Edgar Filing: ASHFORD HOSPITALITY TRUST INC

AHT 2014 10-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K



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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014



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

For the transition period from to

Commission file number: 001-31775

ASHFORD HOSPITALITY TRUST, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Maryland		86-1062192
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(IRS employer identification number)
14185 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas		75254
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip code)

(972) 490-9600

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:



Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock		New York Stock Exchange
Preferred Stock, Series A		New York Stock Exchange
Preferred Stock, Series D		New York Stock Exchange
Preferred Stock, Series E		New York Stock Exchange

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. ¨ Yes þ No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. þ Yes ¨ No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files) þ Yes ¨ No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act):



Large accelerated filer þ		Accelerated filer o

Non-accelerated filer o		Smaller reporting company o

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

As of June 30, 2014, the aggregate market value of 84,777,992 shares of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $978,338,000.

As of February 26, 2015, the registrant had 100,108,168 shares of common stock issued and outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement pertaining to the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated herein by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

ASHFORD HOSPITALITY TRUST, INC.

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2014

INDEX TO FORM 10-K



		Page

PART I

Item 1.	Business	3

Item 1A.	Risk Factors	12

Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	38

Item 2.	Properties	39

Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	41

Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	41

PART II

Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	41

Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	46

Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	47

Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	69

Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	70

Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	116

Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	116

Item 9B.	Other Information	118

PART III

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	118

Item 11.	Executive Compensation	118

Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	118

Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	118

Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	118

PART IV

Item 15.	Financial Statement Schedules and Exhibits	119

SIGNATURES

Table of Contents

This Annual Report is filed by Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”). Unless the context otherwise requires, all references to the Company include those entities owned or controlled by the Company. In this report, the terms “the Company,” “we,” “us” or “our” mean Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. and all entities included in its consolidated financial statements.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Throughout this Form 10-K and documents incorporated herein by reference, we make forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements include information about possible, estimated or assumed future results of our business, financial condition and liquidity, results of operations, plans, and objectives. Statements regarding the following subjects are forward-looking by their nature:


•	our business and investment strategy, including our ability to complete proposed business transactions described herein or the expected benefit of any such transactions;


•	anticipated or expected purchases or sales of assets;


•	our projected operating results;


•	completion of any pending transactions;


•	our ability to obtain future financing arrangements;


•	our understanding of our competition;


•	market trends;


•	projected capital expenditures; and


•	the impact of technology on our operations and business.

Such forward-looking statements are based on our beliefs, assumptions, and expectations of our future performance taking into account all information currently known to us. These beliefs, assumptions, and expectations can change as a result of many potential events or factors, not all of which are known to us. If a change occurs, our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, plans, and other objectives may vary materially from those expressed in our forward-looking statements. Additionally, the following factors could cause actual results to vary from our forward-looking statements:


•	factors discussed in this Form 10-K, including those set forth under the sections titled “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” “Business,” and “Properties;”


•	general volatility of the capital markets and the market price of our common and preferred stock;


•	changes in our business or investment strategy;


•	availability, terms, and deployment of capital;


•	availability of qualified personnel;


•	changes in our industry and the market in which we operate, interest rates, or or local economic conditions


•	the degree and nature of our competition;


•	actual and potential conflicts of interest with our advisor, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, our executive officers and our non-independent directors;


•	changes in governmental regulations, accounting rules, tax rates and similar matters;


•	legislative and regulatory changes, including changes to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and related rules, regulations and interpretations governing the taxation of REITs; and


•	limitations imposed on our business and our ability to satisfy complex rules in order for us to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes.

When we use words or phrases such as “will likely result,” “may,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “should,” “expect,” “believe,” “intend,” or similar expressions, we intend to identify forward-looking statements. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. We are not obligated to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

Table of Contents

PART I


Item 1.	Business

GENERAL

Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an externally-advised real estate investment trust (“REIT”) focused on investing in the hospitality industry across all segments and in all methods including direct real estate, equity and debt. Additional information can be found on our website at www.ahtreit.com. We were formed as a Maryland corporation in May 2003 and commenced operations in August 2003, as a self-advised REIT. In November 2014, we completed the spin-off of our asset management business, forming Ashford Inc. as a separate publicly traded company, and we became advised by Ashford Inc. We continue to own our lodging investments and conduct our business through Ashford Hospitality Limited Partnership (“Ashford Trust OP”), our operating partnership. Ashford OP General Partner LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, serves as the sole general partner of our operating partnership.

Our hotels are primarily operated under the widely recognized upscale and upper upscale brands of Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, Starwood and Intercontinental Hotels Group. Currently, all of our hotels are located in the United States. As of December 31, 2014, we owned interests in the following:


•	87 consolidated hotel properties (“legacy hotel properties”), including 85 directly owned and two owned through majority-owned investments in consolidated entities, which represent 17,205 total rooms (or 17,178 net rooms excluding those attributable to our partners);


•	28 hotel properties owned through a 71.74% common equity interest and a 50.0% preferred equity interest in an unconsolidated joint venture (“PIM Highland JV”), which represent 8,084 total rooms (or 5,799 net rooms excluding those attributable to our joint venture partner);


•	10 hotel properties owned through a 14.9% interest in Ashford Hospitality Prime Limited Partnership (“Ashford Prime OP”);


•	86 hotel condominium units at WorldQuest Resort in Orlando, Florida;


•	a 30.1% ownership in Ashford Inc. with a carrying value of $7.1 million; and


•	a mezzanine loan with a carrying value of $3.6 million.

On June 17, 2013, we announced that our Board of Directors had approved a plan to spin-off an 80% ownership interest in an 8-hotel portfolio, totaling 3,146 rooms (2,912 net rooms excluding those attributable to our partners), to holders of our common stock in the form of a taxable special distribution. This distribution was comprised of common stock in Ashford Hospitality Prime, Inc. (“Ashford Prime”), a newly formed company. We contributed the portfolio interests into Ashford Hospitality Prime Limited Partnership ("Ashford Prime OP"), Ashford Prime's operating partnership. The distribution was made on November 19, 2013, on a pro rata basis to holders of our common stock as of November 8, 2013, with each of our shareholders receiving one share of Ashford Prime common stock for every five shares of our common stock held by such shareholder as of the close of business on November 8, 2013. Ashford Prime has qualifiied as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, under the symbol “AHP.” The transaction also included options for Ashford Prime to purchase the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Virginia and the Pier House Resort in Key West, Florida. We sold the Pier House Resort to Ashford Prime on March 1, 2014, and Ashford Prime’s option to acquire the Crystal Gateway Marriott will expire on May 19, 2015.

For federal income tax purposes, we have elected to be treated as a REIT, which imposes limitations related to operating hotels. As of December 31, 2014, all of our 87 legacy hotel properties were leased or owned by our wholly-owned and majority- owned subsidiaries that are treated as taxable REIT subsidiaries for federal income tax purposes (collectively, these subsidiaries are referred to as “Ashford TRS”). Ashford TRS then engages eligible independent contractors to operate the hotels under management contracts. Hotel operating results related to these properties are included in the consolidated statements of operations. With respect to our unconsolidated joint venture, PIM Highland JV, the 28 hotels are leased to PIM Highland JV’s wholly-owned subsidiary, which is treated as a taxable REIT subsidiary for federal income tax purposes.

We do not operate any of our hotels directly; instead we employ hotel management companies to operate them for us under management contracts. Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, together with its affiliates (“Remington Lodging”), is one of our property managers, and is beneficially wholly-owned by Mr. Monty J. Bennett, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Archie Bennett, Jr., our Chairman Emeritus. As of December 31, 2014, Remington Lodging managed 55 of our 87 legacy hotel properties, while third-party management companies managed the remaining hotel properties. In addition, as of December 31, 2014, Remington Lodging managed 21 of the 28 PIM Highland JV hotel properties and the WorldQuest condominium properties.

Table of Contents

SIGNIFICANT TRANSACTIONS IN 2014 AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Refinanced our $164.4 Million Mortgage Loan - On January 24, 2014, we refinanced our $164.4 million loan due March 2014 with a $200.0 million loan due February 2016, with three one-year extension options, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions. The new loan provides for an interest rate of LIBOR + 4.75%, with a LIBOR floor of 0.20%. The new loan continues to be secured by the same five hotels that secured the original loan, including: the Embassy Suites Philadelphia Airport, Embassy Suites Walnut Creek, Sheraton Mission Valley San Diego, Sheraton Anchorage and the Hilton Minneapolis/St Paul Airport Mall of America. The refinance resulted in excess proceeds above closing costs and reserves of approximately $37.8 million.

Sale of the Pier House Resort - On March 1, 2014, we closed on the sale of the Pier House Resort to Ashford Prime. The sales price was $92.7 million. Ashford Prime assumed the $69.0 million mortgage and paid the balance of the purchase price in cash, in accordance with the option agreement. We recognized a gain of $3.5 million. We deferred a gain of $599,000 as a result of our retained interest in Ashford Prime.

Common Stock Offering - On April 8, 2014, we commenced a follow-on public offering of 7.5 million shares of common stock at $10.70 per share for gross proceeds of $80.3 million. The aggregate proceeds net of underwriting discount and other expenses were approximately $76.8 million. The offering settled on April 14, 2014. We granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 1.125 million shares of common stock. On May 9, 2014, the underwriters partially exercised their option and purchased an additional 850,000 shares of our common stock at a price of $10.70 per share less the underwriting discount resulting in additional net proceeds of approximately $8.7 million.

Refinanced our $5.1 Million Mortgage Loan - On May 1, 2014, we refinanced our $5.1 million loan due May 2014 with a $6.9 million loan due May 2024, with no extension options. The new loan provides for a fixed interest rate of 4.99%. The new loan continues to be secured by the same hotel property, the Courtyard Hartford-Manchester in Manchester, Connecticut.

Acquisition of the Ashton Hotel - On July 18, 2014, we acquired a 100% interest in the Ashton hotel in Fort Worth, Texas for total consideration of $8.0 million. The acquisition was funded with cash. We allocated the assets acquired and liabilities assumed using the estimated fair value information based on a third party appraisal. We are in the process of evaluating property level working capital balances, which amount to a net liability of $66,000. On July 31, 2014, to fund a portion of the acquisition, we completed the financing of a $5.5 million mortgage loan. The mortgage loan bears interest at a rate of LIBOR + 3.75% (with a .25% LIBOR floor) for the first 18 months and a fixed rate of 4.0% thereafter. The stated maturity is July 2019, with no extension options. The mortgage loan is secured by the Ashton hotel.

Refinanced Three Mortgage Loans - $326.6 Million - On July 25, 2014, we refinanced three mortgage loans, including our $135.0 million mortgage loan due May 2015, our $102.3 million mortgage loan due December 2014, which had an outstanding balance of $101.1 million, and our $89.3 million mortgage loan due February 2016, which had an outstanding balance of $88.5 million. The new loans total $468.9 million. As a result of the refinancing, the Homewood Suites Mobile and the Hampton Inn Terre Haute, Indiana are now unencumbered by debt. Other than the properties noted above, the new loans continue to be secured by the same hotel properties. Homewood Suites Mobile was sold in November 2014.

Acquisition of Fremont Marriott Hotel - On August 6, 2014, we acquired a 100% interest in the Fremont Marriott Silicon Valley hotel in Fremont, California for total consideration of $50.0 million. The acquisition was funded with proceeds from a $37.5 million non-recourse mortgage loan and cash. The mortgage loan bears interest at a rate of LIBOR + 4.20%. The stated maturity is August 2016, with three one-year extension options. We allocated the assets acquired and liabilities assumed using the estimated fair value information based on a third party appraisal. We are in the process of evaluating property level working capital balances, which amount to a net liability of $261,000. The mortgage loan is secured by the Fremont Marriott Silicon Valley hotel.

Expiration of our Senior Credit Facility - Our senior credit facility expired in September 2014. We do not currently plan to replace it with another credit facility. Cash flows from operations, capital market activities and property refinancing proceeds have provided sufficient liquidity throughout the term of the credit facility. Additionally, we never drew on the credit facility. Accordingly, the absence of a credit facility is not expected to have a significant impact on our liquidity.

Table of Contents

Spin-off of Asset Management Business - On February 27, 2014, we announced that our Board of Directors had approved a plan to spin-off our asset management business into a separate publicly traded company in the form of a taxable special distribution. The spin-off was completed on November 12, 2014, with a pro-rata taxable distribution of Ashford Inc.’s common stock to our stockholders of record as of November 11, 2014. The distribution was comprised of one share of Ashford Inc. common stock for every 87 shares of our common stock held by our stockholders. In addition for each common unit of our operating partnership the holder received a common unit of the operating limited liability company subsidiary of Ashford Inc. Each holder of common units of the operating limited liability company of Ashford Inc. could exchange up to 99% of those units for shares of Ashford Inc. stock at the rate of one share of Ashford Inc. common stock for every 55 common units. The distribution was made on November 12, 2014. Following the spin-off, we continue to hold approximately 598,000 shares of Ashford Inc. common stock for the benefit of our common stockholders, which represents an approximate 30.1% ownership interest in Ashford Inc. In connection with the spin-off we entered into a 20-year advisory agreement with Ashford Inc.

Acquisition of Remaining Interest in PIM Highland JV - We executed a Letter Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated December 14, 2014, with PRISA III Investments, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Seller”). The Agreement was approved by the investment committee of Prudential Real Estate Investors, the investment manager of Seller, and fully executed and delivered to us on December 15, 2014. Pursuant to the Agreement, we agreed to purchase and Seller agrees to sell (the “Transaction”) all of Seller’s right, title and interest in and to its approximately 28.26% interest in PIM Highland JV. Prior to the consummation of the Transaction, we own approximately 71.74% of PIM Highland JV and Seller owns approximately 28.26% of PIM Highland JV. After the consummation of the Transaction, we will own 100% of PIM Highland JV.

Refinanced Two Mortgage Loans - $354.0 Million - On January 2, 2015, we refinanced two mortgage loans totaling $354.0 million. The refinance included the $211.0 million Goldman Sachs Floater loan due July 2015 and the $143.0 million Merrill Lynch 1 loan due July 2015. The new loans total $478 million in four loan pools. The new loans continue to be secured by the same hotel properties.

Acquisition of Lakeway Resort & Spa - On January 12, 2015, we announced that a definitive agreement had been signed to acquire the 168-room Lakeway Resort & Spa in Austin, Texas for total consideration of $33.5 million. The acquisition was completed February 6, 2015.

Acquisition of Memphis Marriott East Hotel - On January 20, 2015, we announced that a definitive agreement had been signed to acquire the 232-room Memphis Marriott East hotel in Memphis, Tennessee for total consideration of $43.5 million.

Common Stock Offering - On January 29, 2015, we commenced a follow-on public offering of 9.5 million shares of common stock. The offering priced on January 30, 2015, at $10.65 per share for gross proceeds of $101.2 million. We granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 1.425 million shares of common stock. On February 10, 2015, the underwriters partially exercised their option and purchased an additional 1.029 million shares of our common stock at a price of $10.65 per share.

Formation of Ashford Hospitality Select, Inc. - On January 29, 2015, we announced that our Board of Directors had approved the formation of Ashford Hospitality Select, Inc. (“Ashford Select”), a new privately-held company dedicated to investing primarily in existing premium branded, upscale and upper-midscale, select-service hotels, including extended stay hotels, in the United States. Upon launch, expected in the first quarter of 2015, we intend to contribute to Ashford Select 16 of our existing select-service hotels, comprised of 2,560 total guestrooms. On February 18, 2015, Ashford Trust OP entered into four agreements for the contribution or sale of the portfolio of 16 select-service hotels to Ashford Select and its subsidiaries, including its operating partnership Ashford Hospitality Select Limited Partnership (“Ashford Select OP”), for aggregate consideration of approximately $321.0 million, which will be payable through the assumption of approximately $232.5 million of aggregate property level debt, the payment of approximately $66.4 million in cash and the issuance of approximately $22.1 million in equity interests of Ashford Select. Additionally, the aggregate consideration may be increased by up to $10.0 million (payable 75% in cash and 25% in equity interests in Ashford Select), based on the performance of the entire 16-hotel portfolio. We also expect to grant Ashford Select a right of first offer to acquire any select-service hotels we decide to sell in the future, subject to any prior rights of the managers of the hotels or other third parties. Ashford Select intends to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes.

BUSINESS STRATEGIES

Following the recession that commenced in 2008, the lodging industry has experienced improvement in fundamentals, which continued through 2013. Room rates, measured by the average daily rate (“ADR”), which typically lags occupancy growth in the early stage of a recovery, have shown upward growth. We believe improvements in the economy will continue to positively impact the lodging industry and hotel operating results for several years to come, and we will continue to seek ways to benefit from the cyclical nature of the hotel industry. We believe that in the prior cycle, hotel values and cash flows, for the most part, peaked in 2007, and we believe the hotel industry may exceed these cash flows and values during the next cyclical peak.

Table of Contents

Based on our primary business objectives and forecasted operating conditions, our current key priorities and financial strategies include, among other things:


•	acquisition of hotel properties;


•	disposition of non-core hotel properties;


•	investing in securities;


•	pursuing capital market activities to enhance long-term stockholder value;


•	preserving capital, enhancing liquidity, and continuing current cost saving measures;


•	implementing selective capital improvements designed to increase profitability;


•	implementing effective asset management strategies to minimize operating costs and increase revenues;


•	financing or refinancing hotels on competitive terms;


•	utilizing hedges and derivatives to mitigate risks; and


•	making other investments or divestitures that our Board of Directors deems appropriate.

Our current investment strategies focus on the full-service and select-service hotels in the upscale and upper-upscale segments within the lodging industry that have RevPAR generally less than twice the national average. Our Board of Directors has, subject to the closing of the Ashford Hospitality Select, Inc. transaction, modified our investment strategies to focus on full-service hotels in the upscale and upper-upscale segments in domestic and international markets that have RevPAR generally less than twice the national average. We believe that as supply, demand, and capital market cycles change, we will be able to shift our investment strategies to take advantage of new lodging-related investment opportunities as they may develop. Our Board of Directors may change our investment strategies at any time without stockholder approval or notice.

As the business cycle changes and the hotel markets continue to improve, we intend to continue to invest in a variety of lodging-related assets based upon our evaluation of diverse market conditions including our cost of capital and the expected returns from those investments. Our investments may include: (i) direct hotel investments; (ii) mezzanine financing through origination or acquisition; (iii) first-lien mortgage financing through origination or acquisition; and (iv) sale-leaseback transactions.

Our strategy is designed to take advantage of lodging industry conditions and adjust to changes in market circumstances over time. Our assessment of market conditions will determine asset reallocation strategies. While we seek to capitalize on favorable market fundamentals, conditions beyond our control may have an impact on overall profitability and our investment returns.

Our strategy of combining lodging-related equity and debt investments seeks, among other things, to:


•	capitalize on both current yield and price appreciation, while simultaneously offering diversification of types of assets within the hospitality industry; and


•	vary investments across an array of hospitality assets to take advantage of market cycles for each asset class.

To take full advantage of future investment opportunities in the lodging industry, we intend to invest according to the asset allocation strategies described below. However, due to ongoing changes in market conditions, we will continually evaluate the appropriateness of our investment strategies. Our Board of Directors may change any or all of these strategies at any time without stockholder approval or notice.

Direct Hotel Investments – In selecting hotels to acquire, we target hotels that offer either a high current return or the opportunity to increase in value through repositioning, capital investments, market-based recovery, or improved management practices. Our direct hotel acquisition strategy primarily targets full-service hotels with RevPAR less than twice the national average in primary, secondary, and resort markets, typically throughout the United States and will seek to achieve both current income and appreciation. In addition, we will continue to assess our existing hotel portfolio and make strategic decisions to sell certain under-performing or non-strategic hotels that do not fit our investment strategy or criteria due to micro or macro market changes or other reasons.

Table of Contents

Mezzanine Financing – Subordinated loans, or mezzanine loans, that we acquire or originate may relate to a diverse segment of hotels that are located across the U.S. These mezzanine loans are secured by junior mortgages on hotels or pledges of equity interests in entities owning hotels. As the global economic environment improves and the hotel industry stabilizes, we may refocus our efforts on the acquisition or origination of mezzanine loans. Given the greater repayment risks of these types of loans, to the extent we acquire or originate them in the future, we will have a more conservative approach in underwriting these assets. Mezzanine loans that we acquire in the future may be secured by individual assets as well as cross-collateralized portfolios of assets.

First Mortgage Financing – From time to time, we may acquire or originate first mortgages. As the dynamics in the capital markets and the hotel industry make first-mortgage investments more attractive, we may acquire, potentially at a discount to par, or originate loans secured by first priority mortgages on hotels. We may be subject to certain state-imposed licensing regulations related to commercial mortgage lenders, with which we intend to comply. However, because we are not a bank or a federally chartered lending institution, we are not subject to state and federal regulatory constraints imposed on such entities.

Sale-Leaseback Transactions – To date, we have not participated in any sale-leaseback transactions. However, if the lodging industry fundamentals shift such that sale-leaseback transactions become more attractive investments, we may purchase hotels and lease them back to their existing hotel owners.

Other Transactions - We may also invest in other lodging related assets or businesses that offer diversification, attractive risk adjusted returns, and/or capital allocation benefits.

BUSINESS SEGMENTS

We currently operate in one business segment within the hotel lodging industry: direct hotel investments. A discussion of our operating segment is incorporated by reference to Note 20 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements set forth in Part II, Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

FINANCING STRATEGY

We utilize debt to increase equity returns. When evaluating our future level of indebtedness and making decisions regarding the incurrence of indebtedness, our Board of Directors considers a number of factors, including:


•	our leverage levels across the portfolio;


•	the purchase price of our investments to be acquired with debt financing;


•	impact on financial covenants;


•	cost of debt;


•	loan maturity schedule;


•	the estimated market value of our investments upon refinancing;


•	the ability of particular investments, and our Company as a whole, to generate cash flow to cover expected debt service; and.


•	trailing twelve months net operating income of the hotel to be financed.

We may incur debt in the form of purchase money obligations to the sellers of properties, publicly or privately placed debt instruments, or financing from banks, institutional investors, or other lenders. Any such indebtedness may be secured or unsecured by mortgages or other interests in our properties. This indebtedness may be recourse, non-recourse, or cross-collateralized. If recourse, such recourse may include our general assets or be limited to the particular investment to which the indebtedness relates. In addition, we may invest in properties or loans subject to existing loans secured by mortgages or similar liens on the properties, or we may refinance properties acquired on a leveraged basis.

We may use the proceeds from any borrowings for working capital to:


•	purchase interests in partnerships or joint ventures;


•	finance the origination or purchase of debt investments; or


•	finance acquisitions, expand, redevelop or improve existing properties, or develop new properties or other uses.

Table of Contents

In addition, if we do not have sufficient cash available, we may need to borrow to meet taxable income distribution requirements under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Internal Revenue Code”). No assurances can be given that we will obtain additional financings or, if we do, what the amount and terms will be. Our failure to obtain future financing under favorable terms could adversely impact our ability to execute our business strategy. In addition, we may selectively pursue debt financing on our individual properties and debt investments.

DISTRIBUTION POLICY

In December 2013, the Board of Directors approved our dividend policy for 2014 with an annualized target of $0.48 per share. For the year ended December 31, 2014, we have declared dividends of $0.48 per share. We may incur indebtedness to meet distribution requirements imposed on REITs under the Internal Revenue Code to the extent that working capital and cash flow from our investments are insufficient to fund required distributions. We may elect to pay dividends on our common stock in cash or a combination of cash and shares of securities as permitted under federal income tax laws governing REIT distribution requirements. We may pay dividends in excess of our cash flow.

Distributions are authorized by our Board of Directors and declared by us based upon a variety of factors deemed relevant by our directors. No assurance can be given that our dividend policy will not change in the future. In December 2014, the Board of Directors approved our dividend policy for 2015 and we expect to pay a quarterly dividend of $0.12 per share during 2015. The adoption of a dividend policy does not commit our Board of Directors to declare future dividends or the amount thereof. The Board of Directors will continue to review our dividend policy on a quarterly basis. Our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders will depend, in part, upon our receipt of distributions from our operating partnership. This, in turn, may depend upon receipt of lease payments with respect to our properties from indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries of our operating partnership and the management of our properties by our property managers. Distributions to our stockholders are generally taxable to our stockholders as ordinary income. However, since a portion of our investments are equity ownership interests in hotels, which result in depreciation and non-cash charges against our income, a portion of our distributions may constitute a non-taxable return of capital, to the extent of a stockholder’s tax basis in the stock. To the extent that it is consistent with maintaining our REIT status, we may maintain accumulated earnings of Ashford TRS in that entity.

Our charter allows us to issue preferred stock with a preference on distributions, such as our Series A, Series D and Series E preferred stock. The partnership agreement of our operating partnership also allows the operating partnership to issue units with a preference on distributions, such as our class B common units. The issuance of these series of preferred stock and units together with any similar issuance in the future, given the dividend preference on such stock or units, could limit our ability to make a dividend distribution to our common stockholders.

COMPETITION

The hotel industry is highly competitive and the hotels in which we invest are subject to competition from other hotels for guests. Competition is based on a number of factors, most notably convenience of location, availability of rooms, brand affiliation, price, range of services, guest amenities or accommodations offered and quality of customer service. Competition is often specific to the individual markets in which our properties are located and includes competition from existing and new hotels. Increased competition could have a material adverse effect on the occupancy rate, average daily room rate and room revenue per available room of our hotels or may require us to make capital improvements that we otherwise would not have to make, which may result in decreases in our profitability.

Our principal competitors include other hotel operating companies, ownership companies (including hotel REITs) and national and international hotel brands. We face increased competition from providers of less expensive accommodations, such as select-service hotels or independent owner-managed hotels, during periods of economic downturn when leisure and business travelers become more sensitive to room rates.

EMPLOYEES

We have no employees. Our appointed officers and employees are provided by Ashford Hospitality Advisors LLC (“Ashford LLC”), a subsidiary of Ashford Inc. (collectively, our “advisor”). Services which would otherwise be provided by employees are provided by Ashford LLC and by our executive officers. Ashford LLC has approximately 92 full-time employees. These employees directly or indirectly perform various acquisition, development, asset management, capital markets, accounting, tax, risk management, legal, redevelopment, and corporate management functions pursuant to the terms of our advisory agreement.

Table of Contents

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Under various federal, state, and local laws and regulations, an owner or operator of real estate may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances on such property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of hazardous or toxic substances. Furthermore, a person who arranges for the disposal of a hazardous substance or transports a hazardous substance for disposal or treatment from property owned by another may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of hazardous substances released into the environment at that property. The costs of remediation or removal of such substances may be substantial, and the presence of such substances, or the failure to promptly remediate such substances, may adversely affect the owner’s ability to sell the affected property or to borrow using the affected property as collateral. In connection with the ownership and operation of our properties, we, our operating partnership, or Ashford TRS may be potentially liable for any such costs. In addition, the value of any lodging property loan we originate or acquire would be adversely affected if the underlying property contained hazardous or toxic substances.

Phase I environmental assessments, which are intended to identify potential environmental contamination for which our properties may be responsible, have been obtained on substantially all of our properties. Such Phase I environmental assessments included:


•	historical reviews of the properties;


•	reviews of certain public records;


•	preliminary investigations of the sites and surrounding properties;


•	screening for the presence of hazardous substances, toxic substances, and underground storage tanks; and


•	the preparation and issuance of a written report.

Such Phase I environmental assessments did not include invasive procedures, such as soil sampling or ground water analysis. Such Phase I environmental assessments have not revealed any environmental liability that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our business, assets, results of operations, or liquidity, and we are not aware of any such liability. To the extent Phase I environmental assessments reveal facts that require further investigation, we would perform a Phase II environmental assessment. However, it is possible that these environmental assessments will not reveal all environmental liabilities. There may be material environmental liabilities of which we are unaware, including environmental liabilities that may have arisen since the environmental assessments were completed or updated. No assurances can be given that (i) future laws, ordinances, or regulations will not impose any material environmental liability, or (ii) the current environmental condition of our properties will not be affected by the condition of properties in the vicinity (such as the presence of leaking underground storage tanks) or by third parties unrelated to us.

We believe our properties are in compliance in all material respects with all federal, state, and local ordinances and regulations regarding hazardous or toxic substances and other environmental matters. Neither we nor, to our knowledge, any of the former owners of our properties have been notified by any governmental authority of any material noncompliance, liability, or claim relating to hazardous or toxic substances or other environmental matters in connection with any of our properties.

INSURANCE

We maintain comprehensive insurance, including liability, property, workers’ compensation, rental loss, environmental, terrorism, and, when available on commercially reasonable terms, flood and earthquake insurance, with policy specifications, limits, and deductibles customarily carried for similar properties. Certain types of losses (for example, matters of a catastrophic nature such as acts of war or substantial known environmental liabilities) are either uninsurable or require substantial premiums that are not economically feasible to maintain. Certain types of losses, such as those arising from subsidence activity, are insurable only to the extent that certain standard policy exceptions to insurability are waived by agreement with the insurer. We believe, however, that our properties are adequately insured, consistent with industry standards.

FRANCHISE LICENSES

We believe that the public’s perception of quality associated with a franchisor can be an important feature in the operation of a hotel. Franchisors provide a variety of benefits for franchisees, which include national advertising, publicity, and other marketing programs designed to increase brand awareness, training of personnel, continuous review of quality standards, and centralized reservation systems.

Table of Contents

As of December 31, 2014, we owned interests in 126 hotels, 119 of which operated under the following franchise licenses or brand management agreements:

Embassy Suites is a registered trademark of Hilton Hospitality, Inc.

Hilton is a registered trademark of Hilton Hospitality, Inc.

Hilton Garden Inn is a registered trademark of Hilton Hospitality, Inc.

Hampton Inn is a registered trademark of Hilton Hospitality, Inc.

Marriott is a registered trademark of Marriott International, Inc.

SpringHill Suites is a registered trademark of Marriott International, Inc.

Residence Inn by Marriott is a registered trademark of Marriott International, Inc.

Courtyard by Marriott is a registered trademark of Marriott International, Inc.

Fairfield Inn by Marriott is a registered trademark of Marriott International, Inc.

TownePlace Suites is a registered trademark of Marriott International, Inc.

Renaissance is a registered trademark of Marriott International, Inc.

Ritz Carlton is a registered trademark of Marriott International, Inc.

Hyatt Regency is a registered trademark of Hyatt Corporation.

Sheraton is a registered trademark of Sheraton Hotels and Resorts, a division of Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

Westin is a registered trademark of Westin Hotels and Resorts, a division of Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

Crowne Plaza is a registered trademark of InterContinental Hotels Group.

One Ocean is a registered trademark of Remington Hotels LP.

Sofitel is a registered trademark of Accor SA.

Our management companies, including Remington Lodging, must operate each hotel pursuant to the terms of the related franchise or brand management agreement and must use their best efforts to maintain the right to operate each hotel pursuant to such terms. In the event of termination of a particular franchise or brand management agreement, our management companies must operate any affected hotels under another franchise or brand management agreement, if any, that we enter into. We anticipate that many of the additional hotels we acquire could be operated under franchise licenses or brand management agreements as well.

Our franchise licenses and brand management agreements generally specify certain management, operational, recordkeeping, accounting, reporting, and marketing standards and procedures with which the franchisee or brand operator must comply, including requirements related to:


•	training of operational personnel;


•	safety;


•	maintaining specified insurance;


•	types of services and products ancillary to guestroom services that may be provided;


•	display of signage; and


•	type, quality, and age of furniture, fixtures, and equipment included in guestrooms, lobbies, and other common areas.

Table of Contents

SEASONALITY

Our properties’ operations historically have been seasonal as certain properties maintain higher occupancy rates during the summer months, while certain other properties maintain higher occupancy rates during the winter months. This seasonality pattern can cause fluctuations in our quarterly lease revenue under our percentage leases. We anticipate that our cash flows from the operations of our properties will be sufficient to enable us to make quarterly distributions to maintain our REIT status. To the extent that cash flows from operations are insufficient during any quarter due to temporary or seasonal fluctuations in lease revenue, we expect to utilize other cash on hand or borrowings to fund required distributions. However, we cannot make any assurances that we will make distributions in the future.

ACCESS TO REPORTS AND OTHER INFORMATION

We maintain a website at www.ahtreit.com. On our website, we make available free-of-charge our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and other reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file or furnish such material with the SEC. In addition, our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, Code of Ethics for the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Accounting Officer, Corporate Governance Guidelines, and Board Committee Charters are also available free-of-charge on our website or can be made available in print upon request.

All reports filed with the SEC may also be read and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20549-1090. Further information regarding the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. In addition, all of our filed reports can be obtained at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

Table of Contents


Item 1A.	Risk Factors

RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS

The financial crisis and general economic slowdown, which began in late 2007, harmed the operating performance of the hotel industry generally. If these or similar events recur, we may be harmed by declines in occupancy, average daily room rates and/or other operating revenues.

The performance of the lodging industry has been closely linked with the performance of the general economy and, specifically, growth in the U.S. gross domestic product. A majority of our hotels are classified as upscale and upper-upscale. In an economic downturn, these types of hotels may be more susceptible to a decrease in revenue, as compared to hotels in other categories that have lower room rates. This characteristic may result from the fact that upscale and upper-upscale hotels generally target business and high-end leisure travelers. In periods of economic difficulties, business and leisure travelers may seek to reduce travel costs by limiting travel or seeking to reduce costs on their trips. Any economic recession will likely have an adverse effect on us.

Failure of the hotel industry to exhibit sustained improvement or to improve as expected may adversely affect us.

A substantial part of our business plan is based on our belief that the lodging markets in which we invest will experience improving economic fundamentals in the future, despite that fundamentals have already substantially improved over the last several years. In particular, our business strategy is dependent on our expectation that key industry performance indicators, especially RevPAR, will continue to improve. There can be no assurance as to whether or to what extent, hotel industry fundamentals will continue to improve. In the event conditions in the industry do not sustain improvement or improve as we expect, or deteriorate, we may be adversely affected.

The hotel industry is highly competitive and the hotels in which we invest are subject to competition from other hotels for guests.

The hotel business is highly competitive. Our hotel properties will compete on the basis of location, room rates, quality, amenities, reputation and reservations systems, among many factors. There are many competitors in the hotel industry, and many of these competitors may have substantially greater marketing and financial resources than we have. This competition could reduce occupancy levels and room revenue at our hotels. Over-building in the lodging industry may increase the number of rooms available and may decrease occupancy and room rates. In addition, in periods of weak demand, as may occur during a general economic recession, profitability is negatively affected by the fixed costs of operating hotels.

Because we depend upon our advisor and its affiliates to conduct our operations, any adverse changes in the financial condition of our advisor or its affiliates or our relationship with them could hinder our operating performance.

We depend on our advisor to manage our assets and operations. Any adverse changes in the financial condition of our advisor or its affiliates or our relationship with our advisor could hinder its ability to manage us successfully.

We depend on our advisor’s key personnel with long-standing business relationships. The loss of our advisor’s key personnel could threaten our ability to operate our business successfully.

Our future success depends, to a significant extent, upon the continued services of our advisor’s management team and the extent and nature of the relationships they have developed with hotel franchisors, operators, and owners and hotel lending and other financial institutions. The loss of services of one or more members of our advisor’s management team could harm our business and our prospects.

Table of Contents

The aggregate amount of fees and expense reimbursements paid to our advisor will exceed the average of internalized expenses of our industry peers (as identified in our advisory agreement), as a percentage of total market capitalization.

Pursuant to the advisory agreement between us and our advisor, we will pay our advisor a quarterly base fee (subject to a minimum fee described below), an annual incentive fee that will be based on our achievement of certain minimum performance thresholds and certain expense reimbursements. The minimum base management fee is currently equal to the greater of 0.70% or the G&A Ratio, multiplied by our total market capitalization as of the first trading day immediately following the effective day of the advisory agreement. The minimum base management fee for each quarter beginning after November 12, 2015 (one year from the effective date of our advisory agreement) will be equal to the greater of (i) 90% of the base fee paid for the same quarter in the prior year and (ii) the G&A Ratio multiplied by our total market capitalization for such quarter. The “G&A ratio” will be calculated as the simple average of the ratios of total general and administrative expenses paid in the applicable quarter by each member of a select peer group, divided by the total market capitalization of such peer group member. Since the base management fee is subject to this minimum amount and because a portion of such fees are contingent on our performance, the fees we pay to our advisor may fluctuate over time. However, regardless of our advisor’s performance, the total amount of fees and reimbursements paid to our advisor as a percentage of market capitalization will never be less than the average of internalized expenses of our industry peers (as identified in our advisory agreement), and there may be times when the total amount of fees and incentives paid to our advisor greatly exceeds the average of internalized expenses of our industry peers.

Our advisor’s entitlement to non-performance-based compensation, including the minimum base management fee, might reduce its incentive to devote its time and effort to seeking investments that provide attractive risk-adjusted returns for our portfolio. Further, our incentive fee structure may induce our advisor to encourage us to acquire certain assets, including speculative or high risk assets, or to acquire assets with increased leverage, which could increase the risk to our portfolio.

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

We have in the past and may continue to co-invest with third parties through partnerships, joint ventures or other entities, acquiring controlling or non-controlling interests in, or sharing responsibility for, managing the affairs of a property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. In such event, we may not be in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. Investments in partnerships, joint ventures or other entities may, under certain circumstances, involve risks not present were a third party not involved, including the possibility that partners or co-venturers might become bankrupt, suffer a deterioration in their financial condition or fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Partners or co-venturers may have economic or other business interests or goals which are inconsistent with our business interests or goals, and may be in a position to take actions contrary to our policies or objectives. Such investments may also have the potential risk of impasses on decisions, such as a sale, budgets, or financing, if neither we nor the partner or co-venturer has full control over the partnership or joint venture. Disputes between us and partners or co-venturers may result in litigation or arbitration that would increase our expenses and prevent our officers or directors from focusing their time and effort on our business. Consequently, actions by, or disputes with, partners or co-venturers might result in subjecting properties owned by the partnership or joint venture to additional risk. In addition, we may in certain circumstances be liable for the actions of our third-party partners or co-venturers.

Our business strategy depends on our continued growth. We may fail to integrate recent and additional investments into our operations or otherwise manage our planned growth, which may adversely affect our operating results.

Our business plan contemplates a period of continued growth in the next several years. We cannot assure you that we will be able to adapt our management, administrative, accounting, and operational systems, or hire and retain sufficient operational staff to successfully integrate and manage any future acquisitions of additional assets without operating disruptions or unanticipated costs. Acquisitions of any additional portfolios of properties or mortgages would generate additional operating expenses for us. Any future acquisitions may also require us to enter into property improvement plans that will increase our operating expenses. As we acquire additional assets, we will be subject to the operational risks associated with owning those assets. Our failure to successfully integrate any future acquisitions into our portfolio could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Because our board of directors and our advisor have broad discretion to make future investments, we may make investments that result in returns that are substantially below expectations or that result in net operating losses.

Our board of directors and our advisor have broad discretion, within the investment criteria established by our board of directors, to make additional investments and to determine the timing of such investments. In addition, our investment policies may be revised from time to time at the discretion of our board of directors, without a vote of our stockholders. Such discretion could result in investments with yield returns inconsistent with expectations.

Table of Contents

We may be unable to identify additional investments that meet our investment criteria or to acquire the properties we have under contract.

We cannot assure you that we will be able to identify real estate investments that meet our investment criteria, that we will be successful in completing any investment we identify, or that any investment we complete will produce a return on our investment. Moreover, we have broad authority to invest in any real estate investments that we may identify in the future. We also cannot assure you that we will acquire properties we currently have under firm purchase contracts, if any, or that the acquisition terms we have negotiated will not change.

Tax indemnification obligations that apply in the event that we sell certain properties could limit our operating flexibility.

We have acquired certain of our properties in exchange transactions in which we issued units in our operating partnership in exchange for hotel properties. In certain of these transactions, we agreed to ongoing indemnification obligations in the event we sell or transfer the related property and in some instances in the event we refinance the related property. Accordingly, we may be obligated to indemnify the contributors whom have substantial ownership interests, against the tax consequences of such transactions.

In general, our tax indemnities will be equal to the amount of the federal, state, and local income tax liability the contributor or its specified assignee incurs with respect to the gain allocated to the contributor. The terms of the contribution agreements also generally require us to gross up tax indemnity payments for the amount of income taxes due as a result of the tax indemnity and this additional payment.

While the tax indemnities generally do not contractually limit our ability to conduct our business in the way we desire, we are less likely to sell any of the contributed properties for which we have agreed to the tax indemnities described above in a taxable transaction during the applicable indemnity period. Instead, we would likely either hold the property for the entire indemnity period or seek to transfer the property in a tax-deferred like-kind exchange. In addition, a condemnation of one of our properties could trigger our tax indemnification obligations.

Hotel franchise or license requirements or the loss of a franchise could adversely affect us.

We must comply with operating standards, terms, and conditions imposed by the franchisors of the hotel brands under which our hotels operate. Franchisors periodically inspect their licensed hotels to confirm adherence to their operating standards. The failure of a hotel to maintain standards could result in the loss or cancellation of a franchise license. With respect to operational standards, we rely on our property managers to conform to such standards. Franchisors may also require us to make certain capital improvements to maintain the hotel in accordance with system standards, the cost of which can be substantial. It is possible that a franchisor could condition the continuation of a franchise based on the completion of capital improvements that our advisor or board of directors determines is not economically feasible in light of general economic conditions, the operating results or prospects of the affected hotel or other circumstances. In that event, our advisor or board of directors may elect to allow the franchise to lapse or be terminated, which could result in a termination charge as well as a change in brand franchising or operation of the hotel as an independent hotel. In addition, when the term of a franchise expires, the franchisor has no obligation to issue a new franchise.

The loss of a franchise could have a material adverse effect on the operations and/or the underlying value of the affected hotel because of the loss of associated name recognition, marketing support and centralized reservation systems provided by the franchisor.

Our investments are concentrated in particular segments of a single industry.

Nearly all of our business is hotel related. Our current long-term investment strategy is to acquire or develop upscale to upper-upscale hotels, acquire first mortgages on hotel properties, invest in other mortgage-related instruments such as mezzanine loans to hotel owners and operators, and participate in hotel sale-leaseback transactions. Adverse conditions in the hotel industry will have a material adverse effect on our operating and investment revenues and cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Table of Contents

Our reliance on third party property managers, including Remington Lodging, to operate our hotels and for a substantial majority of our cash flow may adversely affect us.

Because U.S. federal income tax laws restrict REITs and their subsidiaries from operating or managing hotels, third parties must operate our hotels. A REIT may lease its hotels to taxable REIT subsidiaries in which the REIT can own up to a 100% interest. A taxable REIT subsidiary (“TRS”) pays corporate-level income tax and may retain any after-tax income. A REIT must satisfy certain conditions to use the TRS structure. One of those conditions is that the TRS must hire, to manage the hotels, an “eligible independent contractor” (“EIC”) that is actively engaged in the trade or business of managing hotels for parties other than the REIT. An EIC cannot (i) own more than 35% of the REIT, (ii) be owned more than 35% by persons owning more than 35% of the REIT, or (iii) provide any income to the REIT (i.e., the EIC cannot pay fees to the REIT, and the REIT cannot own any debt or equity securities of the EIC). Accordingly, while we may lease hotels to a TRS that we own, the TRS must engage a third-party operator to manage the hotels. Thus, our ability to direct and control how our hotels are operated is less than if we were able to manage our hotels directly.

We have entered into management agreements with Remington Lodging, which is owned 100% by Messrs. Archie and Monty J. Bennett, to manage 55 of our 87 legacy properties, 21 of the 28 PIM Highland JV hotel properties, and the WorldQuest condominium properties as of December 31, 2014. We have hired unaffiliated third-party property managers to manage our remaining properties. We do not supervise any of the property managers or their respective personnel on a day-to-day basis, and we cannot assure you that the property managers will manage our properties in a manner that is consistent with their respective obligations under the applicable management agreement or our obligations under our hotel franchise agreements. We also cannot assure you that our property managers will not be negligent in their performance, will not engage in criminal or fraudulent activity, or will not otherwise default on their respective management obligations to us. If any of the foregoing occurs, our relationships with any franchisors may be damaged, we may be in breach of our franchise agreement, and we could incur liabilities resulting from loss or injury to our property or to persons at our properties. In addition, from time to time, disputes may arise between us and our third-party managers regarding their performance or compliance with the terms of the hotel management agreements, which in turn could adversely affect us. We generally will attempt to resolve any such disputes through discussions and negotiations; however, if we are unable to reach satisfactory results through discussions and negotiations, we may choose to terminate our management agreement, litigate the dispute or submit the matter to third-party dispute resolution, the expense of which may be material and the outcome of which may adversely affect us.

Our cash flow from the hotels may be adversely affected if our managers fail to provide quality services and amenities or if they or their affiliates fail to maintain a quality brand name. In addition, our managers or their affiliates may manage, and in some cases may own, invest in or provide credit support or operating guarantees, to hotels that compete with hotel properties that we own or acquire, which may result in conflicts of interest and decisions regarding the operation of our hotels that are not in our best interests. Any of these circumstances could adversely affect us.

Our management agreements could adversely affect our sale or financing of hotel properties.

We have entered into management agreements, and acquired properties subject to management agreements, that do not allow us to replace hotel managers on relatively short notice or with limited cost or contain other restrictive covenants, and we may enter into additional such agreements or acquire properties subject to such agreements in the future. For example, the terms of a management agreement may restrict our ability to sell a property unless the purchaser is not a competitor of the manager, assumes the management agreement and meets other conditions. Also, the terms of a long-term management agreement encumbering our property may reduce the value of the property. When we enter into or acquire properties subject to any such management agreements, we may be precluded from taking actions in our best interest and could incur substantial expense as a result of the agreements.

If we cannot obtain additional capital, our growth will be limited.

We are required to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding net capital gains, each year to maintain our qualification as a REIT. As a result, our retained earnings available to fund acquisitions, development, or other capital expenditures are nominal. As such, we rely upon the availability of additional debt or equity capital to fund these activities. Our long-term ability to grow through acquisitions or development, which is an important strategy for us, will be limited if we cannot obtain additional financing or equity capital. Market conditions may make it difficult to obtain financing or equity capital, and we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain additional debt or equity financing or that we will be able to obtain it on favorable terms.

Table of Contents

We compete with other hotels for guests and face competition for acquisitions and sales of hotel properties and of desirable debt investments.

The hotel business is competitive. Our hotels compete on the basis of location, room rates, quality, service levels, amenities, reputation and reservation systems, among many other factors. New hotels may be constructed and these additions to supply create new competitors, in some cases without corresponding increases in demand for hotel rooms. The result in some cases may be lower revenue, which would result in lower cash available to meet debt service obligations, operating expenses and requisite distributions to our stockholders.

We compete for hotel acquisitions with entities that have similar investment objectives as we do. This competition could limit the number of suitable investment opportunities offered to us. It may also increase the bargaining power of property owners seeking to sell to us, making it more difficult for us to acquire new properties on attractive terms or on the terms contemplated in our business plan. In addition, we compete to sell hotel properties. Availability of capital, the number of hotels available for sale and market conditions all affect prices. We may not be able to sell hotel assets at our targeted price.

We also compete for mortgage asset investments with numerous public and private real estate investment vehicles, such as mortgage banks, pension funds, other REITs, institutional investors, and individuals. Mortgages and other investments are often obtained through a competitive bidding process. In addition, competitors may seek to establish relationships with the financial institutions and other firms from which we intend to purchase such assets. Competition may result in higher prices for mortgage assets, lower yields, and a narrower spread of yields over our borrowing costs.

Some of our competitors are larger than us, may have access to greater capital, marketing, and other financial resources, may have personnel with more experience than our officers, may be able to accept higher levels of debt or otherwise may tolerate more risk than us, may have better relations with hotel franchisors, sellers or lenders, and may have other advantages over us in conducting certain business and providing certain services.

We face risks related to changes in the global and political economic environment, including capital and credit markets.

Our business may be impacted by global economic conditions, which recently have been volatile. Political crises in individual countries or regions, including sovereign risk related to a deterioration in the credit worthiness or a default by local governments, has contributed to this volatility. If the global economy experiences continued volatility or significant disruptions, such disruptions or volatility could hurt the U.S. economy and our business could be negatively impacted by reduced demand for business and leisure travel related to a slow-down in the general economy, by disruptions resulting from tighter credit markets, and by liquidity issues resulting from an inability to access credit markets to obtain cash to support operations. Our objective is to maintain access to capital and credit markets.

We are increasingly dependent on information technology, and potential cyber attacks, security problems or other disruption and expanding social media vehicles present new risks.

As do most companies, our advisor and our various hotel managers rely on information technology networks and systems, including the Internet, to process, transmit and store electronic information, and to manage or support a variety of business processes, including financial transactions and records, personal identifying information, reservations, billing and operating data. Our advisor and our hotel managers purchase some of our information technology from vendors, on whom our systems depend, and our advisor relies on commercially available systems, software, tools and monitoring to provide security for processing, transmission and storage of confidential operator and other customer information, such as individually identifiable information, including information relating to financial accounts.

We often depend upon the secure transmission of this information over public networks. Our advisor’s and our hotel managers' networks and storage applications are subject to unauthorized access by hackers or others (through cyber attacks, which are rapidly evolving and becoming increasingly sophisticated, or by other means) or may be breached due to operator error, malfeasance or other system disruptions. In some cases, it is difficult to anticipate or immediately detect such incidents and the damage caused thereby. Any significant breakdown, invasion, destruction, interruption or leakage of our advisor’s or our hotel managers’ systems could harm us.

In addition, the use of social media could cause us to suffer brand damage or information leakage. Negative posts or comments about us, our hotel managers or our hotels on any social networking website could damage our or our hotels’ reputations. In addition, employees or others might disclose non-public sensitive information relating to our business through external media channels. The continuing evolution of social media will present us with new challenges and risks.

Table of Contents

Changes in laws, regulations, or policies may adversely affect our business.

The laws and regulations governing our business or the regulatory or enforcement environment at the federal level or in any of the states in which we operate may change at any time and may have an adverse effect on our business. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as it is phased in over time, will significantly affect the administration of health care services and could significantly impact our cost of providing employees with health care insurance. We are unable to predict how this or any other future legislative or regulatory proposals or programs will be administered or implemented or in what form, or whether any additional or similar changes to statutes or regulations, including the interpretation or implementation thereof, will occur in the future. Any such action could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways and could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Our inability to remain in compliance with regulatory requirements in a particular jurisdiction could have a material adverse effect on our operations in that market and on our reputation generally. No assurance can be given that applicable laws or regulations will not be amended or construed differently or that new laws and regulations will not be adopted, either of which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our failure to qualify as a REIT would potentially give rise to a claim for damages from Ashford Prime.

In connection with the spin-off of Ashford Prime, which was completed in November 2013, we represented in the Separation and Distribution Agreement that we have no knowledge of any fact or circumstance that would cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT. We also covenanted in the Separation and Distribution Agreement to use our reasonable best efforts to maintain our REIT status for each of our taxable years ending on or before December 31, 2014 (unless we obtain an opinion from a nationally recognized tax counsel or a private letter ruling from the IRS to the effect that our failure to maintain our REIT status will not cause Ashford Prime to fail to qualify as a REIT under the successor REIT rules). In the event of a breach of this representation or covenant, Ashford Prime may be able to seek damages from us, which could have a significantly negative effect on our liquidity and results of operations.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR DEBT FINANCING

We are subject to various risks related to our use of, and dependence on, debt.

As of December 31, 2014, we had aggregated borrowings of approximately $2.0 billion outstanding, including $817.9 million of variable interest rate debt. The interest we pay on variable-rate debt increases as interest rates increase above any floor rates, which may decrease cash available for distribution to our stockholders. We are also subject to the risk that we may not be able to meet our debt service obligations or refinance our debt as it becomes due. If we do not meet our debt service obligations, we risk the loss of some or all of our assets to foreclosure. Changes in economic conditions or our financial results or prospects could (i) result in higher interest rates on variable-rate debt, (ii) reduce the availability of debt financing generally or debt financing at favorable rates, (iii) reduce cash available for distribution to our stockholders, (iv) increase the risk that we could be forced to liquidate assets or repay debt, either of which could have a material adverse effect on us, and (v) create other challenging situations for us.

Some of our debt agreements contain financial and other covenants. If we violate covenants in any debt agreements, including as a result of impairments of our hotel or mezzanine loan assets, we could be required to repay all or a portion of our indebtedness before maturity at a time when we might be unable to arrange financing for such repayment on attractive terms, if at all. Violations of certain debt covenants may also prohibit us from borrowing unused amounts under our lines of credit, even if repayment of some or all the borrowings is not required. In any event, financial covenants under our current or future debt obligations could impair our planned business strategies by limiting our ability to borrow beyond certain amounts or for certain purposes. Our governing instruments do not contain any limitation on our ability to incur indebtedness.

Mortgage debt obligations expose us to increased risk of property losses, which could harm our financial condition, cash flow, and ability to satisfy our other debt obligations and pay dividends.

Incurring mortgage debt increases our risk of property losses because defaults on indebtedness secured by properties may result in foreclosure actions initiated by lenders and ultimately our loss of the property securing any loans for which we are in default. For tax purposes, a foreclosure of any of our properties would be treated as a sale of the property for a purchase price equal to the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage. If the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage exceeds our tax basis in the property, we would recognize taxable income on the foreclosure but would not receive any cash proceeds. As a result, we may be required to identify and utilize other sources of cash for distributions to our stockholders of that income.

In addition, our default under any one of our mortgage debt obligations may result in a default on our other indebtedness. If this occurs, our financial condition, cash flow, and ability to satisfy our other debt obligations or ability to pay dividends may be impaired.

Table of Contents

We voluntarily elected to cease making payments on the mortgages securing four of our hotels during the recent economic downturn, and we may voluntarily elect to cease making payments on additional mortgages in the future, which could reduce the number of hotels we own as well as our revenues and could affect our ability to raise equity or debt financing in the future or violate covenants in our debt agreements.

During the past economic crisis, we undertook a series of actions to manage the sources and uses of our funds in an effort to navigate through challenging market conditions while still pursuing opportunities to create long-term stockholder value. In this effort, we attempted to proactively address value and cash flow deficits among certain of our mortgaged hotels, with a goal of enhancing stockholder value through loan amendments, or in certain instances, consensual transfers of hotel properties to the lenders in satisfaction of the related debt, some of which resulted in impairment charges. The loans secured by these hotels, subject to certain customary exceptions, were non-recourse to us. We may continue to proactively address value and cash flow deficits in a similar manner as necessary and appropriate.

We had approximately $2.0 billion of mortgage debt outstanding as of December 31, 2014. We may face issues with these loans or with other loans or borrowings that we incur in the future, some of which issues may be beyond our control, including our ability to service payment obligations from the cash flow of the applicable hotel, or the inability to refinance existing debt at the applicable maturity date. In such event, we may elect to default on the applicable loan and, as a result, the lenders would have the right to exercise various remedies under the loan documents, which would include foreclosure on the applicable hotels. Any such defaults, whether voluntary or involuntary, could result in a default under our other debt agreements, could have an adverse effect on our ability to raise equity or debt capital, could increase the cost of such capital or could otherwise have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Covenants, “cash trap” provisions or other terms in our loan agreements could limit our flexibility and adversely affect our financial condition or our qualification as a REIT.

Some of our loan agreements contain financial and other covenants. If we violate covenants in any debt agreements, we could be required to repay all or a portion of our indebtedness before maturity at a time when we might be unable to arrange financing for such repayment on attractive terms, if at all. Violations of certain debt covenants may also prohibit us from borrowing unused amounts under our lines of credit, even if repayment of some or all the borrowings is not required. In any event, financial covenants under our current or future debt obligations could impair our planned business strategies by limiting our ability to borrow beyond certain amounts or for certain purposes.

Some of our loan agreements also contain cash trap provisions triggered if the performance of our hotels decline. When these provisions are triggered, substantially all of the profit generated by our hotels is deposited directly into lockbox accounts and then swept into cash management accounts for the benefit of our various lenders. Cash is not distributed to us at any time after the cash trap provisions have been triggered until we have cured performance issues. This could affect our liquidity and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our hedging strategies may not be successful in mitigating our risks associated with interest rates and could reduce the overall returns on your investment.

We use various derivative financial instruments to provide a level of protection against interest rate risks, but no hedging strategy can protect us completely. These instruments involve risks, such as the risk that the counterparties may fail to honor their obligations under these arrangements, that these arrangements may not be effective in reducing our exposure to interest rate changes and that a court could rule that such agreements are not legally enforceable. These instruments may also generate income that may not be treated as qualifying REIT income. In addition, the nature and timing of hedging transactions may influence the effectiveness of our hedging strategies. Poorly designed strategies or improperly executed transactions could actually increase our risk and losses. Moreover, hedging strategies involve transaction and other costs. We cannot assure you that our hedging strategy and the derivatives that we use will adequately offset the risk of interest rate volatility or that our hedging transactions will not result in losses that may reduce the overall return on your investment.

Table of Contents

RISKS RELATED TO HOTEL INVESTMENTS

We are subject to general risks associated with operating hotels.

Our hotels and hotels underlying our mortgage and mezzanine loans are subject to various operating risks common to the hotel industry, many of which are beyond our control, including, among others, the following:


•	competition from other hotel properties in our markets;


•	over-building of hotels in our markets, which results in increased supply and adversely affects occupancy and revenues at our hotels;


•	dependence on business and commercial travelers and tourism;


•	increases in operating costs due to inflation, increased energy costs and other factors that may not be offset by increased room rates;


•	changes in interest rates and in the availability, cost and terms of debt financing;


•	increases in assessed property taxes from changes in valuation or real estate tax rates;


•	increases in the cost of property insurance;


•	changes in governmental laws and regulations, fiscal policies and zoning ordinances and the related costs of compliance with laws and regulations, fiscal policies and ordinances;

•

unforeseen events beyond our control, such as terrorist attacks, travel related health concerns which could reduce travel, including pandemics and epidemics such as H1N1 influenza (swine flu), avian flu and SARS, imposition of taxes or surcharges by regulatory authorities, travel-related accidents, travel infrastructure interruptions and unusual weather patterns, including natural disasters such as hurricanes, tsunamis or earthquakes;


•	adverse effects of international, national, regional and local economic and market conditions and increases in energy costs or labor costs and other expenses affecting travel, which may affect travel patterns and reduce the number of business and commercial travelers and tourists;


•	adverse effects of a downturn in the lodging industry; and


•	risks generally associated with the ownership of hotel properties and real estate, as we discuss in more detail below.

These factors could adversely affect our hotel revenues and expenses, as well as the hotels underlying our mortgage and mezzanine loans, which in turn could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, the market price of our common stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We may have to make significant capital expenditures to maintain our hotel properties, and any development activities we undertake may be more costly than we anticipate.

Our hotels have an ongoing need for renovations and other capital improvements, including replacements, from time to time, of furniture, fixtures and equipment. Managers or franchisors of our hotels also will require periodic capital improvements pursuant to the management agreements or as a condition of maintaining franchise licenses. Generally, we are responsible for the cost of these capital improvements. As part of our long-term growth strategy, we may also develop hotel properties, timeshare units or other alternate uses of portions of our existing properties, including the development of retail, office or apartments, including through joint ventures. Such renovation and development involves substantial risks, including:


•	construction cost overruns and delays;


•	the disruption of operations and displacement of revenue at operating hotels, including revenue lost while rooms, restaurants or meeting space under renovation are out of service;


•	the cost of funding renovations or developments and inability to obtain financing on attractive terms;


•	the return on our investment in these capital improvements or developments failing to meet expectations;


•	governmental restrictions on the nature or size of a project;


•	inability to obtain all necessary zoning, land use, building, occupancy, and construction permits;


•	loss of substantial investment in a development project if a project is abandoned before completion;


•	acts of God such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods or fires that could adversely affect a project;


•	environmental problems; and


•	disputes with franchisors or property managers regarding compliance with relevant franchise agreements or management agreements.

Table of Contents

If we have insufficient cash flow from operations to fund needed capital expenditures, then we will need to obtain additional debt or equity financing to fund future capital improvements, and e may not be able to meet the loan covenants in any financing obtained to fund the new development, creating default risks.

In addition, to the extent that developments are conducted through joint ventures, this creates additional risks, including the possibility that our partners may not meet their financial obligations or could have or develop business interests, policies or objectives that are inconsistent with ours. See “-Our joint venture investments could be adversely affected by our lack of sole decision-making authority, our reliance on a co-venturer’s financial condition and disputes between us and our co-venturers.”

Any of the above factors could affect adversely our and our partners’ ability to complete the developments on schedule and along the scope that currently is contemplated, or to achieve the intended value of these projects. For these reasons, there can be no assurances as to the value to be realized by the company from these transactions or any future similar transactions.

The hotel business is seasonal, which affects our results of operations from quarter to quarter.

The hotel industry is seasonal in nature. This seasonality can cause quarterly fluctuations in our financial condition and operating results, including in any distributions on common stock. Our quarterly operating results may be adversely affected by factors outside our control, including weather conditions and poor economic factors in certain markets in which we operate. We can provide no assurances that our cash flows will be sufficient to offset any shortfalls that occur as a result of these fluctuations. As a result, we may have to reduce distributions or enter into short-term borrowings in certain quarters in order to make distributions to our stockholders, and we can provide no assurances that such borrowings will be available on favorable terms, if at all.

The cyclical nature of the lodging industry may cause fluctuations in our operating performance, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

The lodging industry historically has been highly cyclical in nature. Fluctuations in lodging demand and, therefore, hotel operating performance, are caused largely by general economic and local market conditions, which subsequently affect levels of business and leisure travel. In addition to general economic conditions, new hotel room supply is an important factor that can affect the lodging industry’s performance, and overbuilding has the potential to further exacerbate the negative impact of an economic recession. Room rates and occupancy, and thus RevPAR, tend to increase when demand growth exceeds supply growth. We can provide no assurances regarding whether, or the extent to which, lodging demand will rebound or whether any such rebound will be sustained. An adverse change in lodging fundamentals could result in returns that are substantially below our expectations or result in losses, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

Many real estate costs are fixed, even if revenue from our hotels decreases.

Many costs, such as real estate taxes, insurance premiums and maintenance costs, generally are not reduced even when a hotel is not fully occupied, room rates decrease or other circumstances cause a reduction in revenues. In addition, newly acquired or renovated hotels may not produce the revenues we anticipate immediately, or at all, and the hotel's operating cash flow may be insufficient to pay the operating expenses and debt service associated with these new hotels. If we are unable to offset real estate costs with sufficient revenues across our portfolio, we may be adversely affected.

Our operating expenses may increase in the future which could cause us to raise our room rates, depleting room occupancy and thereby decreasing our cash flow and our operating results.

Operating expenses, such as expenses for fuel, utilities, labor and insurance, are not fixed and may increase in the future. To the extent such increases affect our room rates and therefore our room occupancy at our lodging properties, our cash flow and operating results may be negatively affected.

The increasing use of Internet travel intermediaries by consumers may adversely affect our profitability.

Some of our hotel rooms are booked through Internet travel intermediaries, including, but not limited to, Travelocity.com, Expedia.com and Priceline.com. As Internet bookings increase, these intermediaries may be able to obtain higher commissions, reduced room rates or other significant contract concessions from our management companies. Moreover, some of these Internet travel intermediaries are attempting to offer hotel rooms as a commodity, by increasing the importance of price and general indicators of quality (such as “three-star downtown hotel”) at the expense of brand identification. These intermediaries hope that consumers will eventually develop brand loyalties to their reservations system rather than to the brands under which our properties are franchised. Although most of the business for our hotels is expected to be derived from traditional channels, if the amount of sales made through Internet intermediaries increases significantly, room revenues may be lower than expected, and we may be adversely affected.

Table of Contents

We may be adversely affected by increased use of business-related technology, which may reduce the need for business-related travel.

The increased use of teleconference and video-conference technology by businesses could result in decreased business travel as companies increase the use of technologies that allow multiple parties from different locations to participate at meetings without traveling to a centralized meeting location. To the extent that such technologies play an increased role in day-to-day business and the necessity for business-related travel decreases, hotel room demand may decrease and we may be adversely affected.

Our hotels may be subject to unknown or contingent liabilities which could cause us to incur substantial costs.

The hotel properties that we own or may acquire are or may be subject to unknown or contingent liabilities for which we may have no recourse, or only limited recourse, against the sellers. In general, the representations and warranties provided under the transaction agreements related to the sales of the hotel properties may not survive the closing of the transactions. While we will seek to require the sellers to indemnify us with respect to breaches of representations and warranties that survive, such indemnification may be limited and subject to various materiality thresholds, a significant deductible or an aggregate cap on losses. As a result, there is no guarantee that we will recover any amounts with respect to losses due to breaches by the sellers of their representations and warranties. In addition, the total amount of costs and expenses that may be incurred with respect to liabilities associated with these hotels may exceed our expectations, and we may experience other unanticipated adverse effects, all of which may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, the market price of our common stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Future terrorist attacks or changes in terror alert levels could materially and adversely affect us.

Previous terrorist attacks and subsequent terrorist alerts have adversely affected the U.S. travel and hospitality industries since 2001, often disproportionately to the effect on the overall economy. The extent of the impact that actual or threatened terrorist attacks in the U.S. or elsewhere could have on domestic and international travel and our business in particular cannot be determined, but any such attacks or the threat of such attacks could have a material adverse effect on travel and hotel demand, our ability to finance our business and our ability to insure our hotels, which could materially adversely affect us.

During 2014, approximately 14.8% of our total hotel revenue was generated from 10 hotels located in the Washington D.C. and Baltimore areas, areas considered vulnerable to terrorist attack. Our financial and operating performance may be adversely affected by potential terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks in the future may cause our results to differ materially from anticipated results. Hotels we own in other market locations may be subject to this risk as well.

We are subject to risks associated with the employment of hotel personnel, particularly with hotels that employ unionized labor.

Our third-party managers are responsible for hiring and maintaining the labor force at each of our hotels. Although we do not directly employ or manage employees at our hotels, we still are subject to many of the costs and risks generally associated with the hotel labor force, particularly those hotels with unionized labor. From time to time, hotel operations may be disrupted as a result of strikes, lockouts, public demonstrations or other negative actions and publicity. We also may incur increased legal costs and indirect labor costs as a result of contract disputes or other events. The resolution of labor disputes or re-negotiated labor contracts could lead to increased labor costs, either by increases in wages or benefits or by changes in work rules that raise hotel operating costs. We do not have the ability to affect the outcome of these negotiations.

RISKS RELATED TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Our agreements with our external advisor , as well as our mutual exclusivity agreement and management agreements with Remington Lodging were not negotiated on an arm’s-length basis, and we may pursue less vigorous enforcement of their terms because of conflicts of interest with certain of our executive officers and directors and key employees of our advisor.

Because each of our executive officers are also key employees of our advisor or its affiliates and have ownership interests in our advisor and because our chief executive officer and chairman of our board has an ownership interest in Remington Lodging, advisory agreement as well as our mutual exclusivity agreement and master management agreement with Remington Lodging were not negotiated on an arm’s-length basis, and we did not have the benefit of arm’s-length negotiations of the type normally conducted with an unaffiliated third party. As a result, the terms, including fees and other amounts payable, may not be as favorable to us as an arm’s-length agreement. Furthermore, we may choose not to enforce, or to enforce less vigorously, our rights under these agreements because of our desire to maintain our ongoing relationship with our advisor and Remington Lodging.

Table of Contents

The termination fee payable to our advisor significantly increases the cost to us of terminating our advisory agreement, thereby effectively limiting our ability to terminate our advisor without causes and could make a change of control transaction less likely or the terms thereof less attractive to us and to our stockholders.

The initial term of our advisory agreement with our advisor is 20 years from the effective date of the advisory agreement, with automatic one-year renewal terms thereafter unless previously terminated. Our board will review our advisor’s performance and fees annually and, following the 20 year initial term the advisory agreement may be terminated by us with the payment of the termination fee described below and 180 days’ prior notice upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors based upon a good faith finding that either: (1) there has been unsatisfactory performance by our advisor that is materially detrimental to us and our subsidiaries taken as a whole, or (2) the base fee and/or incentive fee is not fair (and our advisor does not offer to negotiate a lower fee that a majority of our independent directors determines is fair). Additionally, if there is a change of control transaction, we will have the right to terminate the advisory agreement with the payment of the termination fee described below. If we terminate or do not renew the advisory agreement without cause, including pursuant to clauses (1) or (2) above (following a contractual renegotiation process in the case of clause (2) above) or upon a change of control, we will be required to pay our advisor a termination fee equal to either:


•	if our advisor’s common stock is not publicly traded, 14 times the earnings of our advisor attributable to our advisory agreement less costs and expenses (the ‘‘net earnings’’) for the 12 months preceding termination of the advisory agreement; or

•

if at the time of the termination notice, our advisor’s common stock is publicly traded, 1.1 multiplied by the greater of (i) 12 times the net earnings of our advisor attributable to our advisory agreement for the 12 months preceding the termination of the advisory agreement or (ii) the earnings multiple (based on net earnings after taxes) for our advisor’s common stock for the 12 months preceding the termination of the advisory agreement multiplied by the net earnings of our advisor attributable to our advisory agreement for the same 12 month period; or (iii) the simple average of the earnings multiples (based on net earnings after taxes) for our advisor’s common stock for each of the three fiscal years preceding the termination of the advisory agreement, multiplied by the net earnings of our advisor attributable to our advisory agreement for the 12 months preceding the termination of the advisory agreement; plus, in either case, a gross-up amount for federal and state tax liability, based on an assumed tax rate of 40%.

Any such termination fee will be payable on or before the termination date. The termination fee makes it more difficult for us to terminate our advisory agreement even if our board determines that there has been unsatisfactory performance or unfair fees. These provisions significantly increase the cost to us of terminating our advisory agreement, thereby limiting our ability to terminate our advisor without cause.

Our advisor manages other entities and may direct attractive investment opportunities away from us. If we change our investment guidelines, our advisor is not restricted from advising clients with similar investment guidelines.

Each of our executive officers also serve as key employees and as officers of our advisor and Ashford Prime, and will continue to do so. Furthermore, Mr. Monty J. Bennett, our chief executive officer and chairman, is also the chief executive officer and chairman of our advisor and Ashford Prime. Our advisory agreement requires our advisor to present investments that satisfy our investment guidelines to us before presenting them to Ashford Prime or any future client of our advisor. Additionally, in the future our advisor may advise other clients, some of which may have investment guidelines substantially similar to ours.

Some portfolio investment opportunities may include hotels that satisfy our investment objectives as well as hotels that satisfy the investment objectives of Ashford Prime or other entities advised by our advisor. If the portfolio cannot be equitably divided, our advisor will necessarily have to make a determination as to which entity will be presented with the opportunity. In such a circumstance, our advisory agreement requires our advisor to allocate portfolio investment opportunities between us, Ashford Prime or other entities advised by our advisor in a fair and equitable manner, consistent with our, Ashford Prime’s and such other entities’ investment objectives. In making this determination, our advisor, using substantial discretion, will consider the investment strategy and guidelines of each entity with respect to acquisition of properties, portfolio concentrations, tax consequences, regulatory restrictions, liquidity requirements and other factors deemed appropriate. In making the allocation determination, our advisor has no obligation to make any such investment opportunity available to us. Further, our advisor and Ashford Prime have agreed that any new investment opportunities that satisfy our investment guidelines will be presented to our board of directors; however, our board will have only ten business days to make a determination with respect to such opportunity prior to it being available to Ashford Prime. The above mentioned dual responsibilities may create conflicts of interest for our officers which could result in decisions or allocations of investments that may benefit one entity more than the other.

Table of Contents

Our advisor and its key employees, who are Ashford Prime’s and our executive officers, face competing demands relating to their time and this may adversely affect our operations.

We rely on our advisor and its employees for the day-to-day operation of our business. Each of the key employees of our advisor are executive officers of Ashford Prime and Ashford Inc. Because our advisor’s key employees have duties to Ashford Prime and Ashford Inc., as well as to our company, we do not have their undivided attention and they face conflicts in allocating their time and resources between our company, Ashford Prime and Ashford Inc. Our advisor may also manage other entities in the future. During turbulent market conditions or other times when we need focused support and assistance from our advisor, other entities for which our advisor also acts as an external advisor will likewise require greater focus and attention as well, placing competing high levels of demand on the limited time and resources of our advisor’s key employees. We may not receive the necessary support and assistance we require or would otherwise receive if we were internally managed by persons working exclusively for us.

We must pay a minimum advisory fee to our advisor regardless of our performance.

Our advisor is entitled to receive a quarterly base fee from us that is based on our total market capitalization (as defined in our advisory agreement), regardless of the performance of our portfolio, subject to a minimum amount. The minimum base management fee for each quarter will be equal to the greater of (i) 90% of the base fee paid for the same quarter in the prior year, and (ii) the “G&A ratio” multiplied by our total market capitalization. The “G&A ratio” will be calculated as the simple average of the ratios of total general and administrative expenses paid in the applicable quarter by each member of a select peer group, divided by the total market capitalization of such peer group member. Our advisor’s entitlement to nonperformance-based compensation, including the minimum base management fee, might reduce its incentive to devote its time and effort to seeking investments that provide attractive risk-adjusted returns for our portfolio.

Conflicts of interest could result in our management acting other than in our stockholders’ best interest.

Conflicts of interest in general and specifically relating to Remington Lodging may lead to management decisions that are not in the stockholders’ best interest. The Chairman of our Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Monty J. Bennett, serves as the Chief Executive Officer of Remington Lodging and Mr. Archie Bennett, Jr., who is our Chairman Emeritus, serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Remington Lodging. Messrs. Archie and Monty J. Bennett beneficially own 100% of Remington Lodging, which, as of December 31, 2014, managed 55 of our 87 legacy properties, 21 of the 28 PIM Highland JV hotel properties and the WorldQuest condominium properties; and provides related services, including property management services and project management services.

Messrs. Archie and Monty J. Bennett’s ownership interests in and management obligations to Remington Lodging present them with conflicts of interest in making management decisions related to the commercial arrangements between us and Remington Lodging, and Mr. Monty J. Bennett's management obligations to Remington Lodging reduces the time and effort he spends managing Ashford. Our Board of Directors has adopted a policy that requires all material approvals, actions or decisions to which we have the right to make under the management agreements with Remington Lodging be approved by a majority or, in certain circumstances, all of our independent directors. However, given the authority and/or operational latitude to Remington Lodging under the management agreements to which we are a party, Messrs. Archie and Monty J. Bennett, as officers of Remington Lodging, could take actions or make decisions that are not in our stockholders’ best interest or that are otherwise inconsistent with their obligations under the management agreement or our obligations under the applicable franchise agreements.

Holders of units in our operating partnership, including members of our management team, may suffer adverse tax consequences upon our sale of certain properties. Therefore, holders of units, either directly or indirectly, including Messrs. Archie and Monty J. Bennett, Mr. David Brooks, our Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel, or Mr. Mark Nunneley, our Chief Accounting Officer, may have different objectives regarding the appropriate pricing and timing of a particular property’s sale. These officers and directors of ours may influence us to sell, not sell, or refinance certain properties, even if such actions or inactions might be financially advantageous to our stockholders, or to enter into tax deferred exchanges with the proceeds of such sales when such a reinvestment might not otherwise be in our best interest.

We are a party to a master hotel management agreement and an exclusivity agreement with Remington Lodging, which describes the terms of Remington Lodging’s services to our hotels, as well as any future hotels we may acquire that may or may not be managed by Remington Lodging. The exclusivity agreement requires us to engage Remington Lodging, unless our independent directors either (i) unanimously vote to hire a different manager or developer, or (ii) by a majority vote, elect not to engage Remington Lodging because they have determined that special circumstances exist or that, based on Remington Lodging’s prior performance, another manager or developer could perform the duties materially better. As the sole owners of Remington Lodging, which would receive any development, management, and management termination fees payable by us under the management agreement, Mr. Monty Bennett, and to a lesser extent, Mr. Archie Bennett, Jr., in his role as Chairman Emeritus, may influence our decisions to sell, acquire, or develop hotels when it is not in the best interests of our stockholders to do so.

Table of Contents

Remington’s ability to exercise significant influence over the determination of the competitive set for any hotels managed by Remington could artificially enhance the perception of the performance of a hotel, making it more difficult to use managers other than Remington for future properties.

Our mutual exclusivity agreement with Remington requires us to engage Remington to manage all future properties that we acquire, to the extent we have the right or control the right to direct such matters, unless our independent directors either (i) unanimously vote not to hire Remington or (ii) based on special circumstances or past performance, by a majority vote, elect not to engage Remington because they have determined, in their reasonable business judgment, that it would be in our best interest not to engage Remington or that another manager or developer could perform the duties materially better. Under our master management agreement with Remington, we have the right to terminate Remington based on the performance of the applicable hotel, subject to the payment of a termination fee. The determination of performance is based on the applicable hotel’s gross operating profit margin and its RevPAR penetration index, which provides the relative revenue per room generated by a specified property as compared to its competitive set. For each hotel managed by Remington, its competitive set will consist of a small group of hotels in the relevant market that we and Remington believe are comparable for purposes of benchmarking the performance of such hotel. Remington will have significant influence over the determination of the competitive set for any of our hotels managed by Remington, and as such could artificially enhance the perception of the performance of a hotel by selecting a competitive set that is not performing well or is not comparable to the Remington-managed hotel, thereby making it more difficult for us to elect not to use Remington for future hotel management.

Under the terms of our mutual exclusivity agreement with Remington, Remington may be able to pursue lodging investment opportunities that compete with us.

Pursuant to the terms of our mutual exclusivity agreement with Remington, if investment opportunities that satisfy our investment criteria are identified by Remington or its affiliates, Remington will give us a written notice and description of the investment opportunity. We will have 10 business days to either accept or reject the investment opportunity. If we reject the opportunity, Remington may then pursue such investment opportunity, subject to a right of first refusal in favor of Ashford Prime, pursuant to an existing agreement between Ashford Prime and Remington, on materially the same terms and conditions as offered to us. If we were to reject such an investment opportunity, either Ashford Prime or Remington could pursue the opportunity and compete with us. In such a case, Mr. Monty J. Bennett, our chief executive officer and chairman, in his capacity as chairman and chief executive officer of Ashford Prime or Remington could be in a position of directly competing with us.

Our fiduciary duties as the general partner of our operating partnership could create conflicts of interest, which may impede business decisions that could benefit our stockholders.

We, as the general partner of our operating partnership, have fiduciary duties to the other limited partners in our operating partnership, the discharge of which may conflict with the interests of our stockholders. The limited partners of our operating partnership have agreed that, in the event of a conflict in the fiduciary duties owed by us to our stockholders and, in our capacity as general partner of our operating partnership, to such limited partners, we are under no obligation to give priority to the interests of such limited partners. In addition, those persons holding common units will have the right to vote on certain amendments to the operating partnership agreement (which require approval by a majority in interest of the limited partners, including us) and individually to approve certain amendments that would adversely affect their rights. These voting rights may be exercised in a manner that conflicts with the interests of our stockholders. For example, we are unable to modify the rights of limited partners to receive distributions as set forth in the operating partnership agreement in a manner that adversely affects their rights without their consent, even though such modification might be in the best interest of our stockholders.

In addition, conflicts may arise when the interests of our stockholders and the limited partners of our operating partnership diverge, particularly in circumstances in which there may be an adverse tax consequence to the limited partners. Tax consequences to holders of common units upon a sale or refinancing of our properties may cause the interests of the key employees of our advisor (who are also our executive officers and have ownership interests in our operating partnership) to differ from our stockholders.

Our conflicts of interest policy may not adequately address all of the conflicts of interest that may arise with respect to our activities.

In order to avoid any actual or perceived conflicts of interest with our directors or officers or our advisor’s employees, we adopted a conflicts of interest policy to address specifically some of the conflicts relating to our activities. Although under this policy the approval of a majority of our disinterested directors is required to approve any transaction, agreement or relationship in which any of our directors or officers or our advisor or its has an interest, there is no assurance that this policy will be adequate to address all of the conflicts that may arise or will address such conflicts in a manner that is favorable to us.

Table of Contents

RISKS RELATED TO DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS AND INVESTMENTS IN MARKETABLE SECURITIES AND OTHER AREAS

We have engaged in and may continue to engage in derivative transactions, which can limit our gains and expose us to losses.

We have entered into and may continue to enter into hedging transactions to (i) attempt to take advantage of changes in prevailing interest rates, (ii) protect our portfolio of mortgage assets from interest rate fluctuations, (iii) protect us from the effects of interest rate fluctuations on floating-rate debt, (iv) protect us from the risk of fluctuations in the financial and capital markets, or (v) preserve net cash in the event of a major downturn in the economy. Our hedging transactions may include entering into interest rate swap agreements, interest rate cap or floor agreements or flooridor and corridor agreements, credit default swaps and purchasing or selling futures contracts, purchasing or selling put and call options on securities or securities underlying futures contracts, or entering into forward rate agreements. Hedging activities may not have the desired beneficial impact on our results of operations or financial condition. Volatile fluctuations in market conditions could cause these instruments to become ineffective. Any gains or losses associated with these instruments are reported in our earnings each period. No hedging activity can completely insulate us from the risks inherent in our business.

Credit default hedging could fail to protect us or adversely affect us because if a swap counterparty cannot perform under the terms of our credit default swap, we may not receive payments due under such agreement and, thus, we may lose any potential benefit associated with such credit default swap. Additionally, we may also risk the loss of any collateral we have pledged to secure our obligations under such credit default swaps if the counterparty becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy.

Moreover, interest rate hedging could fail to protect us or adversely affect us because, among other things:


•	available interest rate hedging may not correspond directly with the interest rate risk for which protections is sought;


•	the duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related liability;


•	the party owing money in the hedging transaction may default on its obligation to pay;


•	the credit quality of the party owing money on the hedge may be downgraded to such an extent that it impairs our ability to sell or assign our side of the hedging transaction; and


•	the value of derivatives used for hedging may be adjusted from time to time in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") to reflect changes in fair value and such downward adjustments, or “mark-to-market loss,” would reduce our stockholders’ equity.

Hedging involves both risks and costs, including transaction costs, which may reduce our overall returns on our investments. These costs increase as the period covered by the hedging relationship increases and during periods of rising and volatile interest rates. These costs will also limit the amount of cash available for distributions to stockholders. We generally intend to hedge to the extent management determines it is in our best interest given the cost of such hedging transactions as compared to the potential economic returns or protections offered. The REIT qualification rules may limit our ability to enter into hedging transactions by requiring us to limit our income and assets from hedges. If we are unable to hedge effectively because of the REIT rules, we will face greater interest rate exposure than may be commercially prudent.

The assets associated with certain of our derivative transactions do not constitute qualified REIT assets and the related income will not constitute qualified REIT income. Significant fluctuations in the value of such assets or the related income could jeopardize our REIT status or result in additional tax liabilities.

We have entered into certain derivative transactions to protect against interest rate risks and credit default risks not specifically associated with debt incurred to acquire qualified REIT assets. The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code limit our income and assets in each year from such derivative transactions. Failure to comply with the asset or income limitation within the REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue could result in penalty taxes or loss of our REIT status. If we elect to contribute the non-qualifying derivatives into a taxable REIT subsidiary to preserve our REIT status, such an action would result in any income from such transactions being subject to federal income taxation.

Our prior investment performance is not indicative of future results.

The performance of our prior investments is not necessarily indicative of the results that can be expected for the investments to be made by our newly-formed investment subsidiary. On any given investment, total loss of the investment is possible. Although our management team has experience and has had success in making investments in real estate-related lodging debt and hotel assets, the past performance of these investments is not necessarily indicative of the results of our future investments.

Table of Contents

Our investment portfolio will contain investments concentrated in a single industry and will not be fully diversified.

Our investment subsidiary was formed for the primary purpose of acquiring public securities and other investments of lodging-related entities. As such, our investment portfolio will contain investments concentrated in a single industry and may not be fully diversified by asset class, geographic region or other criteria, which will expose us to significant loss due to concentration risk. Investors have no assurance that the degree of diversification in our investment portfolio will increase at any time in the future.

The values of our investments are affected by the U.S. credit and financial markets and, as such, may fluctuate.

The U.S. credit and financial markets have recently experienced severe dislocations and liquidity disruptions. The values of our investments are likely to be sensitive to the volatility of the U.S. credit and financial markets, and, to the extent that turmoil in the U.S. credit and financial markets continues or intensifies, such volatility has the potential to materially affect the value of our investment portfolio.

We are subject to the risk of default or insolvency by the hospitality entities underlying our investments.

The leveraged capital structure of the hospitality entities underlying our investments will increase their exposure to adverse economic factors (such as rising interest rates, competitive pressures, downturns in the economy or deterioration in the condition of the real estate industry) and to the risk of unforeseen events. If an underlying entity cannot generate adequate cash flow to meet such entity’s debt obligations (which may include leveraged obligations in excess of its aggregate assets), it may default on its loan agreements or be forced into bankruptcy. As a result, we may suffer a partial or total loss of the capital we have invested in the securities and other investments of such entity.

The derivatives provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and related rules could have an adverse effect on our ability to use derivative instruments to reduce the negative effect of interest rate fluctuations on our results of operations and liquidity, credit default risks and other risks associated with our business.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) establishes federal oversight and regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and entities, including us, that participate in that market. As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”), the SEC and other regulators have adopted certain rules implementing the swaps regulatory provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and are in the process of adopting other rules to implement those provisions. Numerous provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and the CFTC’s rules relating to derivatives that qualify as “swaps” thereunder apply or may apply to the derivatives to which we are or may become a counterparty. Under such statutory provisions and the CFTC’s rules, we must clear on a designated clearing organization any over-the-counter swap we enter into that is within a class of swaps designated for clearing by CFTC rule and execute trades in such cleared swap on an exchange if the swap is accepted for trading on the exchange unless such swap is exempt from such mandatory clearing and trade execution requirements. We may qualify for and intend to elect the end-user exception from those requirements for swaps we enter to hedge our commercial risks and that are subject to the mandatory clearing and trade execution requirements. If we are required to clear or voluntarily elect to clear any swaps we enter into, those swaps will be governed by standardized agreements and we will have to post margin with respect to such swaps. To date, the CFTC has designated only certain types of interest rate swaps and credit default swaps for clearing and trade execution. Although we believe that none of the interest rate swaps and credit default swaps to which we are currently party fall within those designated types of swaps, we may enter into swaps in the future that will be subject to the mandatory clearing and trade execution requirements and subject to the risks described.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires banking regulators and the CFTC to adopt new rules requiring the posting of margin with respect to uncleared swaps. Although the final rules have not been adopted, under the rules as currently proposed by the banking regulators that will govern the financial institutions they regulate, we would be required to post initial and variation margin with respect to any swap we enter into with such a financial institution after our counterparty’s date for compliance with such margin rules. The CFTC’s rules, as currently proposed, would not require us to post margin with respect to any uncleared swaps we enter into with any counterparty that is a “swap dealer” or “major swap participant” (as defined in the Dodd-Frank Act and the CFTC’s rules) and is not a financial institution regulated by such banking regulators.

The Dodd-Frank Act may also require the counterparties to our derivative instruments to spin off some of their derivatives activities to separate entities, which may not be as creditworthy as the current counterparties to our derivatives.

Numerous rules implementing the swaps-related provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act remain to be adopted, and the CFTC has, from time to time, issued and may in the future issue interpretations and no-action letters interpreting, and clarifying the application of, those provisions and the related rules or delaying compliance with those provisions and rules. . As a result, it is not possible at this time to predict with certainty the full effects of the Dodd-Frank Act and CFTC rules on us and the timing of such effects.

Table of Contents

The Dodd-Frank Act and the rules adopted thereunder could significantly increase the cost of derivative contracts (including from swap recordkeeping and reporting requirements and through requirements to post margin with respect to our swaps, which could adversely affect our available liquidity), materially alter the terms of derivative contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against risks we encounter, reduce our ability to monetize or restructure our existing derivative contracts, and increase our exposure to less creditworthy counterparties. If we reduce our use of derivatives as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and the related rules, our results of operations may become more volatile and our cash flows may be less predictable, which could adversely affect our ability to plan for and fund capital expenditures and to pay dividends to our shareholders. Any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

RISKS RELATED TO INVESTMENTS IN SECURITIES, MORTGAGES AND MEZZANINE LOANS

Our earnings are dependent, in part, upon the performance of our investment portfolio.

To the extent permitted by the Code, we may invest in and own securities of other public companies and REITs (including Ashford Inc. and Ashford Prime). To the extent that the value of those investments declines or those investments do not provide an attractive return, our earnings and cash flow could be adversely affected.

Debt investments that are not United States government insured involve risk of loss.

As part of our business strategy, we may originate or acquire lodging-related uninsured and mortgage assets, including mezzanine loans. While holding these interests, we are subject to risks of borrower defaults, bankruptcies, fraud and related losses, and special hazard losses that are not covered by standard hazard insurance. Also, costs of financing the mortgage loans could exceed returns on the mortgage loans. In the event of any default under mortgage loans held by us, we will bear the risk of loss of principal and non-payment of interest and fees to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the mortgage collateral and the principal amount of the mortgage loan. We suffered significant impairment charges with respect to our investments in mortgage loans in 2009 and 2010. We may incur similar losses in the future for the remaining mezzanine loan of $3.6 million at December 31, 2014. The value and the price of our securities may be adversely affected.

We may invest in non-recourse loans, which will limit our recovery to the value of the mortgaged property.

Our mortgage and mezzanine loan assets have typically been non-recourse. With respect to non-recourse mortgage loan assets, in the event of a borrower default, the specific mortgaged property and other assets, if any, pledged to secure the relevant mortgage loan, may be less than the amount owed under the mortgage loan. As to those mortgage loan assets that provide for recourse against the borrower and its assets generally, we cannot assure you that the recourse will provide a recovery in respect of a defaulted mortgage loan greater than the liquidation value of the mortgaged property securing that mortgage loan.

Investment yields affect our decision whether to originate or purchase investments and the price offered for such investments.

In making any investment, we consider the expected yield of the investment and the factors that may influence the yield actually obtained on such investment. These considerations affect our decision whether to originate or purchase an investment and the price offered for that investment. No assurances can be given that we can make an accurate assessment of the yield to be produced by an investment. Many factors beyond our control are likely to influence the yield on the investments, including, but not limited to, competitive conditions in the local real estate market, local and general economic conditions, and the quality of management of the underlying property. Our inability to accurately assess investment yields may result in our purchasing assets that do not perform as well as expected, which may adversely affect the price of our securities.

Volatility of values of mortgaged properties may adversely affect our mortgage loans.

Lodging property values and net operating income derived from lodging properties are subject to volatility and may be affected adversely by a number of factors, including the risk factors described herein relating to general economic conditions, operating lodging properties, and owning real estate investments. In the event its net operating income decreases, one of our borrowers may have difficulty paying our mortgage loan, which could result in losses to us. In addition, decreases in property values will reduce the value of the collateral and the potential proceeds available to our borrowers to repay our mortgage loans, which could also cause us to suffer losses.

Mezzanine loans involve greater risks of loss than senior loans secured by income-producing properties.

We may continue to make and acquire mezzanine loans. These types of loans are considered to involve a higher degree of risk than long-term senior mortgage lending secured by income-producing real property due to a variety of factors, including the loan being entirely unsecured or, if secured, becoming unsecured as a result of foreclosure by the senior lender. We may not recover some or all of our investment in these loans. In addition, mezzanine loans may have higher loan-to-value ratios than conventional mortgage loans resulting in less equity in the property and increasing the risk of loss of principal.

Table of Contents

RISKS RELATED TO THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY

Illiquidity of real estate investments could significantly impede our ability to respond to adverse changes in the performance of our hotel properties and harm our financial condition.

Because real estate investments are relatively illiquid, our ability to sell promptly one or more hotel properties or mortgage loans in our portfolio for reasonable prices in response to changing economic, financial, and investment conditions is limited.

The real estate market is affected by many factors that are beyond our control, including:


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


•	changes in interest rates and in the availability, cost, and terms of debt financing;


•	the ongoing need for capital improvements, particularly in older structures;


•	changes in operating expenses; and


•	civil unrest, acts of war or terrorism, and acts of God, including earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters, which may result in uninsured and underinsured losses.

We may decide to sell hotel properties or loans in the future. We cannot predict whether we will be able to sell any hotel property or loan for the price or on the terms set by us, or whether any price or other terms offered by a prospective purchaser would be acceptable to us. We also cannot predict the length of time needed to find a willing purchaser and to close the sale of a hotel property or loan. Because we intend to offer more flexible terms on our mortgage loans than some providers of commercial mortgage loans, we may have more difficulty selling or participating our loans to secondary purchasers than would these more traditional lenders.

We may be required to expend funds to correct defects or to make improvements before a property can be sold. We cannot assure you that we will have funds available to correct those defects or to make those improvements. In acquiring a hotel property, we may agree to lock-out provisions that materially restrict us from selling that property for a period of time or impose other restrictions, such as a limitation on the amount of debt that can be placed or repaid on that property. These and other factors could impede our ability to respond to adverse changes in the performance of our hotel properties or a need for liquidity.

Increases in property taxes would increase our operating costs, reduce our income and adversely affect our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Each of our hotel properties will be subject to real and personal property taxes. These taxes may increase as tax rates change and as the properties are assessed or reassessed by taxing authorities. If property taxes increase, our financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially and adversely affected and the market price of our common stock could decline.

The costs of compliance with or liabilities under environmental laws may harm our operating results.

Operating expenses at our hotels could be higher than anticipated due to the cost of complying with existing or future environmental laws and regulations. In addition, our hotel properties and properties underlying our loan assets may be subject to environmental liabilities. An owner of real property, or a lender with respect to a property that exercises control over the property, can face liability for environmental contamination created by the presence or discharge of hazardous substances on the property. We may face liability regardless of:


•	our knowledge of the contamination;


•	the timing of the contamination;


•	the cause of the contamination; or


•	the party responsible for the contamination.

There may be environmental problems associated with our hotel properties or properties underlying our loan assets of which we are unaware. Some of our hotel properties or the properties underlying our loan assets use, or may have used in the past, underground tanks for the storage of petroleum-based or waste products that could create a potential for release of hazardous substances. If environmental contamination exists on a hotel property, we could become subject to strict, joint and several liabilities for the contamination if we own the property or if we foreclose on the property or otherwise have control over the property.

Table of Contents

The presence of hazardous substances on a property we own or have made a loan with respect to may adversely affect our ability to sell, on favorable terms or at all, or foreclose on the property, and we may incur substantial remediation costs. The discovery of material environmental liabilities at our properties or properties underlying our loan assets could subject us to unanticipated significant costs.

We generally have environmental insurance policies on each of our owned properties, and we intend to obtain environmental insurance for any other properties that we may acquire. However, if environmental liabilities are discovered during the underwriting of the insurance policies for any property that we may acquire in the future, we may be unable to obtain insurance coverage for the liabilities at commercially reasonable rates or at all, and we may experience losses. In addition, we generally do not require our borrowers to obtain environmental insurance on the properties they own that secure their loans from us.

Numerous treaties, laws and regulations have been enacted to regulate or limit carbon emissions. Changes in the regulations and legislation relating to climate change, and complying with such laws and regulations, may require us to make significant investments in our hotels and could result in increased energy costs at our properties.

Our properties and the properties underlying our mortgage loans may contain or develop harmful mold, which could lead to liability for adverse health effects and costs of remediating the problem.

When excessive moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials, mold growth may occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or is not addressed over a period of time. Some molds may produce airborne toxins or irritants. Concern about indoor exposure to mold has been increasing as exposure to mold may cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic or other reactions. Some of the properties in our portfolio may contain microbial matter such as mold and mildew. As a result, the presence of significant mold at any of our properties or the properties underlying our loan assets could require us or our borrowers to undertake a costly remediation program to contain or remove the mold from the affected property. In addition, the presence of significant mold could expose us or our borrowers to liability from hotel guests, hotel employees, and others if property damage or health concerns arise.

Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and fire, safety, and other regulations may require us or our borrowers to incur substantial costs.

All of our properties and properties underlying our mortgage loans are required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (the “ADA”). The ADA requires that “public accommodations” such as hotels be made accessible to people with disabilities. Compliance with the ADA’s requirements could require removal of access barriers and non-compliance could result in imposition of fines by the U.S. government or an award of damages to private litigants, or both. In addition, we and our borrowers are required to operate our properties in compliance with fire and safety regulations, building codes, and other land use regulations as they may be adopted by governmental agencies and bodies and become applicable to our properties. Any requirement to make substantial modifications to our hotel properties, whether to comply with the ADA or other changes in governmental rules and regulations, could be costly.

We may obtain only limited warranties when we purchase a property and would have only limited recourse if our due diligence did not identify any issues that lower the value of our property, which could adversely affect our financial condition and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

The seller of a property may sell such property in its “as is” condition on a “where is” basis and “with all faults,” without any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular use or purpose. In addition, purchase agreements may contain only limited warranties, representations and indemnifications that will only survive for a limited period after the closing. The purchase of properties with limited warranties increases the risk that we may lose some or all our invested capital in the property as well as the loss of income from that property.

We may experience uninsured or underinsured losses.

We have property and casualty insurance with respect to our hotel properties and other insurance, in each case, with loss limits and coverage thresholds deemed reasonable by our management team (and with the intent to satisfy the requirements of lenders and franchisors). In doing so, we have made decisions with respect to what deductibles, policy limits, and terms are reasonable based on management’s experience, our risk profile, the loss history of our property managers and our properties, the nature of our properties and our businesses, our loss prevention efforts, and the cost of insurance.

Table of Contents

Various types of catastrophic losses may not be insurable or may not be economically insurable. In the event of a substantial loss, our insurance coverage may not cover the full current market value or replacement cost of our lost investment. Inflation, changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations, and other factors might cause insurance proceeds to be insufficient to fully replace or renovate a hotel after it has been damaged or destroyed. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that:


•	the insurance coverage thresholds that we have obtained will fully protect us against insurable losses (i.e., losses may exceed coverage limits);


•	we will not incur large deductibles that will adversely affect our earnings;


•	we will not incur losses from risks that are not insurable or that are not economically insurable; or


•	current coverage thresholds will continue to be available at reasonable rates.

In the future, we may choose not to maintain terrorism insurance on any of our properties. As a result, one or more large uninsured or underinsured losses could have a material adverse effect on us.

Each of our current lenders requires us to maintain certain insurance coverage thresholds, and we anticipate that future lenders will have similar requirements. We believe that we have complied with the insurance maintenance requirements under the current governing loan documents and we intend to comply with any such requirements in any future loan documents. However, a lender may disagree, in which case the lender could obtain additional coverage thresholds and seek payment from us, or declare us in default under the loan documents. In the former case, we could spend more for insurance than we otherwise deem reasonable or necessary or, in the latter case, subject us to a foreclosure on hotels collateralizing one or more loans. In addition, a material casualty to one or more hotels collateralizing loans may result in the insurance company applying to the outstanding loan balance insurance proceeds that otherwise would be available to repair the damage caused by the casualty, which would require us to fund the repairs through other sources, or the lender foreclosing on the hotels if there is a material loss that is not insured.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR STATUS AS A REIT

If we do not qualify as a REIT, we will be subject to tax as a regular corporation and could face substantial tax liability.

We conduct operations so as to qualify as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code. However, qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Internal Revenue Code provisions for which only a limited number of judicial or administrative interpretations exist. Even a technical or inadvertent mistake could jeopardize our REIT status. Due to the gain we recognized as a result of the spin-off of Ashford Prime, if Ashford Prime were to fail to qualify as a REIT for 2013, we may fail to qualify as a REIT for 2013. Furthermore, new tax legislation, administrative guidance, or court decisions, in each instance potentially with retroactive effect, could make it more difficult or impossible for us to qualify as a REIT. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any tax year, then:


•	we would be taxed as a regular domestic corporation, which, among other things, means being unable to deduct distributions to our stockholders in computing taxable income and being subject to federal income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates;


•	we would also be subject to federal alternative minimum tax and, possibly, increased state and local taxes;


•	any resulting tax liability could be substantial and would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to stockholders; and


•	unless we were entitled to relief under applicable statutory provisions, we would be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the subsequent four taxable years following the year that we lost our qualification, and, thus, our cash available for distribution to stockholders could be reduced for each of the years during which we did not qualify as a REIT.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT, we will not be required to make distributions to stockholders to maintain our tax status. As a result of all of these factors, our failure to qualify as a REIT could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, and make distributions to our stockholders and could adversely affect the value of our securities.

Table of Contents

Even if we qualify and remain qualified as a REIT, we may face other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow.

Even if we qualify and remain qualified for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain federal, state, and local taxes on our income and assets. For example:


•	We will be required to pay tax on undistributed REIT taxable income.


•	We may be required to pay the “alternative minimum tax” on our items of tax preference.


•	If we have net income from the disposition of foreclosure property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business or other non-qualifying income from foreclosure property, we must pay tax on that income at the highest corporate rate.


•	If we sell a property in a “prohibited transaction,” our gain from the sale would be subject to a 100% penalty tax.


•	Each of our taxable REIT subsidiaries is a fully taxable corporation and will be subject to federal and state taxes on its income.

•

We may continue to experience increases in our state and local income tax burden. Over the past several years, certain state and local taxing authorities have significantly changed their income tax regimes in order to raise revenues. The changes enacted that have increased our state and local income tax burden include the taxation of modified gross receipts (as opposed to net taxable income), the suspension of and/or limitation on the use of net operating loss deduction, increases in tax rates and fees, the addition of surcharges, and the taxation of our partnership income at the entity level. Facing mounting budget deficits, more state and local taxing authorities have indicated that they are going to revise their income tax regimes in this fashion and/or eliminate certain federally allowed tax deductions such as the REIT dividends paid deduction.

Failure to make required distributions would subject us to U.S. federal corporate income tax.

We operate in a manner so as to allow us to continue to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In order to continue to qualify as a REIT, we generally are required to distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding any net capital gain, each year to our stockholders. To the extent that we satisfy this distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, we will be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that we pay out to our stockholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under the Code.

Our TRS lessee structure increases our overall tax liability.

Our TRS lessees are subject to federal, state and local income tax on their taxable income, which consists of the revenues from the hotel properties leased by our TRS lessees, net of the operating expenses for such hotel properties and rent payments to us. Accordingly, although our ownership of our TRS lessees allows us to participate in the operating income from our hotel properties in addition to receiving fixed rent, the net operating income is fully subject to income tax. The after-tax net income of our TRS lessees is available for distribution to us.

We may be subject to taxes in the event our leases are held not to be on an arm’s-length basis.

In the event that leases between us and our taxable REIT subsidiaries are held not to be on an arm’s-length basis, we or our taxable REIT subsidiaries could be subject to taxes, and adjustments to the rents could cause us to fail to meet certain REIT income tests. In determining amounts payable by our taxable REIT subsidiaries under our leases, we engage a third party to prepare transfer pricing studies to ascertain whether the lease terms we establish are on an arm’s-length basis, but we may still be subject to challenge by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).

In addition, if the IRS were to successfully challenge the terms of our leases with any of our taxable REIT subsidiaries for 2011 and later years, we or our taxable REIT subsidiaries could owe additional taxes and we could be required to pay penalty taxes if the effect of such challenges were to cause us to fail to meet certain REIT income tests, which could materially adversely affect us and the value of our securities.

Table of Contents

Our ownership of TRSs is limited and our transactions with our TRSs will cause us to be subject to a 100% penalty tax on certain income or deductions if those transactions are not conducted on arm’s-length terms.

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

Our TRSs are subject to federal, foreign, state and local income tax on their taxable income, and their after-tax net income is available for distribution to us but is not required to be distributed to us. We believe that the aggregate value of the stock and securities of our TRSs is less than 25% of the value of our total assets (including our TRS stock and securities).

We monitor the value of our respective investments in our TRSs for the purpose of ensuring compliance with TRS ownership limitations. In addition, we scrutinize all of our transactions with our TRSs to ensure that they are entered into on arm’s-length terms to avoid incurring the 100% excise tax described above. For example, in determining the amounts payable by our TRSs under our leases, we engage a third party to prepare transfer pricing studies to ascertain whether the lease terms we establish are on an arm’s-length basis as required by applicable Treasury Regulations. However the receipt of a transfer pricing study does not prevent the IRS from challenging the arm’s length nature of the lease terms between a REIT and its TRS lessees. Consequently, there can be no assurance that we will be able to avoid application of the 100% excise tax discussed above.

If our hotel managers do not qualify as “eligible independent contractors,” we would fail to qualify as a REIT.

Rent paid by a lessee that is a “related party tenant” of ours is not qualifying income for purposes of the two gross income tests applicable to REITs. We lease all of our hotels to our TRS lessees. A TRS lessee will not be treated as a “related party tenant,” and will not be treated as directly operating a lodging facility, which is prohibited, to the extent the TRS lessee leases properties from us that are managed by an “eligible independent contractor.”

We believe that the rent paid by our TRS lessees is qualifying income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests and that our TRSs qualify to be treated as TRSs for U.S. federal income tax purposes, but there can be no assurance that the IRS will not challenge this treatment or that a court would not sustain such a challenge. If the IRS were successful in challenging this treatment, it is possible that we would fail to meet the asset tests applicable to REITs and substantially all of our income would fail to qualify for the gross income tests. If we failed to meet either the asset or gross income tests, we would likely lose our REIT qualification for U.S. federal income tax purposes, unless certain relief provisions applied.

If our hotel managers do not qualify as “eligible independent contractors,” we would fail to qualify as a REIT. Each of the hotel management companies that enters into a management contract with our TRS lessees must qualify as an “eligible independent contractor” under the REIT rules in order for the rent paid to us by our TRS lessees to be qualifying income for our REIT income test requirements. Among other requirements, in order to qualify as an eligible independent contractor a manager must not own more than 35% of our outstanding shares (by value) and no person or group of persons can own more than 35% of our outstanding shares and the ownership interests of the manager, taking into account only owners of more than 5% of our shares and, with respect to ownership interests in such managers that are publicly-traded, only holders of more than 5% of such ownership interests. Complex ownership attribution rules apply for purposes of these 35% thresholds. Although we intend to monitor ownership of our shares by our property managers and their owners, there can be no assurance that these ownership levels will not be exceeded.

Dividends payable by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates available for some dividends.

The maximum U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to “qualified dividend income” payable to U.S. stockholders that are taxed at individual rates is 20%. Dividends payable by REITs, however, generally are not eligible for the reduced rates on qualified dividend income. Individuals, trusts and estates whose income exceeds certain thresholds are also subject to a 3.8% Medicare tax on dividends received from us. The more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate qualified dividends could cause investors who are taxed at individual rates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the shares of REITs, including our common stock.

Table of Contents

If our operating partnership failed to qualify as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, we would cease to qualify as a REIT and would be subject to higher taxes and have less cash available for distribution to our stockholders and suffer other adverse consequences.

We believe that our operating partnership qualifies to be treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. As a partnership, our operating partnership is not subject to federal income tax on its income. Instead, each of its partners, including us, is required to pay tax on its allocable share of the operating partnership's income. No assurance can be provided, however, that the IRS will not challenge its status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, or that a court would not sustain such a challenge. If the IRS were successful in treating our operating partnership as a corporation for tax purposes, we would fail to meet the gross income tests and certain of the asset tests applicable to REITs and, accordingly, cease to qualify as a REIT. Also, the failure of our operating partnership to qualify as a partnership would cause it to become subject to federal and state corporate income tax, which would reduce significantly the amount of cash available for debt service and for distribution to its partners, including us.

Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forego otherwise attractive opportunities.

To qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders, and the ownership of our stock. We may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. We may elect to pay dividends on our common stock in cash or a combination of cash and shares of securities as permitted under federal income tax laws governing REIT distribution requirements. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to operate solely on the basis of maximizing profits.

Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively.

The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code may limit our ability to hedge mortgage securities and related borrowings by requiring us to limit our income and assets in each year from certain hedges, together with any other income not generated from qualified real estate assets, to no more than 25% of our gross income. In addition, we must limit our aggregate income from nonqualified hedging transactions, from our provision of services, and from other non-qualifying sources to no more than 5% of our annual gross income. As a result, we may have to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques. This could result in greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to incur. However, for transactions that we enter into to protect against interest rate risks on debt incurred to acquire qualified REIT assets and for which we identify as hedges for tax purposes, any associated hedging income is excluded from the 95% income test and the 75% income test applicable to a REIT. If we were to violate the 25% or 5% limitations, we may have to pay a penalty tax equal to the amount of income in excess of those limitations multiplied by a fraction intended to reflect our profitability. If we fail to satisfy the REIT gross income tests, unless our failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, we could lose our REIT status for federal income tax purposes.

Complying with REIT requirements may force us to liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

To qualify as a REIT, we must also ensure that at the end of each calendar quarter at least 75% of the value of our assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities, and qualified REIT real estate assets. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 25% of the value of our total assets can be represented by securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries. If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we must correct such failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter to avoid losing our REIT status and suffer adverse tax consequences. As a result, we may be required to liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

Complying with REIT requirements may force us to borrow to make distributions to our stockholders.

As a REIT, we must distribute at least 90% of our annual REIT taxable income, excluding net capital gains, (subject to certain adjustments) to our stockholders. To the extent that we satisfy the distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to federal corporate income tax on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that we pay out to our stockholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under federal tax laws.

Table of Contents

From time to time, we may generate taxable income greater than our net income for financial reporting purposes or our taxable income may be greater than our cash flow available for distribution to our stockholders. If we do not have other funds available in these situations, we could be required to borrow funds, sell investments at disadvantageous prices, or find another alternative source of funds to make distributions sufficient to enable us to pay out enough of our taxable income to satisfy the distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the 4% excise tax in a particular year. These alternatives could increase our costs or reduce our equity. We may elect to pay dividends on our common stock in cash or a combination of cash and shares of securities as permitted under federal income tax laws governing REIT distribution requirements.

We may in the future choose to pay dividends in our shares of our common stock instead of cash, in which case stockholders may be required to pay income taxes in excess of the cash dividends they receive.

We may distribute taxable dividends that are payable in cash and common stock at the election of each stockholder. The IRS has issued private letter rulings to other REITs treating certain distributions that are paid partly in cash and partly in stock as taxable dividends that would satisfy the REIT annual distribution requirement and qualify for the dividends paid deduction for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Those rulings may be relied upon only by taxpayers to whom they were issued, but we could request a similar ruling from the IRS. Accordingly, it is unclear whether and to what extent we will be able to make taxable dividends payable in cash and common stock.

If we made a taxable dividend payable in cash and common stock, taxable stockholders receiving such dividends will be required to include the full amount of the dividend as ordinary income to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits, as determined for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result, stockholders may be required to pay income taxes with respect to such dividends in excess of the cash dividends received. If a U.S. stockholder sells the shares of common stock that it receives as a dividend in order to pay this tax, the sales proceeds may be less than the amount included in income with respect to the dividend, depending on the market price of our shares at the time of the sale. Furthermore, with respect to certain non-U.S. stockholders, we may be required to withhold U.S. federal income tax with respect to such dividends, including in respect of all or a portion of such dividend that is payable in shares of common stock. In addition, if we made a taxable dividend payable in cash and our common stock and a significant number of our stockholders determine to sell shares of our common stock in order to pay taxes owed on dividends, it may put downward pressure on the trading price of our common stock. We do not currently intend to pay taxable dividends of our common stock and cash, although we may choose to do so in the future.

The prohibited transactions tax may limit our ability to dispose of our properties.

A REIT’s net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property, other than foreclosure property, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We may be subject to the prohibited transaction tax equal to 100% of net gain upon a disposition of real property. Although a safe harbor to the characterization of the sale of real property by a REIT as a prohibited transaction is available, we cannot assure you that we can comply with the safe harbor or that we will avoid owning property that may be characterized as held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. Consequently, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of our properties or may conduct such sales through our TRS, which would be subject to federal and state income taxation.

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

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

We may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory tax changes that could reduce the market price of our securities.

At any time, the federal income tax laws governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws may be amended. Any of those new laws or interpretations may take effect retroactively and could adversely affect us or our stockholders. The maximum regular income tax rate applicable to individuals on dividend income from regular C corporations is 20%. This reduces substantially the so-called “double taxation” (that is, taxation at both the corporate and stockholder levels) applicable to corporations that are not taxed as REITs. Generally, dividends from REITs will not qualify for such maximum rate, and dividends from REITs may be taxed at regular income tax rates as great as 39.6%. This difference in maximum tax rates could ultimately cause individual investors to view stocks of non-REIT corporations as more attractive relative to shares of REITs because the dividends paid by non-REIT corporations would be subject to lower tax rates. We cannot predict whether in fact this will occur or, if it occurs, what the impact will be on the value of our securities.

Table of Contents

If Ashford Prime failed to qualify as a REIT for 2013, it would significantly affect our ability to maintain our REIT status.

For federal income tax purposes, we recorded a gain of approximately $145.7 million as a result of the spin-off of Ashford Prime in November 2013. If Ashford Prime qualified for taxation as REIT for 2013, that gain was qualifying income for purposes of our 2013 REIT income tests. If, however, Ashford Prime failed to qualify as a REIT for 2013, that gain would be non-qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test. Although Ashford Prime covenanted in the Separation and Distribution Agreement to use reasonable best efforts to qualify as a REIT in 2013, no assurance can be given that it so qualified. If Ashford Prime failed to qualify, we would have failed our 2013 REIT income tests, which would either result in our loss of our REIT status for 2013 and the following 4 taxable years or result in a significant tax in 2013 that has not been accrued or paid and thereby would materially negatively impact our business, financial condition and potentially impair our ability to continue operating in the future.

Your investment in our securities has various federal, state, and local income tax risks that could affect the value of your investment.

We strongly urge you to consult your own tax advisor concerning the effects of federal, state, and local income tax law on an investment in our securities because of the complex nature of the tax rules applicable to REITs and their stockholders.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR CORPORATE STRUCTURE

Our charter, the partnership agreement of our operating partnership and Maryland law contain provisions that may delay or prevent a change of control transaction.

Our charter contains 9.8% ownership limits. For the purpose of preserving our REIT qualification, our charter prohibits direct or constructive ownership by any person of more than (i) 9.8% of the lesser of the total number or value (whichever is more restrictive) of the outstanding shares of our common stock or (ii) 9.8% of the total number or value (whichever is more restrictive) of the outstanding shares of any class or series of our preferred stock or any other stock of our company, unless our board of directors grants a waiver.

Our charter’s constructive ownership rules are complex and may cause stock owned actually or constructively by a group of related individuals and/or entities to be deemed to be constructively owned by one individual or entity. As a result, the acquisition of less than 9.8% of any class or series of our stock by an individual or entity could nevertheless cause that individual or entity to own constructively in excess of 9.8% of a class or series of outstanding stock, and thus be subject to our charter’s ownership limit. Any attempt to own or transfer shares of our stock in excess of the ownership limit without the consent of our board of directors will be void, and could result in the shares being automatically transferred to a charitable trust.

Our board of directors may create and issue a class or series of preferred stock without stockholder approval.

Our charter authorizes our board of directors to issue preferred stock in one or more classes and to establish the preferences and rights of any class of preferred stock issued. These actions can be taken without soliciting stockholder approval. Our preferred stock issuances could have the effect of delaying or preventing someone from taking control of us, even if a change in control were in our stockholders’ best interests.

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

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


•	redemption rights of qualifying parties;


•	transfer restrictions on our common units;


•	the ability of the general partner in some cases to amend the partnership agreement without the consent of the limited partners; and


•	the right of the limited partners to consent to transfers of the general partnership interest and mergers under specified circumstances.

Table of Contents

Because provisions contained in Maryland law and our charter may have an anti-takeover effect, investors may be prevented from receiving a “control premium” for their shares.

Provisions contained in our charter and Maryland general corporation law may have effects that delay, defer, or prevent a takeover attempt, which may prevent stockholders from receiving a “control premium” for their shares. For example, these provisions may defer or prevent tender offers for our common stock or purchases of large blocks of our common stock, thereby limiting the opportunities for our stockholders to receive a premium for their common stock over then-prevailing market prices.

These provisions include the following:


•	Ownership limit: The ownership limit in our charter limits related investors, including, among other things, any voting group, from acquiring over 9.8% of our common stock without our permission.

•

Classification of preferred stock: Our charter authorizes our Board of Directors to issue preferred stock in one or more classes and to establish the preferences and rights of any class of preferred stock issued. These actions can be taken without soliciting stockholder approval. Our preferred stock issuances could have the effect of delaying or preventing someone from taking control of us, even if a change in control were in our stockholders’ best interests.

Maryland statutory law provides that an act of a director relating to or affecting an acquisition or a potential acquisition of control of a corporation may not be subject to a higher duty or greater scrutiny than is applied to any other act of a director. Hence, directors of a Maryland corporation are not required to act in certain takeover situations under the same standards as apply in Delaware and other corporate jurisdictions.

We depend on our operating partnership and its subsidiaries for cash flow and are effectively structurally subordinated in right of payment to the obligations of our operating partnership and its subsidiaries, which could adversely affect our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We have no business operations of our own. Our only significant asset is and will be the general and limited partnership interests of our operating partnership. We conduct, and intend to continue to conduct, all of our business operations through our operating partnership. Accordingly, our only source of cash to pay our obligations is distributions from our operating partnership and its subsidiaries of their net earnings and cash flows. We cannot assure our stockholders that our operating partnership or its subsidiaries will be able to, or be permitted to, make distributions to us that will enable us to make distributions to our stockholders from cash flows from operations. Each of our operating partnership’s subsidiaries is a distinct legal entity and, under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from such entities. Therefore, in the event of our bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization, our assets and those of our operating partnership and its subsidiaries will be able to satisfy the claims of our stockholders only after all of our and our operating partnership and its subsidiaries liabilities and obligations have been paid in full.

Offerings of debt securities, which would be senior to our common stock and any preferred stock upon liquidation, or equity securities, which would dilute our existing stockholders’ holdings could be senior to our common stock for the purposes of dividend distributions, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and any preferred stock.

We may attempt to increase our capital resources by making additional offerings of debt or equity securities, including commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior or subordinated notes, convertible securities, and classes of preferred stock or common stock or classes of preferred units. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities or preferred units and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of shares of preferred stock or common stock. Furthermore, holders of our debt securities and preferred stock or preferred units and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our common stock. Additional equity offerings may dilute the holdings of our existing stockholders or reduce the market price of our common or preferred stock or both. Our preferred stock or preferred units could have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on dividend payments that could limit our ability to make a dividend distribution to the holders of our common stock. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing, or nature of our future offerings. Thus, our stockholders bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our securities and diluting their securities holdings in us.

Securities eligible for future sale may have adverse effects on the market price of our securities.

We cannot predict the effect, if any, of future sales of securities, or the availability of securities for future sales, on the market price of our outstanding securities. Sales of substantial amounts of common stock, or the perception that these sales could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market prices for our securities.

Table of Contents

We also may issue from time to time additional shares of our securities or units of our operating partnership in connection with the acquisition of properties and we may grant additional demand or piggyback registration rights in connection with these issuances. Sales of substantial amounts of our securities or the perception that such sales could occur may adversely affect the prevailing market price for our securities or may impair our ability to raise capital through a sale of additional debt or equity securities.

An increase in market interest rates may have an adverse effect on the market price of our securities.

A factor investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our securities is our dividend rate as a percentage of our share or unit price relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates increase, prospective investors may desire a higher dividend or interest rate on our securities or seek securities paying higher dividends or interest. The market price of our securities is likely based on the earnings and return that we derive from our investments, income with respect to our properties, and our related distributions to stockholders and not from the market value or underlying appraised value of the properties or investments themselves. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions can affect the market price of our securities. For instance, if interest rates rise without an increase in our dividend rate, the market price of our common or preferred stock could decrease because potential investors may require a higher dividend yield on our common or preferred stock as market rates on interest-bearing securities, such as bonds, rise. In addition, rising interest rates would result in increased interest expense on our variable-rate debt, thereby adversely affecting cash flow and our ability to service our indebtedness and pay dividends.

Our board of directors can take many actions without stockholder approval.

Our board of directors has overall authority to oversee our operations and determine our major corporate policies. This authority includes significant flexibility. For example, our board of directors can do the following:


•	terminate our advisor under certain conditions pursuant to advisory agreement, subject to the payment of a termination fee;


•	amend or revise at any time and from time to time our investment, financing, borrowing and dividend policies and our policies with respect to all other activities, including growth, debt, capitalization and operations, subject to the limitations and restrictions provided in our advisory agreement and mutual exclusivity agreement;


•	amend our policies with respect to conflicts of interest provided that such changes are consistent with applicable legal requirements;


•	subject to the terms of our charter, prevent the ownership, transfer and/or accumulation of shares in order to protect our status as a REIT or for any other reason deemed to be in the best interests of us and our stockholders;


•	issue additional shares without obtaining stockholder approval, which could dilute the ownership of our then-current stockholders;


•	amend our charter to increase or decrease the aggregate number of shares of stock or the number of shares of stock of any class or series, without obtaining stockholder approval;


•	classify or reclassify any unissued shares of our common stock or preferred stock and set the preferences, rights and other terms of such classified or reclassified shares, without obtaining stockholder approval;


•	employ and compensate affiliates;


•	direct our resources toward investments that do not ultimately appreciate over time; and


•	determine that it is no l in our best interests to attempt to qualify, or to continue to qualify, as a REIT.

Any of these actions could increase our operating expenses, impact our ability to make distributions or reduce the value of our assets without giving you, as a stockholder, the right to vote.

The ability of our board of directors to change our major policies without the consent of stockholders may not be in our stockholders’ interest.

Our board of directors determines our major policies, including policies and guidelines relating to our acquisitions, leverage, financing, growth, operations and distributions to stockholders. Our board of directors may amend or revise these and other policies and guidelines from time to time without the vote or consent of our stockholders, subject to certain limitations and restrictions provided in our advisory agreement. Accordingly, our stockholders will have limited control over changes in our policies and those changes could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, the market price of our stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Table of Contents

Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take action against our directors and officers are limited.

Maryland law provides that a director or officer has no liability in that capacity if he or she performs his or her duties in good faith, in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in our best interests and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. In addition, our charter eliminates our directors’ and officers’ liability to us and our stockholders for money damages except for liability resulting from actual receipt of an improper benefit or profit in money, property or services or active and deliberate dishonesty established by a final judgment to have been material to the cause of action. Our charter requires us to indemnify our directors and officers to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law for liability actually incurred in connection with any proceeding to which they may be made, or threatened to be made, a party, except to the extent that the act or omission of the director or officer was material to the matter giving rise to the proceeding and was either committed in bad faith or was the result of active and deliberate dishonesty, the director or officer actually received an improper personal benefit in money, property or services, or, in the case of any criminal proceeding, the director or officer had reasonable cause to believe that the act or omission was unlawful. As a result, we and our stockholders may have more limited rights against our directors and officers than might otherwise exist under common law. In addition, we may be obligated to fund the defense costs incurred by our directors and officers.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Table of Contents


Item 2.	Properties

OFFICES. We lease our headquarters located at 14185 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75254.

HOTEL PROPERTIES. As of December 31, 2014, we had ownership interests in 87 legacy hotel properties that were included in our consolidated operations, which included direct ownership in 85 hotel properties and 85% ownership in two hotel properties through equity investments with joint venture partners. Currently, all of our hotel properties are located in the United States. The following table presents certain information related to our hotel properties:



Hotel Property	Location	Service Type	Total Rooms	% Owned		Owned Rooms	Year Ended December 31, 2014
Hotel Property	Location	Service Type	Total Rooms	% Owned		Owned Rooms	Occupancy		ADR		RevPAR
Fee Simple Properties
Embassy Suites	Austin, TX	Full service	150	100	%	150	79.84	%	$	157.37	$	125.64
Embassy Suites	Dallas, TX	Full service	150	100		150	74.76	%	$	127.87	$	95.59
Embassy Suites	Herndon, VA	Full service	150	100		150	73.89	%	$	147.50	$	108.98
Embassy Suites	Las Vegas, NV	Full service	220	100		220	84.86	%	$	119.46	$	101.37
Embassy Suites	Syracuse, NY	Full service	215	100		215	74.02	%	$	117.99	$	87.33
Embassy Suites	Flagstaff, AZ	Full service	119	100		119	82.42	%	$	132.97	$	109.60
Embassy Suites	Houston, TX	Full service	150	100		150	80.48	%	$	174.86	$	140.73
Embassy Suites	West Palm Beach, FL	Full service	160	100		160	76.95	%	$	130.53	$	100.44
Embassy Suites	Philadelphia, PA	Full service	263	100		263	75.31	%	$	143.98	$	108.43
Embassy Suites	Walnut Creek, CA	Full service	249	100		249	82.37	%	$	147.70	$	121.66
Embassy Suites	Arlington, VA	Full service	267	100		267	84.79	%	$	178.89	$	151.67
Embassy Suites	Portland, OR	Full service	276	100		276	84.44	%	$	194.30	$	164.07
Embassy Suites	Santa Clara, CA	Full service	257	100		257	79.56	%	$	205.52	$	163.50
Embassy Suites	Orlando, FL	Full service	174	100		174	84.03	%	$	126.60	$	106.38
Hilton Garden Inn	Jacksonville, FL	Select service	119	100		119	74.07	%	$	110.86	$	82.12
Hilton	Houston, TX	Full service	242	100		242	69.13	%	$	126.44	$	87.41
Hilton	St. Petersburg, FL	Full service	333	100		333	73.28	%	$	132.40	$	97.02
Hilton	Santa Fe, NM	Full service	158	100		158	71.24	%	$	153.61	$	109.43
Hilton	Bloomington, MN	Full service	300	100		300	82.21	%	$	127.95	$	105.18
Hilton	Costa Mesa, CA	Full service	486	100		486	85.54	%	$	119.98	$	102.63
Hampton Inn	Lawrenceville, GA	Select service	85	100		85	71.51	%	$	96.67	$	69.13
Hampton Inn	Evansville, IN	Select service	140	100		140	69.89	%	$	110.43	$	77.18
Hampton Inn	Terre Haute, IN	Select service	112	100		112	66.61	%	$	98.49	$	65.61
Hampton Inn	Buford, GA	Select service	92	100		92	79.52	%	$	113.02	$	89.87
Marriott	Durham, NC	Full service	225	100		225	65.07	%	$	142.97	$	93.03
Marriott	Arlington, VA	Full service	697	100		697	75.98	%	$	174.25	$	132.40
Marriott	Bridgewater, NJ	Full service	347	100		347	67.26	%	$	201.23	$	135.35
Marriott	Dallas, TX	Full service	265	100		265	70.80	%	$	127.16	$	90.03
Marriott	Fremont, CA	Full service	357	100		357	78.54	%	$	145.61	$	114.36
SpringHill Suites by Marriott	Jacksonville, FL	Select service	102	100		102	78.04	%	$	92.23	$	71.98
SpringHill Suites by Marriott	Baltimore, MD	Select service	133	100		133	78.25	%	$	106.16	$	83.07
SpringHill Suites by Marriott	Kennesaw, GA	Select service	90	100		90	77.79	%	$	104.16	$	81.03
SpringHill Suites by Marriott	Buford, GA	Select service	97	100		97	79.36	%	$	102.05	$	80.99
SpringHill Suites by Marriott	Gaithersburg, MD	Select service	162	100		162	72.91	%	$	100.76	$	73.47
SpringHill Suites by Marriott	Centreville, VA	Select service	136	100		136	71.45	%	$	86.15	$	61.55
SpringHill Suites by Marriott	Charlotte, NC	Select service	136	100		136	74.35	%	$	106.60	$	79.26
SpringHill Suites by Marriott	Durham, NC	Select service	120	100		120	76.64	%	$	95.07	$	72.86
SpringHill Suites by Marriott	Orlando, FL	Select service	400	100		400	75.62	%	$	96.77	$	73.17
SpringHill Suites by Marriott	Manhattan Beach, CA	Select service	164	100		164	83.36	%	$	137.29	$	114.45
SpringHill Suites by Marriott	Plymouth Meeting, PA	Select service	199	100		199	64.91	%	$	118.50	$	76.92
SpringHill Suites by Marriott	Glen Allen, VA	Select service	136	100		136	66.54	%	$	91.28	$	60.74
Fairfield Inn by Marriott	Kennesaw, GA	Select service	86	100		86	76.88	%	$	94.55	$	72.69
Fairfield Inn by Marriott	Orlando, FL	Select service	388	100		388	80.65	%	$	84.64	$	68.26
Courtyard by Marriott	Bloomington, IN	Select service	117	100		117	70.16	%	$	126.03	$	88.42

Table of Contents



Hotel Property	Location	Service Type	Total Rooms	% Owned		Owned Rooms	Year Ended December 31, 2014
Hotel Property	Location	Service Type	Total Rooms	% Owned		Owned Rooms	Occupancy		ADR		RevPAR
Courtyard by Marriott	Columbus, IN	Select service	90	100		90	63.33	%	$	95.85	$	60.71
Courtyard by Marriott	Louisville, KY	Select service	150	100		150	74.97	%	$	130.55	$	97.87
Courtyard by Marriott	Crystal City, VA	Select service	272	100		272	76.49	%	$	139.00	$	106.32
Courtyard by Marriott	Ft. Lauderdale, FL	Select service	174	100		174	81.63	%	$	112.55	$	91.88
Courtyard by Marriott	Overland Park, KS	Select service	168	100		168	68.63	%	$	103.14	$	70.78
Courtyard by Marriott	Palm Desert, CA	Select service	151	100		151	63.33	%	$	112.54	$	71.27
Courtyard by Marriott	Foothill Ranch, CA	Select service	156	100		156	77.16	%	$	115.29	$	88.96
Courtyard by Marriott	Alpharetta, GA	Select service	154	100		154	69.12	%	$	115.20	$	79.62
Courtyard by Marriott	Orlando, FL	Select service	312	100		312	78.62	%	$	99.06	$	77.88
Courtyard by Marriott	Oakland, CA	Select service	156	100		156	90.81	%	$	132.35	$	120.19
Courtyard by Marriott	Scottsdale, AZ	Select service	180	100		180	74.28	%	$	100.21	$	74.44
Courtyard by Marriott	Plano, TX	Select service	153	100		153	75.23	%	$	127.79	$	96.14
Courtyard by Marriott	Edison, NJ	Select service	146	100		146	77.78	%	$	115.41	$	89.77
Courtyard by Marriott	Newark, CA	Select service	181	100		181	76.83	%	$	130.52	$	100.28
Courtyard by Marriott	Manchester, CT	Select service	90	85		77	77.71	%	$	118.97	$	92.45
Courtyard by Marriott	Basking Ridge, NJ	Select service	235	100		235	67.80	%	$	181.25	$	122.88
Marriott Residence Inn	Lake Buena Vista, FL	Select service	210	100		210	84.57	%	$	117.31	$	99.21
Marriott Residence Inn	Evansville, IN	Select service	78	100		78	77.46	%	$	113.36	$	87.82
Marriott Residence Inn	Orlando, FL	Select service	350	100		350	84.00	%	$	114.05	$	95.80
Marriott Residence Inn	Falls Church, VA	Select service	159	100		159	81.12	%	$	139.88	$	113.47
Marriott Residence Inn	San Diego, CA	Select service	150	100		150	78.10	%	$	150.87	$	117.83
Marriott Residence Inn	Salt Lake City, UT	Select service	144	100		144	69.78	%	$	116.03	$	80.96
Marriott Residence Inn	Palm Desert, CA	Select service	130	100		130	70.74	%	$	127.46	$	90.16
Marriott Residence Inn	Las Vegas, NV	Select service	256	100		256	79.24	%	$	106.51	$	84.40
Marriott Residence Inn	Phoenix, AZ	Select service	200	100		200	67.39	%	$	105.85	$	71.33
Marriott Residence Inn	Plano, TX	Select service	126	100		126	78.42	%	$	105.14	$	82.45
Marriott Residence Inn	Newark, CA	Select service	168	100		168	82.71	%	$	140.26	$	116.01
Marriott Residence Inn	Manchester, CT	Select service	96	85		82	82.28	%	$	121.63	$	100.07
Marriott Residence Inn	Atlanta, GA	Select service	150	100		150	83.19	%	$	119.88	$	99.73
Marriott Residence Inn	Jacksonville, FL	Select service	120	100		120	83.11	%	$	103.26	$	85.83
TownePlace Suites by Marriott	Manhattan Beach, CA	Select service	144	100		144	82.67	%	$	123.73	$	102.29
One Ocean	Atlantic Beach, FL	Full service	193	100		193	65.83	%	$	219.16	$	144.27
Sheraton Hotel	Langhorne, PA	Full service	186	100		186	67.47	%	$	115.62	$	78.01
Sheraton Hotel	Minneapolis, MN	Full service	220	100		220	69.86	%	$	116.33	$	81.27
Sheraton Hotel	Indianapolis, IN	Full service	378	100		378	74.27	%	$	113.64	$	84.40
Sheraton Hotel	Anchorage, AK	Full service	370	100		370	70.77	%	$	140.80	$	99.64
Sheraton Hotel	San Diego, CA	Full service	260	100		260	76.67	%	$	120.30	$	92.23
Hyatt Regency	Coral Gables, FL	Full service	250	100		250	82.65	%	$	184.74	$	152.69
Crowne Plaza	Beverly Hills, CA	Full service	258	100		258	77.95	%	$	182.33	$	142.12
Annapolis Historic Inn	Annapolis, MD	Full service	124	100		124	62.00	%	$	145.86	$	90.44
The Ashton	Ft. Worth, TX	Select service	39	100		39	61.11	%	$	225.01	$	137.50
Ground Lease Properties
Hilton	Ft. Worth, TX	Full service	294	100	%	294	73.89	%	$	156.40	$	115.56
Crowne Plaza	Key West, FL	Full service	160	100	%	160	86.55	%	$	258.07	$	223.36
Total			17,205			17,178	76.23	%	$	133.66	$	101.88

________

^(a) The partial ground lease expires in 2040.

^(b) The ground lease expires in 2084.

Table of Contents


Item 3.	Legal Proceedings

Palm Beach Florida Hotel and Office Building Limited Partnership, et al. v. Nantucket Enterprises, Inc. This litigation involves a landlord tenant dispute from 2008 in which the landlord, Palm Beach Florida Hotel and Office Building Limited Partnership, a subsidiary of the Company, claimed that the tenant had violated various lease provisions of the lease agreement and was therefore in default. The tenant counterclaimed and asserted multiple claims including that it had been wrongfully evicted. The litigation was instituted by the plaintiff in November 2008 in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida and proceeded to a jury trial on June 30, 2014. The jury entered its verdict awarding the tenant total claims of $10.8 million and ruling against the landlord on its claim of breach of contract. A final judgment was entered and the landlord has filed a notice of appeal. As a result of the jury verdict, we have recorded pre-judgement interest of $707,000 for the year ended December 31, 2014. During October 2014, there was a hearing held regarding the plaintiff’s motion to recover legal fees. The court ruled that as the prevailing party, the plaintiff was entitled to recover legal fees. As of the year ended December 31, 2014, an accrual of $400,000 has been made as a reasonable estimate of loss related to legal fees. Total expense was $11.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2014. The charge is included in other expenses in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2014.

We are engaged in other various legal proceedings which have arisen but have not been fully adjudicated. The likelihood of loss from these legal proceedings, based on definitions within contingency accounting literature, ranges from remote to reasonably possible and to probable. Based on estimates of the range of potential losses associated with these matters, management does not believe the ultimate resolution of these proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, the final results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and if we fail to prevail in one or more of these legal matters, and the associated realized losses exceed our current estimates of the range of potential losses, our consolidated financial position or results of operations could be materially adversely affected in future periods.


Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures

Not Applicable

PART II


Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters, and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

(a) Market Price of and Dividends on Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters

Market Price and Dividend Information

Our common stock is listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “AHT.” On February 26, 2015, there were 127 registered holders of record of our common stock. In order to comply with certain requirements related to our qualification as a REIT, our charter limits the number of shares of capital stock that may be owned by any single person or affiliated group without our permission to 9.8% of the outstanding shares of any class of our capital stock. We are aware of one Section 13G filer that presently holds in excess of 9.8% of our outstanding common shares, but our Board of Directors has granted a waiver which provides this holder with an exception to our ownership restrictions.

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth, for the indicated periods, the high and low sales prices for our common stock as traded on that exchange and cash distributions declared per share of common stock. The sales prices have not been adjusted for the impact of the Ashford Prime spin-off or the Ashford Inc. spin-off. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information on the spin-off transactions.



	First Quarter		Second Quarter		Third Quarter		Fourth Quarter
2014
High	$	12.00	$	11.57	$	12.03	$	11.70
Low	8.13		9.82		10.22		8.87
Close	11.27		11.54		10.22		10.48
Cash dividends declared per share	0.12		0.12		0.12		0.12
2013
High	$	12.69	$	14.26	$	12.77	$	13.70
Low	10.32		11.05		11.22		7.86
Close	12.36		11.45		12.34		8.28
Cash dividends declared per share	0.12		0.12		0.12		0.12

For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, we declared and paid dividends of $0.48 per share, paid at a rate of $0.12 per share per quarter. In December 2014, the Board of Directors approved our dividend policy for 2015, and we expect to pay a quarterly dividend of $0.12 per share for 2015. The adoption of a dividend policy does not commit our Board of Directors to declare future dividends or the amount thereof. The Board of Directors will continue to review our dividend policy on a quarterly basis. We may incur indebtedness to meet distribution requirements imposed on REITs under the Internal Revenue Code to the extent that working capital and cash flow from our investments are insufficient to fund required distributions. We may elect to pay dividends on our common stock in cash or a combination of cash and shares of securities as permitted under federal income tax laws governing REIT distribution requirements. To maintain our qualification as a REIT, we intend to make annual distributions to our stockholders of at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding net capital gains (which does not necessarily equal net income as calculated in accordance with GAAP). Distributions will be authorized by our Board of Directors and declared by us based upon a variety of factors deemed relevant by our directors. Our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders will depend, in part, upon our receipt of distributions from our operating partnership. This, in turn, may depend upon receipt of lease payments with respect to our properties from indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries of our operating partnership and the management of our properties by our property managers.

Table of Contents

Characterization of Distributions

For income tax purposes, distributions paid consist of ordinary income, capital gains, return of capital or a combination thereof. Distributions paid per share were characterized as follows:



	2014					2013					2012
	Amount			%		Amount			%		Amount			%
Common Stock (cash):
Ordinary income	$	—		—	%	$	—		—	%	$	—		—	%
Capital gain	—			—		0.1245		⁽¹⁾	26.49		—			—
Return of capital	0.4800		⁽¹⁾	100.00		0.3455		⁽¹⁾	73.51		0.4300		⁽¹⁾	100.00
Total	$	0.4800		100.00	%	$	0.4700		100.00	%	$	0.4300		100.00	%
Common Stock (stock):
Ordinary income	$	—		—	%	$	—		—	%	$	—		—	%
Capital gain	—			—		1.1310			26.49		—			—
Return of capital	0.6437		⁽¹⁾	100.00		3.1390			73.51		—			—
Total	$	0.6437		100.00	%	$	4.2700		100.00	%	$	—		—	%
Preferred Stock – Series A:
Ordinary income	$	—		—	%	$	—		—	%	$	—		—	%
Capital gain	—			—		2.6719		⁽¹⁾	100.00		—			—
Return of capital	1.6031		⁽¹⁾	100.00		—			—		2.1375		⁽¹⁾	100.00
Total	$	1.6031		100.00	%	$	2.6719		100.00	%	$	2.1375		100.00	%
Preferred Stock – Series D:
Ordinary income	$	—		—	%	$	—		—	%	$	—		—	%
Capital gain	—			—		2.6406		⁽¹⁾	100.00		—			—
Return of capital	1.5844		⁽¹⁾	100.00		—			—		2.1125		⁽¹⁾	100.00
Total	$	1.5844		100.00	%	$	2.6406		100.00	%	$	2.1125		100.00	%
Preferred Stock – Series E:
Ordinary income	$	—		—	%	$	—		—	%	$	—		—	%
Capital gain	—			—		2.8125		⁽¹⁾	100.00