Back to GetFilings.com

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

OR

¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Year Ended December 31, 2002        Commission file number 001-14625

HOST MARRIOTT CORPORATION

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

(240) 744-1000

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes x    No ¨

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

The aggregate market value of shares of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 14, 2002 (based on the closing sale price as reported on the New York Stock Exchange on June 14, 2002) was approximately $2,578,600,000.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of the registrant’s proxy statement for the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2003 are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K. We expect to file our proxy statement by April 7, 2003.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This annual report on Form 10-K and the information incorporated by reference herein include forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements on our current expectations and projections about future events. We identify forward-looking statements in this annual report and the information incorporated by reference herein by using words or phrases such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “estimate”, “expect”, “intend”, “may be”, “objective”, “plan”, “predict”, “project” and “will be” and similar words or phrases, or the negative thereof.

These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties. Factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by us in those statements include, among others, the following:

1

Although we believe the expectations reflected in our forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions, we can give no assurance that we will attain these expectations or that any deviations will not be material. Except as otherwise required by the federal securities laws, we disclaim any obligation or undertaking to publicly release any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statement contained in this annual report on Form 10-K and the information incorporated by reference herein to reflect any change in our expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

Items 1 & 2.    Business and Properties

Introduction

We are a self-managed and self-administered real estate investment trust, or REIT, that owns full-service hotel properties. As of March 1, 2003, we owned 122 hotels representing approximately 59,000 rooms located throughout North America. Our hotels are operated under brand names that are among the most respected and widely recognized in the lodging industry—including Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, Four Seasons, Hilton, Hyatt and Swissôtel.

Our primary business objective is to provide superior total returns to our shareholders through a combination of earnings, dividends and appreciation in asset value by focusing on aggressive asset management, disciplined capital allocation and sound financial management.

We were formed in 1998 as a Maryland corporation as part of our conversion to a REIT. As part of this REIT conversion and our desire to re-incorporate in Maryland, we merged with Host Marriott Corporation, a Delaware corporation, which had been operating since 1993, and retained the name. We conduct our operations as an umbrella partnership REIT through our direct and indirect subsidiaries, including Host Marriott, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership of which we are the sole general partner and hold approximately 90% of the partnership interests. In this report, we refer to ourselves (including our subsidiaries) as “Host Marriott”, to our predecessor Host Marriott, a Delaware corporation, as “HMC”, and to Host Marriott, L.P. as the “operating partnership” or “Host LP.”

The address of our principal executive office is 6903 Rockledge Drive, Suite 1500, Bethesda, Maryland, 20817. Our phone number is 240-744-1000. Our Internet website address is www.hostmarriott.com.

We make available free of charge, on or through our Internet website, as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed or furnished to the SEC, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act.

The Lodging Industry

The lodging industry in the United States consists of both private and public entities, which operate in an extremely diversified market under a variety of brand names. Competition in the industry is based primarily on the level of service, quality of accommodations, location and room rates. In order to cater to a wide variety of tastes and needs, the lodging industry is broadly divided into six segments: luxury, upper-upscale, upscale, midscale (with and without food and beverage service) and economy. Most of our hotels operate in urban markets either as luxury properties under such brand names as Ritz-Carlton and Four Seasons or as upper-upscale properties under such brand names as Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt and Swissôtel. Although the competitive position of each of our hotels varies by market, we believe that they compare favorably to the hotels with which they compete in their respective markets.

A common measure used by the industry to evaluate the operations of a hotel is “room revenue per available room,” or “RevPAR,” which is defined as the product of the average daily room rate charged and the average

2

daily occupancy achieved. RevPAR does not include food and beverage or other ancillary revenues, such as parking, telephone or other guest services generated by the property.

The operating environment for the lodging industry has been, and continues to be, difficult, primarily due to a weak economy. As a result, for the past two years industry RevPAR has declined. According to Smith Travel Research, RevPAR for hotels operating in the upper-upscale segment decreased 3% for the year ended December 31, 2002 over the prior year. This decline is attributable to a decrease in average daily rates of 4% and an increase in occupancy of one percentage point. Our hotels in the luxury and upper-upscale segments decreased 5.1% for that period as a result of an increase in occupancy of less than one percentage point and a decrease in average room rate of 5.9%. We believe that our hotel operations will continue to decline until the economy shows steady improvement and business travel increases. We also believe our hotels will experience a decline in RevPAR in the first and second quarters of 2003 with full year RevPAR comparable to 2002 levels or down modestly.

Supply and demand growth in the lodging industry and the segments in which we operate may be influenced by a number of factors, including growth of the economy, interest rates, unique local considerations and the relatively long lead time required to develop urban, convention and resort hotels. Properties in the upper-upscale segment of the lodging industry benefited from a favorable imbalance between supply and demand during the early 1990’s, driven in part by low construction levels and high gross domestic product, or GDP growth. From 1998 through 2000, supply moderately outpaced demand, which caused slight declines in occupancy rates; however, the impact of the occupancy decline was mitigated by increases in the average daily rate during the period. In 2001 and 2002, demand decreased substantially primarily due to terrorist acts and the economic downturn, which more recently has been exacerbated by the continuing concern over the war in Iraq and the possibility of further terrorist acts. We expect the rate of supply growth to continue to decrease for at least the next two years due to the limited availability of development financing for new construction. Additionally, we believe that demand will remain below historical levels during the first half of 2003, but may begin to grow during the second half of 2003, if the economy strengthens.

Business Strategy

Our primary business objective is to provide superior total returns to our shareholders through a combination of dividends, appreciation in net asset value per share, and growth in earnings. In order to achieve this objective we seek to:

We believe we are well-qualified to pursue our asset management and acquisition and disposition strategies. Our management team has extensive experience in acquiring and financing lodging properties and believes that its industry knowledge, relationships and access to market information provide a competitive advantage with respect to identifying, evaluating and acquiring lodging properties and that this competitive advantage carries

3

over to the work we do to improve and maintain the quality of our assets. These efforts include maximizing the value of our existing portfolio by directing our managers to reduce operating costs and to increase revenues at our hotels, monitoring property and brand performance; pursuing expansion and repositioning opportunities, overseeing capital expenditure budgets and forecasts, assessing return on investment capital expenditure opportunities, and analyzing competitive supply conditions in each of our markets.

Our acquisition strategy focuses on hotels operating as upper-upscale and luxury full-service hotels. We continue to believe there will be opportunities to acquire hotels in these segments at attractive multiples of cash flow and at discounts to replacement cost. Our acquisition strategy continues to focus on:

Our acquisition efforts since 1998 have been limited by the lack of suitable targets that complement our portfolio, increased price competition and capital limitations due to weak equity markets for lodging REIT stocks. Consequently, our activity has been primarily focused on acquiring the interests of limited or joint venture partners, consolidating our ownership of assets already included in our portfolio and, as described in “Operating Structure,” purchasing the lessee interests, which were created as part of our REIT conversion. We are particularly interested in exploring acquisitions that can be accomplished, at least in part, through the issuance of operating partnership units, thereby resulting in an overall improvement in our credit profile. We expect that the currently difficult refinancing market may ultimately cause some owners to sell properties; however, the timing of these potential sales is uncertain.

In addition to acquiring and maintaining superior assets, a key part of our strategy is to engage the leading hotel management companies such as Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, Hyatt, Four Seasons, Hilton and Starwood to operate our properties. As of March 1, 2003, 102 of our 122 properties were managed by subsidiaries of Marriott International, Inc., as Marriott or Ritz-Carlton brand hotels and an additional seven hotels are part of Marriott International’s full-service hotel system through franchise agreements. Our remaining hotels are represented by other nationally recognized brands such as Four Seasons, Hyatt and Hilton. In general, we believe that these premium brands have consistently outperformed other brands in the industry.

Operating Structure

The REIT Reorganization.    We are a Maryland corporation that, for Federal income tax purposes, has elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust or REIT. We operate as a self-managed and self administered REIT, which means that we are managed by our board of directors and executive officers. We have no employees who are not also employees of the operating partnership. We are the sole general partner of the operating partnership and manage all business aspects of the operating partnership, including the sale and purchase of hotels, the investment in these hotels and the financing of the operating partnership and its assets.

4

During 1998, HMC reorganized its hotels and certain other assets so that they were owned by the operating partnership and its subsidiaries. As a result of this reorganization, we became the successor by merger to HMC and, as such, became the sole general partner in the operating partnership. For each share of our common stock, Host LP has issued to us one unit of operating partnership interest, or OP Unit. When distinguishing between Host Marriott and Host LP, the primary difference is the approximate 10% of the partnership interests of Host LP which are held by third parties as of December 31, 2002, which is reflected as minority interest in our balance sheet and minority interest expense in our statement of operations.

The Operating Partnership and its Subsidiaries.    The operating partnership is a Delaware limited partnership. All our hotels and related assets are owned by the operating partnership or one or more of its direct and indirect subsidiaries, all of which are general or limited partnerships or limited liability companies. The OP Units owned by holders other than us are redeemable at the option of the holders, generally within one year after the date of issuance of the holder’s OP Units. Upon redemption of an OP Unit, a holder may receive cash from the operating partnership in an amount equal to the market value of one share of our common stock. We have the right, however, to acquire any OP Unit offered for redemption directly from the holder in exchange for one share of our common stock instead of a cash redemption by the operating partnership. Due to certain tax laws restricting REITs from deriving revenues directly from the operations of hotels, as part of the REIT conversion, our hotel properties were leased by the operating partnership and its subsidiaries to third party lessees. In turn, these third party lessees assumed or entered into agreements with Marriott International and the other operators of our hotels to conduct the day-to-day management of the hotels. At the time of the REIT conversion, substantially all of our hotels were leased to Crestline Capital Corporation and its subsidiaries, or Crestline. As a result of tax law changes applying to REITs, substantially all of our hotels are currently leased to a wholly-owned taxable REIT subsidiary of the operating partnership, which is discussed below.

The REIT Modernization Act, which was enacted in December 1999, amended the Federal tax laws to permit REITs, effective January 1, 2001, to lease hotels to a corporation that qualifies as a taxable REIT

5

subsidiary and to own all the voting stock of such a subsidiary. Unlike other subsidiaries of a REIT, the earnings of a taxable REIT subsidiary are subject to normal corporate level federal and state income taxes.

On January 1, 2001, a wholly owned taxable REIT subsidiary of Host LP, HMT Lessee LLC, acquired from Crestline the equity interests in the lessees of 112 of our hotels and the leasehold interests in four of our other hotels for $208 million in cash. In connection with that transaction, during the fourth quarter of 2000, we recorded a $207 million non-recurring, pre-tax loss related to the termination of the leases for financial reporting purposes. In addition, we recorded an $82 million tax benefit which is reflected as a deferred tax asset because, for income tax purposes, the transaction was recorded as an acquisition of leasehold interests that will be amortized over the remaining term of the leases.

During June 2001, HMT Lessee LLC acquired four remaining leases held by third parties. In the first of these transactions, we acquired the lease for the San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina by purchasing the lessee equity interest from Crestline for $4.5 million. We acquired the leases for the remaining three hotels which we did not already own, the San Diego Marriott Mission Valley, the Minneapolis Marriott Southwest, and the Albany Marriott in connection with the acquisition from Wyndham International, Inc. of their minority limited partnership interests in five partnerships holding seven of our Marriott branded hotels.

The acquisition of the leases through our taxable REIT subsidiary positioned us to better control our portfolio of hotels. Further, because we consolidate the taxable REIT subsidiary, our results of operations reflect the revenues and expenses generated by our hotels as well as taxes paid by the taxable REIT subsidiary.

All but one of our hotels are operated by third party hotel operators pursuant to long term hotel management agreements. Our arrangements with our hotel managers are discussed elsewhere in this “Business and Properties” section.

Lodging Property Portfolio

Overview.    Our lodging portfolio, as of March 1, 2003, consisted of 122 upper-upscale and luxury full-service hotels containing approximately 59,000 rooms.

The following chart details our portfolio by brand as of March 1, 2003:

Our portfolio is geographically diversified with hotels in most of the major metropolitan areas in 28 states, Washington, D.C., Toronto and Calgary, Canada and Mexico City, Mexico. Our locations include central business districts of major cities, near airports and resort/convention locations where large-scale development opportunities are limited. These hotels, because of their locations, typically benefit from significant barriers to entry by competitors. Historically, our properties in urban, resort and convention locations have had higher RevPAR results than similar properties in suburban locations. These properties contributed 69% of our EBITDA during 2002. Our hotels have an average of approximately 483 rooms per hotel. Thirteen of our hotels have more than 750 rooms. Our hotels typically include meeting and banquet facilities, a variety of restaurants and lounges, swimming pools, gift shops and parking facilities, which enable them to serve business, leisure and group

6

travelers. The average age of our properties is eighteen years, although many of the properties have had substantial renovations or major additions.

To maintain the overall quality of our lodging properties we assess annually the need for refurbishments and capital improvements. Typically, refurbishments occur at intervals of approximately seven years, based on an annual review of the condition of each property. The management agreements for the majority of our properties require us to escrow 5% of hotel sales and, on average, we spend approximately $200 to $250 million annually on these refurbishments and capital improvements. These expenditures do not include investments such as the construction of the spa at The Ritz-Carlton, Naples in 2001 or the 500-room tower added at the Orlando World Center Marriott in 2000. We will occasionally spend less than these amounts. For example, in 2002, we reduced our capital expenditures based on our assessment of the operating environment and to preserve capital. During this period, our capital expenditures have been focused on property maintenance and improvements designed to maintain appropriate levels of quality. As a result of the commitment we have historically made to maintaining our assets, we believe that the reductions in capital expenditures during the last two years have not adversely affected the long-term value of our portfolio. For 2003, we anticipate spending approximately $240 million on refurbishments and capital improvements though these expenditures will depend on our results of operations. As the industry recovers, we plan to continue our strategy of pursuing capital expenditure projects designed to enhance the value of our hotels.

Acquisitions.    During 2002, we acquired 80% of the outstanding minority interests in the partnership that owns the San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina (which increased our ownership in that partnership to 90%). We acquired these additional interests in exchange for 1.1 million shares of our common stock and 6.9 million OP Units. In addition, we completed the acquisition of the 1,139-room Boston Marriott Copley Place on June 14, 2002 for $214 million, which included the assumption of $97 million in mortgage debt. During 2001 we acquired the outstanding minority interests in seven of our Marriott branded hotels from Wyndham International for $60 million.

We have not acquired hotels outside of the United States in recent years due to the difficulty in identifying opportunities which meet our return criteria. However, we intend to continue to evaluate acquisition opportunities in international locations, and will pursue these only when we believe they will offer satisfactory returns after adjustments for currency and country-related risks.

Dispositions.    We continue to evaluate the sale of hotels or other assets that do not fit our long-term strategy or otherwise fail to meet our ongoing investment criteria, such as hotels located in slower growth markets, hotels that require significant future capital improvements or hotels that are at a competitive risk given potential new supply. We may reinvest the net proceeds from property sales into hotels that are more consistent with our portfolio, or in a manner consistent with our investment strategy. Among the alternatives we may consider in this regard are the repayment of debt or the open market purchases of our securities. In addition, under the terms of our credit facility and our senior notes indenture, to the extent not otherwise invested in a manner consistent with the terms of these agreements, we are required to use the net proceeds from asset dispositions (during a twelve month period) once the net proceeds are in excess of 1% of our total assets to permanently repay amounts outstanding, if any, under our credit facility, and thereafter, to tender for our senior notes at par. The following table summarizes our dispositions from January 1, 2001 through March 1, 2003 (in millions, except number of rooms):

7

Development Projects.    During 2002 and 2001, we completed the development of the 295-room Ritz-Carlton, Naples Golf Resort and completed the addition of two spas to existing properties.

In January 2002, we opened The Ritz-Carlton, Naples Golf Resort, which is located approximately three miles from our existing Ritz-Carlton, Naples beachfront hotel. The Naples Golf Resort had a development cost of approximately $75 million and includes 15,000 square-feet of meeting space, four food and beverage outlets, and full access to the Tiburon Golf Club, a 36-hole Greg Norman designed golf complex, which borders the hotel. We own 49% of the partnership which owns Tiburon Golf Club, and invested an additional $3 million in 2002 to complete an additional nine holes for the 36-hole golf course. The newly created golf resort and a 50,000 square-foot beachfront spa facility, which opened in April 2001 at a cost of approximately $25 million, operate in concert with the 463-room Ritz-Carlton, Naples beachfront hotel. Further, given the close proximity of the properties, we expect to benefit from cost efficiencies and the ability to capture larger groups than could be accommodated at either of the individual hotels. In June 2001, we completed the 20,000 square foot oceanfront spa at the Marriott Harbor Beach Resort in Fort Lauderdale, Florida at a cost of $8 million. We believe that the spa should increase revenues of this property, which includes 30,000 square feet of meeting space, through increased appeal to business and leisure travelers.

Portfolio Performance.    Set forth below is information about the performance of our hotel properties, including for our comparable hotels (as defined below). This information includes unaudited hotel operating profit and operating profit margin for our comparable properties. Comparable hotel operating profit is a non-GAAP financial measure within the meaning of applicable SEC rules. We believe that the comparable hotel-level results help us and our investors evaluate the recurring operating performance of our properties in similar environments, including in comparisons with other REITs and hotel owners. While these measures are based on accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, costs such as depreciation, corporate expenses and other non-recurring revenues and expenses have been incurred and are not reflected in this presentation. As a result, the comparable hotel-level results do not represent total revenues or operating profit.

Further, results of operations for our hotels that are both managed and operated under the Marriott brand name report results on a 52 or 53-week fiscal year, which ends on the Friday closest to December 31. In 2002, these hotels reported 53 weeks of operations compared to 52 weeks for 2001. Our consolidated financial statements have been adjusted to reflect the results of operations for these properties on a calendar year basis. However, in reporting our hotel operating statistics (average room rates, occupancy, RevPAR and the Schedule of Comparable Hotel-Level Results), the results of the Marriott managed and branded hotels reflect 53 weeks in 2002 compared to 52 weeks in 2001.

8

We define our comparable hotels as properties that are owned or leased, directly or indirectly, by us and for which we reported operating results throughout 2002 and 2001. We exclude from our operating results hotels that have been acquired or sold during those periods, or that have had substantial property damage or that have undergone large scale capital projects. We also exclude rental income from non-hotel properties and the results of our leased limited service hotels.

Schedule of Comparable Hotel-Level Results(1)

(unaudited, in millions, except hotel statistics)

9

The chart below sets forth performance information for our comparable properties as of December 31, 2002:

The chart below presents performance information for our entire portfolio of hotels as of December 31, 2002:

The following tables set forth performance information by geographic region for 2002 and 2001 for our comparable properties as well as the total portfolio:

10

We believe that the location and high quality of our hotels, combined with internationally recognized premium brands, has allowed us to maintain RevPAR and average daily rate premiums relative to our competition. While competition is specific to individual markets, and may include hotels from multiple segments of the lodging industry, generally we define our competition as hotels operated under brands in the upper-upscale and luxury full-service segments. These hotels include the Ritz-Carlton, Marriott, Four Seasons, Fairmont, Doubletree, Inter-Continental, Hyatt, Hilton, Renaissance, Embassy Suites, Sheraton, Swissôtel, W Hotel, Westin and Wyndham brand properties. Based on data provided by Smith Travel Research, occupancy at our comparable properties was approximately 5 percentage points higher for both 2002 and 2001. Average daily rate was also higher by approximately 6% and 8%, respectively, for the same periods resulting in our comparable RevPAR premium of approximately 14% and 16% for the years 2002 and 2001, respectively, as compared with similar hotels in the upper-upscale segment.

The economic trends affecting the travel and hotel industries and the overall economy will be a major factor in determining the rate of growth in our hotel revenues. In the current environment, our managers have actively adjusted the mix of business at our properties, increasing the percentage of room nights from group and discounted business travelers in reaction to the decline in premium business travelers. The current booking cycle for reservations remains much shorter than historical cycles, and therefore, predictions for the volume and mix of business in 2003 are difficult to forecast. For the year ended December 31, 2002, as a percentage of total rooms sold, transient business comprised approximately 55%, a decrease of 3% since 2000. Demand in the corporate and premium business traveler segments, which represent the segments with the highest average room rate, declined 40% in that same period. This decline in demand was partially offset by additional group and contract business, which comprised approximately 45% of total rooms sold in 2002. Additionally, the ability of our managers to curb operating costs while continuing to maintain service and maintenance levels at our hotels will have a material impact on our future operating profit growth.

Foreign Operations.    We currently own four Canadian and two Mexican properties containing a total of 2,552 rooms. During 2002 and 2001, 97% of our total revenues were attributed to sales within the United States and the remaining 3% of our total revenues were attributed to these properties. During 2000, 98% of our total revenues were attributed to sales within the United States and the remaining 2% was attributed to our foreign properties.

Competition.    Competition is often specific to individual markets and includes hotels operated under brands in the upper-upscale and luxury full-service segments. In addition, many management contracts do not have restrictions on the ability of management companies to convert, franchise or develop other hotel properties in our markets. As a result, we often compete with our managers such as Marriott International, which may own or invest in hotels that compete with our hotels.

We believe, however, that our properties will enjoy competitive advantages associated with their operations under the Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, Four Seasons, Hilton and Hyatt hotel brand systems. The national marketing programs and reservation systems of these brands combined with the strong management systems and expertise they provide should enable our properties to continue to perform favorably in terms of both occupancy and room rates. Each of our managers maintains national reservation systems with reservation agents that have the current status of the rooms available and rates from the properties. Our website permits users to connect to the Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, Four Seasons, Hilton and Hyatt reservation systems to reserve rooms at our hotels. In addition, repeat guest business is enhanced by guest rewards programs offered by Marriott, Hilton and Hyatt.

Seasonality.    Our hotel sales have traditionally experienced moderate seasonality, which varies based on the individual hotel property and the region. Additionally, hotel revenues in the fourth quarter reflect sixteen weeks of results compared to twelve weeks for each of the first three quarters of the fiscal year. During 2000, the hotel sales were not recorded in our revenues, as most of our hotels were leased to third parties; however, hotel

11

sales were used to calculate rental income. Hotel sales by quarter for the years 2000 through 2002 for our lodging properties are as follows:

Hotel Properties.    The following table sets forth the location and number of rooms of our 122 hotels as of March 1, 2003. Each hotel is operated as a Marriott brand hotel unless otherwise indicated by its name.

12

Other Real Estate Investments

In addition to our 122 full-service hotels, we maintain investments in joint ventures or partnerships that in the aggregate own four full-service hotels, 120 limited service hotels and other investments, the operations of which we do not consolidate. During 2002, our equity in earnings of affiliates from these investments was less than 1% of our total revenues. Typically, we manage our investments and conduct business through a combination of general and limited partnership and limited liability company interests. As of December 31, 2002, the combined balance sheets of these investments included approximately $1.3 billion in assets and $1.0 billion in debt, principally first mortgages on hotel properties. All of the debt of these entities is non-recourse to us and our subsidiaries. We consolidate entities (in the absence of other factors determining control) when we own over 50% of the voting shares of another company or, in the case of partnership investments, when we own a majority of the general partnership interest. The control factors we consider include the ability of minority shareholders or other partners to participate in or block management decisions.

For a more detailed discussion of our other real estate investments, including a summary of the outstanding debt balances of our affiliates, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition—Investments in Affiliates” and Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements—“Investments in Affiliates.”

13

Environmental and Regulatory Matters

Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of real property may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of hazardous or toxic substances on, under or in such property. These laws may impose liability whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. In addition, certain environmental laws and common law principles could be used to impose liability for release of asbestos-containing materials, and third parties may seek recovery from owners or operators of real properties for personal injury associated with exposure to released asbestos-containing materials. Environmental laws also may impose restrictions on the manner in which property may be used or businesses may be operated, and these restrictions may require corrective or other expenditures. In connection with our current or prior ownership or operation of hotels, we may be potentially liable for various environmental costs or liabilities. Although we are currently not aware of any material environmental claims pending or threatened against us, we can offer no assurance that a material environmental claim will not be asserted against us in the future.

Material Agreements

Our hotels are managed and operated by third parties pursuant to management agreements with our lessee subsidiaries. The initial term of our management agreements is generally 15 to 20 years with multiple renewal terms. Our management agreements with our operators typically have terms described below.

14

Employees

Our Board of Directors and executive officers manage us, and we have no employees who are not employees of the operating partnership. On March 1, 2003, the operating partnership had 189 employees, including approximately 13 employees at the Sacramento Host Airport hotel, who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that is subject to review and renewal on a regular basis. We believe that we and our managers generally have good relations with labor unions at our hotels. We and our managers have not experienced any material business interruptions as a result of labor disputes.

15

RISK FACTORS

Prospective investors should carefully consider, among other factors, the material risks described below.

Financial Risks

We depend on external sources of capital for future growth and we may be unable to access capital when necessary.    We generally are required to distribute to our shareholders at least 90% of our taxable income in order to qualify as a REIT, including any income we recognize for tax purposes but with regard to which we do not receive corresponding cash. As a consequence, our ability to reduce our debt and to finance our growth must, to a significant degree, be funded by external sources of capital. Our ability to access the external capital we require on terms favorable to us or at all, could be hampered by a number of factors, many of which are outside of our control, including, without limitation, declining general market conditions, unfavorable market perception of our growth potential, the downgrading of the ratings on our outstanding public indebtedness, decreases in our current and estimated future earnings or decreases in the market price of our common stock. In addition, our ability to access additional capital may also be limited by the terms of our existing indebtedness, which among other things, restricts our incurrence of debt and the payment of dividends. The occurrence of any of these above-mentioned factors, individually or in combination, could prevent us from being able to obtain the capital we require on terms that are acceptable to us or at all and the failure to obtain necessary capital could materially adversely affect our future growth.

We have substantial leverage.    We have a significant amount of indebtedness, which could have important consequences. It currently requires us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to payments on our indebtedness, which reduces the availability of our cash flow to fund working capital, capital expenditures, expansion efforts, distributions to our shareholders and other general corporate expenditures. Additionally, it could:

If our cash flow and working capital were not sufficient to fund our expenditures or service our indebtedness, we would have to raise additional funds through:

We cannot assure you that any of these sources of funds would be available to us or, if available, would be available on terms that we would find acceptable or in amounts sufficient for us to meet our obligations or fulfill our business objectives.

Our future cash distributions on preferred and common stock may be limited by the terms of our indebtedness and in addition, our ability to pay dividends on our common stock may be further limited by the terms of our preferred stock.    In order to maintain our status as a REIT, we are currently required to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our taxable income. Under the terms of our credit facility and our senior notes indenture, distributions to us by the operating partnership, which we depend upon in order to obtain the cash necessary to pay dividends, are permitted only to the extent that, at the time of the distributions, the operating partnership can satisfy certain financial covenant tests and meet other requirements. For example, to make distributions to us, the operating partnership must in general have a consolidated coverage ratio (measuring the pro forma ratio of its consolidated EBITDA to its consolidated cash interest expense) of 2.0 to 1.0 or greater.

16

In addition, the aggregate amount of all of our debt, not including our Convertible Preferred Securities (defined herein), must be less than or equal to 65% of our total assets plus accumulated depreciation. If it fails to meet these requirements, the operating partnership will only be able to make cash distributions to us, subject to compliance with certain other requirements, in the amounts required to maintain our qualification as a REIT. As of the beginning of the third quarter of 2002, we have had a consolidated coverage ratio of less than 2.0 to 1.0. We will be able to pay dividends only to the extent that we have taxable income and are required to make distributions to maintain our status as a REIT. Accordingly, we expect to continue to be prohibited from paying cash dividends on our capital stock beyond the level necessary to maintain our status as a REIT until our coverage ratio is at or above the 2.0 to 1.0 coverage ratio.

Under the terms of each of our class A, class B and class C cumulative redeemable preferred stock, we are not permitted to pay dividends on our common stock unless cumulative dividends have been paid (or funds for payment have been set aside for payment) on each such class of preferred stock. Therefore, our ability to pay a dividend on our common stock is subject to our having previously paid all cumulative dividends accrued on our outstanding classes of preferred stock. Since the issuance of each of our classes of preferred stock, all dividends on our preferred stock have been paid when due and there are no dividends accrued for prior quarters through 2002. Our ability to pay dividends on our preferred and common stock is also limited by the terms of our Convertible Preferred Securities.

As of December 31, 2002 we remained under the 2.0 to 1.0 EBITDA-to-cash interest coverage ratio under the senior notes indenture. As a result, dividends on both common and preferred shares were restricted to the minimum amount of distributions required to maintain our REIT status. Required distributions for 2002 were satisfied in part by payment of dividends on the preferred shares in 2002. We believe that the remaining 2002 distribution requirement should largely be satisfied by the payment of dividends expected to be declared on preferred shares in the first, second and third quarters of 2003. We may, however, also need to pay a nominal common dividend in 2003 to satisfy any remaining 2002 distribution requirement. The payment of any additional dividends on either common or preferred shares will depend on 2003 operating performance and its impact on taxable income and whether our EBITDA-to-cash interest ratio is below 2.0 to 1.0 coverage for fiscal year 2003. We cannot provide assurance that we will experience improvement in our operations sufficient to reinstate a dividend on our common stock or that we will continue to pay dividends on our preferred stock.

Rating Agency downgrades may increase our cost of capital.    Certain of our corporate debt, including our senior notes, are rated by independent rating agencies, such as Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s. These rating agencies may elect to downgrade their ratings on our corporate debt at any time. As a result of continuing weak economic conditions, the lodging industry experienced a significant decline in business in 2002. Revenues at our hotels decreased during 2002 compared to 2001, and we currently expect that revenues will continue to decrease for at least the first half of 2003, when compared to revenues for the same period in 2002. As a result of the deterioration in our operations, one of the rating agencies downgraded their rating on our senior debt on February 13, 2003. The other rating agency affirmed our rating, but if our operating results continue to decline, they will be more likely to downgrade their rating on our debt. These downgrades negatively affect our access to the capital markets.

The terms of our debt place restrictions on us and our subsidiaries, reducing operational flexibility and creating default risks.    There are no restrictions in our organizational documents that limit the amount of indebtedness that we may incur. The documents governing the terms of our senior notes and credit facility contain covenants that place restrictions on us and our subsidiaries. The terms of our debt put limitation on the following activities:

17

In addition, certain covenants in our credit facility and the senior notes indenture require us and our subsidiaries, as a condition to engaging in certain activities, to meet financial performance tests. These restrictive covenants, together with other restrictive covenants in the documents governing our other debt (including our mortgage debt), reduce our flexibility in conducting our operations and limit our ability to engage in activities that may be in our long-term interest. In addition, certain covenants in our credit facility and the senior notes indenture require us to meet financial performance tests at all times without regard to the activities in which we engage. Our failure to comply with these restrictive covenants could result in an event of default that, if not cured or waived, could result in the acceleration of all or a substantial portion of our debt or a significant increase in the interest rates on our debt, either of which could adversely affect our ability to maintain adequate liquidity.

We are currently in compliance with the terms and restrictive covenants of our credit facility, but if operations do not improve, we may fail to comply with certain of the terms of our credit facility. While we expect to modify the terms of our credit facility to provide for less stringent financial covenants, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in making such modification on terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to modify the terms of the credit facility to provide for less stringent financial covenants or to obtain alternative sources of capital on terms acceptable to us, our liquidity will be adversely affected.

Our mortgage debt contains provisions that may reduce our liquidity.    Certain of our mortgage debt requires that, to the extent cash flow from the hotels which secure such debt drops below stated levels, we escrow cash flow after the payment of debt service until operations improve above the stated levels. In some cases, the escrowed amount may be applied to the outstanding balance of the mortgage debt. Such provisions were triggered under two of our mortgage facilities which are secured by twelve of our properties. As a result, approximately $17 million of cash has been escrowed as of December 31, 2002. There can be no assurance that these properties will achieve the minimum cash flow levels required to trigger a release of the escrowed funds. The amounts required to be escrowed may be material and may negatively affect our liquidity by limiting our access to cash flow after debt service from these mortgaged properties.

Certain financial covenants under the documents governing our indebtedness limit our ability to engage in activities that may be in our long-term best interest.    Under the terms of our credit facility and the senior notes indenture, we and our subsidiaries are generally prohibited from incurring additional indebtedness unless, at the time of such incurrence, we would satisfy the requirements set forth therein, including the consolidated coverage ratio as discussed above. As a result of the effects on our business of the continuing weak economic environment, our consolidated coverage ratio calculated beginning in the third quarter of 2002 continues to be less than 2.0 to 1.0. Because our consolidated coverage ratio is below this level, the terms of our indebtedness prohibits us from incurring indebtedness other than the incurrence of amounts specifically permitted to be incurred, such as borrowings under our credit facility and the incurrence of debt in connection with refinancings. Our failure to maintain a consolidated coverage ratio that is equal to or greater than 2.0 to 1.0 also limits our ability to reinstate the payment of dividends on our common stock as described in “Risk Factors—Financial Risks—Our future cash distributions on common stock may be limited by the terms of our indebtedness and the terms of our preferred stock.” The restriction imposed by this covenant may limit our ability to engage in activities that may be in our long-term interest.

Sales of shares of our common stock that are, or become, available for sale could adversely affect the price for shares of our common stock.    Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock, or the perception that sales could occur, could adversely affect prevailing market prices for our common stock. Holders

18

of units of limited partnership interest in the operating partnership may redeem their OP Units for cash, or at our discretion, for shares of our common stock. Holders who redeem their OP Units and receive common stock upon redemption will be able to sell those shares freely, unless the person is our affiliate and resale of the affiliate’s shares is not covered by an effective registration statement. As of March 1, 2003, there were approximately 29 million OP Units outstanding that are currently redeemable for cash or, at our election, for an equivalent number of shares of common stock. Further, a substantial number of shares of our common stock have been, and will be, issued or reserved for issuance from time to time under our employee benefit plans. These shares of common stock would be available for sale in the public markets from time to time pursuant to exemptions from registration or upon registration. Moreover, we may issue additional shares of our common stock in the future. We can make no prediction about the effect that future sales of our common stock would have on the market price of our common stock.

Our earnings and cash distributions will affect the market price of shares of our common stock.    We believe that the market value of a REIT’s equity securities is based in part on the market’s perception of the REIT’s growth potential and its current and potential future cash distributions, as well as upon the value of the REIT’s underlying assets. For that reason, shares of our common stock may trade at prices that are higher or lower than our net asset value per share. Our failure to meet the market’s expectation with regard to future earnings and cash distributions would likely adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Market interest rates may affect the price of shares of our common stock.    We believe that one of the factors which investors consider important in deciding whether to buy or sell shares of a REIT is the distribution rate on the shares, considered as a percentage of the price of the shares, relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates increase, prospective purchasers of REIT shares may expect a higher dividend rate. Thus, higher market interest rates could cause the market price of our shares to go down.

Risks of Operation

Our revenues and the value of our properties are subject to conditions affecting the lodging industry. The lodging industry has experienced a difficult period and operations have generally been declining for the past two years. The decline has resulted in a decline in RevPAR and declining profit margins. The decline is due to a number of factors including a weak economy and apprehension over further terrorist activity in the United States and the war in Iraq, all of which have changed the travel patterns of both business and leisure travelers. It is not clear whether these changes are permanent or whether they will continue to evolve creating new opportunities or difficulties for the industry. Based on the uncertain state of the economy, we have forecasted that RevPAR will be comparable to 2002 levels or down modestly. Our forecast is affected and can change based on the following items:

There can be no assurance that the current weak economic conditions will not continue for an extended period of time or that if such conditions do continue, they will not further affect our operations. To the extent that such conditions were to persist, our assets may not generate income sufficient to pay our expenses and we may be unable to service our debt and maintain our properties.

19

In addition, thirty of our hotels and assets related thereto are subject to various mortgages in an aggregate amount of approximately $2.3 billion. Although the debt is generally non-recourse to us and the operating partnership, if these hotels do not produce adequate cash flow to service the debt secured by such mortgages, the mortgage lenders could foreclose on these assets. If the cash flow from these properties were not sufficient to provide us with an adequate return, we may opt to allow such foreclosure rather than make the necessary mortgage payments with funds from other sources. However, our senior notes indenture and credit facility contain cross default provisions, which depending upon the amount of secured debt defaulted on, could cause a cross default under both of these agreements. For this and other reasons, we cannot assure you that permitting any such foreclosure would not adversely affect our long-term business prospects.

Our expenses may not decrease if our revenue drops.    Certain expenses associated with owning and operating hotels are fixed and do not necessarily decrease when circumstances such as market factors and competition cause a reduction in income from the property. Because of current weak economic conditions, particularly in the lodging industry, we have been working with our managers to reduce the operating costs of our hotels. While we have achieved reductions in operating costs as a result of these efforts, further cost reductions could be difficult to achieve if operating levels continue to decline. Some of the cost reduction efforts undertaken may eventually need to be reversed even if operations remain at reduced levels. Regardless of these efforts to reduce costs, our expenses will be affected by inflationary increases, and in the case of certain costs, such as wages, benefits and insurance, may exceed the rate of inflation in 2003, and our managers may be unable to offset these increased expenses with higher room rates. Any of our efforts to reduce operating costs or failure to make scheduled capital expenditures could adversely affect the growth of our business and the value of our hotel properties.

Our revenues may be affected by increased use of reservation systems based on the Internet.    Although the majority of the rooms sold on the Internet are sold through websites maintained by our managers, a growing number of rooms are sold through independent Internet sites. Typically, these independent Internet sites purchase rooms at a negotiated discount from participating properties, which could result in lower average room rates compared to the room rates that the manager may have obtained. While we do not believe that price is the only factor considered when choosing our properties, if the discount or the amount of rooms sold using the internet were to increase significantly our results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our ground lease payments may increase faster than the revenues we receive on the hotels situated on the leased properties. As of March 1, 2003, 44 of our hotels are subject to ground leases (including the New York World Trade Center Marriott hotel ground lease which is still in effect). These ground leases generally require increases in ground rent payments every five years. Our ability to service our debt could be adversely affected to the extent that our revenues do not increase at the same or a greater rate than the increases in rental payments under the ground leases. In addition, if we were to sell a hotel encumbered by a ground lease, the buyer would have to assume the ground lease, which may result in a lower sales price. Moreover, to the extent that such ground leases are not renewed at their expiration, our revenues could be adversely affected.

We do not control our hotel operations and we are dependent on the managers of our hotels.    Because federal income tax laws restrict REITs and their subsidiaries from operating a hotel, we do not manage our hotels. Instead, we retain third-party managers to manage our hotels pursuant to management agreements. Our income from the hotels may be adversely affected if our managers fail to provide quality services and amenities or if they fail to maintain a quality brand name. While our wholly owned taxable REIT subsidiaries lease substantially all of our full-service properties and monitor the hotel managers’ performance, we have limited specific recourse under our management agreements if we believe that the hotel managers are not performing adequately. In addition, from time to time, we have had, and continue to have, differences with the managers of our hotels over their performance and compliance with the terms of our management agreements. We generally resolve issues with our managers through discussions and negotiations. However, if we are unable to reach satisfactory results through discussions and negotiations, we may choose to litigate such a dispute.

20

Failure by our hotel managers to fully perform the duties agreed to in our management agreements could adversely affect our results of operations.

Our relationship with Marriott International may result in conflicts of interest.    Marriott International, a public hotel management company, and its affiliates, manages or franchises 109 of our 122 hotels as of March 1, 2003. In addition, Marriott International manages, and in some cases owns or is invested in, hotels that compete with our hotels. As a result, Marriott International has in the past made and may in the future make decisions regarding competing lodging facilities that are not or would not be in our best interests.

Prior to the departure of J. W. Marriott, Jr. from our board at the end of his term in May of 2002, and Richard E. Marriott’s resignation from the board of Marriott International in May of 2002, Richard E. Marriott was our Chairman of the Board and a director of Marriott International and his brother, J. W. Marriott, Jr., was a member of our Board of Directors and served as a director and executive officer of Marriott International. As a result, both individuals had potential conflicts of interest as our directors when making decisions regarding Marriott International. J. W. Marriott, Jr. and Richard E. Marriott beneficially owned, as determined for securities law purposes, as of February 28, 2003, approximately 12.4% and 12.7%, respectively, of the outstanding shares of common stock of Marriott International. Our Board of Directors followed our policies and procedures intended to limit the involvement of J. W. Marriott, Jr. and Richard E. Marriott in conflict situations, including requiring them to abstain from voting as directors in matters that presented a conflict between the companies.

Our management agreements could impair the sale or financing of our hotels.    Under the terms of our management agreements, we generally may not sell, lease or otherwise transfer the hotels unless the transferee is not a competitor of the manager and the transferee assumes the related management agreements and meets specified other conditions. Our ability to finance or sell any of the properties, depending upon the structure of such transactions, may require the manager’s consent. If the manager does not consent, we would be prohibited from taking actions in our best interest without breaching the management agreement.

The acquisition contracts relating to some hotels limit our ability to sell or refinance those hotels.    For reasons relating to tax considerations of the former and current owners of approximately 18 of our full-service hotels, we agreed to restrictions on selling the hotels or repaying or refinancing the mortgage debt on those hotels for varying periods depending on the hotel, substantially all of which will expire by 2008. We anticipate that, in specified circumstances, we may agree to similar restrictions in connection with future hotel acquisitions. As a result, even if it were in our best interests to sell these hotels or refinance the mortgage debt on such hotels, it may be difficult or costly to do so during their respective lock-out periods.

We may be unable to sell properties because real estate investments are illiquid.    Real estate investments generally cannot be sold quickly. We may not be able to vary our portfolio promptly in response to economic or other conditions. The inability to respond promptly to changes in the performance of our investments could adversely affect our financial condition and our ability to service our debt. In addition, there are limitations under the federal tax laws applicable to REITs and agreements that we have entered into when we acquired some of our properties that may limit our ability to recognize the full economic benefit from a sale of our assets.

We depend on our key personnel.     We depend on the efforts of our executive officers and other key personnel. While we believe that we could find replacements for these key personnel, the loss of their services could have a significant adverse effect on our operations. None of our key personnel have employment agreements.

Litigation judgments or settlements could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. We are a party to various lawsuits, including lawsuits relating to our conversion into a REIT. While we and the other defendants to such lawsuits believe all of the lawsuits in which we are a defendant are without merit and we are vigorously defending against such claims, we can give no assurance as to the outcome of any of the lawsuits. If any of the lawsuits were to be determined adversely to us or a settlement involving a payment of a material sum of money were to occur, there could be a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

21

We may acquire hotel properties through joint ventures with third parties that could result in conflicts.    Instead of purchasing hotel properties directly, we may invest as a co-venturer. Joint venturers often share control over the operation of the joint venture assets. For example, we entered into a joint venture with Marriott International that owns two limited partnerships holding, in the aggregate, 120 Courtyard by Marriott hotels. Subsidiaries of Marriott International manage these Courtyard by Marriott hotels and other subsidiaries of Marriott International serve as ground lessors and mezzanine lender to the partnerships. Actions by a co-venturer could subject the assets to additional risk, including:

Although we generally will seek to maintain sufficient control of any joint venture to permit our objectives to be achieved, we might not be able to take action without the approval of our joint venture partners. Also, our joint venture partners could take actions binding on the joint venture without our consent. For further discussion of the risks associated with entering into a joint venture with Marriott International, “Risk Factors—Risks of Operation—Our relationship with Marriott International may result in conflicts of interest.”

Environmental problems are possible and can be costly.    We believe that our properties are in compliance in all material respects with applicable environmental laws. Unidentified environmental liabilities could arise, however, and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and performance. Federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment may require a current or previous owner or operator of real estate to investigate and clean up hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum product releases at the property. The owner or operator may have to pay a governmental entity or third parties for property damage and for investigation and clean-up costs incurred by the parties in connection with the contamination. These laws typically impose clean-up responsibility and liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of or caused the presence of the contaminants. Even if more than one person may have been responsible for the contamination, each person covered by the environmental laws may be held responsible for all of the clean-up costs incurred. In addition, third parties may sue the owner or operator of a site for damages and costs resulting from environmental contamination emanating from that site. Environmental laws also govern the presence, maintenance and removal of asbestos. These laws require that owners or operators of buildings containing asbestos properly manage and maintain the asbestos, that they notify and train those who may come into contact with asbestos and that they undertake special precautions, including removal or other abatement, if asbestos would be disturbed during renovation or demolition of a building. These laws may impose fines and penalties on building owners or operators who fail to comply with these requirements and may allow third parties to seek recovery from owners or operators for personal injury associated with exposure to asbestos fibers.

Compliance with other government regulations can be costly.    Our hotels are subject to various other forms of regulation, including Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, building codes and regulations pertaining to fire safety. Compliance with those laws and regulations could require substantial capital expenditures. These regulations may be changed from time to time, or new regulations adopted, resulting in additional costs of compliance, including potential litigation. Any increased costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Future terrorist attacks could adversely affect us.    Previous terrorist attacks have adversely affected the travel and hospitality industries, including the full-service hotel industry. The impact which these terrorist attacks have had, or could have on our business in particular and the United States economy, the global economy and global financial markets in general is indeterminable. It is possible that these factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, our ability to finance our business, our ability to insure our properties (see “Risk Factors—Risks of Operation—We may not be able to recover fully under our existing terrorism insurance for

22

losses caused by some types of terrorist acts, and recently enacted federal terrorism legislation does not ensure that we will be able to obtain terrorism insurance in adequate amounts or at acceptable premium levels in the future.”) and on our financial condition and results of operations as a whole.

Some potential losses are not covered by insurance.    We carry comprehensive insurance coverage for general liability, property, business interruption and other risks with respect to all of our hotels and other properties. These policies offer coverage features and insured limits that we believe are customary for similar type properties. Generally, our “all-risk” property policies provide that coverage is available on a per occurrence basis and that, for each occurrence, there is an overall limit as well as various sub-limits on the amount of insurance proceeds we can receive. Sub-limits exist for certain types of claims such as service interruption, abatement, expediting costs or landscaping replacement, and the dollar amounts of these sub-limits are significantly lower than the dollar amounts of the overall coverage limit. Our property policies also provide that all of the claims from each of our properties resulting from a particular insurable event, must be combined together for purposes of evaluating whether the aggregate limits and sub-limits contained in our policies have been exceeded and, in the case of our Marriott-managed hotels, any such claims will also be combined with the claims of other owners of Marriott-managed hotels for the same purpose. That means that, if an insurable event occurs that affects more than one of our hotels, or, in the case of Marriott-managed hotels, affects Marriott-managed hotels owned by others, the claims from each affected hotel will be added together to determine whether the aggregate limit or sub-limits, depending on the type of claim, have been reached and each affected hotel will only receive a proportional share of the amount of insurance proceeds provided for under the policy. We may incur losses in excess of insured limits and, as a result, we may be even less likely to receive sufficient coverage for risks that affect multiple properties such as earthquakes or certain types of terrorism.

In addition, there are other risks such as war, certain forms of terrorism such as nuclear, biological or chemical terrorism and some environmental hazards that may be deemed to fall completely outside the general coverage limits of our policies or may be uninsurable or may be too expensive to justify insuring against. If any such risk were to materialize and materially adversely affect one or more of our properties, we would likely not be able to recover our losses.

We may also encounter challenges with an insurance provider regarding whether it will pay a particular claim that we believe to be covered under our policy. Should a loss in excess of insured limits or an uninsured loss occur or should we be unsuccessful in obtaining coverage from an insurance carrier, we could lose all, or a portion of, the capital we have invested in a property, as well as the anticipated future revenue from the hotel. In that event, we might nevertheless remain obligated for any mortgage debt or other financial obligations related to the property.

We may not be able to recover fully under our existing terrorism insurance for losses caused by some types of terrorist acts, and recently enacted federal terrorism legislation does not ensure that we will be able to obtain terrorism insurance in adequate amounts or at acceptable premium levels in the future.    On September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City resulted in the destruction of our New York World Trade Center Marriott hotel and caused considerable damage to our New York Marriott Financial Center hotel. Although we had both property and business interruption insurance with a major insurer from whom we expect to receive proceeds to cover a substantial portion of the losses at both hotels, we cannot currently determine the amount or timing of those payments. Under the terms of the New York World Trade Center Marriott ground lease, any proceeds from the property portion of the hotel claim are required to be placed in an insurance trust for the exclusive purpose of rebuilding the hotel. As of March 1, 2003, we had received business interruption and property advances from our insurers in an aggregate amount of $41 million, approximately $6 million of which was for property insurance proceeds relating to the two hotels. If the amount of such insurance proceeds is substantially less than our actual losses or if the payments are substantially delayed, it could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, as a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, most insurers ceased to offer terrorism coverage in conjunction with “all-risk” property policies (described below), and the main source of property

23

terrorism coverage became separate “standalone” terrorism insurance policies offering limited coverage amounts with high premium levels. We have procured such standalone terrorism coverage, which is subject to annual aggregate limits which fall below the full replacement cost of certain high value properties, and with more limited coverage than the all-risk program shared among various hotels. On November 26, 2002, the Federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) required all-risk and liability insurers who had excluded or limited terrorism coverage to remove the exclusion in exchange for requiring insureds to pay an additional premium for the coverage within a specified time period. Because our liability policies generally offered terrorism coverage, TRIA mainly impacts our all-risk insurance.

We, through Marriott International and our broker for certain of our non-Marriott International properties, decided to purchase the additional terrorism coverage under TRIA and are currently in the process of obtaining the insurance. This terrorism coverage, compared to standalone coverage, offers the higher limits and more comprehensive coverage associated with our all-risk programs. However, as noted above, the all-risk program also has limitations such as per occurrence limits and sublimits which might have to be shared proportionally across participating hotels under certain loss scenarios. All-risk insurers also only have to provide TRIA-related coverage for “certified” acts of terrorism—namely those which are committed on behalf of non-United States persons or interests. Further, we do not have full replacement coverage at all of our properties for acts of terrorism committed on behalf of United States persons or interests, as our coverage for such incidents is limited to the standalone program and its aggregate limits and to its provisions for sharing coverage with other owners who experience a loss. In addition, property damage related to war and to nuclear incidents is excluded under our standalone terrorism policies. The policy excludes coverage for chemical and biological incidents, and it is unclear whether these incidents would be covered under our other standalone policies. The availability of any such coverage under TRIA is currently unclear as government and insurance industry experts continue to analyze the language and intent of the legislation and we continue to review the language of our all-risk policies. In addition, TRIA terminates on December 31, 2005, and there is no guarantee that the terrorism coverage that it mandates will be readily available or affordable thereafter. As a result of the above, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the extent and adequacy of terrorism coverage that will be available to protect our interests in the event of future terrorist attacks that impact our properties.

We may be unable to satisfy the insurance requirements of our lenders given the changes in the insurance industry after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.    We are required to maintain adequate or full replacement cost “all-risk” property insurance on properties that are subject to mortgage agreements. In the months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our policies in effect during the time of the terrorist attacks expired, and thereafter, we completed renewals of the all-risk property insurance policies for all of our hotels. As discussed above, we also procured standalone coverage for terrorism, but not at levels which provided full replacement value at all of our properties with loans. The existence of additional terrorism coverage since the passage of TRIA should satisfy many of these lenders. However, as discussed above, this coverage also has limitations.

In addition, certain of our mortgage debt agreements require us to maintain property insurance provided by carriers maintaining certain minimum ratings from Standard & Poor’s, A.M. Best or other rating agencies. We do not currently satisfy a minimum Standard & Poor’s insurer rating requirement of AA for six of our properties subject to approximately $481 million of mortgage debt. We also do not currently satisfy the minimum Standard & Poor’s insurer rating requirement of AA- for one of the properties within a mortgage backed securities portfolio subject to approximately $609 million in mortgage debt. Following a downgrade in September of 2002, our main carrier for these properties possesses a Standard & Poor’s rating of A+. We have notified the appropriate lenders of this situation, and all have either waived the minimum carrier rating requirement, or provided written assurances that they are satisfied with the makeup of our pool of insurers. Additionally, for five of our properties subject to approximately $711 million of mortgage debt, our insurance does not meet the requirement that all property insurance carriers maintain a minimum A.M. Best rating of A-X. For one of the properties, the main carrier does not satisfy the financial strength requirement under the loan. For the other four properties, several of the companies making up our pool of insurers do not satisfy the minimum A.M. Best rating with respect to market capitalization. All of the affected lenders have been notified and have either waived the requirement or provided written assurances that they are satisfied with the insurance.

24

While we do not expect any of the lenders to take action in response to these deficiencies, we cannot provide assurances that each of our lenders will continue to be satisfied with our insurance coverage, or with the rating levels of our carriers, or that our carriers will not be downgraded further. If any of these lenders become dissatisfied with our insurance coverage or the ratings of our insurance carriers, they may on our behalf, elect to procure additional property insurance coverage that meets their ratings requirements. The cost of such additional property insurance coverage would be borne by the property or properties securing the loans. Also, the premiums associated with such coverage may be considerably higher than those associated with our current coverage.

Risks Related to Stock Ownership

There are limitations on the ability of investors to acquire our common stock and to effect a change in control.    Our charter and bylaws, the partnership agreement of the operating partnership, our shareholder rights plan, the Maryland General Corporation Law and certain of our contracts contain a number of provisions that could delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change in control of us that might involve a premium price for our shareholders or otherwise be in their best interests, including the following:

25

26

Legislative or regulatory tax changes may adversely affect us.    The federal income tax laws governing REITs and other corporations or the administrative interpretations of those laws may be amended at any time. On January 7, 2003, the Bush Administration released a proposal intended to eliminate one level of the “double taxation” that is currently imposed on corporate income by excluding corporate dividends from individual’s taxable income to the extent that corporate income tax has been paid on the earnings from which the dividends are paid. REITs currently have a tax advantage relative to other corporations because they are not subject to corporate-level federal income tax on income that they distribute to shareholders. The tax treatment of REITs generally would not be affected by the Bush Administration’s proposal in its current form, except that a REIT that receives dividends from a corporation that has been subject to corporate income tax could distribute or retain those amounts without a second tax being imposed on the REIT or its shareholders. The Bush Administration’s proposal, if enacted, could cause individual investors to view stocks of other corporations as more attractive relative to stocks of REITs because part or all of the dividends on the stock of the corporation would be exempt from tax for the individual. It is not possible to predict whether this change in relative perceived value will occur, or what the impact will be on our stock. In any event, there can be no assurance regarding whether the Bush Administration’s proposal ultimately will be enacted or the form in which it might be enacted.

There are possible adverse consequences of limits on ownership of our common stock.     To maintain our qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, not more than 50% in value of our outstanding shares of capital stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals, as defined in the Internal Revenue Code to include some entities. In addition, a person who owns, directly or by attribution, 10% or more of an interest in a tenant of ours, or a tenant of any partnership in which we are a partner, cannot own, directly or by attribution, 10% or more of our shares without jeopardizing our qualification as a REIT. Primarily to facilitate maintenance of our qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, the ownership limit under our charter prohibits ownership, directly or by virtue of the attribution provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, by any person or persons acting as a group, of more than 9.8% of the issued and outstanding shares of our common stock and prohibits ownership, directly or by virtue of the attribution provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, by any person, or persons acting as a group, of more than 9.8% of the issued and outstanding shares of any class or series of our preferred shares. Together, these limitations are referred to as the “ownership limit”. Our Board of Directors, in its sole and absolute discretion, may waive or modify the ownership limit with respect to one or more persons who would not be treated as “individuals” for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code if the Board of Directors is satisfied that ownership in excess of this limit will not cause a person who is an individual to be treated as owning shares in excess of the ownership limit, applying the applicable constructive ownership rules, and will not otherwise jeopardize our status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes (for example, by causing any of our tenants to be considered a “related party tenant” for purposes of the REIT qualification rules). Common stock acquired or held in violation of the ownership limit will be transferred automatically to a trust for the benefit of a designated charitable beneficiary, and the person who acquired the common stock in violation of the ownership limit will not be entitled to any distributions thereon, to vote those shares of common stock or to receive any proceeds from the subsequent sale of the common stock in excess of the lesser of the price paid for the common stock or the amount realized from the sale. A transfer of shares of our common stock to a person who, as a result of the transfer, violates the ownership limit may be void under certain circumstances, and, in any

27

event, would deny that person any of the economic benefits of owning shares of our common stock in excess of the ownership limit. The ownership limit may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control and, therefore, could adversely affect the shareholders’ ability to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price for our common stock in connection with such transaction.

Federal Income Tax Risks

We are required to make certain distributions to qualify as a REIT but may not have sufficient cash available for distribution from operations.    To continue to qualify as a REIT, we currently are required to distribute to our shareholders with respect to each year at least 90% of our taxable income, excluding net capital gain, regardless of our available cash or outstanding obligations. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which distributions made by us with respect to the calendar year are less than the sum of 85% of our ordinary income and 95% of our capital gain net income for that year and any undistributed taxable income from prior periods less excess distributions from prior years. We intend to make distributions, subject to the availability of cash and in compliance with any debt covenants, to our shareholders to satisfy the distribution requirement and to avoid the nondeductible excise tax and will rely for this purpose on distributions from the operating partnership. However, there are differences in timing between our recognition of taxable income and our receipt of cash available for distribution due to, among other things, the seasonality of the lodging industry and the fact that some taxable income will be “phantom” income, which is taxable income that is not matched by cash flow, or EBITDA, to us. Due to some transactions entered into in years prior to the REIT conversion, we expect to recognize substantial amounts of “phantom” income. It is possible that these timing differences could require us to borrow funds or to issue additional equity to enable us to meet the distribution requirement and, therefore, to maintain our REIT status, and to avoid the nondeductible excise tax. In addition, because the REIT distribution requirements prevent us from retaining earnings, we will generally be required to refinance debt that matures with additional debt or equity. We cannot assure you that any of these sources of funds, if available at all, would be sufficient to meet our distribution and tax obligations.

Adverse tax consequences would apply if we failed to qualify as a REIT.     We believe that we have been organized and have operated in such a manner so as to qualify as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code, commencing with our taxable year beginning January 1, 1999, and we currently expect to continue to operate as a REIT during future years. No assurance can be provided, however, that we qualify as a REIT or that new legislation, Treasury Regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions will not significantly change the tax laws with respect to our qualification as a REIT or the federal income tax consequences of our REIT qualification. If we fail to qualify as a REIT, we will be subject to federal and state income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates. In addition, unless entitled to statutory relief, we would not qualify as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which REIT qualification is lost. The additional tax burden on us would significantly reduce the cash available for distribution by us to our shareholders, and we would no longer be required to make any distributions to shareholders. Our failure to qualify as a REIT could reduce materially the value of our common stock and under current law would cause any distributions to shareholders that otherwise would have been subject to tax as capital gain dividends to be taxable as ordinary income to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits, or E&P. However, subject to limitations under the Internal Revenue Code, corporate distributees may be eligible for the dividends received deduction with respect to our distributions. Our failure to qualify as a REIT also would cause an event of default under our credit facility that could lead to an acceleration of the amounts due under the credit facility, which, in turn, would constitute an event of default under our outstanding debt securities.

We will be disqualified as a REIT at least for taxable year 1999 if we failed to distribute all of our E&P attributable to our non-REIT taxable years.    In order to qualify as a REIT, we cannot have at the end of any taxable year any undistributed E&P that is attributable to one of our non-REIT taxable years. A REIT has until the close of its first taxable year as a REIT in which it has non-REIT E&P to distribute its accumulated E&P. We were required to have distributed this E&P prior to the end of 1999, the first taxable year for which our

28

REIT election was effective. If we failed to do this, we will be disqualified as a REIT at least for taxable year 1999. We believe that distributions of non-REIT E&P that we made were sufficient to distribute all of the non-REIT E&P as of December 31, 1999, but we cannot provide assurance that we met this requirement.

If our leases are not respected as true leases for Federal income tax purposes, we would fail to qualify as a REIT.     To qualify as a REIT, we must satisfy two gross income tests, under which specified percentages of our gross income must be passive income, like rent. For the rent paid pursuant to the leases, which constitutes substantially all of our gross income, to qualify for purposes of the gross income tests, the leases must be respected as true leases for Federal income tax purposes and not be treated as service contracts, joint ventures or some other type of arrangement. In addition, the lessees must not be regarded as “related party tenant,” as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. We believe that the leases will be respected as true leases for Federal income tax purposes. There can be no assurance, however, that the IRS will agree with this view. We also believe that Crestline, the lessee of substantially all of our full-service hotels prior to January 1, 2001, was not a “related party tenant” and, as a result of changes in the tax laws effective January 1, 2001, HMT Lessee will not be treated as a “related party tenant” so long as it qualifies as a “taxable REIT subsidiary.” If the leases were not respected as true leases for Federal income tax purposes or if the lessees were regarded as “related party tenants,” we would not be able to satisfy either of the two gross income tests applicable to REITs and we would lose our REIT status. See “Risk Factors—Federal Income Tax Risks—Adverse tax consequences would apply if we failed to qualify as a REIT” above.

If HMT Lessee fails to qualify as a taxable REIT subsidiary, we would fail to qualify as a REIT.    For our taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2001, as a result of REIT tax law changes under the specific provisions of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 relating to REITs (we refer to those provisions as the “REIT Modernization Act”), we are permitted to lease our hotels to a subsidiary of the operating partnership that is taxable as a corporation and that elects to be treated as a “taxable REIT subsidiary.” Accordingly, HMT Lessee has directly or indirectly acquired all the full-service hotel leasehold interests from third parties. So long as HMT Lessee and other affiliated lessees qualify as taxable REIT subsidiaries of ours, they will not be treated as “related party tenant.” We believe that HMT Lessee qualifies to be treated as a taxable REIT subsidiary for Federal income tax purposes. We cannot assure you, however, that the IRS will not challenge its status as a taxable REIT subsidiary for Federal income tax purposes, or that a court would not sustain such a challenge. If the IRS were successful in disqualifying HMT Lessee from treatment as a taxable REIT subsidiary, we would fail to meet the asset tests applicable to REITs and substantially all of our income would fail to qualify for the gross income tests and, accordingly, we would cease to qualify as a REIT. See “Risk Factors—Federal Income Tax Risks—Adverse tax consequences would apply if we failed to qualify as a REIT” above.

Despite our REIT status, we remain subject to various taxes, including substantial deferred and contingent tax liabilities.    Notwithstanding our status as a REIT, we are subject, through our ownership interest in the Operating Partnership, to certain federal, state, local and foreign taxes on our income and property. In addition, we will be required to pay federal tax at the highest regular corporate rate upon our share of any “built-in gain” recognized as a result of any sale before January 1, 2009, by the operating partnership and its non-corporate subsidiaries of assets, including the hotels, in which interests were acquired by the operating partnership from our predecessor and its subsidiaries as part of the REIT conversion. Built-in gain is the amount by which an asset’s fair market value exceeded our adjusted basis in the asset on January 1, 1999, the first day of our first taxable year as a REIT. The total amount of gain on which we would be subject to corporate income tax if the assets that we held at the time of the REIT conversion were sold in a taxable transaction prior to January 1, 2009 would be material to us. In addition, at the time of the REIT conversion, we expected that we or Rockledge Hotel Properties, Inc. or Fernwood Hotel Assets, Inc. (each of which is a taxable corporation in which the operating partnership owned a 95% nonvoting interest and, as of April, 2001, acquired 100% of the voting interests and each of which elected to be a taxable REIT subsidiary effective January 1, 2001) likely would recognize substantial built-in gain and deferred tax liabilities in the next ten years without any corresponding receipt of cash by us or the operating partnership. We may have to pay certain state income taxes because not all states treat REITs the same as they are treated for federal income tax purposes. We may also have to pay certain

29

foreign taxes to the extent we own assets or conduct operations in foreign jurisdictions. The operating partnership is obligated under its partnership agreement to pay all such taxes (and any related interest and penalties) incurred by us, as well as any liabilities that the IRS successfully may assert against us for corporate income taxes for taxable years prior to the time we qualified as a REIT. Our taxable REIT subsidiaries, including Rockledge, Fernwood and HMT Lessee, are taxable as corporations and will pay federal, state and local income tax on their net income at the applicable corporate rates, and foreign taxes to the extent they own assets or conduct operations in foreign jurisdictions.

If the IRS were to challenge successfully the operating partnership’s status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, we would cease to qualify as a REIT and suffer other adverse consequences.    We believe that the operating partnership qualifies to be treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. As a partnership, it is not subject to federal income tax on its income. Instead, each of its partners, including us, is required to recognize its allocable share of the operating partnership’s income. No assurance can be provided, however, that the IRS will not challenge its status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, or that a court would not sustain such a challenge. If the IRS were successful in treating the operating partnership as a corporation for tax purposes, we would fail to meet the income tests and certain of the asset tests applicable to REITs and, accordingly, cease to qualify as a REIT. If we fail to qualify as a REIT, such failure would cause an event of default under our credit facility that, in turn, could constitute an event of default under our outstanding debt securities. Also, the failure of the operating partnership to qualify as a partnership would cause it to become subject to federal and state corporate income tax, which would reduce significantly the amount of cash available for debt service and for distribution to its partners, including us. Finally, the classification of the operating partnership as a corporation would cause us to recognize gain at least equal to our “negative capital account” if any.

As a REIT, we are subject to limitations on our ownership of debt and equity securities.    Subject to the exceptions discussed in this paragraph, a REIT is prohibited from owning securities in any one issuer to the extent that the value of those securities exceeds 5% of the value of the REIT’s total assets, or the securities owned by the REIT represent more than 10% of the issuer’s outstanding voting securities or more than 10% of the value of the issuer’s outstanding securities. A REIT is permitted to own securities of a subsidiary in an amount that exceeds the 5% value test and the 10% vote or value test if the subsidiary elects to be a “taxable REIT subsidiary” which is taxable as a corporation. However, a REIT may not own securities of taxable REIT subsidiaries that represent in the aggregate more than 20% of the value of the REIT’s total assets.

Our taxable REIT subsidiaries are subject to special rules that may result in increased taxes.    Several Internal Revenue Code provisions ensure that a taxable REIT subsidiary is subject to an appropriate level of federal income taxation. For example, a taxable REIT subsidiary is limited in its ability to deduct interest payments made to an affiliated REIT. In addition, the REIT has to pay a 100% penalty tax on some payments that it receives if the economic arrangements between the REIT and the taxable REIT subsidiary are not comparable to similar arrangements between unrelated parties.

We may be required to pay a penalty tax upon the sale of a hotel.    The Federal income tax provisions applicable to REITs provide that any gain realized by a REIT on the sale of property held as inventory or other property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business is treated as income from a “prohibited transaction” that is subject to a 100% penalty tax. Under existing law, whether property, including hotels, is held as inventory or primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business is a question of fact that depends upon all of the facts and circumstances with respect to the particular transaction. The operating partnership intends that it and its subsidiaries will hold the hotels for investment with a view to long-term appreciation, to engage in the business of acquiring and owning hotels and to make occasional sales of hotels as are consistent with the operating partnership’s investment objectives. We cannot assure you, however, that the IRS might not contend that one or more of these sales is subject to the 100% penalty tax.

30

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

We believe all of the lawsuits in which we are a defendant, including the following lawsuits, are without merit and we intend to defend vigorously against such claims; however, no assurance can be given as to the outcome of any of the lawsuits.

Marriott Hotel Properties II Limited Partnership (MHP II).    Limited partners of MHP II filed putative class action lawsuits in Palm Beach County Circuit Court on May 10, 1996, Leonard Rosenblum, as Trustee of the Sylvia Bernice Rosenblum Trust, et. Al. v. Marriott MHP Two Corporation, et. Al., Case No. CL-96-4087-AD, and, in the Delaware Court of Chancery on April 24, 1996, Cary W. Salter, Jr., et. Al. v. MHP II Acquisition Corp., et. Al., respectively, against Host REIT and certain of its affiliates alleging that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties and engaged in fraud and coercion in connection with the 1996 tender offer for MHP II units and our acquisition of MHP II during the REIT conversion.

In the Florida case, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and, after hearings on various procedural motions, the District Court remanded the case to state court on July 25, 1998.

In the Delaware case, the Delaware Court of Chancery initially granted the plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss the case with the proviso that the plaintiffs could refile in the aforementioned action in federal court in Florida. After the District Court’s remand of the Florida action back to Florida state court, two of the three original Delaware plaintiffs asked the Court of Chancery to reconsider its order granting their voluntary dismissal. The Court of Chancery refused to allow the plaintiffs to join the Florida action and, instead, reinstated the Delaware case, now styled In Re Marriott Hotel Properties II Limited Partnership Unitholders Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 14961. On January 29, 1999, Cary W. Salter, one of the original plaintiffs, alone filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the Delaware action. On January 24, 2000, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a memorandum opinion in which the court dismissed all but one of the plaintiff’s claims, which remaining claim concerns the adequacy of disclosure during the initial tender offer. On October 22, 2001, we entered into a settlement agreement with respect to the two above-referenced cases. At a fairness hearing held on February 22, 2002, the Florida court gave final approval to the settlement. The Court of Chancery subsequently dismissed the Delaware case.

A subsequent lawsuit, Accelerated High Yield Growth Fund, Ltd., et al. v. HMC Hotel Properties II Limited Partnership, et. Al., C.A. No. 18254NC, was filed on August 23, 2000 in the Delaware Court of Chancery by the MacKenzie Patterson group of funds, one of the three original Delaware plaintiffs, against Host REIT and certain of its affiliates alleging breach of contract, fraud and coercion in connection with the acquisition of MHP II during the 1998 REIT conversion. The plaintiffs allege that our acquisition of MHP II by merger in connection with the REIT conversion violated the partnership agreement and that our subsidiary acting as the general partner of MHP II breached its fiduciary duties by allowing the merger to occur. The settlement referenced above resolves all claims of MHP II’s limited partners against Host REIT and its affiliates with the exception of the claims of the MacKenzie Patterson group. The MacKenzie Patterson group elected to opt out of the settlement class with respect to its 28 limited partner units. Discovery is proceeding in this case.

Mutual Benefit Chicago Marriott Suite Hotel Partners, L.P. (“O’Hare Suites”).    On October 5, 2000, Joseph S. Roth and Robert M. Niedelman, limited partners in O’Hare Suites, filed a putative class action lawsuit, Joseph S. Roth, et al., v. MOHS Corporation, et al., Case No. 00CH14500, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, against Host REIT, Host LP, Marriott International, and MOHS Corporation, a subsidiary of Host LP and a former general partner of O’Hare Suites. The plaintiffs allege that an improper calculation of the hotel manager’s incentive management fees resulted in inappropriate payments in 1997 and 1998, and, consequently, in an inadequate appraised value for their limited partner units in connection with the acquisition of O’Hare Suites during the REIT conversion. The plaintiffs are seeking damages of approximately $13 million. We are currently seeking a denial of class certification and we intend to challenge the adequacy of the proposed class representatives.

31

Item 4.    Submission of matters to a vote of security holders

None

EXECUTIVE AND CORPORATE OFFICERS

In the following table we set forth certain information regarding those persons currently serving as our executive and corporate officers as of March 1, 2003.

32

33

PART II

Item 5.    Market for our common stock and related shareholder matters

Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Stock Exchange, the Pacific Stock Exchange and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange and is traded under the symbol “HMT.” The following table sets forth, for the fiscal periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Tape.