Service Properties (SVC) Risk Factors

Our bylaws currently provide that, unless the dispute has been referred to binding arbitration, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland will be the sole and exclusive forum for: (1) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; (2) any action asserting a claim for breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our Trustees, officers, managers or other agents to us or our shareholders; (3) any action asserting a claim against us or any of our Trustees, officers, managers or other agents arising pursuant to Maryland law, our declaration of trust or bylaws brought by or on behalf of a shareholder, either on such shareholder's own behalf, on our behalf or on behalf of any series or class of shares of beneficial interest of ours or by our shareholders against us or any of our Trustees, officers, managers or other agents, including any disputes, claims or controversies relating to the meaning, interpretation, effect, validity, performance or enforcement of our declaration of trust or bylaws; or (4) any action asserting a claim against us or any of our Trustees, officers, managers or other agents that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine of the State of Maryland. Our bylaws currently also provide that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland will be the sole and exclusive forum for any dispute, or portion thereof, regarding the meaning, interpretation or validity of any provision of our declaration of trust or bylaws. The exclusive forum provision of our bylaws does not apply to any action for which the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland does not have jurisdiction or to a dispute that has been referred to binding arbitration in accordance with our bylaws. The exclusive forum provision of our bylaws does not establish exclusive jurisdiction in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland for claims that arise under the Securities Act, the Exchange Act or other federal securities laws if there is exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction in the federal courts. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring or holding any interest in our shares of beneficial interest shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to these provisions of our bylaws, as they may be amended from time to time. The arbitration and exclusive forum provisions of our bylaws may limit a shareholder's ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that the shareholder believes is favorable for disputes with us or our Trustees, officers, managers or other agents, which may discourage lawsuits against us and our Trustees, officers, managers or other agents.

Our shareholders agree, by virtue of becoming shareholders, that they are bound by our governing documents, including the arbitration provisions of our bylaws, as they may be amended from time to time. Our bylaws provide that certain actions by one or more of our shareholders against us or any of our Trustees, officers, managers or other agents, other than disputes, or any portion thereof, regarding the meaning, interpretation or validity of any provision of our declaration of trust or bylaws, will be referred to mandatory, binding and final arbitration proceedings if we, or any other party to such dispute, including any of our Trustees, officers, managers or other agents, unilaterally so demands. As a result, we and our shareholders would not be able to pursue litigation in state or federal court against us or our Trustees, officers, managers or other agents, including, for example, claims alleging violations of federal securities laws or breach of fiduciary duties or similar director or officer duties under Maryland law, if we or any of our Trustees, officers, managers or other agents against whom the claim is made unilaterally demands the matter be resolved by arbitration. Instead, our shareholders would be required to pursue such claims through binding and final arbitration. Our bylaws provide that such arbitration proceedings would be conducted in accordance with the procedures of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, as modified in our bylaws. These procedures may provide materially more limited rights to our shareholders than litigation in a federal or state court. For example, arbitration in accordance with these procedures does not include the opportunity for a jury trial, document discovery is limited, arbitration hearings generally are not open to the public, there are no witness depositions in advance of arbitration hearings and arbitrators may have different qualifications or experiences than judges. In addition, although our bylaws' arbitration provisions contemplate that arbitration may be brought in a representative capacity or on behalf of a class of our shareholders, the rules governing such representation or class arbitration may be different from, and less favorable to shareholders than, the rules governing representative or class action litigation in courts. Our bylaws also generally provide that each party to such an arbitration is required to bear its own costs in the arbitration, including attorneys' fees, and that the arbitrators may not render an award that includes shifting of such costs or, in a derivative or class proceeding, award any portion of our award to any shareholder or such shareholder's attorneys. The arbitration provisions of our bylaws may discourage our shareholders from bringing, and attorneys from agreeing to represent our shareholders wishing to bring, litigation against us or our Trustees, officers, managers or other agents. Our leases with TA and our agreements with RMR and Sonesta have similar arbitration provisions to those in our bylaws. We believe that the arbitration provisions in our bylaws are enforceable under both state and federal law, including with respect to federal securities laws claims. We are a Maryland real estate investment trust and Maryland courts have upheld the enforceability of arbitration bylaws. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld agreements to arbitrate other federal statutory claims, including those that implicate important federal policies. However, some academics, legal practitioners and others are of the view that charter or bylaw provisions mandating arbitration are not enforceable with respect to federal securities laws claims. It is possible that the arbitration provisions of our bylaws may ultimately be determined to be unenforceable. By agreeing to the arbitration provisions of our bylaws, shareholders will not be deemed to have waived compliance by us with federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

Our declaration of trust limits the liability of our Trustees and officers to us and our shareholders for money damages to the maximum extent permitted under Maryland law. Under current Maryland law, our Trustees and officers will not have any liability to us and our shareholders for money damages other than liability resulting from: - actual receipt of an improper benefit or profit in money, property or services; or - active and deliberate dishonesty by the Trustee or officer that was established by a final judgment as being material to the cause of action adjudicated. Our declaration of trust and indemnification agreements require us to indemnify, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, any present or former Trustee or officer who is made or threatened to be made a party to a proceeding by reason of his or her service in these and certain other capacities. In addition, we may be obligated to pay or reimburse the expenses incurred by our present and former Trustees and officers without requiring a preliminary determination of their ultimate entitlement to indemnification. As a result of these limitations on liability and indemnification obligations, we and our shareholders may have more limited rights against our present and former Trustees and officers than might exist with other companies, which could limit shareholder recourse in the event of actions which some shareholders may believe are not in our best interest.

Certain of our properties include gambling operations. Applicable state laws require that any shareholder who owns or controls 5% or more of our securities or anyone who wishes to serve as one of our Trustees must be licensed or approved by the state regulators responsible for gambling operations. These approval procedures may discourage or prevent investors from purchasing our securities, from nominating persons to serve as our Trustees or from taking other actions.

Our declaration of trust and bylaws prohibit any shareholder, other than RMR and its affiliates (as defined under Maryland law) and certain persons who have been exempted by our Board of Trustees, from owning, directly and by attribution, more than 9.8% of the number or value of shares (whichever is more restrictive) of any class or series of our outstanding shares of beneficial interest, including our common shares. These provisions of our declaration of trust and bylaws are intended to, among other purposes, assist with our REIT compliance under the IRC and otherwise promote our orderly governance. However, these provisions may also inhibit acquisitions of a significant stake in us and may deter, delay or prevent a change in control of us or unsolicited acquisition proposals that a shareholder may consider favorable. Additionally, provisions contained in our declaration of trust and bylaws or under Maryland law may have a similar impact, including, for example, provisions relating to: - limitations on shareholder voting rights with respect to certain actions that are not approved by our Board of Trustees;- the authority of our Board of Trustees, and not our shareholders, to adopt, amend or repeal our bylaws and to fill vacancies on our Board of Trustees;- shareholder voting standards which require a supermajority of shares for approval of certain actions;- the fact that only our Board of Trustees, or, if there are no Trustees, our officers, may call shareholder meetings and that shareholders are not entitled to act without a meeting;- required qualifications for an individual to serve as a Trustee and a requirement that certain of our Trustees be "Managing Trustees" and other Trustees be "Independent Trustees," as defined in our governing documents;- limitations on the ability of our shareholders to propose nominees for election as Trustees and propose other business to be considered at a meeting of our shareholders;- limitations on the ability of our shareholders to remove our Trustees;- requirements that shareholders comply with regulatory requirements (including Nevada and Louisiana gaming) affecting us which could effectively limit share ownership of us, including, in some cases, to 5% of our outstanding shares;- the authority of our Board of Trustees to create and issue new classes or series of shares (including shares with voting rights and other rights and privileges that may deter a change in control) and issue additional common shares;- restrictions on business combinations between us and an interested shareholder that have not first been approved by our Board of Trustees (including a majority of Trustees not related to the interested shareholder); and - the authority of our Board of Trustees, without shareholder approval, to implement certain takeover defenses. As changes occur in the marketplace for corporate governance policies, the above provisions may change, be removed, or new ones may be added.

Companies with business dealings with related persons and entities may more often be the target of dissident shareholder trustee nominations, dissident shareholder proposals and shareholder litigation alleging conflicts of interest in their business dealings. The various relationships noted above may precipitate such activities. Certain proxy advisory firms which have significant influence over the voting by shareholders of public companies have, in the past, recommended, and in the future may recommend, that shareholders vote against the election of our incumbent Trustees, vote against our say on pay vote or other management proposals or vote for shareholder proposals that we oppose. These recommendations by proxy advisory firms have affected the outcomes of past Board of Trustees elections and votes on our say on pay and other shareholder votes,and similar recommendations in the future would likely affect the outcome of future Board of Trustees elections and other shareholder votes, which may increase shareholder activism and litigation. These activities, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and diversion of our management's attention and could have a material adverse impact on our reputation and business.

As a result of our relationships with RMR and its current and former controlling shareholder(s), our management agreements with RMR were not negotiated on an arm's length basis between unrelated parties, and therefore, while such agreements were negotiated with the use of a special committee and disinterested Trustees, the terms, including the fees payable to RMR, may be different from those negotiated on an arm's length basis between unrelated parties. Our property management fees are calculated based on rents we receive and we also pay RMR construction supervision fees for construction at our properties overseen and managed by RMR, and our base business management fee is calculated based upon the lower of the historical costs of our real estate investments and our market capitalization. We pay RMR substantial base management fees regardless of our financial results. These fee arrangements could incentivize RMR to pursue acquisitions, capital transactions, tenancies and construction projects or to avoid disposing of our assets in order to increase or maintain its management fees and might reduce RMR's incentive to devote its time and effort to seeking investments that provide attractive returns for us. If we do not effectively manage our investment, disposition and capital transactions and leasing, construction and other property management activities, we may pay increased management fees without proportional benefits to us. In addition, we are obligated under our management agreements to reimburse RMR for employment and related expenses of RMR's employees assigned to work exclusively or partly at our properties, our share of the wages, benefits and other related costs of RMR's centralized accounting personnel, our share of RMR's costs for providing our internal audit function and as otherwise agreed. We are also required to pay for third party costs incurred with respect to us. Our obligation to reimburse RMR for certain of its costs and to pay third party costs may reduce RMR's incentive to efficiently manage those costs, which may increase our costs.

RMR is a majority owned subsidiary of RMR Inc. The Chair of our Board of Trustees and one of our Managing Trustees, Adam Portnoy, is the sole trustee, an officer and the controlling shareholder of ABP Trust, which is the controlling shareholder of RMR Inc., chair of the board of directors, a managing director and the president and chief executive officer of RMR Inc. and an officer and employee of RMR. RMR or its subsidiaries also act as the manager to certain other Nasdaq listed companies and private companies, and Mr. Portnoy serves as a managing trustee, director or trustee, as applicable, of those companies, and as chair of the board of trustees of those Nasdaq listed companies. John Murray, our other Managing Trustee, Todd Hargreaves, our President and Chief Investment Officer, and Brian Donley, our Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, are also officers and employees of RMR. Mr. Murray is also a director and the president and chief executive officer of Sonesta, and Mr. Donley is also the chief financial officer and treasurer of Office Properties Income Trust, or OPI, another REIT managed by RMR. Messrs. Portnoy, Murray, Hargreaves and Donley have duties to RMR, Mr. Murray has duties to Sonesta and Mr. Donley has duties to OPI, as well as to us, and we do not have their undivided attention. They and other RMR personnel may have conflicts in allocating their time and resources between us and RMR and other companies to which RMR or its subsidiaries provide services. Some of our Independent Trustees also serve as independent trustees of other public companies to which RMR or its subsidiaries provide management services. In addition, we may in the future enter into additional transactions with RMR, its affiliates or entities managed by it or its subsidiaries. In addition to his investments in RMR Inc. and RMR, Mr. Portnoy holds equity investments in other companies to which RMR or its subsidiaries provide management services and some of these companies have significant cross ownership interests, including, for example: as of December 31, 2023, Mr. Portnoy beneficially owned, in aggregate, 1.1% of our outstanding common shares and Mr. Portnoy is the controlling shareholder of Sonesta, and we own 34% of Sonesta's outstanding common stock. Our executive officers also own equity investments in other companies to which RMR or its subsidiaries provide management services. These multiple responsibilities, relationships and cross ownerships may give rise to conflicts of interest or the perception of such conflicts of interest with respect to matters involving us, RMR Inc., RMR, our Managing Trustees, the other companies to which RMR or its subsidiaries provide management services and their related parties. Conflicts of interest or the perception of conflicts of interest could have a material adverse impact on our reputation, business and the market price of our common shares and other securities and we may be subject to increased risk of litigation as a result. In our management agreements with RMR, we acknowledge that RMR may engage in other activities or businesses and act as the manager to any other person or entity (including other REITs) even though such person or entity has investment policies and objectives similar to our policies and objectives and we are not entitled to preferential treatment in receiving information, recommendations and other services from RMR. Accordingly, we may lose investment opportunities to, and may compete for tenants with, other businesses managed by RMR or its subsidiaries. We cannot be sure that our Code of Conduct or our governance guidelines, or other procedural protections we adopt will be sufficient to enable us to identify, adequately address or mitigate actual or alleged conflicts of interest or ensure that our transactions with related persons are made on terms that are at least as favorable to us as those that would have been obtained with an unrelated person.