Commitments and Contingencies | Note 11 — Commitments and Contingencies Future Minimum Lease Payments The Company entered into operating and capital lease agreements primarily related to certain properties under leasehold interest arrangements. The following table reflects the minimum contractual base cash payments, excluding reimbursements, due from the Company over the next five years and thereafter under these arrangements, including the present value of the net minimum payments due under capital leases. These amounts exclude contingent rent payments, as applicable, that may be payable based on provisions related to increases in annual rent based on exceeding certain economic indexes among other items. Future Minimum (In thousands) Ground Leases April 1, 2018 - December 31, 2018 3,927 2019 5,432 2020 5,432 2021 5,633 2022 5,914 Thereafter 238,138 Total minimum lease payments $ 264,476 As of March 31, 2018, the future minimum base rent payments related to the ground leases accrued until the projected disposal of the related properties amounted to $1.2 million and are included in liability for estimated costs in excess of estimated receipts during liquidation. Litigation and Regulatory Matters In the ordinary course of business, the Company may become subject to litigation, claims and regulatory matters. There are no legal or regulatory proceedings pending or known to be contemplated against the Company from which the Company expects to incur a material loss. Eastdil/Wells Fargo Arbitration On October 18, 2017, the Company sold a 48.7% interest in Worldwide Plaza to a joint venture managed by SL Green Realty Corp. and RXR Realty LLC. The Company had previously retained Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (pursuant to an agreement that contemplated that certain of the services could be delegated to an affiliate, Eastdil Secured LLC) (collectively “Eastdil/Wells Fargo”) to, among other services, assist the Company in a possible sale of Worldwide Plaza. In late 2016, Eastdil lost key personnel to a competitor, Cushman & Wakefield. As a result of these personnel losses at Eastdil, the Company felt it necessary to also hire CBRE to assist the Company and in support of Eastdil in the possible sale of Worldwide Plaza. In connection with the sale of the 48.7% interest in Worldwide Plaza, the Company paid compensation to Eastdil/Wells Fargo of $2.1 million pursuant to the Company’s understanding of the fee due to Eastdil/Wells Fargo based on specific oral and written representations by Eastdil/Wells Fargo to the Company of what would be due to Eastdil/Wells Fargo on the partial interest sale. Subsequent to the completion of the sale of the 48.7% interest in Worldwide Plaza, Eastdil/Wells Fargo is now alleging additional amounts are due to Eastdil/Wells Fargo, as if the Company’s entire interest in Worldwide Plaza was sold, and has filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against the Company. Eastdil/Wells Fargo is claiming compensation totaling $4.4 million, or an additional $2.3 million over the $2.1 million that has already been paid Eastdil/Wells Fargo by the Company. The Company believes Eastdil/Wells Fargo should be bound by their representations concerning the sale, and will vigorously defend the Company’s position. No date has been set for the arbitration hearing as of the date of this filing. The Company has included an amount it feels appropriate for legal fees and the contingent liability in its Consolidated Statement of Net Assets as a component of liability for estimated costs in excess of estimated receipts during liquidation at March 31, 2018. Harris Derivative Suit In October 2016, Berney Harris (the “Plaintiff”) filed a derivative complaint (the “Harris Complaint”) on behalf of the Company against certain current and former members of the Company’s board of directors (the “director defendants”), the Former Advisor, and certain affiliates of the Former Advisor (together with the Former Advisor, the “Former Advisor defendants”). The Complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County on October 13, 2016. The Harris Complaint alleged, among other things, that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by putting the interests of the Former Advisor defendants before those of the public stockholders, which breach was aided and abetted by the Former Advisor defendants. The Harris Complaint also asserted claims of corporate waste against the director defendants and unjust enrichment against certain of the Former Advisor defendants. On December 16, 2016, the defendants filed motions to dismiss on the basis of a provision in the Company’s bylaws providing that the state or federal courts of Maryland are the sole and exclusive forum for derivative claims such as those raised in the Harris Complaint. On August 10, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting the Company’s and the director defendants’ motion to dismiss and also granted the motion to dismiss of one of the Former Advisor defendants. At the same time, the Court requested additional briefing as to the other Former Advisor defendants’ motion to dismiss, which the Court neither granted nor denied at the time and which is still pending before the Court. On September 15, 2017, the Former Advisor defendants who had not been dismissed filed a memorandum of law in further support of their motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to modify the Court’s August 10, 2017 Order to the extent that it dismissed the Company as a nominal defendant. On October 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s Order dismissing the Company, the director defendants, and one Former Advisor defendant. On November 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal from certain parts of the Court’s August 10, 2017 Order. On December 6, 2017, the Court dismissed the Harris Complaint in its entirety without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court denied as moot Plaintiff’s November 21, 2017 motion for leave to appeal. On January 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended notice of appeal of the Court’s Order dismissing the Harris Complaint and the Court’s prior August 10, 2017 Order. At this time, it is unclear whether Plaintiff will pursue any of his appeals, whether he will succeed if he does pursue any appeals, or whether Plaintiff will seek to file a complaint in another jurisdiction. Environmental Matters In connection with the ownership and operation of real estate, the Company may potentially be liable for costs and damages related to environmental matters. The Company maintains environmental insurance for its properties that provides coverage for potential environmental liabilities, subject to the policy’s coverage conditions and limitations. The Company has not been notified by any governmental authority of any non-compliance, |