Item 1A. Risk Factors

For purposes of this section, the term “stockholders” means the holders of shares of Essex Property Trust, Inc.’s common stock and preferred stock. Set forth below are the risks that we believe are material to Essex Property Trust, Inc.’s stockholders and Essex Portfolio, L.P.’s unit holders. You should carefully consider the following factors in evaluating our company, our properties and our business.

Our business, operating results, cash flows and financial condition are subject to various risks and uncertainties, including, without limitation, those set forth below, any one of which could cause the our actual results to vary materially from recent results or from our anticipated future results.

Risk Factors Relating to the Proposed Merger with BRE

The exchange ratio and the cash consideration will not be adjusted in the event of any change in the stock prices of either Essex or BRE. Upon the consummation of the merger, each outstanding share of BRE common stock will be converted automatically into the right to receive 0.2971 shares of Essex common stock, with cash paid in lieu of any fractional shares, plus $12.33 in cash, without interest, each subject to certain adjustments provided for in the merger agreement. The exchange ratio of 0.2971 and cash consideration will not be adjusted for changes in the market prices of either shares of Essex common stock or shares of BRE common stock. Changes in the market price of shares of Essex common stock prior to the merger will affect the market value of the merger consideration that will be paid to BRE shareholders upon completion of the merger. Stock price changes may result from a variety of factors (many of which are beyond the control of Essex and BRE), including the following factors:

	—	market reaction to the announcement of the merger;

	—	changes in the respective businesses, operations, assets, liabilities and prospects of Essex and BRE;

	—	changes in market assessments of the business, operations, financial position and prospects of either company or the Combined Company;

	—	market assessments of the likelihood that the merger will be completed;

	—	interest rates, general market and economic conditions and other factors generally affecting the market prices of Essex common stock and BRE common stock;

	—	federal, state and local legislation, governmental regulation and legal developments in the businesses in which Essex and BRE operate; and

	—	other factors beyond the control of Essex and BRE.

The market price of shares of Essex common stock at the closing of the merger may vary from its price on the date the merger agreement was executed and thereafter. As a result, the market value of the merger consideration represented by the exchange ratio will also vary.

Therefore, while the number of shares of Essex common stock to be issued per share of BRE common stock is fixed, Essex stockholders cannot be sure of the market value of the merger consideration that will be paid to BRE stockholders upon completion of the merger.

Essex stockholders and unitholders of the Operating Partnership will be diluted by the merger. The merger will dilute the ownership position of Essex stockholders and unitholders of the Operating Partnership. Upon completion of the merger, we estimate that continuing Essex stockholders will own approximately 62% of the issued and outstanding shares of Combined Company common stock, and former BRE stockholders will own approximately 38% of the issued and outstanding common stock of the Combined Company. Consequently, Essex stockholders and unitholders of the Operating Partnership, as a general matter, will have less influence over the management and policies of the Combined Company after the effective time of the merger than they currently exercise over the management and policies of Essex.

Failure to complete the merger could negatively impact the stock prices and the future business and financial results of Essex. If the merger is not completed, the ongoing business of Essex could be adversely affected and Essex will be subject to a variety of risks associated with the failure to complete the merger, including the following:

	—	Essex being required, under certain circumstances, to pay to BRE up to $10 million in expense reimbursement;

	—	Essex having to pay certain costs relating to the proposed merger, such as legal, accounting, financial advisor, filing, printing and mailing fees; and

	—	diversion of Essex management focus and resources from operational matters and other strategic opportunities while working to implement the merger.

If the merger is not completed, these risks could materially affect the business, financial results and stock prices of Essex.

The pendency of the merger could adversely affect the business and operations of Essex. Prior to the effective time of the merger, some tenants or vendors of Essex may delay or defer decisions, which could negatively affect the revenues, earnings, cash flows and expenses of Essex, regardless of whether the merger is completed. Similarly, current and prospective employees of Essex may experience uncertainty about their future roles with the Combined Company following the merger, which may materially adversely affect the ability of Essex to attract and retain key personnel during the pendency of the merger. In addition, due to operating restrictions in the merger agreement, Essex may be unable, during the pendency of the merger, to pursue strategic transactions, undertake significant capital projects, undertake certain significant financing transactions and otherwise pursue other actions, even if such actions would prove beneficial.

There can be no assurance that Essex will be able to secure the financing necessary to pay the cash portion of the merger consideration on acceptable terms, in a timely manner, or at all. In connection with the merger, Essex has obtained commitments for up to $1.0 billion in a senior unsecured bridge loan facility to finance the cash portion of the merger consideration. In addition, Essex is exploring additional alternatives to fund the cash portion of the merger consideration including through existing unsecured credit facilities, asset sales, joint ventures or other financing arrangements. However, Essex has not entered into a definitive agreement for the debt financing, nor has it secured alternative financing, nor has it entered into a definitive agreement for the potential asset sales (the “Asset Sale”) in connection with the merger. There can be no assurance that Essex will be able to secure financing to pay the cash portion of the merger consideration on acceptable terms, in a timely manner, or at all. If Essex is unable to secure such financing, Essex will nonetheless be required to close the merger under the terms of the merger agreement. In addition, the bridge loan facility expires on April 18, 2014 (with a right to extend up to an additional 30 days in certain circumstances) whereas the merger agreement may not be terminable until June 17, 2014.

Risk Factors Relating to the Combined Company Following the Merger

If the proposed merger closes, we will face various additional risks. If the proposed merger closes, the Combined Company (the combination of Essex and BRE pursuant to the merger) will face various additional risks, including, among others, the following:

	—	the Combined Company expects to incur substantial expenses related to the merger;

	—	following the merger, the Combined Company may be unable to integrate the businesses of Essex and BRE successfully and realize the anticipated synergies and other benefits of the merger or do so within the anticipated timeframe;

	—	following the merger, the Combined Company may be unable to retain key employees;

	—	the Combined Company’s anticipated level of indebtedness will increase upon completion of the merger and will increase the related risks Essex now faces;

	—	the future results of the Combined Company will suffer if the Combined Company does not effectively manage its expanded operations following the merger;

	—	counterparties to certain significant agreements with Essex or BRE may exercise contractual rights under such agreements in connection with the merger; and

	—	the Combined Company’s joint ventures, including any joint venture entered into in connection with the asset sale (as described in the joint proxy statement/prospectus), assuming the asset sale occurs, could be adversely affected by the Combined Company’s lack of sole decision-making authority, its reliance on its joint venture partner’s financial condition and disputes between the Combined Company and its joint venture partner.

Any of these risks could adversely affect the business and financial results of the Combined Company.

If the proposed merger closes, there will be additional risks relating to an investment in our common stock. The results of operations of the Combined Company, as well as the market price of the common stock of the Combined Company, after the merger may be affected by other factors in addition to those currently affecting Essex’s results of operations and the market prices of Essex common stock. Such factors include:

	—	there will be a greater number of shares of the Combined Company common stock outstanding as compared to the number of currently outstanding shares of Essex common stock;

	—	there will be different stockholders;

	—	there will be different assets and capitalizations;

	—	the market price of the Combined Company’s common stock may decline as a result of the merger;

	—	the Combined Company cannot assure you that it will be able to continue paying dividends at or above the rate currently paid by Essex;

	—	the Combined Company may need to incur additional indebtedness in the future;

	—	the Combined Company may incur adverse tax consequences if Essex or BRE has failed or fails to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes; and

	—	in certain circumstances, even if the Combined Company qualifies as a REIT, it and its subsidiaries may be subject to certain U.S. federal, state, and other taxes, which would reduce the Combined Company’s cash available for distribution to its stockholders.

Any of these factors could adversely affect Essex's common stock price and financial results. Accordingly, the historical market prices and financial results of Essex may not be indicative of these matters for the Combined Company after the merger.

The risks set forth in the foregoing risk factors titled "If the proposed merger closes, we will face various additional risks" and "If the proposed merger closes, there will be additional risks relating to an investment in our common stock", and additional risks associated with the merger, are described in more detail under the heading “Risk Factors” in the joint proxy statement/prospectus contained in our Registration Statement on Form S-4, which was filed with the SEC on January 29, 2014. Neither the Form S-4 nor the joint proxy statement/prospectus contained therein is incorporated by reference or constitutes a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In connection with the announcement of the merger agreement, three lawsuits have been filed and are pending as of February 10, 2014, seeking, among other things, to enjoin the merger, and an injunction or other adverse ruling being entered in this lawsuit may prevent the merger from being effective or from becoming effective within the expected timeframe (if at all).

Since the announcement of the merger agreement on December 19, 2013, three putative class action and shareholder derivative actions have been filed on behalf of alleged BRE stockholders and/or BRE itself in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, under the following captions: Sutton v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-008425, filed December 23, 2013; Applegate v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-14-00002, filed December 30, 2013; and Lee v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-14-00046, filed January 3, 2014.

All of these complaints name as defendants BRE, the BRE Board, Essex, and Merger Sub, and allege that the BRE Board breached its fiduciary duties to BRE’s stockholders and/or to BRE itself, and that the merger involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process, and unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. The complaints further allege that Essex, Merger Sub, and, in some cases, BRE aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duty. The complaints seek injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the merger, and an award of other unspecified attorneys’ and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On February 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed identical, amended complaints in the three pending actions. The amended complaints add allegations that disclosures regarding the proposed merger in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on January 29, 2014 are inadequate.

We cannot assure you as to the outcome of these, or any similar future lawsuits, including the costs associated with defending these claims or any other liabilities that may be incurred in connection with the litigation or settlement of these claims. If the plaintiffs are successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the parties from completing the merger on the agreed-upon terms, such an injunction may prevent the completion of the merger in the expected time frame, or may prevent it from being completed altogether. Whether or not the plaintiffs’ claims are successful, this type of litigation is often expensive and diverts management’s attention and resources, which could adversely affect the operation of the businesses of BRE and Essex.

Risks Relating to Essex Property Trust, Inc. Regardless of Whether

the Proposed Merger with BRE is Consummated

The Company depends on its key personnel. The Company’s success depends on its ability to attract and retain executive officers, senior officers and company managers. There is substantial competition for qualified personnel in the real estate industry and the loss of any of the Company’s key personnel could have an adverse effect on the Company.

Capital and credit market conditions may affect the Company’s access to sources of capital and/or the cost of capital, which could negatively affect the Company’s business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. In periods when the capital and credit markets experience significant volatility, the amounts, sources and cost of capital available to the Company may be adversely affected. The Company’s strong balance sheet, the debt capacity available on the unsecured line of credit with a bank group and access to the public debt and private placement markets and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac secured debt financing provides some insulation from volatile markets. The Company has benefited from borrowing from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and there are no assurances that these entities will lend to the Company in the future. To the extent that the Company’s access to capital and credit is at a higher cost than the Company has experienced in recent years (reflected in higher interest rates for debt financing or a lower stock price for equity financing) the Company’s ability to make acquisitions, develop communities, obtain new financing, and refinance existing borrowing at competitive rates could be adversely impacted. For the past two years the Company has primarily issued unsecured debt and repaid secured debt when it has matured to place less reliance on mortgage debt financing.

Debt financing has inherent risks. At December 31, 2013, the Company had approximately $3.0 billion of indebtedness (including $737.0 million of variable rate indebtedness, of which $300.0 million is subject to interest rate swaps effectively fixing the interest rate and $156.9 million is subject to interest rate protection agreements). The Company is subject to the risks normally associated with debt financing, including the following:

	—	cash flow may not be sufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest;

	—	inability to refinance maturing indebtedness on encumbered apartment communities;

	—	inability to comply with debt covenants could cause an acceleration of the maturity date; and

	—	repaying debt before the scheduled maturity date could result in prepayment penalties.

The Company may not be able to refinance its indebtedness. This indebtedness includes secured mortgages, and the communities subject to these mortgages could be foreclosed upon or otherwise transferred to the lender. This could cause the Company to lose income and asset value. The Company may be required to refinance the debt at higher interest rates or on terms that may not be as favorable as the terms of existing indebtedness.

Debt financing of communities may result in insufficient cash flow to service debt. Where appropriate, the Company intends to continue to use leverage to increase the rate of return on the Company’s investments and to provide for additional investments that the Company could not otherwise make. There is a risk that the cash flow from the communities will be insufficient to meet both debt payment obligations and the distribution requirements of the real estate investment trust provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Company may obtain additional debt financing in the future through mortgages on some or all of the communities. These mortgages may be recourse, non-recourse, or cross-collateralized.

Our ability to make payments on and to refinance our indebtedness and to fund our operations, working capital and capital expenditures, depends on our ability to generate cash in the future. To a certain extent, our cash flow is subject to general economic, industry, regional, financial, competitive, operating, legislative, regulatory, taxation, and other factors, many of which are beyond our control.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company had 49 of its 139 consolidated communities encumbered by debt. With respect to the 49 communities encumbered by debt, all of them are secured by deeds of trust relating solely to those communities. The holders of this indebtedness will have rights with respect to these communities and lenders may seek foreclosure of communities which would reduce the Company’s income and net asset value, and its ability to service other debt.

Rising interest rates may affect the Company’s costs of capital and financing activities and results of operation. Interest rates could increase, which could result in higher interest expense on the Company’s variable rate indebtedness or increase interest rates when refinancing maturing fixed rate debt. Prolonged interest rate increases could negatively impact the Company’s ability to make acquisitions and develop apartment communities with positive economic returns on investment and the Company’s ability to refinance existing borrowings.

Interest rate hedging arrangements may result in losses. Periodically, the Company has entered into agreements to reduce the risks associated with increases in interest rates, and may continue to do so. Although these agreements may partially protect against rising interest rates, they also may reduce the benefits to the Company if interest rates decline. If a hedging arrangement is not indexed to the same rate as the indebtedness that is hedged, the Company may be exposed to losses to the extent that the rate governing the indebtedness and the rate governing the hedging arrangement change independently of each other. Finally, nonperformance by the other party to the hedging arrangement may subject the Company to increased credit risks. In order to minimize counterparty credit risk, the Company enters into hedging arrangements only with financial institutions that have a current rating of A or higher.

Bond compliance requirements may limit income from certain communities. At December 31, 2013, the Company had approximately $167.6 million of variable rate tax-exempt financing. This tax-exempt financing provides for certain deed restrictions and restrictive covenants. The Company expects to engage in tax-exempt financings in the future. The Internal Revenue Code and rules and regulations thereunder impose various restrictions, conditions and requirements in order to allow the note holder to exclude interest on qualified bond obligations from gross income for federal income tax purposes. The Internal Revenue Code also requires that at least 20% of apartment units be made available to residents with gross incomes that do not exceed a specified percentage, generally 50%, of the median income for the applicable family size as determined by the Housing and Urban Development Department of the federal government. Certain state and local authorities may impose additional rental restrictions. These restrictions may limit income from the tax-exempt financed communities if the Company is required to lower rental rates to attract residents who satisfy the median income test. If the Company does not reserve the required number of apartment homes for residents satisfying these income requirements, the tax-exempt status of the bonds may be terminated, the obligations under the bond documents may be accelerated and the Company may be subject to additional contractual liability.

General real estate investment risks may adversely affect property income and values. Real estate investments are subject to a variety of risks. If the communities do not generate sufficient income to meet operating expenses, including debt service and capital expenditures, cash flow and the ability to make distributions to stockholders will be adversely affected. Income from the communities may be further adversely affected by, among other things, the following factors:

	—	the general economic climate;

	—	local economic conditions in which the communities are located, such as oversupply of housing or a reduction in demand for rental housing;

	—	the attractiveness of the communities to tenants;

	—	competition from other available housing; and

	—	the Company’s ability to provide for adequate maintenance and insurance.

As leases at the communities expire, tenants may enter into new leases on terms that are less favorable to the Company. Income and real estate values also may be adversely affected by such factors as applicable laws (e.g., the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and tax laws). Real estate investments are relatively illiquid and, therefore, the Company’s ability to vary its portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions may be quite limited.

National and regional economic environments can negatively impact the Company’s operating results. During recent years, a confluence of factors has resulted in job losses, turmoil and volatility in the capital markets, and caused a national and global recession. The Company’s forecast for the national economy assumes growth of the gross domestic product of the national economy and the economies of the western states. In the event of another recession, the Company could incur reduction in rental rates, occupancy levels, property valuations and increases in operating costs such as advertising and turnover expenses.

Inflation/Deflation may affect rental rates and operating expenses. Substantial inflationary or deflationary pressures could have a negative effect on rental rates and property operating expenses.

Acquisitions of communities may fail to meet expectations. The Company intends to continue to acquire apartment communities. However, there are risks that acquisitions will fail to meet the Company’s expectations. The Company’s estimates of future income, expenses and the costs of improvements or redevelopment that is necessary to allow the Company to market an acquired apartment community as originally intended may prove to be inaccurate. The Company expects to finance future acquisitions, in whole or in part, under various forms of secured or unsecured financing or through the issuance of partnership units by the Operating Partnership or related partnerships or additional equity by the Company. The use of equity financing, rather than debt, for future developments or acquisitions could dilute the interest of the Company’s existing stockholders. If the Company finances new acquisitions under existing lines of credit, there is a risk that, unless the Company obtains substitute financing, the Company may not be able to secure further lines of credit for new development or such lines of credit may be not available on advantageous terms.

Development and redevelopment activities may be delayed, not completed, and/or not achieve expected results. The Company pursues development and redevelopment projects and these projects generally require various governmental and other approvals, which have no assurance of being received. The Company’s development and redevelopment activities generally entail certain risks, including the following:

	—	funds may be expended and management’s time devoted to projects that may not be completed;

	—	construction costs of a project may exceed original estimates possibly making the project economically unfeasible;

	—	projects may be delayed due to, without limitation, adverse weather conditions, labor or material shortage;

	—	occupancy rates and rents at a completed project may be less than anticipated; and

	—	expenses at completed development projects may be higher than anticipated.

These risks may reduce the funds available for distribution to the Company’s stockholders. Further, the development and redevelopment of communities is also subject to the general risks associated with real estate investments. For further information regarding these risks, please see the risk factor “General real estate investment risks may adversely affect property income and values.”

The geographic concentration of the Company’s communities and fluctuations in local markets may adversely impact the Company’s financial condition and operating results. The Company generated significant amounts of rental revenues for the year ended December 31, 2013, from the Company’s communities concentrated in Southern California (Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, San Diego, and Ventura counties), Northern California (the San Francisco Bay Area), and the Seattle metropolitan area. For the year ended December 31, 2013, 82% of the Company’s rental revenues were generated from communities located in California. This geographic concentration could present risks if local property market performance falls below expectations. The economic condition of these markets could affect occupancy, property revenues, and expenses, from the communities and their underlying asset values. The financial results of major local employers also may impact the cash flow and value of certain of the communities. This could have a negative impact on the Company’s financial condition and operating results, which could affect the Company’s ability to pay expected dividends to its stockholders and the Operating Partnership’s ability to pay expected distributions to unit holders.

Competition in the apartment community market may adversely affect operations and the rental demand for the Company’s communities. There are numerous housing alternatives that compete with the Company’s communities in attracting residents. These include other apartment communities and single-family homes that are available for rent in the markets in which the communities are located. If the demand for the Company’s communities is reduced or if competitors develop and/or acquire competing apartment communities, rental rates may drop, which may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. The Company also faces competition from other real estate investment trusts, businesses and other entities in the acquisition, development and operation of apartment communities. This competition may result in an increase in costs and prices of apartment communities that the Company acquires and/or develops.

The price per share of the Company’s stock may fluctuate significantly. The market price per share of the Company’s common stock may fluctuate significantly in response to many factors, including without limitation:

	—	regional, national and global economic conditions;

	—	actual or anticipated variations in the Company’s quarterly operating results or dividends;

	—	changes in the Company’s funds from operations or earnings estimates;

	—	issuances of common stock, preferred stock or convertible debt securities;

	—	publication of research reports about the Company or the real estate industry;

	—	the general reputation of real estate investment trusts and the attractiveness of their equity securities in comparison to other equity securities (including securities issued by other real estate based companies);

	—	general stock and bond market conditions, including changes in interest rates on fixed income securities, that may lead prospective purchasers of the Company’s stock to demand a higher annual yield from dividends;

	—	availability to capital markets and cost of capital;

	—	a change in analyst ratings or the Company’s credit ratings;

	—	terrorist activity may adversely affect the markets in which the Company’s securities trade, possibly increasing market volatility and causing erosion of business and consumer confidence and spending; and

	—	Natural disasters such as earthquakes.

Many of the factors listed above are beyond the Company’s control. These factors may cause the market price of shares of the Company’s common stock to decline, regardless of the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or business prospects.

The Company’s future issuances of common stock, preferred stock or convertible debt securities could adversely affect the market price of the Company’s common stock. In order to finance the Company’s acquisition and development activities, the Company has issued and sold common stock, preferred stock and convertible debt securities. For example, during 2013 and 2012, the Company issued and sold 0.9 million and 2.4 million shares of common stock for $138.4 million and $357.7 million, net of fees and commissions, respectively. The Company may in the future sell further shares of common stock, including pursuant to its equity distribution programs with Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Barclays Capital Inc., BMO Capital Markets Corp., Liquidnet, Inc., and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA), Inc., and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and BNP Paribas Securities Corp. In 2011, the Company issued 2,950,000 shares of 7.125% Series H Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock at a price of $25.00 per share for net proceeds of $71.2 million, net of costs and original issuance discounts.

In 2013, the Company filed a new shelf registration statement with the SEC, allowing the Company to sell an undetermined number of equity and debt securities as defined in the prospectus. Future sales of common stock, preferred stock or convertible debt securities may dilute stockholder ownership in the Company and could adversely affect the market price of the common stock.

The indentures governing our publicly registered notes contain restrictive covenants that limit our operating flexibility. The indentures that govern these notes contain financial and operating covenants that, among other things, restrict our ability to take specific actions, even if we believe them to be in our best interest, including restrictions on our ability to:

	—	consummate a merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets; and

	—	incur additional secured and unsecured indebtedness.

The instruments governing unsecured indebtedness require us to meet specified financial covenants, including covenants relating to net worth, fixed charge coverage, debt service coverage, the amounts of total indebtedness and secured indebtedness, leverage and certain investment limitations. These covenants may restrict our ability to expand or fully pursue our business strategies. Our ability to comply with these provisions and those contained in the indentures governing the publicly registered notes may be affected by changes in our operating and financial performance, changes in general business and economic conditions, adverse regulatory developments or other events adversely impacting us. The breach of any of these covenants, including those contained in our indentures, could result in a default under our indebtedness, which could cause those and other obligations to become due and payable. If any of our indebtedness is accelerated, we may not be able to repay it.

A downgrade in our investment grade credit rating could materially and adversely affect our business and financial condition. The Company plans to manage its operations to maintain its investment grade credit rating with a capital structure consistent with its current profile, but there can be no assurance that it will be able to maintain its current credit ratings. Any downgrades in terms of ratings or outlook by any of the rating agencies could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s cost and availability of capital, which could in turn have a material adverse impact on its financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

The Company’s Chairman is involved in other real estate activities and investments, which may lead to conflicts of interest. The Company’s Chairman, George M. Marcus is not an employee of the Company, and is involved in other real estate activities and investments, which may lead to conflicts of interest. Mr. Marcus owns interests in various other real estate-related businesses and investments. He is the Chairman of the Marcus & Millichap Company (“MMC”), which is a parent company of a diversified group of real estate service, investment and development firms. Mr. Marcus is also the Co-Chairman of Marcus & Millichap, Inc. (“MMI”), and Mr. Marcus owns a controlling interest in MMI. MMI is a national brokerage firm listed on the NYSE that underwent its initial public offering in 2013.

Mr. Marcus has agreed not to divulge any confidential or proprietary information that may be received by him in his capacity as Chairman of the Company to any of his affiliated companies and that he will absent himself from any and all discussions by the Company Board of Directors regarding any proposed acquisition and/or development of an apartment community where it appears that there may be a conflict of interest with any of his affiliated companies. Notwithstanding this agreement, Mr. Marcus and his affiliated entities may potentially compete with the Company in acquiring and/or developing apartment communities, which competition may be detrimental to the Company. In addition, due to such potential competition for real estate investments, Mr. Marcus and his affiliated entities may have a conflict of interest with the Company, which may be detrimental to the interests of the Company’s stockholders.

The influence of executive officers, directors and significant stockholders may be detrimental to holders of common stock. As of December 31, 2013, George M. Marcus, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors, wholly or partially owned 1.6 million shares of common stock (including shares issuable upon exchange of limited partnership interests in the Operating Partnership and certain other partnerships and assuming exercise of all vested options). This represents approximately 4.3% of the outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock. Mr. Marcus currently does not have majority control over the Company. However, he currently has, and likely will continue to have, significant influence with respect to the election of directors and approval or disapproval of significant corporate actions. Consequently, his influence could result in decisions that do not reflect the interests of all the Company’s stockholders.

Under the partnership agreement of the Operating Partnership, the consent of the holders of limited partnership interests is generally required for certain amendments of the agreement and for certain extraordinary actions. Through their ownership of limited partnership interests and their positions with the Company, the Company’s directors and executive officers, including Mr. Marcus, have substantial influence on the Company. Consequently, their influence could result in decisions that do not reflect the interests of all stockholders.

The voting rights of preferred stock may allow holders of preferred stock to impede actions that otherwise benefit holders of common stock. Essex currently has outstanding shares of 7.125% Series H Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (“Series H Preferred Stock”). In general, the holders of the Company’s outstanding shares of Series H Preferred Stock do not have any voting rights. However, if full distributions are not made on outstanding Series H Preferred Stock for six quarterly distributions periods, the holders of Series H Preferred Stock, together with holders of other series of preferred stock upon which like voting rights have been conferred, will have the right to elect two additional directors to serve on Essex’s Board of Directors.

These voting rights continue until all distributions in arrears and distributions for the current quarterly period on the Series H Preferred Stock have been paid in full. At that time, the holders of the Series H Preferred Stock are divested of these voting rights, and the term of office of the directors so elected immediately terminates.

While any shares of the Company’s Series H Preferred Stock are outstanding, the Company may not, without the consent of the holders of two-thirds of the outstanding shares of Series H Preferred Stock:

	—	authorize or create any class or series of stock that ranks senior to the Series H Preferred Stock with respect to the payment of dividends, rights upon liquidation, dissolution or winding-up of the Company’s business; or

	—	amend, alter or repeal the provisions of the Company’s Charter, including by merger or consolidation, that would materially and adversely affect the rights of the Series H Preferred Stock; provided that in the case of a merger or consolidation, so long as the Series H Preferred Stock remains outstanding with the terms thereof materially unchanged or the holders of shares of Series H Preferred Stock receive shares of stock or other equity securities with rights, preferences, privileges and voting powers substantially similar to that of the Series H Preferred Stock, the occurrence of such merger or consolidation shall not be deemed to materially and adversely affect the rights of the holders of the Series H Preferred Stock.

These voting rights of the holders of the Series H Preferred Stock and of other preferred stock may allow such holders to impede or veto actions that would otherwise benefit the holders of the Company’s common stock.

The Maryland business combination law may not allow certain transactions between the Company and its affiliates to proceed without compliance with such law. Under Maryland law, “business combinations” between a Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder or an affiliate of an interested stockholder are prohibited for five years after the most recent date on which the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. These business combinations include a merger, consolidation, share exchange, or, in circumstances specified in the statute, an asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities. An interested stockholder is defined as any person (and certain affiliates of such person) who beneficially owns ten percent or more of the voting power of the then-outstanding voting stock. The law also requires a supermajority stockholder vote for such transactions. This means that the transaction must be approved by at least:

	—	80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of outstanding voting shares; and

	—	Two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of outstanding voting shares other than shares held by the interested stockholder with whom the business combination is to be effected.

The statute permits various exemptions from its provisions, including business combinations that are exempted by the board of directors prior to the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. These voting provisions do not apply if the stockholders receive a minimum price, as defined under Maryland law. As permitted by the statute, the Board of Directors of the Company irrevocably has elected to exempt any business combination by the Company, George M. Marcus, who is the chairman of the Company, and MMC or any entity owned or controlled by Mr. Marcus and MMC. Consequently, the five-year prohibition and supermajority vote requirement described above will not apply to any business combination between the Company, Mr. Marcus, or MMC. As a result, the Company may in the future enter into business combinations with Mr. Marcus and MMC, without compliance with the supermajority vote requirements and other provisions of the Maryland Business Combination Act.

Anti-takeover provisions contained in the Operating Partnership agreement, charter, bylaws, and certain provisions of Maryland law could delay, defer or prevent a change in control. While the Company is the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, and generally has full and exclusive responsibility and discretion in the management and control of the Operating Partnership, certain provisions of the Operating Partnership agreement place limitations on the Company’s ability to act with respect to the Operating Partnership. Such limitations could delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for the Company’s stock or otherwise be in the best interest of the stockholders or that could otherwise adversely affect the interest of the Company’s stockholders. The partnership agreement provides that if the limited partners own at least 5% of the outstanding units of partnership interest in the Operating Partnership, the Company cannot, without first obtaining the consent of a majority-in-interest of the limited partners in the Operating Partnership, transfer all or any portion of the Company’s general partner interest in the Operating Partnership to another entity. Such limitations on the Company’s ability to act may result in the Company’s being precluded from taking action that the Board of Directors believes is in the best interests of the Company’s stockholders. As of December 31, 2013, the limited partners held or controlled approximately 5.4% of the outstanding units of partnership interest in the Operating Partnership, allowing such actions to be blocked by the limited partners.

The Company’s Charter authorizes the issuance of additional shares of common stock or preferred stock and the setting of the preferences, rights and other terms of such preferred stock without the approval of the holders of the common stock. The Company may establish one or more series of preferred stock that could delay defer or prevent a transaction or a change in control. Such a transaction might involve a premium price for the Company’s stock or otherwise be in the best interests of the holders of common stock. Also, such a class of preferred stock could have dividend, voting or other rights that could adversely affect the interest of holders of common stock.

The Company’s Charter contains other provisions that may delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might be in the best interest of the Company’s stockholders. The Charter contains ownership provisions limiting the transferability and ownership of shares of capital stock, which may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change in control. For example, subject to receiving an exemption from the Board of Directors, potential acquirers may not purchase more than 6% in value of the stock (other than qualified pension trusts which can acquire 9.9%). This may discourage tender offers that may be attractive to the holders of common stock and limit the opportunity for stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of common stock.

The Maryland General Corporations Law restricts the voting rights of shares deemed to be “control shares.” Under the Maryland General Corporations Law, “control shares” are those which, when aggregated with any other shares held by the acquirer, entitle the acquirer to exercise voting power within specified ranges. Although the Bylaws exempt the Company from the control share provisions of the Maryland General Corporations Law, the Board of Directors may amend or eliminate the provisions of the Bylaws at any time in the future. Moreover, any such amendment or elimination of such provision of the Bylaws may result in the application of the control share provisions of the Maryland General Corporations Law not only to control shares which may be acquired in the future, but also to control shares previously acquired. If the provisions of the Bylaws are amended or eliminated, the control share provisions of the Maryland General Corporations Law could delay, defer or prevent a transaction or change in control that might involve a premium price for the stock or otherwise be in the best interests of the Company’s stockholders.

The Company’s Charter and bylaws also contain other provisions that may impede various actions by stockholders without approval of the Company’s board of directors, which in turn may delay, defer or prevent a transaction, including a change in control. Those provisions include:

	—	directors may be removed, without cause, only upon a two-thirds vote of stockholders, and with cause, only upon a majority vote of stockholders;

	—	the Company’s board can fix the number of directors and fill vacant directorships upon the vote of a majority of the directors;

	—	stockholders must give advance notice to nominate directors or propose business for consideration at a stockholders’ meeting; and

	—	for stockholders to call a special meeting, the meeting must be requested by not less than a majority of all the votes entitled to be cast at the meeting.

The Company’s joint ventures and joint ownership of communities and partial interests in corporations and limited partnerships could limit the Company’s ability to control such communities and partial interests. Instead of purchasing and developing apartment communities directly, the Company has invested and may continue to invest in joint ventures. Joint venture partners often have shared control over the development and operation of the joint venture assets. Therefore, it is possible that a joint venture partner in an investment might become bankrupt, or have economic or business interests or goals that are inconsistent with the Company’s business interests or goals, or be in a position to take action contrary to the Company’s instructions or requests, or its policies or objectives. Consequently, a joint venture partners’ actions might subject property owned by the joint venture to additional risk. Although the Company seeks to maintain sufficient influence over any joint venture to achieve its objectives, the Company may be unable to take action without its joint venture partners’ approval, or joint venture partners could take actions binding on the joint venture without its consent. A joint venture partner might fail to approve decisions that are in the Company’s best interest. Should a joint venture partner become bankrupt, the Company could become liable for such partner’s share of joint venture liabilities. In some instances, the Company and the joint venture partner may each have the right to trigger a buy-sell arrangement, which could cause the Company to sell its interest, or acquire a partner’s interest, at a time when the Company otherwise would have not have initiated such a transaction.

From time to time, the Company, through the Operating Partnership, invests in corporations, limited partnerships, limited liability companies or other entities that have been formed for the purpose of acquiring, developing, financing, or managing real property. In certain circumstances, the Operating Partnership’s interest in a particular entity may be less than a majority of the outstanding voting interests of that entity. Therefore, the Operating Partnership’s ability to control the daily operations of such an entity may be limited. Furthermore, the Operating Partnership may not have the power to remove a majority of the board of directors (in the case of a corporation) or the general partner or partners (in the case of a limited partnership) of such an entity in the event that its operations conflict with the Operating Partnership’s objectives. The Operating Partnership may not be able to dispose of its interests in such an entity. In the event that such an entity becomes insolvent, the Operating Partnership may lose up to its entire investment in and any advances to the entity. The Company may also incur losses if any guarantees were made by the Company. The Company has, and in the future may, enter into transactions that could require the Company to pay the tax liabilities of partners, which contribute assets into joint ventures or the Operating Partnership, in the event that certain taxable events, which are within the Company’s control, occur. Although the Company plans to hold the contributed assets or defer recognition of gain on sale pursuant to the like-kind exchange rules under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, the Company can provide no assurance that the Company will be able to do so and if such tax liabilities were incurred they could have a material impact on its financial position.

Investments in mortgages and other real estate securities could affect the Company’s ability to make distributions to stockholders. The Company may invest in securities related to real estate, which could adversely affect the Company’s ability to make distributions to stockholders. The Company may purchase securities issued by entities which own real estate and invest in mortgages or unsecured debt obligations. These mortgages may be first, second or third mortgages that may or may not be insured or otherwise guaranteed. In general, investments in mortgages include the following risks:

	—	that the value of mortgaged property may be less than the amounts owed, causing realized or unrealized losses;

	—	the borrower may not pay indebtedness under the mortgage when due, requiring the Company to foreclose, and the amount recovered in connection with the foreclosure may be less than the amount owed;

	—	that interest rates payable on the mortgages may be lower than the Company’s cost of funds; and

	—	in the case of junior mortgages, that foreclosure of a senior mortgage could eliminate the junior mortgage.

If any of the above were to occur, it could adversely affect cash flows from operations and the Company’s ability to make expected dividends to stockholders and the Operating Partnership’s ability to make expected distributions to unit holders.

Compliance with laws benefiting disabled persons may require the Company to make significant unanticipated expenditures or impact the Company’s investment strategy. A number of federal, state and local laws (including the Americans with Disabilities Act) and regulations exist that may require modifications to existing buildings or restrict certain renovations by requiring improved access to such buildings by disabled persons and may require other structural features which add to the cost of buildings under construction. Legislation or regulations adopted in the future may impose further burdens or restrictions on the Company with respect to improved access by disabled persons. The costs of compliance with these laws and regulations may be substantial.

The Company’s Portfolio may have environmental liabilities. Under various federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, an owner or operator of real estate is liable for the costs of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances on, in, to or migrating from such property. Such laws often impose liability without regard as to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. The presence of such substances, or the failure to properly remediate such substances, may adversely affect the owner’s or operator’s ability to sell or rent such property or to borrow using such property as collateral. Persons exposed to such substances, either through soil vapor or ingestion of the substances may claim personal injury damages. Persons who arrange for the disposal or treatment of hazardous or toxic substances or wastes also may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of such substances at the disposal or treatment facility to which such substances or wastes were sent, whether or not such facility is owned or operated by such person. Certain environmental laws impose liability for release of asbestos-containing materials (“ACMs”) into the air, and third parties may seek recovery from owners or operators of apartment communities for personal injury associated with ACMs. In connection with the ownership (direct or indirect), operation, management and development of apartment communities, the Company could be considered an owner or operator of such properties or as having arranged for the disposal or treatment of hazardous or toxic substances and, therefore, may be potentially liable for removal or remediation costs, as well as certain other costs, including governmental fines and costs related to injuries of persons and property.

Investments in real property create a potential for environmental liabilities on the part of the owner of such real property. The Company carries certain limited insurance coverage for this type of environmental risk. The Company has conducted environmental studies which revealed the presence of groundwater contamination at certain communities. Such contamination at certain of these apartment communities was reported to have migrated on-site from adjacent industrial manufacturing operations. The former industrial users of the communities were identified as the source of contamination. The environmental studies noted that certain communities are located adjacent to or possibly down gradient from sites with known groundwater contamination, the lateral limits of which may extend onto such apartment communities. The environmental studies also noted that at certain of these apartment communities, contamination existed because of the presence of underground fuel storage tanks, which have been removed. In general, in connection with the ownership, operation, financing, management and development of apartment communities, the Company may be potentially liable for removal or clean-up costs, as well as certain other costs and environmental liabilities. The Company may also be subject to governmental fines and costs related to injuries to persons and property.

There have been an increasing number of lawsuits against owners and managers of apartment communities alleging personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold in residential real estate. Some of these lawsuits have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements. The Company has been sued for mold related matters and has settled some, but not all, of such matters. Insurance carriers have reacted to mold related liability awards by excluding mold related claims from standard policies and pricing mold endorsements at prohibitively high rates. The Company has, however, purchased pollution liability insurance, which includes some coverage for mold. The Company has adopted policies for promptly addressing and resolving reports of mold when it is detected, and to minimize any impact mold might have on residents of the property. The Company believes its mold policies and proactive response to address any known existence, reduces its risk of loss from these cases. There can be no assurance that the Company has identified and responded to all mold occurrences. Liabilities resulting from such mold related matters are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. As of December 31, 2013, potential liabilities for mold and other environmental liabilities are not quantifiable and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made.

California has enacted legislation commonly referred to as “Proposition 65” requiring that “clear and reasonable” warnings be given to consumers who are exposed to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, including tobacco smoke. Although the Company has sought to comply with Proposition 65 requirements, the Company cannot assure you that the Company will not be adversely affected by litigation relating to Proposition 65.

Methane gas is a naturally-occurring gas that is commonly found below the surface in several areas, particularly in the Southern California coastal areas. Methane is a non-toxic gas, but can be ignitable in confined spaces. Although naturally-occurring, methane gas is not regulated at the state or federal level, however some local governments, such as the County of Los Angeles, have imposed requirements that new buildings install detection systems in areas where methane gas is known to be located. Methane gas is also associated with certain industrial activities, such as former municipal waste landfills. Radon is also a naturally-occurring gas that is found below the surface. The Company cannot assure you that it will not be adversely affected by costs related to its compliance with methane or radon gas related requirements or litigation costs related to methane or radon gas.

The Company has almost no indemnification agreements from third parties for potential environmental clean-up costs at its communities. The Company has no way of determining at this time the magnitude of any potential liability to which it may be subject arising out of environmental conditions or violations with respect to communities formerly owned by the Company. No assurance can be given that existing environmental studies with respect to any of the communities reveal all environmental liabilities, that any prior owner or operator of an apartment community did not create any material environmental condition not known to the Company, or that a material environmental condition does not exist as to any one or more of the communities. The Company has limited insurance coverage for the types of environmental liabilities described above.

The Company may incur general uninsured losses. The Company carries comprehensive liability, fire, extended coverage and rental loss insurance for each of the communities. There are, however, certain types of extraordinary losses, such as, for example, losses from terrorism or earthquakes, for which the Company does not have insurance coverage. Substantially all of the communities are located in areas that are subject to earthquake activity. The Company has established a wholly owned insurance subsidiary, Pacific Western Insurance LLC (“PWI”). Through PWI, the Company is self-insured as it relates to earthquake related losses. Additionally, since January 2008, PWI has provided property and casualty insurance coverage for the first $5.0 million of the Company’s property level insurance claims per incident. As of December 31, 2013, PWI has cash and marketable securities of approximately $40 million. These assets are consolidated in the Company’s financial statements. Beginning in 2013, the Company has obtained limited third party seismic insurance on selected assets in which it holds an ownership interest in.

Although the Company may carry insurance for potential losses associated with its communities, employees, residents, and compliance with applicable laws, it may still incur losses due to uninsured risks, deductibles, copayments or losses in excess of applicable insurance coverage and those losses may be material. In the event of a substantial loss, insurance coverage may not be able to cover the full replacement cost of the Company’s lost investment, or the insurance carrier may become insolvent and not be able to cover the full amount of the insured losses. Changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations and other factors might also affect the Company’s ability to replace or renovate an apartment community after it has been damaged or destroyed.

Adverse changes in laws may affect our liability relating to our properties and our operations. Increases in real estate taxes and income, service and transfer taxes cannot always be passed through to residents or users in the form of higher rents, and may adversely affect our cash available for distribution and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders and pay amounts due on our debt. Similarly, changes in laws increasing the potential liability for environmental conditions existing on properties or increasing the restrictions on discharges or other conditions, as well as changes in laws affecting development, construction and safety requirements, may result in significant unanticipated expenditures, which could have a material adverse effect on us and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders and pay amounts due on our debt. In addition, future enactment of rent control or rent stabilization laws or other laws regulating multifamily housing may reduce rental revenues or increase operating costs.

Changes in the Company’s financing policy may lead to higher levels of indebtedness. The Company has adopted a policy of maintaining a limit on debt financing consistent with the existing covenants required to maintain the Company’s unsecured line of credit bank facility, unsecured debt and senior unsecured bonds. The Company’s organizational documents do not limit the amount or percentage of indebtedness that may be incurred. If the Company changed this policy, the Company could incur more debt, resulting in an increased risk of default on the Company’s obligations and the obligations of the Operating Partnership, and an increase in debt service requirements that could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. Such increased debt could exceed the underlying value of the communities.

The Company is subject to various tax risks. ESS has elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code. ESS’s qualification as a REIT requires it to satisfy numerous requirements (some on an annual and quarterly basis) established under highly technical and complex Internal Revenue Code provisions for which there are only limited judicial or administrative interpretations, and involves the determination of various factual matters and circumstances not entirely within the Company’s control. Although ESS intends that its current organization and method of operation enable it to qualify as a REIT, it cannot assure you that it so qualifies or that it will be able to remain so qualified in the future. Future legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions (any of which could have retroactive effect) could adversely affect ESS’s ability to qualify as a REIT or adversely affect the Company’s stockholders. If ESS fails to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, the Company would be subject to U.S. federal income tax (including any applicable alternative minimum tax) on the Company’s taxable income at corporate rates, and ESS would not be allowed to deduct dividends paid to its shareholders in computing its taxable income. ESS may also be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year in which ESS failed to qualify. The additional tax liability would reduce its net earnings available for investment or distribution to stockholders, and ESS would no longer be required to make distributions to its stockholders. Even if ESS continues to qualify as a REIT, it will continue to be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on ESS’s income and property.

The Company has established several taxable REIT subsidiaries (“TRSs”). Despite its qualification as a REIT, the Company’s TRSs must pay U.S. federal income tax on their taxable income. While the Company will attempt to ensure that its dealings with its TRSs do not adversely affect ESS’s REIT qualification, it cannot provide assurance that it will successfully achieve that result. Furthermore, it may be subject to a 100% penalty tax, or its TRSs may be denied deductions, to the extent its dealings with its TRSs are not deemed to be arm’s length in nature. No assurances can be given that the Company’s dealings with its TRSs will be arm’s length in nature.

From time to time, the Company may transfer or otherwise dispose of some of its Properties. Under the Internal Revenue Code, any gain resulting from transfers of Properties that the Company holds as inventory or primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business would be treated as income from a prohibited transaction subject to a 100% penalty tax. Since the Company acquires properties for investment purposes, it does not believe that its occasional transfers or disposals of property are prohibited transactions. However, whether property is held for investment purposes is a question of fact that depends on all the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular transaction. The Internal Revenue Service may contend that certain transfers or disposals of properties by the Company are prohibited transactions. If the Internal Revenue Service were to argue successfully that a transfer or disposition of property constituted a prohibited transaction, then the Company would be required to pay a 100% penalty tax on any gain allocable to it from the prohibited transaction and the Company’s ability to retain future gains on real property sales may be jeopardized. Income from a prohibited transaction might adversely affect ESS’s ability to satisfy the income tests for qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Therefore, no assurances can be given that ESS will be able to satisfy the income tests for qualification as a REIT if the Company transferred or disposed of property in a transaction treated as a prohibited transaction.

Dividends received from REITs are generally not eligible to be taxed at the preferential qualified dividend income rates (the current maximum rate is 20%) applicable to individual U.S. stockholders who receive dividends from taxable subchapter C corporations. With limited exceptions, dividends received by individual U.S. stockholders from the Company that are not designated as capital gain dividends will continue to be taxed at rates applicable to ordinary income, which are as high as 39.6%. This may cause investors to view REIT investments to be less attractive than investments in non-REIT corporations, which in turn may adversely affect the value of stock in REITs, including the Company’s stock.