RISK FACTORS

         Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should consider carefully the following risk factors, as well as the other information in this prospectus, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes, before deciding whether to invest in shares of our common stock. The risks described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial may also impair our business operations. If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially adversely affected. In this case, the trading price of our common stock would likely decline and you might lose all or part of your investment in our common stock.

Risks Related to Our Industry

Our revenue could be impacted by federal and state changes to reimbursement and other aspects of Medicaid and Medicare.

        For the year ended December 31, 2005, we derived approximately 44% and 32% of our total revenue from the Medicaid and Medicare programs, respectively, and for the year ended December 31, 2006, we derived approximately 42% and 33% of our total revenue from the Medicaid and Medicare programs, respectively. If reimbursement rates under these programs are reduced or fail to increase as quickly as our costs, or if there are changes in the way these programs pay for services, our business and results of operations will be adversely affected. The services for which we are currently reimbursed by Medicaid and Medicare may not continue to be reimbursed at adequate levels or at all. Further limits on the scope of services being reimbursed, delays or reductions in reimbursement or changes in other aspects of reimbursement could have a material adverse impact on our business.

        The Medicaid and Medicare programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes affecting base rates or basis of payment, retroactive rate adjustments, administrative or executive orders and government funding restrictions, all of which may materially adversely affect the rates and frequency at which these programs reimburse us for our services. Implementation of these and other measures to reduce or delay reimbursement could result in substantial reductions in our revenue and profitability. Payors may disallow our requests for reimbursement based on determinations that certain costs are not reimbursable or reasonable because either adequate or additional documentation was not provided or because certain services were not covered or considered reasonably necessary. Additionally, revenue from these payors can be retroactively adjusted after a new examination during the claims settlement process or as a result of post-payment audits. New legislation and regulatory proposals could impose further limitations on government payments to healthcare providers.

        Medicaid.     Medicaid, which is largely administered by the states, is a significant payor for our skilled nursing services. Rapidly increasing Medicaid spending, combined with slow state revenue growth, has led many states to institute measures aimed at controlling spending growth. We expect continuing cost containment pressures on Medicaid outlays for skilled nursing facilities.

        To generate funds to pay for the increasing costs of the Medicaid program, many states utilize financial arrangements such as provider taxes. Under provider tax arrangements, states collect taxes or fees from healthcare providers and then return the revenue to these providers as a Medicaid expenditure. Congress, however, has placed restrictions on states' use of provider tax and donation programs as a source of state matching funds. Under the Medicaid Voluntary Contribution and Provider-Specific Tax Amendments of 1991, the federal medical assistance percentage available to a state was reduced by the total amount of healthcare related taxes that the state imposed, unless certain requirements are met. The federal medical assistance percentage is not reduced if the state taxes are broad-based and not applied specifically to Medicaid reimbursed services. In addition, the healthcare providers receiving Medicaid reimbursement must be at risk for the amount of tax assessed and must

9

not be guaranteed to receive reimbursement through the applicable state Medicaid program for the tax assessed.

        In addition, in the most recent Budget Proposal for 2007, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it will seek a regulatory change to the provider tax policy. Under current rules, taxes imposed on providers may not exceed six percent of total revenue and must be applied uniformly across all healthcare providers in the same class. The proposed regulatory change would phase down the allowable provider tax rate from six percent to three percent. As a result, states would have fewer funds available for payment of Medicaid expenses, which would also decrease federal matching payments. This regulatory change could result in Medicaid rate reductions, or reduce scheduled increases in some cases, to levels that are lower than anticipated and possibly lower than our operating costs.

        Medicare.     Over the past several years, the federal government has periodically changed various aspects of Medicare reimbursements for skilled nursing facilities. Medicare Part A covers inpatient hospital services, skilled nursing care and some home healthcare. Medicare Part B covers physician and other health practitioner services, some supplies and a variety of medical services not covered under Medicare Part A.

        Medicare coverage of skilled nursing services is available only if the patient is hospitalized for at least three consecutive days, the need for such services is related to the reason for the hospitalization, and the patient is admitted to the facility within 30 days following discharge from a Medicare participating hospital. Medicare coverage of skilled nursing services is limited to 100 days per benefit period after discharge from a Medicare participating hospital or critical access hospital. The patient must pay coinsurance amounts for the twenty-first day and each of the remaining days of covered care per benefit period.

        Medicare payments for skilled nursing services are paid on a case-mix adjusted per diem prospective payment system ("PPS") for all routine, ancillary and capital-related costs. The prospective payment for skilled nursing services is based solely on the adjusted federal per diem rate. Although Medicare payment rates under the skilled nursing facility PPS increased temporarily for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, new payment rates for federal fiscal year 2005 took effect for discharges beginning October 1, 2004. A proposed regulation by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services ("CMS") sets forth a schedule of prospective payment rates applicable to Medicare Part A skilled nursing services which took effect October 1, 2006, including a full market basket increase of 3.1%. There can be no assurance that the skilled nursing facility PPS rates will be sufficient to cover our actual costs of providing skilled nursing facility services.

        Skilled nursing facilities are also required to perform consolidated billing for items and services furnished to patients and residents during a Part A covered stay and therapy services furnished during Part A and Part B covered stays. The consolidated billing requirement essentially confers on the skilled nursing facility itself the Medicare billing responsibility for the entire package of care that its residents receive in these situations. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 also affected skilled nursing facility payments by requiring that post-hospitalization skilled nursing services be "bundled" into the hospital's Diagnostic Related Group ("DRG") payment in certain circumstances. Where this rule applies, the hospital and the skilled nursing facility must, in effect, divide the payment which otherwise would have been paid to the hospital alone for the patient's treatment, and no additional funds are paid by Medicare for skilled nursing care of the patient. At present, this provision applies to a limited number of DRGs, but already is apparently having a negative effect on skilled nursing facility utilization and payments, either because hospitals are finding it difficult to place patients in skilled nursing facilities which will not be paid as before or because hospitals are reluctant to discharge the patients to skilled nursing facilities and lose part of their payment. This bundling requirement could be extended to more

10

DRGs in the future, which would accentuate the negative impact on skilled nursing facility utilization and payments.

        Skilled nursing facility prospective payment rates, as they may change from time to time, may be insufficient to cover our actual costs of providing skilled nursing services to Medicare patients. In addition, we may not be fully reimbursed for all services for which each facility bills through consolidated billing. If Medicare reimbursement rates decline, it could adversely affect our revenue, financial condition and results of operations.

        Recent Legislation.     The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ("DRA") provides for a reduction in overall Medicaid and Medicare spending by approximately $11.0 billion over five years. Under the DRA, individuals who transferred assets for less than fair market value during a five year look-back period will be ineligible for Medicaid for so long as they would have been able to fund their cost of care absent the transfer or until the transfer would no longer have been made during the look-back period. This period is referred to as the penalty period. The DRA also changes the calculation for determining when the penalty period begins and prohibits states from ignoring small asset transfers and other asset transfer mechanisms. In addition, the legislation reduces Medicare skilled nursing facility bad debt payments by 30% for those individuals who are not dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. If any of our existing patients become ineligible under the DRA during their stay, it would be difficult for us to evict or transfer them, and our revenue would decrease. The loss of revenue associated with future changes in skilled nursing facility payments could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. The DRA also requires entities which receive at least $5.0 million in annual Medicaid dollars each year to provide education to their employees concerning false claims laws and protections for whistleblowers. The DRA also requires those entities to provide contractors and vendors with similar information. As a result, we have and will continue to expend resources to meet these requirements. Further, the requirement that we identify false claims and other fraud and abuse laws to employees and contractors may result in increased investigations into these matters.

        Reviews.     As a result of our participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs, we are subject to various governmental reviews, audits and investigations to verify our compliance with these programs and applicable laws and regulations. Private pay sources also reserve the right to conduct audits. An adverse review, audit or investigation could result in:

•

an obligation to refund amounts previously paid to us pursuant to the Medicare or Medicaid programs or from private payors, in amounts that could be material to our business;



•

state or federal agencies imposing fines, penalties and other sanctions on us;



•

loss of our right to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs or one or more private payor networks;



•

an increase in private litigation against us; and



•

damage to our reputation in various markets.

        In 2004, our Medicare fiscal intermediary began to conduct selected reviews of claims previously submitted by and paid to certain of our facilities. While we have always been subject to post-payment audits and reviews, these new, more intensive "probe reviews" are relatively new and appear to be a permanent procedure with our intermediary. Recent probe reviews resulted in Medicare revenue recoupment of approximately $203,000 in 2006 and $201,000 in 2005, a portion of which is currently under appeal. We anticipate that these probe reviews will increase in frequency in the future.

        In some cases, probe reviews can also result in a facility being temporarily placed on prepayment review of reimbursement claims, requiring additional documentation and adding additional steps and time to the reimbursement process for the affected facility. Three of our facilities are currently on

11

prepayment review, and others may be placed on prepayment review in the future. Payment delays resulting from the prepayment review process could have an adverse effect on our cashflow, and such adverse effect could be material if multiple additional facilities were placed on prepayment review simultaneously.

        Failure to meet claim filing and documentation requirements during any of these reviews could subject a facility to an even more intensive "focus review," where a corrective action plan addressing perceived deficiencies must be prepared by the facility and approved by the fiscal intermediary. During a focus review, additional claims are reviewed post-payment to ensure that the prescribed corrective actions are being followed. Failure to make corrections or to otherwise meet the claim documentation and submission requirements could eventually result in Medicare decertification. We have one facility that is currently under focus review. Should that facility or any other be decertified, it would have an adverse affect on our operations and financial condition.

        Separately, the federal government has also introduced a pilot program that utilizes independent contractors (other than the fiscal intermediaries) to identify and recoup Medicare overpayments. These contractors are paid a contingent fee on recoupments. This pilot program could be extended or expanded based on the recommendation of CMS and the decision of Congress. Should this occur, we anticipate that the number of overpayment reviews will increase in the future, and that the reviewers could be more aggressive in making claims for recoupment. One of our facilities has been subjected to review under this pilot program, resulting in a recoupment to the federal government of approximately $12,000.

We are subject to extensive and complex federal and state government laws and regulations, many of which are burdensome, and any of which could change at any time.

        We, along with other companies in the healthcare industry, are required to comply with extensive and complex laws and regulations at the federal, state and local government levels relating to, among other things:

•

facility and professional licensure, certificates of need and permits of approval;



•

adequacy and quality of healthcare services;



•

qualifications of healthcare and support personnel;



•

quality of medical equipment;



•

confidentiality, maintenance and security issues associated with medical records and claims processing;



•

relationships with physicians and other referral sources and recipients;



•

constraints on protective contractual provisions with patients and third-party payors;



•

operating policies and procedures;



•

certification of additional facilities by the Medicare program; and



•

payment for services.

        The laws and regulations governing our operations, along with the terms of participation in various government programs, regulate how we do business, the services we offer, and our interactions with patients and other healthcare providers. These laws and regulations are subject to frequent change. We believe that such regulations may increase in the future and we cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or impact on us of any healthcare reform legislation. Changes in existing laws or regulations, or the enactment of new laws or regulations, could have a material adverse impact on our business. If we fail to comply with these applicable laws and regulations, we could suffer civil or criminal penalties and

12

other detrimental consequences, including denial of reimbursement, imposition of fines, temporary suspension of admission of new patients, suspension or decertification from the Medicaid and Medicare programs, restrictions on our ability to acquire new facilities or expand or operate existing facilities, the loss of our licenses to operate and the loss of our ability to participate in federal and state reimbursement programs.

        We are subject to federal and state laws, such as the Federal False Claims Act, state false claims acts, the illegal remuneration provisions of the Social Security Act, the federal anti-kickback laws, state anti-kickback laws, and the federal "Stark" laws, that govern financial and other arrangements among healthcare providers, their owners, vendors and referral sources, and that are intended to prevent healthcare fraud and abuse. Among other things, these laws prohibit kickbacks, bribes and rebates, as well as other direct and indirect payments or fee-splitting arrangements that are designed to induce the referral of patients to a particular provider for medical products or services payable by any federal healthcare program, and prohibit presenting a false or misleading claim for payment under a federal or state program. They also prohibit some physician self-referrals. Possible sanctions for violation of any of these restrictions or prohibitions include loss of eligibility to participate in federal and state reimbursement programs and civil and criminal penalties. Changes in these laws could increase our cost of doing business. If we fail to comply, even inadvertently, with any of these requirements, we could be required to alter our operations, refund payments to the government, enter into corporate integrity agreements with state or federal government agencies, and become subject to significant civil and criminal penalties.

        We are also required to comply with state and federal laws governing the transmission, privacy and security of health information. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") requires us to comply with certain standards for the use of individually identifiable health information within our company, and the disclosure and electronic transmission of such information to third parties, such as payors, business associates and patients. These include standards for common electronic healthcare transactions and information, such as claim submission, plan eligibility determination, payment information submission and the use of electronic signatures; unique identifiers for providers, employers and health plans; and the security and privacy of individually identifiable health information. In addition, some states have enacted comparable or, in some cases, more stringent privacy and security laws. If we fail to comply with these state and federal laws, we could be subject to criminal penalties and civil sanctions and be forced to modify our policies and procedures.

        We are unable to predict the future course of federal, state and local regulation or legislation, including Medicaid and Medicare statutes and regulations. Changes in the regulatory framework, our failure to obtain or renew required regulatory approvals or licenses or to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, the suspension or revocation of our licenses or our disqualification from participation in federal and state reimbursement programs, or the imposition of other harsh enforcement sanctions could have a material adverse effect on our business. Furthermore, if we were to lose licenses or certifications for any of our facilities as a result of regulatory action or otherwise, we could be deemed to be in default under some of our agreements, including agreements governing outstanding indebtedness and lease obligations.

Any changes in the interpretation and enforcement of the laws or regulations governing our business could cause us to modify our operations and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

        The interpretation and enforcement of federal and state laws and regulations governing our operations, including, but not limited to, laws and regulations relating to Medicaid and Medicare, the Federal False Claims Act, state false claims acts, the illegal remuneration provisions of the Social Security Act, the federal anti-kickback laws, state anti-kickback laws, the federal Stark laws, and HIPAA, are subject to frequent change. Governmental authorities may interpret these laws in a manner inconsistent with our interpretation and application. If we fail to comply, even inadvertently, with any

13

of these requirements, we could be required to alter our operations and refund payments to the government. In addition, we could be subject to significant penalties or be forced to expend considerable resources responding to an investigation or other enforcement action under these laws or regulations, or for ongoing compliance with a corporate integrity or similar agreement. Furthermore, federal, state and local officials are increasingly focusing their efforts on enforcement of these laws, particularly with respect to providers who share common ownership or control with other providers. The increased enforcement of these requirements could affect our ability to expand into new markets, to expand our services and facilities in existing markets and, if any of our presently licensed facilities were to operate outside of its licensing authority, may subject us to penalties including closure of the facility. Changes in the interpretation and enforcement of existing laws or regulations could increase our cost of doing business.

        Both federal and state government agencies have heightened and coordinated civil and criminal enforcement efforts as part of numerous ongoing investigations of healthcare companies and, in particular, skilled nursing facilities. The investigations include, among other things:

•

cost reporting and billing practices;



•

quality of care;



•

financial relationships with referral sources; and



•

medical necessity of services provided.

        If any of our facilities is decertified or loses its licenses, our business would suffer. In addition, the report of such issues at any of our facilities could harm our reputation for quality care and lead to a reduction in our patient referrals and ultimately a reduction in occupancy at these facilities.

        Federal law provides that practitioners, providers and related persons may not participate in most federal healthcare programs, including the Medicaid and Medicare programs, if the individual or entity has been convicted of a criminal offense related to the delivery of a product or service under these programs or if the individual or entity has been convicted under state or federal law of a criminal offense relating to neglect or abuse of patients in connection with the delivery of a healthcare product or service. Other individuals or entities may be, but are not required to be, excluded from such programs under certain circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:

•

conviction related to fraud;



•

conviction relating to obstruction of an investigation;



•

conviction relating to a controlled substance;



•

licensure revocation or suspension;



•

exclusion or suspension from state or other federal healthcare programs;



•

filing claims for excessive charges or unnecessary services or failure to furnish medically necessary services;



•

ownership or control of an entity by an individual who has been excluded from the Medicaid or Medicare programs, against whom a civil monetary penalty related to the Medicaid or Medicare programs has been assessed or who has been convicted of a criminal offense under federal healthcare programs; and



•

the transfer of ownership or control interest in an entity to an immediate family or household member in anticipation of, or following, a conviction, assessment or exclusion from the Medicare or Medicaid programs.

14

        The Office of Inspector General ("OIG") among other priorities, identifies and eliminates fraud, abuse and waste in certain federal healthcare programs. The OIG has implemented a nationwide program of audits, inspections and investigations and from time to time issues "fraud alerts" to segments of the healthcare industry on particular practices that are vulnerable to abuse. The fraud alerts inform healthcare providers of potentially abusive practices or transactions that are subject to criminal activity and reportable to the OIG. An increasing level of resources has been devoted to the investigation of allegations of fraud and abuse in the Medicaid and Medicare programs, and federal and state regulatory authorities are taking an increasingly strict view of the requirements imposed on healthcare providers by the Social Security Act and Medicaid and Medicare programs. Although we have created a corporate compliance program that we believe is consistent with the OIG guidelines, the OIG may interpret its guidelines in a manner inconsistent with our interpretation or the OIG may ultimately determine that our corporate compliance program is insufficient.

        In some circumstances, if one facility is convicted of abusive or fraudulent behavior, then other facilities under common control or ownership may be decertified from participating in Medicaid or Medicare programs. Federal regulations prohibit any corporation or facility from participating in federal contracts if it or its principals have been barred, suspended, declared ineligible, or have voluntarily excluded themselves from participating in federal contracts. In addition, some state regulations provide that all facilities under common control or ownership licensed within a state may be de-licensed if one or more of the facilities are de-licensed.

        The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.     CMS has undertaken several initiatives to increase or intensify Medicaid and Medicare survey and enforcement activities, including federal oversight of state actions. CMS is taking steps to focus more survey and enforcement efforts on facilities with findings of substandard care or repeat violations of Medicaid and Medicare standards, and to identify multi-facility providers with patterns of noncompliance. CMS is also increasing its oversight of state survey agencies and requiring state agencies to use enforcement sanctions and remedies more promptly when substandard care or repeat violations are identified, to investigate complaints more promptly, and to survey facilities more consistently. In addition, CMS has adopted, and is considering additional regulations expanding federal and state authority to impose civil money penalties in instances of noncompliance. When a facility is found to be deficient under state licensing and Medicaid and Medicare standards, sanctions may be threatened or imposed such as denial of payment for new Medicaid and Medicare admissions, civil monetary penalties, focused state and federal oversight and even loss of Medicaid and Medicare participation or state licensure. Sanctions such as denial of payment for new admissions often are scheduled to go into effect before surveyors return to verify compliance. Generally, if the surveyors confirm that the facility is in compliance upon their return, the sanctions never take effect. However, if they determine that the facility is not in compliance, the denial of payment goes into effect retroactive to the date given in the original notice. This possibility sometimes leaves affected operators, including us, with the difficult task of deciding whether to continue accepting patients after the denial of payment date, thus risking the loss of revenue associated with those patients' care if they are later found to be out of compliance, or simply refusing admissions from the denial of payment date until the facility is actually found to be in compliance.

        Facilities with otherwise acceptable regulatory histories generally are given an opportunity to correct deficiencies and continue their participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs by a certain date, usually within six months, although where denial of payment remedies are asserted, such interim remedies go into effect much sooner. Facilities with deficiencies that immediately jeopardize patient health and safety and those that are classified as poor performing facilities, however, are not generally given an opportunity to correct their deficiencies prior to the imposition of remedies and other enforcement actions. Moreover, facilities with poor regulatory histories continue to be classified by CMS as poor performing facilities notwithstanding any intervening change in ownership, unless the new owner obtains a new Medicare provider agreement instead of assuming the facility's existing

15

agreement. However, new owners (including us, historically) nearly always assume the existing Medicare provider agreement due to the difficulty and time delays generally associated with obtaining new Medicare certifications, especially in previously-certified locations with sub-par operating histories. Accordingly, facilities that have poor regulatory histories before we acquire them and that develop new deficiencies after we acquire them are more likely to have sanctions imposed upon them by CMS or state regulators. In addition, in 2003, CMS established a program for identifying "special focus facilities," which are facilities identified in consultation with state health officials as needing special enforcement attention. These facilities are not immediately notified of their status as special focus facilities, but are placed under heightened scrutiny by federal and state officials. Such heightened scrutiny includes more frequent regulatory surveys and potentially heavier sanctions for noncompliance, among other things.

        We receive notices of potential sanctions and remedies based upon alleged regulatory deficiencies from time to time, and such sanctions have been imposed on some of our facilities. We have also acquired at least one facility that we believe either already was or had been identified prior to the time of acquisition as a candidate for special focus facility status, and that facility is now operating under such status. From time to time, we have opted to voluntarily stop accepting new patients pending completion of a new state survey, in order to avoid possible denial of payment for new admissions during the deficiency cure period, or simply to avoid straining staff and other resources while retraining staff, upgrading operating systems or making other operational improvements. In the past, some of our facilities have been in denial of payment status due to findings of continued regulatory deficiencies, resulting in an actual loss of the revenue associated with the Medicare and Medicaid patients admitted after the denial of payment date. Additional sanctions could ensue and, if imposed, these sanctions, entailing various remedies up to and including decertification, would further negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations.

        The intensified and evolving enforcement environment impacts providers like us because of the increase in the scope or number of inspections or surveys by governmental authorities and the severity of consequent citations for alleged failure to comply with regulatory requirements. We also expend considerable resources to respond to federal and state investigations and other enforcement actions. As noted, from time to time in the ordinary course of business, we receive deficiency reports from state and federal regulatory bodies resulting from such inspections or surveys. The focus of these deficiency reports tends to change somewhat from year to year. Although most inspection deficiencies are resolved through an agreed-upon plan of corrective action, the reviewing agency typically has the authority to take further action against a licensed or certified facility, which could result in the imposition of fines, imposition of a provisional or conditional license, suspension or revocation of a license, suspension or denial of payment for new admissions, loss of certification as a provider under state or federal healthcare programs, or imposition of other sanctions, including criminal penalties. Furthermore, some states may allow citations in one facility to impact other facilities in the state. Revocation of a license at a given facility could therefore impair our ability to obtain new licenses or to renew existing licenses at other facilities, which may also trigger defaults or cross-defaults under our leases and our credit arrangements, or adversely affect our ability to operate or obtain financing in the future. If state or federal regulators were to determine, formally or otherwise, that one facility's regulatory history ought to impact another of our existing or prospective facilities, this could also increase costs, result in increased scrutiny by state and federal survey agencies, and even impact expansion plans. Therefore, our failure to comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements in any single facility could have a material adverse effect upon our business as a whole.

        We are unable to predict the future intensity of federal and state enforcement actions or the areas of investigation in which regulators may choose to focus in any given year. Changes in government agency interpretation of applicable regulatory requirements, or changes in enforcement methodologies, including increases in the scope and severity of deficiencies determined by survey or inspection officials,

16

could have a material adverse effect on our business. Furthermore, should we lose licenses or certifications for a number of our facilities as a result of changing regulatory interpretations or enforcement actions or otherwise, we could be deemed to be in default under some of our agreements, including agreements governing outstanding indebtedness and lease obligations.

State efforts to regulate or deregulate the healthcare services or construction or expansion of healthcare facilities could impair our ability to expand our operations, or could result in increased competition.

        Some states require healthcare providers, including skilled nursing facilities, to obtain prior approval, known as a certificate of need, for:

•

the purchase, construction or expansion of healthcare facilities;



•

capital expenditures exceeding a prescribed amount; or



•

changes in services or bed capacity.

        In addition, other states that do not require certificates of need have effectively barred the expansion of existing facilities or the development of new ones by placing partial or complete moratoria on the number of new Medicaid beds they will certify in certain areas or in the entire state. Other states have established such stringent development standards and approval procedures for constructing new healthcare facilities that the construction of new facilities, or the expansion or renovation of existing facilities, may become cost-prohibitive or extremely time-consuming. Our ability to acquire or construct new facilities or expand or provide new services at existing facilities would be adversely affected if we are unable to obtain the necessary approvals, if there are changes in the standards applicable to those approvals, or if we experience delays and increased expenses associated with obtaining those approvals. We may not be able to obtain licensure, certificate of need approval, Medicaid certification, or other necessary approvals for future expansion projects. Conversely, the elimination or reduction of state regulations that limit the construction, expansion or renovation of new or existing facilities could result in increased competition to us or result in overbuilding of facilities in some of our markets.

Overbuilding in certain markets, increased competition and increased operating costs may adversely affect our ability to generate and increase our revenue and profits and to pursue our growth strategy.

        The skilled nursing and long-term care industries are highly competitive and may become more competitive in the future. We compete with numerous other companies that provide long-term and rehabilitative care alternatives such as home healthcare agencies, life care at home, facility-based service programs, retirement communities, convalescent centers and other independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing providers, including not-for-profit entities. We have experienced and expect to continue to experience increased competition in our efforts to acquire and operate skilled nursing facilities. Consequently, we may encounter increased competition that could limit our ability to attract new patients, raise patient fees or expand our business.

        In addition, overbuilding in the skilled nursing industry in some markets in which we operate may reduce the occupancy rates of existing facilities and, in some cases, may reduce the rates that we can obtain for our services. Moreover, if the new construction dynamics and the competitive environments in our target markets were to become significantly adverse, it would have a disproportionate effect on our revenue due to the large portion of our revenue that is generated in those states.

Changes in federal and state employment-related laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business.

        Our operations are subject to a variety of federal and state employment-related laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act which governs such

17

matters as minimum wages, overtime and other working conditions, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and similar state laws that provide civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities in the context of employment, public accommodations and other areas, the National Labor Relations Act, regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, regulations of the Office of Civil Rights, regulations of state Attorneys General, family leave mandates and a variety of similar laws enacted by the federal and state governments that govern these and other employment law matters. Because labor represents such a large portion of our operating expenses, changes in federal and state employment-related laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business.

        The compliance costs associated with these laws and evolving regulations could be substantial. For example, all of our facilities are required to comply with the ADA. The ADA has separate compliance requirements for "public accommodations" and "commercial properties," but generally requires that buildings be made accessible to people with disabilities. Compliance with ADA requirements could require removal of access barriers and non-compliance could result in imposition of government fines or an award of damages to private litigants. Further legislation may impose additional burdens or restrictions with respect to access by disabled persons. In addition, federal proposals to introduce a system of mandated health insurance and flexible work time and other similar initiatives could, if implemented, adversely affect our operations. We also may be subject to employee-related claims such as wrongful discharge, discrimination or violation of equal employment law. While we are insured for these types of claims, we could experience damages that are not covered by our insurance policies or that exceed our insurance limits, and we may be required to pay such damages directly.

Compliance with federal and state fair housing, fire, safety and other regulations, may require us to make unanticipated expenditures, which could be costly to us.

        We must comply with the federal Fair Housing Act and similar state laws, which prohibit us from discriminating against individuals on certain bases in any of our practices if it would cause such individuals to face barriers in gaining residency in any of our facilities. Additionally, the Fair Housing Act and other similar state laws require that we advertise our services in such a way that we promote diversity and not limit it. We may be required, among other things, to change our marketing techniques to comply with these requirements.

        In addition, we are required to operate our facilities in compliance with applicable fire and safety regulations, building codes and other land use regulations and food licensing or certification requirements as they may be adopted by governmental agencies and bodies from time to time. Like other healthcare facilities, our skilled nursing facilities are subject to periodic survey or inspection by governmental authorities to assess and assure compliance with regulatory requirements. Surveys occur on a regular (often annual or biannual) schedule, and special surveys may result from a specific complaint filed by a patient, a family member or one of our competitors. We may be required to make substantial capital expenditures to comply with these requirements.

Our operations are subject to environmental and occupational health and safety regulations.

        We are subject to a wide variety of federal, state and local environmental and occupational health and safety laws and regulations. The types of regulatory requirements to which we are subject include, but are not limited to:

•

air and water quality control requirements;



•

occupational health and safety requirements (such as standards regarding blood-borne pathogens and ergonomics) and waste management requirements;



•

specific regulatory requirements applicable to asbestos, mold, lead-based paint and underground storage tanks; and

18

•

requirements for providing notice to employees and members of the public about hazardous materials and wastes.

        If we fail to comply with these and other standards, we may be subject to sanctions and penalties.

Risks Related to Our Business

We depend largely upon reimbursement from third-party payors, and our business could be negatively impacted by any changes in the acuity mix of patients in our facilities as well as payor mix and payment methodologies.

        Our revenue is affected by the percentage of our patients who require a high level of skilled nursing and rehabilitative care, whom we refer to as high-acuity patients, and by our mix of payment sources. Changes in the acuity level of patients we attract, as well as our payor mix among Medicaid, Medicare, private payors and managed care companies significantly affect our profitability because we generally receive higher reimbursement rates for high-acuity patients and because the payors reimburse us at different rates. Governmental payment programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes, retroactive rate adjustments, administrative or executive orders and government funding restrictions, all of which may materially increase or decrease the rate of program payments to us for our services. A majority of our revenue is provided by government payors that reimburse us at fixed rates. If our labor or other operating costs increase, we will be unable to recover such increased costs from government payors. Accordingly, if we fail to maintain our proportion of high-acuity patients or if there is any significant increase in the percentage of our patients for whom we receive Medicaid reimbursement, our results of operations may be adversely affected.

        Initiatives undertaken by major insurers and managed care companies to contain healthcare costs may adversely affect our business. These payors attempt to control healthcare costs by contracting with healthcare providers to obtain services on a discounted basis. We believe that this trend will continue and may limit reimbursements for healthcare services. If insurers or managed care companies from whom we receive substantial payments were to reduce the amounts they pay for services, we may lose patients if we choose not to renew our contracts with these insurers at lower rates.

Increased competition for, or a shortage of, nurses and other skilled personnel could increase our staffing and labor costs.

        Our success depends upon our ability to retain and attract nurses, Certified Nurse Assistants ("CNAs") and therapists. Our success also depends upon our ability to retain and attract skilled management personnel who are responsible for the day-to-day operations of each of our facilities. Each facility has a facility leader responsible for the overall day-to-day operations of the facility, including quality of care, social services and financial performance. Depending upon the size of the facility, each facility leader is supported by facility staff who are directly responsible for day-to-day care of the patients and either facility staff or regional support to oversee the facility's marketing and community outreach programs. Other key positions supporting each facility may include individuals responsible for physical, occupational and speech therapy, food service and maintenance. We compete with various healthcare service providers, including other skilled nursing providers, in retaining and attracting qualified and skilled personnel. We have hired personnel, including skilled nurses and therapists, from outside the United States. If immigration laws are changed, or if new and more restrictive government regulations proposed by the Department of Homeland Security are enacted, our access to qualified and skilled personnel may be limited. Increased competition for or a shortage of nurses or other trained personnel, or general inflationary pressures may require that we enhance our pay and benefits packages to compete effectively for such personnel. We may not be able to offset such added costs by increasing the rates we charge to our patients. Turnover rates and the magnitude of the shortage of nurses or other trained personnel varies substantially from facility to facility. An increase in costs associated with,

19

or a shortage of, skilled nurses, could negatively impact our business. In addition, if we fail to attract and retain qualified and skilled personnel, our ability to conduct our business operations effectively would be harmed.

We may be unable to complete future facility acquisitions at attractive prices or at all, or may be unsuccessful in efficiently integrating acquired facilities into our operations.

        To date, our revenue growth has been significantly driven by our acquisition of new facilities. Subject to general market conditions and the availability of essential resources and leadership within our company, we continue to seek both single- and multi-facility acquisition opportunities that are consistent with our geographic, financial and operating objectives. The acquisition of existing facilities involves a number of risks. Existing facilities available for acquisition frequently serve or target different markets than those that we currently serve. We also may determine that renovations of acquired facilities and changes in staff and operating management personnel are necessary to successfully integrate those facilities into our existing operations. We may not be able to recover the costs incurred to reposition or renovate newly acquired facilities. In undertaking acquisitions, we also may be adversely impacted by unforeseen liabilities attributable to the prior providers who operated those facilities, against whom we may have little or no recourse. The success of our acquisition strategy will be determined by numerous factors, including:

•

our ability to identify suitable acquisition candidates;



•

government limitations on licensure and certification of new ownership;



•

the competition for those acquisition candidates;



•

the purchase price;



•

the need for operational or structural changes and improvements;



•

the financial performance of the facilities before and after acquisition;



•

our ability to finance the acquisitions; and



•

our ability to integrate effectively any acquired facilities into our management, information and operating systems.

        Historically, the rate at which we have acquired facilities has fluctuated significantly based upon prevailing market conditions, the availability of leadership to manage new facilities and our own willingness to take on new operations. In the future, we anticipate the rate at which we may acquire facilities will continue to fluctuate.

        In 2006, we acquired ten skilled nursing facilities and one assisted living facility with a total of 1,160 beds. During the first quarter of 2007, we acquired three skilled nursing facilities with a total of 402 beds. This growth will place significant demands on our current management resources. Our ability to manage our growth effectively and to successfully integrate new acquisitions into our existing business will require us to continue to expand our operational, financial and management information systems and to continue to retain, attract, train, motivate and manage key employees, including facility-level leaders and our local directors of nursing. We may not be successful in attracting qualified individuals necessary for any future acquisitions to be successful, and our management team may expend significant time and energy working to attract qualified personnel to manage facilities we may acquire in the future. Also, the newly acquired facilities may require us to spend significant time improving services that have historically been substandard, and if we are unable to improve such facilities quickly enough, we may be subject to litigation and/or loss of licensure or certification.

        We may not be able to acquire or construct new facilities at attractive prices in locations that are compatible with our expansion and operating strategies. In addition, we expect competition for the

20

acquisition of facilities to increase. In the event we are able to enter into definitive agreements to acquire or lease new facilities, we may not be successful in completing such transactions. Failure to complete transactions after we have entered into definitive agreements may result in significant expenses to us.

        The facilities we acquire are frequently underperforming financially, and may have poor clinical, regulatory and litigation histories. Even though we believe we have improved operations and patient care at facilities that we have acquired, we still may face post-acquisition regulatory issues, including, without limitation, payment recoupment related to our predecessors' prior noncompliance and/or our own inability to quickly bring non-compliant facilities into full compliance. Diligence materials pertaining to acquisition targets, especially the underperforming facilities that often represent the greatest opportunity for return, are often inadequate, inaccurate or impossible to obtain, sometimes requiring us to make acquisition decisions with incomplete information. Despite our due diligence procedures, facilities that we may acquire in the future may generate unexpectedly low returns, may cause us to incur substantial losses, or may not meet a risk profile that our investors find acceptable. In addition, we might encounter unanticipated difficulties and expenditures relating to any of the acquired facilities, including contingent liabilities. For example, when we acquire a facility, we generally assume the facility's existing Medicare provider number for purposes of billing Medicare for services. If CMS later determined that the prior owner of the facility had received overpayments from Medicare for the period of time during which it operated the facility, or had incurred fees in connection with the operation of the facility, CMS could hold us liable for repayment of the overpayments or fines. We may be unable to improve every facility that we acquire. In addition, operation of these facilities may divert management time and attention from other operations and priorities, negatively impact cash flows, or otherwise damage other areas of our company if they are not timely and adequately improved.

        We may be unsuccessful in executing and integrating our acquisitions. The process of integrating acquired facilities into our existing operations may result in unforeseen operating difficulties, divert management's attention or require significant financial resources and may ultimately be unsuccessful. The financial benefits we expect to realize from our acquisitions are largely dependent upon our ability to improve clinical performance, overcome regulatory bias and deficiencies from our predecessors' prior noncompliance, rehabilitate the reputation of the facilities and their quality of care in the community, increase the occupancy and in some cases change the patient acuity mix of the respective facilities and control costs. If we are unable to increase revenue and reduce costs at facilities we acquire, we will not realize the anticipated benefits and we may experience lower-than anticipated profits, or even losses.

        Integration challenges include, among other things:

•

retaining existing patients;



•

managing labor costs, site visits and audits;



•

persuading our employees and those of the acquired facility to adopt our business culture;



•

maintaining morale;



•

retaining and integrating key employees;



•

incorporating new facilities into our business operations;



•

consolidating corporate and administrative functions;



•

implementing sales and marketing functions; and



•

maintaining our standards, controls, procedures, systems and policies (including effective internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures) and implementing them at new facilities.

21

        If we are not able to successfully overcome these and other integration challenges, we may not achieve the benefits we expect from any of our facility acquisitions, and our business may suffer.

We believe, but we have not been officially notified, that the U.S. Department of Justice may be conducting an investigation into the reimbursement processes of certain of our operating subsidiaries, which could have a material adverse effect upon our operations and financial condition.

        In 2006, we became aware of possible reported allegations concerning potential reimbursement irregularities at some of our facilities, which were not identified. We have retained outside counsel and initiated an internal investigation into these matters. This investigation is currently pending and in the preliminary stages of the process. We do not know what might be the ultimate outcome or findings of this investigation at this time.

        Subsequent to receiving the information that precipitated the internal investigation, we were advised that the United States Attorney for the Central District of California issued a subpoena and then rescinded that subpoena. This rescinded subpoena originally requested documents from our bank related to financial transactions involving us, ten of our operating subsidiaries, an outside investor group, and certain of our current and former officers. We have not been formally charged with any wrongdoing, served with any related subpoenas, or even notified of any concerns or related investigations by the U.S. Attorney or any government agency relative to the subpoena, but the U.S. Attorney's office has declined to discuss or provide us with any further information with respect to this matter. To the extent the U.S. Attorney's office elects to pursue this matter or if our internal investigation results in negative findings, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected and our stock price could decline.

        Our facilities undergo regular claims submission audits by government reimbursement programs in the normal course of their business, and such audits can result in adjustments to their past billings and reimbursements from such programs. In addition to such audits, several of our facilities have recently participated in more intensive "probe reviews" conducted by our Medicare fiscal intermediary. Some of these probe reviews identified patient miscoding, documentation deficiencies and other errors in recordkeeping and Medicare billing. If the U.S. Department of Justice were to conclude that such errors and deficiencies constituted criminal violations, or were to conclude that such errors and deficiencies resulted in the submission of false claims to federal healthcare programs, or if it were to discover other problems in addition to the ones identified by the probe reviews that rose to actionable levels, we and certain of our officers might face potential criminal charges and/or civil claims, administrative sanctions and penalties for amounts that could be material to our business, results of operations and financial condition. Such amounts could include claims for treble damages and penalties of up to $11,000 per false claim submitted to a federal healthcare program. In addition, we and/or some of our key personnel could be temporarily or permanently excluded from future participation in state and federal healthcare reimbursement programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. In any event, it is likely that a governmental investigation alone, regardless of its outcome, would divert material time, resources and attention from our management team and our staff, and could have a materially detrimental impact on our results of operations during and after any such investigation or proceedings. While we believe that the assertion of criminal charges, civil claims, administrative sanctions or whistleblower actions would be unwarranted, the government is not sharing any information with us regarding its potential investigation, the subpoena or the matters that provoked its filing or withdrawal, and we cannot assure you as to the outcome of any investigation, if any, or any possible related proceedings.

22

We may not be successful in generating internal growth at our facilities by expanding occupancy at these facilities. We also may be unable to improve patient mix at our facilities.

        Overall occupancy across all of our facilities was approximately 81% at December 31, 2006, leaving opportunities for internal growth without the acquisition or construction of new facilities. Because a large portion of our costs are fixed, a decline in our occupancy could adversely impact our financial performance. In addition, our profitability is impacted heavily by our patient mix. We generally generate greater profitability from non-Medicaid patients. If we are unable to maintain or increase the proportion of non-Medicaid patients in our facilities, our financial performance could be adversely affected.

Termination of our patient admission agreements and the resulting vacancies in our facilities could cause revenue at our facilities to decline.

        Most state regulations governing skilled nursing and assisted living facilities require written patient admission agreements with each patient. Several of these regulations also require that each patient have the right to terminate the patient agreement for any reason and without prior notice. Consistent with these regulations, all of our skilled nursing patient agreements allow patients to terminate their agreements without notice, and all of our assisted living resident agreements allow residents to terminate their agreements upon thirty days' notice. Patients and residents terminate their agreements from time to time for a variety of reasons, causing some fluctuations in our overall occupancy as patients and residents are admitted and discharged in normal course. If an unusual number of patients or residents elected to terminate their agreements within a short time, occupancy levels at our facilities could decline. As a result, beds may be unoccupied for a period of time, which would have a negative impact on our business.

We face significant competition from other healthcare providers and may not be successful in attracting patients and residents to our facilities.

        The skilled nursing and assisted living industries are highly competitive, and we expect that these industries may become increasingly competitive in the future. Our skilled nursing facilities compete primarily on a local and regional basis with many long-term care providers, from national and regional multi-facility providers that have substantially greater financial resources to small providers who operate a single nursing facility. We also compete with other skilled nursing and assisted living facilities, and with inpatient rehabilitation facilities, long-term acute care hospitals, home healthcare and other similar services and care alternatives. Increased competition could limit our ability to attract and retain patients, attract and retain skilled personnel, maintain or increase private pay and managed care rates or expand our business. Our ability to compete successfully varies from location to location depending upon a number of factors, including:

•

our ability to attract and retain qualified facility leaders, nursing staff and other employees;



•

the number of competitors in the local market;



•

the types of services available;



•

our local reputation for quality care of patients;



•

the commitment and expertise of our staff;



•

our local service offerings; and



•

the cost of care in each locality and the physical appearance, location, age and condition of our facilities.

23

        We may not be successful in attracting patients to our facilities, particularly Medicare, managed care, and private pay patients who generally come to us at higher reimbursement rates. Some of our competitors have greater financial and other resources than us, may have greater brand recognition and may be more established in their respective communities than we are. Competing skilled nursing companies may also offer newer facilities or different programs or services than we do and may thereby attract current or potential patients. Other competitors may accept a lower margin, and, therefore, present significant price competition for managed care and private pay patients. In addition, some of our competitors operate on a not-for-profit basis or as charitable organizations and have the ability to finance capital expenditures on a tax-exempt basis or through the receipt of charitable contributions, neither of which are available to us.

Competition for the acquisition of strategic assets from buyers with lower costs of capital than us or that have lower return expectations than we do could limit our ability to compete for strategic acquisitions and therefore to grow our business effectively.

        Several real estate investment trusts ("REITs"), other real estate investment companies, institutional lenders who have not traditionally taken ownership interests in operating businesses or real estate, as well as several skilled nursing and assisted living facility providers, have similar asset acquisition objectives as we do, along with greater financial resources and lower costs of capital than we are able to obtain. This may increase competition for acquisitions that would be suitable to us, making it more difficult for us to compete and successfully implement our growth strategy. Significant competition exists among potential acquirors in the skilled nursing and assisted living industries, including with REITs, and we may not be able to successfully implement our growth strategy or complete acquisitions, which could limit our ability to grow our business effectively.

If we do not achieve and maintain competitive quality of care ratings from CMS and private organizations engaged in similar monitoring activities, or if the frequency of CMS surveys and enforcement sanctions increases, our business may be negatively affected.

        CMS, as well as certain private organizations engaged in similar monitoring activities, provides comparative data available to the public on its web site, rating every skilled nursing facility operating in each state based upon quality-of-care indicators. These quality-of-care indicators include such measures as percentages of patients with infections, bedsores and unplanned weight loss. In addition, CMS has undertaken an initiative to increase Medicaid and Medicare survey and enforcement activities, to focus more survey and enforcement efforts on facilities with findings of substandard care or repeat violations of Medicaid and Medicare standards, and to require state agencies to use enforcement sanctions and remedies more promptly when substandard care or repeat violations are identified. For example, two of our facilities are now surveyed every six months instead of every 12 to 15 months as a result of historical survey results dating back to the prior operators. We have found a correlation between negative Medicaid and Medicare surveys and the incidence of professional liability litigation. In 2006, we experienced a higher than normal number of negative survey findings in some of our facilities. If we are unable to achieve quality-of-care ratings that are comparable or superior to those of our competitors, our ability to attract and retain patients could be adversely affected.

Significant legal actions and liability claims against us in excess of insurance limits or outside of our insurance coverage could subject us to increased insurance costs, litigation reserves, operating costs and substantial uninsured liabilities.

        The skilled nursing business involves a significant risk of liability given the age and health of our patients and residents and the services we provide. We and others in our industry are subject to an increasing number of claims and lawsuits, including professional liability claims, alleging that our services have resulted in personal injury, elder abuse, wrongful death or other related claims. The

24

defense of these lawsuits may result in significant legal costs, regardless of the outcome, and can result in large settlement amounts or damage awards.

        We maintain liability insurance policies in amounts and with the coverage and deductibles we believe are adequate based on the nature and risks of our business, historical experience, industry standards and the availability of coverage in the insurance market. At any given time, we may have multiple current professional liability cases and/or other types of claims pending, which is common in our industry. In the past year, we have not had any claims that exceeded the policy limits of our insurance coverage. We may face claims which exceed our insurance limits or are not covered by our policies.

        Certain lawsuits filed on behalf of patients of long-term care facilities for alleged negligence and/or alleged abuses have resulted in large damage awards against other companies, both in and related to our industry. In addition, there has been an increase in the number of class action suits filed against long-term and rehabilitative care companies. A class action suit was previously filed against us alleging, among other things, violations of applicable California Health and Safety Code provisions and a violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act at certain of our facilities. We settled this class action suit, which settlement was approved by the affected class and the Court in April 2007, but we could be subject to similar actions in the future.

        In addition to the class action, professional liability and other types of lawsuits and claims described above, we are also subject to potential lawsuits under the Federal False Claims Act and comparable state laws governing submission of fraudulent claims for services to any healthcare program (such as Medicare) or payor. These lawsuits, which may be initiated by the government or by a private party asserting direct knowledge of the claimed fraud or misconduct, can result in the imposition on a company of significant monetary damages, fines and attorney fees (a portion of which may be shared with the private parties who successfully identify the subject practices), as well as significant legal expenses and other costs to the company in connection with defending against such claims. Insurance is not available to cover such losses. Penalties for Federal False Claims Act violations include fines ranging from $5,500 to $11,000 for each false claim, plus up to three times the amount of damages sustained by the federal government. A violation may also provide the basis for exclusion from federally-funded healthcare programs. If one of our facilities or key employees were excluded from such participation, such exclusion could have a correlative negative impact on our financial performance. In addition, some states, including California, Arizona and Texas, have enacted similar whistleblower and false claims laws and regulations.

        In addition, the DRA created incentives for states to enact anti-fraud legislation modeled on the Federal False Claims Act. The DRA sets forth standards for state false claims acts to meet, including: (a) liability to the state for false or fraudulent claims with respect to any expenditure described in the Medicaid program; (b) provisions at least as effective as federal provisions in rewarding and facilitating whistleblower actions; (c) requirements for filing actions under seal for sixty days with review by the state's attorney general; and (d) civil penalties no less than authorized under the federal statutes. As such, we could face increased scrutiny, potential liability and legal expenses and costs based on claims under state false claims acts in existing and future markets in which we do business.

        We also face potential exposure to other types of liability claims, including, without limitation, directors' and officers liability, employment practices and/or employment benefits liability, premises liability, and vehicle or other accident claims. Given the litigious environment in which all businesses operate, it is impossible to fully catalogue all of the potential types of liability claims that might be asserted against us. As a result of the litigation and potential litigation described above, as well as factors completely external to our company and endemic to the skilled nursing industry, during the past several years the overall cost of both general and professional liability insurance to the industry has dramatically increased, while the availability of affordable and favorable insurance coverage has

25

dramatically decreased. If federal and state medical liability insurance reforms to limit future liability awards are not adopted and enforced, we expect that our insurance and liability costs may continue to increase.

        With few exceptions, workers' compensation and employee health insurance costs have also increased markedly in recent years. To partially offset these increases, we have increased the amounts of our self-insured retention ("SIR") and deductibles in connection with general and professional liability claims. We have also have implemented a self-insurance program for workers compensation in California, and elected non-subscriber status for workers compensation in Texas.

        Since 2001, we have maintained insurance through a wholly-owned subsidiary insurance company, Standardbearer Insurance Company, Ltd., to insure our SIR and deductibles as part of a continually evolving overall risk management strategy. We establish the premiums to be paid to Standardbearer, and the loss reserves set by that subsidiary, based upon independent actuarial analyses that are based upon the information available at the time of the assessment. These analyses attempt to determine expected liabilities on an undiscounted basis, including incurred but not reported losses. Although premiums and reserves are set with guidance from actuaries and other third party professionals, the projections may prove to be inaccurate. We may also experience an unexpectedly large number of successful claims or claims that result in costs or liability significantly in excess of our projections. For these and other reasons, our self-insurance reserves could prove to be inadequate, resulting in liabilities in excess of our available insurance and self-insurance. If a successful claim is made against us and it is not covered by our insurance or exceeds the insurance policy limits, our business may be negatively and materially impacted. Further, because our SIR under our general and professional liability and workers compensation programs apply on a per claim basis, there is no limit to the maximum number of claims or the total amount for which we could incur liability in any policy period.

        In May 2006, we began self-insuring our employee health benefits. With respect to our health benefits self-insurance, we do not yet have a meaningful loss history by which to set reserves or premiums, and have consequently employed general industry data that is not specific to our own company to set reserves and premiums. For this reason as well as those discussed previously, our reserves may prove to be insufficient.

        Insurance coverage for patient care liabilities and other risks may become increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain. We may be unable to obtain liability insurance in the future or, if available, such coverage may not be available on acceptable terms or may include broader exclusions from coverage. If coverage becomes too difficult or costly to obtain from insurance carriers, or if the scope of coverage is narrowed, we may be required to self-insure a greater portion of our risks. In addition, we are required to renew our insurance policies every year and negotiate acceptable terms for coverage, exposing us to the volatility of the insurance markets, including the possibility of rate increases. Increasing insurance costs, increasing reserves, increasing liabilities, and a hostile legal environment may materially negatively impact our business.

        In some states, the law prohibits or limits insurance coverage for the risk of punitive damages arising from professional liability and general liability claims or litigation. Coverage for punitive damages is also excluded under some insurance policies. As a result, we may be liable for punitive damage awards in these states that either are not covered or are in excess of our insurance policy limits. Claims against us, regardless of their merit or eventual outcome, also could have a material adverse effect on our ability to attract patients or expand our business, and could require our management to devote time to matters unrelated to the day-to-day operation of our business.

26

Insurance coverage may become increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain and our self-insurance programs may expose us to significant and unexpected losses.

        It may become more difficult and costly for us to obtain coverage for patient care liabilities and other risks, including property and casualty insurance. Insurance carriers may require us to significantly increase our self-insured retention levels or pay substantially higher premiums for reduced coverage for most insurance, including workers compensation, employee healthcare and patient care liability.

        We self-insure a significant portion of our potential liabilities for several risks, including general and professional liability and workers compensation. Due to our self-insured retentions under our general and professional liability and workers compensation programs, there is no limit on the maximum number of claims or amount for which we can be liable in any policy period. We base our loss estimates upon independent actuarial analyses, which determine expected liabilities on an undiscounted basis, including incurred but not reported losses, based upon the available information on a given date. However, we may experience losses that exceed our estimates and our insurance limits. In addition, if coverage becomes too difficult or costly to obtain from insurance carriers, we would have to self-insure a greater portion of our risks.

The geographic concentration of our facilities could leave us vulnerable to an economic downturn, regulatory changes or acts of nature in those areas.

        Our facilities located in California and Arizona account for the majority of our total revenue. As a result of this concentration, the conditions of local economies and real estate markets, changes in governmental rules, regulations and reimbursement rates or criteria, changes in demographics, acts of nature and other factors that may result in a decrease in demand and/or reimbursement for skilled nursing services in these states could have a disproportionately adverse effect on our revenue, costs and results of operations. Moreover, since approximately half of our facilities are located in California, we are particularly susceptible to revenue loss, cost increase or damage caused by natural disasters such as earthquakes or mudslides. In addition, to the extent we acquire additional facilities in Texas, we become more susceptible to revenue loss, cost increase or damage caused by hurricanes or flooding. Any significant loss due to a natural disaster may not be covered by insurance or may exceed our insurance limits and may also lead to an increase in the cost of insurance.

Our business may be affected by the actions of a national labor union that has been pursuing a negative publicity campaign criticizing our business.

        Unlike many other companies in our industry, we continue to assert our right to inform our employees about our views of the potential impact of unionization upon the workplace generally and upon individual employees. With one exception, to our knowledge the staffs at our facilities who have been approached to unionize have uniformly rejected union organizing efforts. Because approximately half of the workforce at one of our facilities voted to accept the union, we have been engaged in collective bargaining with their union since 2005. If employees of other facilities decide to unionize, our cost of doing business could increase, and we could experience contract delays, difficulty in adapting to a changing regulatory and economic environment, and cultural conflicts between unionized and non-unionized employees.

        The unwillingness on the part of both our management and staff to accede to union demands for "neutrality" and other concessions has resulted in a negative labor campaign by at least one labor union, the Service Employees International Union and its local chapter based in Oakland, California. Since 2002, this union has prosecuted a negative retaliatory publicity action, also known as a "corporate campaign," against us and has filed, promoted or participated in multiple legal actions against us. The union's campaign asserts, among other allegations, poor treatment of patients, inferior medical services provided by our employees, poor treatment of our employees, and health code violations by us. In

27

addition, the union has publicly mischaracterized actions taken by the California Department of Health Services against us and our facilities. In numerous cases, the union's allegations have created the false impression that violations and other events that occurred at facilities prior to our acquisition of those facilities were caused by us. Since a large component of our business involves acquiring underperforming and distressed facilities, and improving the quality of operations at these facilities, we may therefore be associated with the past poor performance of these facilities.

        This union, along with other similar agencies and organizations, has demanded focused regulatory oversight and public boycotts of some of our facilities. It has also attempted to pressure hospitals, doctors, insurers and other healthcare providers and professionals to cease doing business with or referring patients to us. If this union or another union is successful in convincing our patients, their families or our referral sources to reduce or cease doing business with us, our revenue may be reduced and our profitability could be adversely affected. Additionally, if we are unable to attract and retain qualified staff due to negative public relations efforts by this or other union organizations, our quality of service and our revenue and profits could decline. Our strategy for responding to union allegations involves clear public disclosure of the union's identity, activities and agenda, and rebuttals to its negative campaign. Our ability to respond to unions, however, may be limited by some state laws, which purport to make it illegal for any recipient of state funds to promote or deter union organizing. For example, such a state law passed by the California Legislature was successfully challenged on the grounds that it was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, only to have the challenge overturned by the Ninth Circuit in 2006. The case is now before the United States Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds the Ninth Circuit's ruling, our ability to oppose unionization efforts could be hindered, and our business could be negatively affected.

A number of our facilities are operated under master lease arrangements or leases that contain cross-default provisions, and in some cases the breach of a single facility lease could subject multiple facilities to the same risk.

        Approximately 24% of our lease arrangements are structured as master leases. Under a master lease, we may lease a large number of geographically dispersed properties through an indivisible lease. Failure to comply with Medicare or Medicaid provider requirements is a default under several of our master lease and debt financing instruments. In addition, other potential defaults related to an individual facility may cause a default of an entire master lease portfolio and could trigger cross-default provisions in our outstanding debt arrangements and other leases, which would have a negative impact on our capital structure and our ability to generate future revenue, and could interfere with our ability to pursue our growth strategy. With an indivisible lease, it is difficult to restructure the composition of the portfolio or economic terms of the lease without the consent of the landlord. In addition, a number of our individual facility leases are held by the same or related landlords, and these leases typically also involve cross-default provisions that could cause a default at one facility to trigger a technical default with respect to others, potentially subjecting us to the various remedies available to the landlords under each of the leases.

Failure to generate sufficient cash flow to cover required payments or meet operating covenants under our long-term debt, mortgages and long-term operating leases could result in defaults under such agreements and cross-defaults under other debt, mortgage or operating lease arrangements, which could harm our operations and cause us to lose facilities or experience foreclosures.

        At December 31, 2006, we had $64.5 million of outstanding indebtedness under our term loan, mortgage note and notes payable and $173.8 million of operating lease obligations. We intend to continue financing our facilities through mortgage financing, long-term operating leases and other types of financing, including borrowings under our lines of credit and future credit facilities we may obtain.

28

        We may not generate sufficient cash flow from operations to cover required interest, principal and lease payments. In addition, from time to time the financial performance of one or more of our mortgaged facilities may not comply with the required operating covenants under the terms of the mortgage. Any non-payment, noncompliance or other default under our financing arrangements could, subject to cure provisions, cause the lender to foreclose upon the facility or facilities securing such indebtedness or, in the case of a lease, cause the lessor to terminate the lease, each with a consequent loss of revenue and asset value to us or a loss of property. Furthermore, in many cases, indebtedness is secured by both a mortgage on one or more facilities, and a guaranty by us. In the event of a default under one of these scenarios, the lender could avoid judicial procedures required to foreclose on real property by declaring all amounts outstanding under the guaranty immediately due and payable, and requiring us to fulfill our obligations to make such payments. If any of these scenarios were to occur, our financial condition would be adversely affected. For tax purposes, a foreclosure on any of our properties would be treated as a sale of the property for a price equal to the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage. If the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage exceeds our tax basis in the property, we would recognize taxable income on foreclosure, but would not receive any cash proceeds, which would negatively impact our earnings and cash position. Further, because our mortgages and operating leases generally contain cross-default and cross-collateralization provisions, a default by us related to one facility could affect a significant number of other facilities and their corresponding financing arrangements and operating leases.

        Because our term loan, mortgage and lease obligations are fixed expenses and secured by specific assets, and because our revolving loan obligations are secured by virtually all of our assets, if reimbursement rates, patient acuity mix or occupancy levels decline, or if for any reason we are unable to meet our loan or lease obligations, we may not be able to cover our costs and some or all our assets may become at risk. Our ability to make payments of principal and interest on our indebtedness and to make lease payments on our operating leases depends upon our future performance, which will be subject to general economic conditions, industry cycles and financial, business and other factors affecting our operations, many of which are beyond our control. If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow from operations in the future to service our debt or to make lease payments on our operating leases, we may be required, among other things, to seek additional financing in the debt or equity markets, refinance or restructure all or a portion of our indebtedness, sell selected assets, reduce or delay planned capital expenditures or delay or abandon desirable acquisitions. Such measures might not be sufficient to enable us to service our debt or to make lease payments on our operating leases. The failure to make required payments on our debt or operating leases or the delay or abandonment of our planned growth strategy could result in an adverse effect on our future ability to generate revenue and sustain profitability. In addition, any such financing, refinancing or sale of assets might not be available on terms that are economically favorable to us, or at all.

Our existing credit facilities and mortgage loans contain restrictive covenants and any default under such facilities or loans could result in a freeze on additional advances, the acceleration of indebtedness, the termination of leases, or cross-defaults, any of which would negatively impact our liquidity and inhibit our ability to grow our business and increase revenue.

        Our outstanding credit facilities and mortgage loans contain restrictive covenants and require us to maintain or satisfy specified coverage tests on a consolidated basis and on a facility or facilities basis. These restrictions and operating covenants include, among other things, requirements with respect to occupancy, debt service coverage and project yield. The debt service coverage ratios are generally calculated as revenue less operating expenses, including an implied management fee and a reserve for capital expenditures, divided by the outstanding principal and accrued interest under the debt. These restrictions may interfere with our ability to obtain additional advances under existing credit facilities or to obtain new financing or to engage in other business activities, which may inhibit our ability to grow our business and increase revenue. If we fail to comply with any of these requirements, or if we

29

experience any defaults, then the related indebtedness could become immediately due and payable prior to its stated maturity date. We may not be able to pay this debt if it becomes immediately due and payable.

If we decide to expand our presence in the assisted living industry, we would become subject to risks in a market in which we have limited experience.

        The majority of our facilities have historically been skilled nursing facilities. If we decide to expand our presence in the assisted living industry, our existing overall business model would change and we would become subject to risks in a market in which we have limited experience. Although assisted living operations generally have lower costs and higher margins than skilled nursing, they typically generate lower overall revenue than skilled nursing operations. In addition, assisted living revenue is derived primarily from private payors as opposed to government reimbursement. In most states, skilled nursing and assisted living are regulated by different agencies, and we have less experience with the agencies that regulate assisted living. In general, we believe that assisted living is a more competitive industry than skilled nursing. If we decided to expand our presence in the assisted living industry, we would have to change our existing business model, which could have an adverse affect on our business.

If our referral sources fail to view us as an attractive skilled nursing provider or if our referral sources otherwise refer fewer patients, our patient base may decrease.

        We rely significantly on appropriate referrals from physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers in the communities in which we deliver our services to attract appropriate residents and patients to our facilities. Our referral sources are not obligated to refer business to us and may refer business to other healthcare providers. We believe many of our referral sources refer business to us as a result of the quality of our patient care and our efforts to establish and build a relationship with our referral sources. If we lose, or fail to maintain, existing relationships with our referral resources, fail to develop new relationships, or if we are perceived by our referral sources as not providing high quality patient care, our occupancy rate and the quality of our patient mix could suffer. In addition, if any of our referral sources have a reduction in patients whom they can refer due to a decrease in their business, our occupancy rate and the quality of our patient mix could suffer.

We may need additional capital to fund our operations and finance our growth, and we may not be able to obtain it on terms acceptable to us, or at all, which may limit our ability to grow.

        Continued expansion of our business through the acquisition of existing skilled nursing facilities, expansion of our existing facilities or construction of new facilities may require additional capital, particularly if we were to accelerate our acquisition and expansion plans. Financing may not be available to us or may be available to us only on terms that are not favorable. In addition, some of our outstanding indebtedness and long-term leases restrict, among other things, our ability to incur additional debt. If we are unable to raise additional funds or obtain additional funds on terms acceptable to us, we may have to delay or abandon some or all of our growth strategies. Further, if additional funds are raised through the issuance of additional equity securities, the percentage ownership of our stockholders would be diluted. Any newly issued equity securities may have rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of our common stock.

Delays in reimbursement may cause liquidity problems.

        If we experience problems with our information systems or if issues arise with Medicare, Medicaid or other payors, we may encounter delays in our payment cycle. From time to time, we have experienced such delays as a result of government payors instituting planned reimbursement delays for budget balancing purposes or as a result of prepayment reviews. Any future timing delay may cause working capital shortages. As a result, working capital management, including prompt and diligent billing and collection, is an important factor in our results of operations and liquidity. Our working capital management procedures may not successfully ameliorate the effects of any delays in our receipt of payments or reimbursements. Accordingly, such delays could have an adverse effect on our liquidity and financial condition.

30

Compliance with the regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development may require us to make unanticipated expenditures which could increase our costs.

        Four of our facilities are currently subject to regulatory agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") that give the Commissioner of HUD broad authority to require us to be replaced as the operator of those facilities in the event that the Commissioner determines there are operational deficiencies at such facilities under HUD regulations. Recently, one of our HUD-insured mortgaged facilities did not pass its HUD inspection. Following an unsuccessful appeal of the decision, we requested a re-inspection. If our facility fails the re-inspection, the HUD Commissioner could exercise its authority to replace us as the facility operator. In such event, we would be forced to repay the HUD mortgage on this facility to avoid being replaced as the facility operator, which would negatively impact our cash and financial condition. This alternative is not available to us if any of our other three HUD-insured facilities were determined by HUD to be operationally deficient because they are leased facilities. Compliance with HUD's requirements can often be difficult because these requirements are not always consistent with the requirements of other federal and state agencies. Appealing a failed inspection can be costly and time-consuming and, if we do not successfully remediate the failed inspection, we could be precluded from obtaining HUD financing in the future or we may encounter limitations or prohibitions on our operation of HUD-insured facilities.

Upkeep of healthcare properties is capital intensive, requiring us to continually direct financial resources to the maintenance and enhancement of our facilities and equipment.

        Our ability to maintain and enhance our facilities and equipment in a suitable condition to meet regulatory standards, operate efficiently and remain competitive in our markets requires us to commit substantial resources to continued investment in our facilities and equipment. Some of our competitors may operate facilities that are not as old as ours, or may appear more modernized than our facilities, and therefore may be more attractive to prospective patients. We are sometimes more aggressive than our competitors in capital spending to address issues that arise in connection with aging facilities. If we are unable to direct the necessary financial and human resources to the maintenance, upgrade and modernization of our facilities and equipment, our business may suffer.

Failure to comply with existing environmental laws could result in increased expenditures, litigation and potential loss to our business and in our asset value.

        Our operations are subject to regulations under various federal, state and local environmental laws, primarily those relating to the handling, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of medical waste; the identification and warning of the presence of asbestos-containing materials in buildings, as well as the encapsulation or removal of such materials; and the presence of other substances in the indoor environment.

        Our facilities generate infectious or other hazardous medical waste due to the illness or physical condition of the patients. Each of our facilities has an agreement with a waste management company for the proper disposal of all infectious medical waste, but the use of a waste management company does not immunize us from alleged violations of such laws for operations for which we are responsible even if carried out by a third party, nor does it immunize us from third-party claims for the cost to cleanup disposal sites at which such wastes have been disposed.

        Some of the facilities we lease, own or may acquire may have asbestos-containing materials. Federal regulations require building owners and those exercising control over a building's management to identify and warn their employees and other employers operating in the building of potential hazards posed by workplace exposure to installed asbestos-containing materials and potential asbestos-containing materials in their buildings. Significant fines can be assessed for violation of these regulations. Building owners and those exercising control over a building's management may be subject

31

to an increased risk of personal injury lawsuits. Federal, state and local laws and regulations also govern the removal, encapsulation, disturbance, handling and disposal of asbestos-containing materials and potential asbestos-containing materials when such materials are in poor condition or in the event of construction, remodeling, renovation or demolition of a building. Such laws may impose liability for improper handling or a release into the environment of asbestos-containing materials and potential asbestos-containing materials and may provide for fines to, and for third parties to seek recovery from, owners or operators of real properties for personal injury or improper work exposure associated with asbestos-containing materials and potential asbestos-containing materials. The presence of asbestos-containing materials, or the failure to properly dispose of or remediate such materials, also may adversely affect our ability to attract and retain patients and staff, to borrow using such property as collateral or to make improvements to such property.

        The presence of mold, lead-based paint, underground storage tanks, contaminants in drinking water, radon and/or other substances at any of the facilities we lease, own or may acquire may lead to the incurrence of costs for remediation, mitigation or the implementation of an operations and maintenance plan and may result in third party litigation for personal injury or property damage. Furthermore, in some circumstances, areas affected by mold may be unusable for periods of time for repairs, and even after successful remediation, the known prior presence of extensive mold could adversely affect the ability of a facility to retain or attract patients and staff and could adversely affect a facility's market value.

        If we fail to comply with applicable environmental laws, we would face increased expenditures in terms of fines and remediation of the underlying problems, potential litigation relating to exposure to such materials, and a potential decrease in value to our business and in the value of our underlying assets.

        We are unable to predict the future course of federal, state and local environmental regulation and legislation. Changes in the environmental regulatory framework could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, because environmental laws vary from state to state, expansion of our operations to states where we do not currently operate may subject us to additional restrictions in the manner in which we operate our facilities.

If we fail to safeguard the monies held in our patient trust funds, we will be required to reimburse such monies, and we may be subject to citations, fines and penalties

        Each of our facilities is required by federal law to maintain a patient trust fund to safeguard certain assets of their residents and patients. If any money held in a patient trust fund is misappropriated, we are required to reimburse the patient trust fund for the amount of money that was misappropriated. In 2005 we became aware of two separate and unrelated instances of employees misappropriating approximately $370,000 in patient trust funds, some of which was recovered from the employees and some of which we were required to reimburse from Company funds. If any monies held in our patient trust funds are misappropriated in the future and are unrecoverable, we will be required to reimburse such monies, and we may be subject to citations, fines and penalties pursuant to federal and state laws.

We are a holding company with no operations and rely upon our multiple operating subsidiaries to provide us with the funds necessary to meet our financial obligations. Liabilities of any one or more of these subsidiaries could be imposed upon us or our other subsidiaries.

        We are a holding company with no direct operating assets, employees or revenues. Each of our facilities is operated through a separate, wholly-owned, independent subsidiary, which has its own management, employees and assets. Our principal assets are the equity interests we directly or indirectly hold in our multiple operating and real estate holding subsidiaries. As a result, we are

32

dependent upon loans, dividends and other payments from our subsidiaries to generate the funds necessary to meet our financial obligations, including paying dividends. Our subsidiaries are legally distinct from us and have no obligation to make funds available to us. The ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other payments or distributions to us will depend substantially on their respective operating results and will be subject to restrictions under, among other things, the laws of their jurisdiction of organization, which may limit the amount of funds available for the payment of dividends, agreements of those subsidiaries, the terms of our financing arrangements and the terms of any future financing arrangements of our subsidiaries. Were litigation to be instituted against one or more of our subsidiaries, however, a successful plaintiff might attempt to hold us or another subsidiary liable for the alleged wrongdoing of the subsidiary principally targeted by the litigation. If a court in such litigation decided to disregard the corporate form, the resulting judgment could increase our liability and adversely affect our business.

Risks Related to This Offering and Ownership of our Common Stock

We may not be able to pay or maintain dividends and the failure to do so would adversely affect our stock price.

        Our ability to pay and maintain cash dividends is based on many factors, including our ability to make and finance acquisitions, our ability to negotiate favorable lease and other contractual terms, anticipated operating expense levels, the level of demand for our beds, the rates we charge and actual results that may vary substantially from estimates. Some of the factors are beyond our control and a change in any such factor could affect our ability to pay or maintain dividends. We may not be able to pay or maintain dividends, and we may at any time elect not to pay dividends but to retain cash for other purposes. We also cannot assure you that the level of dividends will be maintained or increase over time or that increases in demand for our beds and monthly patient fees will increase our actual cash available for dividends to stockholders. It is possible that we may pay dividends in a future period that may exceed our net income for such period. The failure to pay or maintain dividends would adversely affect our stock price.

An active market for our shares of common stock may never develop, which could make it difficult for you to sell your shares of common stock and could have a material adverse effect on the value of your investment.

        There has not been a public market for our common stock. An active trading market for our common stock may not develop following this offering. You may not be able to sell your shares quickly or at the market price if trading in our common stock is not active. The initial public offering price for the shares will be determined by negotiations between us and representatives of the underwriters and may not be indicative of prices that will prevail in the trading market. Please see "Underwriting" for more information regarding our arrangements with the underwriters and the factors considered in setting the initial public offering price.

If the ownership of our common stock continues to be highly concentrated, it may prevent you and other stockholders from influencing significant corporate decisions and may result in conflicts of interest that could cause our stock price to decline.

        Following the completion of this offering, our executive officers, directors and their affiliates will beneficially own or control approximately            % of the outstanding shares of our common stock, of which Roy Christensen, our Chairman of the board of directors, Christopher Christensen, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and Gregory Stapley, our General Counsel, will beneficially own approximately            %,            % and            %, respectively, of the outstanding shares. Accordingly, our current executive officers, directors and their affiliates, if they act together, will have substantial control over the outcome of corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets or any other

33

significant corporate transactions. These stockholders may also delay or prevent a change of control of us, even if such a change of control would benefit our other stockholders. The significant concentration of stock ownership may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock due to investors' perception that conflicts of interest may exist or arise.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, if they change their recommendations regarding our stock adversely or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

        The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline. Moreover, if one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, our stock price could decline.

The market price and trading volume of our common stock may be volatile, which could result in rapid and substantial losses for our stockholders.

        Even if an active trading market develops, the market price of our common stock may be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations. In addition, the trading volume in our common stock may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. If the market price of our common stock declines, you may be unable to resell your shares at or above your purchase price. We cannot assure you that the market price of our common stock will not fluctuate or decline significantly in the future. In the past, when the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our stockholders brought a lawsuit against us, we could incur substantial costs defending or settling the lawsuit. Such a lawsuit could also divert the time and attention of our management from our business.

Future offerings of debt or equity securities by us may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

        In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by offering debt or additional equity securities, including commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior or subordinated notes, series of preferred shares or shares of our common stock. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and preferred shares, and lenders with respect to other borrowings, would receive a distribution of our available assets prior to any distribution to the holders of our common stock. Additional equity offerings may dilute the economic and voting rights of our existing stockholders or reduce the market price of our common stock, or both. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, holders of our common stock bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting their share holdings in us.

        After this offering, we will have an aggregate of            shares of common stock authorized but unissued and not reserved for issuance under our option plans. We may issue all of these shares without any action or approval by our stockholders. We intend to continue to actively pursue acquisitions of skilled nursing facilities and may issue shares of common stock in connection with these acquisitions.

        Any shares issued in connection with our acquisitions, the exercise of outstanding stock options or otherwise would dilute the holdings of the investors who purchase our shares in this offering.

34

New investors in our common stock will experience immediate and substantial dilution.

        The offering price of our common stock will be substantially higher than the net tangible book value per share of our existing common stock. As a result, purchasers of our common stock in this offering will incur immediate and substantial dilution of $                        in pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share of common stock, based on an assumed public offering price of $                        per share (the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus).

We have broad discretion with respect to the application of the net proceeds obtained from this offering and may not use these funds in a manner which you would approve.

        We will have broad discretion as to the application of the net proceeds from this offering. We intend to use the net proceeds of this offering to fund possible future acquisitions of skilled nursing facilities and businesses engaged in activities that are similar or complementary to our business, to fund expansions at our existing facilities and the development and construction of new skilled nursing facilities, and for general corporate purposes, including working capital. We may not use these funds in a manner which you would approve.

The large number of shares eligible for sale following this offering may depress the market price of our common stock.

        Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that substantial sales may occur, could cause the market price of our common stock to decrease. Based on the shares of our common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2006, immediately after the completion of this offering, we will have            shares of common stock outstanding assuming no exercise of the underwriters' over-allotment option. In general, the shares sold in this offering will be freely transferable without restriction or additional registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act. In addition, all of the remaining             shares of common stock that will be outstanding after this offering will be available for sale in the public markets pursuant to Rule 144 or Rule 701 promulgated under the Securities Act, subject to lock-up agreements entered into by our directors, executive officers and certain stockholders. D.A. Davidson & Co. may, in its sole discretion, permit any director, executive officer, employee or stockholder who is subject to this lock-up to sell shares prior to the expiration of their respective lock-up agreements. Such lock-up agreements will expire 180 days after the execution of the underwriting agreement, unless extended an additional 18 days under certain circumstances. As such,             of the shares of common stock subject to such lock-up agreements will be immediately eligible for resale in the public markets and the remaining            shares subject to such lock-up agreements held by our directors, executive officers and other affiliates will be subject to the volume limitations under Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act.

        After the completion of this offering, we intend to register, under one or more registration statements on Form S-8, approximately            shares of our common stock that are issuable under our 2001 Stock Option Deferred Stock and Restricted Stock Plan and our 2005 Stock Incentive Plan, and            shares of our common stock that are issuable under our 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan. Once we register these shares, all of such shares can be freely sold in the public markets upon issuance, subject to the lock-up agreements described above and any applicable vesting restrictions and, for our executive officers, directors and their affiliates, subject also to the limitations of Rule 144 other than the holding period.

35

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law will contain provisions that could discourage transactions resulting in a change in control, which may negatively affect the market price of our common stock.

        In addition to the effect that the concentration of ownership by our significant stockholders may have, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws will contain provisions that may enable our management to resist a change in control. These provisions may discourage, delay or prevent a change in the ownership of our company or a change in our management, even if doing so might be beneficial to our stockholders. In addition, these provisions could limit the price that investors would be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock. Such provisions, to be set forth in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or amended and restated bylaws, each of which will be effective upon the completion of this offering, include:

•

our board of directors will be authorized, without prior stockholder approval, to create and issue preferred stock, commonly referred to as "blank check" preferred stock, with rights senior to those of common stock;



•

advance notice requirements for stockholders to nominate individuals to serve on our board of directors or to submit proposals that can be acted upon at stockholder meetings;



•

our board of directors will be classified so not all members of our board are elected at one time, which may make it more difficult for a person who acquires control of a majority of our outstanding voting stock to replace our directors;



•

stockholder action by written consent will be limited;



•

special meetings of the stockholders will be permitted to be called only by the chairman of our board of directors, our chief executive officer or by a majority of our board of directors;



•

stockholders will not be permitted to cumulate their votes for the election of directors;



•

newly created directorships resulting from an increase in the authorized number of directors or vacancies on our board of directors will be filled only by majority vote of the remaining directors;



•

our board of directors will be expressly authorized to make, alter or repeal our bylaws; and



•

stockholders will be permitted to amend our bylaws only upon receiving at least a majority of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of all outstanding shares then entitled to vote generally in the election of directors, voting together as a single class.

        These and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law could discourage acquisition proposals and make it more difficult or expensive for stockholders or potential acquirers to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by our then-current board of directors, including delaying or impeding a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving us. Any delay or prevention of a change of control transaction or changes in our board of directors could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

36