisition and development opportunities, engage in our redevelopment and repositioning activities and refinance existing debt, reduce our returns from both our existing operations and our acquisition and development activities and increase our future interest expense;


•	reduced values of our properties may limit our ability to dispose of assets at attractive prices or to obtain debt financing secured by our properties and may reduce the availability of unsecured loans;


•	reduced liquidity in debt markets and increased credit risk premiums for certain market participants may impair our ability to access capital or make such access more expensive;

•

the value and liquidity of our short-term investments and cash deposits could be reduced as a result of a deterioration of the financial condition of the institutions that hold our cash deposits or the institutions or assets in which we have made short-term investments, the dislocation of the markets for our short-term investments, increased volatility in market rates for such investments or other factors; and


•	one or more counterparties to our derivative financial instruments could default on their obligations to us, increasing the risk that we may not realize the benefits of these instruments.

These conditions may continue or worsen in the future, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make distributions to our securityholders.

There can be no assurance that our redevelopment and repositioning program will be completed in its entirety in accordance with the anticipated timing or at the anticipated cost, or that we will achieve the results we expect from our redevelopment and repositioning program, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We have been undertaking a comprehensive redevelopment and repositioning program of our Manhattan office properties that has included the physical improvement through upgrades and modernization of, and tenant upgrades in, such properties. We currently estimate that between $110.0 million and $150.0 million of capital is needed beyond 2013 to complete substantially the redevelopment and repositioning program of our Manhattan office properties, which we expect to occur by the end of 2016. These estimates are based on our current budgets (which do not include tenant improvements and leasing commissions) and may be less than our actual costs. We may experience conditions which delay or preclude program completion. In addition, we may not be able to lease available space on favorable terms or at all. Further, our redevelopment

and repositioning program may lead to temporary increased vacancy rates at the properties undergoing redevelopment. There can be no assurance that our redevelopment and repositioning program will be completed in its entirety in accordance with the anticipated timing or at the anticipated cost, or that we will achieve the results we expect from our redevelopment and repositioning program or that we will be able to achieve anticipated results which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We rely on four properties for a significant portion of our revenue.

As of December 31, 2013, four of our properties, the Empire State Building, One Grand Central Place, First Stamford Place and 250 West 57th Street, together accounted for approximately 62% of our portfolio’s annualized rent, and no other property accounted for more than approximately 5.6% of our portfolio’s annualized rent (which excludes revenues from our broadcasting licenses and related leased space). As of December 31, 2013, the Empire State Building individually accounted for approximately 33% of our portfolio’s annualized rent. Our revenue and cash available for distribution to our stockholders would be materially and adversely affected if the Empire State Building, One Grand Central Place, First Stamford Place or 250 West 57th Street were materially damaged or destroyed. Additionally, our revenue and cash available for distribution to our stockholders would be materially adversely affected if a significant number of our tenants at these properties experienced a downturn in their business which may weaken their financial condition and result in their failure to make timely rental payments, defaulting under their leases or filing for bankruptcy.

The observatory operations at the Empire State Building are not traditional real estate operations, and competition and changes in tourist trends may subject us to additional risks, which could materially and adversely affect us.

During the year ended December 31, 2013, we derived approximately $101.8 million of revenue from the Empire State Building’s observatory operations, representing approximately 42.1% of the Empire State Building’s total revenue for this period. Demand for our observatory is highly dependent on domestic and overseas tourists. In addition, competition from observatory operations in the new property currently under construction at One World Trade Center and, to a lesser extent, from the existing observatory at Rockefeller Center, could have a negative impact on revenues from our observatory operations which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Adverse impacts on domestic travel and changes in foreign currency exchange rates may also decrease demand in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We may be unable to renew leases, lease vacant space or re-lease space on favorable terms or at all as leases expire, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

As of December 31, 2013, we had approximately 1.0 million rentable square feet of vacant space (excluding leases signed but not yet commenced). In addition, leases representing 5.1% and 8.6% of the square footage of the properties in our portfolio will expire in 2014 and 2015, respectively (including month to month leases). We cannot assure you that expiring leases will be renewed or that our properties will be re-leased at net effective rental rates equal to or above the current average net effective rental rates. Above-market rental rates at some of the properties in our portfolio may force us to renew some expiring leases or re-lease properties at lower rates. If the rental rates of our properties decrease, our existing tenants do not renew their leases or we do not re-lease a significant portion of our available space and space for which leases will expire, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, per share/unit trading price of our Class A common stock and our traded OP units and our ability to satisfy our principal and interest obligations and to make distributions to our stockholders would be materially and adversely affected.

The actual rents we receive for the properties in our portfolio may be less than our asking rents, and we may experience a decline in realized rental rates from time to time, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

As a result of various factors, including competitive pricing pressure in our markets, a general economic downturn and the desirability of our properties compared to other properties in our markets, we may be unable to realize our asking rents across the properties in our portfolio. In addition, the degree of discrepancy between our asking rents and the actual rents we are able to obtain may vary both from property to property and among different leased spaces within a single property. If we are unable to obtain sufficient rental rates across our portfolio, then our ability to generate cash flow growth will be negatively impacted. In addition, depending on market rental rates at any given time as compared to expiring leases in our portfolio, from time to time rental rates for expiring leases may be higher than starting rental rates for new leases.

We are exposed to risks associated with property redevelopment and development that could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We have engaged, and continue to engage, in development and redevelopment activities with respect to our Manhattan office properties. In addition, we own entitled land at the Stamford Transportation Center in Stamford, Connecticut that can support the development of an approximately 380,000 rentable square foot office building and garage. To the extent that we

continue to engage in development and redevelopment activities, we will be subject to certain risks, including, without limitation:


•	the availability and pricing of financing on favorable terms or at all;


•	the availability and timely receipt of zoning and other regulatory approvals;


•	the potential for the fluctuation of occupancy rates and rents at properties due to a number of factors, including market and economic conditions, which may result in our investment not being profitable;


•	start up, repositioning and redevelopment costs may be higher than anticipated;


•	the cost and timely completion of construction (including risks beyond our control, such as weather or labor conditions, or material shortages);


•	the potential that we may fail to recover expenses already incurred if we abandon development or redevelopment opportunities after we begin to explore them;


•	the potential that we may expend funds on and devote management time to projects which we do not complete;


•	the inability to complete construction and leasing of a property on schedule, resulting in increased debt service expense and construction or redevelopment costs; and


•	the possibility that properties will be leased at below expected rental rates.

These risks could result in substantial unanticipated delays or expenses and, under certain circumstances, could prevent the initiation of development and redevelopment activities or the completion of development and redevelopment activities once undertaken, any of which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, per share/unit trading price of our Class A common stock and ability to satisfy our principal and interest obligations and to make distributions to our stockholders.

We may be required to make rent or other concessions and/or significant capital expenditures to improve our properties in order to retain and attract tenants, which could materially and adversely affect us, including our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

To the extent there are adverse economic conditions in the real estate market and demand for office space decreases, upon expiration of leases at our properties and with respect to our current vacant space, we will be required to increase rent or other concessions to tenants, accommodate increased requests for renovations, build-to-suit remodeling and other improvements or provide additional services to our tenants. In addition, seven of our existing properties are pre-war office properties, which may require more frequent and costly maintenance to retain existing tenants or attract new tenants than newer properties. As a result, we would have to make significant capital or other expenditures in order to retain tenants whose leases expire and to attract new tenants in sufficient numbers. Additionally, we may need to raise capital to make such expenditures. If we are unable to do so or capital is otherwise unavailable, we may be unable to make the required expenditures. This could result in non-renewals by tenants upon expiration of their leases and our vacant space remaining untenanted, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and per share/unit trading price of our Class A common stock and our traded OP units. As of December 31, 2013, we had approximately 1.0 million rentable square feet of vacant space (excluding leases signed but not yet commenced), and leases representing 5.1% and 8.6% of the square footage of the properties in our portfolio will expire in the in 2014 and 2015, respectively (including month to month leases).

We depend on significant tenants in our office portfolio, including LF USA, Coty, Inc., Legg Mason, PVH Corp., Thomson Reuters and Urban Outfitters, which together represented approximately 21.2% of our total portfolio’s annualized rent as of December 31, 2013.

As of December 31, 2013, our five largest tenants together represented 21.2% of our total portfolio’s annualized rent. Our largest tenant is LF USA. As of December 31, 2013, LF USA leased an aggregate of 0.9 million rentable square feet of office space at three of our office properties, representing approximately 10.6% of the total rentable square feet and approximately 10.4% of the annualized rent in our portfolio. Our rental revenue depends on entering into leases with and collecting rents from tenants. General and regional economic conditions, such as the current challenging economic climate described above, may adversely affect our major tenants and potential tenants in our markets. Our major tenants may experience a material business downturn, weakening their financial condition and potentially resulting in their failure to make timely rental payments and/or a default under their leases. In many cases, we have made substantial up front investments in the applicable leases, through tenant improvement allowances and other concessions, as well as typical transaction costs (including professional fees and commissions) that we may not be able to recover. In the event of any tenant default, we may experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment.

The bankruptcy or insolvency of a major tenant also may adversely affect the income produced by our properties. If any tenant becomes a debtor in a case under the United States Bankruptcy Code of 1978, as amended, we cannot evict the tenant solely because of the bankruptcy. In addition, the bankruptcy court might authorize the tenant to reject and terminate their lease with us. The bankruptcy of a tenant or lease guarantor 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. Any unsecured claim we hold may be paid only to the extent that

funds are available and only in the same percentage as is paid to all other holders of unsecured claims, and there are restrictions under bankruptcy laws that limit the amount of the claim we can make if a lease is rejected.

Our revenue and cash flow could be materially adversely affected if any of our significant tenants were to become bankrupt or insolvent, or suffer a downturn in their business, default under their leases or fail to renew their leases at all or renew on terms less favorable to us than their current terms. See “Item 2. Properties - Tenant Diversification” for a discussion of certain space which has been vacated or which we expect may be vacated by LF USA.

Competition may impede our ability to attract or retain tenants or re-let space, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and cash flow.

The leasing of real estate in the greater New York metropolitan area is highly competitive. The principal means of competition are rent charged, location, services provided and the nature and condition of the premises to be leased. We directly compete with all lessors and developers of similar space in the areas in which our properties are located as well as properties in other submarkets. Demand for retail space may be impacted by the recent bankruptcy of a number of retail companies and a general trend toward consolidation in the retail industry, which could adversely affect the ability of our company to attract and retain tenants. In addition, retailers at our properties face increasing competition from outlet malls, discount shopping clubs, electronic commerce, direct mail and telemarketing, which could (i) reduce rents payable to us, (ii) reduce our ability to attract and retain tenants at our properties and (iii) lead to increased vacancy rates at our properties, any of which could materially and adversely affect us.

Our office properties are concentrated in highly developed areas of midtown Manhattan and densely populated metropolitan communities in Fairfield County and Westchester County. Manhattan is the largest office market in the United States. The number of competitive office properties in the markets in which our properties are located (which may be newer or better located than our properties) could have a material adverse effect on our ability to lease office space at our properties, and on the effective rents we are able to charge.

If our tenants are unable to secure financing necessary to continue to operate their businesses and pay us rent, we could be materially and adversely affected.

Many of our tenants rely on external sources of financing to operate their businesses. If our tenants are unable to secure financing necessary to continue to operate their businesses, they may be unable to meet their rent obligations or be forced to declare bankruptcy and reject their leases, which could materially and adversely affect us.

Our dependence on smaller businesses to rent our office space could materially and adversely affect our cash flow and results of operations.

The majority of the tenants in our properties (measured by number of tenants as opposed to aggregate square footage) are smaller businesses that generally do not have the financial strength of larger corporate tenants. Smaller companies generally experience a higher rate of failure than large businesses. There is a current risk with these companies of a higher rate of tenant defaults, turnover and bankruptcies, which could materially and adversely affect our distributable cash flow and results of operations.

Our dependence on rental income may materially and adversely affect our profitability, our ability to meet our debt obligations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

A substantial portion of our income is derived from rental income from real property. As a result, our performance depends on our ability to collect rent from tenants. Our income and funds for distribution would be negatively affected if a significant number of our tenants, or any of our major tenants (as discussed in more detail below):


•	delay lease commencements;


•	decline to extend or renew leases upon expiration;


•	fail to make rental payments when due; or


•	declare bankruptcy.

Any of these actions could result in the termination of the tenants’ leases and the loss of rental income attributable to the terminated leases. In these events, we cannot be sure that any tenant whose lease expires will renew that lease or that we will be able to re-lease space on economically advantageous terms or at all. The loss of rental revenues from a number of our tenants and our inability to replace such tenants may adversely affect our profitability, our ability to meet debt and other financial obligations and our ability to make distributions to our securityholders.

We may not be able to control our operating costs, or our expenses may remain constant or increase, even if income from our properties decreases, causing our results of operations to be adversely affected.

Our financial results depend substantially on leasing space in our properties to tenants on terms favorable to us. Costs associated with real estate investment, such as real estate taxes, insurance and maintenance costs, generally are not reduced even when a property is not fully occupied, rental rates decrease or other circumstances cause a reduction in income from the

property. As a result, cash flow from the operations of our properties may be reduced if a tenant does not pay its rent or we are unable to rent our properties on favorable terms. Under those circumstances, we might not be able to enforce our rights as landlord without delays and may incur substantial legal costs. The terms of our leases may also limit our ability to charge our tenants for all or a portion of these expenses. Additionally, new properties that we may acquire or redevelop may not produce significant revenue immediately, and the cash flow from existing operations may be insufficient to pay the operating expenses and principal and interest on debt associated with such properties until they are fully leased.

Our breach of or the expiration of our ground lease could materially and adversely affect our results of operations.

Our interest in one of our commercial office properties, 1350 Broadway, is a long-term leasehold of the land and the improvements, rather than a fee interest in the land and the improvements. If we are found to be in breach of this ground lease, we could lose the right to use the property. In addition, unless we purchase the underlying fee interest in this property or extend the terms of our lease for this property before expiration on terms significantly comparable to our current lease, we will lose our right to operate this property and our leasehold interest in this property upon expiration of the lease or we will continue to operate it at much lower profitability, which would significantly adversely affect our results of operations. In addition, if we are perceived to have breached the terms of this lease, the fee owner may initiate proceedings to terminate the lease. This long-term lease, including unilateral extension rights available to us expires on July 31, 2050.

Pursuant to the ground lease, we, as tenant under the ground lease, perform the functions traditionally performed by owners, as landlords, with respect to our subtenants. In addition to collecting rent from our subtenants, we also maintain the property and pay expenses relating to the property. We do not have a right, pursuant to the terms of our lease or otherwise, to acquire the fee interest in this property.

We will not recognize any increase in the value of the land or improvements subject to our ground lease, and we may only receive a portion of compensation paid in any eminent domain proceeding with respect to the property, which could materially and adversely affect us.

We have no economic interest in the land or improvements at the expiration of our ground lease at 1350 Broadway and therefore we will not share in any increase in value of the land or improvements beyond the term of our ground lease, notwithstanding our capital outlay to purchase our interest in the property. Furthermore, if the state or federal government seizes the property subject to the ground lease under its eminent domain power, we may only be entitled to a portion of any compensation awarded for the seizure. In addition, if the value of the property has increased, it may be more expensive for us to renew our ground lease.

The broadcasting operations at the Empire State Building are not traditional real estate operations, and competition and changes in the broadcasting of signals over air may subject us to additional risks, which could materially and adversely affect us.

The Empire State Building and its broadcasting mast provides radio and data communications services and supports delivery of broadcasting signals to cable and satellite systems and television and radio receivers. We license the use of the broadcasting mast to third party television and radio broadcasters. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we derived approximately $20.0 million, of revenue from the Empire State Building’s broadcasting licenses and related leased space, representing approximately 8.3% of the Empire State Building’s total revenue for this period. Competition from broadcasting operations at One World Trade Center and, to a lesser extent, from the existing broadcasting operations at Four Times Square, could have a negative impact on revenues from our broadcasting operations. Our broadcast television and radio licensees also face a range of competition from advances in technologies and alternative methods of content delivery in their respective industries, as well as from changes in consumer behavior driven by new technologies and methods of content delivery, which may reduce the demand for over-the-air broadcast licenses in the future. New government regulations affecting broadcasters, including the implementation of the Federal Communications Commission's (the "FCC") National Broadband Plan, (the "FCC Plan"), also might materially and adversely affect our results of operations by reducing the demand for broadcast licenses. Among other things, the FCC Plan urges Congress to make more spectrum available for wireless broadband service providers by encouraging over-the-air broadcast licensees to relinquish spectrum through a voluntary auction process, which raises many issues that could impact the broadcast industry. At this time we cannot predict whether Congress or the FCC will adopt or implement any of the FCC Plan’s recommendations or the rule changes as proposed, or how any such actions might affect our broadcasting operations. Any of these risks might materially and adversely affect us.

We may be unable to identify and successfully complete acquisitions and even if acquisitions are identified and completed, including potentially the option properties, we may fail to operate successfully acquired properties, which could materially and adversely affect us and impede our growth.

Our ability to identify and acquire properties on favorable terms and successfully operate or redevelop them may be exposed to the following significant risks:


•	even if we enter into agreements for the acquisition of properties, these agreements are subject to customary conditions to closing, including completion of due diligence investigations to our satisfaction and other conditions that

are not within our control, which may not be satisfied, and we may be unable to complete an acquisition after making a non-refundable deposit and incurring certain other acquisition-related costs;


•	we may be unable to finance the acquisition on favorable terms in the time period we desire, or at all, including potentially the option properties;


•	we may spend more than budgeted to make necessary improvements or redevelopments to acquired properties;


•	we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage for new properties;


•	acquired properties may be located in new markets where we may face risks associated with a lack of market knowledge or understanding of the local economy, lack of business relationships in the area and unfamiliarity with local governmental and permitting procedures;


•	we may be unable to integrate quickly and efficiently new acquisitions, particularly acquisitions of portfolios of properties, into our existing operations, and as a result our results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected;


•	market conditions may result in higher than expected vacancy rates and lower than expected rental rates; and


•	we may incur significant costs and divert management attention in connection with evaluating and negotiating potential acquisitions, including ones that we are subsequently unable to complete.

Any delay or failure on our part to identify, negotiate, finance and consummate such acquisitions in a timely manner and on favorable terms, or operate acquired properties to meet our financial expectations, could impede our growth and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and per share/unit trading price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units.

Our option properties are subject to various risks and we may not be able to acquire them.

Our option properties consist of 112-122 West 34th Street, an office property in midtown Manhattan that was 83.0% occupied as of December 31, 2013 (or 83.0% leased giving effect to leases signed but not yet commenced as of that date) and that encompasses approximately 743,369 rentable square feet (inclusive of the retail space on the ground, first and lower floors) and 1400 Broadway, an office property in midtown Manhattan that was 88.4% occupied as of December 31, 2013 (or 90.5% leased giving effect to leases signed but not yet commenced as of that date) and that encompasses approximately 897,045 rentable square feet (inclusive of the retail space on the ground floor). Although we did not acquire 112-122 West 34th Street or 1400 Broadway as part of the formation transactions, we have entered into option agreements that allow us to acquire the interests in the option properties. Our option properties are exposed to many of the same risks that may affect the other properties in our portfolio. The terms of the option agreements relating to the option properties were not determined by arm’s-length negotiations, and such terms may be less favorable to us than those that may have been obtained through negotiations with third parties. It may become economically unattractive to exercise our options with respect to the option properties. These risks could cause us to decide not to exercise our option to purchase these properties in the future.

Our predecessor’s affiliates’ interests in our option properties, in 112-122 West 34th Street and 1400 Broadway, are fee (in the case of a portion of 112-122 West 34th Street), long-term leaseholds (in the case of both of the option properties) and sub-leasehold or sub-subleasehold (in the case of 112-122 West 34th Street only) of the land and the improvements. The remaining terms of these long-term leases, including unilateral extension rights available to us, are approximately 63 years at 112-122 West 34^th Street (expiring June 10, 2077) and approximately 50 years at 1400 Broadway (expiring December 31, 2063). Even if we exercise our option to purchase the option properties, unless we purchase the underlying fee interest in these properties or extend the terms of our leases for these properties before such expiration dates on terms significantly comparable to our current leases, we will lose our right to operate these properties and our leasehold interest in these properties upon such expiration. If in the future we were to extend the leases on new terms, that may result in reduced profitability, which may significantly adversely affect our results of operations at that time. The purchase price is payable in a combination of cash, shares of our common stock and operating partnership units, but the estate of Leona M. Helmsley will have the right to elect to receive all cash (and non-accredited investors are required to receive all cash), which may impact our ability to acquire the option properties.

Additionally, Anthony E. Malkin has a conflict of interest because he, together with certain of his affiliates, controls and owns economic interests in the option properties. As a result, an exercise of such options by us could economically benefit him.

Competition for acquisitions may reduce the number of acquisition opportunities available to us and increase the costs of those acquisitions, which may impede our growth.

We plan to acquire properties as we are presented with attractive opportunities. We may face significant competition for acquisition opportunities in the greater New York metropolitan area with other investors, particularly private investors who can incur more leverage, and this competition may adversely affect us by subjecting us to the following risks:


•	an inability to acquire a desired property because of competition from other well-capitalized real estate investors, including publicly traded and privately held REITs, private real estate funds, domestic and foreign financial institutions, life insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, pension trusts, commercial developers, partnerships and individual investors; and


•	an increase in the purchase price for such acquisition property, in the event we are able to acquire such desired property.

The significant competition for acquisitions of commercial office and retail properties in the greater New York metropolitan area may impede our growth.

Acquired properties may expose us to unknown liability, which could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flow and the market value of our securities.

We may acquire properties subject to liabilities and without any recourse, or with only limited recourse, against the prior owners or other third parties with respect to unknown liabilities. As a result, if a liability were asserted against us based upon ownership of those properties, we might have to pay substantial sums to settle or contest it, which could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flow and the market value of our securities. Unknown liabilities with respect to acquired properties might include:


•	liabilities for clean-up of undisclosed environmental contamination;


•	claims by tenants, vendors or other persons against the former owners of the properties;


•	liabilities incurred in the ordinary course of business; and


•	claims for indemnification by general partners, directors, officers and others indemnified by the former owners of the properties.

We may acquire properties or portfolios of properties through tax deferred contribution transactions, which could result in stockholder/unitholder dilution and limit our ability to sell such assets.

In the future we may acquire properties or portfolios of properties through tax deferred contribution transactions in exchange for partnership interests in our operating partnership, which may result in stockholder/unitholder dilution. This acquisition structure may have the effect of, among other things, reducing the amount of tax depreciation we could deduct over the tax life of the acquired properties, and may require that we agree to protect the contributors’ ability to defer recognition of taxable gain through restrictions on our ability to dispose of the acquired properties and/or the allocation of partnership debt to the contributors to maintain their tax bases. These restrictions could limit our ability to sell an asset at a time, or on terms, that would be favorable absent such restrictions.

Should we decide at some point in the future to expand into new markets, we may not be successful, which could adversely affect our financial condition, result of operations, cash flow and trading price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units.

If opportunities arise, we may explore acquisitions of properties in new markets. Each of the risks applicable to our ability to acquire and integrate successfully and operate properties in our current markets is also applicable to our ability to acquire and integrate successfully and operate properties in new markets. In addition to these risks, we will not possess the same level of familiarity with the dynamics and market conditions of any new markets that we may enter, which could adversely affect the results of our expansion into those markets, and we may be unable to build a significant market share or achieve a desired return on our investments in new markets. If we are unsuccessful in expanding into new markets, it could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, trading price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units and ability to satisfy our principal and interest obligations and to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our growth depends on external sources of capital that are outside of our control, which may affect our ability to seize strategic opportunities, satisfy debt obligations and make distributions to our stockholders.

In order to qualify as a REIT, we must distribute to our stockholders, on an annual basis, at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for distributions paid and excluding net capital gains. In addition, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that we distribute less than 100% of our net

taxable income (including net capital gains) and will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount by which our distributions in any calendar year are less than a minimum amount specified under U.S. federal income tax laws. Because of these distribution requirements, we may not be able to fund future capital needs, including any necessary acquisition financing, from operating cash flow. Consequently, we may need to rely on third-party sources to fund our capital needs. We may not be able to obtain financing on favorable terms, in the time period we desire, or at all. Any additional debt we incur will increase our leverage. Our access to third-party sources of capital depends, in part, on:


•	general market conditions;


•	the market’s perception of our growth potential;


•	our current debt levels;


•	our current and expected future earnings;


•	our cash flow and cash distributions; and


•	the market price per share/unit of our Class A common stock and traded OP units.

If we cannot obtain capital from third-party sources, we may not be able to acquire or redevelop properties when strategic opportunities exist, satisfy our principal and interest obligations or make the cash distributions to our stockholders necessary to maintain our qualification as a REIT.

If we are unable to sell, dispose of or refinance one or more properties in the future, we may be unable to realize our investment objectives, and our business may be adversely affected.

The real estate investments made, and to be made, by us are relatively difficult to sell quickly. Return of capital and realization of gains from an investment generally will occur upon disposition or refinancing of the underlying property. In addition, the Code imposes restrictions on the ability of a REIT to dispose of properties that are not applicable to other types of real estate companies. We may be unable to realize our investment objectives by sale, other disposition or refinancing at attractive prices within any given period of time or may otherwise be unable to complete any exit strategy. In particular, these risks could arise from weakness in or even the lack of an established market for a property, changes in the financial condition or prospects of prospective purchasers, changes in national or international economic conditions and changes in laws, regulations or fiscal policies of jurisdictions in which our properties are located.

Our outstanding indebtedness reduces cash available for distribution and may expose us to the risk of default under our debt obligations and may include covenants that restrict our ability to pay dividends.

As of December 31, 2013, our total consolidated indebtedness was approximately $1.2 billion. We may incur significant additional debt to finance future acquisition and redevelopment activities. Payments of principal and interest on borrowings may leave us with insufficient cash resources to operate our properties or to pay the distributions currently contemplated or necessary to qualify as a REIT. Our level of debt and the limitations imposed on us by our loan documents could have significant adverse consequences, including the following:


•	our cash flow may be insufficient to meet our required principal and interest payments;


•	we may be unable to borrow additional funds as needed or on favorable terms;


•	we may be unable to refinance our indebtedness at maturity or the refinancing terms may be less favorable than the terms of our original indebtedness;


•	to the extent we borrow debt that bears interest at variable rates, increases in interest rates could materially increase our interest expense;


•	we may be forced to dispose of one or more of our properties, possibly on disadvantageous terms;


•	we may default on our obligations or violate restrictive covenants, in which case the lenders or mortgagees may accelerate our debt obligations, foreclose on the properties that secure their loans and/or take control of our properties that secure their loans and collect rents and other property income;


•	we may violate restrictive covenants in our loan documents, which would entitle the lenders to accelerate our debt obligations or reduce our ability to make, or prohibit us from making, distributions; and


•	our default under any one of our mortgage loans with cross default provisions could result in a default on other indebtedness.

In addition, our secured revolving and term credit facility includes covenants which may restrict our ability to pay dividends if we fail to meet certain tests. See "Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Secured Revolving and Term Credit Facility."

If any one of these events were to occur, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, per share/unit trading price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units and our ability to satisfy our principal and interest obligations and to

make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected. In addition, in connection with our debt agreements we may enter into lockbox and cash management agreements pursuant to which substantially all of the income generated by our properties will be deposited directly into lockbox accounts and then swept into cash management accounts for the benefit of our various lenders and from which cash will be distributed to us only after funding of improvement, leasing and maintenance reserves and the payment of principal and interest on our debt, insurance, taxes, operating expenses and extraordinary capital expenditures and leasing expenses. As a result, we may be forced to borrow additional funds in order to make distributions to our stockholders (including, potentially, to make distributions necessary to allow us to qualify as a REIT). See "Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Liquidity and Capital Resources."

Mortgage debt obligations expose us to the possibility of foreclosure, which could result in the loss of our investment in a property or group of properties subject to mortgage debt.

Incurring mortgage and other secured debt obligations increases our risk of property losses because defaults on indebtedness secured by properties may result in foreclosure actions initiated by lenders and ultimately our loss of the property securing any loans for which we are in default. Any foreclosure on a mortgaged property or group of properties could adversely affect the overall value of our portfolio of properties. For tax purposes, a foreclosure of any of our properties that is subject to a nonrecourse mortgage loan would be treated as a sale of the property for a purchase price equal to the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage. If the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage exceeds our tax basis in the property, we would recognize taxable income on foreclosure, but would not receive any cash proceeds, which could hinder our ability to meet the distribution requirements applicable to REITs under the Code. Foreclosures could also trigger our tax indemnification obligations under the terms of our agreements with certain continuing investors with respect to sales of certain properties, and obligate us to make certain levels of indebtedness available for them to guarantee which.

High mortgage rates and/or unavailability of mortgage debt may make it difficult for us to finance or refinance properties, which could reduce the number of properties we can acquire, our net income and the amount of cash distributions we can make.

If mortgage debt is unavailable at reasonable rates, we may not be able to finance the purchase of properties. If we place mortgage debt on properties, we may be unable to refinance the properties when the loans become due, or to refinance on favorable terms. If interest rates are higher when we refinance our properties, our income could be reduced. If any of these events occur, our cash flow could be reduced. This, in turn, could reduce cash available for distribution to our stockholders and may hinder our ability to raise more capital by issuing more stock or by borrowing more money. In addition, to the extent we are unable to refinance the properties when the loans become due, we will have fewer debt guarantee opportunities available to offer under our tax protection agreement. If we are unable to offer certain guarantee opportunities to the parties to the tax protection agreement, or otherwise are unable to allocate sufficient liabilities of our operating partnership to those parties, it could trigger an indemnification obligation of our company under the tax protection agreement.

Some of our financing arrangements involve balloon payment obligations, which may adversely affect our ability to make distributions.

As of December 31, 2013, we had total debt outstanding of approximately $1.2 billion, with a weighted average interest rate of 4.56%, a weighted average maturity of 3.1 years and 69.2% of which is fixed-rate indebtedness.

As of December 31, 2013, we had approximately $197.5 million and $90.5 million of debt maturing in 2014 and 2015, respectively. As of December 31, 2013, we had 25 mortgage loans outstanding secured by 14 of our properties. As of December 31, 2013, these loans had an aggregate estimated principal balance at maturity of approximately $1.2 billion with maturity dates ranging from 2014 through April 2018. See Note 6 to our consolidated financial statements for required payments of our indebtedness. Our financing arrangements require us to make a lump-sum or "balloon" payment at maturity. Our ability to make a balloon payment at maturity is uncertain and may depend upon our ability to obtain additional financing or our ability to sell the property. At the time the balloon payment is due, we may or may not be able to refinance the existing financing on terms as favorable as the original loan or sell the property at a price sufficient to make the balloon payment. The effect of a refinancing or sale could affect the rate of return to stockholders and the projected time of disposition of our assets. In addition, payments of principal and interest made to service our debts may leave us with insufficient cash to make distributions necessary to meet the distribution requirements applicable to REITs under the Code.

Our degree of leverage and the lack of a limitation on the amount of indebtedness we may incur could materially and adversely affect us.

Our organizational documents do not contain any limitation on the amount of indebtedness we may incur. As a result, our stock price and traded OP unit prices could decrease. We also consider factors other than debt-to-EBITDA in making decisions regarding the incurrence of indebtedness, such as the purchase price of properties to be acquired with debt financing, the estimated market value of our properties upon refinancing and the ability of particular properties and our business as a whole to generate cash flow to cover expected debt service.

Our degree of leverage could affect our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, development or other general corporate purposes. Our degree of leverage could also make us more vulnerable to a downturn in business or the economy generally. If we become more leveraged in the future, the resulting increase in debt service requirements could cause us to default on our obligations, which could materially and adversely affect us.

Our tax protection agreement could limit our ability either to sell certain properties or to engage in a strategic transaction, or to reduce our level of indebtedness, which could materially and adversely affect us.

In connection with the formation transactions, we entered into a tax protection agreement with Anthony E. Malkin and Peter L. Malkin pursuant to which we have agreed to indemnify the Malkin Group and one additional third party investor in Metro Center (who was one of the original landowners and was involved in the development of the property) against certain tax liabilities if those tax liabilities result from (i) the operating partnership’s sale, transfer, conveyance, or other taxable disposition of four specified properties (First Stamford Place, Metro Center, 10 Bank Street and 1542 Third Avenue acquired by the operating partnership in the consolidation for a period of 12 years with respect to First Stamford Place and for the later of (x) eight years or (y) the death of both Peter L. Malkin and Isabel W. Malkin who are 80 and 77 years old, respectively, for the three other properties, (ii) the operating partnership failing to maintain until maturity the indebtedness secured by those properties or failing to use commercially reasonable efforts to refinance such indebtedness upon maturity in an amount equal to the principal balance of such indebtedness, or, if the operating partnership is unable to refinance such indebtedness at its current principal amount, at the highest principal amount possible, or (iii) the operating partnership failing to make available to any of these continuing investors the opportunity to guarantee, or otherwise bear the risk of loss, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, of their allocable share of $160 million of aggregate indebtedness meeting certain requirements, until such continuing investor owns less than the aggregate number of operating partnership units and shares of common stock equal to 50% of the aggregate number of such units and shares such continuing investor received in the formation transactions. If we were to trigger our tax indemnification obligations under these agreements, we would be required to pay damages for the resulting tax consequences to the Malkin Group, and we have acknowledged that a calculation of damages will not be based on the time value of money or the time remaining within the restricted period. Moreover, these obligations may restrict our ability to engage in a strategic transaction. In addition, these obligations may require us to maintain more or different indebtedness than we would otherwise require for our business.

The continuing threat of a terrorist event may materially and adversely affect our properties, their value and our ability to generate cash flow.

There may be a decrease in demand for space in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area because it is considered at risk for a future terrorist event, and this decrease may reduce our revenues from property rentals. In the aftermath of a terrorist event, tenants in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area may choose to relocate their businesses to less populated, lower-profile areas of the United States that are not as likely to be targets of future terrorist activity. This in turn could trigger a decrease in the demand for space in Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area, which could increase vacancies in our properties and force us to lease our properties on less favorable terms. Further, certain of our properties, including the Empire State Building, may be considered to be susceptible to increased risks of a future terrorist event due to the high-profile nature of the property. In addition, a terrorist event could cause insurance premiums at certain of our properties to increase significantly. As a result, the value of our properties and the level of our revenues could materially decline.

Potential losses, such as those from adverse weather conditions, natural disasters, terrorist events and title claims, may not be fully covered by our insurance policies, and such losses could materially and adversely affect us.

Our business operations are susceptible to, and could be significantly affected by, adverse weather conditions, terrorist events and natural disasters that could cause significant damage to the properties in our portfolio. Our insurance may not be adequate to cover business interruption or losses resulting from such events. In addition, our insurance policies include substantial self-insurance portions and significant deductibles and co-payments for such events, and recent hurricanes in the United States have affected the availability and price of such insurance. As a result, we may incur significant costs in the event of adverse weather conditions, terrorist events and natural disasters. We may discontinue certain insurance coverage on some

or all of our properties in the future if the cost of premiums for any of these policies in our judgment exceeds the value of the coverage discounted for the risk of loss.

We carry comprehensive liability, fire, extended coverage, earthquake, terrorism and rental loss insurance covering all of our Manhattan properties and our greater New York metropolitan area properties under a blanket policy. We carry additional all-risk property and business insurance, which includes terrorism insurance, on the Empire State Building through ESB Captive Insurance Company L.L.C.,("ESB Captive Insurance"), our wholly owned captive insurance company. ESB Captive Insurance covers terrorism insurance for $700 million in losses in excess of $800 million per occurrence suffered by the Empire State Building, providing us with aggregate terrorism coverage of $1.5 billion. ESB Captive Insurance fully reinsures the 15% coinsurance under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("TRIPRA") and the difference between the TRIPRA captive deductible and policy deductible of $25,000 for non-Nuclear, Biological, Chemical and Radiological exposures. As a result, we remain only liable for the 15% coinsurance under TRIPRA for Nuclear, Biological, Chemical and Radiological ("NBCR") exposures, as well as a deductible equal to 20% of the prior year’s premium, which premium was approximately $365,000 for the period June 30, 2012 through June 30, 2013. As long as we own ESB Captive Insurance, we are responsible for ESB Captive Insurance’s liquidity and capital resources, and ESB Captive Insurance’s accounts are part of our consolidated financial statements. If we experience a loss and our captive insurance company is required to pay under its insurance policy, we would ultimately record the loss to the extent of its required payment.

Furthermore, we do not carry insurance for certain losses, including, but not limited to, losses caused by war. In addition, while our title insurance policies insure for the current aggregate market value of our portfolio, we do not intend to increase our title insurance policies as the market value of our portfolio increases. As a result, we may not have sufficient coverage against all losses that we may experience, including from adverse title claims.

If we experience a loss that is uninsured or which exceeds our policy limits, we could incur significant costs and lose the capital invested in the damaged properties as well as the anticipated future cash flows from those properties. In addition, if the damaged properties are subject to recourse indebtedness, we would continue to be liable for the indebtedness, even if these properties were irreparably damaged.

In addition, certain of our properties could not be rebuilt to their existing height or size at their existing location under current land-use laws and policies. In the event that we experience a substantial or comprehensive loss of one of our properties, we may not be able to rebuild such property to its existing specifications and otherwise may have to upgrade such property to meet current code requirements.

Congress extended the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 in December 2007, now TRIPRA, until December 31, 2014. There is no assurance that TRIPRA will be extended. The law extends the federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Program that requires insurance companies to offer terrorism coverage and provides for compensation for insured losses resulting from acts of foreign and domestic terrorism. Our debt instruments, consisting of mortgage loans secured by our properties (which are generally non-recourse to us), ground leases and our secured term loan, contain customary covenants requiring us to maintain insurance, including terrorism insurance.

While we do not believe it will be likely, there can be no assurance that the lenders or ground lessors under these instruments will not take the position that a total or partial exclusion from “all-risk” insurance coverage for losses due to terrorist acts is a breach of these debt and ground lease instruments that allows the lenders or ground lessors to declare an event of default and accelerate repayment of debt or recapture of ground lease positions for those properties in our portfolio which are not insured against terrorist events. In addition, if lenders insist on full coverage for these risks and prevail in asserting that we are required to maintain such coverage, it could result in substantially higher insurance premiums.

Certain mortgages on our properties contain requirements concerning the financial ratings of the insurers who provide policies covering the property. We provide the lenders on a regular basis with the identity of the insurance companies in our insurance programs. While the ratings of our insurers currently satisfy the rating requirements in some of our loan agreements, in the future, we may be unable to obtain insurance with insurers which satisfy the rating requirements which could give rise to an event of default under such loan agreements. Additionally, in the future our ability to obtain debt financing secured by individual properties, or the terms of such financing, may be adversely affected if lenders generally insist on ratings for insurers which are difficult to obtain or which result in a commercially unreasonable premium.

We may become subject to liability relating to environmental and health and safety matters, which could have a material and adverse effect on us.

Under various federal, state and/or local laws, ordinances and regulations, as a current or former owner or operator of real property, we may be liable for costs and damages resulting from the presence or release of hazardous substances, waste, or petroleum products at, on, in, under or from such property, including costs for investigation or remediation, natural resource damages, or third party liability for personal injury or property damage. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence or release of such materials, and the liability may be joint and several. Some of our properties have been or may be impacted by contamination arising from current or prior uses of the property or adjacent properties for commercial, industrial or other purposes. Such contamination may arise from spills of petroleum or hazardous substances or releases from tanks used to store such materials. We also may be liable for the costs of remediating contamination at off-site disposal or treatment facilities when we arrange for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at such facilities, without regard to whether we comply with environmental laws in doing so. The presence of contamination or the failure to remediate contamination on our properties may adversely affect our ability to attract and/or retain tenants and our ability to develop or sell or borrow against those properties. In addition to potential liability for cleanup costs, private plaintiffs may bring claims for personal injury, property damage or for similar reasons. Environmental laws also may create liens on contaminated sites in favor of the government for damages and costs it incurs to address such contamination. Moreover, if contamination is discovered on our properties, environmental laws may impose restrictions on the manner in which that property may be used or how businesses may be operated on that property. For example, our property at 69-97 Main Street is subject to an Environmental Land Use Restriction that imposes certain restrictions on the use, occupancy and activities of the affected land beneath the property. This restriction may prevent us from conducting certain redevelopment activities at the property, which may adversely affect its resale value and may adversely affect our ability to finance or refinance this property. See “Item 1. Business - Environmental Matters.”

We cannot assure you that costs or liabilities incurred as a result of environmental issues will not affect our ability to make distributions to our stockholders or that such costs, liabilities, or other remedial measures will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Potential environmental liabilities may exceed our environmental insurance coverage limits, which could have a material and adverse effect on us.

We carry environmental insurance to cover certain potential environmental liabilities associated with pollution conditions at certain of our properties. We cannot assure you, however, that our insurance coverage will be sufficient or that our liability will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, per share trading price of our Class A common stock and our ability to satisfy our principal and interest obligations and to make distributions to our stockholders.

We may experience a decline in the fair value of our assets, which may have a material impact on our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations and adversely impact our stock price.

A decline in the fair market value of our assets may require us to recognize an other-than-temporary impairment against such assets under GAAP if we were to determine that, with respect to any assets in unrealized loss positions, we do not have the ability and intent to hold such assets to maturity or for a period of time sufficient to allow for recovery to the amortized cost of such assets. If such a determination were to be made, we would recognize unrealized losses through earnings and write down the amortized cost of such assets to a new cost basis, based on the fair value of such assets on the date they are considered to be other-than-temporarily impaired. Such impairment charges reflect non-cash losses at the time of recognition; subsequent disposition or sale of such assets could further affect our future losses or gains, as they are based on the difference between the sale price received and adjusted amortized cost of such assets at the time of sale.

Failure to hedge interest rates effectively could have a material and adverse effect on us.

Subject to our qualification as a REIT, we may seek to manage our exposure to interest rate volatility by using interest rate hedging arrangements that involve risk, such as the risk that counterparties may fail to honor their obligations under these arrangements, and that these arrangements may not be effective in reducing our exposure to interest rate changes. Moreover, there can be no assurance that our hedging arrangements will qualify for hedge accounting or that our hedging activities will have the desired beneficial impact on our results of operations. Should we desire to terminate a hedging agreement, there could be significant costs and cash requirements involved to fulfill our initial obligation under the hedging agreement. Failure to hedge effectively against interest rate changes may adversely affect our results of operations.

When a hedging agreement is required under the terms of a mortgage loan it is often a condition that the hedge counterparty maintains a specified credit rating. With the current volatility in the financial markets, there is an increased risk that hedge counterparties could have their credit rating downgraded to a level that would not be acceptable under the loan provisions. If we were unable to renegotiate the credit rating condition with the lender or find an alternative counterparty with acceptable credit rating, we could be in default under the loan and the lender could seize that property through foreclosure.

As a general contractor, ESRT Construction LLC and ESRT Construction TRS, L.L.C., our wholly-owned subsidiaries, are subject to the various risks associated with construction (including, without limitation, shortages of labor and materials, work stoppages, labor disputes and weather interference) that could cause construction delays. We are subject to the risk that we will be unable to complete construction at budgeted costs or be unable to fund any excess construction costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We may incur significant costs complying with the ADA and similar laws, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and per share/unit trading price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or the ADA, all public accommodations must meet federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons. We have not conducted a recent audit or investigation of all of our

properties to determine our compliance with the ADA. If one or more of the properties in our portfolio is not in compliance with the ADA, we would be required to incur additional costs to bring the property into compliance. Additional federal, state and local laws also may require modifications to our properties, or restrict our ability to renovate our properties. We cannot predict the ultimate cost of compliance with the ADA or other legislation. If we incur substantial costs to comply with the ADA and any other legislation, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, per share/unit trading price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units and our ability to satisfy our principal and interest obligations and to make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected.

Our property taxes could increase due to property tax rate changes or reassessment, which could impact our cash flows.

Even if we qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we will be required to pay state and local taxes on our properties. The real property taxes on our properties may increase as property tax rates change or as our properties are assessed or reassessed by taxing authorities. Therefore, the amount of property taxes we pay in the future may increase substantially from what we have paid in the past. If the property taxes we pay increase, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, per share trading price of our Class A common stock and our ability to satisfy our principal and interest obligations and to make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected.

We may become subject to litigation, which could have a material and adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and per share trading price of our Class A common stock.

In the future we may become subject to litigation, including claims relating to our operations, offerings, and otherwise in the ordinary course of business. Some of these claims may result in significant defense costs and potentially significant judgments against us, some of which are not, or cannot be, insured against. We generally intend to defend ourselves vigorously; however, we cannot be certain of the ultimate outcomes of any claims that may arise in the future. Resolution of these types of matters against us may result in our having to pay significant fines, judgments, or settlements, which, if uninsured, or if the fines, judgments, and settlements exceed insured levels, could adversely impact our earnings and cash flows, thereby having an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and per share trading price of our Class A common stock. Certain litigation or the resolution of certain litigation may affect the availability or cost of some of our insurance coverage, which could adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows, expose us to increased risks that would be uninsured, and/or adversely impact our ability to attract officers and directors.

There is currently litigation pending, and the potential for additional litigation, associated with the consolidation. We may incur costs from these litigations.

In March 2012, five putative class actions, or the Original Class Actions, were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County by investors in certain of the existing entities (constituting the predecessor and the non-controlled entities) on March 1, 2012, March 7, 2012, March 12, 2012, March 14, 2012 and March 19, 2012. The plaintiffs asserted claims against our predecessor’s management companies, Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the estate of Leona M. Helmsley, our operating partnership and us for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. They alleged, among other things, that the terms of the consolidation and the process by which it was structured (including the valuation that was employed) are unfair to the investors in the existing entities, the consolidation provides excessive benefits to Malkin Holdings LLC and its affiliates and the then-draft prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation filed with the SEC failed to make adequate disclosure to permit a fully-informed decision about the consolidation. The complaints sought money damages and injunctive relief preventing the consolidation. The Class Actions were consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel were appointed by the New York State Supreme Court by order dated June 26, 2012.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated September 28, 2012, resolving the Original Class Actions. The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs. The payment in settlement of the Original Class Actions will be made by the estate of Leona M. Helmsley and affiliates of Malkin Holdings LLC (provided that none of Malkin Holdings LLC's affiliates that would become our direct or indirect subsidiary in the consolidation will have any liability for such payment) and certain investors in the existing entities who agree to contribute. We will not bear any of the settlement payment.

for such objecting investors to file a separate complaint as part of the Original Class Actions, but permitted them to file a brief solely to support their allegation that the buyout would deprive non-consenting investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. of “fair value” in violation of the New York Limited Liability Company Law. The court rejected the objecting investors’ assertion that preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

Pursuant to a decision issued on April 30, 2013, the court rejected the allegation regarding the New York Limited Liability Company Law and ruled in Malkin Holdings LLC’s favor, holding that such buyout provisions are legally binding and enforceable and that investors do not have the rights they claimed under the New York Limited Liability Company Law.

On May 2, 2013, the court held a hearing regarding final approval of the Original Class Actions settlement, at the conclusion of which the court stated that it intended to approve the settlement. On May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order. The court rejected the objections by all objectors and upheld the settlement in its entirety. Of the approximately 4,500 class members who are investors in all of the existing entities included in the consolidation, 12 opted out of the settlement. Those who opted out will not receive any share of the settlement proceeds, but can pursue separate claims for monetary damages. They are bound by the settlement agreement regarding equitable relief, so they cannot seek an injunction to halt the consolidation or our initial public offering. The settlement will not become final until resolution of any appeal.

Also on May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order on attorneys’ fees. Class counsel applied for an award of $15.0 million in fees and $295,895 in expenses, which the court reduced to $11.59 million in fees and $265,282 in expenses (which are included within the $55.0 million settlement payment).

The investors who challenged the buyout provision filed a notice of appeal of the court’s April 30, 2013 decision and moved before the appellate court for a stay of all proceedings relating to the settlement, including such a stay as immediate interim relief. On May 1, 2013, their request for immediate interim relief was denied. On May 13, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief in opposition to the motion for the stay. On June 18, 2013, the appellate court denied the motion for the stay. On July 16, 2013, these investors filed their brief and other supporting papers on their appeal of the April 30, 2013 decision, which are required to perfect the appeal. On September 4, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief on the appeal, and also moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that these investors lack standing to pursue it. Malkin Holdings LLC contended that these investors were not entitled to appraisal under the New York Limited Liability Company Law because, among other reasons (i) they are not members of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., and only members have such rights; (ii) the transaction in question is not a merger or consolidation as defined by statute, and appraisal only applies in those transactions; and (iii) when Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. was converted into a limited liability company, the parties agreed that no appraisal would apply. Moreover, Malkin Holdings LLC contended that only the 12 investors who opted out of the class action settlement could pursue appraisal, because that settlement contains a broad release of (and there is an associated bar order from the court preventing) any such claims. Malkin Holdings LLC further noted that of the six investors attempting to pursue the appeal, only two had in fact opted out of the class action settlement. On September 13, 2013, these investors filed their reply brief on the appeal, and opposed the motion to dismiss. On September 19, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its reply brief on the motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2013, the appeals court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to address the matter directly on the appeal, effectively referring the issues raised in the motion to the panel that will hear the appeal itself. The appeals court heard argument on November 21, 2013, and in a Decision and Order dated February 25, 2014, it affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

In addition, on June 20, 2013, these same investors, and one additional investor who also opposed the settlement of the Original Class Action, filed additional notices of appeal from the trial court’s rulings in the Original Class Actions. These notices of appeal related to (i) the order entered February 22, 2013 granting preliminary approval of the Original Class Action settlement and setting a hearing for final approval; (ii) the order entered February 26, 2013, refusing to sign a proposed order to show cause for a preliminary injunction regarding the consolidation; (iii) an order entered April 2, 2013, denying the motion to intervene and to file a separate class action on behalf of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. investors; (iv) the order entered April 10, 2013, refusing to sign the order to show cause seeking to extend the deadline for class members to opt out of the Original Class Action settlement; (v) the Final Judgment and Order entered May 17, 2013; (vi) the order entered May 17, 2013 approving the Original Class Action settlement; and (vii) the order entered May 17, 2013 awarding class counsel attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 6, 2014, Class counsel moved to dismiss these additional appeals on the grounds that they were not timely perfected by filing an appellate brief and record. On February 6, 2014, the appeals court granted the motion unless the appeals are perfected by March 17, 2014.

process or any related relief, if such further appeal were successful. If the trial and appeals courts’ decisions were reversed by the Court of Appeals, there is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, which could take the form of monetary damages or other equitable relief, and the court could order some or all of the relief that the objecting investors have requested, as described above. Although there can be no assurance, we believe that the trial and appeals courts’ decisions were correct, that they will be upheld on any further appeal.

On March 14, 2014, one of the investors who had filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s rulings in the Original Class Actions noted above perfected an appeal from the court’s May 17, 2013 Final Judgment and Order and orders approving the Original Class Action Settlement and awarding class counsel attorneys’ fees and costs. Responses to this appeal are due April 16, 2014. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of an appeal. If the court’s decision were reversed by an appellate court, there is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, including the imposition of monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. Although there can be no assurance, we believe that the trial court’s decision was correct, and that it will be upheld on appeal. No other appeals were filed by the March 17, 2014 deadline set by the appeals court in its February 6, 2014 order.

In addition, commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the Second Class Actions, were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched. One of the Second Class Actions named us and our operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions were consolidated on consent and co-lead class counsel was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or our operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages. On March 7, 2014 defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Class Actions. We cannot predict the outcome of the motion (or if the motion is not granted, the outcome of the Second Class Actions). We will incur costs in connection with this litigation. If the court were to rule against the defendants there is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, which could take the form of monetary damages or other equitable relief.

In connection with the Offering and formation transactions, we entered into indemnification agreements with our directors, executive officers and chairman emeritus, providing for the indemnification by us for certain liabilities and expenses incurred as a result of actions brought, or threatened to be brought, against them. As a result, Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. have defense and indemnity rights from us with respect to the Second Class Actions.

Additionally, there is a risk that other third parties will assert claims against us, Malkin Holdings LLC, or any other party entitled to defense and indemnity from us, including, without limitation, claims that the supervisor breached its fiduciary duties to investors in the existing entities or that the consolidation violates the relevant operating agreements, and third parties may commence litigation related to such claims. As a result, we may incur costs associated with defending or settling such litigation or paying any judgment if we lose.

Joint venture investments could be adversely affected by our lack of sole decision-making authority, our reliance on co-venturers’ financial condition and disputes between us and our co-venturers.

We may co-invest in the future with third parties through partnerships, joint ventures or other entities, acquiring non-controlling interests in or sharing responsibility for managing the affairs of a property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. In such event, we would not be in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. Investments in partnerships, joint ventures or other entities may, under certain circumstances, involve risks not present were a third party not involved, including the possibility that partners or co-venturers might become bankrupt or fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Partners or co-venturers may have economic or other business interests or goals which are inconsistent with our business interests or goals, and may be in a position to take actions contrary to our policies or objectives, and they may have competing interests in our markets that could create conflict of interest issues. Such investments may also have the potential risk of impasses on decisions, such as a sale, because neither we nor the partner or co-venturer would have full control over the partnership or joint venture. In addition, prior consent of our joint venture partners may be required for a sale or transfer to a third party of our interests in the joint venture, which would restrict our ability to dispose of our interest in the joint venture. If we become a limited partner or non-managing member in any partnership or limited liability company and such entity takes or expects to take actions that could jeopardize our status as a REIT or require us to pay tax, we may be forced to dispose of our interest in such entity including at an unfavorable price. Disputes between us and partners or co-venturers may result in litigation or arbitration that would increase our expenses and prevent our officers and/or directors from focusing their time and effort on our business. Consequently, actions by or disputes with partners or co-venturers might result in subjecting properties owned by the partnership or joint venture to additional risk.

In addition, we may in certain circumstances be liable for the actions of our third-party partners or co-venturers. Our joint ventures may be subject to debt and, in any weakened credit market, the refinancing of such debt may require equity capital calls.

Changes in accounting rules, assumptions and/or judgments could materially and adversely affect us.

Accounting rules for certain aspects of our anticipated operations are highly complex and involve significant judgment and assumptions. These complexities could lead to a delay in the preparation of our financial statements and the delivery of this information to our stockholders. Furthermore, changes in accounting rules or in our accounting assumptions and/or judgments, such as asset impairments, could materially impact our financial statements. Under any of these circumstances, we could be materially and adversely affected.

We may incur significant costs complying with various regulatory requirements, which could materially and adversely affect our financial performance.

Our properties are subject to various federal, state and local regulatory requirements, such as state and local fire and life safety requirements. If we fail to comply with these various requirements, we might incur governmental fines or private damage awards. In addition, existing requirements could change and future requirements might require us to make significant unanticipated expenditures, which materially and adversely affect our financial performance.

We face risks relating to cybersecurity attacks that could cause loss of confidential information and other business disruptions.

We rely extensively on computer systems to process transactions and manage our business, and our business is at risk from and may be impacted by cybersecurity attacks. These could include attempts to gain unauthorized access to our data and computer systems. Attacks can be both individual and/or highly organized attempts organized by very sophisticated hacking organizations. We employ a number of measures to prevent, detect and mitigate these threats, which include password protection, frequent password change events, firewall detection systems, frequent backups, a redundant data system for core applications and annual penetration testing; however, there is no guarantee such efforts will be successful in preventing a cyber attack. A cybersecurity attack could compromise the confidential information of our employees, tenants and vendors. A successful attack could disrupt and affect the business operations.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

Holders of our Class B common stock have a significant vote in matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders.

As part of our formation, original investors were offered the opportunity to contribute their interests to us in exchange for Class A common stock, operating partnership units, a combination of one share of Class B common stock for each 50 operating partnership units to which an investor was entitled, resulting in one share of Class B common stock and 49 operating partnership units, or a combination of any of the above. Each outstanding share of Class B common stock entitles the holder thereof to 50 votes on all matters on which Class A common stockholders are entitled to vote, including the election of directors. Holders of our Class B common stock are entitled to share equally, on a per share basis, in all distributions payable with respect to shares of our Class A common stock. Holders of our Class B common stock may have interests that differ from those holders of our Class A common stock, including by reason of their interest in our operating partnership, and may accordingly vote as a stockholder in ways that may not be consistent with the interests of holders of our Class A common stock. This significant voting influence over certain matters may have the effect of delaying, preventing or deterring a change of control of our company, or could deprive holders of our Class A common stock of an opportunity to receive a premium for their Class A common stock as part of a sale of our company. Class B common stock has been issued only in connection with the formation transactions as described above, and any such share is automatically converted to a share of Class A common stock (having a single vote) upon its holder conveying the related 49 operating partnership units to any person other than a family member, affiliate or controlled entity of such person.

We assumed unknown liabilities in connection with the formation transactions, which, if significant, could materially and adversely affect our business.

As part of the formation transactions, we (through our operating partnership) acquired the properties and assets of our predecessor and certain other assets, subject to existing liabilities including unknown liabilities. Unknown liabilities might

include liabilities for cleanup or remediation of undisclosed environmental conditions, claims of tenants, vendors or other persons dealing with such entities prior to the Offering (that had not been asserted or threatened prior to the Offering), tax liabilities, and accrued but unpaid liabilities incurred in the ordinary course of business. As part of the formation transactions, Anthony E. Malkin and his siblings, Scott D. Malkin and Cynthia M. Blumenthal, made limited representations and warranties to us regarding the entities, properties and assets that we own for one year following the completion of the Offering and agreed to indemnify us and our operating partnership for breaches of such representations subject to a $1,000,000 deductible and a cap of $25,000,000. Because many liabilities, including tax liabilities, may not be identified within such period, we may have no recourse against Anthony E. Malkin, Scott D. Malkin or Cynthia M. Blumenthal for such liabilities. In addition, we have agreed to indemnify our senior management team and certain members, managers, shareholders, directors, limited partners, general partners, officers or controlling persons of our predecessor in their capacities as such for certain claims. Any unknown or unquantifiable liabilities that we assumed in connection with the formation transactions for which we have no or limited recourse could materially and adversely affect us. See “-We may become subject to liability relating to environmental and health and safety matters, which could have a material and adverse effect on us” as to the possibility of undisclosed environmental conditions potentially affecting the value of the properties in our portfolio.

The departure of any of our key personnel could materially and adversely affect us.

Our success depends on the efforts of key personnel, particularly Anthony E. Malkin, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President. Among the reasons Anthony E. Malkin is important to our success is that he has a national industry reputation that benefits us in many ways. He has led the acquisition, operating and repositioning of our assets for the last two decades. If we lost his services, our external relationships and internal leadership resources would be materially diminished.

Other members of our senior management team also have strong industry reputations and experience, which aid us in attracting, identifying and exploiting opportunities. The loss of the services of one or more members of our senior management team, particularly Anthony E. Malkin, could have a material and adverse impact on us.

Tax consequences to holders of operating partnership units upon a sale or refinancing of our properties may cause the interests of certain members of our senior management team to differ from your own.

As a result of the unrealized built-in gain attributable to a property at the time of contribution, some holders of operating partnership units, including Anthony E. Malkin and Peter L. Malkin, may suffer different and more adverse tax consequences than holders of our Class A common stock upon the sale or refinancing of the properties owned by our operating partnership, including disproportionately greater allocations of items of taxable income and gain upon a realization event. As those holders will not receive a correspondingly greater distribution of cash proceeds, they may have different objectives regarding the appropriate pricing, timing and other material terms of any sale or refinancing of certain properties, or whether to sell or refinance such properties at all. As a result, the effect of certain transactions on Anthony E. Malkin and Peter L. Malkin may influence their decisions affecting these properties and may cause such members of our senior management team to attempt to delay, defer or prevent a transaction that might otherwise be in the best interests of our other stockholders. In connection with the formation transactions, we entered into a tax protection agreement with Anthony E. Malkin and Peter L. Malkin pursuant to which we have agreed to indemnify the Malkin Group and one additional third party investor in Metro Center (who was one of the original landowners and was involved in the development of the property) against certain tax liabilities if those tax liabilities result from (i) the operating partnership’s sale, transfer, conveyance, or other taxable disposition of four specified properties (First Stamford Place, Metro Center, 10 Bank Street and 1542 Third Avenue) acquired by the operating partnership in the consolidation for a period of 12 years with respect to First Stamford Place and for the later of (x) eight years or (y) the death of both Peter L. Malkin and Isabel W. Malkin who are 80 and 77 years old, respectively, for the three other properties, (ii) the operating partnership failing to maintain until maturity the indebtedness secured by those properties or failing to use commercially reasonable efforts to refinance such indebtedness upon maturity in an amount equal to the principal balance of such indebtedness, or, if the operating partnership is unable to refinance such indebtedness at its current principal amount, at the highest principal amount possible, or (iii) the operating partnership failing to make available to any of these continuing investors the opportunity to guarantee, or otherwise bear the risk of loss, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, of their allocable share of $160 million of aggregate indebtedness meeting certain requirements, until such continuing investor owns less than the aggregate number of operating partnership units and shares of common stock equal to 50% of the aggregate number of such units and shares such continuing investor received in the formation transactions. As a result of entering into the tax protection agreement, Anthony E. Malkin and Peter L. Malkin may have an incentive to cause us to enter into transactions from which they may personally benefit.

Our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President has outside business interests that take his time and attention away from us, which could materially and adversely affect us.

Anthony E. Malkin, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, has agreed to devote a majority of his business time and attention to our business and, under his employment agreement, he may also devote time to the excluded properties, option properties, the excluded businesses and certain family investments to the extent that such activities do not materially interfere with the performance of his duties to us. He owns interests in the excluded properties, excluded businesses and option properties that were not contributed to us in the formation transactions, some of which are managed by our company and certain non-real estate family investments. In some cases, Anthony E. Malkin or his affiliates have certain management and fiduciary obligations that may conflict with such person’s responsibilities as an officer or director of our company and may adversely affect our operations.

We may pursue less vigorous enforcement of terms of the formation transaction agreements because of conflicts of interest with certain members of our senior management team, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Certain members of our senior management team have ownership interests in our predecessor that we acquired in the formation transactions. As part of the formation transactions, Anthony E. Malkin and his siblings, Scott D. Malkin and Cynthia M. Blumenthal, entered into agreements with us, pursuant to which they made limited representations and warranties to us regarding the entities, properties and assets that we acquired in the formation transactions for one year following the completion of the Offering and agreed to indemnify us and our operating partnership for breaches of such representations and warranties subject to a $1,000,000 deductible and a cap of $25,000,000. Such indemnification is limited, however, and we are not entitled to any other indemnification in connection with the formation transactions. See “-We may assume unknown liabilities in connection with the formation transactions, which, if significant, could materially and adversely affect our business” above. In addition, Anthony E. Malkin has agreed under an employment agreement with us not to engage in certain business activities in competition with us (both during, and for a period of time following, his employment with us). We may choose not to enforce, or to enforce less vigorously, our rights under these agreements because of our desire to maintain our ongoing relationship with our executive officers given their significant knowledge of our business, relationships with our customers and significant equity ownership in us, and this could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take action against our directors and officers are limited, which could limit your recourse in the event of actions not in your best interest.

Our charter limits the liability of our present and former directors and officers to us and our stockholders for money damages to the maximum extent permitted under Maryland law. Under current Maryland law, our present and former directors and officers will not have any liability to us or our stockholders for money damages other than liability resulting from (1) actual receipt of an improper benefit or profit in money, property or services or (2) active and deliberate dishonesty by the director or officer that was established by a final judgment and is material to the cause of action. As a result, we and our stockholders may have limited rights against our present and former directors and officers, as well as persons who served as members, managers, shareholders, directors, partners, officers, controlling persons certain agents of our predecessor, which could limit your recourse in the event of actions not in your best interest.

Conflicts of interest exist or could arise in the future between the interests of our stockholders and the interests of holders of operating partnership units, which may impede business decisions that could benefit our stockholders.

Conflicts of interest exist or could arise in the future as a result of the relationships between us and our affiliates, on the one hand, and our operating partnership or any partner thereof, on the other. Our directors and officers have duties to our company under applicable Maryland law in connection with their management of our company. At the same time, we, as the general partner in our operating partnership, have fiduciary duties and obligations to our operating partnership and its limited partners under Delaware law and the partnership agreement of our operating partnership in connection with the management of our operating partnership. Our fiduciary duties and obligations as general partner to our operating partnership and its partners may come into conflict with the duties of our directors and officers to our company.

Additionally, the partnership agreement provides that we and our directors and officers will not be liable or accountable to our operating partnership for losses sustained, liabilities incurred or benefits not derived if we, or such director or officer acted in good faith. The partnership agreement also provides that we will not be liable to the operating partnership or any partner for monetary damages for losses sustained, liabilities incurred or benefits not derived by the operating partnership or any limited partner, except for liability for our intentional harm or gross negligence. Moreover, the partnership agreement provides that our operating partnership is required to indemnify its directors and officers, us and our directors and officers and authorizes our operating partnership to indemnify present and former members, managers, shareholders, directors, limited partners, general partners, officers or controlling persons of our predecessor and authorizes us to indemnify members, partners, employees and agents of us or our predecessor, in each case for actions taken by them in those capacities from and against any

and all claims that relate to the operations of our operating partnership, except (1) if the act or omission of the person was material to the matter giving rise to the action and either was committed in bad faith or was the result of active and deliberate dishonesty, (2) for any transaction for which the indemnified party received an improper personal benefit, in money, property or services or otherwise, in violation or breach of any provision of the partnership agreement or (3) in the case of a criminal proceeding, if the indemnified person had reasonable cause to believe that the act or omission was unlawful. No reported decision of a Delaware appellate court has interpreted provisions similar to the provisions of the partnership agreement of our operating partnership that modify and reduce our fiduciary duties or obligations as the general partner or reduce or eliminate our liability for money damages to the operating partnership and its partners, and we have not obtained an opinion of counsel as to the enforceability of the provisions set forth in the partnership agreement that purport to modify or reduce the fiduciary duties that would be in effect were it not for the partnership agreement.

Our executive officers have certain rights to terminate their employment and receive severance in connection with a change of control of our company, which may adversely affect us.

Anthony E. Malkin's employment agreement and David A. Karp's, Thomas N. Keltner, Jr.'s and Thomas P. Durels' change in control severance agreements with us provide for termination payments in connection with a change of control if they are terminated by us without cause or leave with good reason within a specified period of time either before or following a change of control (as defined in our equity incentive plan). Furthermore, these provisions could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium paid for shares of our common stock or otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders.

We could increase or decrease the number of authorized shares of stock, classify and reclassify unissued stock and issue stock without stockholder approval, which could prevent a change in our control and negatively affect the market value of our shares.

Our board of directors, without stockholder approval, has the power under our charter to amend our charter from time to time to increase or decrease the aggregate number of shares of stock or the number of shares of stock of any class or series that we are authorized to issue, to authorize us to issue authorized but unissued shares of our common stock or preferred stock and to classify or reclassify any unissued shares of our common stock or preferred stock into one or more classes or series of stock and set the terms of such newly classified or reclassified shares. As a result, we may issue series or classes of common stock or preferred stock with preferences, distributions, powers and rights, voting or otherwise, that are senior to, or otherwise conflict with, the rights of holders of our common stock. Any such issuance could dilute our existing stockholders’ interests. Although our board of directors has no such intention at the present time, it could establish a class or series of preferred stock that could, depending on the terms of such series, delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change of control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or that our stockholders otherwise believe to be in their best interest.

Our operating partnership may issue additional operating partnership units without the consent of our stockholders, which could have a dilutive effect on our stockholders.

Our operating partnership may issue additional operating partnership units to third parties without the consent of our stockholders, which would reduce our ownership percentage in our operating partnership and would have a dilutive effect on the amount of distributions made to us by our operating partnership and, therefore, the amount of distributions we can make to our stockholders. Any such issuances, or the perception of such issuances, could materially and adversely affect the market price of our Class A common stock.

Our operating performance and value are subject to risks associated with real estate assets and the real estate industry, the occurrence of which could materially and adversely affect us.

Real estate investments are subject to various risks and fluctuations and cycles in value and demand, many of which are beyond our control. Certain events may decrease cash available for distributions, as well as the value of our properties. These events include, but are not limited to:


•	adverse changes in international, national, regional or local economic and demographic conditions;


•	vacancies or our inability to rent space on favorable terms, including possible market pressures to offer tenants rent abatements, tenant improvements, early termination rights or below-market renewal options;


•	adverse changes in market rental rates, particularly as our buildings age, and our ability to fund repair and maintenance costs;


•	adverse changes in financial conditions of buyers, sellers and tenants of properties;


•	our inability to collect rent and expense reimbursements from tenants;


•	competition from other real estate investors with significant capital, including other real estate operating companies, publicly traded REITs and institutional investment funds;


•	the introduction of a competitor’s property in or in close proximity to one of our current submarkets in the greater New York metropolitan area;


•	reductions in the level of demand for office or retail space, and changes in the relative popularity of properties;


•	increases in the supply of office or retail space;


•	opposition from local community or political groups with respect to the construction or operations at a property;


•	our inability to provide effective and efficient management and maintenance at our properties;


•	our inability to provide effective management to the excluded properties for which are designated as the exclusive manager;


•	the investigation, removal or remediation of hazardous materials or toxic substances at a property;


•	fluctuations in interest rates, which could adversely affect our ability, or the ability of buyers and tenants of properties, to obtain financing on favorable terms or at all;


•	increases in expenses, including, without limitation, insurance costs, labor costs, energy prices, real estate assessments and other taxes and costs of compliance with laws, regulations and governmental policies, which we may be restricted in passing on to our tenants;


•	civil disturbances, hurricanes and other natural disasters, or terrorist acts or acts of war, which may result in uninsured or underinsured losses; and


•	changes in, and changes in enforcement of, laws, regulations and governmental policies, including, without limitation, health, safety, environmental, zoning and tax laws, governmental fiscal policies and the ADA.

In addition, periods of economic slowdown or recession, rising interest rates or declining demand for real estate, or the public perception that any of these events may occur, could result in a general decline in rents or an increased incidence of defaults among our existing leases. If we cannot operate our properties to meet our financial expectations, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, per share/unit trading price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units and our ability to satisfy our principal and interest obligations and to make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected. There can be no assurance that we can achieve our return objectives.

We have limited operating history as a REIT and as a publicly-traded company, and our inexperience could materially and adversely affect us.

We have limited operating history as a REIT and as a publicly-traded company. Our board of directors and senior management team have overall responsibility for our management and, while certain members of our senior management team and directors have extensive experience in real estate marketing, development, management, finance and law, none of our directors or members of our senior management team have prior experience in operating a business in accordance with the requirements under the Code applicable to REITs or in operating a public company other than our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer and certain of our directors. As a publicly-traded REIT, we are required to develop and implement substantial control systems, policies and procedures in order to maintain our REIT qualification and satisfy our periodic SEC reporting and New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE, listing requirements. We cannot assure you that management’s past experience will be sufficient to successfully develop and implement these systems, policies and procedures and to operate our company. Failure to do so could jeopardize our status as a REIT or as a public company, and the loss of such status would materially and adversely affect us.

Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit changes in control of our company, which could negatively affect the market price of our shares.

Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law, or the MGCL, may have the effect of deterring a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or of impeding a change in control under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of our common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of our Class A common stock. Among other things, we are subject to the “business combination,” “control share acquisition” and “unsolicited takeover” provisions of the MGCL. These provisions may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making an acquisition proposal for us or of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us under the circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of shares of common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then current market price. Pursuant to the statute, our board of directors has by resolution exempted business combinations between us and any other person, provided that such business combination is first approved by our board of directors (including a majority of our directors who are not affiliates or associates of such person). Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the control share acquisition statute any and all acquisitions by any person of shares of our stock. There can be no assurance that these exemptions or provisions will not be amended or eliminated at any time in the future. Our charter contains a provision

whereby we have elected to be subject to the provisions of Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the MGCL relating to the filling of vacancies on our board of directors.

Certain provisions in the partnership agreement of our operating partnership may delay or prevent unsolicited acquisitions of us.

Provisions in the partnership agreement of our operating partnership may delay or make more difficult unsolicited acquisitions of us or changes of our control. These provisions could discourage third parties from making proposals involving an unsolicited acquisition of us or change of our control, although some stockholders might consider such proposals, if made, desirable. These provisions include, among others:


•	redemption rights of qualifying parties;


•	transfer restrictions on operating partnership units;


•	our ability, as general partner, in some cases, to amend the partnership agreement and to cause the operating partnership to issue units with terms that could delay, defer or prevent a merger or other change of control of us or our operating partnership without the consent of the limited partners; and


•	the right of the limited partners to consent to transfers of the general partnership interest and mergers or other transactions involving us under specified circumstances.

Our charter, bylaws, the partnership agreement of our operating partnership and Maryland law also contain other provisions that may delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change of control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or that our stockholders otherwise believe to be in their best interest.

Our charter contains stock ownership limits, which may delay or prevent a change of control.

In order for us to qualify as a REIT for each taxable year commencing with our taxable year ending December 31, 2013, no more than 50% in value of our outstanding capital stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals during the last half of any calendar year, and at least 100 persons must beneficially own our stock during at least 335 days of a taxable year of 12 months, or during a proportionate portion of a shorter taxable year. “Individuals” for this purpose include natural persons, private foundations, some employee benefit plans and trusts and some charitable trusts. To assist us in complying with these limitations, among other purposes, our charter generally prohibits any person from directly or indirectly owning more than 9.8% in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of our capital stock or more than 9.8% in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of our common stock. These ownership limitations could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of our common stock might receive a premium for their shares over the then prevailing market price or which holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests. We have entered into waivers of the 9.8% ownership limit with two institutional investors to permit each of these institutional investors to own up to 15% of the outstanding shares of our Class A common stock.

Our charter’s constructive ownership rules are complex and may cause the outstanding shares owned by a group of related individuals or entities to be deemed to be constructively owned by one individual or entity. As a result, the acquisition of less than these percentages of the outstanding shares by an individual or entity could cause that individual or entity to own constructively in excess of these percentages of the outstanding shares and thus violate the share ownership limits. Our charter also provides that any attempt to own or transfer shares of our common stock or preferred stock (if and when issued) in excess of the stock ownership limits without the consent of our board of directors or in a manner that would cause us to be “closely held” under Section 856(h) of the Code (without regard to whether the shares are held during the last half of a taxable year) will result in the shares being deemed to be transferred to a trustee for a charitable trust or, if the transfer to the charitable trust is not automatically effective to prevent a violation of the share ownership limits or the restrictions on ownership and transfer of our shares, any such transfer of our shares will be null and void.

The concentration of our voting power may adversely affect the ability of new investors to influence our policies.

As of December 31, 2013, Anthony E. Malkin, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, together with the Malkin Group, has the right to vote 37,767,775 shares of our common stock, which represents approximately 25.1% of the voting power of our outstanding common stock. Consequently, Mr. Malkin has the ability to influence the outcome of matters presented to our stockholders, including the election of our board of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions, including business combinations, consolidations and mergers and the determination of our day-to-day corporate and management policies. Therefore, Mr. Malkin has substantial influence over us and could exercise influence in a manner

that is not in the best interests of our other stockholders. This concentration of voting power might also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control that our stockholders may view as beneficial.

Our board of directors may change our strategies, policies or procedures without stockholder consent, which may subject us to different and more significant risks in the future.

Our investment, financing, leverage and distribution policies and our policies with respect to all other activities, including growth, debt, capitalization and operations, will be determined by our board of directors. These policies may be amended or revised at any time and from time to time at the discretion of the board of directors without notice to or a vote of our stockholders. This could result in our conducting operational matters, making investments or pursuing different business or growth strategies. Under these circumstances, we may expose ourselves to different and more significant risks in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and growth. In addition, the board of directors may change our policies with respect to conflicts of interest provided that such changes are consistent with applicable legal requirements. A change in these policies could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, per share/unit trading price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units and ability to satisfy our principal and interest obligations and to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our board of directors has approved very broad investment guidelines for our company and will not review or approve each investment decision made by our senior management team.

Our senior management team is authorized to follow broad investment guidelines and, therefore, has great latitude in determining the types of assets that are proper investments for us, as well as the individual investment decisions. Our senior management team may make investments with lower rates of return than those anticipated under current market conditions and/or may make investments with greater risks to achieve those anticipated returns. Our board of directors will not review or approve each proposed investment by our senior management team.

If we fail to establish and maintain an effective system of integrated internal controls, we may not be able to report our financial results accurately, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

We completed the Offering on October 7, 2013. Our predecessor was not required to maintain internal control over financial reporting in a manner that meets the standards of publicly traded companies required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires us to evaluate and report on our internal control over financial reporting and have our independent auditors issue their own opinion on our internal control over financial reporting. If we fail to implement proper overall business controls, including as required to integrate the systems and procedures of our predecessor and support our growth, our results of operations could be harmed or we could fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, the existence of a material weakness or significant deficiency could result in errors in our financial statements that could require a restatement, cause us to fail to meet our public company reporting obligations and cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

Risks Related to our Common Stock and Traded OP Units

The trading volume and market price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units may be volatile and could decline substantially in the future.

The market price of shares of our Class A common stock and traded OP units may be volatile, and investors in shares of our Class A common stock and traded OP units may from time to time experience a decrease in the value of their shares or units, including decreases unrelated to our operating performance or prospects. The price of shares of our Class A common stock and traded OP units could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a number of factors, including, among others, the following:


•	our operating performance and the performance of other similar companies;


•	actual or anticipated differences in our quarterly operating results;


•	changes in our revenues or earnings estimates or recommendations by securities analysts;


•	publication of research reports about us, the office or retail real estate sectors, office or retail tenants or the real estate industry;


•	increases in market interest rates, which may lead investors to demand a higher distribution yield for shares of our common stock, and would result in increased interest expenses on our debt;


•	actual or anticipated changes in our and our tenants’ businesses or prospects;


•	the current state of the credit and capital markets, and our ability and the ability of our tenants to obtain financing;


•	additions and departures of key personnel;


•	increased competition in the commercial office and retail real estate business in our markets;


•	strategic decisions by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions, divestments, spin-offs, joint ventures, strategic investments or changes in business strategy;


•	the passage of legislation or other regulatory developments that adversely affect us or our industry;


•	speculation in the press or investment community;


•	litigation;


•	actions by institutional stockholders;


•	equity issuances by us (including the issuances of operating partnership units), or common stock resales by our stockholders, or the perception that such issuances or resales may occur;


•	the trading and market price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units;


•	actual, potential or perceived accounting problems;


•	changes in accounting principles;


•	failure to qualify as a REIT;


•	terrorist acts, natural or man-made disasters or threatened or actual armed conflicts; and


•	general market and local, regional and national economic conditions, particularly in the Manhattan and greater New York metropolitan area, including factors unrelated to our performance.

No assurance can be given that the market price of shares of our Class A common stock and traded OP units will not fluctuate or decline significantly in the future or that holders of shares of our common stock will be able to sell their shares when desired on favorable terms, or at all. From time to time in the past, securities class action litigation has been instituted against companies following periods of extreme volatility in their stock price. This type of litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources.

Our cash available for distribution may not be sufficient to make distributions at expected levels.

We intend to make distributions to holders of shares of our common stock and holders of operating partnership units. All dividends and distributions will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our earnings, financial condition, maintenance of REIT qualification and other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time. If sufficient cash is not available for distribution from our operations, we may have to fund distributions from working capital or to borrow to provide funds for such distribution, or to reduce the amount of such distribution. We cannot assure you that our estimated distributions will be made or sustained. Any distributions we pay in the future will depend upon our actual results of operations, economic conditions and other factors that could differ materially from our current expectations.

The market price of shares of our Class A common stock and traded OP units could be adversely affected by our level of cash distributions.

The market value of the equity securities of a REIT is based primarily upon the market’s perception of the REIT’s growth potential and its current and potential future cash distributions, whether from operations, sales or refinancings, and is secondarily based upon the real estate market value of the underlying assets. For that reason, our Class A common stock and traded OP units may trade at prices that are higher or lower than our net asset value per share. To the extent we retain operating cash flow for investment purposes, working capital reserves or other purposes, these retained funds, while increasing the value of our underlying assets, may not correspondingly increase the market price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units. Our failure to meet the market’s expectations with regard to future earnings and cash distributions likely would adversely affect the market price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units.

Increases in market interest rates may result in a decrease in the value of our Class A common stock and traded OP units.

One of the factors that will influence the price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units will be the dividend yield on the Class A common stock and traded OP units (as a percentage of the price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units) relative to market interest rates. An increase in market interest rates, which are currently at low levels relative to historical rates, may lead prospective purchasers of shares of our Class A common stock and traded OP units to expect a higher dividend yield and higher interest rates would likely increase our borrowing costs and potentially decrease funds available for distribution. Thus, higher market interest rates could cause the market price of our Class A common stock and traded OP units to go down.

The number of shares and operating partnership units available for future sale could adversely affect the market price of our Class A common stock.

We cannot predict whether future issuances of shares of our Class A common stock or operating partnership units or the availability of shares for resale in the open market will decrease the market price per share of our Class A common stock. Under the terms of the registration rights agreement, investors in the entities we acquired in the formation transactions, including the Malkin Group, received rights to have shares of common stock held by them registered for resale under the Securities Act and the Malkin Group has rights to demand underwritten offerings with respect to such resales. These investors (other than the Malkin Group and members of our senior management team), pursuant to the terms of their lock-up agreements, may freely sell 50% of the shares of common stock or securities convertible or exchangeable into common stock (including the operating partnership units) held by them beginning 180 days after the effective date of our initial public offering and 100% of the shares of common stock or securities convertible or exchangeable into common stock (including the operating partnership units) held by them beginning one year after the effective date of our initial public offering (subject to an early release from the lock-up). The Malkin Group, pursuant to its lock-up agreement, may freely sell 100% of the shares of common stock held by it beginning one year after the effective date of our initial public offering. We may also issue shares of common stock or operating partnership units in connection with future property, portfolio or business acquisitions. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our Class A common stock (including shares of our Class A common stock issued pursuant to our equity incentive plan) or operating partnership units in the public market, or upon exchange of operating partnership units, or the perception that such sales might occur could adversely affect the market price of the shares of our Class A common stock and traded OP units. In addition, future sales of shares of our Class A common stock may be dilutive to holders of shares of our common stock.

Future issuances of debt securities, which would rank senior to shares of our common stock upon our liquidation, and future issuances of equity securities (including operating partnership units), which would dilute the holdings of our existing common stockholders and may be senior to shares of our common stock for the purposes of making distributions, periodically or upon liquidation, may materially and adversely affect the market price of shares of our Class A common stock and traded OP units.

In the future, we may issue debt or equity securities or make other borrowings. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and other loans and preferred shares will receive a distribution of our available assets before holders of shares of our common stock. We are not required to offer any such additional debt or equity securities to existing stockholders on a preemptive basis. Therefore, additional shares of our common stock issuances, directly or through convertible or exchangeable securities (including operating partnership units), warrants or options, will dilute the holdings of our existing common stockholders and such issuances or the perception of such issuances may reduce the market price of shares of our common stock. Our preferred shares, if issued, would likely have a preference on distribution payments, periodically or upon liquidation, which could limit our ability to make distributions to holders of shares of our common stock. Because our decision to issue debt or equity securities or otherwise incur debt in the future will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future capital raising efforts. Thus, holders of shares of our common stock bear the risk that our future issuances of debt or equity securities or our other borrowings will reduce the market price of shares of our Class A common stock and traded OP units and dilute their ownership in us.

A portion of our distributions may be treated as a return of capital for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which could reduce the basis of a stockholder’s investment in shares of our common stock.

A portion of our distributions may be treated as a return of capital for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a general matter, a portion of our distributions will be treated as a return of capital for U.S. federal income tax purposes if the aggregate amount of our distributions for a year exceeds our current and accumulated earnings and profits for that year. To the extent that a distribution is treated as a return of capital for U.S. federal income tax purposes, it will reduce a holder’s adjusted tax basis in the holder’s shares, and to the extent that it exceeds the holder’s adjusted tax basis will be treated as gain resulting from a sale or exchange of such shares.

Our balance sheet includes significant amounts of goodwill. The impairment of a significant portion of this goodwill could negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our balance sheet includes goodwill of approximately $491.5 million at December 31, 2013. These assets consist primarily of goodwill associated with our acquisition of the controlling interest in Empire State Building Company L.L.C. and 501 Seventh Avenue Associates L.L.C. We also expect to engage in additional acquisitions, which may result in our recognition of additional goodwill. Under accounting standards goodwill is not amortized. On an annual basis and whenever

events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value or goodwill may be impaired, we are required to assess whether there have been impairments in the carrying value of goodwill. If the carrying value of the asset is determined to be impaired, then it is written down to fair value by a charge to operating earnings. An impairment of goodwill could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Tax Risks Related to Ownership of Our Shares

Our failure to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT would subject us to U.S. federal income tax and applicable state and local taxes, which would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We have been organized and we intend to operate in a manner that we believe will enable us to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2013. We have not requested and do not intend to request a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, that we qualify as a REIT. Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions and Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder for which there are limited judicial and administrative interpretations. The complexity of these provisions and of applicable Treasury Regulations is greater in the case of a REIT that, like us, holds its assets through partnerships. To qualify as a REIT, we must meet, on an ongoing basis, various tests regarding the nature and diversification of our assets and our income, the ownership of our outstanding shares, and the amount of our distributions. Our ability to satisfy these asset tests depends upon our analysis of the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we will not obtain independent appraisals. Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our ability to manage successfully the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Moreover, new legislation, court decisions or administrative guidance, in each case possibly with retroactive effect, may make it more difficult or impossible for us to qualify as a REIT. Thus, while we intend to operate so that we will qualify as a REIT, given the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, and the possibility of future changes in our circumstances, no assurance can be given that we will so qualify for any particular year. These considerations also might restrict the types of assets that we can acquire in the future.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be required to pay U.S. federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates, and distributions to our stockholders would not be deductible by us in determining our taxable income. In such a case, we might need to borrow money, sell assets, or reduce or even cease making distributions in order to pay our taxes. Our payment of income tax would reduce significantly the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders. Furthermore, if we fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we no longer would be required to distribute substantially all of our net taxable income to our stockholders. In addition, unless we were eligible for certain statutory relief provisions, we could not re-elect to qualify as a REIT until the fifth calendar year following the year in which we failed to qualify.

Complying with the REIT requirements may cause us to forego and/or liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

To qualify as a REIT, we must ensure that we meet the REIT gross income tests annually. In addition, we must ensure that, at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of our total assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified REIT real estate assets, including certain mortgage loans and certain kinds of mortgage-backed securities. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities, securities of corporations that are treated as TRSs and qualified REIT real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 25% of the value of our total securities can be represented by securities of one or more TRSs. If we fail to comply with these asset requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing our REIT qualification and suffering adverse tax consequences.

To meet these tests, we may be required to take or forgo taking actions that we otherwise would otherwise consider advantageous. For instance, in order to satisfy the gross income or asset tests applicable to REITs under the Code, we may be required to forego investments that we otherwise would make. Furthermore, we may be required to liquidate from our portfolio otherwise attractive investments. In addition, we may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our investment performance.

The REIT distribution requirements could require us to borrow funds during unfavorable market conditions or subject us to tax, which would reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

In order to qualify as a REIT, we must distribute to our stockholders, on an annual basis, at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gains. In addition, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that we distribute less than 100% of our net taxable income (including net capital gains) and will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount by which our distributions in any calendar year are less than a minimum amount specified under U.S. federal income tax laws. We intend to distribute our net income to our stockholders in a manner intended to satisfy the REIT 90% distribution requirement and to avoid U.S. federal income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax.

In addition, our taxable income may exceed our net income as determined by GAAP because, for example, realized capital losses will be deducted in determining our GAAP net income, but may not be deductible in computing our taxable income. In addition, we may incur nondeductible capital expenditures or be required to make debt or amortization payments. As a result of the foregoing, we may generate less cash flow than taxable income in a particular year and we may incur U.S. federal income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax on that income if we do not distribute such income to stockholders in that year. In that event, we may be required to use cash reserves, incur debt or liquidate assets at rates or times that we regard as unfavorable or make a taxable distribution of our shares in order to satisfy the REIT 90% distribution requirement and to avoid U.S. federal income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax in that year.

If our operating partnership is treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we will cease to qualify as a REIT.

We believe our operating partnership qualifies as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Assuming that it qualifies as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, our operating partnership will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax on its income. Instead, each of its partners, including us, is required to pay tax on its allocable share of the operating partnership’s income. No assurance can be provided, however, that the IRS will not challenge our operating partnership’s status as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, or that a court would not sustain such a challenge. If the IRS were successful in treating our operating partnership as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we would fail to meet the gross income tests and certain of the asset tests applicable to REITs and, therefore, cease to qualify as a REIT and our operating partnership would become subject to U.S. federal, state and local income tax. The payment by our operating partnership of income tax would reduce significantly the amount of cash available to our partnership to satisfy obligations to make principal and interest payments on its debt and to make distribution to its partners, including us.

Even if we qualify as a REIT, we may incur tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow.

Even if we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain U.S. federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, taxes on income from some activities conducted as a result of a foreclosure, and state or local income, franchise, property and transfer taxes, including mortgage recording taxes. In addition, ESRT Observatory TRS, L.L.C., a New York limited liability company, or Observatory TRS, ESRT Holdings TRS, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, or Holding TRS, and any other TRSs we own will be subject to U.S. federal, state and local corporate income taxes. In order to meet the REIT qualification requirements, or to avoid the imposition of a 100% tax that applies to certain gains derived by a REIT from sales of inventory or property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business, we will hold some of our assets through taxable C corporations, including TRSs. Any taxes paid by such subsidiary corporations would decrease the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

If we are not able to continue to lease the Empire State Building observatory to a TRS in a manner consistent with the ruling that we have received from the IRS, or if we are not able to maintain our broadcast licenses in a manner consistent with the ruling we have received from the IRS, we would be required to restructure our operations in a manner that could adversely affect the value of our stock.

Rents from real property are generally not qualifying income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests if the rent is treated as “related party rent.” Related party rent generally includes (i) any rent paid by a corporation if the REIT (or any person who owns 10% or more of the stock of the REIT by value) directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of the stock of the corporation by vote or value and (ii) rent paid by a partnership if the REIT (or any person who owns 10% or more of the stock of the REIT by value) directly or indirectly owns an interest of 10% or more in the assets or net profits of the partnership. Under an exception to this rule, related party rent is treated as qualifying income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests if it is paid by a TRS of the REIT and (i) at least 90% of the leased space in the relevant property is rented to persons other than

either TRSs or other related parties of the REIT, and (ii) the amounts paid to the REIT as rent from real property are substantially comparable to the rents paid by unrelated tenants of the REIT for comparable space.

Income from admissions to the Empire State Building observatory, and certain other income generated by the observatory, would not likely be qualifying income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests. We jointly elected with Observatory TRS, which is the current lessee and operator of the observatory and which is wholly owned by our operating partnership, for Observatory TRS to be treated as a TRS of ours for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Observatory TRS leases the Empire State Building observatory from the operating partnership pursuant to a lease that provides for fixed base rental payments and variable rental payments equal to certain percentages of Observatory TRS’s gross receipts from the operation of the observatory. Given the unique nature of the real estate comprising the observatory, we do not believe that there is any space in the Empire State Building or in the same geographic area as the Empire State Building that is likely to be considered sufficiently comparable to the observatory for the purpose of applying the exception to related party rent described above. We have received from the IRS a private letter ruling that the rent that our operating partnership receives from Observatory TRS pursuant to the lease of the Empire State Building observatory is qualifying income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests so long as such rent reflects the fair market rental value of the Empire State Building observatory as determined by an appraisal rendered by a qualified third party appraiser.

In addition, our operating partnership has acquired various license agreements (i) granting certain third party broadcasters the right to use space on the tower on the top of the Empire State Building for certain broadcasting and other communication purposes and (ii) granting certain third party vendors the right to operate concession stands in the observatory. We have received from the IRS a private letter ruling that the license fees that our operating partnership receives under the license agreements described above constitute qualifying income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests.

We are entitled to rely upon these private letter rulings only to the extent that we did not misstate or omit a material fact in the ruling request and that we continue to operate in accordance with the material facts described in such request, and no assurance can be given that we will always be able to do so. If we were not able to treat the rent that our operating partnership receives from Observatory TRS as qualifying income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests, we would be required to restructure the manner in which we operate the observatory, which would likely require us to cede operating control of the observatory by leasing the observatory to an affiliate or third party operator. If we were not able to treat the license fees that our operating partnership will receive from the license agreements described above as qualifying income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests, we would be required to enter into the license agreements described above through a TRS, which would cause the license fees to be subject to U.S. federal income tax and accordingly reduce the amount of our cash flow available to be distributed to our stockholders. In either case, if we are not able to appropriately restructure our operations in a timely manner, we would likely realize significant income that does not qualify for the REIT gross income tests, which could cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT.

Although our use of TRSs may partially mitigate the impact of meeting certain requirements necessary to maintain our qualification as a REIT, there are limits on our ability to own TRSs, and a failure to comply with the limits would jeopardize our REIT qualification and may result in the application of a 100% excise tax.

A REIT may own up to 100% of the stock of one or more TRSs. A TRS may hold assets and earn income that would not be qualifying assets or income if held or earned directly by a REIT. Both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a TRS. A corporation of which a TRS directly or indirectly owns more than 35% of the voting power or value of the stock will automatically be treated as a TRS. Overall, no more than 25% of the value of a REIT’s assets may consist of securities of one or more TRSs. In addition, the TRS rules limit the deductibility of interest paid or accrued by a TRS to its parent REIT to assure that the TRS is subject to an appropriate level of corporate taxation. The rules also impose a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis.

We have jointly elected with each of Observatory TRS and Holding TRS, for each of Observatory TRS and Holding TRS to be treated as a TRS under the Code for U.S. federal income tax purposes following the completion of the formation transactions. Observatory TRS, Holdings TRS, and any other TRSs that we form pay U.S. federal, state and local income tax on their taxable income, and their after-tax net income is available for distribution to us but is not required to be distributed to us unless necessary to maintain our REIT qualification. Although we monitor the aggregate value of the securities of such TRSs and intend to conduct our affairs so that such securities will represent less than 25% of the value of our total assets, there can be no assurance that we will be able to comply with the TRS limitation in all market conditions.

Dividends payable by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates on dividend income from regular corporations, which could adversely affect the value of our Class A common stock.

The maximum U.S. federal income tax rate for certain qualified dividends payable to U.S. stockholders that are individuals, trusts and estates is 20%. Dividends payable by REITs, however, are generally not eligible for the reduced rates and therefore may be subject to a 39.6% maximum U.S. federal income tax rate on ordinary income when paid to such stockholders. Although the reduced U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to dividend income from regular corporate dividends does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends paid by REITs, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the shares of REITs, including our Class A common stock.

Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively and may cause us to incur tax liabilities.

The REIT provisions of the Code may limit our ability to hedge our assets and operations. Under these provisions, any income that we generate from transactions intended to hedge our interest rate risk will be excluded from gross income for purposes of the REIT 75% and 95% gross income tests if the instrument hedges interest rate risk on liabilities used to carry or acquire real estate assets, and such instrument is properly identified under applicable Treasury Regulations. Income from hedging transactions that do not meet these requirements will generally constitute non-qualifying income for purposes of both the REIT 75% and 95% gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may have to limit our use of hedging techniques that might otherwise be advantageous or implement those hedges through a TRS. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities because our TRS would be subject to tax on gains or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear. In addition, losses in our TRS will generally not provide any tax benefit, except for being carried forward against future taxable income in the TRS.

The ability of our board of directors to revoke our REIT election without stockholder approval may cause adverse consequences to our stockholders.

Our charter provides that the board of directors may revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders, if the board determines that it is no longer in our best interest to continue to qualify as a REIT. If we cease to qualify as a REIT, we would become subject to U.S. federal income tax on our net taxable income and we generally would no longer be required to distribute any of our net taxable income to our stockholders, which may have adverse consequences on our total return to our stockholders.

We may have inherited tax liabilities from the entities that have been merged into our company or our subsidiaries in the formation transactions.

Pursuant to the formation transactions, Malkin Properties of Connecticut, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, or Malkin Properties CT, and Malkin Construction Corp., a Connecticut corporation, or Malkin Construction merged with and into a subsidiary of ours, with the subsidiary surviving, in a transaction that was intended to be treated as a reorganization under the Code. Each of Malkin Properties CT and Malkin Construction had previously elected to be treated as an S Corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Section 1361 of the Code with respect to periods preceding our formation transaction. If either of Malkin Properties CT or Malkin Construction had failed to qualify as an S corporation with respect to periods preceding our formation transaction, we could have assumed material U.S. federal income tax liabilities in connection with the formation transactions and/or may be subject to certain other adverse tax consequences. In addition, to qualify as a REIT under these circumstances, we would be required to distribute, prior to the close of our first taxable year in which we elect to be taxed as a REIT under the Code, any earnings and profits of these entities to which we were deemed to succeed. No rulings from the IRS were requested and no opinions of counsel were rendered regarding the U.S. federal income tax treatment of any of Malkin Properties CT or Malkin Construction with respect to periods preceding our formation transaction. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that Malkin Properties CT or Malkin Construction qualified as an S corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes during such periods, or that these entities did not have any other tax liabilities. In addition, the supervisor merged with a subsidiary of our operating partnership in the formation transactions, and as a result, we may have inherited any liabilities, including any tax liabilities, of the supervisor.

Legislative or regulatory tax changes related to REITs could materially and adversely affect our business.

At any time, the U.S. federal income tax laws or regulations governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations may be changed, possibly with retroactive effect. We cannot predict if or when any new U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective or whether any such law,

regulation or interpretation may take effect retroactively. We and our stockholders could be adversely affected by any such change in, or any new, U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation.

Your investment has various tax risks.

Although this section describes certain tax risks relevant to an investment in shares of our Class A common stock, you should consult your tax advisor concerning the effects of U.S. federal, state, local and foreign tax laws to you with regard to an investment in shares of our Class A common stock.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

As of December 31, 2013, we did not have any unresolved comments with the staff of the SEC.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

Our Portfolio Summary

As of December 31, 2013, our portfolio consisted of 12 office properties and six standalone retail properties totaling approximately 8.4 million rentable square feet and was approximately 86.1% occupied, yielding approximately $345.7 million of annualized rent. Giving effect to leases signed but not yet commenced, our portfolio was approximately 87.7% leased as of December 31, 2013. In addition, we owned entitled land that will support the development of an approximately 380,000 rentable square foot office building and garage (Metro Tower) at the Stamford Transportation Center in Stamford, Connecticut, adjacent to one of our office properties. The table below presents an overview of our portfolio as of December 31, 2013.



								Annualized
			Rentable					Rent per
		Year Built/	Square	Percent		Annualized		Occupied		Number of
Property Name	Location or Sub-Market	Renovated ⁽¹⁾	Feet ⁽²⁾	Occupied ⁽³⁾		Rent ⁽⁴⁾		Square Foot ⁽⁵⁾		Leases ⁽⁶⁾
Manhattan Office Properties - Office
The Empire State Building ⁽⁷⁾	Penn Station -Times Sq. South	1931/In process	2,690,927	81.6	%	$	98,832,773	$	44.98	197
One Grand Central Place	Grand Central	1930/In process	1,171,150	79.1	%	43,256,542		46.70		283
250 West 57th Street	Columbus Circle - West Side	1921/In process	475,094	87.9	%	18,934,387		45.33		159
501 Seventh Avenue	Penn Station -Times Sq. South	1923/In process	454,065	94.1	%	17,247,701		40.35		32
1359 Broadway	Penn Station -Times Sq. South	1924/In process	443,389	92.1	%	17,847,582		43.70		28
1350 Broadway ⁽⁸⁾	Penn Station -Times Sq. South	1929/In process	361,445	83.8	%	13,595,308		44.87		69
1333 Broadway	Penn Station -Times Sq. South	1915/In process	292,154	98.7	%	12,506,959		43.38		11
Manhattan Office Properties - Office			5,888,224	84.4	%	222,221,252		44.73		779

Manhattan Office Properties - Retail
The Empire State Building⁽⁹⁾	Penn Station -Times Sq. South	1931/In process	143,758	92.1	%	14,943,258		112.82		16
One Grand Central Place	Grand Central	1930/In process	68,332	92.3	%	6,696,843		106.20		18
250 West 57th Street	Columbus Circle - West Side	1921/In process	51,960	80.7	%	4,930,146		117.54		7
501 Seventh Avenue	Penn Station -Times Sq. South	1923/In process	35,502	100.0	%	1,870,571		52.69		10
1359 Broadway	Penn Station -Times Sq. South	1924/In process	25,264	35.8	%	1,181,278		130.67		5
1350 Broadway	Penn Station -Times Sq. South	1929/In process	30,895	100.0	%	5,785,621		187.27		6
1333 Broadway	Penn Station -Times Sq. South	1915/In process	62,666	95.6	%	7,002,880		116.85		4
Manhattan Office Properties - Retail			418,377	89.1	%	42,410,597		113.76		66
Sub-Total/Weighted Average Manhattan Office Properties - Office and Retail			6,306,601	84.7	%	264,631,849		49.55		845

Greater New York Metropolitan Area Office Properties
First Stamford Place ⁽¹⁰⁾	Stamford, CT	1986/2003	784,160	86.5	%	28,099,513		41.41		50
Metro Center	Stamford, CT	1987/1999	279,385	96.9	%	14,312,707		52.89		30
383 Main Street	Norwalk, CT	1985/1996	257,965	88.0	%	7,220,781		31.80		20
500 Mamaroneck Avenue	Harrison, NY	1986/2004	289,772	94.7	%	7,774,671		28.35		34
10 Bank Street	White Plains, NY	1989/2001	228,813	87.3	%	6,955,211		34.81		28
Sub-Total/Weighted Average Greater New York Metropolitan Office Properties			1,840,095	89.7	%	64,362,883		39.00		162

Standalone Retail Properties
10 Union Square	Union Square	1988/1997	58,005	100.0	%	5,907,580		101.85		14
1542 Third Avenue	Upper East Side	1993 ⁽¹¹⁾	56,250	91.6	%	2,223,374		43.13		2
1010 Third Avenue	Upper East Side	1963/2007	44,662	100.0	%	3,206,483		71.79		2
77 West 55th Street	Midtown	1962 ⁽¹¹⁾	24,102	100.0	%	2,849,250		118.22		3
69-97 Main Street	Westport, CT	1922/2005	16,826	100.0	%	2,071,813		123.13		5
103-107 Main Street	Westport, CT	1900 ⁽¹¹⁾	4,330	100.0	%	452,625		104.53		3
Sub-Total/Weighted Average Standalone Retail Properties			204,175	97.7	%	16,711,125		83.79		29
Portfolio Total			8,350,871	86.1	%	$	345,705,857	$	48.09	1,036

Total/Weighted Average Office Properties			7,728,319	85.6	%	286,584,135		43.30		941
Total/Weighted Average Retail Properties⁽¹²⁾			622,552	91.9	%	59,121,722		103.31		95
Portfolio Total			8,350,871	86.1	%	$	345,705,857	$	48.09	1,036


(1)	For more information regarding the status of ongoing redevelopments at certain of our properties, see “Properties - Redevelopment and Repositioning”


(2)	Office property measurements are based on the Real Estate Board of New York measurement standards; retail property measurements are based on useable square feet. Excludes (i) 162,859 square feet of space across our portfolio attributable to building management use and tenant amenities and (ii) 69,757 square feet of space

attributable to our observatory.


(3)	Based on leases signed and commenced as of December 31, 2013 and calculated as (i) rentable square feet less available square feet divided by

(ii) rentable square feet.


(4)	Represents annualized base rent and current reimbursement for operating expenses and real estate taxes.


(5)	Represents annualized rent under leases commenced as of December 31, 2013 divided by occupied square feet.


(6)	Represents the number of leases at each property or on a portfolio basis. If a tenant has more than one lease, whether or not at the same property, but with different expirations, the number of leases is calculated equal to the number of leases with different expirations.


(7)	Includes 86,902 rentable square feet of space leased by our broadcasting tenants.


(8)	Denotes a ground leasehold interest in the property with a remaining term, including unilateral extension rights available to us, of approximately 37 years (expiring July 31, 2050).


(9)	Includes 5,300 rentable square feet of space leased by Host Services of New York, a licensee of our observatory.


(10)	First Stamford Place consists of three buildings.


(11)	No major redevelopment activity was undertaken at this property.


(12)	Includes 418,377 rentable square feet of retail space in our Manhattan office properties.

Tenant Diversification

As of December 31, 2013, our office and retail portfolios were leased to a diverse tenant base consisting of approximately 1,036 leases. Our tenants represent a broad array of industries as follows:



Diversification by Industry	Percent ⁽¹⁾
Arts and entertainment	1.8	%
Broadcast	2.2	%
Education	1.4	%
Consumer goods	16.7	%
Finance, insurance and real estate	19.6	%
Healthcare	1.2	%
Industrials and natural resources	1.8	%
Legal services	4.6	%
Media and advertising	3.1	%
Non-profit	2.8	%
Professional services (not including legal services)	11.1	%
Retail	15.8	%
Technology	4.5	%
Other	13.4	%
Total	100.0	%

⁽¹⁾ Based on annualized rent.

The following table sets forth information regarding the 20 largest tenants in our portfolio based on annualized rent as of December 31, 2013.



				Weighted		Percent of
				Average	Total	Portfolio				Percent of
				Remaining	Occupied	Rentable				Portfolio
	Number	Number of	Lease	Lease	Square	Square		Annualized		Annualized
Tenant	of Leases	Properties	Expiration ⁽¹⁾	Term ⁽²⁾	Feet ⁽³⁾	Feet ⁽⁴⁾		Rent ⁽⁵⁾		Rent ⁽⁶⁾
LF USA ⁽⁷⁾	6	3	Oct. 2021-Oct. 2028	13.5 years	887	10.6	%	$	36,115,628	10.4	%
Coty, Inc.	1	1	Jan. 2030	16.1 years	309	3.7	%	14,573,848		4.2	%
PVH Corp.	1	1	Oct. 2028	14.8 years	224	2.7	%	9,168,174		2.7	%
Thomson Reuters	4	2	Apr. 2018-Apr. 2020	5.6 years	147	1.8	%	7,113,465		2.1	%
Urban Outfitters	1	1	Sept. 2029	15.8 years	57	0.7	%	6,200,000		1.8	%
Legg Mason	1	1	Sept. 2024	10.8 years	140	1.7	%	5,970,109		1.7	%
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.	1	1	Jan. 2020	6.0 years	122	1.5	%	5,906,747		1.7	%
LinkedIn	1	1	Feb. 2026	12.2 years	116	1.4	%	5,255,092		1.5	%
Host Services of New York	1	1	May 2020	6.3 years	5	0.1	%	5,064,790		1.5	%
Odyssey Reinsurance	1	1	Sept. 2022	8.8 years	102	1.2	%	3,898,014		1.1	%
Duane Reade (a division of Walgreen Co.)	2	2	Feb. 2021-May 2025	9.5 years	23	0.3	%	3,715,942		1.1	%
Shutterstock	1	1	Sept. 2024	10.8 years	78	0.9	%	3,658,715		1.1	%
Bank of America	3	3	Apr. 2015-Feb. 2018	2.7 years	30	0.4	%	3,298,821		1.0	%
Reed Elsevier, Inc.	1	1	Nov. 2019	5.9 years	97	1.2	%	3,155,742		0.8	%
Aetna Life Insurance Company	1	1	June 2018	4.5 years	52	0.6	%	2,966,060		0.9	%
Human Rights Watch	1	1	Oct. 2026	12.8 years	66	0.8	%	2,720,359		0.8	%
JPMorgan Chase Bank	3	2	Dec. 2021 - Dec 2027	13.5 years	28	0.3	%	2,677,469		0.8	%
Jefferies Group, Inc.	2	1	June 2021- Nov. 2022	8.1 years	45	0.5	%	2,589,006		0.7	%
Ethan Allen Retail, Inc.	1	1	July 2022	8.6 years	35	0.3	%	2,586,165		0.7	%
AT&T Wireless	2	2	Jan. 2018 - Oct. 2021	7.9 years	7	0.1	%	2,431,275		0.7	%
Total	35				2,570	30.8	%	$	129,065,421	37.3	%


(1)	Expiration dates are per lease and do not assume exercise of renewal or extension options. Except for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation lease (February 1, 2015), none of these leases contain early termination options. For tenants with more than two leases, the lease expiration is shown as a range.


(2)	Represents the weighted average lease term, based on annualized rent.


(3)	Based on leases signed and commenced as of December 31, 2013.


(4)	Represents the percentage of rentable square feet of our office and retail portfolios in the aggregate.


(5)	Represents annualized base rent and current reimbursement for operating expenses and real estate taxes.


(6)	Represents the percentage of annualized rent of our office and retail portfolios in the aggregate.

(7)

LF USA is the US subsidiary of Li & Fung Ltd, a Hong Kong headquartered global consumer product design, development, sourcing and distribution company. Li & Fung Ltd has a market capitalization of approximately $11.1 billion as of December 31, 2013, is listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and is a constituent member of the Hang Seng Index, MSCI Index, S&P/StanChart/Greater China Index, FTSEGood Index, Dow Jones Sustainability Asia Pacific Index and Hang Seng Corporate Sustainability Index Series. LF USA has subleased 24,212 square feet at 1359 Broadway. We entered into a partial termination agreement and, in connection with such partial termination, we entered into marketing agreements with LF USA which we expect will provide that we and LF USA will jointly market, as potential subleased premises or directly leased premises, portions of LF USA’s space at the Empire State Building, comprising of 180,436 square feet at the Empire State Building and any space at the Empire State Building and 1359 Broadway that LF USA may seek to sublease from time to time. To the extent any space is subleased by LF USA, we expect that LF USA will remain obligated for all tenant obligations in respect of its entire leased premises.

Lease Expirations

We expect to benefit from the re-leasing of 6.3%, or approximately 373,393 rentable square feet, of our Manhattan office leases expiring through December 31, 2014, which we generally believe are currently at below-market rates. During 2012 and 2013, we have generally been obtaining higher base rents on new and renewed leases at our Manhattan office properties. These increased rents are partly due to an increase in the total rentable square footage of such space as a result of remeasurement and application of market loss factors to our space.

During the year ended December 31, 2013, we entered into new and renewed leases at our Manhattan office properties representing approximately 948,320 rentable square feet. The last weighted average annualized fully escalated gross rent prior to the renewal or re-leasing of these leases was $39.18 per rentable square foot compared to $44.54 per rentable square foot based on the weighted average annualized contractual first monthly base rent (after free rent periods) for the new and renewed leases. During the year ended December 31, 2012, we entered into new and renewed leases at our

Manhattan office properties representing approximately 761,166 rentable square feet. The last weighted average annualized fully escalated gross rent prior to the renewal or re-leasing of these leases was $36.66 per rentable square foot compared to $44.04 per rentable square foot based on the weighted average annualized contractual first monthly base rent (after free rent periods) for the new and renewed leases.

The following table sets forth a summary schedule of the lease expirations for leases in place as of December 31, 2013 plus available space for each of the ten calendar years beginning with the year ending December 31, 2014 at the properties in our portfolio. The information set forth in the table assumes that tenants exercise no renewal options and all early termination rights.

All properties



			Percent of
		Rentable	Portfolio				Percent of		Annualized
	Number	Square	Rentable				Portfolio		Rent Per
	of Leases	Feet	Square Feet		Annualized		Annualized		Rentable
Year of Lease Expiration	Expiring ⁽¹⁾	Expiring ⁽²⁾	Expiring		Rent ⁽³⁾		Rent ⁽⁴⁾		Square Foot
Available	—	1,023,785	12.2	%	$	—	—	%	$	—
Signed leases not commenced	13	136,188	1.7	%	—		—	%	—
2014	196	423,670	5.1	%	19,868,475		5.7	%	46.90
2015	237	715,359	8.6	%	32,454,746		9.4	%	45.37
2016	120	428,851	5.1	%	17,963,684		5.2	%	41.89
2017	99	424,685	5.1	%	21,193,062		6.1	%	49.90
2018	119	608,500	7.3	%	28,985,064		8.4	%	47.63
2019	45	482,261	5.8	%	20,866,045		6.0	%	43.27
2020	71	693,210	8.3	%	36,569,513		10.6	%	52.75
2021	40	444,074	5.3	%	22,967,907		6.6	%	51.72
2022	34	377,328	4.5	%	20,747,639		6.0	%	54.99
2023	28	457,587	5.5	%	21,792,423		6.3	%	47.62
Thereafter	47	2,135,373	25.5	%	102,297,299		29.7	%	47.91
Total	1,049	8,350,871	100.0	%	$	345,705,857	100.0	%	$	48.09

Manhattan Office Properties ⁽⁵⁾



			Percent of
		Rentable	Portfolio				Percent of		Annualized
	Number	Square	Rentable				Portfolio		Rent Per
	of Leases	Feet	Square Feet		Annualized		Annualized		Rentable
Year of Lease Expiration	Expiring ⁽¹⁾	Expiring ⁽²⁾	Expiring		Rent ⁽³⁾		Rent ⁽⁴⁾		Square Foot
Available	—	823,041	14.0	%	$	—	—	%	$	—
Signed leases not commenced	8	96,923	1.6	%	—		—	%	—
2014	167	373,393	6.3	%	17,189,802		7.7	%	46.04
2015	205	587,219	10.0	%	25,554,684		11.5	%	43.52
2016	91	252,720	4.3	%	10,939,701		4.9	%	43.29
2017	71	228,597	3.9	%	11,196,708		5.0	%	48.98
2018	82	337,657	5.7	%	16,973,308		7.6	%	50.27
2019	30	214,865	3.6	%	9,170,151		4.1	%	42.68
2020	40	424,049	7.2	%	18,348,771		8.3	%	43.27
2021	28	318,126	5.4	%	14,361,697		6.5	%	45.14
2022	21	151,425	2.6	%	7,667,379		3.5	%	50.63
2023	18	298,343	5.1	%	13,171,886		5.9	%	44.15
Thereafter	26	1,781,866	30.3	%	77,647,165		35.0	%	43.58
Total	787	5,888,224	100.0	%	$	222,221,252	100.0	%	$	44.73

Greater New York Metropolitan Area Office Properties



			Percent of
		Rentable	Portfolio				Percent of		Annualized
	Number	Square	Rentable				Portfolio		Rent Per
	of Leases	Feet	Square Feet		Annualized		Annualized		Rentable
Year of Lease Expiration	Expiring ⁽¹⁾	Expiring ⁽²⁾	Expiring		Rent ⁽³⁾		Rent ⁽⁴⁾		Square Foot
Available	—	155,182	8.4	%	$	—	—	%	$	—
Signed leases not commenced	3	34,565	1.9	%	—		—	%	—
2014	22	39,074	2.1	%	1,767,210		2.7	%	45.23
2015	20	98,237	5.3	%	3,750,997		5.8	%	38.18
2016	18	90,665	4.9	%	3,141,333		4.9	%	34.65
2017	21	149,268	8.1	%	5,994,628		9.3	%	40.16
2018	30	243,440	13.2	%	9,362,131		14.5	%	38.46
2019	9	240,449	13.1	%	8,817,115		13.7	%	36.67
2020	18	203,494	11.1	%	7,811,147		12.1	%	38.39
2021	6	96,066	5.2	%	4,166,113		6.5	%	43.37
2022	6	168,044	9.1	%	6,582,373		10.2	%	39.17
2023	6	114,106	6.2	%	4,957,470		7.7	%	43.45
Thereafter	6	207,505	11.4	%	8,012,366		12.6	%	38.61
Total	165	1,840,095	100.0	%	$	64,362,883	100.0	%	$	39.00

Retail ⁽⁶⁾



			Percent of
		Rentable	Portfolio				Percent of		Annualized
	Number	Square	Rentable				Portfolio		Rent Per
	of Leases	Feet	Square Feet		Annualized		Annualized		Rentable
Year of Lease Expiration	Expiring ⁽¹⁾	Expiring ⁽²⁾	Expiring		Rent ⁽³⁾		Rent ⁽⁴⁾		Square Foot
Available	—	45,562	7.3	%	$	—	—	%	$	—
Signed leases not commenced	2	4,700	0.8	%	—		—	%	—
2014	7	11,203	1.8	%	911,463		1.5	%	81.36
2015	12	29,903	4.8	%	3,149,065		5.3	%	105.31
2016	11	85,466	13.7	%	3,882,650		6.6	%	45.43
2017	7	46,820	7.5	%	4,001,726		6.8	%	85.47
2018	7	27,403	4.4	%	2,649,625		4.5	%	96.69
2019	6	26,947	4.3	%	2,878,779		4.9	%	106.83
2020	13	65,667	10.5	%	10,409,595		17.6	%	158.52
2021	6	29,882	4.8	%	4,440,097		7.5	%	148.59
2022	7	57,859	9.3	%	6,497,887		11.0	%	112.31
2023	4	45,138	7.3	%	3,663,067		6.2	%	81.15
Thereafter	15	146,002	23.5	%	16,637,768		28.1	%	113.96
Total	97	622,552	100.0	%	$	59,121,722	100.0	%	$	103.31

The Empire State Building ⁽⁷⁾



			Percent of
		Rentable	Portfolio				Percent of		Annualized
	Number	Square	Rentable				Portfolio		Rent Per
	of Leases	Feet	Square Feet		Annualized		Annualized		Rentable
Year of Lease Expiration	Expiring ⁽¹⁾	Expiring ⁽²⁾	Expiring		Rent ⁽³⁾		Rent ⁽⁴⁾		Square Foot
Available	—	490,451	18.2	%	$	—	—	%	$	—
Signed leases not commenced	3	3,422	0.1	%	—		—	%	—
2014	36	126,759	4.7	%	5,710,329		5.8	%	45.05
2015	37	179,184	6.7	%	7,648,051		7.7	%	42.68
2016	14	73,060	2.7	%	3,358,603		3.4	%	45.97
2017	20	63,243	2.4	%	3,374,330		3.4	%	53.35
2018	22	70,229	2.6	%	3,449,180		3.5	%	49.11
2019	10	38,301	1.4	%	1,717,166		1.7	%	44.83
2020	17	228,593	8.5	%	10,316,319		10.4	%	45.13
2021	10	72,345	2.7	%	3,410,586		3.5	%	47.14
2022	9	35,151	1.3	%	1,976,543		2.0	%	56.23
2023	7	35,699	1.3	%	1,830,267		1.9	%	51.27
Thereafter	12	1,274,490	47.4	%	56,041,399		56.7	%	43.97
Total	197	2,690,927	100.0	%	$	98,832,773	100.0	%	$	44.98


(1)	If a lease has two different expiration dates, it is considered to be two leases (for the purposes of lease count and square footage).


(2)	Office property measurements are based on Real Estate Board of New York measurement standards; retail property measurements are based on useable square feet. Excludes (i) 162,859 rentable square feet across our portfolio attributable to building management use and tenant amenities and (ii) 69,757 square feet of space attributable to our observatory.


(3)	Represents annualized base rent and current reimbursement for operating expenses and real estate taxes.


(4)	Represents the percentage of annualized rent of our office and retail portfolios in the aggregate.


(5)	Excludes (i) retail space in our Manhattan office properties and (ii) the Empire State Building broadcasting licenses and observatory operations.


(6)	Includes an aggregate of 418,377 rentable square feet of retail space in our Manhattan office properties. Excludes the Empire State Building broadcasting licenses and observatory operations.


(7)	Excludes retail space, broadcasting licenses and observatory operations.

Option Properties

We have executed option agreements with affiliates of our predecessor granting us the right to acquire long-term leasehold and/or sub-leasehold interests in 1400 Broadway and/or 112 West 34th Street (including fee title interest in a small connected structure at 122 West 34^th Street), both office properties in midtown Manhattan. Our subsidiary currently supervises each of the option properties pursuant to a management agreement entered into by our subsidiary and the owners of the option properties. The purchase price for each of the option properties will be based on an appraisal by independent third parties, unless we and the owners of the option properties, with the consent of the estate of Leona M. Helmsley (a member of affiliates of our predecessor and of the owners of option properties), agree to a negotiated price. We and the owners of the option properties are utilizing the appraisal process set forth in the option agreements. The deadline for the appraised value to be determined is April 7, 2014. Following such determination, we have five months within which to decide whether to exercise the option, and approximately 90 days thereafter to close any resulting purchase. As part of the option agreements, we have agreed that Anthony E. Malkin, its Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, will not participate in the negotiations and valuation process on our behalf. Our Chairman Emeritus, Peter L. Malkin, has also agreed not to participate in the process on our behalf. In addition our Board of Directors has appointed a special committee consisting of independent members of such Board to review the appraisal or negotiation process on its behalf. A majority of the independent members of such Board of Directors must approve the price and terms of the acquisition of interests in each of the option properties. The purchase price is payable in a combination of cash, shares of our common stock and operating partnership units, but the estate of Leona M. Helmsley will have the right to elect to receive all cash. Our option expires on the later of (i) March 19, 2014 with respect to 112-122 West 34th Street and July 29, 2014 with respect to 1400 Broadway (which dates are 12 months in each case after the recently resolved litigation with respect to such property) or (ii) five months after the completion of the independent valuation described above, which completion shall not be later than six months following the closing of the Offering, but such expiration shall in no event be later than seven years from the completion of the Offering.

Presented below is an overview of the properties for which we entered into option agreements:



Property	Location	Type of Property	Rentable Square Feet ⁽¹⁾	Percent Ownership Subject to Option Agreement
112-122 West 34^th Street	Manhattan	Office/Retail	743,369	100	%
1400 Broadway	Manhattan	Office/Retail	897,045	100	%
Total:			1,640,414


(1)	Based on the Real Estate Board of New York measurement standards.

Undeveloped Properties

We own entitled land that will support the development of a 17-story, multi-tenanted commercial office building that is expected to comprise approximately 380,000 rentable square feet on 13 floors of office space, which we refer to as Metro Tower. The site is directly adjacent to Metro Center, one of our office properties, and the Stamford Transportation Center. All required zoning approvals have been obtained to allow for development of Metro Tower.

Redevelopment and Repositioning

From 2002 through 2006, we gradually gained full control of the day-to-day management of our Manhattan office properties (with the estate of Leona M. Helmsley previously holding certain approval rights at some of these properties as a result of its interest in the entities owning the properties). Since then, we have been undertaking a comprehensive redevelopment and repositioning strategy of our Manhattan office properties that has included the physical improvement through upgrades and modernization of, and tenant upgrades in, such properties. Since we assumed full control of the day-to-day management of our Manhattan office properties beginning with One Grand Central Place in 2002, and through December 31, 2013, we have invested a total of approximately $438.0 million (excluding tenant improvement costs and leasing commissions) in our Manhattan office properties pursuant to this program. Of the $438.0 million invested pursuant to this program, $239.0 million was invested at the Empire State Building. We currently estimate that between $110.0 million and $150.0 million of capital is needed beyond 2013 to complete substantially the redevelopment and repositioning program at our

Manhattan office properties. We expect the redevelopment program at the Empire State Building to continue until the end of 2016 due to the size and scope of our remaining work and our desire to minimize tenant disruptions from certain aspects of the program at the property. These estimates are based on our current budgets (which do not include tenant improvement and leasing commission costs) and are subject to change.

We intend to fund these capital improvements through a combination of operating cash flow and borrowings. These improvements, within our redevelopment and repositioning program, include restored, renovated and upgraded or new lobbies; elevator modernization; renovated public areas and bathrooms; refurbished or new windows; upgrade and standardization of retail storefront and signage; façade restorations; modernization of building-wide systems; and enhanced tenant amenities. These improvements are designed to improve the overall value and attractiveness of our properties and have contributed significantly to our tenant repositioning efforts, which seek to increase our occupancy; raise our rental rates; increase our rentable square feet; increase our aggregate rental revenue; lengthen our average lease term; increase our average lease size; and improve our tenant credit quality. We have also aggregated smaller spaces in order to offer larger blocks of office space, including multiple floors, that are attractive to larger, higher credit-quality tenants and to offer new, pre-built suites with improved layouts. This strategy has shown what we believe to be attractive results to date, and we believe has the potential to improve our operating margins and cash flows in the future. We believe we will continue to enhance our tenant base and improve rents as our pre-redevelopment leases continue to expire and be re-leased.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Except as described below, as of December 31, 2013, we were not involved in any material litigation, nor, to our knowledge, was any material litigation threatened against us or our properties, other than routine litigation arising in the ordinary course of business such as disputes with tenants. We believe that the costs and related liabilities, if any, which may result from such actions, will not materially affect our combined financial position, operating results or liquidity.

In March 2012, five putative class actions, or the Original Class Actions, were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County by investors in certain of the existing entities (constituting the predecessor and the non-controlled entities) on March 1, 2012, March 7, 2012, March 12, 2012, March 14, 2012 and March 19, 2012. The plaintiffs asserted claims against our predecessor’s management companies, Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the estate of Leona M. Helmsley, our operating partnership and us for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. They alleged, among other things, that the terms of the consolidation and the process by which it was structured (including the valuation that was employed) are unfair to the investors in the existing entities, the consolidation provides excessive benefits to Malkin Holdings LLC (now our subsidiary) and its affiliates and the then-draft prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation filed with the SEC failed to make adequate disclosure to permit a fully-informed decision about the consolidation. The complaints sought money damages and injunctive relief preventing the consolidation. The Original Class Actions were consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel were appointed by the New York State Supreme Court by order dated June 26, 2012. Furthermore, an underlying premise of the Original Class Actions, as noted in discussions among plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel, was that the consolidation had been structured in such a manner that would cause investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. and 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. (the “subject LLCs”) immediately to incur substantial tax liabilities.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated September 28, 2012, resolving the Original Class Actions. The Stipulation of Settlement recites that the consolidation was approved by overwhelming consent of the investors in the existing entities. The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel for the plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have received adequate access to relevant information, including the independent valuer's valuation process and methodology, that the disclosures in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, are appropriate, that the consolidation presents potential benefits, including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation, that merit the investors' serious consideration and that each of the named class representatives intends to support the consolidation as modified. The Stipulation of Settlement further states that counsel for the plaintiff class are satisfied that the claims regarding tax implications, enhanced disclosures, appraisals and exchange values of the properties that would be consolidated into our company, and the interests of the investors in the existing entities, have been addressed adequately, and they have concluded that the settlement pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement and opportunity to consider the proposed consolidation on the basis of revised consent solicitations are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the plaintiff class.

The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs.

The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) a payment of $55.0 million, with a minimum of 80% in cash and maximum of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common stock and/or freely-tradable operating partnership units to be distributed, after reimbursement of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved expenses and payment of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved attorneys' fees (which are included within the $55.0 million settlement payment) and, in the case of shares of common stock and/or operating partnership units, after the termination of specified lock-up periods, to investors in the existing entities pursuant to a plan of allocation to be prepared by counsel for plaintiffs; (ii) defendants' agreement that (a) the Offering would be on the basis of a firm commitment underwriting; (b) if, during the solicitation period, any of the three subject LLCs' percentage of total exchange value is lower than what was stated in the final prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation by 10% or more, such decrease would be promptly disclosed by defendants to investors in the subject LLCs; and (c) unless total gross proceeds of $600.0 million are raised in the Offering, defendants will not proceed with the consolidation without further approval of the subject LLCs; and (iii) defendants' agreement to make additional disclosures in the prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation regarding certain matters (which are included therein). Investors in the existing entities will not be required to bear any portion of the settlement payment. The payment in settlement of the Original Class Actions will be made by the estate of Leona M. Helmsley and affiliates of Malkin Holdings LLC (provided that none of Malkin Holdings LLC's affiliates that would become our direct or indirect subsidiary in the consolidation will have any liability for such payment) and certain investors in the existing entities who agree to contribute. We will not bear any of the settlement payment.

The settlement further provides for the certification of a class of investors in the existing entities, other than defendants and other related persons and entities, and a release of any claims of the members of the class against the defendants and related persons and entities, as well as underwriters and other advisors. The release in the settlement excludes certain claims, including but not limited to, claims arising from or related to any supplement to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that is declared effective to which the plaintiffs' counsel objects in writing, which objection will not be unreasonably made or delayed, so long as plaintiffs' counsel has had adequate opportunity to review such supplement. There was no such supplement that plaintiff's counsel objected to in writing. The settlement was subject to court approval. It is not effective until such court approval is final, including the resolution of any appeal. Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the allegations in the Original Class Actions.

On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, for permission to send notice of the settlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a final settlement hearing. On January 28, 2013, six of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. filed an objection to preliminary approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the Original Class Actions and for permission to file a separate complaint on behalf of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. On February 21, 2013, the court denied the cross motion of such objecting investors, and the court denied permission for such objecting investors to file a separate complaint as part of the Original Class Actions, but permitted them to file a brief solely to support their allegation that the buyout would deprive non-consenting investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. of “fair value” in violation of the New York Limited Liability Company Law. The court rejected the objecting investors’ assertion that preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

to perfect the appeal. On September 4, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief on the appeal, and also moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that these investors lack standing to pursue it. Malkin Holdings LLC contended that these investors were not entitled to appraisal under the New York Limited Liability Company Law because, among other reasons (i) they are not members of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., and only members have such rights; (ii) the transaction in question is not a merger or consolidation as defined by statute, and appraisal only applies in those transactions; and (iii) when Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. was converted into a limited liability company, the parties agreed that no appraisal would apply. Moreover, Malkin Holdings LLC contended that only the 12 investors who opted out of the class action settlement could pursue appraisal, because that settlement contains a broad release of (and there is an associated bar order from the court preventing) any such claims. Malkin Holdings LLC further noted that of the six investors attempting to pursue the appeal, only two had in fact opted out of the class action settlement. On September 13, 2013, these investors filed their reply brief on the appeal, and opposed the motion to dismiss. On September 19, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its reply brief on the motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2013, the appeals court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to address the matter directly on the appeal, effectively referring the issues raised in the motion to the panel that will hear the appeal itself. The appeals court heard argument on November 21, 2013, and in a Decision and Order dated February 25, 2014, it affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

There is no right to any further appeal of the appeals court’s February 25, 2014 ruling. However, the investors who challenged the buy-out provision may move for leave to appeal the appeals court’s ruling to the New York Court of Appeals, a process that may take many months. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of such a motion or, if it is granted, the appeal process or any related relief, if such further appeal were successful. If the trial and appeals courts’ decisions were reversed by the Court of Appeals, there is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, which could take the form of monetary damages or other equitable relief, and the court could order some or all of the relief that the objecting investors have requested, as described above. Although there can be no assurance, we believe that the trial and appeals courts’ decisions were correct, that they will be upheld on any further appeal.

In addition, commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the Second Class Actions, were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched. One of the Second Class Actions named us and our operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions were consolidated on consent and co-lead class counsel was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or our operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages. On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Class Actions. We cannot predict the outcome of the motion (or if the motion is not granted, the outcome of the Second Class Actions).

We will incur costs in connection with this litigation. If the court were to rule against the defendants there is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, which could take the form of monetary damages or other equitable relief.

Additionally, there is a risk that other third parties will assert claims against us, Malkin Holdings LLC, or any other party entitled to defense and indemnity from us, including, without limitation, claims that Malkin Holdings LLC breached its fiduciary duties to investors in the existing entities or that the consolidation violates the relevant operating agreements, and third parties may commence litigation related to such claims. As a result, we may incur costs associated with defending or settling such litigation or paying any judgment if we lose.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE

Not applicable.

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Market Information

Our Class A common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (the "NYSE"), under the symbol "ESRT." Our Class B common stock is not listed on any exchange and is not traded. Each share of Class B common stock may be converted to one share of Class A common stock at any time.

Our operating partnership has four series of partnership units ("OP Units") - Series PR OP Units, Series ES OP Units, Series 60 OP Units and Series 250 OP Units. The Series ES OP Units, Series 60 OP Units and Series 250 OP Units (together the "traded OP units") are listed on the NYSE Arca exchange ("NYSE Arca") under the symbols "ESBA," "OGCP," and "FISK," respectively. The Series PR OP Units are not listed on any exchange and are not traded.

On March 21, 2014, the last sales price for our Class A common stock on the NYSE was $15.10 per share.

The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices per share of our Class A common stock reported on the NYSE and the distributions declared and paid by us during the fourth calendar quarter of 2013:



	Class A common stock
	"ESRT"				Dividend
Quarter Ended	High		Low		Per Share
December 31, 2013	$	15.61	$	12.65	$	0.0795

Our Class A common stock began trading on the NYSE on October 2, 2013. As a result, we have not set forth quarterly information with respect to the high and low sales prices for our Class A common stock and the dividends declared on our Class A common stock for the two most recent fiscal years. Prior to that time there was no public market for our Class A common stock.

Holders

As of March 21, 2014, we had 897 registered holders of our Class A common stock and 1,007 registered holders of our Class B common stock. As of March 21, 2014, our operating partnership had 966 registered holders of Series PR OP Units, 4,415 registered holders of Series ES OP Units, 1,403 registered holders of Series 60 OP Units and 977 registered holders of Series 250 OP Units. Such information was obtained through our registrar and transfer agent. Certain shares of common stock and OP Units are held in "street" name and accordingly, the number of beneficial owners of such shares of common stock and OP Units is not known or included in the foregoing number.

Dividends

We intend to pay regular quarterly dividends to holders of our Class A common stock and Class B common stock. Any distributions we pay in the future will depend upon our actual results of operations, economic conditions and other factors that could differ materially from our current expectations. Our actual results of operations will be affected by a number of factors, including the revenue we receive from our properties, our operating expenses, interest expense, the ability of our tenants to meet their obligations and unanticipated expenditures. Distributions declared by us will be authorized by our board of directors in its sole discretion out of funds legally available therefore and will be dependent upon a number of factors, including restrictions under applicable law, the capital requirements of our company and the distribution requirements necessary to maintain our qualification as a REIT. See Item 1A, "Risk Factors," and Item 7, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations," of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, for information regarding the sources of funds used for dividends and for a discussion of factors, if any, which may adversely affect our ability to make distributions to our securityholders.

During 2013, we declared the following quarterly dividend on our Class A common stock and Class B common stock:

Earnings and profits, which determine the tax treatment of distributions to stockholders, will differ from income reported for financial reporting purposes due to the differences for federal income tax purposes, including, but not limited to, treatment of loss on extinguishment of debt, revenue recognition, compensation expense, and basis of depreciable assets and estimated useful lives used to compute depreciation. The dividends of $0.0795 per share are classified for income tax purposes as 100.0% taxable ordinary dividends.

Stockholder Return Performance

The following graph is a comparison of the cumulative total stockholder return on our Class A common stock, the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (the "S&P 500 Index"), the NAREIT All Equity Index (the "NAREIT All Equity Index") and the NAREIT Office Index ("NAREIT Office Index"). The graph assumes that $100.00 was invested on October 7, 2013 and dividends were reinvested without the payment of any commissions. There can be no assurance that the performance of our shares will continue in line with the same or similar trends depicted in the graph below.



	October 7, 2013		December 31, 2013
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.	$	100.00	$	115.77
S&P 500 Index	$	100.00	$	110.84
NAREIT All Equity Index	$	100.00	$	99.83
NAREIT Office Index	$	100.00	$	100.71

The graph shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement of incorporation by reference in any filing made under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as

amended (the "Exchange Act" and, together with the Securities Act, the "Acts"), and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under such Acts.

Securities Authorized For Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

During 2013, we adopted our Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Empire State Realty OP, L.P. 2013 Equity Incentive Plan (the "Plan"). The Plan provides for grants of stock options, shares of restricted Class A common stock, dividend equivalent rights and other equity-based awards, including LTIP Units, up to an aggregate of 5% of the issued and outstanding shares of our Class A common stock as of the last closing date of the exercise of the underwriters' option to purchase additional shares in the Offering (on a fully diluted basis). For a further discussion of the Plan, see Note 11 to the consolidated and combined financial statements included under Item 8 "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The following table presents certain information about our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2013:



	Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights	Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights	Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in the first column of this table)





Plan Category
Equity compensation plans approved by stockholders	N/A ⁽¹⁾	N/A	11,149,976
Equity compensation plans not approved by stockholders	—	—	—
Total	N/A ⁽¹⁾	N/A	11,149,976

(1) These amounts include information related to the Plan. As of December 31, 2013, we issued 156,978 shares of restricted stock and 913,561 Long-term Incentive Plan ("LTIP") units under the Plan.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities; Use of Proceeds from Registered Securities

On July 29, 2011, Anthony E. Malkin, our Chief Executive Officer and President, purchased 1,000 shares of our common stock for an aggregate purchase price of $100.00 in a private offering. Such issuance was exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) thereof. We repurchased these shares at cost upon completion of the Offering.

Prior to or concurrently with the completion of the Offering and the related formation transactions, we acquired, through a series of contributions and merger transactions, the assets and liabilities of our predecessor and the non-controlled entities and the related properties and issued 12,105,847 shares of our Class A common stock (4,289,539 shares of our Class A common stock issued in a transaction exempt from registration) and issued 148,957,292 operating partnership units in our operating partnership (83,674,709 operating partnership units issued in a transaction exempt from registration). In addition, prior to or concurrently with the completion of the Offering and the related formation transactions, we issued 1,122,130 shares of our Class B common stock (535,387 shares of our Class B common stock issued in a transaction exempt from registration) to certain holders of interest in our predecessor and the related properties that received operating partnership units. All of such persons in the transactions exempt from registration had a substantive, pre-existing relationship with us, and all such persons who received operating partnership units and/or shares of our common stock in the transactions exempt from registration were "accredited investors" as defined under Regulation D of the Securities Act. Each such person was a holder of an interest in entities included in our predecessor or the non-controlled entities and we dealt with such persons throughout the time that such persons held interests in entities included in our predecessor or the non-controlled entities. The issuance of such operating partnership units and common stock was effected in reliance upon an exemption from registration provided by Section 4(a)(2) under the Securities Act and pursuant to Rule 506 of Regulation D of the Securities Act. All such persons were provided with and had access to information about the issuers of these securities including business objectives and historical property and financial information.

Our registration statement on Form S-11, as amended (Registration No. 333-179485) with respect to the Offering (the “Registration Statement”) registered up to 1,233,375,000 shares of our Class A common stock, par value $0.01 per share, and was declared effective by the SEC on October 1, 2013.

We initially invested the net proceeds of the Offering in a bank deposit account earning daily interest. As of December 31, 2013, the net proceeds of the Offering were contributed to our operating partnership in exchange for operating partnership units in our operating partnership. We used the net proceeds from the Offering primarily to fund certain formation transaction costs and fees, repay certain indebtedness and make cash payments to holders of interests in the existing entities, including the estate of Leona M. Helmsley.

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA.

The following table sets forth our selected financial data and should be read in conjunction with our Financial Statements and notes thereto included in Item 8, "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" and Item 7, "Management's

Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



	The Company		The Predecessor
	October 7, through December 31, 2013		January 1, through October 6, 2013		Year Ended December 31,
(amounts in thousands, except per share data)	October 7, through December 31, 2013		January 1, through October 6, 2013		2012		2011		2010		2009
Operating Data
Total revenues	$	127,583	$	206,072	$	260,294	$	294,788	$	246,545	$	232,315
Operating expenses:
Property operating expenses	34,453		41,297		55,707		57,102		60,356		58,850
Marketing, general, and administrative expenses	15,254		23,600		20,963		15,688		27,581		17,281
Observatory expenses	5,687		—		—		—		—		—
Construction expenses	5,468		19,821		19,592		46,230		13,924		16,145
Real estate taxes	17,191		24,331		30,406		29,160		27,585		28,937
Formation transaction expenses	—		4,507		2,247		2,845		807		—
Depreciation and amortization	27,375