EmpireStateBuildingInvestors .com     Toll Free 866-574-1712
  • Home
  • Page List
  • SEC-Malkin Letter
  • Contact
  • ESB Ownership
    • Questions about sales process and 50% split with sublessee. 4
    • Empire State Building and Sublessee 1961-2012: Changing views
    • $2.5 Billion Empire State Building Appraisal 6
    • Sublease >
      • "The supervisor has represented that historically, agreements have been entered into to share capital expenditure and financing costs"
      • Sublessee owners 7
      • Sublessee or Lessee 8
      • Is sublessee in a joint venture with Empire State Building? 9 empire state building ipo prospectus
      • Sublessee declines opportunity to become co-owner 10
      • Owner's relationship with sublessee is contractual 12
    • There is one owner of Empire State Building 11
    • Title to all of the improvements shall be in the Lessor 13
  • News
  • Lawsuits against Malkin Holdings L.L.C. since 3/1/12
    • 3/1/2012 First Class Action Lawsuit
    • 3/7/12 Second Class Action Suit
    • 3/12/12 Third Class Action Suit
  • SEC Rules
    • SEC rules
    • SEC rules 2
  • 3/16/12 SEC filing Empire State Building Associates
  • 4/4/12 SEC Filing EMPIRE STATE BUILDING ASSOCIATES L.L.C.
  • May 31 2012 Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. SEC Filing
  • How much is your ownership worth?
  • WSJ: High-Stakes Feud over Empire State Building
  • FORM OF PARTICIPATING AGREEMENT OF EMPIRE STATE BUILDING ASSOCIATES L.L.C.
  • No independent representative was retained to negotiate on behalf of the participants
  • S-4 Empire State Equity Trust February 13, 2012 14
  • definitions
  • continued from home page 15
  • Empire State Owners Go Ape Over IPO Tax Issues: Wall Street Journal April 8 2012
  • January 9, 2012 Answer to SEC inquiry
  • REITs Spring an Unnerving Surprise
  • Average Rent paid according to Malkin Holdings L.L.C.
  • Duties of Supervisor of Associates
  • Reuters: Empire State Building IPO change may help pay tax
  • Wall Street Journal: Tax Terms Amended in Empire State Building IPO
  • How to Ruin a Safe Bet; Did Rockefeller Center Financiers Reach Too Far?
  • May 31 2012 Helmsley Estate Driving Empire State Building IPO, Malkins Say
  • SEC May 11, 2012 :" "There are material risks and conflicts of interest associated with the consolidation."
  • Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Lockup Agreement
  • Sublease or Lease
  • Shared Debt Obligation
  • Eliminating Two-Tier Ownership
  • Sublease renewals
  • June 9, 2008 Consent for Loan for Improvement Program
  • December 27, 1961 Lease Empire State Building Prudential Insurance Company and Empire State Building Associates
  • Lease renewals
  • June 8 2008 Loan for Improvements
  • June 9, 2008 Empire State Building Improvements Budget
  • $10 million REIT fees paid out 2011 Empire State Building IPO
  • 2011 Empire State Building Company LLC financials
  • SEC filing July 2, 2012 Empire State Building Associates L.L.C
  • ESBA number of participants
  • On August 6, 2012, Malkin Holdings L.L.C., the supervisor of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. (the “Registrant”), provided the following to persons calling participants in the Registrant, to be used as a script for such calls:
  • SEC August 6, 2012 Empire State Realty Trust, Inc
  • Poll of ESBA participants
  • August 9, 2012 Legal Proceedings Empire State Building Associates 10Q
  • Columbia University Sublesse interest
  • August 9, 2012 SEC filing of New Risk Factor of More Lawsuits against Management
  • 2012: Observatory increased admission prices over 15%
  • Wells Notice
  • SEC Filing 8/24/12 "legally distinct from a joint venture"‏ malkin empire state sec filings
  • Empire State Realty Trust Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. Empire State Building IPO
  • Top ten reasons to Vote NO to sale of Empire State Building to REIT
  • Empire State Building Income
  • Page 1
  • Economic Joint Venture
  • 50/50 split
  • Empire State Building privately owned by Empire State Building Company?
  • S-4
  • 11/5/12 Settlement reached in Empire State Realty Trust suit
  • S-4 Red-lined version 11/2/12
  • Class Action Suit
  • Empire State Building Company Partnership Agreement
  • January 28, 2013 $800 Class Action Lawsuit Filed
  • REIT fees to ESBA investors
  • 1971 Sublessee Operating Agreement and Amendments
  • 1971 Empire State Building Company Participation Agreement
  • SEC 2/5/13 1971 Sublessee Empire State Building Company Participation Agreement
  • Top Ten Vote No
  • Sublease and improvements
  • Ex-Wien partner: Vote No to REIT
  • NYC's Towering TV Choice: 1 WTC Or Empire
  • Observatory
  • 1961 Empire State Building Associates Prospectus
  • A Yen for Yield Could Rock U.S. REIT
  • Law360
  • REfin Blog
  • Crain's New York: Bidders up ante at Empire State Bldg.
  • Crains New York: Another bidder moves to upset Empire St. Bldg. plan.
  • ESBA purchase of fee title 2001-2
  • Damage and Destruction:
  • ESBA land building cost percentages
  • Revman headed for Empire State Building
  • SL Green says private market will value ESB higher
  • Private market values exceed public market values
  • Thor makes second offer for Empire State Building
  • Empire State Building Investors Again Sue Owners Over IPO
  • Empire State Building Topless Model Lawsuit
  • Empire State Building $500 Million Lawsuit against Malkin Holdings
  • Investors Launch $600M Suit Over Empire State Building Deal
  • Law360: Report Details Malkin's Rebuff Of Empire State Bldg. Bids‏
  • Empire State Building Investor Appeals $55M Settlement
  • Empire State Building Investors Rip Owners Over Discovery
  • SEC Freedom of Information Act Exemptions
  • ESRT SEC filings comments and Malkin Holdings uploaded answers
  • ESRT SEC Indexed files
  • FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2013 (October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013)
  • Freedom of Information Appeal (FOIA) Resources
  • “MALKIN FAMILY CONTRIBUTORS” to REIT
  • FOIA Vaughn Index
  • sec-glomar-response-to-foia-request-for-copies-of-interviews-with-empire-state-building-investors
  • “[WE] CAN NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF RECORDS RESPONSIVE TO YOUR REQUEST”1 : REFORMING THE GLOMAR RESPONSE UNDER FOIA
  • SEC issues Glomar Response for ESRT-first since 2010
  • Glomar Response-Office of Government Information Services
  • Empire State Building $600 Million lawsuit against Peter Malkin and Tony Malkin
  • SEC FOIA Lawsuit for Empire State Building REIT records
  • Case 1:14-cv-01140 EDELMAN v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Complaint
  • AGREEMENT BETWEEN MALKIN HOLDINGS LLC AND HELMSLEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
  • PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS and FORM OF PARTICIPATING AGREEMENT For Lincoln and Fish Buildings
  • Helmsley Management to self manage
  • SEC Division of Corporation Finance Staff Legal Bulletin No. 1 (with Addendum) "Confidential Treatment Requests"
  • Untitled
  • EDELMAN v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION-Case Assigned to Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. (md, )
  • About 20% of the people who were warned over a two-year period that they might be sued by U.S. regulators for allegedly violating securities law ended up not facing charges
  • justice.gov guide-freedom-information-act
  • September 19, 2013
  • September 5, 2013
  • August 12, 2013
  • December 21, 2012
  • December 17, 2012
  • October 19, 2012
  • October 10, 2012
  • October 5, 2012
  • September 24, 2012
  • September 13, 2012 file 1
  • September 13, 2012 file 2
  • September 10, 2012 file 1
  • September 10, 2012 file 2
  • September 5, 2012
  • August 27, 2012
  • May 8 , 2012
  • July 3, 2012
  • The OGIS Library Vaughn Index
  • FOIA Facts: Inside the Process of Preparing a Vaughn Index
  • Sample Vaughn Indexes
  • ESRT Equity Interests
  • SEC Vaughn Index Lawsuits
  • Gavin vs. SEC
  • GAVIN v. UNITED STATES SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMM., Civil No. 04-4522 (PAM/JSM). , at 4 (D. Minn. Oct. 13, 2006)
  • Empire State Realty Trust Ownership
  • Improvements ownership
  • Therefore, each of Associates and Lessee will ultimately bear one-half of the cost of the improvement program
  • CF Memo
  • SEC Is Steering More Trials to Judges It Appoints
  • 10/20/14 Activity in Case 1:14-cv-01140-RMC EDELMAN v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Order
  • NYC Rooftop RF Options Widen
  • H.R.1211 - FOIA Act
  • Exemption 5
  • Exemption 6
  • 11/10/14 ESRT Update on Lawsuits
  • SEC: How Investigations Work
  • SEC FOIA Exclusions
  • SEC FOIA Requests November 2014
  • FOIA Glomar response conversion to The (c)(1) Exclusion
  • Law360: Empire State Building Investors Launch Another Suit Over IPO
  • 2/17/15: PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
  • ESB SEC FOIA Requests Updated List
  • ESB SEC FOIA Requests Updated List March 2015
  • 04/17/15 RICHARD EDELMAN, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:14-CV-1140 (RDM) ) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ) COMMISSION, ) Defendant.
  • Malkin attorneys FOIA requests for ESB investigation files rebuffed by SEC
  • ESRT SEC Enforcement Investigation File
  • FOIA Lawsuit San Diego
  • Malkin Holdings lawyers Dewey Pegno SEC FOIA requests Empire State Building
  • Federal Court to Rule on release of SEC ESRT-Malkin Holdings Investigation Files
  • Peter Malkin Tony Malkin Lose Empire State Building Case Ruling
  • Malkin Holdings, Peter Malkin and Tony Malkin lose counterclaim ruling in Empire State Building Arbitration case.
  • Federal Court to rule on release of SEC ESRT Malkin Holdings ​Empire State Building investigation files.
  • SEC FOIA Lawsuit Empire State Realty Trust Malkin Holdings Consumer Complaints
  • Empire State Realty Trust Income Tax Treatment according to Malkin Holdings LLC
  • February 20, 2013 Re: In re Empire State Realty Trust, MNY-08894
  • SEC 662
  • SEC lawyers Empire State Building sale notes from calls and meetings with Malkin Holdings managers ordered released by Federal Judge
  • Malkin answer to SEC about unauthorized renewal of Empire State Building Master Lease
  • "SEC Ordered To Turn Over Empire State REIT Docs Index"
  • Empire State Building Department of Justice FOIA ruling Malkin Holdings


http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1541401/000119312513358667/filename66.htm
CORRESP 66 filename66.htm

September 5, 2013

VIA EDGAR AND OVERNIGHT COURIER

Mr. Tom Kluck

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Division of Corporation Finance

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549-7010

 Re: Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.

Amendment No. 5 to Registration Statement on Form S-11

Filed August 12, 2013

File No. 333-179485

Dear Mr. Kluck:

On behalf of Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), we are transmitting for filing pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), Amendment No. 6 (“Form S-11 Amendment No. 6”) to the Registration Statement on Form S-11 (File No. 333-179485) of the Company (the “Form S-11 Registration Statement”), and the Company’s responses to the comments of the Staff of the Division of Corporation Finance (the “Staff”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) contained in your letter dated August 30, 2013.

For convenience of reference, each Staff comment contained in your August 30, 2013 comment letter is reprinted below in bold, numbered to correspond with the paragraph numbers assigned in your letter, and is followed by the corresponding response of the Company.

We have provided to you five courtesy copies of the Form S-11 Amendment No. 6, filed by the Company on the date hereof, and five copies of the Form S-11 Amendment No. 6 which are marked to reflect changes made to the Form S-11 Registration Statement filed with the Commission on August 12, 2013 (the “Marked Copies”). The changes reflected in the Form S-11 Amendment No. 6 have been made in response to the Staff’s comments. All page references in our responses are to the pages of the Marked Copies. Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in this response letter that are defined in the Form S-11 Registration Statement shall have the meanings set forth in the Form S-11 Registration Statement. Please note that references to “we,” “our” and “us” refer to the Company.



General

1. We note the recent public information in regards to offers to purchase the Empire State Building and 60 East 42nd Street. Please advise us whether you plan to consider such current offers after the offering and formation transactions. We may have further comment.

In response to the Staff’s comment, the Company supplementally advises the Staff that certain pre-formation entities have received indications of interest from third parties to purchase the Empire State Building and 60 East 42nd Street (the “Proposals”). The Proposals were not addressed or submitted to the Company (or its operating partnership). If the proposed purchasers were to amend the Proposals after the offering, the full board of directors of the Company, including the independent director nominees, would have to consider the revised Proposals. The Company cannot speculate as to how the full board of directors would respond to any proposal it may receive after the offering relating to all or any portion of the Company’s portfolio, including the Proposals if they were submitted to the Company. In addition, the Company supplementally advises the Staff that management has no current intention to recommend to the Company’s board of directors that they sell these assets following the offering, although the board of directors will consider any offers it receives in accordance with their fiduciary duties.

Business and Properties, page 177

Renovation and Repositioning Case Studies, page 186

2. With respect to the “Annualized Gross Rent” columns, please explain to us the “pre-renovation and repositioning annualized gross rent” number in the context of base rent, since that is the basis for the “post-renovation and repositioning annualized gross rent” number. Also, please expand your disclosure to explain the reason for presenting annualized gross rent, rather than annualized base rent. In addition, please disclose the impact that the free rent periods have upon the base rent.

In response to the Staff’s comment, the Company supplementally advises the Staff that, as disclosed in footnote (3) to the table, in the “Annualized Gross Rent” column, pre-renovation and repositioning annualized gross rent represents the last annualized fully escalated gross rent prior to the start of the renovation and repositioning of the floor. This represents the cash amount the tenants under the applicable leases were paying prior to the start of the renovation and reposition program. Post-renovation and repositioning annualized gross rent represents annualized contractual first monthly base rent (after free rent periods) for the applicable leases following the renovation and repositioning of the floor, which again represents the first cash payment by the tenants under the applicable leases. The Company believes this comparison is most meaningful for investors since a comparison of base rents would overstate the difference in pre- and post-renovation rental payments because the contractual rent in the pre-renovation rental payments would not be inclusive of escalations (while there are no escalations in the context of the first monthly post-renovation rental payments). In response to the Staff’s comment, we have expanded the disclosure as requested.

In further response to the Staff’s comment, the Company supplementally advises the Staff that free rent periods are excluded from annualized gross rent as these represent a comparison of cash payments by tenants. The Company believes that providing detailed free rent information in the context of the Renovation and Repositioning Case Studies on a per floor basis does not provide meaningful information to investors. The Company analyzes free rent, and believes investors analyze free rent, on an aggregate basis and that no distinction is applied towards free rent on a pre- or post-renovation and repositioning basis. Further, disclosure of free rent on a per floor basis in the case study would put the Company at a competitive disadvantage as it could provide its competitors with the means to calculate specific information regarding free rent periods granted to the Company’s tenants. The Company advises the Staff that the aggregate amount of free rent and abatements with respect to the office properties is included in the Form S-11 prospectus under the heading “Business and Properties—Our Portfolio Summary.”

-2-



3. We refer to the added footnotes (5) to the tables regarding the Weighted Average Annualized Gross Rent per Leased Square Foot. Please explain in greater detail why management views this measure as an accurate representation of the impact of the renovation and repositioning activities on rental rates. Please explain why, in the denominator, you use “post-renovation and repositioning total rentable square feet less pre-renovation and reposition vacant square feet” rather than applying the pre-renovation occupancy rate to the post-renovation number. Also include an explanation in the prospectus or advise.

In response to the Staff’s comment, the Company has revised the disclosure under the heading “Business and Properties-Renovation and Repositioning Case Studies” on pages 10, 188 and 189 of the Form S-11 prospectus to provide that management views Weighted Average Annualized Gross Rent per Leased Square Foot as an accurate representation of the impact of the renovation and repositioning activities on rental rates because it takes into consideration the increase in rentable square feet in addition to the change in annualized gross rent.

In further response to the Staff’s comment, the Company supplementally advises the Staff that the Company has shown post-renovation and repositioning total rentable square feet less pre-renovation and reposition vacant square feet as the Company believes it represents a more precise method to compare pre- and post-renovation leased square feet than applying the pre-renovation occupancy rate to the post-renovation number because the vacant space in the pre-renovation number was remeasured as part of the renovation and repositioning of the floor. Applying the pre-renovation occupancy rate to the post-renovation number would overstate the amount that the vacancy represents as part of the rentable square feet. The foregoing is exemplified by the following:

Full Floor Tenant Square Feet

   30,000  Company method: Post-renovation and repositioning total rentable square feet less pre-renovation and reposition vacant square feet

  Prior Square Footage

  Prior Tenants

   10,000  Prior Vacancy [Remeasured]

   15,000     Total Prior

   25,000  Prior Tenants Occupancy         %

   40.0% Prior Tenants Vacancy         %

   60.0% Prior Vacancy [Remeasured]

   15,000  Alternative method: Applying the pre-renovation occupancy rate to the post-renovation number.

  Full Floor Tenant Square Feet

   30,000  Prior Tenants Vacancy         %

   60.0%    Vacancy

   18,000  -3-



Property Revenue and Operating Expenses, page 218

4. We have reviewed your revised disclosure in response to comment 9 from our letter dated August 7, 2013. Please also identify the Net Operating Income measures disclosed on page 218 as non-GAAP measures and provide a reconciliation of Total Net Operating Income to the most closely comparable GAAP measure, which appears to be pro forma net income for the twelve months ended December 31, 2012. Additionally, please expand your disclosure to explain in more detail why management believes that this non-GAAP measure is useful to investors. In your disclosure, discuss why certain expense items that are included in pro forma net income are added back to get to your measure of pro forma net operating income.

In response to the Staff’s comment, the Company has revised the disclosure under the heading “Business and Properties-Property Revenue and Operating Expenses” on page 218 of the Form S-11 prospectus to remove the Net Operating Income column and to provide aggregate dollar differences from the individual columns to their GAAP line item equivalents in the financials.

Board Committees, page 234

5. We note your response to comment 11 from our letter dated August 7, 2013. We will continue to monitor for this disclosure and may have further comment.

The Company acknowledges the Staff’s comment and advises the Staff that it has revised the disclosure under the heading “Management—Board Committees” on page 235 of the Form S-11 prospectus to disclose the primary responsibilities of the investment committee.

We thank you for your prompt attention to this letter responding to the comment letter and look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Please direct any questions concerning this response to Larry Medvinsky at (212) 878-8149.

Yours truly,

/s/ Larry Medvinksy

Larry Medvinsky

Clifford Chance US LLP


cc:  Anthony E. Malkin  Eric McPhee  Jessica Barberich  Angela McHale  David L. Orlic