GETTY REALTY CORP /MD/ 10-Q

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS GETTY REALTY CORP. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (Unaudited) (in thousands, except per share amounts) September 30, 2020 December 31, 2019 ASSETS Real estate: Land $ 687,618 $ 669,351 Buildings and improvements 518,167 442,220 Construction in progress 1,141 2,080 1,206,926 1,113,651 Less accumulated depreciation and amortization ( 180,955 ) ( 165,892 ) Real estate, net 1,025,971 947,759 Investment in direct financing leases, net 78,700 82,366 Notes and mortgages receivable 26,635 30,855 Cash and cash equivalents 58,338 21,781 Restricted cash 2,014 1,883 Deferred rent receivable 43,700 41,252 Accounts receivable 4,281 3,063 Right-of-use assets - operating 17,215 21,191 Right-of-use assets - finance 819 987 Prepaid expenses and other assets, net 65,865 60,640 Total assets $ 1,323,538 $ 1,211,777 LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY Liabilities: Borrowings under credit agreement $ 110,000 $ 20,000 Senior unsecured notes, net 449,187 449,065 Environmental remediation obligations 49,024 50,723 Dividends payable 16,111 15,557 Lease liability - operating 17,893 21,844 Lease liability - finance 3,714 4,191 Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 59,823 60,958 Total liabilities 705,752 622,338 Commitments and contingencies — — Stockholders’ equity: Preferred stock, $ 0.01 par value; 20,000,000 shares authorized; unissued — — Common stock, $ 0.01 par value; 100,000,000 shares authorized; 42,719,028 and 41,367,846 shares issued and outstanding, respectively 427 414 Additional paid-in capital 697,301 656,127 Dividends paid in excess of earnings ( 79,942 ) ( 67,102 ) Total stockholders’ equity 617,786 589,439 Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 1,323,538 $ 1,211,777 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 1 GETTY REALTY CORP. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (Unaudited) (in thousands, except per share amounts) Three Months Ended September 30, Nine Months Ended September 30, 2020 2019 2020 2019 Revenues: Revenues from rental properties $ 37,194 $ 35,692 $ 108,180 $ 102,539 Interest on notes and mortgages receivable 709 736 2,090 2,226 Total revenues 37,903 36,428 110,270 104,765 Operating expenses: Property costs 6,640 7,251 17,966 18,389 Impairments 1,325 928 2,863 2,400 Environmental 18 5,685 1,069 7,443 General and administrative 4,154 3,743 12,767 11,490 Depreciation and amortization 7,635 6,321 22,057 18,571 Total operating expenses 19,772 23,928 56,722 58,293 Gain (loss) on dispositions of real estate 82 — 1,138 376 Operating income 18,213 12,500 54,686 46,848 Other income (expense), net 376 5,637 932 7,346 Interest expense ( 6,705 ) ( 6,247 ) ( 20,061 ) ( 18,179 ) Net earnings $ 11,884 $ 11,890 $ 35,557 $ 36,015 Basic earnings per common share: Net earnings $ 0.27 $ 0.28 $ 0.83 $ 0.86 Diluted earnings per common share: Net earnings $ 0.27 $ 0.28 $ 0.83 $ 0.86 Weighted average common shares outstanding: Basic 42,226 41,139 41,690 41,013 Diluted 42,254 41,176 41,708 41,043 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 2 GETTY REALTY CORP. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited) (in thousands) Nine Months Ended September 30, 2020 2019 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Net earnings $ 35,557 $ 36,015 Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash flow provided by operating activities: Depreciation and amortization expense 22,057 18,571 Impairment charges 2,863 2,400 (Gain) loss on dispositions of real estate ( 1,138 ) ( 376 ) Deferred rent receivable ( 2,448 ) ( 2,634 ) Amortization of above-market and below-market leases ( 248 ) ( 494 ) Amortization of investment in direct financing leases 3,089 2,587 Amortization of debt issuance costs 781 710 Accretion expense 1,375 1,507 Stock-based compensation 2,467 1,803 Changes in assets and liabilities: Accounts receivable ( 1,452 ) ( 263 ) Prepaid expenses and other assets ( 742 ) ( 299 ) Environmental remediation obligations ( 6,851 ) ( 6,135 ) Accounts payable and accrued liabilities ( 1,706 ) 4,602 Net cash flow provided by operating activities 53,604 57,994 CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: Property acquisitions ( 104,809 ) ( 43,324 ) Capital expenditures ( 166 ) ( 13 ) Addition to construction in progress ( 302 ) ( 358 ) Proceeds from dispositions of real estate 1,400 592 Deposits for property acquisitions 930 305 (Issuance) of notes and mortgages receivable ( 2,932 ) ( 464 ) Collection of notes and mortgages receivable 7,636 4,226 Net cash flow (used in) investing activities ( 98,243 ) ( 39,036 ) CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Borrowings under credit agreement 115,000 35,000 Repayments under credit agreement ( 25,000 ) ( 155,000 ) Proceeds from senior unsecured notes — 125,000 Payment of debt issuance costs — ( 556 ) Payment of finance lease obligations ( 478 ) ( 398 ) Security deposits received (refunded) 42 ( 271 ) Payments of cash dividends ( 46,531 ) ( 42,596 ) Payments in settlement of restricted stock units ( 244 ) ( 115 ) Proceeds from issuance of common stock, net - ATM 38,538 8,817 Net cash flow provided by (used in) financing activities 81,327 ( 30,119 ) Change in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash 36,688 ( 11,161 ) Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at beginning of period 23,664 48,742 Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at end of period $ 60,352 $ 37,581 Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information Cash paid during the period for: Interest $ 19,214 $ 17,369 Income taxes 315 273 Environmental remediation obligations 4,762 5,280 Non-cash transactions: Dividends declared but not yet paid 16,111 14,662 Issuance of notes and mortgages receivable related to property dispositions $ 792 $ 926 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 3 NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) NOTE 1. — DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS Getty Realty Corp. (together with its subsidiaries, unless otherwise indicated or except where the context otherwise requires, “we,” “us” or “our”) is the leading publicly-traded real estate investment trust (“REIT”) in the United States specializing in the ownership, leasing and financing of convenience store and gasoline station properties. As of September 30, 2020, we owned 896 properties and leased 58 properties from third-party landlords. These 954 properties are located in 35 states across the United States and Washington, D.C. Our tenants operate our properties under a variety of national and regional convenience store, motor fuel, and automotive service and other retail brands. In addition, we lease approximately 8,900 square feet of office space, which is used for our corporate headquarters. Our company was originally founded in 1955 and is headquartered in Jericho, New York. NOTE 2. — ACCOUNTING POLICIES Basis of Presentation The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Getty Realty Corp. and its wholly owned subsidiaries. The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). We do not distinguish our principal business or our operations on a geographical basis for purposes of measuring performance. We manage and evaluate our operations as a single segment. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated. Reclassifications Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to current year presentation. Such reclassifications had no impact on previously reported net earnings. Unaudited, Interim Consolidated Financial Statements The consolidated financial statements are unaudited but, in our opinion, reflect all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) necessary for a fair statement of the results for the periods presented. These statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019. Use of Estimates, Judgments and Assumptions The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with GAAP, which requires management to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and revenues and expenses during the period reported. Estimates, judgments and assumptions underlying the accompanying consolidated financial statements include, but are not limited to, real estate, receivables, deferred rent receivable, direct financing leases, depreciation and amortization, impairment of long-lived assets, environmental remediation costs, environmental remediation obligations, litigation, accrued liabilities, income taxes and the allocation of the purchase price of properties acquired to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed. Application of these estimates and assumptions requires exercise of judgment as to future uncertainties and, as a result, actual results could differ materially from these estimates. Real Estate Real estate assets are stated at cost less accumulated depreciation and amortization. For acquisitions of real estate we estimate the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant” and identified intangible assets and liabilities (consisting of leasehold interests, above-market and below-market leases, in-place leases and tenant relationships) and assumed debt. Based on these estimates, we allocate the estimated fair value to the applicable assets and liabilities. Fair value is determined based on an exit price approach, which contemplates the price that would be received from the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Assumptions used are property and geographic specific and may include, among other things, capitalization rates, market rental rates and EBITDA to rent coverage ratios. We expense transaction costs associated with business combinations in the period incurred. Acquisitions of real estate which do not meet the definition of a business are accounted for as asset acquisitions. The accounting model for asset acquisitions is similar to the accounting model for business combinations except that the acquisition costs are capitalized and allocated to the individual assets acquired and liabilities assumed on a relative fair value basis. For additional information regarding property acquisitions, see Note 11 – Property Acquisitions. 4 We capitalize direct costs, including costs such as construction costs and professional services, and indirect costs associated with the development and construction of real estate assets while substantive activities are ongoing to prepare the assets for their intended use. The capitalization period begins when development activities are underway and ends when it is determined that the asset is substantially complete and ready for its intended use. We evaluate the held for sale classification of our real estate as of the end of each quarter. Assets that are classified as held for sale are recorded at the lower of their carrying amount or fair value less costs to sell. When real estate assets are sold or retired, the cost and related accumulated depreciation and amortization is eliminated from the respective accounts and any gain or loss is credited or charged to income. We evaluate real estate sale transactions where we provide seller financing to determine sale and gain recognition in accordance with GAAP. Expenditures for maintenance and repairs are charged to income when incurred. Direct Financing Leases Income under direct financing leases is included in revenues from rental properties and is recognized over the lease terms using the effective interest rate method which produces a constant periodic rate of return on the net investments in the leased properties. The investments in direct financing leases are increased for interest income earned and amortized over the life of the leases and reduced by the receipt of lease payments. We consider direct financing leases to be past-due or delinquent when a contractually required payment is not remitted in accordance with the provisions of the underlying agreement. On June 16, 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurements of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments (“ASU 2016-13”). The accounting standard became effective for us and was adopted on January 1, 2020. Upon adoption, we had five unitary leases subject to this standard classified as a direct financing leases with a net investment balance aggregating $ 82,366,000 prior to the credit loss adjustment. In these direct financing leases, the payment obligations of the lessees are collateralized by real estate properties. Historically, we have had no collection issues related to these direct financing leases; therefore, we assessed the probability of default on these leases based on the lessee’s financial condition, business prospects, remaining term of the lease, expected value of the underlying collateral upon its repossession, and our historical loss experience related to other leases in which we are the lessor. Based on the aforementioned considerations, we estimated a credit loss reserve related to these direct financing leases totaling $ 578,000 , which was recognized as a cumulative adjustment to retained earnings and as a reduction of the investment in direct financing leases balance on our consolidated balance sheets on January 1, 2020. Periods prior to the adoption date that are presented for comparative purposes will not be adjusted. We review our direct financing leases each reporting period to determine whether there were any indicators that the value of our net investments in direct financing leases may be impaired and adjust the allowance for any estimated changes in the credit loss with the resulting change recorded through our consolidated statement of operations. When determining a possible impairment, we take into consideration the collectability of direct financing lease receivables for which a reserve would be required. In addition, we determine whether there has been a permanent decline in the current estimate of the residual value of the property. There were no indicators for impairments of any of our direct financing leases during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, we did no t record any additional allowance for credit losses. When we enter into a contract to sell properties that are recorded as direct financing leases, we evaluate whether we believe that it is probable that the disposition will occur. If we determine that the disposition is probable and therefore the property’s holding period is reduced, we may adjust an allowance for credit losses to reflect the change in the estimate of the undiscounted future rents. Accordingly, the net investment balance is written down to fair value. Notes and Mortgages Receivable Notes and mortgages receivable consists of loans originated by us in conjunction with property dispositions and funding provided to tenants in conjunction with property acquisitions and capital improvements. Notes and mortgages receivable are recorded at stated principal amounts. In conjunction with our adoption of ASU 2016-13 on January 1, 2020, we estimate our credit loss reserve for our notes and mortgages receivable using the weighted average remaining maturity (“WARM”) method, which has been identified as an acceptable loss-rate method for estimating credit loss reserves in the FASB Staff Q&A Topic 326, No. 1. The WARM method requires us to reference historic loan loss data across a comparable data set and apply such loss rate to our notes and mortgages portfolio over its expected remaining term, taking into consideration expected economic conditions over the relevant timeframe. We applied the WARM method for our notes and mortgages portfolio, which share similar risk characteristics. Application of the WARM method to estimate a credit loss reserve requires significant judgment, including (i) the historical loan loss reference data, (ii) the expected timing and amount of loan repayments, and (iii) the current credit quality of our portfolio and our expectations of performance and market conditions over the relevant time period. To estimate the historic loan losses relevant to our portfolio, we used our historical loan performance since the launch of our loan origination business in 2013. Upon adoption of ASU 2016-13 on January 1, 2020, we recorded a credit loss reserve of $ 309,000 , which was recognized as a cumulative adjustment to retained earnings and as a reduction of the aggregate outstanding principal balance of $ 30,855,000 on the notes and mortgages receivable balance on our 5 consolidated balance sheets on January 1, 2020. Periods prior to the adoption date that are presented for comparative purposes will not be adjusted. From time to time, we may originate construction loans for the construction of income-producing properties. During the nine months ended September 30, 2020, we funded a construction loan in the amount of $ 2.9 million, which was repaid as of September 30, 2020, and we exercised our option to purchase the property . At September 30, 2020, there were no outstanding balances for construction loans. Our construction loans generally provide for funding only during the construction phase, which is typically up to nine months, although our policy is to consider construction periods as long as 24 months. Funds are disbursed based on inspections in accordance with a schedule reflecting the completion of portions of the project. We also review and inspect each property before disbursement of funds during the term of the construction loan. At the end of the construction phase, the construction loan will be repaid with the proceeds from the sale of the property. We have the option to purchase the property at the end of the construction period. There were no indicators for impairments related to our notes and mortgages receivable during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, we did no t record any additional allowance for credit losses. Revenue Recognition and Deferred Rent Receivable On January 1, 2018, we adopted ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), (“Topic 606”) using the modified retrospective method applying it to any open contracts as of January 1, 2018. The new guidance provides a unified model to determine how revenue is recognized. To determine the proper amount of revenue to be recognized, we perform the following steps: (i) identify the contract with the customer, (ii) identify the performance obligations within the contract, (iii) determine the transaction price, (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) a performance obligation is satisfied. Our primary source of revenue consists of revenue from rental properties and tenant reimbursements that is derived from leasing arrangements, which is specifically excluded from the standard, and thus had no material impact on our consolidated financial statements or notes to our consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2020. Lease payments from operating leases are recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the leases. The cumulative difference between lease revenue recognized under this method and the contractual lease payment terms is recorded as deferred rent receivable on our consolidated balance sheets. We review our accounts receivable, including its deferred rent receivable, related to base rents, straight-line rents, tenant reimbursements and other revenues for collectability. Our evaluation of collectability primarily consists of reviewing past due account balances and considers such factors as the credit quality of our tenant, historical trends of the tenant, changes in tenant payment terms, current economic trends, including the novel coronavirus (“ COVID-19”) pandemic, and other facts and circumstances related to the applicable tenants . In addition, with respect to tenants in bankruptcy, we estimate the probable recovery through bankruptcy claims. If a tenant’s accounts receivable balance is considered uncollectable, we will write off the related receivable balances and cease to recognize lease income, including straight-line rent unless cash is received. If the collectability assessment subsequently changes to probable, any difference between the lease income that would have been recognized if collectability had always been assessed as probable and the lease income recognized to date, is recognized as a current-period adjustment to revenues from rental properties. Our reported net earnings are directly affected by our estimate of the collectability of our accounts receivable. In April 2020, the FASB issued interpretive guidance relating to the accounting for lease concessions provided as a result of COVID-19. In this guidance, entities can elect not to apply lease modification accounting with respect to such lease concessions and instead, treat the concession as if it was a part of the existing contract. This guidance is only applicable to COVID-19 related lease concessions that do not result in a substantial increase in the rights of the lessor or the obligations of the lessee. Some concessions will provide a deferral of payments with no substantive changes to the consideration in the original contract. A deferral affects the timing of cash receipts, but the amount of the consideration is substantially the same as that required by the original contract. The FASB staff provides two ways to account for those deferrals. Two of those methods are: (1) Account for the concessions as if no changes to the lease contract were made. Under that accounting, a lessor would increase its lease receivable. In its income statement, a lessor would continue to recognize income during the deferral period. (2) Account for the deferred payments as variable lease payments. We elected to treat lease concessions with option (1) above for the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The present value of the difference between the fair market rent and the contractual rent for above-market and below-market leases at the time properties are acquired is amortized into revenues from rental properties over the remaining terms of the in-place leases. Lease termination fees are recognized as other income when earned upon the termination of a tenant’s lease and relinquishment of space in which we have no further obligation to the tenant. 6 The sales of nonfinancial assets, such as real estate, are to be recognized when control of the asset transfers to the buyer, which will occur when the buyer has the ability to direct the use of or obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from the asset. This generally occurs when the transaction closes and consideration is exchanged for control of the property. Impairment of Long-Lived Assets Assets are written down to fair value when events and circumstances indicate that the assets might be impaired and the projected undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than the carrying amount of those assets. Assets held for disposal are written down to fair value less estimated disposition costs. We recorded impairment charges aggregating $ 1,325,000 and $ 2,863,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, respectively, and $ 928,000 and $ 2,400,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019, respectively. Our estimated fair values, as they relate to property carrying values, were primarily based upon (i) estimated sales prices from third-party offers based on signed contracts, letters of intent or indicative bids, for which we do not have access to the unobservable inputs used to determine these estimated fair values, and/or consideration of the amount that currently would be required to replace the asset, as adjusted for obsolescence (this method was used to determine $ 933,000 of impairments recognized during the nine months ended September 30, 2020) and (ii) discounted cash flow models (this method was used to determine $ 117,000 of impairments recognized during the nine months ended September 30, 2020). During the nine months ended September 30, 2020, we recorded $ 1,813,000 of impairments due to the accumulation of asset retirement costs as a result of changes in estimates associated with our estimated environmental liabilities which increased the carrying values of certain properties in excess of their fair values. For the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, impairment charges aggregating $ 601,000 and $ 610,000 , respectively, were related to properties that were previously disposed of by us. The estimated fair value of real estate is based on the price that would be received from the sale of the property in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. In general, we consider multiple internal valuation techniques when measuring the fair value of a property, all of which are based on unobservable inputs and assumptions that are classified within Level 3 of the Fair Value Hierarchy. These unobservable inputs include assumed holding periods ranging up to 15 years, assumed average rent increases of 2.0 % annually, income capitalized at a rate of 8.0 % and cash flows discounted at a rate of 7.0 %. These assessments have a direct impact on our net income because recording an impairment loss results in an immediate negative adjustment to net income. The evaluation of anticipated cash flows is highly subjective and is based in part on assumptions regarding future rental rates and operating expenses that could differ materially from actual results in future periods. Where properties held for use have been identified as having a potential for sale, additional judgments are required related to the determination as to the appropriate period over which the projected undiscounted cash flows should include the operating cash flows and the amount included as the estimated residual value. This requires significant judgment. In some cases, the results of whether impairment is indicated are sensitive to changes in assumptions input into the estimates, including the holding period until expected sale. Fair Value of Financial Instruments All of our financial instruments are reflected in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets at amounts which, in our estimation based upon an interpretation of available market information and valuation methodologies, reasonably approximate their fair values, except those separately disclosed in the notes below. The preparation of consolidated financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management to make estimates of fair value that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and revenues and expenses during the period reported using a hierarchy (the “Fair Value Hierarchy”) that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure the fair value. The Fair Value Hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The levels of the Fair Value Hierarchy are as follows: “Level 1” – inputs that reflect unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that we have the ability to access at the measurement date; “Level 2” – inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability either directly or indirectly, including inputs in markets that are not considered to be active; and “Level 3” – inputs that are unobservable. Certain types of assets and liabilities are recorded at fair value either on a recurring or non-recurring basis. Assets required or elected to be marked-to-market and reported at fair value every reporting period are valued on a recurring basis. Other assets not required to be recorded at fair value every period may be recorded at fair value if a specific provision or other impairment is recorded within the period to mark the carrying value of the asset to market as of the reporting date. Such assets are valued on a non-recurring basis. Environmental Remediation Obligations We record the fair value of a liability for an environmental remediation obligation as an asset and liability when there is a legal obligation associated with the retirement of a tangible long-lived asset and the liability can be reasonably estimated. Environmental remediation obligations are estimated based on the level and impact of contamination at each property. The accrued liability is the aggregate of our estimate of the fair value of cost for each component of the liability. The accrued liability is net of estimated 7 recoveries from state underground storage tank (“UST”) remediation funds considering estimated recovery rates developed from prior experience with the funds. Net environmental liabilities are currently measured based on their expected future cash flows which have been adjusted for inflation and discounted to present value. We accrue for environmental liabilities that we believe are allocable to other potentially responsible parties if it becomes probable that the other parties will not pay their environmental remediation obligations. Income Taxes We and our subsidiaries file a consolidated federal income tax return. Effective January 1, 2001, we elected to qualify, and believe that we are operating so as to qualify, as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, we generally will not be subject to federal income tax on qualifying REIT income, provided that distributions to our stockholders equal at least the amount of our taxable income as defined under the Internal Revenue Code. We accrue for uncertain tax matters when appropriate. The accrual for uncertain tax positions is adjusted as circumstances change and as the uncertainties become more clearly defined, such as when audits are settled or exposures expire. Tax returns for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019, and tax returns which will be filed for the year ended 2020, remain open to examination by federal and state tax jurisdictions under the respective statutes of limitations. New Accounting Pronouncements On June 16, 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13 to amend the accounting for credit losses for certain financial instruments. Under the new guidance, an entity recognizes its estimate of expected credit losses as an allowance, which the FASB believes will result in more timely recognition of such losses. ASU 2016-13 applies to financial assets measured at amortized cost and certain other instruments, including notes and mortgages receivable and net investments in direct financing leases. This standard does not apply to receivables arising from operating leases, which are within the scope of Topic 842. ASU 2016-13 became effective for us and was adopted on January 1, 2020 and required a modified retrospective approach through a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings. We recorded a credit loss reserve related to our direct financing leases totaling $ 578,000 , which was recognized as a cumulative adjustment to retained earnings and as a reduction of the investment in direct financing leases balance on our consolidated balance sheets on January 1, 2020. In addition, we recorded a credit loss reserve of $ 309,000 related to our notes and mortgages receivable balance , which was recognized as a cumulative adjustment to retained earnings. On March 12, 2020, the FASB issued ASU 2020-04, Reference Rate Reform (Topic 848) (“ASU 2020-04”). ASU 2020-04 contains practical expedients for reference rate reform related activities that impact debt, leases, derivatives and other contracts. The guidance in ASU 2020-04 provides optional expedients and exceptions for applying generally accepted accounting principles to contract modifications and hedging relationships, subject to meeting certain criteria, that reference LIBOR or another reference rate expected to be discontinued. We are currently evaluating the impact the adoption of ASU 2020-04 will have on our consolidated financial statements. NOTE 3. — LEASES As of September 30, 2020, we owned 896 properties and leased 58 properties from third-party landlords. These 954 properties are located in 35 states across the United States and Washington, D.C. Substantially all of our properties are leased on a triple-net basis primarily to petroleum distributors, convenience store retailers and, to a lesser extent, automotive service and other retail operators. Generally, our tenants supply fuel and either operate our properties directly or sublet our properties to operators who operate their convenience stores, gasoline stations, automotive service or other retail businesses at our properties. Our triple-net lease tenants are responsible for the payment of all taxes, maintenance, repairs, insurance and other operating expenses relating to our properties, and are also responsible for environmental contamination occurring during the terms of their leases and in certain cases also for environmental contamination that existed before their leases commenced. For additional information regarding environmental obligations, see Note 6 – Environmental Obligations. Substantially all of our tenants’ financial results depend on the sale of refined petroleum products, convenience store sales or rental income from their subtenants. As a result, our tenants’ financial results are highly dependent on the performance of the petroleum marketing industry, which is highly competitive and subject to volatility. During the terms of our leases, we monitor the credit quality of our triple-net lease tenants by reviewing their published credit rating, if available, reviewing publicly available financial statements, or reviewing financial or other operating statements which are delivered to us pursuant to applicable lease agreements, monitoring news reports regarding our tenants and their respective businesses, and monitoring the timeliness of lease payments and the performance of other financial covenants under their leases. We adopted ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) (“ASU 2016-02”) as of January 1, 2019 . ASU 2016-02 amends the existing accounting standards for lease accounting, including requiring lessees to recognize most leases on their balance sheets. Under ASU 2016-02, lessor accounting will remain similar to lessor accounting under previous GAAP, while aligning with the FASB’s new revenue recognition guidance. 8 For leases in which we are the lessor, we are (i) retaining classification of our historical leases as we are not required to reassess classification upon adoption of the new standard , (ii) expensing indirect leasing costs in connection with new or extended tenant leases, the recognition of which would have been deferred under prior accounting guidance and (iii) aggregating revenue from our lease components and non-lease components (comprised of tenant reimbursements) into revenue from rental properties. Revenues from rental properties were $ 37,194,000 and $ 108,180,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, respectively, and $ 35,692,000 and $ 102,539,000 for three and nine months ended September 30, 2019, respectively. Rental income contractually due from our tenants included in revenues from rental properties was $ 32,015,000 and $ 95,193,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, respectively, and $ 30,149,000 and $ 88,735,000 for three and nine months ended September 30, 2019, respectively. In accordance with GAAP, we recognize rental revenue in amounts which vary from the amount of rent contractually due during the periods presented. As a result, revenues from rental properties include non-cash adjustments recorded for deferred rental revenue due to the recognition of rental income on a straight-line basis over the current lease term, the net amortization of above-market and below-market leases, rental income recorded under direct financing leases using the effective interest method which produces a constant periodic rate of return on the net investments in the leased properties and the amortization of deferred lease incentives (the “Revenue Recognition Adjustments”). Revenue Recognition Adjustments included in revenues from rental properties was a charge of $ 151,000 and $ 306,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, respectively, and income of $ 185,000 and $ 799,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019, respectively. Tenant reimbursements, which are included in revenues from rental properties and which consist of real estate taxes and other municipal charges paid by us which were reimbursable by our tenants pursuant to the terms of triple-net lease agreements, were $ 5,330,000 and $ 13,293,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, respectively, and $ 5,358,000 and $ 13,005,000 for three and nine months ended September 30, 2019, respectively. We incurred $ 270,000 and $ 171,000 of lease origination costs for the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, respectively. This deferred expense is recognized on a straight-line basis as amortization expense in our consolidated statements of operations over the terms of the various leases. The components of the $ 78,700,000 investment in direct financing leases as of September 30, 2020, are lease payments receivable of $ 116,572,000 plus unguaranteed estimated residual value of $ 13,928,000 less unearned income of $ 51,222,000 and $ 578,000 allowance for credit losses. The components of the $ 82,366,000 investment in direct financing leases as of December 31, 2019, are lease payments receivable of $ 126,412,000 plus unguaranteed estimated residual value of $ 13,928,000 less unearned income of $ 57,974,000 . We recorded a credit loss reserve related to these direct financing leases totaling $ 578,000 , which was recognized as a cumulative adjustment to retained earnings and as a reduction of the investment in direct financing leases balance on our consolidated balance sheets on January 1, 2020. As of September 30, 2020, future contractual annual rentals receivable from our tenants, which have terms in excess of one year are as follows (in thousands): Operating Leases Direct Financing Leases 2020 $ 29,102 $ 3,316 2021 116,821 13,339 2022 116,690 13,420 2023 116,918 13,467 2024 115,099 13,611 Thereafter 744,930 59,419 Total $ 1,239,560 $ 116,572 For leases in which we are the lessee, ASU 2016-02 requires leases with durations greater than twelve months to be recognized on our consolidated balance sheets. We elected the package of transition provisions available for expired or existing contracts, which allowed us to carryforward our historical assessments of (i) whether contracts are or contain leases, (ii) lease classification and (iii) initial direct costs. As of January 1, 2019, we recognized operating lease right-of-use assets of $ 25,561,000 (net of deferred rent expense) and operating lease liabilities of $ 26,087,000 , which were presented on our consolidated financial statements. The right-of-use assets and lease liabilities are carried at the present value of the remaining expected future lease payments . When available, we use the rate implicit in the lease to discount lease payments to present value; however, our current leases did not provide a readily determinable implicit rate. Therefore, we estimated our incremental borrowing rate to discount the lease payments based on information available and considered factors such as interest rates available to us on a fully collateralized basis and terms of the leases . ASU 2016-02 did not have a material impact on our consolidated balance sheets or on our consolidated statements of operations. The most significant 9 impact was the recognition of right-of-use assets and lease liabilities for operating leases, while our accounting for financ e leases remained substantially unchanged. The following presents the lease-related assets and liabilities (in thousands): September 30, 2020 Assets Right-of-use assets - operating $ 17,215 Right-of-use assets - finance 819 Total lease assets $ 18,034 Liabilities Lease liability - operating $ 17,893 Lease liability - finance 3,714 Total lease liabilities $ 21,607 The following presents the weighted average lease terms and discount rates of our leases: Weighted-average remaining lease term (years) Operating leases 8.7 Finance leases 10.9 Weighted-average discount rate Operating leases (a) 5.32 % Finance leases 17.27 % (a) Upon adoption of the new lease standard, discount rates used for existing leases were established at January 1, 2019. The following presents our total lease costs (in thousands) : Three Months Ended September 30, 2020 Nine Months Ended September 30, 2020 Operating lease cost $ 983 $ 2,985 Finance lease cost Amortization of leased assets 166 478 Interest on lease liabilities 177 549 Short-term lease cost 41 90 Total lease cost $ 1,367 $ 4,102 The following presents supplemental cash flow information related to our leases (in thousands) : Three Months Ended September 30, 2020 Nine Months Ended September 30, 2020 Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities Operating cash flows for operating leases $ 966 $ 2,833 Operating cash flows for finance leases 177 549 Financing cash flows for finance leases $ 166 $ 478 As of September 30, 2020, scheduled lease liabilities mature as follows (in thousands) : Operating Leases Direct Financing Leases 2020 $ 970 $ 1,316 2021 3,380 1,119 2022 2,738 937 2023 2,617 781 2024 2,461 560 Thereafter 10,677 1,658 Total lease payments 22,843 6,371 Less: amount representing interest ( 4,950 ) ( 2,657 ) Present value of lease payments $ 17,893 $ 3,714 10 Major Tenants As of September 30, 2020, we had three significant tenants by revenue: • We leased 150 convenience store and gasoline station properties in three separate unitary leases and two stand-alone leases to subsidiaries of Global Partners LP (NYSE: GLP) (“Global”). In the aggregate, our leases with subsidiaries of Global represented 16 % and 18 % of our total revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, respectively. All of our unitary leases with subsidiaries of Global are guaranteed by the parent company. • We leased 77 convenience store and gasoline station properties pursuant to three separate unitary leases to Apro, LLC (d/b/a “United Oil”). In the aggregate, our leases with United Oil represented 12 % and 13 % of our total revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, respectively. • We leased 74 convenience store and gasoline station properties pursuant to two separate unitary leases to subsidiaries of Chestnut Petroleum Dist., Inc. (“Chestnut”). In the aggregate, our leases with subsidiaries of Chestnut represented 10 % and 11 % of our total revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, respectively. The largest of these unitary leases, covering 56 of our properties, is guaranteed by the parent company, its principals and numerous Chestnut affiliates. Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. (“Marketing”) was our largest tenant from 1997 until 2012 under a unitary triple-net master lease that was terminated in April 2012 as a consequence of Marketing’s bankruptcy, at which time we either sold or released these properties. As of September 30, 2020, 357 of the properties we own or lease were previously leased to Marketing, of which 317 properties are subject to long-term triple-net leases with petroleum distributors in 14 separate property portfolios and 30 properties are leased as single unit triple-net leases. The leases covering properties previously leased to Marketing are unitary triple-net lease agreements generally with an initial term of 15 years and options for successive renewal terms of up to 20 years. Rent is scheduled to increase at varying intervals during both the initial and renewal terms of the leases. Several of the leases provide for additional rent based on the aggregate volume of fuel sold. In addition, the majority of the leases require the tenants to invest capital in our properties, substantially all of which is related to the replacement of USTs that are owned by our tenants. As of September 30, 2020, we have a remaining commitment to fund up to $ 6,895,000 in the aggregate with our tenants for our portion of such capital improvements. Our commitment provides us with the option to either reimburse our tenants or to offset rent when these capital expenditures are made. This deferred expense is recognized on a straight-line basis as a reduction of rental revenue in our consolidated statements of operations over the life of the various leases. As part of the triple-net leases for properties previously leased to Marketing, we transferred title of the USTs to our tenants, and the obligation to pay for the retirement and decommissioning or removal of USTs at the end of their useful lives, or earlier if circumstances warranted, was fully or partially transferred to our new tenants. We remain contingently liable for this obligation in the event that our tenants do not satisfy their responsibilities. Accordingly, through September 30, 2020, we removed $ 13,813,000 of asset retirement obligations and $ 10,808,000 of net asset retirement costs related to USTs from our balance sheet. The cumulative change of $ 1,370,000 (net of accumulated amortization of $ 1,635,000 ) is recorded as deferred rental revenue and will be recognized on a straight-line basis as additional revenues from rental properties over the terms of the various leases. NOTE 4. — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Credit Risk In order to minimize our exposure to credit risk associated with financial instruments, we place our temporary cash investments, if any, with high credit quality institutions. Temporary cash investments, if any, are currently held in an overnight bank time deposit with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and these balances, at times, may exceed federally insurable limits. Legal Proceedings We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. As of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, we had accrued $ 17,860,000 and $ 17,820,000 , respectively, for certain of these matters which we believe were appropriate based on information then currently available. We are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty for these matters. It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to the amounts recorded, for environmental litigation accruals. Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River, our methyl tertiary butyl ether (a fuel derived from methanol, commonly referred to as “MTBE”) litigations in the states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland, and our lawsuit with the State of New York pertaining to a property formerly owned by us in Uniondale, New York, in particular, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price. 11 Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River In September 2003, we received a directive (the “Directive”) issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. The Directive indicated that we are one of approximately 66 potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) for alleged natural resource damages resulting from the discharges of hazardous substances along the Lower Passaic River (the “Lower Passaic River”). The Directive provides, among other things, that the named recipients must conduct an assessment of the natural resources that have been injured by discharges into the Lower Passaic River and must implement interim compensatory restoration for the injured natural resources. The NJDEP alleges that our liability arises from alleged discharges originating from our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal site (which we sold in October 2013). We responded to the Directive by asserting that we are not liable. In 2005, the NJDEP initiated litigation in the Superior Court of Essex County against Occidental Chemical Corporation (“Occidental”), Tierra Solutions, Inc. (“Tierra”), Maxus Energy Corporation (“Maxus”), Repsol YPF, S.A., YPF, S.A., YPF Holdings, Inc. and CLH Holdings, Inc. as former owners, operators and/or affiliates of the Diamond Shamrock Corporation facility located at 80 Lister Avenue in Newark, New Jersey in the matter of the NJDEP et al. v. Occidental Chemical Corp. et al., alleging these entities are responsible for the discharge of 2,3,8,8-TCDD (“dioxin”) and other hazardous substances from the Lister facility. The Defendants asserted third-party claims against over 300 third-party defendants, including us, seeking contribution or cost recovery for the claims asserted by the NJDEP. On December 12, 2013, the NJDEP entered into a consent judgment resolving the NJDEP’s claims against all third-party defendants, and releasing third-party defendants for any obligation to comply with the terms of the Directive and for future natural resource damage claims that may be brought by the State of New Jersey to the extent such claims do not exceed 20 % of the aggregate funds paid by the third-party defendants in settlement of the state court litigation. Subject to this reservation of rights by the NJDEP, the demands made by the NJDEP pursuant to the Directive, as they apply to us, are resolved. In 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued General Notice Letters (“GNL”) to over 100 entities, including us, alleging that they are PRPs at the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, which includes a 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. In May 2007, over 70 GNL recipients, including us, entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with the EPA to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for the 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River, which is intended to address the investigation and evaluation of alternative remedial actions with respect to alleged damages to the Lower Passaic River. Most of the parties to the AOC, including us, are also members of a Cooperating Parties Group (“CPG”). The CPG agreed to an interim allocation formula for purposes of allocating the costs to complete the RI/FS among its members, with the understanding that this interim allocation formula is not binding on the parties in terms of any potential liability for the costs to remediate the Lower Passaic River. The CPG submitted to the EPA its draft RI/FS in 2015, which sets forth various alternatives for remediating the 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. In October 2018, the EPA issued a letter directing the CPG to prepare a streamlined feasibility study for the upper 9-miles of the Lower Passaic River based on an iterative approach using adaptive management strategies. On August 12, 2019, the CPG submitted a draft Interim Remedy Feasibility Study to the EPA which identifies various targeted dredge and cap alternatives, which the EPA is still evaluating. In addition to the RI/FS activities, other actions relating to the investigation and/or remediation of the Lower Passaic River have proceeded as follows. First, in June 2012, certain members of the CPG entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“10.9 AOC”) with the EPA to perform certain remediation activities, including removal and capping of sediments at the river mile 10.9 area and certain testing. The EPA also issued a Unilateral Order to Occidental directing Occidental to participate and contribute to the cost of the river mile 10.9 work. Concurrent with the CPG’s work on the RI/FS, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a draft Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) with proposed remedial alternatives to remediate the lower 8-miles of the 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. The FFS was subject to public comments and objections, and on March 4, 2016, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the lower 8-miles selecting a remedy that involves bank-to-bank dredging and installing an engineered cap with an estimated cost of $ 1,380,000,000 . On March 31, 2016, we and more than 100 other PRPs received from the EPA a “Notice of Potential Liability and Commencement of Negotiations for Remedial Design” (“Notice”), which informed the recipients that the EPA intends to seek an Administrative Order on Consent and Settlement Agreement with Occidental (who the EPA considers the primary contributor of dioxin and other pesticides in the Lower Passaic River generated from the production of Agent Orange at its Diamond Alkali Company plant and a discharger of other contaminants of concern (“COCs”) to the Lower Passaic River), for remedial design of the remedy selected in the ROD, after which the EPA plans to begin negotiations with “major” PRPs for implementation and/or payment of the selected remedy. The Notice also stated that the EPA believes that some of the PRPs and other parties not yet identified as will be eligible for a cash out settlement with the EPA. On September 30, 2016, Occidental entered into an agreement with the EPA to perform the remedial design for the remedy selected for the lower 8-miles of the Lower Passaic River. In December 2019, Occidental submitted a report to the EPA on the progress of the remedial design work, which is still ongoing. Occidental has asserted that it is entitled to indemnification by Maxus and Tierra for its liability in connection with the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site. Occidental has also asserted that Maxus and Tierra’s parent company, YPF, S.A. (“YPF”) and certain of its affiliates must indemnify Occidental. On June 16, 2016, Maxus and Tierra filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In the Chapter 11 proceedings, YPF sought bankruptcy approval of a settlement under which YPF would pay $ 130,000,000 to the bankruptcy estate in exchange for a release in favor of Maxus, Tierra, YPF and YPF’s affiliates of Maxus and 12 Tierra’s contractual environmental liability to Occidental. We and the CPG filed proofs of claims in the Maxus/Tierra bankruptcy proceedings for costs incurred by the CPG relating to the Lower Passaic River . In July 2017, an amended Chapter 11 plan of liquidation became effective and, in connection therewith, Maxus/Tierra and certain other parties, including us, entered into a mutual contribution release agreement pertaining to certain past costs, but not future remedy costs . By letter dated March 30, 2017, the EPA advised the recipients of the Notice that it would be entering into cash out settlements with 20 PRPs to resolve their alleged liability for the lower 8-mile remedial action that is the subject of the ROD, who the EPA stated did not discharge any of the eight hazardous substances identified as a COC in the ROD. The letter also stated that other parties who did not discharge dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls (which are considered the COCs posing the greatest risk to the river) may also be eligible for cash out settlements, and that the EPA would begin a process for identifying other PRPs for negotiation of similar cash out settlements. We were not included in the initial group of 20 parties identified by the EPA for cash out settlements. In January 2018, the EPA published a notice of its intent to enter into a final settlement agreement with 15 of the identified 20 parties to resolve their respective alleged liability for the ROD work, each for a payment to the EPA in the amount of $ 280,600 . In August 2017, the EPA appointed an independent third party allocation expert to conduct allocation proceedings with most of the remaining recipients of the Notice, which is anticipated to lead to additional offers of cash out settlements to certain additional parties and/or a consent decree in which parties that are not offered a cash out settlement will agree to perform the lower 8-mile remedial action. The allocation proceedings, which we are participating in, were scheduled to conclude by mid-2019, but have been extended and are still ongoing. On June 30, 2018, Occidental filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking cost recovery and contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for its alleged expenses with respect to the investigation, design, and anticipated implementation of the remedy for the lower 8-miles of the Passaic River. The complaint lists over 120 defendants, including us, many of who were also named in the NJDEP’s 2003 Directive and the EPA’s 2016 Notice. Factual discovery is ongoing, and we are defending the claims consistent with our defenses in the related proceedings. Many uncertainties remain regarding how the EPA intends to implement the ROD. We anticipate that performance of the EPA’s selected remedy will be subject to future negotiation, potential enforcement proceedings and/or possible litigation. The RI/FS, AOC, 10.9 AOC and Notice do not obligate us to fund or perform any remedial action contemplated by either the ROD or RI/FS and do not resolve liability issues for remedial work or the restoration of or compensation for alleged natural resource damages to the Lower Passaic River, which are not known at this time. Based on currently known facts and circumstances, we do not believe that this matter is reasonably likely to have a material impact on our results of operations, including, among other factors, because we do not believe that there was any use or discharge of dioxins, furans or polychlorinated biphenyls in connection with our former petroleum storage operations at our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal, and because there are numerous other parties who will likely bear any costs of remediation and/or damages. However, our ultimate liability, if any, in the pending and possible future proceedings pertaining to the Lower Passaic River, and/or one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, are uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known. Therefore, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter and the impact on our results of operations could be material. MTBE Litigation – State of New Jersey We are defending against a lawsuit brought by various governmental agencies of the State of New Jersey, including the NJDEP, alleging various theories of liability due to contamination of groundwater with MTBE involving multiple locations throughout the State of New Jersey (the “New Jersey MDL Proceedings”). The complaint names as defendants approximately 50 petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The State of New Jersey is seeking reimbursement of significant clean-up and remediation costs arising out of the alleged release of MTBE containing gasoline in the State of New Jersey and is asserting various natural resource damage claims as well as liability against the owners and operators of gasoline station properties from which the releases occurred. The majority of the named defendants have already settled their cases with the State of New Jersey. A portion of the case (“bellwether” trials) has been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for pre-trial proceedings and trial, although a trial date has not yet been set. We have agreed to settle the New Jersey MDL Proceedings in accordance with the terms of a proposed Judicial Consent Order (“JCO”), which includes payment by us of $ 13,500,000 in exchange for satisfaction and release of claims made against it by various parties including the NJDEP. The JCO was subject to a 60 -day public comment period which expired on October 5, 2020, without comment by interested parties or members of the public. Provided that no other objections are raised by the remaining defendants in the New Jersey MDL Proceedings, we expect that the JCO will be filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for its approval. The amount of the settlement payment proposed to be made by us as set forth in the JCO has previously been fully accrued by us as a litigation reserve for the New Jersey MDL Proceedings, however, until the JCO is approved by the New York Federal District Court, it remains possible that our losses related to the New Jersey MDL Proceedings could exceed the amounts so accrued. 13 MTBE Litigation – State of Pennsylvania On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary, Getty Properties Corp., was served with a complaint filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the “State”) in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County relating to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Pennsylvania. The complaint names us and more than 50 other defendants, including petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of “defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices and acts in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE.” The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State to detect, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violation of consumer protection law. The case was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, but was removed by defendants to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York so that it may be managed as part of the ongoing MTBE MDL proceedings. In November 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint naming additional defendants and adding factual allegations intended to bolster their claims against the defendants. We have joined with other defendants in the filing of a motion to dismiss the claims against us. This motion is pending with the Court. We intend to defend vigorously the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known. MTBE Litigation – State of Maryland On December 17, 2017, the State of Maryland, by and through the Attorney General on behalf of the Maryland Department of Environment and the Maryland Department of Health (the “State of Maryland”), filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City related to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Maryland. The complaint was served upon us on January 19, 2018. The complaint names us and more than 60 other defendants, including petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of the defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE. The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State of Maryland to detect, investigate, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater, punitive damages and the award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violations of Titles 4, 7 and 9 of the Maryland Environmental Code. On February 14, 2018, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. It is unclear whether the matter will ultimately be removed to the MTBE MDL proceedings or remain in federal court in Maryland. We intend to defend vigorously the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known. Uniondale, New York Litigation In September 2004, the State of New York commenced an action against us, United Gas Corp., Costa Gas Station, Inc., Vincent Costa, Sharon Irni, The Ingraham Bedell Corporation, Richard Berger and Exxon Mobil Corporation in New York Supreme Court in Albany County seeking recovery for reimbursement of investigation and remediation costs claimed to have been incurred by the New York Environmental Protection and Spill Compensation Fund relating to contamination it alleges emanated from various gasoline station properties located in the same vicinity in Uniondale, New York, including a site formerly owned by us and at which a petroleum release and cleanup occurred. The complaint also seeks future costs for remediation, as well as interest and penalties. We have served an answer to the complaint denying responsibility. In 2007, the State of New York commenced action against Shell Oil Company, Shell Oil Products Company, Motiva Enterprises, LLC, and related parties, in the New York Supreme Court, Albany County seeking basically the same relief sought in the action involving us. We have also filed a third-party complaint against Hess Corporation, Sprague Operating Resources LLC (successor to RAD Energy Corp.), Service Station Installation of NY, Inc., and certain individual defendants based on alleged contribution to the contamination that is the subject of the State of New York’s claims arising from a petroleum discharge at a gasoline station up-gradient from the site formerly owned by us. In 2016, the various actions filed by the State of New York and our third-party actions were consolidated for discovery proceedings and trial. Discovery in this case is in later stages and, as it nears completion, a schedule for trial will be established. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount we have accrued for this lawsuit. It is possible that losses related to this case could exceed the amounts accrued, as of September 30, 2020, which could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price. 14 NOTE 5. — DEBT The amounts outstanding under our Restated Credit Agreement and our senior unsecured notes are as follows (in thousands): Maturity Date Interest Rate September 30, 2020 December 31, 2019 Unsecured Revolving Credit Facility March 2022 1.84 % $ 110,000 $ 20,000 Series A Notes February 2021 6.00 % 100,000 100,000 Series B Notes June 2023 5.35 % 75,000 75,000 Series C Notes February 2025 4.75 % 50,000 50,000 Series D Notes June 2028 5.47 % 50,000 50,000 Series E Notes June 2028 5.47 % 50,000 50,000 Series F Notes September 2029 3.52 % 50,000 50,000 Series G Notes September 2029 3.52 % 50,000 50,000 Series H Notes September 2029 3.52 % 25,000 25,000 Total debt 560,000 470,000 Unamortized debt issuance costs, net (a) ( 2,168 ) ( 2,949 ) Total debt, net $ 557,832 $ 467,051 (a) Unamortized debt issuance costs, related to the Revolving Facility, at September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, of $ 1,355 and $ 2,014 , respectively, are included in prepaid expenses and other assets on our consolidated balance sheets . Credit Agreement On June 2, 2015 , we entered into a $ 225,000,000 senior unsecured credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with a group of banks led by Bank of America, N.A. The Credit Agreement consisted of a $ 175,000,000 unsecured revolving credit facility (the “Revolving Facility”) and a $ 50,000,000 unsecured term loan (the “Term Loan”). On March 23, 2018, we entered into an amended and restated credit agreement (as amended, the “Restated Credit Agreement”) amending and restating our Credit Agreement. Pursuant to the Restated Credit Agreement, we (a) increased the borrowing capacity under the Revolving Facility from $ 175,000,000 to $ 250,000,000 , (b) extended the maturity date of the Revolving Facility from June 2018 to March 2022, (c) extended the maturity date of the Term Loan from June 2020 to March 2023 and (d) amended certain financial covenants and provisions. On September 19, 2018, we entered into an amendment (the “First Amendment”) of our Restated Credit Agreement. The First Amendment modifies the Restated Credit Agreement to, among other things: (i) reflect that we had previously entered into (a) an amended and restated note purchase and guarantee agreement with The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”) and certain of its affiliates and (b) a note purchase and guarantee agreement with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and certain of its affiliates; and (ii) permit borrowings under each of the Revolving Facility and the Term Loan at three different interest rates, including a rate based on the LIBOR Daily Floating Rate (as defined in the First Amendment) plus the Applicable Rate (as defined in the First Amendment) for such facility. On September 12, 2019, in connection with prepayment of the Term Loan, we entered into a consent and amendment (the “Second Amendment”) of our Restated Credit Agreement. The Second Amendment modifies the Restated Credit Agreement to, among other things, (a) increase our borrowing capacity under the Revolving Facility from $ 250,000,000 to $ 300,000,000 and (b) decrease lender commitments under the Term Loan to $ 0 . Subject to the terms of the Restated Credit Agreement and our continued compliance with its provisions, we have the option to (a) extend the term of the Revolving Facility for one additional year to March 2023 and (b) request that the lenders approve an increase of up to $ 300,000,000 in the amount of the Revolving Facility to $ 600,000,000 in the aggregate. The Restated Credit Agreement incurs interest and fees at various rates based on our total indebtedness to total asset value ratio at the end of each quarterly reporting period. The Revolving Facility permits borrowings at an interest rate equal to the sum of a base rate plus a margin of 0.50 % to 1.30 % or a LIBOR rate plus a margin of 1.50 % to 2.30 %. The annual commitment fee on the undrawn funds under the Revolving Facility is 0.15 % to 0.25 %. Senior Unsecured Notes On September 12, 2019 , we entered into a fourth amended and restated note purchase and guarantee agreement (the “Fourth Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement”) amending and restating our existing senior note purchase agreement with Prudential and certain of its affiliates. Pursuant to the Fourth Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement, we agreed that our (a) 6.0 % Series A Guaranteed Senior Notes due February 25, 2021 , in the original aggregate principal amount of $ 100,000,000 (the “Series A Notes”), (b) 5.35 % Series B Guaranteed Senior Notes due June 2, 2023 , in the original aggregate principal amount of $ 75,000,000 (the “Series B Notes”), (c) 4.75 % Series C Guaranteed Senior Notes due February 25, 2025 , in the aggregate principal amount of 15 $ 50,000,000 (the “Series C Notes”) and (d) 5 . 47 % Series D Guaranteed Senior Notes due June 2 1 , 202 8 , in the aggregate principal amount of $ 50,000,000 (the “Series D Notes” ) that were outstanding under the existing senior note purchase agreement would continue to remain outstanding under the Fourth Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement and we authorized and issued our 3.52 % Series F Guaranteed Senior Notes due September 12, 2029 , in the aggregate principal amount of $ 50,000,000 (the “Series F Notes” and, together with the Series A Notes , Series B Notes , Series C Notes and Series D Notes , the “Notes”). The Fourth Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement does not provide for scheduled reductions in the principal balance of the Notes prior to their respective maturities. On June 21, 2018, we entered into a note purchase and guarantee agreement (the “MetLife Note Purchase Agreement”) with MetLife and certain of its affiliates. Pursuant to the MetLife Note Purchase Agreement, we authorized and issued our 5.47 % Series E Guaranteed Senior Notes due June 21, 2028 , in the aggregate principal amount of $ 50,000,000 (the “Series E Notes”). The MetLife Note Purchase Agreement does not provide for scheduled reductions in the principal balance of the Series E Notes prior to their maturity. On September 12, 2019, we entered into a note purchase and guarantee agreement (the “AIG Note Purchase Agreement”) with American General Life Insurance Company. Pursuant to the AIG Note Purchase Agreement, we authorized and issued our 3.52 % Series G Guaranteed Senior Notes due September 12, 2029 , in the aggregate principal amount of $ 50,000,000 (the “Series G Notes”). The AIG Note Purchase Agreement does not provide for scheduled reductions in the principal balance of the Series G Notes prior to their maturity. On September 12, 2019, we entered into a note purchase and guarantee agreement (the “MassMutual Note Purchase Agreement”) with Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company and certain of its affiliates. Pursuant to the MassMutual Note Purchase Agreement, we authorized and issued our 3.52 % Series H Guaranteed Senior Notes due September 12, 2029 , in the aggregate principal amount of $ 25,000,000 (the “Series H Notes”). The MassMutual Note Purchase Agreement does not provide for scheduled reductions in the principal balance of the Series H Notes prior to their maturity. Covenants The Restated Credit Agreement and our senior unsecured notes contain customary financial covenants such as leverage, coverage ratios and minimum tangible net worth, as well as limitations on restricted payments, which may limit our ability to incur additional debt or pay dividends. The Restated Credit Agreement and our senior unsecured notes also contain customary events of default, including cross defaults to each other, change of control and failure to maintain REIT status (provided that the senior unsecured notes require a mandatory offer to prepay the notes upon a change in control in lieu of a change of control event of default). Any event of default, if not cured or waived in a timely manner, would increase by 200 basis points ( 2.00 %) the interest rate we pay under the Restated Credit Agreement and our senior unsecured notes, and could result in the acceleration of our indebtedness under the Restated Credit Agreement and our senior unsecured notes. We may be prohibited from drawing funds under the Revolving Facility if there is any event or condition that constitutes an event of default under the Restated Credit Agreement or that, with the giving of any notice, the passage of time, or both, would be an event of default under the Restated Credit Agreement. As of September 30, 2020, we are in compliance with all of the material terms of the Restated Credit Agreement and our senior unsecured notes, including the various financial covenants described herein. Debt Maturities As of September 30, 2020, scheduled debt maturities, including balloon payments, are as follows (in thousands): Revolving Facility Senior Unsecured Notes Total 2020 $ — $ — $ — 2021 — 100,000 100,000 2022 (a) 110,000 — 110,000 2023 — 75,000 75,000 2024 — — — Thereafter — 275,000 275,000 Total $ 110,000 $ 450,000 $ 560,000 (a) The Revolving Facility matures in March 2022. Subject to the terms of the Restated Credit Agreement and our continued compliance with its provisions, we have the option to extend the term of the Revolving Facility for one additional year to March 2023 . 16 NOTE 6. — ENVIRONMENTAL OBLIGATIONS We are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations, including matters relating to the protection of the environment such as the remediation of known contamination and the retirement and decommissioning or removal of long-lived assets including buildings containing hazardous materials, USTs and other equipment. Environmental costs are principally attributable to remediation costs which are incurred for, among other things, removing USTs, excavation of contaminated soil and water, installing, operating, maintaining and decommissioning remediation systems, monitoring contamination and governmental agency compliance reporting required in connection with contaminated properties. We enter into leases and various other agreements which contractually allocate responsibility between the parties for known and unknown environmental liabilities at or relating to the subject properties. We are contingently liable for these environmental obligations in the event that our tenant does not satisfy them, and we are required to accrue for environmental liabilities that we believe are allocable to others under our leases if we determine that it is probable that our tenant will not meet its environmental obligations. It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in material adjustments to the amounts recorded for environmental litigation accruals and environmental remediation liabilities. We assess whether to accrue for environmental liabilities based upon relevant factors including our tenants’ histories of paying for such obligations, our assessment of their financial capability, and their intent to pay for such obligations. However, there can be no assurance that our assessments are correct or that our tenants who have paid their obligations in the past will continue to do so. We may ultimately be responsible to pay for environmental liabilities as the property owner if our tenant fails to pay them. The estimated future costs for known environmental remediation requirements are accrued when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. The accrued liability is the aggregate of our estimate of the fair value of cost for each component of the liability, net of estimated recoveries from state UST remediation funds considering estimated recovery rates developed from prior experience with the funds. For substantially all of our triple-net leases, our tenants are contractually responsible for compliance with environmental laws and regulations, removal of USTs at the end of their lease term (the cost of which in certain cases is partially borne by us) and remediation of any environmental contamination that arises during the term of their tenancy. Under the terms of our leases covering properties previously leased to Marketing (substantially all of which commenced in 2012), we have agreed to be responsible for environmental contamination at the premises that was known at the time the lease commenced, and for environmental contamination which existed prior to commencement of the lease and is discovered (other than as a result of a voluntary site investigation) during the first 10 years of the lease term (or a shorter period for a minority of such leases). After expiration of such 10 -year (or, in certain cases, shorter) period, responsibility for all newly discovered contamination, even if it relates to periods prior to commencement of the lease, is contractually allocated to our tenant. Our tenants at properties previously leased to Marketing are in all cases responsible for the cost of any remediation of contamination that results from their use and occupancy of our properties. Under substantially all of our other triple-net leases, responsibility for remediation of all environmental contamination discovered during the term of the lease (including known and unknown contamination that existed prior to commencement of the lease) is the responsibility of our tenant. We anticipate that a majority of the USTs at properties previously leased to Marketing will be replaced over the next several years because these USTs are either at or near the end of their useful lives. For long-term, triple-net leases covering sites previously leased to Marketing, our tenants are responsible for the cost of removal and replacement of USTs and for remediation of contamination found during such UST removal and replacement, unless such contamination was found during the first 10 years of the lease term and also existed prior to commencement of the lease. In those cases, we are responsible for costs associated with the remediation of such preexisting contamination. We have also agreed to be responsible for environmental contamination that existed prior to the sale of certain properties assuming the contamination is discovered (other than as a result of a voluntary site investigation) during the first five years after the sale of the properties. In the course of certain UST removals and replacements at properties previously leased to Marketing where we retained continuing responsibility for preexisting environmental obligations, previously unknown environmental contamination was and continues to be discovered. As a result, we have developed an estimate of fair value for the prospective future environmental liability resulting from preexisting unknown environmental contamination and have accrued for these estimated costs. These estimates are based primarily upon quantifiable trends which we believe allow us to make reasonable estimates of fair value for the future costs of environmental remediation resulting from the removal and replacement of USTs. Our accrual of the additional liability represents our estimate of the fair value of cost for each component of the liability, net of estimated recoveries from state UST remediation funds considering estimated recovery rates developed from prior experience with the funds. In arriving at our accrual, we analyzed the ages of USTs at properties where we would be responsible for preexisting contamination found within 10 years after commencement of a lease (for properties subject to long-term triple-net leases) or five years from a sale (for divested properties), and projected a cost to closure for preexisting unknown environmental contamination. We measure our environmental remediation liabilities at fair value based on expected future net cash flows, adjusted for inflation (using a range of 2.0 % to 2.75 %), and then discount them to present value (using a range of 4.0 % to 7.0 %). We adjust our 17 environmental remediation liabilities quarterly to reflect changes in projected expenditures, changes in present value due to the passage of time and reductions in estimated liabilities as a result of actual expenditures incurred during each quarter. As of September 30, 2020 , we had accrued a total of $ 49,024,000 for our prospective environmental remediation obligations. This accrual consisted of (a) $ 11,934,000 , which was our estimate of reasonably estimable environmental remediation liability, including obligations to remove USTs for which we are responsible, net of estimated recoveries and (b) $ 37,090,000 for future environmental liabilities related to preexisting unknown contamination. As of December 31, 2019 , we had accrued a total of $ 50,723,000 for our prospective environmental remediation obligations. This accrual consisted of (a) $ 12,470,000 , which was our estimate of reasonably estimable environmental remediation liability, including obligations to remove USTs for which we are responsible, net of estimated recoveries and (b) $ 38,253,000 for future environmental liabilities related to preexisting unknown contamination. Environmental liabilities are accreted for the change in present value due to the passage of time and, accordingly, $ 1,375,000 and $ 1,507,000 of net accretion expense was recorded for the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, respectively, which is included in environmental expenses. In addition, during the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, we recorded credits to environmental expenses aggregating $ 2,089,000 and $ 855,000 , respectively, where decreases in estimated remediation costs exceeded the depreciated carrying value of previously capitalized asset retirement costs. Environmental expenses also include project management fees, legal fees and environmental litigation accruals. For the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, changes in environmental estimates aggregating, $ 130,000 and $ 279,000 , respectively, were related to properties that were previously disposed of by us. During the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, we increased the carrying values of certain of our properties by $ 2,271,000 and $ 3,700,000 , respectively, due to changes in estimated environmental remediation costs. The recognition and subsequent changes in estimates in environmental liabilities and the increase or decrease in carrying values of the properties are non-cash transactions which do not appear on our consolidated statements of cash flows. Capitalized asset retirement costs are being depreciated over the estimated remaining life of the UST, a 10 -year period if the increase in carrying value is related to environmental remediation obligations or such shorter period if circumstances warrant, such as the remaining lease term for properties we lease from others. Depreciation and amortization expense related to capitalized asset retirement costs in our consolidated statements of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, was $ 2,998,000 and $ 3,106,000 , respectively. Capitalized asset retirement costs were $ 40,024,000 (consisting of $ 23,642,000 of known environmental liabilities and $ 16,382,000 of reserves for future environmental liabilities) as of September 30, 2020, and $ 39,684,000 (consisting of $ 22,150,000 of known environmental liabilities and $ 17,534,000 of reserves for future environmental liabilities) as of December 31, 2019. We recorded impairment charges aggregating $ 2,118,000 and $ 2,357,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, respectively, for capitalized asset retirement costs. Environmental exposures are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons, including the amount of data available upon initial assessment of contamination, alternative treatment methods that may be applied, location of the property which subjects it to differing local laws and regulations and their interpretations, changes in costs associated with environmental remediation services and equipment, the availability of state UST remediation funds and the possibility of existing legal claims giving rise to allocation of responsibilities to others, as well as the time it takes to remediate contamination and receive regulatory approval. In developing our liability for estimated environmental remediation obligations on a property by property basis, we consider, among other things, laws and regulations, assessments of contamination and surrounding geology, quality of information available, currently available technologies for treatment, alternative methods of remediation and prior experience. Environmental accruals are based on estimates derived upon facts known to us at this time, which are subject to significant change as circumstances change, and as environmental contingencies become more clearly defined and reasonably estimable. Any changes to our estimates or our assumptions that form the basis of our estimates may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to the amounts recorded, for environmental remediation liabilities. In July 2012, we purchased a 10 -year pollution legal liability insurance policy covering substantially all of our properties at that time for preexisting unknown environmental liabilities and new environmental events. The policy has a $ 50,000,000 aggregate limit and is subject to various self-insured retentions and other conditions and limitations. Our intention in purchasing this policy was to obtain protection predominantly for significant events. In addition to the environmental insurance policy purchased by the Company, we also took assignment of certain environmental insurance policies, and rights to reimbursement for claims made thereunder, from Marketing, by order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court during Marketing’s bankruptcy proceedings. Under these assigned polices, we have received and expect to continue to receive reimbursement of certain remediation expenses for covered claims. In light of the uncertainties associated with environmental expenditure contingencies, we are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty; however, we believe that it is possible that the fair value of future actual net expenditures could be substantially higher than amounts currently recorded by us. Adjustments to accrued liabilities for environmental remediation obligations will be reflected in our consolidated financial statements as they become probable and a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. 18 NOTE 7. — STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY A summary of the changes in stockholders’ equity for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, is as follows (in thousands except per share amounts): Common Stock Additional Paid-in Dividends Paid In Excess Shares Amount Capital Of Earnings Total BALANCE, JUNE 30, 2020 41,796 $ 418 $ 669,805 $ ( 75,715 ) $ 594,508 Net earnings 11,884 11,884 Dividends declared — $ 0.37 per share ( 16,111 ) ( 16,111 ) Shares issued pursuant to ATM Program, net 922 9 26,613 — 26,622 Shares issued pursuant to dividend reinvestment 1 — 16 — 16 Stock-based compensation/settlements — — 867 — 867 BALANCE, SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 42,719 $ 427 $ 697,301 $ ( 79,942 ) $ 617,786 BALANCE, DECEMBER 31, 2019 41,368 $ 414 $ 656,127 $ ( 67,102 ) $ 589,439 Net earnings 35,557 35,557 Cumulative-effect adjustment for the adoption of new accounting pronouncement (Note 2) ( 886 ) ( 886 ) Dividends declared — $ 1.11 per share ( 47,511 ) ( 47,511 ) Shares issued pursuant to ATM Program, net 1,326 13 38,525 — 38,538 Shares issued pursuant to dividend reinvestment 14 — 426 — 426 Stock-based compensation/settlements 11 — 2,223 — 2,223 BALANCE, SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 42,719 $ 427 $ 697,301 $ ( 79,942 ) $ 617,786 Common Stock Additional Paid-in Dividends Paid In Excess Shares Amount Capital Of Earnings Total BALANCE, JUNE 30, 2019 41,108 $ 411 $ 646,581 $ ( 62,481 ) $ 584,511 Net earnings 11,890 11,890 Dividends declared — $ 0.35 per share ( 14,662 ) ( 14,662 ) Shares issued pursuant to ATM Program, net 70 1 2,153 — 2,154 Shares issued pursuant to dividend reinvestment 12 — 364 — 364 Stock-based compensation/settlements — — 664 — 664 BALANCE, SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 41,190 $ 412 $ 649,762 $ ( 65,253 ) $ 584,921 BALANCE, DECEMBER 31, 2018 40,855 $ 409 $ 638,178 $ ( 57,423 ) $ 581,164 Net earnings 36,015 36,015 Dividends declared — $ 1.05 per share ( 43,845 ) ( 43,845 ) Shares issued pursuant to ATM Program, net 283 3 8,814 — 8,817 Shares issued pursuant to dividend reinvestment 36 — 1,082 — 1,082 Stock-based compensation/settlements 16 — 1,688 — 1,688 BALANCE, SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 41,190 $ 412 $ 649,762 $ ( 65,253 ) $ 584,921 On March 2, 2020, our Board of Directors granted 176,050 restricted stock units (“RSU” or “RSUs”) under our Amended and Restated 2004 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan. On March 1, 2019, our Board of Directors granted 156,750 of RSUs under our Amended and Restated 2004 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan. ATM Program In March 2018, we established an at-the-market equity offering program (the “ATM Program”), pursuant to which we are able to issue and sell shares of our common stock with an aggregate sales price of up to $ 125,000,000 through a consortium of banks acting as agents. Sales of the shares of common stock may be made, as needed, from time to time in at-the-market offerings as defined in Rule 415 of the Securities Act, including by means of ordinary brokers’ transactions on the New York Stock Exchange or otherwise at market prices prevailing at the time of sale, at prices related to prevailing market prices or as otherwise agreed to with the applicable agent. 19 During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, we issued a total of 922,000 and 1,326,000 shares of common stock and received net proceeds of $ 26,622,000 and $ 38,538,000 , respectively, under the ATM Program. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019, we issued 70,000 and 283,000 shares of common stock and received net proceeds of $ 2,154,000 and $ 8,817,000 , respectively, under the ATM Program. Future sales, if any, will depend on a variety of factors to be determined by us from time to time, including among others, market conditions, the trading price of our common stock, determinations by us of the appropriate sources of funding for us and potential uses of funding available to us. Dividends For the nine months ended September 30, 2020, we paid regular quarterly dividends of $ 46,957,000 or $ 1.11 per share. For the nine months ended September 30, 2019, we paid regular quarterly dividends of $ 43,678,000 or $ 1.05 per share. Dividend Reinvestment Plan Our dividend reinvestment plan provides our common stockholders with a convenient and economical method of acquiring additional shares of common stock by reinvesting all or a portion of their dividend distributions. During the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, we issued 13,585 and 35,424 shares of common stock, respectively, under the dividend reinvestment plan and received proceeds of $ 426,000 and $ 1,082,000 , respectively. Stock-Based Compensation Compensation cost for our stock-based compensation plans using the fair value method was $ 2,467,000 and $ 1,803,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, respectively, and is included in general and administrative expense in our consolidated statements of operations. NOTE 8. — EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE Basic and diluted earnings per common share gives effect, utilizing the two-class method, to the potential dilution from the issuance of shares of our common stock in settlement of RSUs which provide for non-forfeitable dividend equivalents equal to the dividends declared per common share. Basic and diluted earnings per common share is computed by dividing net earnings less dividend equivalents attributable to RSUs by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. The following table is a reconciliation of the numerator and denominator used in the computation of basic and diluted earnings per common share using the two-class method (in thousands except per share data ): Three Months Ended September 30, Nine Months Ended September 30, 2020 2019 2020 2019 Net earnings $ 11,884 $ 11,890 $ 35,557 $ 36,015 Less earnings attributable to RSUs outstanding ( 318 ) ( 246 ) ( 953 ) ( 737 ) Net earnings attributable to common stockholders used in basic and diluted earnings per share calculation 11,566 11,644 34,604 35,278 Weighted average common shares outstanding: Basic 42,226 41,139 41,690 41,013 Incremental shares from stock-based compensation 28 37 18 30 Diluted 42,254 41,176 41,708 41,043 Basic earnings per common share $ 0.27 $ 0.28 $ 0.83 $ 0.86 Diluted earnings per common share $ 0.27 $ 0.28 $ 0.83 $ 0.86 NOTE 9. — FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS Debt Instruments As of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the carrying value of the borrowings under the Restated Credit Agreement approximated fair value. As of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the fair value of the borrowings under our senior unsecured notes was $ 479,600,000 and $ 470,600,000 , respectively. The fair value of the borrowings outstanding as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, was determined using a discounted cash flow technique that incorporates a market interest yield curve with adjustments for duration, risk profile and borrowings outstanding, which are based on unobservable inputs within Level 3 of the Fair Value Hierarchy. 20 Supplemental Retirement Plan We have mutual fund assets that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis using Level 1 inputs. We have a Supplemental Retirement Plan for executives. The amounts held in trust under the Supplemental Retirement Plan using Level 2 inputs may be used to satisfy claims of general creditors in the event of our or any of our subsidiaries’ bankruptcy. We have liability to the executives participating in the Supplemental Retirement Plan for the participant account balances equal to the aggregate of the amount invested at the executives’ direction and the income earned in such mutual funds. The following summarizes as of September 30, 2020, our assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis by level within the Fair Value Hierarchy (in thousands): Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total Assets: Mutual funds $ 898 $ — $ — $ 898 Liabilities: Deferred compensation $ — $ 898 $ — $ 898 The following summarizes as of December 31, 2019, our assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis by level within the Fair Value Hierarchy (in thousands): Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total Assets: Mutual funds $ 737 $ — $ — $ 737 Liabilities: Deferred compensation $ — $ 737 $ — $ 737 Real Estate Assets We have certain real estate assets that are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis using Level 3 inputs as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, of $ 1,664,000 and $ 785,000 , where impairment charges have been recorded. Due to the subjectivity inherent in the internal valuation techniques used in estimating fair value, the amounts realized from the sale of such assets may vary significantly from these estimates. NOTE 10. — ASSETS HELD FOR SALE We evaluate the held for sale classification of our real estate as of the end of each quarter. Assets that are classified as held for sale are recorded at the lower of their carrying amount or fair value less costs to sell. As of September 30, 2020, there were no properties that met the criteria to be classified as held for sale. During the nine months ended September 30, 2020 , we sold six properties, in separate transactions, which resulted in an aggregate gain of $ 955,000 , included in gain (loss) on dispositions of real estate on our consolidated statements of operations. During the nine months ended September 30, 2020, we received funds from a property condemnation resulting in a gain of $ 183,000 , included in gain (loss) on dispositions of real estate in our consolidated statements of operations. In addition, during nine months ended September 30, 2020, we agreed to sever a property from a unitary lease and to substitute in its place, and add to the unitary lease, two new properties of equivalent net book value. We did not recognize any gain (loss) in our consolidated statements of operations . NOTE 11. — PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS During the nine months ended September 30, 2020, we acquired fee simple interests in 24 properties for an aggregate purchase price of $ 104,809,000 . On February 4, 2020, and February 26, 2020, we acquired fee simple interests in ten car wash properties for an aggregate purchase price of $ 50,303,000 and entered into a unitary lease at the closing of the transactions. We funded the transactions through funds available under our Revolving Facility. The unitary lease provides for an initial term of 15 years , with five five-year renewal options. The unitary lease requires our tenant to pay a fixed annual rent plus all amounts pertaining to the properties, including environmental expenses, real estate taxes, assessments, license and permit fees, charges for public utilities and all other governmental charges. Rent is scheduled to increase annually during the initial and renewal terms of the lease. The properties are located within the Kansas City MSA. We accounted for the acquisitions as asset acquisitions. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $ 4,775,000 of the purchase price to land, $ 41,093,000 to buildings and improvements, $ 3,727,000 to in-place leases, $ 1,955,000 to above-market leases and $ 1,247,000 to below-market leases which is accounted for as a deferred liability. 21 On August 25, 2020, we acquired fee simple interests in seven car wash properties for an aggregate purchase price of $ 28,301,000 and entered into a unitary lease at the closing of the transactions. We funded the transactions through funds available under our Revolving Facility. The unitary lease provides for an initial term of 15 years , with five five-year renewal options. The unitary lease requires our tenant to pay a fixed annual rent plus all amounts pertaining to the properties, including environmental expenses, real estate taxes, assessments, license and permit fees, charges for public utilities and all other governmental charges. Rent is scheduled to increase annually during the initial and renewal terms of the lease. The properties are located with in the San Antonio MSA . We accounted for the acquisitions as asset acquisitions. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $ 5,335,000 of the purchase price to land, $ 21,093,000 to buildings and improvements, $ 2,396,000 to in-place leases and $ 523,000 to below-market leases which is accounted for as a deferred liability. In addition, during the nine months ended September 30, 2020, we also acquired fee simple interests in seven convenience store and gasoline station, and other automotive related properties for an aggregate purchase price of $ 26,205,000 . We accounted for the acquisitions of fee simple interests as asset acquisitions. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $ 9,236,000 of the purchase price to land, $ 15,394,000 to buildings and improvements and $ 1,575,000 to in-place leases. During the nine months ended September 30, 2019, we acquired fee simple interests in 14 properties for an aggregate purchase price of $ 43,324,000 On June 17, 2019, we acquired fee simple interests in six convenience store and gasoline station properties for $ 24,724,000 and entered into a unitary lease at the closing of the transaction. We funded the transaction through funds available under our Revolving Facility. The unitary lease provides for an initial term of 15 years, with two ten-year renewal options. The unitary lease requires our tenant to pay a fixed annual rent plus all amounts pertaining to the properties, including environmental expenses, real estate taxes, assessments, license and permit fees, charges for public utilities and all other governmental charges. Rent is scheduled to increase annually during the initial and renewal terms of the lease. The properties are located within the Los Angeles MSA. We accounted for the acquisition as an asset acquisition. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $ 18,086,000 of the purchase price to land, $ 4,789,000 to buildings and improvements and $ 1,849,000 to in-place leases. In addition, during the nine months ended September 30, 2019, we also acquired fee simple interests in eight convenience store and gasoline station, and other automotive related properties for an aggregate purchase price of $ 18,600,000 . We accounted for the acquisitions of fee simple interests as asset acquisitions. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $ 8,034,000 of the purchase price to land, $ 9,590,000 to buildings and improvements and $ 976,000 to in-place leases. During the year ended December 31, 2019, we acquired fee simple interests in 27 convenience store and gasoline station, and other automotive related properties for an aggregate purchase price of $ 87,157,000 . On November 22, 2019, we acquired fee simple interests in four car wash properties for $ 14,144,000 and entered into a unitary lease at the closing of the transaction. We funded the transaction through funds available under our Revolving Facility. The unitary lease provides for an initial term of 15 years, with five five-year renewal options. The unitary lease requires our tenant to pay a fixed annual rent plus all amounts pertaining to the properties, including environmental expenses, real estate taxes, assessments, license and permit fees, charges for public utilities and all other governmental charges. Rent is scheduled to increase annually during the initial and renewal terms of the lease. The properties are all located in Las Vegas, NV. We accounted for the acquisition of the properties as an asset acquisition. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $ 2,663,000 of the purchase price to land, $ 10,469,000 to buildings and improvements and $ 1,012,000 to in-place leases. In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2019, we also acquired fee simple interests in 17 convenience store and gasoline station, and other automotive related properties, in separate transactions, for an aggregate purchase price of $ 48,290,000 . We accounted for these acquisitions as asset acquisitions. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets for each of these acquisitions (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $ 18,820,000 of the purchase price to land, $ 26,790,000 to buildings and improvements and $ 2,744,000 to in-place leases, $ 277,000 to above-market leases and $ 341,000 to below-market leases, which is accounted for as a deferred liability. NOTE 12. — SUBSEQUENT EVENTS In preparing our unaudited consolidated financial statements, we have evaluated events and transactions occurring after September 30, 2020, for recognition or disclosure purposes. Based on this evaluation, there were no significant subsequent events from September 30, 2020, through the date the financial statements were issued, other than the disclosures herein . 22 The COVID-19 pandemic has created significant uncertainty and economic volatility. While we have not incur red significant disruptions to our financial results thus far from the COVID-19 pandemic, we are un able to accurately predict the impact that COVID-19 will have on our business, operations and financial results. Any impact to our business, operations and financial results will depend on numerous evolving factors, including: the duration and scope of the pandemic; governmental, business and individuals’ actions that have been and continue to be taken in response to the pandemic; the impact on economic activity from the pandemic and actions taken in response; the effect on our tenants and their businesses; the ability of our tenants to make their rental payments and any closures of tenants’ facilities. Any of these events could materially adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations or stock price. As of October 22, 2020, we received October contractual base rent and mortgage payments from 98 % of our tenants or mortgagors, as applicable. October collections to date may not be indicative of collections in any future period. Accordingly, the impact of COVID-19 on our rental revenue or interest income for the fourth quarter of 2020 and thereafter cannot be definitively determined at present. 23