UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 

Washington, DC  20549

 

FORM 10-Q

 

[X] Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2013

 

[   ] Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

Commission File Number

001-09071

 

BFC Financial Corporation

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

 

 

Not Applicable

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

 

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 [   ]

 

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 [   ]

 

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

 

Large accelerated filer [ ]Accelerated filer [ ]Non-accelerated filer [ ]            Smaller reporting company [X]    

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

 

YES [   ]                                    NO [ X ]

 

The number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock as of August 8, 2013 is as follows:

 

Class A Common Stock of $.01 par value, 75,978,991 shares outstanding.
Class B Common Stock of $.01 par value, 7,307,743 shares outstanding.

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

Item 1.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

BFC Financial Corporation

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - Unaudited

 

 

1.    Presentation of Interim Financial Statements

 

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of BFC Financial Corporation (“BFC” or, unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, “we,” “us,” “our,” or the “Company”) have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) for interim financial information. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and disclosures required by GAAP for complete financial statements. In management’s opinion, the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments, which include normal recurring adjustments, as are necessary for a fair statement of the  consolidated financial condition of BFC at June 30, 2013; the consolidated results of operations and comprehensive income (loss) of BFC for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012; the consolidated cash flows of BFC for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012; and changes in consolidated equity of BFC for the six months ended June 30, 2013. Operating results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2013 or any other future period. These unaudited consolidated financial statements and related notes are presented as permitted by Form 10-Q and should be read in conjunction with the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.  All significant inter-company balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. As used throughout this document, the term “fair value” reflects the Company’s estimate of fair value as discussed herein. Certain amounts for prior periods have been reclassified to conform to the current period’s presentation.

 

BFC is a Florida-based holding company whose principal holdings include an approximately 53% equity interest in BBX Capital Corporation (formerly BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.) and its subsidiaries (“BBX Capital”) and a 54% equity interest in Woodbridge Holdings, LLC (“Woodbridge”), which owns 100% of Bluegreen Corporation and its subsidiaries (“Bluegreen”).  Bluegreen is a sales, marketing and management company primarily focused on the hospitality and vacation ownership industries. BBX Capital is a Florida-based company involved in the ownership, financing, acquisition, development and management of real estate, and real estate joint ventures and investments in middle market operating businesses.  BBX Capital holds the remaining 46% equity interest in Woodbridge.  BFC also holds interests in other investments and subsidiaries as described herein and previously held a significant investment in Benihana Inc. (“Benihana”) until the acquisition of Benihana by Safflower Holdings Corp. (“Safflower”) during August 2012. The Company reports the results of its continuing operations through four segments: Real Estate Operations; Bluegreen Resorts; BBX; and Florida Asset Resolution Group (“FAR”).

 

GAAP requires that BFC consolidate the financial results of the entities in which it has controlling interest, including BBX Capital and Woodbridge. As a consequence, the assets and liabilities of all such entities are presented on a consolidated basis in BFC’s financial statements. However, except as otherwise noted, the debts and obligations of the consolidated entities, including BBX Capital, Woodbridge, and Bluegreen, are not direct obligations of BFC and are non-recourse to BFC. Similarly, the assets of those entities are not available to BFC absent a dividend or distribution from those entities (and, in the case of Bluegreen, a subsequent dividend or distribution by Woodbridge). The recognition by BFC of income from controlled entities is determined based on the total percent of economic ownership in those entities. At June 30, 2013, BFC had an approximately 53% economic ownership interest in BBX Capital (excluding, for purposes of calculating the total amount of BBX Capital’s outstanding stock, restricted shares issued by BBX Capital to its officers which were unvested as of June 30, 2013). Through Woodbridge, BFC had a 54% economic interest in Bluegreen at June 30, 2013.

 

As discussed below, BankAtlantic’s Community Banking, Investments, Tax Certificates, and Capital Services components are recorded as discontinued operations as a result of BBX Capital’s sale of BankAtlantic, BBX Capital’s former banking subsidiary, to BB&T Corporation (“BB&T”) during July 2012.  Discontinued operations of BFC also include the results of Bluegreen Communities, substantially all of the assets of which were sold by Bluegreen during May 2012, and Cypress Creek Holdings, LLC (“Cypress Creek Holdings”).  See Note 3 for further discussion of discontinued operations.

 

 

BBX Capital-Catalfumo Settlement Agreement

 

In June 2013, BBX Capital Asset Management, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of BBX Capital (“CAM”), entered into a settlement agreement with respect to litigation between CAM and Daniel S. Catalfumo and certain members

---

 

of his family and affiliated entities (collectively, “Catalfumo”) relating to BBX Capital’s lending relationship with Catalfumo. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Catalfumo is required to pay to CAM $25 million in cash and to transfer to CAM certain properties with an aggregate carrying value of $10.3 million as of June 30, 2013. Interest on the $25 million payment accrues at a rate of 12% per annum from August 5, 2013 through the date of payment.  Catalfumo has also agreed to pay CAM an additional $5 million in cash by May 20, 2014.  Catalfumo, at its discretion, may elect to make the $5 million payment on or before November 20, 2013. If the $5 million cash payment is not made by November 20, 2013, such payment will accrue interest at a rate of 4.75% per annum from May 20, 2013 through the date of payment. There is no assurance that Catalfumo will make the agreed upon payments and transfers in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, or at all.  If Catalfumo does not comply with the terms of the settlement agreement, CAM will proceed with its litigation against Catalfumo.

 

BBX Capital Merger Agreement

 

On May 7, 2013, BFC, BBX Merger Sub, LLC, a newly formed wholly-owned subsidiary of BFC (“BBX Merger Sub”), and BBX Capital entered into a merger agreement pursuant to which, subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement BBX Capital will merge with and into BBX Merger Sub, with BBX Merger Sub continuing as the surviving company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of BFC. Under the terms of the merger agreement, BBX Capital’s shareholders (other than BFC and shareholders of BBX Capital who exercise and perfect their appraisal rights in accordance with Florida law) will be entitled to receive 5.39 shares of BFC’s Class A Common Stock in exchange for each share of BBX Capital’s Class A Common Stock that they hold at the effective time of the merger (the “Exchange Ratio”).  Each option to acquire shares of BBX Capital’s Class A Common Stock that is outstanding at the effective time of the merger, whether or not then exercisable, will be converted into an option to acquire shares of BFC’s Class A Common Stock and be subject to the same terms and conditions as in effect at the effective time of the merger, except that the number of shares which may be acquired upon exercise of the option will be multiplied by the Exchange Ratio and the exercise price of the option will be divided by the Exchange Ratio. In addition, each share of BBX Capital’s Class A Common Stock subject to a restricted stock award outstanding at the effective time of the merger will be converted into a restricted share of BFC’s Class A Common Stock and be subject to the same terms and conditions as in effect at the effective time of the merger, except that the number of shares subject to the award will be multiplied by the Exchange Ratio.  Consummation of the merger is subject to certain closing conditions, including, without limitation, the approval of BFC’s and BBX Capital’s respective shareholders, BFC’s Class A Common Stock being approved for listing on a national securities exchange (or interdealer quotation system of a registered national securities association) at the effective time of the merger, holders of not more than 10% of BBX Capital’s Common Stock exercising appraisal rights, and the absence of any “Material Adverse Effect” (as defined in the merger agreement) with respect to either BFC or BBX Capital.  To the extent permitted by applicable law, the Board of Directors of either BFC or BBX Capital may, in its discretion, choose to waive any of the conditions to consummation of the merger and proceed to closing. BFC has agreed in the merger agreement to vote all of the shares of BBX Capital’s Common Stock that it owns in favor of the merger agreement, which would constitute the requisite approval of the merger agreement by BBX Capital’s shareholders under Florida law. There is no assurance that the merger will be consummated on the currently contemplated terms or at all.

 

Two purported class action lawsuits have been filed in the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida which seek to enjoin the merger or, if it is completed, to recover relief as determined by the presiding court. BFC and BBX Capital believe that the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the actions.  See Note 10 for additional information regarding these actions.

 

The Bluegreen Merger

 

On April 2, 2013, Bluegreen merged with a wholly-owned subsidiary of Woodbridge in a cash merger transaction (sometimes hereinafter referred to as the “Bluegreen merger” or the “Bluegreen cash merger”).  Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Bluegreen’s shareholders (other than Woodbridge) received consideration of $10.00 in cash for each share of Bluegreen’s common stock that they held at the effective time of the merger, including unvested restricted shares. In addition, each option to acquire shares of Bluegreen’s common stock that was outstanding at the effective time of the merger, whether vested or unvested, was canceled in exchange for a cash payment to the holder in an amount equal to the excess, if any, of the $10.00 per share merger consideration over the exercise price per share of the option. The aggregate merger consideration was approximately $149.2 million.  As a result of the merger, Bluegreen, which was the surviving corporation of the merger, became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Woodbridge.  Prior to the merger, Woodbridge owned approximately 54% of Bluegreen’s outstanding common stock.

 

---

 

In connection with the financing of the merger, BFC and Woodbridge entered into a Purchase Agreement with BBX Capital on April 2, 2013 (the “Purchase Agreement”).  Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, BBX Capital invested $71.75 million in Woodbridge contemporaneously with the closing of the merger in exchange for a 46% equity interest in Woodbridge. BFC continues to hold the remaining 54% of Woodbridge’s outstanding equity interests. BBX Capital’s investment in Woodbridge consisted of $60 million in cash, which was utilized to pay a portion of the aggregate merger consideration, and a promissory note in Woodbridge’s favor in the principal amount of $11.75 million (the “Note”). The Note has a term of five years, accrues interest at a rate of 5% per annum and provides for payments of interest only on a quarterly basis during the term of the Note, with all outstanding amounts being due and payable at the end of the five-year term. During July 2013, BBX Capital paid to Woodbridge approximately $147,000 of interest on the Note.  In connection with BBX Capital’s investment in Woodbridge, BFC and BBX Capital entered into an Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of Woodbridge, which sets forth BFC’s and BBX Capital’s respective rights as members of Woodbridge and provides for, among other things, unanimity on certain specified “major decisions” and for distributions by Woodbridge to be made on a pro rata basis in accordance with BFC’s and BBX Capital’s respective percentage equity interests in Woodbridge. During the second quarter of 2013, Bluegreen paid a $20 million cash dividend to Woodbridge.  During June 2013, Woodbridge declared and paid a cash dividend of $19.1 million, which was allocated pro rata among BFC and BBX Capital based on their percentage ownership interests in Woodbridge ($10.3 million to BFC and $8.8 million to BBX Capital).

 

On March 26, 2013, Bluegreen issued $75 million of senior secured notes (the “2013 Notes Payable”) in a private transaction, the proceeds of which, together with approximately $14 million of Bluegreen’s unrestricted cash, were utilized in connection with the funding of the $149.2 million merger consideration indicated above. See Note 9 for additional information regarding the 2013 Notes Payable.

 

Two consolidated class action lawsuits relating to the merger remain pending.  The plaintiffs in these actions have asserted that the consideration received by Bluegreen’s minority shareholders in the merger was inadequate and unfair, and are seeking to recover damages in connection with the merger. The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the actions.  See Note 10 for additional information regarding these actions.

 

Sale of BankAtlantic

 

On July 31, 2012, BBX Capital completed the sale to BB&T of all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of BankAtlantic, the former wholly-owned banking subsidiary of BBX Capital (the stock sale and related transactions are referred to in this report as the “BankAtlantic Sale” or the “BB&T Transaction”).  The BankAtlantic Sale was consummated pursuant to the terms of a definitive agreement, dated November 1, 2011, between BBX Capital and BB&T, as amended on March 13, 2012 (the “Agreement”). The March 13, 2012 amendment amended the previously contemplated terms of the transaction to, among other things, provide for the assumption by BB&T of BBX Capital’s $285.4 million in principal amount of then-outstanding trust preferred securities (“TruPS”) obligations. 

 

Pursuant to the Agreement, prior to the closing of the BankAtlantic Sale, BankAtlantic formed two subsidiaries, CAM and FAR. BankAtlantic contributed to FAR certain performing and non-performing loans, tax certificates, and real estate owned that had an aggregate carrying value on BankAtlantic’s Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition of approximately $346 million as of July 31, 2012 (the date the BB&T Transaction was consummated).  FAR assumed all liabilities related to these assets. BankAtlantic also contributed approximately $50 million in cash to FAR on July 31, 2012 and thereafter distributed all of the membership interests in FAR to BBX Capital.  At the closing of the BankAtlantic Sale, BBX Capital transferred to BB&T 95% of the outstanding preferred membership interests in FAR in connection with BB&T’s assumption of BBX Capital’s then-outstanding approximately $285 million of TruPS obligations.  BBX Capital continues to hold the remaining 5% of FAR’s preferred membership interests.  BB&T will hold its 95% preferred interest in the net cash flows of FAR until such time as it has recovered $285 million in preference amount plus a priority return of LIBOR + 2.00% per annum on any unpaid preference amount. At that time, BB&T’s interest in FAR will terminate, and BBX Capital will thereafter be entitled to any and all residual proceeds from FAR through its ownership of FAR’s Class R units.  BBX Capital entered into an incremental $35 million guarantee in BB&T’s favor to further assure BB&T’s recovery of the $285 million preferred interest within seven years.  At June 30, 2013, BB&T’s preferred interest in FAR was approximately $154.5 million.  In August 2013, FAR received full payment on a $19.7 million commercial real estate loan which, upon the anticipated declaration of a dividend by the Board of Managers of FAR, will further reduce BB&T’s preferred membership interest in FAR.

 

---

 

 

 

Prior to the closing of the BankAtlantic Sale, BankAtlantic contributed to CAM certain commercial loans, commercial real estate owned and previously written off assets that had an aggregate carrying value on BankAtlantic’s Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition of $125 million as of July 31, 2012. CAM assumed all liabilities related to these assets.  BankAtlantic also contributed $82 million of cash to CAM on July 31, 2012.  Prior to the closing of the BankAtlantic Sale, BankAtlantic distributed all of the membership interests in CAM to BBX Capital.  CAM remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBX Capital.

 

Sale of Bluegreen Communities

 

On May 4, 2012, Bluegreen sold substantially all of the assets that comprised its former residential communities business, Bluegreen Communities, to Southstar Development Partners, Inc. (“Southstar”) for a purchase price of $29.0 million in cash.  Southstar also agreed to pay an amount equal to 20% of the net proceeds (as calculated in accordance with the terms of the agreement), of its sale, if any, of two specified parcels of real estate purchased by Southstar under the agreement.  Southstar sold one of the parcels during 2012 and paid to Bluegreen the proceeds to which it was entitled, which were insignificant.  Assets excluded from the sale included primarily Bluegreen’s Communities notes receivable portfolio.  Bluegreen Communities is classified as a discontinued operation for all periods presented in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.  See Note 3 for additional information regarding discontinued operations.

 

Acquisition of Benihana by Safflower

 

BFC held a significant investment in Benihana until Safflower acquired Benihana for a cash purchase price of $16.30 per outstanding share of Benihana’s common stock in August 2012.  BFC received approximately $24.5 million in exchange for the 1,505,330 shares of Benihana’s common stock that it held at the effective time of the transaction.

 

Prior to Safflower’s acquisition of Benihana, BFC sold approximately 77,000 shares of Benihana’s common stock during July and August 2012 pursuant to the terms of a Rule 10b5-1 Trading Plan and received net proceeds from such sales of approximately $1.25 million.

 

BFC recognized a gain on sale of approximately $9.3 million in connection with its sales of shares of Benihana’s common stock during July and August 2012 and the disposition of its remaining shares of Benihana’s common stock pursuant to the merger between Benihana and Safflower during August 2012. In addition, during each of the first three quarters of 2012, BFC received approximately $127,000 of dividend payments with respect to the shares of Benihana’s common stock which BFC owned at that time.    

 

 

2.    Liquidity

 

BFC

 

Except as otherwise noted, the debts and obligations of BBX Capital, Woodbridge and Bluegreen are not direct obligations of BFC and generally are non-recourse to BFC.  Similarly, the assets of those entities are not available to BFC, absent a dividend or distribution from those entities (and, in the case of Bluegreen, a subsequent dividend or distribution by Woodbridge). BFC’s principal sources of liquidity are its available cash and short-term investments and dividends from its subsidiaries.  BFC expects to receive dividends from Woodbridge which will be utilized to fund its current and future operations and investments.  However, as described below, dividend payments are dependent on a number of factors and may be subject to certain limitations outside of BFC’s control.

 

We expect to use our available funds to fund operations and meet our obligations.  We may also use available funds to make additional investments in the companies within our consolidated group, invest in real estate based opportunities and middle market operating businesses,  invest in equity securities and/or repurchase shares of our common stock pursuant to our share repurchase program. On September 21, 2009, our board of directors approved a share repurchase program which authorizes the repurchase of up to 20,000,000 shares of Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock at an aggregate cost of up to $10 million.  The share repurchase program replaced our $10 million repurchase program that our board of directors approved in October 2006 which placed a limitation on the number of shares which could be repurchased under the program at 1,750,000 shares of Class A Common Stock.  The program authorizes management, at its discretion, to repurchase shares from time to time subject to market

---

 

conditions and other factors considered by management.    No shares have been repurchased under the current program.  

 

BFC has not received cash dividends from BBX Capital since March 2009. Prior to its deregistration as a savings and loan holding company following the sale of BankAtlantic, the payment of dividends by BBX Capital was subject to the oversight of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) and was restricted by the terms of the indentures governing its TruPS due to BBX Capital’s deferral of interest payments thereunder.  While these restrictions no longer apply, BBX Capital has disclosed that it expects to utilize its available cash to pursue opportunities in accordance with its business and investment strategies and has no current plans to pay cash dividends to its shareholders.  BBX Capital will only pay dividends if and when declared by its board of directors, a majority of whom are independent directors under the listing standards of the NYSE.    

 

Furthermore, certain of Bluegreen’s credit facilities contain terms which could limit the payment of cash dividends and Bluegreen may only pay dividends subject to such restrictions as well as the declaration of dividends by its board of directors, a majority of whom were independent directors under the listing standards of the NYSE prior to the Bluegreen merger on April 2, 2013.   In addition, as a result of the Bluegreen merger Woodbridge, as the parent company of Bluegreen, is entitled to 100% of all dividends paid by Bluegreen and any subsequent dividend or distribution by Woodbridge requires the approval of the boards of directors of both BBX Capital and BFC, which own 46% and 54%, respectively, of Woodbridge. During the second quarter of 2013, Bluegreen paid a $20 million cash dividend to Woodbridge.  During June 2013, Woodbridge declared and paid a cash dividend of $19.1 million, which was allocated pro rata among BFC and BBX Capital based on their percentage ownership interests in Woodbridge ($10.3 million to BFC and $8.8 million to BBX Capital).

 

During the first quarter of 2012, BFC received approximately $127,000 of dividend payments with respect to the shares of Benihana’s common stock that BFC owned at that time.  As previously described, BFC received a total of approximately $25.75 million pursuant to open market sales of Benihana’s common stock and in exchange for its remaining interest in Benihana’s common stock in connection with Safflower’s acquisition of Benihana during the third quarter of 2012. 

 

We believe that our current financial condition and credit relationships, together with anticipated cash flows from other sources of funds, including potential dividends from Woodbridge, will allow us to meet our anticipated near-term liquidity needs. If those sources of funds are not sufficient to meet our liquidity needs, we might seek to liquidate some of our investments or fund operations with the proceeds from additional equity or debt financings. With respect to long-term liquidity requirements, in addition to the foregoing, we may also seek to raise funds through the incurrence of long-term secured or unsecured indebtedness. However, these alternatives may not be available to us on attractive terms, or at all. The inability to raise funds through the sources discussed above would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

 

Woodbridge

 

Woodbridge, at its parent company level, had cash and cash equivalents totaling $344,000 at June 30, 2013.  Woodbridge’s principal sources of liquidity are its cash holdings and distributions received from Bluegreen.  As previously described, Bluegreen paid a $20 million cash dividend to Woodbridge during the second quarter of 2013, and Woodbridge subsequently paid a $19.1 million cash dividend to its members, BFC and BBX Capital. 

 

On September 21, 2009, BFC consummated its merger with Woodbridge Holdings Corporation (“WHC”). Pursuant to the merger, WHC merged with and into Woodbridge, and the shareholders of WHC at the effective time of the merger (other than BFC) were entitled to receive 3.47 shares of BFC’s Class A Common Stock in exchange for each share of WHC’s Class A Common Stock that they owned.  Under Florida law, holders of WHC’s Class A Common Stock who did not vote to approve the merger and properly asserted and exercised their appraisal rights with respect to their shares (“Dissenting Holders”) are entitled to receive a cash payment in an amount equal to the fair value of their shares as determined in accordance with the provisions of Florida law in lieu of the shares of BFC’s Class A Common Stock that they would otherwise have been entitled to receive. Dissenting Holders, who collectively held approximately 4.2 million shares of WHC’s Class A Common Stock, rejected Woodbridge’s offer of $1.10 per share and requested payment for their shares based on their respective fair value estimates of WHC’s Class A Common Stock. In accordance with Florida law, Woodbridge thereafter commenced legal proceedings relating to the appraisal process.  In December 2009, a $4.6 million liability was recorded based on Woodbridge’s $1.10 per share offer to the Dissenting Holders, with a corresponding reduction to additional paid-in capital.  On July 5, 2012, the presiding court in the appraisal rights action determined the fair value of the Dissenting Holders’ shares to be $1.78 per share and awarded legal and other costs in favor of the Dissenting Holders. As a result, the $4.6 million liability

---

 

was increased to approximately $7.5 million (with a corresponding reduction to additional paid in capital of $2.8 million) during the quarter ended June 30, 2012 to account for the per share value awarded.   On March 11, 2013, the court awarded legal fees and pre and post judgment interest to the Dissenting Holders for a total award to the Dissenting Holders of approximately $11.9 million (including the $7.5 million based on the $1.78 per share value determination).  As a result, the liability was increased by approximately $4.4 million during the fourth quarter of 2012. Woodbridge has appealed the court’s ruling with respect to its fair value determination and the award of legal fees and costs and, on April 5, 2013, posted a $13.4 million bond in connection with the appeal. The outcome of the appeal is uncertain.

 

Bluegreen

 

Bluegreen believes that its existing cash, anticipated cash generated from operations, anticipated future permitted borrowings under existing or proposed credit facilities and anticipated future sales of notes receivable under the purchase facilities and one or more replacement facilities Bluegreen may seek to put in place will be sufficient to meet its anticipated working capital, capital expenditures and debt service requirements, including the contractual payment of the obligations of Bluegreen described herein, for the foreseeable future, subject to the successful implementation of ongoing strategic initiatives and the ongoing availability of credit. Bluegreen will continue its efforts to renew, extend, or replace any credit and receivables purchase facilities that have expired or that will expire in the near term.  Bluegreen may, in the future, also obtain additional credit facilities and may issue corporate debt securities or enter into joint ventures with third parties. If Bluegreen is unable to sell notes receivable or borrow under existing or new facilities, Bluegreen’s ability to satisfy its obligations would be materially adversely affected.

 

Carolina Oak

 

In 2007, Woodbridge’s predecessor acquired from Levitt and Sons, LLC (“Levitt and Sons”), all of the outstanding membership interests in Carolina Oak, LLC (“Carolina Oak”).  Carolina Oak engaged in homebuilding activities in South Carolina prior to the suspension of those activities in the fourth quarter of 2008.

 

Woodbridge was the obligor under a $37.2 million loan collateralized by certain property owned by Carolina Oak.  During 2009, the lender declared the loan to be in default and filed an action for foreclosure.  On April 26, 2011, a settlement agreement was entered into to resolve the disputes and litigation relating to the loan. Under the terms and subject to the conditions of the settlement agreement, (i) Woodbridge paid $2.5 million to the note holder, (ii) Carolina Oak conveyed to the note holder the real property securing the loan and (iii) the note holder agreed not to pursue certain remedies, including a deficiency judgment, and after the expiration of an agreed-upon time period (which expired during April 2012), to fully release Woodbridge and Carolina Oak. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, a deferred gain on debt settlement of $29.9 million was recorded in the Company’s consolidated statement of financial condition as of December 31, 2011 and was recognized as income in the quarter ended June 30, 2012 as a result of the full release of Woodbridge and Carolina Oak in April 2012.

 

BBX Capital

 

BBX Capital’s cash at banks was  $15.0 million as of June 30, 2013, which does not include $6.8 million of cash held in FAR.  BBX Capital had $7.3 million of current liabilities as of June 30, 2013.  BBX Capital’s principal source of liquidity is its cash holdings, funds obtained from payments on and sales of its loans, loan payoffs, sales of real estate owned, income from income producing real estate, and distributions received from FAR and Woodbridge. While FAR is consolidated in BBX Capital’s financial statements, the cash held in FAR and generated from its assets will be used primarily to pay FAR’s operating expenses and to pay BB&T’s 95% preferred membership interest and the related priority return and will generally not be available for distribution to BBX Capital.  The balance of BB&T’s preferred membership interest in FAR was approximately $155 million at June 30, 2013.  Based on current and expected liquidity needs and sources, BBX Capital expects to be able to meet its liquidity needs over the next twelve months. 

 

---

 

 

3.    Discontinued Operations

 

Discontinued operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013 included solely Bluegreen Communities and were not significant.

 

Discontinued operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 included BankAtlantic’s Community Banking, Investments, Tax Certificates and Capital Services components and Bluegreen Communities.  Discontinued operations for the six months ended June 30, 2012 also included Cypress Creek Holdings.  The following table summarizes the results of discontinued operations for Bluegreen Communities for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and Cypress Creek Holdings for the six months ended June 30, 2012 (in thousands):

 

 

Bluegreen Communities 

 

In May 2012, Bluegreen sold substantially all of the assets that comprised Bluegreen Communities to Southstar for a purchase price of $29.0 million in cash.  Certain assets, including primarily Bluegreen Communities’ notes receivable portfolio, were not sold to Southstar.  

 

In addition to the results of Bluegreen Communities, discontinued operations include interest expense primarily on Bluegreen’s H4BG Communities Facility as certain of the assets classified as held for sale (and which were sold to Southstar as part of the Bluegreen Communities sale) served as collateral under this facility.

 

Cypress Creek Holdings

 

During January 2012, Cypress Creek Holdings sold the office building it owned for approximately $10.8 million. The building, which was classified as an asset held for sale as of December 31, 2011, served as collateral for an approximately $11.2 million mortgage loan. The proceeds of the sale plus a $668,000 payment made by Cypress Creek Holdings were paid to the lender in full satisfaction of the loan. The Company recognized a gain of approximately $4.4 million in connection with the sale during the first quarter of 2012. 

 

BBX Capital

 

Sale of BankAtlantic to BB&T

 

BankAtlantic’s five reporting units each reflected a component of the BankAtlantic entity and was the lowest level for which cash flows could be clearly distinguished, operationally and for financial reporting purposes.  These five

---

 

components were Community Banking, Commercial Lending, Tax Certificates, Investments, and Capital Services.  Based on the terms of the sale of BankAtlantic to BB&T, BBX Capital determined that the Community Banking, Investments, Capital Services and Tax Certificates reporting units should be treated as discontinued operations.  BBX Capital sold all operations and the majority of the assets and liabilities of these discontinued reporting units to BB&T upon the consummation of the BB&T Transaction on July 31, 2012. BBX Capital’s management does not intend to continue in any material respect any activities of or have any continuing involvement with these reporting units. Although certain assets of the Commercial Lending reporting unit were sold to BB&T, BBX Capital has continued Commercial Lending reporting unit activities resulting in BBX Capital including the Commercial Lending reporting unit in continuing operations in the statements of operations.  

 

Pursuant to the sale to BB&T, in addition to certain assets associated with BBX Capital’s continuing Commercial Lending reporting unit, FAR also retained certain assets and liabilities that were associated with BBX Capital’s disposed reporting units (Community Banking, Tax Certificates, Investments, and Capital Services reporting units).  BBX Capital determined that the ongoing cash flows relating to the retained assets of the disposed reporting units expected in future periods were not significant relative to the historical cash flows from the activities of each reporting unit; therefore, the income and expenses associated with the disposed reporting units are reported in discontinued operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012.  The results of operations and cash flows associated with the retained assets associated with the disposed reporting units were included in continuing operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013.

 

The income from BankAtlantic’s Community Banking, Investments, Capital Services and Tax Certificates reporting units included in discontinued operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 was as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

4.    Fair Value Measurement 

 

Assets and liabilities on a recurring basis

 

There were no significant assets or liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis in the Company’s statements of financial condition as of June 30, 2013 or December 31, 2012.

 

---

 

Assets on a non-recurring basis

 

The following table presents major categories of assets measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis as of June 30, 2013 (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

Quantitative information about significant unobservable inputs within Level 3 on major categories of assets measured on a non-recurring basis is as follows (Fair Value in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

The following table presents major categories of assets measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis as of June 30, 2012 (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Quantitative information about significant unobservable inputs within Level 3 on major categories of assets measured on a non-recurring basis was as follows (Fair Value dollars in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

Liabilities on a non-recurring basis

 

There were no liabilities measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis as of June 30, 2013 or December 31, 2012.

 

Loans Measured For Impairment

 

Impaired loans are generally valued based on the fair value of the underlying collateral less cost to sell. The fair value of BBX Capital’s loans may significantly increase or decrease based on changes in property values as its loans are primarily secured by real estate.  BBX Capital primarily uses third party appraisals to assist in measuring non-homogenous impaired loans. These appraisals generally use the market or income approach valuation technique and use market observable data to formulate an opinion of the fair value of the loan’s collateral or properties. However, the appraiser uses professional judgment in determining the fair value of the collateral or properties, and BBX Capital may also adjust these values for changes in market conditions subsequent to the appraisal date. When current appraisals are not available for certain loans, BBX Capital uses its judgment on market conditions to adjust the most current appraisal. The sales prices may reflect prices of sales contracts not closed, and the amount of time required to sell out the real estate project may be derived from current appraisals of similar projects. BBX Capital generally recognizes impairment losses on homogenous loans based on third party broker price opinions or automated valuation services to obtain the fair value of the collateral less cost to sell when impaired homogenous loans become 120 days delinquent. These third party valuations from real estate professionals also use Level 3 inputs in determining fair values. The observable market inputs used to fair value loans include comparable property sales, rent rolls, market capitalization rates on income producing properties, risk adjusted discount rates and foreclosure time frames and exposure periods.  As a consequence, the calculation of the fair value of the collateral is considered Level 3 inputs.

 

Impaired Real Estate Owned

 

Real estate is generally valued using third party appraisals or broker price opinions. These appraisals generally use the market approach valuation technique and use market observable data to formulate an opinion of the fair value of the properties.  The market observable data typically consists of comparable property sales, rent rolls, market capitalization rates on income producing properties and risk adjusted discount rates. However, the appraisers or brokers use professional judgment in determining the fair value of the properties and BBX Capital may also adjust these values for changes in market conditions subsequent to the valuation date. As a consequence of using appraisals, broker price opinions and adjustments to appraisals, the fair values of the properties are considered Level 3 inputs.    

 

Loans Held for Sale

 

Loans held for sale are valued using an income approach with Level 3 inputs as market quotes or sale transactions of similar loans are generally not available.  The fair value is estimated by discounting forecasted cash flows, using a discount rate that reflects the risks inherent in the loans held for sale portfolio.  For non-performing loans held for sale, the forecasted cash flows are based on the estimated fair value of the collateral less cost to sell adjusted for foreclosure expenses and other operating expenses of the underlying collateral until foreclosure or sale. 

 

---

 

Financial Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments

 

The following tables present information for financial instruments at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Management of each of the respective companies has made estimates of fair value that it believes to be reasonable. However, because there is no active market for many of these financial instruments, the fair value of certain of these financial instruments has been derived using the income approach technique with Level 3 unobservable inputs. Estimates used in net present value financial models rely on assumptions and judgments regarding issues where the outcome is unknown and actual results or values may differ significantly from these estimates. These fair value estimates do not consider the tax effect that would be associated with the disposition of the assets or liabilities at their fair value estimates.  As such, the estimated value upon sale or disposition of the asset may not be received and the estimated value upon disposition of the liability in advance of its scheduled maturity may not be paid.

 

Interest-bearing deposits in banks include $0.5 million of certificates of deposits guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) with maturities of less than one year as of December 31, 2012. Due to the FDIC guarantee and the short-term maturity of these certificates of deposit, the fair value of these deposits approximates the carrying value.

 

The fair value of tax certificates was calculated using the income approach with Level 3 inputs.  The fair value is based on discounted expected cash flows using discount rates that take into account the risk of the cash flows of tax certificates relative to alternative investments. 

 

Fair values are estimated for loan portfolios with similar financial characteristics. Loans are segregated by category, and each loan category is further segmented into performing and non-performing categories.  The fair value of BBX Capital’s performing loans is calculated by using an income approach with Level 3 inputs.  The fair value of performing loans is estimated by discounting forecasted cash flows through the estimated maturity using estimated market discount rates that reflect the interest rate risk inherent in the loan portfolio.  The fair value of non-performing collateral dependent loans is estimated using an income approach with Level 3 inputs. The fair value of non-performing loans utilizes the fair value of the collateral adjusted for operating and selling expenses and discounted over the estimated holding period. 

 

BB&T’s preferred interest in FAR is considered an adjustable rate debt security.  The fair value of this security is calculated using the income approach with Level 3 inputs and was obtained by discounting forecasted cash flows by risk adjusted market interest rate spreads to the LIBOR swap curve.  The market spreads were obtained from reference data in the secondary institutional market place. 

 

The fair value of junior subordinated debentures is estimated using Level 3 inputs based on the contractual cash flows discounted at a market rate or based on market price quotes from the over-the-counter bond market.

 

The fair value of Bluegreen’s notes receivable is estimated using Level 3 inputs and is based on estimated future cash flows considering contractual payments and estimates of prepayments and defaults, discounted at a market rate. 

 

The estimated fair values of Bluegreen’s notes and mortgage notes payable and other borrowings, including receivable-backed notes payable, were determined using Level 3 inputs by discounting the net cash outflows estimated to be used to repay the debt.  These obligations are to be satisfied using the proceeds from the consumer loans that secure the obligations.  The fair value of BBX Capital’s notes payable is measured using the income approach with Level 3 inputs and was obtained by discounting the forecasted cash flows based on risk adjusted market interest rates.

---

 

 

5.    BBX Capital’s Loans Receivable

 

BBX Capital’s loan portfolio consisted of the following (in thousands):

 

 

 

The recorded investment (unpaid principal balance less charge-offs and deferred fees) of non-accrual loans receivable was as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

---

 

An age analysis of the past due recorded investment in loans receivable as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 was as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

The activity in BBX Capital’s allowance for loan losses by portfolio segment for the three months ended June 30, 2013 was as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

The activity in BBX Capital’s allowance for loan losses by portfolio segment for the three months ended June 30, 2012 was as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

---

 

The activity in BBX Capital’s allowance for loan losses by portfolio segment for the six months ended June 30, 2013 was as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

The activity in BBX Capital’s allowance for loan losses by portfolio segment for the six months ended June 30, 2012 was as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

During the first quarter of 2012, BBX Capital charged down the recorded investment of loans by $66.5 million to the fair value of the collateral less cost to sell based on the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) guidance to thrifts regarding valuation allowances on collateral dependent loans.  This charge down consisted entirely of the charging off of existing specific valuation allowances.  As a specific valuation allowance was previously established for these loans, the charge-offs did not impact BBX Capital’s provision for loan losses or net loss during the three months ended March 31, 2012, but did reduce BBX Capital’s allowance for loan losses and recorded investment in the loans.

 

Impaired Loans – Loans are considered impaired when, based on current information and events, BBX Capital believes it is probable that it will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. For a loan that has been restructured, the contractual terms of the loan agreement refer to the contractual terms specified by the original loan agreement, not the contractual terms specified by the restructured agreement.  Impairment is evaluated based on past due status for consumer and residential loans.  Impairment is evaluated as part of BBX Capital’s on-going credit monitoring process for commercial loans which results in the evaluation for

---

 

impairment of substandard loans.  Factors considered in determining if a loan is impaired are past payment history, strength of the borrower or guarantors, and cash flow associated with the collateral or business.  If a loan is impaired, a specific valuation allowance is allocated, if necessary, based on the present value of estimated future cash flows using the loan’s existing interest rate or based on the fair value of the loan. Collateral dependent impaired loans are charged down to the fair value of collateral less cost to sell. Interest payments on impaired loans for all loan classes are recognized on a cash basis, unless collectability of the principal and interest amount is probable, in which case interest is recognized on an accrual basis. Impaired loans, or portions thereof, are charged off when deemed uncollectible.    

 

BBX Capital’s impaired loans as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 were as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

---

 

Average recorded investment and interest income recognized on BBX Capital’s impaired loans for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013 were (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

---

 

Average recorded investment and interest income recognized on BBX Capital’s impaired loans for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 were (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

Impaired loans without specific valuation allowances represent loans that were written-down to the fair value of the collateral less cost to sell, loans in which the collateral value less cost to sell was greater than the carrying value of the loan, loans in which the present value of the cash flows discounted at the loans’ effective interest rate were equal to or greater than the carrying value of the loans, or large groups of smaller-balance homogeneous loans that were collectively measured for impairment.

---

 

 

BBX Capital monitors impaired collateral dependent loans and performs an impairment analysis on these loans quarterly. Generally, a full appraisal is obtained when a non-homogeneous real estate loan is initially evaluated for impairment and an updated full appraisal is obtained within one year from the prior appraisal date, or earlier if management deems it appropriate based on significant changes in market conditions.  In instances where a property is in the process of foreclosure, an updated appraisal may be postponed beyond one year, as an appraisal is required on the date of foreclosure; however, such loans remain subject to quarterly impairment analyses and adjustments.  Included in total impaired loans as of June 30, 2013  were  $119.9 million of collateral dependent loans, of which $116.4 million were measured for impairment using current appraisals and $3.5 million were measured by adjusting appraisals, as appropriate, to reflect changes in market conditions subsequent to the last appraisal date. The loans that did not have current appraisals were adjusted down by an aggregate amount of $0.8 million based on changes in market conditions.  

 

Credit Quality Information

Delinquency trends, net charge-off levels,  levels of impaired loans, current loan to value ratios, credit scores and general economic conditions are monitored in an effort to assess loan credit quality.  BBX Capital assesses commercial loan credit quality through accrual and non-accrual loan classifications.  Commercial loans are generally placed on non-accrual status when the full payment of the loan’s principal and interest is in doubt, which may be due to factors including material deterioration of conditions surrounding the principal source of repayment, insufficient borrower capacity to service the debt, significantly delayed property sales or development schedules, declines in the loan-to-value ratio of the loan’s collateral or delinquencies greater than ninety days.  Accruing commercial loans are generally loans in which BBX Capital’s management believes that it is probable that BBX Capital will collect loan payments in accordance with the contractual or modified contractual terms on the loan.

 

The following table presents the amount of BBX Capital’s accruing and non-accruing commercial loans by loan class as of June 30, 2013 (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

The following table presents the amount of BBX Capital’s accruing and non-accruing commercial loans by loan class as of December 31, 2012 (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

BBX Capital monitors the credit quality of its residential loans based on loan-to-value ratios of the underlying collateral.  Elevated loan-to-value ratios indicate the likelihood of increased credit losses upon default which results in higher loan portfolio credit risk.

 

---

 

The loan-to-value ratios of BBX Capital’s residential loans were as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

BBX Capital monitors the credit quality of its portfolio of consumer loans utilizing FICO® scores.   The current FICO® scores of BBX Capital’s consumer loans were as follows (in thousands): 

 

 

 

 

 

Troubled Debt Restructured Loans

 

The restructuring of a loan is considered a “troubled debt restructuring” if both (i) the borrower is experiencing financial difficulties and (ii) the creditor has granted a concession. Concessions may include interest rate reductions, principal forgiveness, restructuring amortization schedules, extending loan maturities, deferring loan payments until the loan maturity date and other actions intended to minimize potential losses. The majority of concessions for consumer loans have involved changing monthly payments from interest and principal payments to interest only payments or deferring several monthly loan payments until the loan maturity date.  Commercial real estate and non-real estate loan concessions were primarily interest rate reductions to below market interest rates and extensions of maturity dates based on the risk profile of the loan.  Residential and small business loan concessions primarily have involved reductions of monthly payments through extensions of the amortization period and/or deferral of monthly payments.

 

Consumer and residential troubled debt restructured loans had no financial statement effect as the affected loans were generally on non-accrual status and measured for impairment before the restructuring. The financial statement effects of commercial and small business troubled debt restructured loans was the establishment of specific valuation allowances, if any, in place of the general allowance for those loans that had not already been placed on

---

 

nonaccrual status. There was an impact to the allowance for loan losses as a result of the concessions made, as the concessions generally result from the expectation of slower future cash flows.

 

There were no troubled debt restructurings during the three or six months ended June 30, 2013.  During the three months ended June 30, 2012, BBX Capital modified one consumer loan in a troubled debt restructuring with a recorded investment of $47,000.  During the six months ended June 30, 2012, two small business real estate loans, one consumer loan and one residential amortizing loan were modified in troubled debt restructurings with recorded investments of $342,000,  $47,000 and $62,000, respectively.

 

There were no loans modified in troubled debt restructurings beginning January 1, 2012 that experienced a payment default during the three or six months ended June 30, 2013.  There were two residential amortizing loans with a recorded investment of $177,000 that were modified in troubled debt restructurings beginning January 1, 2011 and experienced a payment default during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012.

 

Loans held for sale

 

BBX Capital’s loans held for sale as of June 30, 2013 consisted of $14.7 million of small business loans and $4.3 million of commercial real estate loans.  BBX Capital’s loans held for sale as of December 31, 2012 consisted of $18.8 million of small business loans and $6.0 million of commercial real estate loans.

 

---

 

6.     Bluegreen’s Notes Receivable

 

The table below sets forth information relating to Bluegreen’s notes receivable (dollars in thousands):

 

 

 

 

The table above includes notes receivable deemed to have been acquired by BFC, indirectly through Woodbridge, in connection with Woodbridge’s November 2009 acquisition of approximately 7.4 million additional shares of Bluegreen’s Common Stock, which resulted in BFC, indirectly through Woodbridge, holding a controlling interest in Bluegreen.  In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, “Loans and Debt Securities Acquired with Deteriorated Credit Quality”, BFC elected to recognize interest income on these notes receivable using the expected cash flows method. BFC treated expected prepayments consistently in determining cash flows expected to be collected, such that the non-accretable difference was not affected and the difference between actual prepayments and expected prepayments will not affect the non-accretable difference.  The assumption for prepayment rates was derived from Bluegreen’s historical performance information for its off-balance sheet securitizations and ranges from 4% to 9%.  As of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the outstanding contractual unpaid principal balance of the acquired notes was $129.8 million and $150.1 million, respectively. During June 2013, management revised its assumptions used in the calculation of cash flows expected to be collected on the acquired notes resulting in a $5.7 million impairment charge which was recorded as a valuation allowance. As of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the carrying amount of the acquired notes was $114.4 million (net of a valuation allowance of $5.7 million) and $135.4 million, respectively.

 

---

 

The carrying amount of the acquired notes is included in the balance sheet amounts of notes receivable at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012. The following is a reconciliation of accretable yield as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

The weighted-average interest rate on Bluegreen’s notes receivable was 15.7% and 15.5% at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.  All of Bluegreen’s VOI notes receivable bear interest at fixed rates.  The weighted-average interest rate charged on loans secured by VOIs was 15.7% and 15.6%  as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.   The majority of Bluegreen’s notes receivable secured by homesites bear interest at variable rates.  The weighted-average interest rate charged on notes receivable secured by homesites was 7.6% and 7.7% as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

 

Bluegreen’s notes receivable are carried at amortized cost less an allowance for credit losses.  Interest income is suspended, and previously accrued but unpaid interest income is reversed, on all delinquent notes receivable when principal or interest payments are more than three months contractually past due and not resumed until such loans are less than three months past due.  As of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, $10.8 million and $12.1 million, respectively, of the VOI notes receivable were more than three months past due, and accordingly, consistent with Bluegreen’s policy, were not accruing interest income.

 

Credit Quality for Financial Receivables and Allowance for Credit Losses

 

Bluegreen holds large amounts of homogeneous VOI notes receivable and assesses uncollectibility based on pools of receivables. In estimating future credit losses, Bluegreen does not use a single primary indicator of credit quality but instead evaluates its VOI notes receivable based upon a combination of factors, including a static pool analysis, the aging of the respective receivables, current default trends and prepayment rates by origination year, and the FICO® scores of the borrowers at the time of origination.

 

The table below sets forth the activity in Bluegreen’s allowance for loan losses (including homesite notes receivable) during the six month period ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

---

 

The following table shows the delinquency status of Bluegreen’s VOI notes receivable as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.    Variable Interest Entities

 

Bluegreen

 

Bluegreen sells VOI notes receivable through special purpose finance entities. These transactions are generally structured as non-recourse to Bluegreen, with the exception of one securitization transaction (the Legacy Securitization) entered into in 2010 which was guaranteed by Bluegreen (See Note 9 of this report and Note 19 to the audited consolidated financial statements included in BFC’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 for further information regarding the Legacy Securitization). These transactions are generally designed to provide liquidity for Bluegreen and transfer the economic risks and certain of the benefits of the notes receivable to third-parties.  In a securitization, various classes of debt securities are issued by the special purpose finance entities that are generally collateralized by a single tranche of transferred assets, which consist of VOI notes receivable. Bluegreen services the securitized notes receivable for a fee pursuant to servicing agreements negotiated with third parties based on market conditions at the time of the securitizations.

 

In accordance with applicable accounting guidance for the consolidation of VIEs, Bluegreen analyzes its variable interests, which may consist of loans, servicing rights, guarantees, and equity investments, to determine if an entity in which it has a variable interest is a variable interest entity. Bluegreen’s analysis includes both quantitative and qualitative reviews. Bluegreen bases its quantitative analysis on the forecasted cash flows of the entity, and bases its qualitative analysis on the design of the entity, its organizational structure, including decision-making ability, and relevant financial agreements. Bluegreen also uses qualitative analysis to determine if Bluegreen must consolidate a variable interest entity as the primary beneficiary.  In accordance with applicable accounting guidance currently in effect, Bluegreen has determined these securitization entities to be VIEs of which Bluegreen is the primary beneficiary and therefore, consolidates the entities into its financial statements.  As previously described, BFC consolidates Bluegreen and its consolidated subsidiaries and VIEs into BFC’s financial statements.

 

Under the terms of certain of Bluegreen’s timeshare note sales, Bluegreen has the right to repurchase or substitute, a limited amount of defaulted notes receivable for new notes receivable at the outstanding principal balance plus accrued interest or, in some facilities, at 24% of the original sale price associated with the VOI which collateralizes the defaulted notes receivable.  Voluntary repurchases and substitutions by Bluegreen of defaulted notes receivable during the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 were $4.3 million and $8.2 million, respectively. Bluegreen’s maximum exposure to loss relating to non-recourse securitization entities is the difference between the outstanding VOI notes receivable and the associated notes payable, plus cash reserves and any additional residual interest in future cash flows from collateral.

 

---

 

Information related to the assets and liabilities of the VIEs of Bluegreen included in the consolidated statements of financial condition is set forth below (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

The restricted cash and the securitized notes receivable balances disclosed above are restricted to satisfy obligations of the VIEs.

 

BBX Capital

 

In consideration for BB&T assuming BBX Capital’s  $285.4 million in principal amount of TruPS, BB&T received from BBX Capital at the closing of the BB&T Transaction a 95% preferred membership interest in the net cash flows of FAR until such time as it has recovered $285 million in preference amount plus a priority return of LIBOR + 2.00% per annum.  At that time, BB&T’s interest in FAR will terminate, and BBX Capital, which initially holds a 5% preferred membership interest in the net cash flows of FAR, will thereafter be entitled to any and all residual proceeds. BBX Capital provided BB&T with an incremental $35 million guarantee to further assure BB&T’s recovery of the $285 million preference amount within seven years.  At June 30, 2013, BB&T’s preferred interest in FAR has been reduced to approximately $154.5 million.    In August 2013, FAR received full payment on a $19.7 million commercial real estate loan which, upon the anticipated declaration of a dividend by the Board of Managers of FAR, will further reduce BB&T’s preferred membership interest in FAR.

 

BBX Capital’s variable interests in FAR include its 5%  preferred membership interest in the cash flows of FAR, rights to all residual cash flows after satisfaction of the preferred membership interests, and the incremental $35 million guarantee in favor of BB&T.  BBX Capital also services approximately $20 million of FAR commercial loans, $12.7 million of FAR’s properties and equipment and $7.2 million of FAR’s real estate owned.  BBX Capital has a right of first refusal to acquire certain FAR commercial loans. It can also purchase certain commercial loans on a basis established in FAR’s amended and restated limited liability company operating agreement. 

 

Based on FAR’s amended and restated limited liability company operating agreement, BBX Capital determined that it was the primary beneficiary of FAR and therefore should consolidate FAR in its financial statements.  This conclusion was based primarily on the determination that BBX Capital has the right to receive any appreciation of the assets of FAR through its rights to the residual cash flows of FAR and has the obligation to absorb losses as well as its obligations under the incremental $35 million guarantee to BB&T assuring the repayment of BB&T’s preferred interest in FAR.  Also contributing to BBX Capital’s determination that it was the primary beneficiary of FAR was its ability to direct the activities relating to the commercial loans that it services, its ability to purchase certain commercial loans and its right of first refusal in connection with the disposition of certain commercial loans.

 

BB&T’s preferred equity interest in FAR only entitles it to a  $285 million preference amount plus the related priority return.  Pursuant to the amended and restated limited liability company operating agreement, FAR is required to make quarterly distributions, or more frequent distributions as approved by FAR’s Board of Managers, of excess cash flows from its operations and the orderly disposition of its assets to redeem the preferred membership interests in FAR.  As such, the Class A units, which represent the preferred interest in FAR, are considered mandatorily redeemable and are reflected as debt obligations in the consolidated statements of financial condition and the priority return is considered interest expense in the consolidated statements of operations.  

 

The activities of FAR are governed by the amended and restated limited liability company operating agreement, which grants the Board of Managers management authority over FAR.  The Board of Managers has four members, two members elected by BBX Capital and two members elected by BB&T.  Any action on matters before the Board of Managers requires the approval of at least three of the members.  The members designated by BB&T will resign from the Board of Managers upon the redemption of its preferred interest in FAR.

 

---

 

The carrying amount of assets and liabilities of FAR and the classification of these assets and liabilities in BFC’s consolidated statements of financial condition was as follows (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

Until BB&T’s preference amount is repaid, the proceeds from the monetization of FAR’s assets are restricted to payments of expenses, including the priority return and estimated working capital requirements of FAR, and the repayment of FAR’s preferred membership interests. FAR currently anticipates making distributions at least quarterly.  As the holder of 5% of the preferred interests, BBX Capital will receive 5% of such distributions from the monetization of FAR’s assets, net of expenses. FAR finances its activities through revenues from principal and interest payments received on, and the monetization of, its assets. 

 

BBX Capital’s maximum loss exposure in FAR if all of FAR’s assets were deemed worthless would have been $111 million as of June 30, 2013,  consisting of $76 million of net assets plus the $35 million incremental guarantee.

 

 

8.     Inventory

 

Inventory consisted of the following (in thousands):

 

 

 

The Company’s inventory is primarily comprised of Bluegreen’s completed VOIs, Bluegreen’s VOIs under construction and land held by Bluegreen for future vacation ownership development.  Bluegreen reviews real estate held for future vacation ownership development for impairment under applicable accounting guidelines, which require that such properties be reviewed for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the assets might not be recoverable. No impairment charges were recorded with respect to the

---

 

inventory held by Bluegreen Resorts, Bluegreen’s operating segment, during the six months ended June 30, 2013 or 2012.

 

Interest capitalized to VOI inventory during the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 was insignificant. The interest expense reflected in the consolidated financial statements is net of capitalized interest.

 

 

9.     Debt

 

 

Notes and Mortgage Notes Payable and Other Borrowings

 

The table below sets forth the balances of the lines-of-credit and notes payable facilities of Bluegreen (other than receivable-backed notes payable) and notes payable of BBX Capital as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 (dollars in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

Bluegreen

 

Bluegreen has outstanding borrowings with various financial institutions and other lenders, which have been used to finance the acquisition and development of Bluegreen’s inventory and to fund Bluegreen’s operations 

 

2013 Notes Payable.  On March 26, 2013, Bluegreen issued $75.0 million of senior secured notes (the “2013 Notes Payable”) in a private financing transaction. The 2013 Notes Payable are secured by certain of Bluegreen’s assets, including primarily the cash flows from the residual interests relating to Bluegreen’s term securitizations and Bluegreen’s VOI inventory in the BG Club 36 resort in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Pursuant to the terms of the 2013 Notes Payable, Bluegreen is required to periodically pledge reacquired VOI inventory in the BG Club 36 resort.  Bluegreen may also pledge additional residual interests from its future term securitizations, if any.  The 2013 Notes Payable initially accrued interest at a fixed rate of 8.8%.  During April 2013, the interest rate on the 2013 Notes Payable prospectively decreased to a fixed rate of 8.05% based on a final rating obtained from a rating agency.  The 2013 Notes Payable mature in March 2020, with certain required amortization during the seven-year term.  The terms of

---

 

the 2013 Notes Payable include certain covenants and events of default, which Bluegreen considers to be customary for transactions of this type.  The proceeds from the 2013 Notes Payable were used to fund a portion of the merger consideration paid to former shareholders of Bluegreen in connection with the consummation of the Bluegreen merger during April 2013. 

 

CapitalSource Term Loan. In November 2012, Bluegreen entered into a $5.0 million non-revolving term loan with CapitalSource Bank secured by unsold inventory and undeveloped land at the Bluegreen Odyssey Dells Resort (the “CapitalSource Term Loan”). In July 2013, the CapitalSource Term Loan was amended to increase its then outstanding balance from $2.9 million to $4.5 million, extend the maturity date from November 2015 to July 2016, and reduce the interest rate to 30-day LIBOR plus 5.75%.  The CapitalSource Term Loan is cross-collateralized with the CapitalSource Facility, which is described below.

 

Other than the changes to the debt facilities described above, Bluegreen had no new debt issuances and there were no significant changes related to its lines-of-credit or notes payable (other than receivable-backed notes payable) during 2013. 

 

Woodbridge Junior Subordinated Debentures

 

There were no significant changes related to Woodbridge’s $85 million of junior subordinated debentures at June 30, 2013.

---

 

Receivable-Backed Notes Payable

 

The table below sets forth the information regarding Bluegreen’s receivable-backed notes payable facilities (dollars in thousands):

 

 

 

 

New debt issuances and significant changes related to Bluegreen’s receivable-backed notes payable facilities during the six months ended June 30, 2013 include:  

 

Quorum Purchase Facility. Since December 2010, Bluegreen has maintained a timeshare notes receivable purchase facility (the “Quorum Purchase Facility”) with Quorum Federal Credit Union (“Quorum”). In March 2013, the Quorum Purchase Facility was amended and expanded.  Pursuant to the terms of the March 2013 amendment and subject to certain conditions precedent, Quorum agreed to purchase on a revolving basis through March 31, 2014 eligible timeshare receivables from Bluegreen or certain of its subsidiaries in an amount of up to an aggregate $30.0 million purchase price. The amended terms of the Quorum Purchase Facility reflect an 85% advance rate, and provide for a program fee rate of 5.5% per annum, with respect to any future advances. Advances are also subject to a loan purchase fee of 0.5%. The Quorum Purchase Facility becomes due in December 2030. While ownership of the timeshare receivables included in Quorum Purchase Facility is transferred and sold for legal purposes, the transfer of these timeshare receivables is accounted for as a secured borrowing. 

---

 

 

CapitalSource Facility. Since September 2011, Bluegreen has maintained a revolving timeshare receivables hypothecation facility (the “CapitalSource Facility”) with CapitalSource Bank which provides for advances on eligible receivables pledged under the facility, subject to specified terms and conditions, during a revolving credit period.  In July 2013, the CapitalSource Facility was amended to increase the aggregate borrowing base, extend the revolving period and the maturity date, increase the advance rate for certain eligible receivables, and reduce the interest rate. Pursuant to the terms of the amendment, the aggregate maximum outstanding borrowings were increased from $35.0 million to $40.0 million less the amounts outstanding under the CapitalSource Term Loan (as described above), and the revolving credit period was extended through September 2016, subject to an additional 12 months extension at the option of CapitalSource Bank. Eligible “A” receivables that meet certain eligibility and FICO® score requirements, which Bluegreen’s management believes are typically consistent with loans originated under Bluegreen’s current credit underwriting standards, are subject to an 85% advance rate. The CapitalSource Facility also allows for certain eligible “B” receivables (which have less stringent FICO® score requirements) to be funded at a 45% advance rate. The interest rate on all existing and future borrowings under the CapitalSource Facility was reduced to the 30-day LIBOR plus 4.50% (from 30-day LIBOR plus 5.75%). Principal repayments and interest are paid as cash is collected on the pledged receivables, subject to future required decreases in the advance rates after the end of the revolving credit period, with the remaining outstanding balance maturing in September 2019, subject to an additional 12 months extension at the option of CapitalSource Bank. Prior to the amendment, the CapitalSource Facility was scheduled to mature in September 2016.  The CapitalSource Facility is cross-collateralized with the CapitalSource Term Loan.

 

Other than as described above, there were no significant changes or new issuances related to Bluegreen’s receivable-backed notes payable facilities during 2013.

 

 

10.    Commitments and Contingencies

 

BFC and its Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries

 

At June 30, 2009, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BFC/CCC, Inc., BFC’s wholly-owned subsidiary (“BFC/CCC”), had a 10% interest in a limited partnership as a non-managing general partner. The partnership owns an office building located in Boca Raton, Florida. In connection with the purchase of the office building in March 2006, BFC/CCC guaranteed repayment of a portion of the non-recourse loan on the property on a joint and several basis with the managing general partner. BFC/CCC’s maximum exposure under this guarantee is $2.0 million (which is shared on a joint and several basis with the managing general partner). In July 2009, BFC/CCC’s wholly-owned subsidiary withdrew as a partner of the limited partnership and transferred its 10% interest to another unaffiliated partner.  In return, the partner to whom this interest was assigned agreed to use its reasonable best efforts to obtain the release of BFC/CCC from the guarantee. The partner was unable to secure such a release and that partner has agreed to indemnify BFC/CCC for any losses that may arise under the guarantee after the date of the assignment. There are no carrying amounts recorded on our financial statements at June 30, 2013 or December 31, 2012 relating to the guarantee or otherwise in respect of the partnership.

 

A wholly-owned subsidiary of BFC/CCC has a 50% limited partner interest in a limited partnership that has a 10% interest in a limited liability company that owns an office building in Tampa, Florida. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the carrying amount of this investment was approximately $243,000 and $282,000, respectively, which is included in investments in unconsolidated affiliates in the Company’s consolidated statements of financial condition. In connection with the purchase of the office building by the limited liability company in June 2007, BFC guaranteed the payment of certain environmental indemnities and specific obligations that are not related to the financial performance of the property up to a maximum of $15.0 million, or $25.0 million in the event of any petition or involuntary proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or similar state insolvency laws or in the event of any transfer of interests not in accordance with the loan documents. BFC and the unaffiliated members also entered into a cross indemnification agreement which limits BFC’s obligations under the guarantee to acts of BFC and its affiliates. No amounts are recorded in the Company’s financial statements for the obligations associated with this guarantee based on the potential indemnification by the unaffiliated members and the limit of the specific obligations to non-financial matters.

 

Based on current accounting guidance associated with the consolidation of variable interest entities implemented on January 1, 2010, we are not deemed the primary beneficiaries of the above-described entities related to BFC/CCC’s investments as we do not have the power to direct the activities that can significantly impact the performance of these entities. Accordingly, these entities are not consolidated into our financial statements.

---

 

 

On November 9, 2007, Levitt and Sons, Woodbridge’s former wholly-owned homebuilding subsidiary, and substantially all of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Chapter 11 Cases”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Bankruptcy Court”). Pursuant to the settlement agreement entered into during June 2008, as subsequently amended (the “Settlement Agreement”), Woodbridge agreed to (i) pay $8 million to the Debtors’ bankruptcy estates (sometimes referred to herein as the “Debtors’ Estate”), (ii) place $4.5 million in a release fund to be disbursed to third party creditors in exchange for a third party release and injunction, (iii) make a $300,000 payment to a deposit holders fund and (iv) share a percentage of any tax refund attributable to periods prior to the bankruptcy with the Debtors’ Estate. In addition, Woodbridge agreed to waive and release substantially all of the claims it had against the Debtors, including administrative expense claims through July 2008, and the Debtors (joined by the Joint Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases (the “Joint Committee”)) agreed to waive and release any claims they had against Woodbridge and its affiliates. On February 20, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming a plan of liquidation jointly proposed by the Debtors and the Joint Committee.  That order also approved the settlement pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. No appeal or rehearing of the Bankruptcy Court’s order was filed by any party, and the settlement was consummated on March 3, 2009, at which time payment was made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. As of December 31, 2011, Woodbridge placed into escrow approximately $11.7 million, which represented the portion of the tax refund that was likely to be required to be paid to the Debtors’ Estate under the Settlement Agreement. During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, the $11.7 million was paid to the Debtors’ Estate.  In addition, during August 2012, Woodbridge paid to the Debtors’ Estate a settlement holdback amount of approximately $485,000 plus interest, thereby satisfying all of its obligations under the Settlement Agreement.    

 

In the ordinary course of business, BFC and its subsidiaries are parties to lawsuits as plaintiff or defendant involving its operations and activities. Reserves are accrued for amounts in which it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated.   As of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, $11.9 million was accrued for pending legal proceedings involving BFC or its wholly-owned subsidiaries, or Woodbridge, at its parent company level (all of which related to the appraisal rights litigation described below).  

 

BFC believes that it has meritorious defenses in the pending legal actions and that reasonably possible losses arising from these pending legal matters, in excess of the amounts currently accrued, if any, will not have a material impact on BFC’s financial statements.  However, due to the significant uncertainties involved in these legal matters, BFC may incur losses in excess of amounts accrued and an adverse outcome in these matters could be material to BFC’s financial statements.

 

Woodbridge Holdings, LLC v. Prescott Group Aggressive Small Cap Master Fund, G.P., Cede & Co., William J. Maeck, Ravenswood Investments III, L.P., and The Ravenswood Investment Company, Circuit Court, 17^th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida.

 

Under Florida law, holders of WHC’s Class A Common Stock who did not vote to approve BFC’s 2009 merger with WHC and who properly asserted and exercised their appraisal rights with respect to their shares are entitled to receive a cash payment in an amount equal to the fair value of their shares (as determined in accordance with the provisions of Florida law) in lieu of the shares of BFC’s Class A Common Stock which they would otherwise have been entitled to receive. In accordance with Florida law, Woodbridge (the successor by merger to WHC) provided written notices and required forms to the dissenting shareholders setting forth, among other things, its determination that the fair value of WHC’s Class A Common Stock immediately prior to the effectiveness of the merger was $1.10 per share. Dissenting shareholders, who collectively held approximately 4.2 million shares of WHC’s Class A Common Stock, rejected Woodbridge’s offer of $1.10 per share and requested payment for their shares based on their respective fair value estimates of WHC’s Class A Common Stock. Under Florida law, Woodbridge thereafter commenced the appraisal rights action. In December 2009, a $4.6 million liability was recorded with a corresponding reduction to additional paid-in capital representing, in the aggregate, Woodbridge’s offer to the dissenting shareholders.  On July 5, 2012, the presiding court determined the fair value of the dissenting shareholders’ shares of WHC’s Class A Common Stock to be $1.78 per share and awarded legal and other costs in favor of the dissenting shareholders. As a result, the $4.6 million liability was increased to approximately $7.5 million as of June 30, 2012 (with a corresponding reduction to additional paid in capital of $2.8 million) to account for the per share value awarded.   On March 11, 2013, the court awarded legal fees and pre and post judgment interest to the dissenting shareholders for a total award of approximately $11.9 million (including the $7.5 million based on the $1.78 per share value determination).  As a result, the liability was increased by approximately $4.4 million during the fourth quarter of 2012 to $11.9 million as of December 31, 2012.  During April 2013,

---

 

Woodbridge appealed the court’s ruling with respect to its fair value determination and the award of legal fees and costs and posted a $13.4 million bond in connection with the appeal. The outcome of the appeal is uncertain.

 

In Re Bluegreen Corporation Shareholder Litigation

 

Between November 16, 2011 and February 13, 2012, seven purported class action lawsuits related to the previously proposed stock-for-stock merger between BFC, which at that time was the sole member of Woodbridge, and Bluegreen were filed against Bluegreen, the members of Bluegreen’s board of directors, BFC and BXG Florida Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Woodbridge formed for purposes of the merger (“BXG Merger Sub”). As described below, four of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action in Florida, and the other three lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action in Massachusetts and stayed in favor of the Florida action. Further information regarding each of these lawsuits is set forth below.

 

The four Florida lawsuits, captioned and styled Ronald Kirkland v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on November 16, 2011); Richard Harriman v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on November 22, 2011); Alfred Richner v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on December 2, 2011); and BHR Master Fund, LTD et al. v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on February 13, 2012), were consolidated into an action styled In Re Bluegreen Corporation Shareholder Litigation. On April 9, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint which alleged that the individual director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i) agreeing to sell Bluegreen without first taking steps to ensure adequate, fair and maximum consideration, (ii) engineering a transaction to benefit themselves and not the shareholders, and (iii) failing to protect the interests of Bluegreen’s minority shareholders. In the complaint, the plaintiffs also alleged that BFC breached its fiduciary duties to Bluegreen’s minority shareholders and that BXG Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Bluegreen’s directors and BFC. In addition, the complaint included allegations relating to claimed violations of Massachusetts law. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, along with damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 13, 2012, Bluegreen’s motion to dismiss the action was denied. Bluegreen subsequently answered the complaint.

 

The three Massachusetts lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court for Suffolk County in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and styled as follows: Gaetano Bellavista Caltagirone v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on November 16, 2011); Alan W. Weber and J.B. Capital Partners L.P. v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on November 29, 2011); and Barry Fieldman, as Trustee for the Barry & Amy Fieldman Family Trust v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on December 6, 2011). In their respective complaints, the plaintiffs alleged that the individual director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Bluegreen without first taking steps to ensure adequate, fair and maximum consideration. The Fieldman and Weber actions contained the same claim against BFC. In addition, the complaints included claims that BXG Merger Sub, in the case of the Fieldman action, BFC and BXG Merger Sub, in the case of the Caltagirone action, and Bluegreen, in the case of the Weber action, aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 17, 2012, the three Massachusetts lawsuits were consolidated into a single action styled In Re Bluegreen Corp. Shareholder Litigation, which is presently stayed in favor of the Florida action.

 

Following the public announcement of the termination of the stock-for-stock merger agreement and the entry into the previously described agreement relating to the Bluegreen cash merger, the plaintiffs in the Florida action filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint on November 28, 2012 in order to challenge the structure of, and consideration received by Bluegreen’s shareholders in the cash merger.  On November 30, 2012, the Florida court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and the supplemental complaint was deemed filed as of that date.  The supplemental complaint alleges that the merger consideration remained inadequate and continued to be unfair to Bluegreen’s minority shareholders.

 

On January 25, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Florida action filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint that set forth more fully their challenge to the Bluegreen cash merger.  The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duties against the individual director defendants, BFC, and Woodbridge, (ii) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties against Bluegreen, BFC, Woodbridge, and BXG Merger Sub, and (iii) a violation of the section of the Massachusetts Business Corporation Act regarding the approval of conflict of interest transactions.

 

---

 

As previously described, the Bluegreen cash merger was consummated on April 2, 2013.  However, the actions related to the transaction remain pending, with the plaintiffs seeking to recover damages in connection with the transaction.  BFC and Bluegreen believe that these lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the actions.

 

Haim Ronan, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Alan B. Levan, John E. Abdo, Jarett S. Levan, Steven M. Coldren, Bruno L. Di Giulian, Charlie C. Winningham, II, David A. Lieberman, Willis N. Holcombe, Anthony P. Segreto, BBX Capital Corporation, BFC Financial Corporation and BBX Merger Sub, LLC; and John P. Lauterbach, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BBX Capital Corporation, John E. Abdo, Norman H. Becker, Steven M. Coldren, Bruno L. Di Giulian, John K. Grelle, Willis N. Holcombe, Alan B. Levan, Jarett S. Levan, David A. Lieberman, Anthony P. Segreto, Charlie C. Winningham II, Seth M. Wise, BFC Financial Corporation and BBX Merger Sub, LLC; 17^th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida.

 

On May 30, 2013, Haim Ronan filed a purported class action against BFC, BBX Merger Sub, BBX Capital and the members of BBX Capital’s board of directors seeking to represent BBX Capital’s shareholders in a lawsuit challenging the currently proposed merger between BBX Capital and BFC. In this action, which is styled Haim Ronan, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Alan B. Levan, John E. Abdo, Jarett S. Levan, Steven M. Coldren, Bruno L. Di Giulian, Charlie C. Winningham, II, David A. Lieberman, Willis N. Holcombe, Anthony P. Segreto, BBX Capital Corporation, BFC Financial Corporation and BBX Merger Sub, LLC and was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Mr. Ronan asserted as a cause of action that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, and good faith, in part, by failing to obtain a high enough price for the shares of BBX Capital to be acquired by BFC in the merger.  Mr. Ronan also asserted a cause of action against BFC and BBX Merger Sub for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  Mr. Ronan is seeking an injunction blocking the proposed merger.  On May 31, 2013, in an action styled John P. Lauterbach, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BBX Capital Corporation, John E. Abdo, Norman H. Becker, Steven M. Coldren, Bruno L. Di Giulian, John K. Grelle, Willis N. Holcombe, Alan B. Levan, Jarett S. Levan, David A. Lieberman, Anthony P. Segreto, Charlie C. Winningham II, Seth M. Wise, BFC Financial Corporation and BBX Merger Sub, LLC and filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, John P. Lauterbach filed a purported class action against all of the defendants named in Mr. Ronan’s complaint, challenging the currently proposed merger between BFC and BBX Capital for substantially the same reasons as set forth in Mr. Ronan’s complaint, but asserting an additional, direct cause of action for breach of fiduciary duties against BFC, Alan B. Levan and John E. Abdo.  Mr. Lauterbach also added as defendants Norman H. Becker, who was appointed to BBX Capital’s board of directors on May 7, 2013, as well as John K. Grelle and Seth M. Wise, who serve as executive officers and directors of BFC and BBX Capital. The plaintiffs in the actions have moved for consolidation. BFC and BBX Capital believe the claims to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend the actions.

 

Bluegreen  

 

In the ordinary course of its business, Bluegreen becomes subject to claims or proceedings from time to time relating to the purchase, sale, marketing or financing of VOIs or its other resort fee-based services. Bluegreen is also subject to certain matters relating to its previous Bluegreen Communities’ business, substantially all of the assets of which Bluegreen sold on May 4, 2012. Additionally, from time to time, Bluegreen becomes involved in disputes with existing and former employees, vendors, taxing jurisdictions and various other parties. From time to time in the ordinary course of business, Bluegreen also receives individual consumer complaints, as well as complaints received through regulatory and consumer agencies, including Offices of State Attorney Generals. Bluegreen takes these matters seriously and attempts to resolve any such issues as they arise. Unless otherwise described below, Bluegreen believes that these claims are routine litigation incidental to its business.

 

Reserves are accrued for matters in which Bluegreen’s management believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. As of June 30, 2013, Bluegreen accrued  $1.5 million for matters believed by Bluegreen’s management to meet these criteria. The actual costs of resolving these legal claims may be substantially higher than the amounts accrued for these claims.

 

Bluegreen’s management is not at this time able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses with respect to matters in which it is reasonably possible that a loss will occur. In certain matters, Bluegreen is unable to estimate the loss or reasonable range of loss until additional developments provide information sufficient to support an assessment of the loss or range of loss. Frequently in these matters, the claims are broad and the plaintiffs have not quantified or factually supported the claim.

 

---

 

The aggregate liability relating to the known contingencies of Bluegreen discussed below, in excess of the amounts currently accrued, if any, are not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.  However, due to the significant uncertainties involved in these legal matters, Bluegreen may incur losses in excess of amounts accrued and an adverse outcome in these matters could be material to our consolidated financial statements.

 

Tennessee Tax Audit

 

In 2005, the State of Tennessee Audit Division (the “Division”) audited certain subsidiaries within Bluegreen Resorts for the period from December 1, 2001 through December 31, 2004. On September 23, 2006, the Division issued a notice of assessment for approximately $0.7 million of accommodations tax based on the use of Bluegreen Vacation Club accommodations by Bluegreen Vacation Club members who became members through the purchase of non-Tennessee property. Bluegreen believes the attempt to impose such a tax is contrary to Tennessee law and has vigorously opposed such assessment by the Division. An informal conference was held in December 2007 to discuss this matter with representatives of the Division. No formal resolution of the issue was reached during the conference. By letter dated May 25, 2011, the State of Tennessee Department of Revenue issued a decision in which it held that two of the three types of transactions in question were taxable. The State of Tennessee Department of Revenue confirmed that Bluegreen had already remitted the proper amount of sales tax due on one of the two types of taxable transactions, but has taken the position that Bluegreen owed a total of $0.7 million in taxes and interest based on the second type of transaction. On August 1, 2011, Bluegreen filed suit in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee for the purpose of invalidating and setting aside the tax assessment made against Bluegreen by the State of Tennessee Department of Revenue.  Discovery matters relative to the litigation are ongoing. 

 

Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc.

 

In Case No. 2006-Ca-3374, styled Joseph M. Scheyd, Jr., P.A. vs. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc.; Hubert A. Laird; and MSB of Destin, Inc., in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Okaloosa County, Florida, during 2006, Joseph M. Scheyd, Jr., P.A., as escrow agent, brought an interpleader action seeking a determination as to whether Bluegreen, as purchaser, or Hubert A. Laird and MSB of Destin, Inc., as seller, was entitled to the $1.4 million escrow deposit being maintained with the escrow agent pursuant to a purchase and sale contract for real property located in Destin, Florida. Bluegreen maintained that its decision not to close on the purchase of the property was proper under the terms of the purchase and sale contract and that Bluegreen is therefore entitled to a return of the full escrow deposit. On June 1, 2011, the trial court made a finding that Bluegreen breached the purchase and sale contract and that the plaintiff was entitled to the escrow deposit and all accrued interest. Bluegreen filed a notice of appeal with the First District Court of Appeal seeking to appeal the trial court’s decision. The escrow deposit and all accrued interest were placed in the appropriate Court registry pending the outcome of the appeal.  In January 2013, an Amended Final Judgment was issued finding Bluegreen in breach of contract and awarding the plaintiff the entire deposit plus accrued interest.  Bluegreen subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court.  Before the Court rendered a response to the Motion, the matter was settled pursuant to an agreement under which Bluegreen received approximately $145,000 of the disputed deposit amount with the balance distributed to the plaintiff. 

 

The matters described below relate to Bluegreen Communities.  As described above and further in Note 3, Bluegreen sold substantially all of the assets which comprised Bluegreen Communities to Southstar on May 4, 2012. However, Southstar did not assume the liabilities related to the matters described below in connection with the transaction, and Bluegreen therefore remains responsible for these matters and any liabilities resulting from them.

 

Mountain Lakes Mineral Rights

 

Bluegreen Southwest One, L.P. (“Southwest”), a subsidiary of Bluegreen, was the developer of the Mountain Lakes subdivision in Texas. In Case No. 28006, styled Betty Yvon Lesley et a1. V. Bluff Dale Development Corporation, Bluegreen Southwest One. L.P. et al., in the 266^th Judicial District Court, Erath County, Texas, the plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action against Southwest seeking to develop their reserved mineral interests in, on and under the Mountain Lakes subdivision. The plaintiffs’ claims are based on property law, oil and gas law, contract and tort theories. The property owners association and some of the individual landowners have filed cross actions against Bluegreen, Southwest and individual directors of the property owners association related to the mineral rights and certain amenities in the subdivision as described below. On January 17, 2007, the court ruled that the restrictions placed on the development that prohibited oil and gas production and development were invalid and not enforceable as a matter of law, that such restrictions did not prohibit the development of the plaintiffs’ prior reserved mineral interests and that Southwest breached its duty to lease the minerals to third parties for development. The court

---

 

further ruled that Southwest was the sole holder of the right to lease the minerals to third parties. The order granting the plaintiffs’ motion was severed into Case No. 28769, styled Betty Yvon Lesley et a1. V. Bluff Dale Development Corporation, Bluegreen Southwest One. L.P. et al., in the 266^th Judicial District Court, Erath County, Texas. Southwest appealed the trial court’s ruling. On January 22, 2009, in Bluegreen Southwest One, L.P. et al. v. Betty Yvon Lesley et al., in the 11^th Court of Appeals, Eastland, Texas, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision and ruled in Southwest’s favor and determined that all executive rights were owned by Southwest and then transferred to the individual property owners in connection with the sales of land. All property owner claims were decided in favor of Southwest. It was also decided that Southwest did not breach a fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs as an executive rights holder. On May 14, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Texas Supreme Court asking the Court to reverse the Appellate Court’s decision in favor of Southwest. On August 26, 2011, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion affirming the Appellate Court’s decision in part and reversing it in part. The Texas Supreme Court held that Southwest did not breach any covenants in the deed, but did breach a duty to the plaintiffs by filing restrictive covenants in connection with the development of the property which prohibited mineral development, and that the appropriate remedy was cancellation of the restrictive covenants. The Texas Supreme Court further ruled that the plaintiffs have no right of ingress to, or egress from, the subdivision, and that Southwest did not breach a duty to the plaintiffs by not leasing the mineral rights. The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for disposition consistent with its decision. On January 17, 2013, the trial court issued a partial judgment on remand. In its partial judgment, the trial court entered judgment on the issues rendered by the Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court, including a finding that Southwest’s filing of restrictive covenants that attempted to prevent or restrict mineral development was a breach of a duty owed to the non-executive mineral rights owners. As such, the trial court canceled and declared void the section of the restrictive covenants preventing mineral development. However, the trial court also declared that the remaining provisions of the restrictive covenants remain in full force, and the filing of the restrictive covenants by Southwest was not a breach of contract. The trial court also held that the claims by the plaintiffs for reformation of the original deeds dealing with the quantum of minerals reserved therein should be severed from this case.  During mediation held in June 2012, Southwest and the named plaintiffs (Lesley) reached an agreement, with Southwest agreeing to pay Lesley $200,000 for dismissal of the claims for lost mineral rights.  Southwest has not reached settlement with any of the other executive mineral tights owners.  The trial court has set a trial date of October 7, 2013 for this matter. Southwest intends to vigorously defend itself with respect to the pending matters.

 

Separately, as a result of the Texas Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the restrictive covenants prohibiting mineral development within the subdivision, certain lot owners within Mountain Lakes filed a cross-claim against Southwest alleging fraud, negligence and a violation of deceptive trade practices laws based on a claim that the invalidation of the restrictive covenants caused devaluation of their residential lots and other economic damages.   During the three months ended June 30, 2013, the claims of all Mountain Lakes lot owners participating in the cross-claim were settled for a cash payment to the lot owners totaling approximately $0.9 million.

 

In Re Bluegreen Corporation Shareholder Litigation

 

See the above-described class action lawsuits relating to the Bluegreen merger.

 

BBX Capital

 

BBX Capital and its subsidiaries are parties to lawsuits as plaintiff or defendant.   Although BBX Capital believes it has meritorious defenses in all current legal actions, the outcome of litigation matters and the timing of ultimate resolution are inherently uncertain and difficult to predict.

 

BBX Capital reserves are accrued for matters in which it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. These accrual amounts as of June 30, 2013 are not material to BBX Capital’s or BFC’s financial statements.  The actual costs of resolving these legal claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for these claims.    

 

A range of reasonably possible losses is estimated for matters in which it is reasonably possible that a loss has been incurred or that a loss is probable but not reasonably estimable.  Management of BBX Capital currently estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses of up to $4.4 million in excess of the accrued liability relating to these legal matters.  This estimated range of reasonably possible losses represents the estimated possible losses over the life of such legal matters, which may span a currently indeterminable number of years, and is based on information currently available as of June 30, 2013.  The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate. Those matters for which a reasonable

---

 

estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range and, therefore, this estimated range does not represent BBX Capital’s maximum loss exposure.

 

In certain matters BBX Capital is unable to estimate the loss or reasonable range of loss until additional developments in the case provide information sufficient to support an assessment of the loss or range of loss. Frequently in these matters, the claims are broad and the plaintiffs have not quantified or factually supported the claim.

 

Liabilities arising from the litigation matters discussed below, in excess of the amounts currently accrued, if any, are not expected to have a material impact on BBX Capital’s or BFC’s financial statements. However, due to the significant uncertainties involved in these legal matters, BBX Capital may incur losses in excess of amounts accrued and an adverse outcome in these matters could be material to BBX Capital’s or BFC’s financial statements.

 

On May 10, 2013, BBX Capital received a notice from BB&T regarding a series of pending and threatened claims asserted against BB&T’s subsidiary, Branch Banking and Trust Company, as successor to BankAtlantic, by certain individuals who purport to have had accounts in their names with BankAtlantic prior to consummation of the sale of BankAtlantic to BB&T.  The claims allege wrongful conduct by BankAtlantic in connection with certain alleged unauthorized transactions associated with their accounts.  BB&T’s notice asserts its belief that it may be entitled to indemnification with respect to such claims.

 

The following is a description of certain ongoing litigation matters:

 

BBX Shareholders Lawsuit Challenging the Merger with BFC

 

See the above-described purported class action lawsuits challenging the currently proposed merger between BFC and BBX Capital.

 

Securities and Exchange Commission Complaint

 

On January 18, 2012, the SEC brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against BBX Capital and Alan B. Levan, BBX Capital’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, alleging that they violated securities laws by not timely disclosing known adverse trends in BBX Capital’s commercial real estate loans, selectively disclosing problem loans and engaging in improper accounting treatment of certain specific loans which may have resulted in a material understatement of its net loss in BBX Capital’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. Further, the complaint alleges that Mr. Alan B. Levan intentionally misled investors in related earnings calls. The SEC is seeking a finding by the court of violations of securities laws, a permanent injunction barring future violations, civil money penalties and, in the case of Mr. Alan B. Levan, an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company. Briefing on pre-trial motions is on-going and the case is currently set for trial during the fourth quarter of 2013. BBX Capital believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.

 

BBX Capital Shareholders Lawsuit Seeking to Block the sale of BankAtlantic to BB&T under the Agreement

 

On April 5, 2012, J. Phillip Max filed a class action complaint in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida against Alan Levan, Jarett Levan, John Abdo, Steven Coldren, D. Keith Cobb, Charles C. Winningham II, Bruno Di Giulian, Willis Holcombe, David Lieberman, BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., BFC Financial Corporation, and BB&T Corporation.  The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith and loyalty by causing or permitting BBX Capital to sell BankAtlantic.  The complaint further alleges that BBX Capital, BFC and BB&T aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks declaratory and equitable relief, including an injunction against the proposed transaction between BBX Capital and BB&T, as well as seeking damages.  As a consequence of the consummation of the sale of BankAtlantic to BB&T much of the complaint was rendered moot and BBX Capital believes the remainder of the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

 

New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation

 

On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants.  BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax were served with the complaint January 8, 2013.  The class action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as “all persons who owned real property in the State of

---

 

New Jersey and who had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%.”  Plaintiffs allege that beginning in January 1998 and at least through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998, through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a subsidiary of BankAtlantic.  Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T Transaction.  BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2013.  BBX Capital believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the actions.

 

 

11.    Shares Subject to Mandatory Redemption

 

On June 7, 2004, the Company’s board of directors designated 15,000 shares of the Company’s preferred stock as 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock. On June 21, 2004, the Company sold all 15,000 shares of the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock to an investor group in a private offering.

 

The Company’s 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock has a stated value of $1,000 per share. The shares of 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock are redeemable at the option of the Company, from time to time, at redemption prices ranging from $1,010 per share for the twelve month period ending April 29, 2014 to $1,000 per share for the twelve month period ending April 29, 2016.  The 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock’s liquidation preference is equal to its stated value of $1,000 per share plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends or an amount equal to the applicable redemption price in a voluntary liquidation or winding up of the Company. Holders of the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock have no voting rights, except as provided by Florida law, and are entitled to receive, when and as declared by the Company’s board of directors (and previously also upon the written non-objection of the Federal Reserve), cumulative quarterly cash dividends on each such share at a rate per annum of 5% of the stated value from the date of issuance. From the second quarter of 2004 through the third quarter of 2011, the Company paid quarterly dividends on the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock of $187,500. The Company determined not to seek the Federal Reserve’s written non-objection to the dividend payment for the fourth quarter of 2011 or the first or second quarters of 2012 and, therefore, the Company accrued unpaid dividend payments totaling approximately $563,000 as of June 30, 2012.   As a result of BBX Capital’s sale of BankAtlantic to BB&T on July 31, 2012, BFC was released from registration as a savings and loan holding company, effective August 31, 2012, and therefore is no longer subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve or otherwise as a savings and loan holding company.  Following such deregistration, the unpaid dividends on the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock totaling $563,000 were paid by BFC.  

 

On December 17, 2008, certain of the previously designated relative rights, preferences and limitations of the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock were amended (the “First Amendment”) to eliminate the right of the holders of the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock to convert their shares into shares of the Company’s Class A Common Stock. The First Amendment also required the Company to redeem shares of the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock with the net proceeds received in the event the Company sold any shares of Benihana’s stock that it owned and entitled the holders of the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock, in the event the Company defaulted on its dividend payment obligation with respect to such stock, to receive directly from Benihana the payments due (collectively, the “Benihana Stock Provisions”).

 

Based on an analysis of the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock after giving effect to the First Amendment, the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock was classified in the mezzanine category at its fair value at the effective date of the First Amendment of approximately $11.0 million. The remaining amount (which was approximately $4.0 million as of the date of the First Amendment) is recorded in additional paid in capital in the Company’s consolidated statements of financial condition. The fair value of the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock was calculated using an income approach by discounting estimated cash flows at a market discount rate.

 

On April 4, 2012, the relative rights, preferences and limitations of the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock were further amended (the “Second Amendment”).  Pursuant to the Second Amendment, to the extent the shares are not earlier redeemed pursuant to the optional redemption right described above, the Company will be required to redeem 5,000 shares of the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock during each of the years ending December 31, 2016, 2017 and 2018 for an aggregate annual redemption price of $5.0 million, or $1,000 per share. The Second Amendment also provides that, subject to certain limitations, in the event that the Company defaults on its dividend or mandatory redemption obligations, the holders of the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock will be entitled to receive from the Company shares of common stock of Bluegreen owned by the Company having, in the aggregate, a fair market value equal to the amount of the dividend or redemption payment, as the case may be, to the extent not timely paid. In consideration therefor, the Second Amendment eliminates the Benihana Stock Provisions. As of the date of this

---

 

filing, no agreement has been reached between BFC and the holders of its 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock regarding which, if any, assets of BFC are to be substituted for the shares of Bluegreen’s common stock in the event of a dividend or redemption payment default.

 

Under applicable accounting guidance, as a result of the Second Amendment and the mandatory redemption provision contained therein, the 5% Cumulative Preferred Stock was re-classified as a liability during the quarter ended June 30, 2012 at its estimated fair value of approximately $11.5 million.   The fair value was determined by an independent third party and was based on a cash flow model using a discount rate equivalent to benchmark bond ratings.  The $0.5 million difference between the previously stated value of $11.0 million as of March 31, 2012 and the June 30, 2012 estimated fair value of $11.5 million was recorded as an adjustment to additional paid in capital in the Company’s consolidated statement of financial condition. Included in the balance of shares subject to mandatory redemption in the accompanying consolidated statement of financial condition as of June 30, 2013 is accrued interest of approximately $599,000. 

 

 

12.    Noncontrolling Interests 

 

The following table summarizes the noncontrolling interests in the Company’s subsidiaries at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

The following table summarizes the income (loss) recognized with respect to the Company’s subsidiaries attributable to noncontrolling interests for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 (in thousands):

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

13.    Segment Reporting

 

Operating segments are defined as components of an enterprise about which separate financial information is available that is regularly reviewed by the chief operating decision maker in assessing performance and deciding how to allocate resources. Reportable segments consist of one or more operating segments with similar economic characteristics, products and services, production processes, type of customer, distribution system or regulatory environment. 

 

The information provided for segment reporting is based on internal reports utilized by management of the Company and its subsidiaries. The presentation and allocation of assets and results of operations may not reflect the actual economic costs of the segments as standalone businesses. If a different basis of allocation were utilized, the relative contributions of the segments might differ but the relative trends in the segments’ operating results would, in management's view, likely not be impacted.

 

As a result of BBX Capital’s sale of BankAtlantic during July 2012 and Safflower’s acquisition of Benihana during August 2012, BFC reorganized its reportable segments during the fourth quarter of 2012 to better align its segments with its and its subsidiaries’ current operations.  The Company currently reports its results through four segments:  Real Estate Operations; Bluegreen Resorts; FAR; and BBX.  Prior to the segment reorganization,  the Company had a BFC Activities reporting segment, which consisted of BFC’s corporate overhead and selling, general and administrative expenses, including the expenses of Woodbridge unrelated to Bluegreen and other real estate related activities, BFC’s investment in Benihana and certain other investments and subsidiaries. During the fourth quarter of 2012, BFC’s management modified its measure of segment operating profit to exclude the items that were previously classified within the BFC Activities segment.  Accordingly, the Company’s segment disclosure has been adjusted to reflect the revised presentation and the results previously included within BFC Activities have been reclassified to unallocated corporate overhead for all periods presented and are included in the reconciliation of segment amounts to the consolidated amounts.

 

Discontinued operations include the results of Bluegreen Communities (which previously was a separate reporting segment), BankAtlantic’s community banking, investment, capital services and tax certificate reporting units (which previously comprised a portion of the BankAtlantic segment, which was a separate reporting segment) and Cypress Creek Holdings (which was previously part of the Real Estate Operations reporting segment). See Note 3 for additional information regarding discontinued operations.

 

The Company evaluates segment performance based on its segment net income (loss).

 

The following summarizes the aggregation of the Company's operating segments into reportable segments:

 

Real Estate Operations

 

The Company’s Real Estate Operations segment consists of Core Communities, which suspended activities in December 2010, and Carolina Oak, which suspended its homebuilding activities in the fourth quarter of 2008.

 

Bluegreen Resorts

 

Bluegreen Resorts, the operating segment relating to Bluegreen’s continuing operations, markets, sells and manages real estate-based VOIs in resorts generally located in popular, high-volume, “drive-to” vacation destinations, which were developed or acquired by Bluegreen or are owned by others in which case Bluegreen Resorts earns fees for providing these services.  Bluegreen Resorts also earns fees related to its provision of property association management services, mortgage servicing, VOI title services, reservation services, and construction design and development services. In addition, Bluegreen Resorts provides financing to credit-qualified individual purchasers of VOIs, which provides significant interest income.

 

FAR

 

BBX Capital holds 5% of the outstanding preferred membership interests in FAR as well as the right to residual proceeds from FAR following such time, if any, as BB&T, which holds 95% of FAR’s outstanding preferred membership interests, has recovered $285 million preference amount plus a priority return of LIBOR + 2.00% per annum on any unpaid preference amount. Since its inception (August 1, 2012), FAR’s activities have primarily consisted of managing its portfolio of assets with a view towards liquidating the assets to provide sufficient funds to

---

 

result in the full recovery of the preference amount and to maximize the residual value of the assets. FAR’s activities also include oversight of third party servicers and the liquidation of tax certificates, loans and real estate acquired through foreclosure.

 

BBX

 

The BBX segment includes the results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013 of CAM and BBX Partners, Inc., BBX Capital’s wholly owned asset workout subsidiary (“BBX Partners”).  BBX Partners’ primary assets are non-performing commercial loans and real estate owned. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2013, CAM’s and BBX Partners’ activities were primarily associated with their loans receivable, real estate properties and a portfolio of previously charged-off loans as well as pursuing equity and debt investment opportunities in real estate and middle market operating businesses.  During the three months ended June 30, 2013, equity earnings of BBX Capital’s investment in Woodbridge were also included in the BBX segment.  As both BBX Capital and Woodbridge are consolidated into BFC’s financial statements, equity earnings from BBX Capital’s investment in Woodbridge were eliminated in consolidation.

 

BBX’s activities during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 consisted of those related to BankAtlantic’s Commercial Lending reporting unit and BBX’s Partners’ assets. The activities related to the commercial loan portfolios included renewing, modifying, collecting, extending, refinancing and making protective advances on these loans, as well as managing and liquidating real estate properties acquired through foreclosure.