Seven Hills Realty Trust (SEVN) Risk Factors

The REIT provisions of the IRC substantially limit our ability to hedge our assets and liabilities. Any income from a qualifying hedging transaction that we enter into to manage risk of interest rate changes with respect to borrowings made or to be made to acquire or carry real estate assets does not constitute "gross income" for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests that we must satisfy in order to maintain our qualification for taxation as a REIT under the IRC. As a result, a qualifying hedge transaction will neither assist nor hinder our compliance with the 75% and 95% gross income tests. To the extent that we enter into other types of hedging transactions, the income from those transactions is likely to be treated as nonqualifying income for purposes of both of these gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement some hedges through a TRS. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities because our TRS would be subject to tax on gains or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in the hedged items than we might otherwise want to bear. In addition, losses in our TRS will generally not provide any tax benefit, except for being carried forward against future taxable income in the TRS.

We conduct our operations so that neither we nor any of our subsidiaries is required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act. We believe we will not be considered an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act because we will not engage primarily, or hold ourselves out as being engaged primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. We may conduct our business, in whole or in part, through wholly or majority owned subsidiaries. Under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act, the securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excepted from the definition of "investment company" under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we may own, may not have a combined value in excess of 40% of the value of our total assets (exclusive of U.S. Government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. This requirement limits the types of businesses in which we may engage through subsidiaries. In addition, the assets we may originate or acquire are limited by the provisions of the 1940 Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the 1940 Act, which may adversely affect our business. If the value of securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excepted from the definition of "investment company" under Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we own, exceeds 40% of the value of our total assets (exclusive of U.S. Government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis, or if one or more of our subsidiaries fails to maintain an exception or exemption from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required to either: (1) substantially change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act; or (2) register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, either of which could have an adverse effect on us and the market value of our common shares. If we or any of our subsidiaries were required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, the registered entity would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to capital structure (including the ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the 1940 Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration and compliance with reporting, record keeping, voting, proxy disclosure and other rules and regulations that would significantly change our operations. Failure to maintain our exemption from registration under the 1940 Act also would require us to significantly restructure our investment strategy. For example, because affiliate transactions are generally prohibited under the 1940 Act, we would not be able to enter into transactions with any of our affiliates if we were required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, and we might be required to terminate our management agreement with Tremont and any other agreements with affiliates, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate our business and pay distributions. If we were required to register as an investment company but failed to do so, we would be prohibited from engaging in our business, and criminal and civil actions could be brought against us. In addition, our contracts might be unenforceable unless a court required enforcement, and a court could appoint a receiver to take control of us and liquidate our business. We expect that we and certain of our subsidiaries that we may form in the future will rely upon the exemption from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, which is available for entities "primarily engaged" in the business of "purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate". This exemption generally requires that at least 55% of our or each of our applicable subsidiaries' assets must be comprised of qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of our or each of our applicable subsidiaries' portfolios must be comprised of qualifying real estate assets and real estate related assets under the 1940 Act. To the extent that we or any of our subsidiaries rely on Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, we expect to rely on guidance published by the SEC staff or on our analyses of such guidance to determine which assets are qualifying real estate assets and real estate related assets. However, the SEC's guidance is more than 30 years old and was issued in accordance with factual situations that may be different from ours. We cannot be sure that the SEC staff will concur with our classification of our assets. In addition, the SEC staff may, in the future, issue further guidance that may require us to re-classify our assets for purposes of qualifying for an exemption from registration under the 1940 Act. If we are required to re-classify our assets we may no longer be in compliance with the exclusion from the definition of an "investment company" provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act. To the extent that the SEC staff publishes new or different guidance with respect to any assets we have determined to be qualifying real estate assets, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. In addition, we may be limited in our ability to make certain investments, and these limitations could result in one of our subsidiaries holding assets we might wish to sell or selling assets we might wish to hold. The SEC has not published guidance with respect to the treatment of CMBS for purposes of the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exemption. Unless we receive further guidance from the SEC or its staff with respect to CMBS, we intend to treat CMBS as a real estate related asset. We or certain of our subsidiaries may also rely on the exemption provided by Section 3(c)(6) of the 1940 Act. The SEC staff has issued little interpretive guidance with respect to Section 3(c)(6) of the 1940 Act and any future guidance published by the staff may require us to adjust our strategy and our assets accordingly. While we refer generally to "exemption" in this discussion of Section 3(a) and Section 3(c) of the 1940 Act, each of the above referenced provisions technically provides companies with an exclusion from the definition of "investment company" under the 1940 Act, allowing companies to avoid registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act. We intend to structure and conduct our business in a manner that does not require our or our subsidiaries' registration under the 1940 Act and, in so structuring and conducting our business, we may rely on any available exemption from registration, or exclusion from the definition of "investment company," under the 1940 Act. We determine whether an entity is one of our majority owned subsidiaries. The 1940 Act defines a majority owned subsidiary of a person as a company 50% or more of the outstanding voting securities of which are owned by such person, or by another company which is a majority owned subsidiary of such person. The 1940 Act further defines voting securities as any security presently entitling the owner or holder thereof to vote for the election of directors of a company. We treat companies in which we own a majority of the outstanding voting securities as majority owned subsidiaries for purposes of the 40% test described above. We have not requested the SEC to approve our treatment of any of our subsidiaries as a majority owned subsidiary and the SEC has not done so. If the SEC were to disagree with our treatment of one or more of our subsidiaries as majority owned subsidiaries, we might need to adjust our strategy and our assets in order to continue to pass the 40% test. Any such adjustment in our strategy or assets could have a material adverse effect on us. We cannot be sure that the laws and regulations governing the 1940 Act status of REITs, including the SEC or its staff providing new or more specific or different guidance regarding these exemptions, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. If we or our subsidiaries fail to maintain an exception or exemption from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either to: (1) change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act; (2) sell our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so; or (3) register as an investment company, any of which could negatively affect the sustainability of our business and our ability to pay distributions, which could have an adverse effect on our business and the market value for our common shares.

We generally must distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, subject to specified adjustments and excluding any net capital gain, in order to maintain our qualification for taxation as a REIT under the IRC. To the extent that we satisfy this distribution requirement, federal corporate income tax will not apply to the earnings that we distribute, but if we distribute less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, then we will be subject to federal corporate income tax on our undistributed taxable income. We intend to pay distributions to our shareholders to comply with the REIT requirements of the IRC. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that we distribute to our shareholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under federal tax laws. From time to time, we may experience timing and other differences, for example on account of income and expense accrual principles under U.S. federal income tax laws, or on account of repaying outstanding indebtedness, whereby our available cash is less than, or does not otherwise correspond to, our taxable income. In addition, the IRC requires that income be taken into account no later than when it is taken into account on applicable financial statements, even if financial statements take such income into account before it would accrue under the original issue discount rules, market discount rules or other rules in the IRC. As a result, from time to time we may not have sufficient cash to meet our REIT distribution requirements. If we do not have other funds available in these situations, among other things, we may borrow funds on unfavorable terms, sell investments at disadvantageous prices or distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions in order to make distributions sufficient to enable us to pay out enough of our taxable income to satisfy the REIT 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 shareholders' equity. Thus, compliance with the REIT distribution requirements may hinder our ability to grow, which could cause the market value of our common shares to decline.

To maintain our qualification for taxation as a REIT under the IRC, we are required to satisfy distribution requirements imposed by the IRC. See "Material United States Federal Income Tax Considerations-REIT Qualification Requirements-Annual Distribution Requirements" included in Part I, Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Accordingly, we may not be able to retain sufficient cash to fund our operations, repay our debts or make investments. We may be unable to raise reasonably priced capital because of reasons related to our business, market perceptions of our prospects, the terms of our debt, the extent of our leverage or for reasons beyond our control, such as capital market volatility, high interest rates and other market conditions. Because the earnings we are permitted to retain are limited by the rules governing REIT qualification and taxation, if we are unable to raise reasonably priced capital, we may not be able to carry out our business plan.

We are subject to laws and regulations at the local, state and federal levels. These laws and regulations, as well as their interpretation, may change from time to time, and new laws and regulations may be enacted. Changes in these laws or regulations or their interpretation, or newly enacted laws or regulations, could require us to change our business practices or introduce us to new or increased competition, which may impose additional costs on us or otherwise adversely affect our business. For example, various laws and regulations currently exist that restrict the investment activities of banks and certain other financial institutions but do not apply to us. We believe this regulatory difference may create opportunities for us to successfully grow our business. There has been increasing commentary amongst regulators and intergovernmental institutions on the role of nonbank institutions in providing credit and, particularly, so-called "shadow banking," a term generally referring to credit intermediation involving entities and activities outside the regulated banking system and increased oversight and regulation of such entities. In the United States, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 established the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or the FSOC, which is comprised of representatives of all the major U.S. financial regulators, to act as the financial system's systemic risk regulator. Since December 2019, FSOC has focused its systemically important designation approach for nonbank financial companies on an activities-based approach under which an individual firm would only be so designated if it determined that efforts to address the financial stability risks of that firm's activities by its primary federal and state regulators have been insufficient. FSOC and a number of other regulators and international organizations are continuing to study the shadow banking system. Compliance with any increased regulation of nonbank credit extensions could adversely impact the implementation of our investment strategy and our returns. In an extreme eventuality, it is possible that such regulations could cause us to cease operations. In addition, the Biden Administration is taking a more active approach to economic and financial regulation than the Trump Administration, particularly to promote policy goals involving climate change, racial equity, ESG matters, cybersecurity, consumer financial protection and infrastructure. We cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or effect of legislative and/or regulatory action under the Biden Administration nor the impact of such changes on our business and operations. Further, loans that we originate or acquire may be subject to U.S. federal, state or local laws. Real estate lenders and borrowers may be responsible for compliance with a wide range of laws intended to protect the public interest, including, without limitation, the Americans with Disabilities Act and local zoning laws. If we or Tremont fail to comply with such laws in relation to a loan that we have originated or acquired, legal penalties may be imposed, which could materially and adversely affect us. Jurisdictions with "one action," "security first" and/or "anti-deficiency rules" may limit our ability to foreclose on a collateral property or to realize on obligations secured by a collateral property. In the future, new laws may be enacted or imposed by U.S. federal, state or local governmental entities, and such laws could have a material adverse effect on us and our operations. Additionally, legislative or other actions relating to taxes could have a negative effect on us. The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state and local taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the IRS, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or the Treasury, and other taxation authorities. We cannot predict with certainty how any changes in the tax laws might affect us, our shareholders, or our borrowers. New legislation, Treasury regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions could significantly and negatively affect our ability to remain qualified for taxation as a REIT or the tax consequences of such qualification to us and our shareholders. In the future, changes in laws or regulations governing our operations, changes in the interpretation thereof or newly enacted laws or regulations and any failure by us to comply with these laws or regulations, could have a materially adverse effect on our business.

Prior to our making any investment, Tremont conducts diligence that it considers reasonable based upon the facts and circumstances of the investment. When conducting diligence on our behalf, Tremont may be required to evaluate important and complex business, financial, tax, accounting, environmental and legal issues. Outside consultants, legal advisors, accountants and investment banks may be involved in the diligence process to varying degrees depending on the type of potential investment. Selecting and evaluating material due diligence matters is subjective by nature, and there is no guarantee that the criteria utilized or judgment exercised by Tremont will reflect the beliefs, values, internal policies or preferred practices of any particular investor or align with the beliefs or values or preferred practices of other commercial real estate debt investors or with market trends. Tremont's diligence may also not reveal all of the risks associated with our investments. We evaluate our potential investments based upon criteria Tremont deems appropriate for the relevant investment. Our underwriting assumptions and loss estimates may not prove accurate, and actual results may vary from estimates. Moreover, investment analyses and decisions by Tremont may frequently be required to be undertaken on an expedited basis to take advantage of investment opportunities. In such cases, the information available to Tremont at the time of making an investment decision may be limited. Therefore, we cannot be sure that Tremont will have knowledge of all circumstances that may adversely affect such investment. If we underestimate the risks and potential losses associated with an investment we originate or acquire, we may experience losses from the investment.

Tremont maintains a contractual as opposed to a fiduciary relationship with us. Tremont does not guaranty our performance. Pursuant to our management agreement, Tremont does not assume any responsibility other than to render the services called for thereunder in good faith and is not responsible for any action of our Board of Trustees in following or declining to follow its advice or recommendations. We could experience poor performance or losses for which Tremont would not be liable. Under the terms of our management agreement, Tremont and its affiliates, including RMR, and their respective directors, trustees, officers, shareholders, owners, members, managers, employees and personnel will not be liable to us or any of our Trustees, shareholders or subsidiaries for any acts or omissions related to the provision of services to us under our management agreement, except by reason of acts or omissions that are proved to constitute bad faith, fraud, intentional misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard of the duties of Tremont under our management agreement. In addition, under the terms of our management agreement, we agree to indemnify, hold harmless and advance expenses to Tremont and its affiliates, including RMR, and their respective directors, trustees, officers, shareholders, owners, members, managers, employees and personnel from and against all expenses, losses, damages, liabilities, demands, charges and claims of any nature whatsoever, including all reasonable attorneys', accountants', and experts' fees and expenses, arising from acts or omissions related to the provision of services to us or the performance of any matter pursuant to an instruction by our Board of Trustees, except to the extent it is proved that such acts or omissions constituted bad faith, fraud, intentional misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard of the duties of Tremont under our management agreement. Such persons will also not be liable for trade errors that may result from ordinary negligence, including errors in the investment decision making or trade process.

In 2023 we assumed legal title to a property through a deed in lieu of foreclosure and, in the future as and when necessary or desirable, we may acquire title to additional real property in full or partial settlement of loan obligations through foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure. When we acquire a property in this fashion, we consider the impact that taking ownership of such property has on our ability to continue to qualify to be taxed as a REIT as well as any tax liabilities attributable to our operation of such property as a REIT. In some cases, operation of real property will not generate qualifying rents from real property for purposes of the REIT gross income tests absent special structuring (e.g., gross income from operation of a hotel). In appropriate cases, however, we may be eligible to make an election with the IRS to treat property that we take possession of in a foreclosure (or deed in lieu of foreclosure) as "foreclosure property." If, and for so long as, such property qualifies as "foreclosure property" within the meaning of the REIT rules, gross income from such property (even if not normally qualifying REIT gross income) is nevertheless treated as qualifying for purposes of both REIT gross income tests and, in addition, gain from the sale of such property will not be subject to the 100% prohibited transaction tax for dealer sales. Whereas our net income is generally free of corporate-level income tax because we operate as a REIT, our net income with respect to a property for which we have made a foreclosure property election that would not otherwise be qualifying gross income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests will be subject to corporate income tax. In addition, the IRS might argue that a particular property did not qualify for a foreclosure property election or that its status as foreclosure property terminated prematurely, possibly causing us to fail one or both REIT gross income tests or causing any gain from sale of such property to be subject to the prohibited transaction tax.

As a REIT, we generally do not pay federal or most state income taxes as long as we distribute all of our REIT taxable income and meet other qualifications set forth in the IRC. However, actual qualification for taxation as a REIT under the IRC depends on our satisfying complex statutory requirements, for which there are only limited judicial and administrative interpretations. We believe that we have been organized and have operated, and will continue to be organized and to operate, in a manner that qualified and will continue to qualify us to be taxed as a REIT under the IRC. However, we cannot be sure that the IRS, upon review or audit, will agree with this conclusion. Furthermore, we cannot be sure that the federal government, or any state or other taxation authority, will continue to afford favorable income tax treatment to REITs and their shareholders. Maintaining our qualification for taxation as a REIT under the IRC will require us to continue to satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the nature of our assets, the sources of our income and the amounts we distribute to our shareholders. In order to meet these requirements, it may be necessary for us to sell or forgo attractive investments. If we cease to qualify for taxation as a REIT under the IRC, then our ability to raise capital might be adversely affected, we may be subject to material amounts of federal and state income taxes, our cash available for distribution to our shareholders could be reduced, and the market value of our common shares could decline. In addition, if we lose or revoke our qualification for taxation as a REIT under the IRC for a taxable year, we will generally be prevented from requalifying for taxation as a REIT for the next four taxable years.

Even if we remain qualified for taxation as a REIT under the IRC, we may be subject to federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, excise taxes, state or local income, property and transfer taxes, such as mortgage recording taxes, and other taxes. Also, some jurisdictions may in the future limit or eliminate favorable income tax deductions, including the dividends paid deduction, which could increase our income tax expense. In addition, in order to meet the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT under the IRC, prevent the recognition of particular types of non-cash income, or avert the imposition of a 100% tax that applies to specified gains derived by a REIT from dealer property or inventory, we may hold or dispose of some of our assets and conduct some of our operations through our TRSs or other subsidiary corporations that will be subject to corporate level income tax at regular rates. In addition, while we intend that our transactions with our TRSs will be conducted on arm's length bases, we may be subject to a 100% excise tax on a transaction that the IRS or a court determines was not conducted at arm's length. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distribution to our shareholders.

Dividends payable by U.S. corporations to noncorporate shareholders, such as individuals, trusts and estates, are generally eligible for reduced U.S. federal income tax rates applicable to "qualified dividends." Distributions paid by REITs generally are not treated as "qualified dividends" under the IRC and the reduced rates applicable to such dividends do not generally apply. However, for tax years beginning before 2026, REIT dividends paid to noncorporate shareholders are generally taxed at an effective tax rate lower than applicable ordinary income tax rates due to the availability of a deduction under the IRC for specified forms of income from passthrough entities. More favorable rates will nevertheless continue to apply to regular corporate "qualified" dividends, which may cause some investors to perceive that an investment in a REIT is less attractive than an investment in a non-REIT entity that pays dividends, thereby reducing the demand and market value of our common shares.

There is limited case law or administrative guidance addressing the treatment of mezzanine loans and preferred equity investments as debt or equity for federal income tax purposes. We expect that any mezzanine loans that we may originate or acquire generally will be treated as debt for federal income tax purposes, and preferred equity investments that we may make generally will be treated as equity for federal income tax purposes, but we do not anticipate obtaining private letter rulings from the IRS or opinions of counsel on the characterization of those investments for federal income tax purposes. If a mezzanine loan is treated as equity for federal income tax purposes, we will be treated as owning the assets held by the partnership or limited liability company that issued the mezzanine loan and we will be treated as receiving our proportionate share of the income of that entity. If that partnership or limited liability company owns nonqualifying assets or earns nonqualifying income, we may not be able to satisfy all of the REIT gross income and asset tests. Alternatively, if the IRS successfully asserts that any preferred equity investment that we may make is debt for federal income tax purposes, then that investment may be treated as a nonqualifying asset for purposes of the 75% asset test and as producing nonqualifying income for the 75% gross income test. In addition, such an investment may be subject to the 10% value test and the 5% asset test, and it is possible that a preferred equity investment that is treated as debt for federal income tax purposes could cause us to fail one or more of the foregoing tests. Accordingly, we could fail to remain qualified for taxation as a REIT under the IRC if the IRS does not respect our classification of our mezzanine loans or preferred equity for federal income tax purposes.

As a successor to TRMT, we may face liability stemming from the tax liabilities (including penalties and interest) of TRMT and its subsidiaries. These liabilities and our efforts to remedy any tax dispute relating to these acquired entities could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

A REIT's net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions at a gain of property, other than foreclosure property but including mortgage loans, held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. If we were to dispose of or securitize loans in a manner that was treated as a sale of the loans for U.S. federal income tax purposes, those sales could be viewed as sales to customers in the ordinary course of business and to that extent subject to the 100% tax. Therefore, in order to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose not to engage in particular sales of loans or we may limit the structures used for dispositions or securitization transactions, even though the sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial to us.

Some leading market indexes exclude companies whose dividends to shareholders constitute UBTI. For purposes of the IRC, shareholder dividends attributable to a REIT's "excess inclusion income" are treated as UBTI to specified investors, and thus REITs that generate excess inclusion income are generally not eligible for inclusion in these market indexes. Furthermore, REIT dividends attributable to excess inclusion income cause both the REIT and its shareholders to experience a range of disruptive and adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences, including the recognition of UBTI by specified tax-exempt shareholders, the unavailability of treaty benefits to non-U.S. shareholders and the unavailability of net operating losses to offset such income with respect to U.S. taxable shareholders. We do not intend to acquire assets or enter into financing or other arrangements that will produce excess inclusion income for our shareholders. As a result, we may forgo investment or financing opportunities that we would otherwise have considered attractive or implement these arrangements through a TRS, which would increase the cost of these activities because TRSs are subject to U.S. federal income tax. Furthermore, our analysis regarding our investments' or activities' potential for generating excess inclusion income could be subject to challenge or we could affirmatively modify our position regarding the generation of excess inclusion income in the future. In either case, our shareholders could suffer adverse tax consequences through the recognition of UBTI or the other adverse consequences that flow from excess inclusion income. Furthermore, in such an event, our common shares could become ineligible for inclusion in those market indexes that exclude UBTI-generating stock, which could adversely affect demand for our common shares and the market value of our common shares.

Real property we may own in the future but do not use in the ordinary course of our operations subjects us to risks particular to CRE property. We have in the past owned, and may own in the future, certain properties as a result of foreclosure of loans secured by such properties. Tenants of properties we may own may elect to not renew their leases, or to renew them for less space than they currently occupy, which could increase vacancy, place downward pressure on occupancy, rental rates and income and property valuation. All of these factors could have a material adverse effect on any income we could generate, or expenses we could incur, from the ownership of such properties. Moreover, our ability to sell CRE is affected by public perception that banks are inclined to accept large discounts from market value in order to quickly liquidate properties. Any material decrease in market prices may lead to CRE write-downs, with a corresponding expense in our statement of operations. Write-downs on CRE or an inability to sell CRE properties could have a material adverse effect on our future business, results of operations, financial condition and the value of our common stock. Furthermore, the management and resolution of CRE increases our costs and requires significant commitments of time from our management and directors, which can be detrimental to the performance of their other responsibilities.