Common use of COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Clause in Contracts

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES. Lease Commitments At December 31, 2000, the Company was obligated under eighty non-cancelable operating lease agreements with renewal options on properties used principally for branch operations. The Company expects to renew such agreements at expiration in the normal course of business. The leases contain escalation clauses commencing at various times during the lives of the leases. Such clauses provide for increases in the annual rental, based on increases in the consumer price index. At December 31, 2000, the Company had entered into several non-cancelable operating lease agreements for rental of Bank-owned properties. The leases contain escalation clauses that provide for periodic increases in the annual rental, again based on increases in the consumer price index. The projected minimum annual rental commitments under these leases, exclusive of taxes and other charges, are summarized as follows: (in thousands) Rental Income Rental Expense -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2001 $1,245 $ 5,557 2002 1,138 4,532 2003 1,055 3,097 2004 820 2,534 2005 810 2,250 2006 and thereafter 1,371 14,425 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total minimum future rentals $6,439 $32,395 ================================================================================ Included in "occupancy and equipment expense," the rental expense under these leases was approximately $1,072,000, $485,000, and $446,000 for the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999, and 1998, respectively. Rental income on Bank-owned properties, netted in occupancy and equipment expense, was approximately $1.1 million, $1.3 million, and $1.2 million for the corresponding periods. On December 15, 2000, the Company relocated its corporate headquarters to the former headquarters of Haven Bancorp, in Westbury, New York. Haven had purchased the office building and land in December 1997 under a lease agreement and Payment-in-lieu-of-Tax ("PILOT") agreement with the Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency ("▇▇▇") which has been assumed by the Company. Under the ▇▇▇ and PILOT agreements, the Company assigned the building and land to the ▇▇▇, is subleasing it for $1.00 per year for a 10-year period, and will repurchase the building for $1.00 upon expiration of the lease term in exchange for ▇▇▇ financial assistance.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES. Lease Commitments At December 31, 2000The Company leases certain facilities and equipment under agreements which are accounted for as operating leases that expire at various dates through 2011. The Company also leases certain aviation equipment which are accounted for as operating leases. The terms of these arrangements are one to five years with options to renew annually at the election of the Company. If the Company elects to not renew the lease, the Company was obligated under eighty non-cancelable operating is required to purchase the aviation equipment at its stipulated lease agreements with renewal options on properties used principally for branch operationsvalue. The Company expects may also sublease the aviation equipment to renew such agreements a customer on a short- or long-term basis. Future minimum payments under leases with initial or remaining terms of one year or more at expiration May 31, 2000 are as follows: YEAR FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT AVIATION EQUIPMENT - 2001..................................................... $5,682 $2,787 2002..................................................... 4,343 2,787 2003..................................................... 3,621 2,787 2004..................................................... 3,243 2,787 2005 and thereafter...................................... 3,639 20,117 Rental expense during the past three fiscal years was as follows: 2000 1999 1998 Facilities and Equipment $9,663 $8,339 $6,991 The Company routinely issues letters of credit, performance bonds or credit guarantees in the normal ordinary course of its business. These instruments are typically issued in conjunction with insurance contracts or other business requirements. The total of these instruments outstanding at May 31, 2000 was approximately $51,500. The Company is involved in various claims and legal actions, including environmental matters, arising in the ordinary course of business. The leases contain escalation clauses commencing at various times during In the lives opinion of the leases. Such clauses provide for increases in the annual rental, based on increases in the consumer price index. At December 31, 2000management, the Company had entered into several non-cancelable operating lease agreements for rental ultimate disposition of Bank-owned properties. The leases contain escalation clauses that provide for periodic increases in the annual rental, again based these matters will not have a material adverse effect on increases in the consumer price index. The projected minimum annual rental commitments under these leases, exclusive of taxes and other charges, are summarized as follows: (in thousands) Rental Income Rental Expense -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2001 $1,245 $ 5,557 2002 1,138 4,532 2003 1,055 3,097 2004 820 2,534 2005 810 2,250 2006 and thereafter 1,371 14,425 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total minimum future rentals $6,439 $32,395 ================================================================================ Included in "occupancy and equipment expense," the rental expense under these leases was approximately $1,072,000, $485,000, and $446,000 for the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999, and 1998, respectively. Rental income on Bank-owned properties, netted in occupancy and equipment expense, was approximately $1.1 million, $1.3 million, and $1.2 million for the corresponding periods. On December 15, 2000, the Company relocated its corporate headquarters to the former headquarters of Haven Bancorp, in Westbury, New York. Haven had purchased the office building and land in December 1997 under a lease agreement and Payment-in-lieu-of-Tax ("PILOT") agreement with the Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency ("▇▇▇") which has been assumed by the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Under the ▇▇▇ and PILOT agreementsNOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -- (CONTINUED) (IN THOUSANDS, the Company assigned the building and land to the ▇▇▇, is subleasing it for $1.00 per year for a 10-year period, and will repurchase the building for $1.00 upon expiration of the lease term in exchange for ▇▇▇ financial assistance.EXCEPT PER SHARE AND PERCENTAGE DATA)

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES. Lease Commitments At December 31, 2000, the Company was obligated under eighty non-cancelable operating lease agreements with renewal options on properties used principally for branch operations. Leases The Company expects to renew such agreements at expiration in the normal course of business. The leases contain escalation clauses commencing at various times during the lives of the certain facilities and equipment under noncancelable operating leases. Such clauses provide for increases in the annual rental, based on increases in the consumer price index. At December 31, 2000, the Company had entered into several non-cancelable operating lease agreements for Leases and rental of Bank-owned properties. The leases contain escalation clauses that provide for periodic increases in the annual rental, again based on increases in the consumer price index. The projected minimum annual rental commitments under these leases, exclusive of taxes and other charges, are summarized as follows: (in thousands) Rental Income Rental Expense -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2001 $1,245 $ 5,557 2002 1,138 4,532 2003 1,055 3,097 2004 820 2,534 2005 810 2,250 2006 and thereafter 1,371 14,425 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total minimum future rentals $6,439 $32,395 ================================================================================ Included in "occupancy and equipment expense," the rental costs charged to expense under these leases was approximately $1,072,000, $485,000, and $446,000 for the years year ended December 31, 1999, and for the period from December 24, 1998, through December 31, 1998, were $11.2 million and $70, respectively. As of December 31, 1999, future minimum lease payments are as follows: 2000........................................................ $9,036 2001........................................................ 7,141 2002........................................................ 4,645 2003........................................................ 3,153 2004........................................................ 2,588 Thereafter.................................................. 8,845 The Company also rents utility poles in its operations. Generally, pole rentals are cancelable on short notice, but the Company anticipates that such rentals will recur. Rent expense incurred for pole rental attachments for the year ended December 31, 1999, and for the period from December 24, 1998, through December 31, 1998, was $14.3 million and $137, respectively. Rental income Litigation The Company is a party to lawsuits and claims that arose in the ordinary course of conducting its business. In the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, the outcome of these lawsuits and claims will not have a material adverse effect on Bank-owned propertiesthe Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. Redeemable Securities As previously disclosed in Charter's Registration Statement on Form S-1, netted as amended, the Rifkin and Falcon sellers who own membership units of Charter Holdco, including those sellers that exchanged their units for common stock of Charter, and certain Helicon sellers who purchased Class A common stock in occupancy November 1999, may have rescission rights arising out of possible violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the offers and equipment expensesales of these equity interests. Accordingly, was approximately the maximum potential cash obligation related to the rescission rights, estimated at $1.1 750.9 million, $1.3 millionhas been 103 excluded from stockholders' equity or minority interest and classified as "redeemable securities" on the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, and $1.2 million for 1999. One year after the corresponding periods. On December 15, 2000dates of issuance of these equity interests (when these rescission rights will have expired), the Company relocated its corporate headquarters will reclassify the respective amounts to stockholders' equity or minority interest, as applicable. Regulation in the former headquarters of Haven BancorpCable Television Industry The cable television industry is subject to extensive regulation at the federal, local and, in Westburysome instances, New Yorkstate levels. Haven had purchased The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the office building "1984 Cable Act"), the Cable Television Consumer Protection and land in December 1997 under a lease agreement Competition Act of 1992 (the "1992 Cable Act" and Payment-in-lieu-of-Tax ("PILOT") agreement together with the Town 1984 Cable Act, the "Cable Acts"), and the Telecommunications Act of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency 1996 (the "▇▇▇1996 Telecom Act"), establish a national policy to guide the development and regulation of cable television systems. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which has principal responsibility for implementing the policies of the Cable Acts. Many aspects of such regulation are currently the subject of judicial proceedings and administrative or legislative proposals. Legislation and regulations continue to change, and the Company cannot predict the impact of future developments on the cable television industry. The 1992 Cable Act and the FCC's rules implementing that act generally have increased the administrative and operational expenses of cable television systems and have resulted in additional regulatory oversight by the FCC and local or state franchise authorities. The Cable Acts and the corresponding FCC regulations have established rate regulations. The 1992 Cable Act permits certified local franchising authorities to order refunds of basic service tier rates paid in the previous twelve-month period determined to be in excess of the maximum permitted rates. During 1999, the amounts refunded by the Company have been assumed insignificant. The Company may be required to refund additional amounts in the future. The Company believes that it has complied in all material respects with the provisions of the 1992 Cable Act, including the rate setting provisions promulgated by the FCC. However, in jurisdictions that have chosen not to certify, refunds covering the previous twelve-month period may be ordered upon certification if the Company is unable to justify its basic rates. As of December 31, 1999, approximately 18% of the Company's local franchising authorities are certified to regulate basic tier rates. The Company is unable to estimate at this time the amount of refunds, if any, that may be payable by the Company in the event certain of its rates are successfully challenged by franchising authorities or found to be unreasonable by the FCC. The Company does not believe that the amount of any such refunds would have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or results of operations of the Company. Under The 1996 Telecom Act, among other things, immediately deregulated the ▇▇▇ rates for certain small cable operators and PILOT agreementsin certain limited circumstances rates on the basic service tier, and as of March 31, 1999, deregulated rates on the Company assigned cable programming service tier (CPST). The FCC has taken the building position that it will still adjudicate pending CPST complaints but will strictly limit its review, and land possible refund orders, to the ▇▇▇time period predating the sunset date, is subleasing it for $1.00 per year for March 31, 1999. The Company does not believe any adjudications regarding their pre-sunset complaints will have a 10-year periodmaterial adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. A number of states subject cable television systems to the jurisdiction of centralized state governmental agencies, some of which impose regulation of a character similar to that of a public utility. State governmental agencies are required to follow FCC rules when prescribing rate regulation, and will repurchase thus, state regulation of cable television rates is not allowed to be more restrictive than the building for $1.00 upon expiration of the lease term in exchange for ▇▇▇ financial assistancefederal or local regulation.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES. Operating leases -- The Company leases many of its operating and office facilities for various terms. Lease Commitments At expense aggregated $194,846,000, $189,873,600, and $186,270,000 during 1998, 1997 and 1996, respectively. These amounts include rents under long-term leases, short-term cancelable leases and rents charged as a percentage of revenue, but are exclusive of financing leases capitalized for accounting purposes. The long-term rental obligations as of December 31, 2000, the Company was obligated under eighty non-cancelable operating lease agreements with renewal options on properties used principally for branch operations. The Company expects to renew such agreements at expiration in the normal course of business. The leases contain escalation clauses commencing at various times during the lives of the leases. Such clauses provide for increases in the annual rental, based on increases in the consumer price index. At December 31, 2000, the Company had entered into several non-cancelable operating lease agreements for rental of Bank-owned properties. The leases contain escalation clauses that provide for periodic increases in the annual rental, again based on increases in the consumer price index. The projected minimum annual rental commitments under these leases, exclusive of taxes and other charges1998, are summarized due as follows: follows (in thousands) Rental Income Rental Expense -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2001 ): First year............................................... $ 142,397 Second year.............................................. 133,069 Third year............................................... 127,206 Fourth year.............................................. 155,341 Fifth year............................................... 104,568 Sixth through tenth years................................ 431,114 Eleventh year and thereafter............................. 143,004 ---------- $1,245 $ 5,557 2002 1,138 4,532 2003 1,055 3,097 2004 820 2,534 2005 810 2,250 2006 and thereafter 1,371 14,425 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total minimum future rentals $6,439 $32,395 ======================================================================1,236,699 ========== Included in "occupancy Financial instruments -- Letters of credit, performance bonds and equipment expense," other guarantees have been provided by the rental expense under these leases was approximately $1,072,000Company supporting tax-exempt bonds, $485,000performance of final landfill closure and post-closure requirements, insurance contracts, and $446,000 for the years ended other contracts. Total letters of credit, performance bonds, insurance policies, and other guarantees outstanding at December 31, 2000, 1999, and 1998, respectivelyaggregated approximately $3,940,719,000. Rental income on BankThe insurance policies are issued by a wholly-owned propertiesinsurance company subsidiary, netted the sole business of which is to issue such policies to customers of the Company and its subsidiaries. Because virtually no claims have been made against these financial instruments in occupancy and equipment expensethe past, was approximately $1.1 million, $1.3 million, and $1.2 million for management does not expect these instruments will have a material effect on the corresponding periodsCompany's consolidated financial statements. On December 15, 2000In the normal course of business, the Company relocated is a party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk, such as bank letters of credit, performance bonds and other guarantees, which are not reflected in the consolidated balance sheets. Such financial instruments are to be valued based on the amount of exposure under the instrument and the likelihood of performance being required. In the Company's experience, virtually no claims have been made against those financial instruments. Management does not expect any material losses to result from these off-balance sheet instruments. 96 NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -- (CONTINUED) Environmental matters -- The continuing business in which the Company is engaged is intrinsically connected with the protection of the environment. As such, a significant portion of the Company's operating costs and capital expenditures could be characterized as costs of environmental protection. Such costs may increase in the future as a result of legislation or regulation, however, the Company believes that in general it tends to benefit when environmental regulation increases, which may increase the demand for its corporate headquarters services, and that it has the resources and experience to manage environmental risk. As part of its ongoing operations, the Company provides for estimated final closure and post-closure monitoring costs over the estimated operating life of disposal sites as airspace is consumed. The Company has also established procedures to evaluate potential remedial liabilities at closed sites which it owns or operated or to which it transported, waste including 88 sites listed on the NPL as of December 31, 1998. Where the Company concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred, provision is made in the financial statements. Estimates of the extent of the Company's degree of responsibility for remediation of a particular site and the method and ultimate cost of remediation require a number of assumptions and are inherently difficult, and the ultimate outcome may differ from current estimates. However, the Company believes that its extensive experience in the environmental services industry, as well as its involvement with a large number of sites, provides a reasonable basis for estimating its aggregate liability. As additional information becomes available, estimates are adjusted as necessary. While the Company does not anticipate that any such adjustment would be material to its financial statements, it is reasonably possible that technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies, the existence and ability of other potentially responsible third parties to contribute to the settlements of such liabilities, or other factors could necessitate the recording of additional liabilities which could be material. Litigation -- In November and December 1997, several alleged purchasers of WM Holdings securities (including but not limited to WM Holdings common stock), who allegedly bought their securities between 1996 and 1997, brought 14 purported class action lawsuits against WM Holdings and several of its former headquarters officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Haven BancorpIllinois. Each of these lawsuits asserted that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly false and misleading statements in 1996 and 1997 about WM Holdings' financial condition and results of operations. Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that WM Holdings employed accounting practices that were improper and that caused its publicly filed financial statements to be materially false and misleading. The lawsuits demanded, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgement interest, attorneys' fees, and the costs of conducting the litigation. In January 1998, the 14 putative class actions were consolidated before one judge. On May 29, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against WM Holdings and four of its former officers. The consolidated amended complaint seeks recovery on behalf of a proposed class of all purchasers of WM Holdings securities between May 29, 1995, and October 30, 1997. The consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other things, that WM Holdings filed false and misleading financial statements beginning in Westbury1991 and continuing through October 1997 and seeks recovery for alleged violations of the federal securities laws between May 1995 and October 1997. In December 1998, New Yorkthe Company announced an agreement to settle the consolidated action against all defendants and the establishment of a settlement fund of $220,000,000 for the class of open market purchasers of WM Holdings equity securities between November 3, 1994, and February 24, 1998. Haven had purchased the office building and land in December 1997 under a lease agreement and Payment-in-lieu-of-Tax ("PILOT") The settlement agreement with the Town plaintiffs is subject to various conditions, including preliminary approval by the Court, notice to the class and final approval by the Court after a hearing. There can be no assurances that the Court will find the settlement to be fair to the class or that, because members of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency the class may opt out of the lawsuit, WM Holdings will not be a party to additional lawsuits or claims brought by individuals. The Company is aware of another action arising out of the same set of facts alleging a cause of action under Illinois state law. Additionally, there are several other actions and claims arising out of the same set of 97 NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -- ("CONTINUED) facts, including one purported class action brought by business owners who received WM Holdings shares in the sales of their businesses to WM Holdings that alleges breach of contract causes of action on the basis of allegedly false representation and warranties. A purported derivative action has also been filed by an alleged former shareholder of WM Holdings against certain former officers and directors of WM Holdings and nominally against WM Holdings to recover damages caused to WM Holdings as a result of the matter described in this paragraph. It is not possible at this time to predict the impact this litigation may have on WM Holdings or the Company nor is it possible to predict whether any other suits or claims arising out of these matters may be brought in the future. However, it is reasonably possible that the outcome of any present or future litigation may have a material adverse impact on their respective financial condition or results of operations in one or more future periods. WM Holdings intends to defend itself vigorously in the litigation. The Company is also aware that the Securities and Exchange Commission has commenced a formal investigation with respect to the WM Holdings previously filed financial statements (which were subsequently restated) and related accounting policies, procedures and system of internal controls. The Company intends to cooperate with such investigation. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or impact of this investigation at this time. On March 12, 1998, a stockholder of WM Holdings filed a purported class action suit in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware in the New Castle County against WM Holdings and certain of its former directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) the Merger was the product of unfair dealing and the price paid to members of the purported class for their WM Holdings common stock was unfair and inadequate, (ii) the WM Holdings Merger will prevent members of the purported class from receiving their fair portion of the value of WM Holdings' assets and business and from obtaining the real value of their equity ownership of WM Holdings, (iii) defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the members of the purported class by putting their personal interests ahead of the interests of WM Holdings' public stockholders and (iv) the members of the class action will suffer irreparable damage unless the defendants are enjoined from breaching their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks equitable relief that would rescind the WM Holdings Merger and monetary damages from the defendants for unlawfully gained profits and special benefits. The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to contest it vigorously. In the ordinary course of conducting its business activities, the Company becomes involved in judicial and administrative proceedings involving governmental authorities at the foreign, federal, state and local level, including, in certain instances, proceedings instituted by citizens or local governmental authorities seeking to overturn governmental action where governmental officials or agencies are named as defendants together with the Company or one or more of its subsidiaries, or both. In the majority of the situations where proceedings are commenced by governmental authorities, the matters involved relate to alleged technical violations of licenses or permits pursuant to which the Company operates or is seeking to operate or laws or regulations to which its operations are subject or are the result of different interpretations of the applicable requirements. From time to time, the Company pays fines or penalties in environmental proceedings relating primarily to waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. The Company believes that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial condition. However, the outcome of any particular proceeding cannot be predicted with certainty, and the possibility remains that technological, regulatory or enforcement developments, the results of environmental studies or other factors could materially alter this expectation at any time. From time to time, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries are named as defendants in personal injury and property damage lawsuits, including purported class actions, on the basis of a Company subsidiary's having owned, operated or transported waste to a disposal facility which is alleged to have contaminated the environment or, in certain cases, conducted environmental remediation activities at sites. Some of such lawsuits may seek to have the Company or its subsidiaries pay the costs of groundwater monitoring and health care examinations of allegedly affected persons for a substantial period of time even where no actual damage is 98 NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -- (CONTINUED) proven. While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits, their ultimate resolution is often substantially uncertain due to the difficulty of determining the cause, extent and impact of alleged contamination (which may have occurred over a long period of time), the potential for successive groups of complainants to emerge, the diversity of the individual plaintiffs' circumstances, and the potential contribution or indemnification obligations of co-defendants or other third parties, among other factors. Accordingly, it is possible such matters could have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Company has been advised by the U.S. Department of Justice that ▇▇▇") which has been assumed by the Company. Under the ▇▇▇ and PILOT agreements▇▇▇▇▇ Landfill, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company assigned as a result of the building and land Company's acquisition of United, is a target of a federal investigation relating to alleged violations of the Clean Water Act at the ▇▇▇, is subleasing it for $1.00 per year for a 10-year period, and will repurchase the building for $1.00 upon expiration of the lease term in exchange for ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ Landfill in Kentucky. The investigation relates to a period prior to the Company's acquisition of United in August 1997. The Company is attempting to negotiate a resolution with the government which may include a guilty plea to a criminal misdemeanor, a fine and in-kind services. The Company believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial assistance.statements. In June 1996, an indictment was brought against All-Waste Systems, Inc. ("All-Waste"), an indirect subsidiary of the Company acquired in December 1998 in connection with the Eastern Merger, thirteen other corporations and seven individuals in the Southern District of New York. In September 1997 nineteen of the defendants entered guilty pleas and collectively agreed to pay $17,000,000 in restitution to the IRS and Westchester County, fines and civil forfeitures. All-Waste pled guilty to mail fraud, which arose out of an alleged bid-rigging scheme for the Town of New Windsor, paid an $85,000 fine and was sentenced to a five year probation period. The probation period was terminated upon the closing of the sale of All-Waste to Eastern in June 1998. In March 1999, the Company was notified that All-Waste and two other indirect subsidiaries acquired in the Eastern Merger as well as a current employee of the Company were suspended from future contracting with any agency in the executive branch of the U.S. Government pending proceedings. The suspension and potential debarment are based on the September 1997 conviction of All-Waste and activities that occurred prior to ownership of the entities by Eastern. The Company is attempting to remove the three entities from the suspension and proposed debarment list. The Company believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements. In February 1999, a San Bernardino County, California grand jury returned an amended felony indictment against the Company, certain of its subsidiaries and their current or former employees, and a County employee. The proceeding is based on events that allegedly occurred prior to the WM Holdings Merger in connection with a WM Holdings landfill development project. The indictment includes allegations that certain of the defendants engaged in conduct involving fraud, wiretapping, theft of a trade secret and manipulation of computer data, and that they engaged in a conspiracy to do so. If convicted, the most serious of the available sanctions against the corporate defendants would include substantial fines and forfeitures. The Company believes that meritorious defenses exist to each of the allegations, and the defendants are vigorously contesting them. The Company believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Company has brought suit against a substantial number of insurance carriers in an action entitled Waste Management, Inc. et al. v. The Admiral Insurance Company, et al. pending in the Superior Court in ▇▇▇▇▇▇ County, New Jersey. In this action

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES. Lease Commitments At December 31, 2000, the Company was obligated under eighty non-cancelable operating lease agreements with renewal options on properties used principally for branch operations. Leases The Company expects to renew such agreements at expiration in the normal course of business. The leases contain escalation clauses commencing at various times during the lives of the certain facilities and equipment under noncancellable operating leases. Such clauses provide for increases in the annual rental, based on increases in the consumer price index. At December 31, 2000, the Company had entered into several non-cancelable operating lease agreements for Leases and rental of Bank-owned properties. The leases contain escalation clauses that provide for periodic increases in the annual rental, again based on increases in the consumer price index. The projected minimum annual rental commitments under these leases, exclusive of taxes and other charges, are summarized as follows: (in thousands) Rental Income Rental Expense -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2001 $1,245 $ 5,557 2002 1,138 4,532 2003 1,055 3,097 2004 820 2,534 2005 810 2,250 2006 and thereafter 1,371 14,425 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total minimum future rentals $6,439 $32,395 ================================================================================ Included in "occupancy and equipment expense," the rental costs charged to expense under these leases was approximately $1,072,000, $485,000, and $446,000 for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999, and for the period from December 24, 1998, through December 31, 1998, were $14.2 million, $11.2 million and $70, respectively. As of December 31, 2000, future minimum lease payments are as follows: YEAR AMOUNT ---- ------- 2001............................................... $11,077 2002............................................... 7,557 2003............................................... 5,242 2004............................................... 4,101 2005............................................... 3,173 Thereafter......................................... 10,364 The Company also rents utility poles in its operations. Generally, pole rentals are cancelable on short notice, but the Company anticipates that such rentals will recur. Rent expense incurred for pole rental attachments for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999, and for the period from December 24, 1998, through December 31, 1998, was $31.6 million, $14.3 million and $137, respectively. Litigation The Company is a party to lawsuits and claims that arose in the ordinary course of conducting its business. In the opinion of management, after consulting with legal counsel, and taking into account recorded liabilities, the outcome of these lawsuits and claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. 95 Redeemable Securities In connection with the acquisitions of Rifkin, Falcon, and Bresnan, sellers who acquired Charter Holdco membership units or, in the case of Bresnan, additional equity interests in a subsidiary of Charter Holdings, and the Helicon sellers who acquired shares of Class A common stock in Charter's initial public offering may have rescission rights against Charter and Charter Holdco arising out of possible violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the offers and sales of these equity interests. Accordingly, the maximum potential cash obligation related to the rescission rights, estimated at $1.1 billion as of December 31, 2000 (see Note 21), has been excluded from shareholders' equity or minority interest and classified as "redeemable securities" on the consolidated balance sheet. One year after the dates of issuance of these equity interests (when these possible rescission rights will have expired), the Company will reclassify the respective amounts to shareholders' equity or minority interest, as applicable. Certain of these rescission rights expired during the year ended December 31, 2000, and were reclassified to minority interest and equity, as applicable. Regulation in the Cable Industry The cable television industry is subject to extensive regulation at the federal, local and, in some instances, state levels. The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the "1984 Cable Act"), the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the "1992 Cable Act" and together with the 1984 Cable Act, the "Cable Acts"), and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "1996 Telecom Act"), establish a national policy to guide the development and regulation of cable television systems. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has principal responsibility for implementing the policies of the Cable Acts. Many aspects of such regulation are currently the subject of judicial proceedings and administrative or legislative proposals. Legislation and regulations continue to change, and the Company cannot predict the impact of future developments on the cable television industry. The 1992 Cable Act and the FCC's rules implementing that act generally have increased the administrative and operational expenses of cable television systems and have resulted in additional regulatory oversight by the FCC and local or state franchise authorities. The Cable Acts and the corresponding FCC regulations have established rate regulations. The 1992 Cable Act permits certified local franchising authorities to order refunds of basic service tier rates paid in the previous twelve-month period determined to be in excess of the maximum permitted rates. During 2000 and 1999, the amounts refunded by the Company have been insignificant. The Company may be required to refund additional amounts in the future. The Company believes that it has complied in all material respects with the provisions of the 1992 Cable Act, including the rate setting provisions promulgated by the FCC. However, in jurisdictions that have chosen not to certify, refunds covering the previous twelve-month period may be ordered upon certification if the Company is unable to justify its basic rates. As of December 31, 2000, approximately 17% of the Company's local franchising authorities are certified to regulate basic tier rates. The Company is unable to estimate at this time the amount of refunds, if any, that may be payable by the Company in the event certain of its rates are successfully challenged by franchising authorities or found to be unreasonable by the FCC. The Company does not believe that the amount of any such refunds would have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or results of operations of the Company. The 1996 Telecom Act, among other things, immediately deregulated the rates for certain small cable operators and in certain limited circumstances rates on the basic service tier, and as of March 31, 1999, and 1998, respectivelyderegulated rates on the cable programming service tier (CPST). Rental income on Bank-owned properties, netted in occupancy and equipment expense, was approximately $1.1 million, $1.3 millionThe FCC has taken the position that it will still adjudicate pending CPST complaints but will strictly limit its review, and $1.2 million for the corresponding periods. On December 15possible refund orders, 2000, the Company relocated its corporate headquarters to the former headquarters of Haven Bancorptime period predating the sunset date, in WestburyMarch 31, New York1999. Haven had purchased the office building and land in December 1997 under The Company does not believe any adjudications 96 regarding their pre-sunset complaints will have a lease agreement and Payment-in-lieu-of-Tax ("PILOT") agreement with the Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency ("▇▇▇") which has been assumed by material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. Under the ▇▇▇ and PILOT agreements, the Company assigned the building and land A number of states subject cable television systems to the ▇▇▇jurisdiction of centralized state governmental agencies, is subleasing it for $1.00 per year for some of which impose regulation of a 10-year periodcharacter similar to that of a public utility. State governmental agencies are required to follow FCC rules when prescribing rate regulation, and will repurchase thus, state regulation of cable television rates is not allowed to be more restrictive than the building for $1.00 upon expiration of the lease term in exchange for ▇▇▇ financial assistancefederal or local regulation.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES. Minimum Operating Lease Commitments At December 31- The Companies have operating leases for various facilities, 2000automobiles and machinery and equipment, the Company was obligated under eighty non-cancelable operating lease agreements with renewal options on properties used principally for branch operations. The Company expects to renew such agreements at expiration in the normal course of business. The leases contain escalation clauses commencing which expire at various times during the lives of the leases. Such clauses provide for increases in the annual rental, based on increases in the consumer price index. At December 31, 2000, the Company had entered into several non-cancelable operating lease agreements for rental of Bank-owned propertiesthrough 2009. The leases contain escalation clauses that provide for periodic increases in the annual rental, again based on increases in the consumer price index. The projected minimum annual aggregate rental commitments required under these leases, exclusive of taxes and other chargesexcept for those providing for month-to-month tenancy, are summarized as follows: (in thousands) Rental Income Rental Expense -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2001 Fiscal Year Ending August 31, Amount ---------- 2003 $ 847,399 2004 721,728 2005 637,445 2006 618,168 2007 608,464 Thereafter 866,180 ---------- Total $1,245 $ 5,557 2002 1,138 4,532 2003 1,055 3,097 2004 820 2,534 2005 810 2,250 2006 and thereafter 1,371 14,425 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total minimum future rentals $6,439 $32,395 ======================================================================4,299,384 ========== Included in "occupancy and equipment expense," the rental Rent expense under these leases was approximately $1,072,000524,000 for the year ended August 31, 2002. The Analytica Group, Inc., Accent Rx and Accentia, Inc. NOTES TO COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS August 31, 2002 NOTE J - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES - Continued The Company executed a sublease for all of its space in November 2001, with subtenant occupancy beginning in May 2002. The sublease expires in November 2005, with the subtenant having an option to renew until February 2009. In connection with this sublease, the Company will be liable for the difference in its lease commitment and the sublease, as follows: Amount of Fiscal Year Ending August 31, Sublease ----------------------------- ----------- 2003 $ 457,388 2004 320,017 2005 223,682 2006 513,968 2007 608,464 Thereafter 866,180 ---------- Total $485,0002,989,699 ========== Litigation ---------- The Companies are, from time to time, involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of its operations in the ordinary course of business. The Company is not aware of any such claims at August 31, 2002. Major Supplier -------------- Accent Rx entered into a five-year supplier agreement (the "Agreement") with McKesson. The agreement provides for, but is not limited to, minimum monthly purchase levels, monthly minimum purchases by location, pricing, and $446,000 for payment terms, as defined. For the years year ended December August 31, 20002002, 1999, and 1998, respectivelyAccent Rx purchased substantially all of its pharmaceuticals from McKesson. Rental income The agreement contains a 2% late fee if Accent Rx is past due with their obligations. The agreement also contains a service fee of one percent assessed semi-monthly on Bank-owned properties, netted in occupancy and equipment expense, all balances past due 15 days or more. The total amount of fees paid to McKesson under this agreement was approximately $1.1 million_______ for the year ended August 31, $1.3 million2002. The Agreement also contains provisions that would allow McKesson or Accent Rx to terminate the agreement at any time if certain conditions are met, unless either party shall cure the default provision within a thirty-day period. Although management of the Company believes that the likelihood of the loss of McKesson as a supplier is not probable, if McKesson terminated the current distribution relationship with Accent Rx, management believes that it could establish a similar arrangement with another supplier, as there are several distributors of pharmaceutical products in the industry. The Analytica Group, Inc., Accent Rx and Accentia, Inc. NOTES TO COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS August 31, 2002 NOTE J - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES - Continued Employment Agreements --------------------- As of August 31, 2002, Accent Rx has employment agreements with two executives of the Company. The employment agreement with Accent Rx's Chief Executive Officer was effective in September 2001, and terminates in September 2004. The agreement includes an annual salary of $1.2 million 300,000, adjusted in the future for certain revenue run rates. The employment agreement with the Company's Chief Financial Officer was effective in February 2002, and terminates in January 2004, and includes an annual salary of $200,000 subject to adjustment in the future based on certain revenue run rates. Analytica Group, Inc. entered into employment contracts with three of the officers of the Company. Future minimum payments under the employment agreements as of August 31, 2002 are: 2003 $578,125 2004 635,938 2005 391,738 In March 1999, Analytica Ltd. issued an irrevocable letter of credit, acting as security, in the amount of $113,000 for the corresponding periodsbenefit of the lessor under the terms of an operating lease of its office space. On December 15Annually, 2000this letter of credit is automatically renewed for a period of one year, with a final expiration date of July 31, 2003. Analytica Ltd. maintained an amount of deposit in a cash account with the issuing institution that was at least equal to the issuance amount as collateral for this letter of credit arrangement. The amount deposited was approximately $122,000 at August 31, 2002. NOTE K - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS The Company has a management fee agreement with an affiliate company. This agreement became effective during 2002, and the Company recognized $400,000 in management fee income for the period ended August 31, 2002. The Analytica Group, Inc., Accent Rx and Accentia, Inc. NOTES TO COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS August 31, 2002 NOTE L - EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN The Company maintains a defined contribution plan qualified under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. Any employee who is at least twenty-one years of age may enroll in the plan. Participants may contribute up to 12% of their compensation up to a maximum of $11,000. Employer contributions are 50% of employee contributions, not to exceed 6% of compensation, and are determined annually. For the period ended August 31, 2002, the Company relocated its corporate headquarters contributed $6,513. Participants are always 100% vested in their contributions and earnings. The employer contributions and earnings are subject to the former headquarters following vesting schedule: Vested Years of Haven Bancorp, in Westbury, New York. Haven had purchased the office building and land in December 1997 under a lease agreement and Payment-in-lieu-of-Tax ("PILOT") agreement with the Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency ("▇▇▇") which has been assumed by the Company. Under the ▇▇▇ and PILOT agreements, the Company assigned the building and land to the ▇▇▇, is subleasing it for $1.00 per year for a 10-year period, and will repurchase the building for $1.00 upon expiration of the lease term in exchange for ▇▇▇ financial assistance.service Interest ---------------- -------- 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 100 %

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES. Lease Commitments At December 31, 2000, the Company was obligated under eighty non-cancelable operating lease agreements with renewal options on properties used principally for branch operations. The Company expects to renew such agreements at expiration in the normal course has obligations under various noncancelable long-term operating leases for office space and equipment. Some of business. The these leases contain escalation clauses commencing at various times during the lives of the leasesfor operating costs, property taxes and insurance. Such clauses provide for increases in the annual rental, based on increases in the consumer price index. At December 31, 2000In addition, the Company had entered into several non-cancelable operating lease agreements for rental of Bank-owned properties. The leases contain escalation clauses that provide for periodic increases in the annual rental, again based on increases in the consumer price index. The projected minimum annual rental commitments has various obligations under these leases, exclusive of taxes and other charges, are summarized as follows: (in thousands) Rental Income Rental Expense -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2001 $1,245 $ 5,557 2002 1,138 4,532 2003 1,055 3,097 2004 820 2,534 2005 810 2,250 2006 and thereafter 1,371 14,425 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total minimum future rentals $6,439 $32,395 ================================================================================ Included in "occupancy office space and equipment expense," the rental leases of less than one year. Total rent expense under these leases was approximately $1,072,000, $485,000, 15,805 and $446,000 13,107 and $5,417 for the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999, 1999 and 1998, respectively. Rental income The future minimum rental commitments under noncancelable long-term operating leases due over the next five years are as follows: 2001........................................................ $13,706 2002........................................................ 9,597 2003........................................................ 7,003 2004........................................................ 6,041 2005........................................................ 3,376 Thereafter.................................................. 2,990 ------- $42,713 ======= The Company and its affiliates are involved in litigation on Banka number of matters and are subject to certain claims which arise in the normal course of business, none of which, in the opinion of management, is expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. The Company has retained certain self-owned propertiesinsurance risks with respect to losses for third party liability, netted property damage and group health insurance provided to employees. The Company is jointly and severally liable as guarantor on four credit obligations entered into by partnerships in occupancy which the Company has equity interests. The maximum amount of the guaranteed debt totals $148.6 million; the amount outstanding at December 31, 2000 totaled $112.7 million. The Company is subject to costs arising out of environmental laws and equipment expenseregulations, was approximately which include obligations to remove or limit the effects on the environment of the disposal or release of certain wastes or substances at various sites including sites which have been previously sold. It is the Company's policy to accrue and charge against earnings environmental cleanup costs when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and an amount is reasonably estimable. As assessments and cleanups proceed, these accruals are reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, as additional information becomes available. The Company is currently a party to, or involved in, legal proceedings directed at the cleanup of Superfund sites. The Company has accrued an allocated share of the total estimated cleanup costs for these sites. Based upon management's evaluation of the other potentially responsible parties, the Company does not expect to incur additional amounts even though the Company has joint and several liability. Other proceedings F-24 63 involving environmental matters such as alleged discharge of oil or waste material into water or soil are pending against the Company. It is not possible to quantify future environmental costs because many issues relate to actions by third parties or changes in environmental regulation. However, based on information presently available, management believes that the ultimate disposition of currently known matters will not have a material effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity of the Company. Environmental liabilities are paid over an extended period and the timing of such payments cannot be predicted with any confidence. Aggregate environmental-related accruals were $1.1 million5.3 million and $8.2 million as of December 31, $1.3 million2000 and 1999, respectively. 64 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE The Board of Directors and Stockholders The St. ▇▇▇ Company: Under date of February 6, 2001, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets of The St. ▇▇▇ Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and $1.2 million the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the corresponding periods. On years in the three-year period ended December 1531, 2000, as contained in this annual report on Form 10-K for the Company relocated its corporate headquarters year 2000. In connection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also audited the related consolidated financial statement schedule as listed in the accompanying index. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audit. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the former headquarters of Haven Bancorpbasic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in Westburyall material respects, New Yorkthe information set forth therein. Haven had purchased the office building Jacksonville, Florida February 6, 2001 -------------------------------------- COSTS CAPITALIZED --------------------------------------- BUILDINGS & SUBSEQUENT TO LAND & LAND BUILDINGS AND DESCRIPTION ENCUMBRANCES LAND IMPROVEMENTS ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL ----------- ------------ -------- ------------ ----------------- ------------ ------------- -------- Bay County, Florida w/Infrastructure..... $-- $ 2,378 $ -- $ 11,108 $ 13,486 $ -- $ 13,486 Office and land in December 1997 under a lease agreement and Payment-in-lieu-of-Tax ("PILOT") agreement with the Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency ("Misc. Buildings............ -- 2 297 2,561 464 2,397 2,860 Timberlands............ -- 3,896 -- 13,793 17,689 -- 17,689 Leasehold improvements......... -- -- -- 27 27 -- 27 Broward County, Florida Building............... -- 2,474 -- 10,186 2,474 10,186 12,660 Leasehold improvements......... -- -- -- 500 -- 500 500 ▇▇▇") which has been assumed by the Company. Under the ▇▇▇▇ and PILOT agreementsCounty, the Company assigned the building and land to the Florida Timberlands............ -- 1,774 -- 6,281 8,056 -- 8,056 ▇▇▇▇▇ County, is subleasing it for $1.00 per year for a 10-year periodFlorida Office Buildings....... -- -- 1,034 540 423 1,151 1,574 City & Residential Lots................. -- 115 5 -- 115 5 120 Timberlands............ -- 69 -- 244 313 -- 313 Construction in Progress............. -- 172 -- 57,981 14,246 43,906 58,152 Franklin County, and will repurchase the building for $1.00 upon expiration of the lease term in exchange for Florida Unimproved Land........ -- 68 -- (0) 68 -- 68 Land with Infrastructure....... -- -- -- 170 170 -- 170 Timberlands............ -- 1,241 -- 4,395 5,636 -- 5,636 Gadsden County, Florida Timberlands............ -- 1,302 -- 4,611 5,914 -- 5,914 Gulf County, Florida Misc. Buildings........ -- 112 111 231 343 111 454 Land with Hillsborough County, Florida Leasehold Improvements......... -- -- -- 342 -- 342 342 Land with Infrastructure....... -- 3,485 -- 15,044 3,485 15,044 18,529 Jefferson County, Florida Misc. Buildings........ -- -- -- 181 -- 181 181 Timberlands............ -- 1,547 -- 5,476 7,023 -- 7,023 ▇▇▇▇ financial assistance.County, Florida Land w/Infrastructure..... -- 603 -- 22,732 23,335 -- 23,335 Misc. Buildings........ -- 36 264 4 -- 304 304 Timberlands............ -- 923 -- 3,269 4,192 -- 4,192 ----------- ------------ ---------------- ------------------------------- Bay County, Florida Land w/Infrastructure..... $ 37 Various 20 years Office and Misc. Buildings............ 861 Various 10 to 30 years Timberlands............ 334 Various 20 years Leasehold improvements......... 3 Various Lesser of lease term to 5 years Broward County, Florida Building............... 84 Various 30 years Leasehold improvements......... 176 Various Lesser of lease term to 5 years ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ County, Florida Timberlands............ 152 Various 20 years ▇▇▇▇▇ County, Florida Office Buildings....... 375 Various 30 to 40 years City & Residential Lots................. 5 Various 10 to 20 years Timberlands............ 6 Various 20 years Construction in Progress............. -- Franklin County, Florida Unimproved Land........ -- Land with Infrastructure....... -- 2000 -- Timberlands............ 107 Various 20 years Gadsden County, Florida Timberlands............ 112 Various 20 years Gulf County, Florida Misc. Buildings........ Land with 1 Various 10 to 30 years Infrastructure....... -- Various -- Timberlands............ 449 Various 20 years Hillsborough County, Florida Leasehold Improvements......... 52 Various Lesser of lease term to 5 years Land with Infrastructure....... 283 Various -- Jefferson County, Florida Misc. Buildings........ -- Various 10 to 30 years Timberlands............ 133 Various 20 years ▇▇▇▇ County, Florida Land w/Infrastructure..... 73 Various 20 years Misc. Buildings........ 0 Various 10 to 30 years Timberlands............ 79 Various 20 years ▇-▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇. ▇▇▇ COMPANY SCHEDULE III (CONSOLIDATED) -- REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION -- (CONTINUED) DECEMBER 31, 2000 (IN THOUSANDS) -------------------------------------- COSTS CAPITALIZED --------------------------------------- BUILDINGS & SUBSEQUENT TO LAND & LAND BUILDINGS AND DESCRIPTION ENCUMBRANCES LAND IMPROVEMENTS ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL ----------- ------------ -------- ------------ ----------------- ------------ ------------- -------- Liberty County, Florida Misc. Buildings........ $-- $ -- $ -- $ 73 $ -- $ 73 $ 73 Timberlands............ -- 2,930 -- 10,372 13,302 -- 13,302 Manatee County Leasehold improvements......... -- -- -- 111 111 -- 111 Orange County, Florida Leasehold improvements......... -- -- -- 257 -- 257 257 Construction in Progress............. -- 10,356 99 6 10,362 99 10,461 Palm Beach County, Florida Leasehold improvements......... Construction in -- -- -- 447 -- 447 447 progress............. -- -- -- 14,346 -- 14,346 14,346 Pinellas County, Florida Office Buildings....... -- -- 28,960 -- -- 28,960 28,960 Leasehold improvements......... -- -- -- 416 -- 416 416 St. ▇▇▇▇▇ County, Florida Land w/Infrastructure..... Leasehold -- 3,846 -- 21,885 25,731 -- 25,731 Improvements......... -- -- -- 14 -- 14 14 Volusia County, Florida Land w/infrastructure..... -- 4,091 -- 13,537 17,628 -- 17,628 Building............... -- -- 107 -- -- 107 107 Wakulla County, Florida Misc. Buildings........ -- -- -- 112 -- 112 112 Unimproved Land........ -- 8 -- -- 8 -- 8 Timberlands............ -- 1,175 -- 4,159 5,334 -- 5,334 ▇▇▇▇▇▇ County, Florida Land w/Infrastructure..... -- 59 -- 53,533 50,919 2,673 53,592 Building............... -- -- 90 -- -- 90 90 Timberlands............ -- 354 -- 1,255 1,609 -- 1,609 Other Florida Counties Misc. Land............. -- 29 -- 3,544 3,317 255 3,572 Leasehold improvements......... -- -- -- 1,671 -- 1,671 1,671 Timberlands............ -- 685 -- 2,710 3,395 -- 3,395 DESCRIPTION ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION DATE CAPITALIZED OR ACQUIRED DEPRECIABLE LIFE USED IN CALCULATION IN LATEST INCOME STATEMENT ----------- ------------ ---------------- ------------------------------- Liberty County, Florida Misc. Buildings........ $ -- Various 10 to 30 years