Certain factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, in addition to other information contained in this Annual Report, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face.  Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we currently believe are not material, may also become important factors that adversely affect our business.  If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and future prospects could be materially and adversely affected.  In that event, the trading price of our common shares of beneficial interest could decline, and you could lose part or all of your investment.

Risks Related to Our Business and Operations

We are dependent on the ability of our top tenants, including Holdco, to successfully operate their businesses. Our tenants’ failure to operate their businesses successfully, or the occurrence of an event that has a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition or results of operations of any of our major tenants, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

A significant portion of our leased properties are leased to our major tenants, including Holdco. For the year ended December 31, 2019, rents paid to us under the Holdco Master Lease represented 30.6% of our revenue for the year. As a result, the success of our investments, at least in the short-term, is materially dependent on the financial condition of our major tenants. At any time, our tenants may experience a downturn in their respective businesses that may significantly weaken their financial condition, particularly during periods of economic uncertainty.  This uncertainty may be exacerbated as a result of actual changes in economic conditions, including as a result of market dynamics, trends in consumer income, rising energy prices, tariffs or trade disputes, and natural or manmade disasters, including epidemic or pandemic disease, or the impact of the fear of such changes on consumer behavior.  As a result, our tenants may delay lease commencements, decline to extend or renew leases upon expiration, fail to make rental payments when due, close a number of locations or declare bankruptcy. For example, in November 2019, Holdco exercised its rights under the Holdco Master Lease to terminate the Holdco Master Lease, effective March 2020, with respect to 29 stores, 16 of which will be terminated without the payment of a termination fee.

The inability or unwillingness of our any of major tenants, including Holdco, to meet rent obligations and other obligations could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations, including a reduction in operating cash flow that can be used to pay the interest, principal and other costs and expenses under our financings, or to pay cash dividends to Seritage shareholders.

In addition, certain of our lease agreements, including the Holdco Master Lease, require our tenants to pay certain insurance, taxes, utilities and maintenance and repair expenses in connection with the leased properties and to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless from and against various claims, litigation and liabilities arising in connection with their respective business, subject to proportionate sharing of expenses and certain other limitations. Our exposure to rental payments from our major tenants, including Holdco, as a material source of our rental income may limit our ability to enforce our rights under our lease agreements with such tenants.

The risk of financial failure of, or default in payment by, a major tenant is magnified in situations where we lease multiple properties to a single tenant under a master lease, and we may be limited in our ability to enforce our rights under such agreements. For example, the Holdco Master Lease is a unitary lease and does not provide for termination with respect to individual properties by reason of the default of the tenant. Failure by Holdco to comply with the terms of the Holdco Master Lease or to comply with the regulations to which the leased properties are subject could require us to find another master lessee for all such leased property and there could be a decrease or cessation of rental payments by Holdco. In such event, we may be unable to locate a suitable master lessee or a lessee for individual properties at similar rental rates and other obligations and in a timely manner or at all, which would have the effect of reducing our rental revenues.

There can be no assurance as to how our major tenants, including Holdco, will perform in the future. Outcomes not currently foreseen by us may occur, any of which could have a material and adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The future bankruptcy or insolvency of any of our tenants, including Holdco, could result in the termination of such tenant’s lease and material losses to us.

The future bankruptcy or insolvency of any of our tenants, including Holdco, could diminish the rental revenue we receive from that property or could force us to “take back” tenant space as a result of a default or a rejection of the lease by a tenant in bankruptcy. Any claims against bankrupt tenants for unpaid future rent are subject to statutory limitations that would likely result in our receipt of rental

revenues that are substantially less than the contractually specified rent we are owed under their leases or no payments at all. In addition, any claim we have for unpaid past rent may not be paid in full. Federal law may prohibit us from evicting a tenant based

- 5 -

solely upon its recent bankruptcy filing (or a tenant in the event of such tenant’s bankruptcy or insolvency). We may also be unable to re-lease a terminated or rejected space or re-lease it on comparable or more favorable terms. If we do re-lease rejected space, we may incur costs for brokerage, marketing and tenant expenses.

Bankruptcy laws afford certain protections to tenants that may also affect the treatment of master leases, such as the Holdco Master Lease. Subject to certain restrictions, a tenant under a master lease generally is required to assume or reject the master lease as a whole, rather than making the decision on a property-by-property basis. This prevents the tenant from assuming only the better performing properties and terminating the master lease with respect to the poorer performing properties.

While we believe that our Holdco Master Lease constitutes a unitary lease that would need to be assumed or rejected as a whole in any bankruptcy proceeding, whether or not a bankruptcy court would require that a master lease be assumed or rejected as a whole depends upon a “facts and circumstances” analysis considering a number of factors, including the parties’ intent, the nature and purpose of the relevant documents, whether there was separate and distinct consideration for each property included in the master lease, the provisions contained in the relevant documents and applicable state law. If a bankruptcy court were to allow the Holdco Master Lease to be rejected in part, certain underperforming leases related to properties we  own could be rejected by the tenant in bankruptcy while tenant-favorable leases are allowed to remain in place, thereby adversely affecting payments to us derived from the properties.

In addition, although we believe that the Holdco Master Lease is a “true lease” for purposes of bankruptcy law, it is possible that a bankruptcy court could re-characterize the lease transaction set forth in the Holdco Master Lease as a secured lending transaction. If the Holdco Master Lease is judicially recharacterized as a secured lending transaction, we would not be treated as the owner of the property and could lose certain rights as the owner in a bankruptcy proceeding.

We may not be able to renew leases or re-lease space at our properties, or lease space in newly recaptured properties, and property vacancies could result in significant capital expenditures.

When leases for our properties expire, or when the Holdco Master Lease or a Holdco JV Lease, as applicable, is recaptured or terminated with respect to particular properties, the premises may not be re-leased in a timely manner or at all, or the terms of re-leasing, including the cost of allowances and concessions to tenants, may be less favorable than the then-existing lease terms. The loss of a tenant through lease expiration or other circumstances may require us to spend (in addition to other re-letting expenses) significant amounts of capital to renovate the property before it is suitable for a new tenant and cause us to incur significant costs in the form of ongoing expenses for property maintenance, taxes, insurance and other expenses. Many of the leases we will enter into or acquire may be for properties that are especially suited to the particular business of the tenants operating on those properties. Because these properties have been designed or physically modified for a particular tenant, if the current lease is terminated or not renewed, we may be required to renovate the property at substantial costs, decrease the rent we charge or provide other concessions to re-lease the property. In addition, if we are required or otherwise determine to sell the property, we may have difficulty selling it to a party other than the tenant due to the special purpose for which the property may have been designed or modified. This potential illiquidity may limit our ability to quickly modify our portfolio in response to changes in economic or other conditions, including tenant demand. Also, we may not be able to lease new properties to an appropriate mix of tenants or for rents that are consistent with our expectations. To the extent that our leasing plans are not achieved or we incur significant capital expenditures as a result of property vacancies, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected. In November 2019, Holdco exercised its rights under the Holdco Master Lease to terminate the Holdco Master Lease with respect to 29 stores effective March 2020.

Following the Sears Holdings bankruptcy, we have been named as a defendant in litigation that could adversely affect our business and financial condition, divert management’s attention from our business, and subject us to significant liabilities, including remedies that may be imposed as a result of a finding of fraudulent conveyance.

On April 18, 2019, at the direction of the Restructuring Sub-Committee of the Restructuring Committee of the Board of Directors of Sears Holdings, plaintiffs Sears Holdings, Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears Development Co., Kmart Corporation, and Kmart of Washington, LLC commenced a litigation (the “Litigation”) in the Bankruptcy Court naming us and certain of our affiliates, as well as affiliates of ESL Investments, Inc. and Sears Holdings, and certain other third parties, as defendants. The Litigation is dual captioned as In re: Sears Holdings Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-23538 (RDD) and Sears Holdings Corporation et al., v. Lampert et al., Case No. 19-08250 (RDD).  The initial complaint has been superseded by the Amended Complaint described below.

On October 15, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order (the “Confirmation Order”) confirming the Modified Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Sears Holdings and its affiliated debtors (the “Chapter 11 Plan”).  Pursuant to the terms of the Confirmation Order, upon the effective date of the Chapter 11 Plan, a liquidating trust will be formed, and the Litigation will vest in the liquidating trust.  The Confirmation Order further provides that, prior to the effective date of the Chapter 11 Plan and the formation of the liquidating trust, the Litigation shall be controlled by five litigation designees selected by Sears Holdings and the Official Committee

- 6 -

of Unsecured Creditors’ (the “Creditors’ Committee”). For further information, refer to the Chapter 11 Plan, Confirmation Order and liquidating trust agreement, each of which has been publicly filed with the Bankruptcy Court.

On November 25, 2019, the Creditors’ Committee filed a first amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) in the Bankruptcy Court naming us and certain of our affiliates, as well as affiliates of ESL Investments, Inc. and Sears Holdings, and certain other third parties, as defendants. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that certain transactions undertaken by Sears Holdings since 2011 (including the July 2015 transactions giving rise to Seritage, the execution of the Master Lease with Sears Holdings (the “Original Master Lease”), and the acquisition of real estate from Sears Holdings) constituted actual and/or constructive fraudulent transfers and/or illegal dividends by Sears Holdings and that the real estate acquired by Seritage from Sears Holdings in July 2015 was worth hundreds of millions of dollars more than the purchase price paid.  The Amended Complaint further alleges that certain releases provided to Seritage and certain other defendants in connection with the Sears Holdings derivative litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2017 should be avoided and/or declared null and void as an actual and/or constructive fraudulent conveyance.  The Amended Complaint seeks as relief, among other things, declaratory relief, avoidance of the allegedly actual and/or constructive fraudulent transfers, disgorgement, recovery of the property fraudulently transferred or, in the alternative, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to be determined at trial, equitable subordination and disallowance of defendants’ claims as creditors, punitive and exemplary damages for any intentional wrongdoing, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.  On February 21, 2020, the Seritage defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss seeking dismissal of the claims in the Amended Complaint relating to the release received in the Sears Holdings derivative litigation unjust enrichment and equitable subordination.

Fraudulent transfers or conveyances include transfers made or obligations incurred with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud current or future creditors, or transfers made or obligations incurred in exchange for less than reasonably equivalent value when the debtor was, or was rendered, insolvent, inadequately capitalized or unable to pay its debts as they become due. To remedy a fraudulent conveyance, a court could void the challenged transfer or obligation, requiring us to return consideration that we received, or impose substantial liabilities upon us for the benefit of unpaid creditors of the debtor that made the fraudulent conveyance, which could adversely affect our financial condition and our results of operations. Among other things, a court could require our shareholders to return to Sears Holdings or its creditors some or all of the securities issued in the distribution made in connection with the formation of Seritage.

Although we believe that the claims against us in the Litigation are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of the Litigation, the magnitude of any potential losses or the effect such litigation may have on us or our operations. It is possible that the Litigation could cause us to incur substantial costs and that they could be resolved adversely to us, result in substantial damages or other forms of relief, result in or be connected to additional claims, affect our relations with counterparties to commercial transactions and divert management’s attention and resources, any of which could harm our business. Protracted litigation, including any adverse outcomes, may have an adverse impact on our business, results of operations or financial condition and could subject us to adverse publicity and require us to incur significant legal fees.  Please see Note 9 – Commitments and Contingencies – in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information regarding the Litigation.

Real estate investments are relatively illiquid.

Our properties represent a substantial portion of our total consolidated assets, and these investments are relatively illiquid. Significant expenditures associated with each equity investment, such as mortgage payments, real estate taxes, insurance, and repair and maintenance costs, are generally not reduced when circumstances cause a reduction in income from the investment. If income from a property declines while the related expenses do not decline, our income and cash available to us would be adversely affected. If it becomes necessary or desirable for us to dispose of one or more of our mortgaged properties, we might not be able to obtain a release of the lien on the mortgaged property without payment of the associated debt or other costs and expenses. As a result, our ability to sell one or more of our properties or investments in real estate in response to any changes in economic or other conditions may be limited. If we want to sell a property, we may not be able to dispose of it in the desired time period or at a sale price that would exceed the cost of our investment in that property. In addition, our ability to enter into asset sales or joint ventures is subject to among other uncertainties, our ability to identify prospective purchasers, the willingness of prospective purchasers to enter into transactions on commercially reasonable terms, negotiations with counterparties, satisfactory examination of property and title by the purchasers, the ability to obtain title and other relevant insurance, applicable consent rights of the lender under our term loan facility, the ability of purchasers to obtain adequate financing, and customary closing conditions.

The number of potential buyers for certain properties that we may seek to sell may be limited by the presence of such properties in retail or mall complexes owned or managed by other property owners. In addition, our ability to sell or dispose of certain properties may be hindered by the fact that such properties may be subject to the Holdco Master Lease, as the terms of such master lease or the fact that Holdco is the lessee may make such properties less attractive to a potential buyer than alternative properties that may be for sale. Furthermore, if we decide to sell any of our properties, we may provide financing to purchasers and bear the risk that the purchasers may default, which may delay or prevent our use of the proceeds of the sales for other purposes or the distribution of such proceeds to our shareholders.

- 7 -

Both we and our tenants face a wide range of competition that could affect our ability to operate profitably.

The presence of competitive alternatives, both to our properties and the businesses that lease our properties, affects our ability to lease space and the level of rents we can obtain. Our properties operate in locations that compete with other retail properties and also compete with other forms of retailing, such as catalogs and e-commerce websites. Competition may also come from strip centers, outlet centers, lifestyle centers and malls, and both existing and future development projects. New construction, renovations and expansions at competing sites could also negatively affect our properties. In addition, we compete with other retail property companies for tenants and qualified management. These other retail property companies may have relationships with tenants that we do not have since we have a limited operating history, including with respect to national chains that may be desirable tenants. If we are unable to successfully compete, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected. See also “Item 1. Business - Competition.”

In addition, the retail business is highly competitive and if our retail tenants fail to differentiate their shopping experiences, create an attractive value proposition or execute their business strategies, they may terminate, default on, or fail to renew their leases with us, and our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected. Furthermore, we believe that the increase in digital and mobile technology usage has increased the speed of the transition from shopping at physical locations to web-based purchases and that our tenants, including Holdco, may be negatively affected by these changing consumer spending habits. If our tenants are unsuccessful in adapting their businesses, and, as a result terminate, default on, or fail to renew their leases with us, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Our pursuit of investments in and redevelopment of properties, and investments in and acquisitions or development of additional properties, may be unsuccessful or fail to meet our expectations.

We intend to grow our business through investments in, and acquisitions or development of, properties, including through the recapture and redevelopment of space at many of our properties. However, our industry is highly competitive, and we face competition from other REITs, investment companies, private equity and hedge fund investors, sovereign funds, lenders, and other investors, some of whom are significantly larger and have greater resources and lower costs of capital. This competition will make it more challenging to identify and successfully capitalize on acquisition and development opportunities that meet our investment objectives. If we are unable to finance acquisitions or other development opportunities on commercially favorable terms, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected. Additionally, the fact that we must distribute 90% of our net taxable income in order to maintain our qualification as a REIT may limit our ability to rely upon rental payments from leased properties or subsequently acquired properties in order to finance acquisitions. As a result, if debt or equity financing is not available on acceptable terms, further acquisitions or other development opportunities might be limited or curtailed.

Investments in, and acquisitions of, properties we might seek to acquire entail risks associated with real estate investments generally, including (but not limited to) the following risks and as noted elsewhere in this section:

- 8 -

In addition, we intend to redevelop a significant portion of the properties purchased from Sears Holdings in prior years in order to make space available for lease to additional retail tenants and potentially other lessees for other uses. The redevelopment of these properties involves the risks associated with real estate development activities generally. Our redevelopment strategies also involve additional risks, including the risk that Holdco may terminate or fail to renew leases with us for the applicable portion of the redeveloped space as a result of our redevelopment activities. If we are unable to successfully redevelop properties or to lease the redeveloped properties to third parties on acceptable terms, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Current and future redevelopment may not yield expected returns.

We expect to undertake redevelopment, expansion and reinvestment projects involving our properties as part of our long-term strategy. Likewise, each JV expects to undertake redevelopment, expansion and reinvestment projects involving its JV Properties, with respect to which we may be required to make additional capital contributions to the applicable JV under certain circumstances. These projects are subject to a number of risks, including (but not limited to):

If any of these events occur at any time during the process with respect to any project, overall project costs may significantly exceed initial cost estimates, which could result in reduced returns or losses from such investments. In addition, we may not have sufficient liquidity to fund such projects, and delays in the completion of a redevelopment project may provide various tenants the right to withdraw from a property.

Rising expenses could reduce cash flow and funds available for future development.

If any property is not fully occupied or becomes vacant in whole or in part, or if rents are being paid in an amount that is insufficient to cover operating costs and expenses, we could be required to expend funds with respect to that property for operating expenses. Our properties are subject to increases in tax rates and tax assessments, utility costs, insurance costs, repairs, maintenance and administrative expenses, and other operating expenses. We may also incur significant expenditures as a result of deferred maintenance for the properties we have already acquired (subject to reserved funds to cover certain of these costs) and other properties we may acquire in the future. While properties under the Holdco Master Lease are generally subject to a triple-net lease basis (subject to proportionate sharing of operating expenses with respect to space not leased by Holdco), renewals of leases or future leases may not be negotiated on that basis, in which event we may have to pay those costs. If we are unable to lease properties on a triple-net-lease

- 9 -

basis or on a basis requiring the tenants to pay all or some of such expenses, or if tenants fail to pay required tax, utility and other impositions and other operating expenses, we could be required to pay those costs which could adversely affect funds available for future development or cash available for distributions.

We have ongoing capital needs and may not be able to obtain additional financing or other sources of funding on acceptable terms.

As of December 31, 2019, we had aggregate outstanding indebtedness of $1.6 billion. We may incur additional indebtedness in the future to refinance our existing indebtedness, to finance newly acquired properties or capital contributions to joint ventures, or to fund retenanting and redevelopment projects. Our existing debt and any significant additional indebtedness could require a substantial portion of our cash flow to make interest and principal payments. Demands on our cash resources from debt service will reduce funds available to us to pay dividends, make capital expenditures and acquisitions or carry out other aspects of our business strategy. Our indebtedness may also limit our ability to adjust rapidly to changing market conditions, make us more vulnerable to general adverse economic and industry conditions and create competitive disadvantages for us compared to other companies with relatively lower debt levels. Increased future debt service obligations may limit our operational flexibility, including our ability to acquire properties, finance or refinance our properties, contribute properties to joint ventures or sell properties as needed.

Our primary uses of cash include the payment of property operating and other expenses, including general and administrative expenses and debt service, and the reinvestment in and redevelopment of our properties.  As a result of a decrease in occupancy levels due to our recapture of space for redevelopment purposes and the execution of termination rights under the Original Master Lease, our property rental income, which is our primary source of operating cash flow, did not fully fund property operating and other expenses incurred during the year ended December 31, 2019. Property operating and other expenses are projected to continue to exceed property rental income until such time as additional tenants commence paying rent, and we plan to incur additional development expenditures as we continue to invest in the redevelopment of our portfolio. While we do not currently have the liquid funds available to fully fund projected property and other expenses and planned development expenditures, we expect to fund these uses of cash with a combination of capital sources including, but not limited to, sales of Wholly Owned Properties, sales of interests in JV Properties and potential credit and capital markets transactions, subject to compliance with certain conditions and/or the consent of our lender under our $2.0 billion term loan facility.

As of December 31, 2019, we were not in compliance with certain financial metrics applicable to us under the agreements governing our term loan facility. As a result, we must receive the consent of the lender to dispose of assets via sale or joint venture and, as of December 31, 2019, the lender had provided such consent for all such transactions submitted for approval. There can be no assurance that the lender will consent to future dispositions of assets.  Additionally, the lender has the right to request mortgages against our assets pursuant to the mortgage and collateral requirement and, during the year ended December 31, 2019, the lender has requested mortgages on a majority of our portfolio.

The term loan facility also provides for a $400 million incremental facility. Our ability to access the incremental facility is subject to (i) our achieving rental income from non-Sears Holdings tenants, on an annualized basis (after giving effect to SNO Leases expected to commence rent payment within 12 months) for the fiscal quarter ending prior to the date of incurrence of the incremental facility, of not less than $200 million and (ii) our good faith projection that rental income from non-Sears Holdings tenants (after giving effect to SNO Leases expected to commence rent payment within 12 months) for the succeeding four consecutive fiscal quarters (beginning with the fiscal quarter during which the incremental facility is accessed) will be not less than $200 million. As of December 31, 2019, we have not achieved this level of rental income from non-Sears Holdings tenants.

Moreover, our ability to obtain additional financing and satisfy our financial obligations under indebtedness outstanding from time to time will depend upon our future operating performance, which is subject to then-prevailing general economic, real estate and credit market conditions, including interest rate levels and the availability of credit generally, and financial, business and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. A prolonged worsening of credit market conditions would have a material adverse effect on our ability to obtain financing on favorable terms, if at all.

We may be unable to obtain additional financing or financing on favorable terms or our operating cash flow may be insufficient to satisfy our financial obligations under any indebtedness outstanding from time to time. Among other things, the absence of an investment grade credit rating or any credit rating downgrade could increase our financing costs and could limit our access to financing sources. If financing is not available when needed, or is available only on unfavorable terms, we may be unable to enhance our properties or develop new properties, complete acquisitions or otherwise take advantage of business opportunities or respond to competitive pressures, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. A decrease in available liquidity could also impair our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

If additional funds are raised through the issuance of equity securities, our shareholders may experience significant dilution. Additionally, sales of substantial amounts of Class A common shares in the public market, or the perception that such sales could

- 10 -

occur, could adversely affect the market price of Class A common shares, may make it more difficult for our shareholders to sell their common shares at a time and price that they deem appropriate, and could impair our future ability to raise capital through an offering of our equity securities.

Changes in federal tax law could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and profitability by increasing our tax or tax compliance costs.

On December 20, 2017, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law No. 1, known as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017” (the “TCJA”), which was signed into law on December 22, 2017. The enactment of the TCJA has given rise to numerous interpretive issues and ambiguities and future legislation may be enacted to clarify or modify the TCJA. Any such future legislation, as well as any regulations or other interpretive guidance, could take effect retroactively, and could adversely affect our business and financial condition increasing our tax or tax compliance costs. The impact of any such law, regulation or interpretation may have a material and adverse impact on us and our shareholders.

Real estate related taxes may increase, and if these increases are not passed on to tenants, our income will be reduced.

Some local real property tax assessors may seek to reassess some of our properties as a result of our acquisitions and/or redevelopment of properties. Generally, from time to time, our property taxes increase as property values or assessment rates change or for other reasons deemed relevant by the assessors. An increase in the assessed valuation of a property for real estate tax purposes will result in an increase in the related real estate taxes on that property. Although the Holdco Master Lease permits, and some other leases may also permit, us to pass through such tax increases to the tenants for payment, there is no assurance that renewal leases or future leases will be negotiated on the same basis. Increases not passed through to tenants will reduce our income and the cash available for distributions to our shareholders.

Changes in building and/or zoning laws may require us to update a property in the event of recapture or prevent us from fully restoring a property in the event of a substantial casualty loss and/or require us to meet additional or more stringent construction requirements.

Due to changes in, among other things, applicable building and zoning laws, ordinances and codes that may affect certain of our properties that have come into effect after the initial construction of the properties, certain properties may not comply fully with current building and/or zoning laws, including electrical, fire, health and safety codes and regulations, use, lot coverage, parking and setback requirements, but may qualify as permitted non-conforming uses. Such changes in building and zoning laws may require updating various existing physical conditions of buildings in connection with our recapture, renovation, and/or redevelopment of properties. In addition, such changes in building and zoning laws may limit our or our tenants’ ability to restore the premises of a property to its previous condition in the event of a substantial casualty loss with respect to the property or the ability to refurbish, expand or renovate such property to remain compliant, or increase the cost of construction in order to comply with changes in building or zoning codes and regulations. If we are unable to restore a property to its prior use after a substantial casualty loss or are required to comply with more stringent building or zoning codes and regulations, we may be unable to re-lease the space at a comparable effective rent or sell the property at an acceptable price, which may materially and adversely affect us.

Our real estate assets may be subject to impairment charges.

On a periodic basis, we must assess whether there are any indicators that the value of our real estate assets and other investments may be impaired. If an impairment indicator is identified, a property’s value is considered to be impaired only if management’s estimate of current and projected operating cash flows (undiscounted and unlevered), taking into account the anticipated and probability weighted holdings periods, are less than the carrying value of the property. In our estimate of cash flows model, we consider factors such as expected future operating income, trends and prospects, the effects of demand, competition and other factors. If we are evaluating the potential sale of an asset or development alternatives, the undiscounted future cash flows consider the most likely course of action at the balance sheet date based on current plans, intended holding periods and available market information. We are required to make subjective assessments as to whether there are impairments in the value of our real estate assets and other investments. These assessments may have a direct impact on our earnings because recording an impairment charge results in an immediate negative adjustment to earnings. We may take impairment charges in the future related to the impairment of our assets, and any future impairment could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the impairment charge is taken.

Properties in our portfolio may be subject to ground leases; if we are found to be in breach of these ground leases or are unable to renew them, we could be materially and adversely affected.

We currently have one property in our wholly-owned portfolio that is on land subject to a ground lease. Accordingly, we only own a long-term leasehold in the land underlying this property, and we own the improvements thereon only during the term of the ground lease. In the future, our portfolio may include additional properties subject to ground leases or similar interests. If we are found to be

- 11 -

in breach of a ground lease, we could lose the right to use the property and could also be liable to the ground lessor for damages. In addition, unless we can purchase a fee interest in the underlying land or extend the terms of these leases before their expiration, which we may be unable to do, we will lose our right to operate these properties and our interest in the improvements upon expiration of the leases. Our ability to exercise options to extend the term of our ground lease is subject to the condition that we are not in default under the terms of the ground lease at the time that we exercise such options, and we may not be able to exercise our options at such time. In addition, two JV Properties are currently ground leased or leased and, therefore, subject to similar risks. Furthermore, we may not be able to renew our ground lease or future ground leases upon their expiration (after the exercise of all renewal options). If we were to lose the right to use a property due to a breach or non-renewal or final expiration of the ground lease, we would be unable to derive income from such property, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial conditions or results of operations.

Certain properties within our portfolio are subject to restrictions pursuant to reciprocal easement agreements, operating agreements, or similar agreements, some of which contain a purchase option or right of first refusal or right of first offer in favor of a third party.

Many of the properties in our portfolio are, and properties that we acquire in the future may be, subject to use restrictions and/or operational requirements imposed pursuant to ground leases, restrictive covenants or conditions, reciprocal easement agreements or operating agreements (collectively, “Property Restrictions”) that could adversely affect our ability to redevelop the properties or lease space to third parties. Such Property Restrictions could include, for example, limitations on alterations, changes, expansions, or reconfiguration of properties; limitations on use of properties, including for retail uses only; limitations affecting parking requirements; restrictions on exterior or interior signage or facades; or access to an adjoining mall, among other things. In certain cases, consent of the other party or parties to such agreements may be required when altering, reconfiguring, expanding, redeveloping or re-leasing properties. Failure to secure such consents when necessary may harm our ability to execute leasing, redevelopment or expansion strategies, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. In certain cases, a third party may have a purchase option or right of first refusal or right of first offer that is activated by a sale or transfer of the property, or a change in use or operations, including a closing of the Sears operation or cessation of business operations, on the encumbered property.  From time to time, we have been involved in disputes or legal proceedings relating to such Property Restrictions, which may result in the incurrence of legal costs and diversion of management resources to resolve.

Economic conditions may affect the cost of borrowing, which could materially adversely affect our business.

Our business is affected by a number of factors that are largely beyond our control but may nevertheless have a significant negative impact on us. These factors include, but are not limited to:

In addition, economic conditions such as inflation or deflation could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Deflation may have an impact on our ability to repay our debt. Deflation may delay consumption and thus weaken tenant sales, which may reduce our tenants’ ability to pay rents. Deflationary pressure on retailers may diminish their ability to rent our space and decrease our ability to re-lease the space on favorable terms to us. In an inflationary economic environment, increased inflation may have a pronounced negative impact on the interest expense we pay in connection with our indebtedness and our general and administrative expenses, as these costs could increase at a rate higher than rents we collect. Also, inflation may adversely affect tenant leases with stated rent increases, which could be lower than the increase in inflation at any given time. Inflation could also have an adverse effect on consumer spending, which could impact our tenants’ sales and, in turn, our own results of operations. Restricted lending practices may impact our ability to obtain financing for our properties and may also negatively impact our tenants’ ability to obtain credit. Decreases in consumer demand can have a direct impact on our tenants and the rents we receive.

Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act may require us to make expenditures that adversely affect our cash flows.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) has separate compliance requirements for “public accommodations” and “commercial facilities,” but generally requires that buildings be made accessible to people with disabilities. Compliance with the ADA

- 12 -

requirements could require removal of access barriers, and non-compliance could result in imposition of fines by the United States government or an award of damages to private litigants, or both. While the tenants to whom our properties are leased are generally obligated by law or lease to comply with the ADA provisions applicable to the property being leased to them, if required changes involve other property not being leased to such tenants, if the required changes include greater expenditures than anticipated, or if the changes must be made on a more accelerated basis than anticipated, the ability of these tenants to cover costs could be adversely affected. Moreover, certain other leases may require the landlord to comply with the ADA with respect to the building as a whole and/or the tenant’s space. As a result of any of the foregoing circumstances, we could be required to expend funds to comply with the provisions of the ADA, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Environmental, health, safety and land use laws and regulations may limit or restrict some of our operations.

As the owner or operator of various real properties and facilities, we must comply with various federal, state and local environmental, health, safety and land use laws and regulations. We and our properties are subject to such laws and regulations relating to the use, storage, disposal, emission and release of hazardous and non-hazardous substances and employee health and safety, as well as zoning restrictions. Historically, Sears Holdings, a predecessor to Holdco, did not incur significant expenditures to comply with these laws with respect to the substantial majority of the space at the properties that were subject to the Original Master Lease. However, a substantial portion of our properties that have resulted in certain remediation activities currently include, or previously included, automotive care center facilities and retail fueling facilities, and/or above-ground or underground storage tanks, and are or were subject to laws and regulations governing the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous substances contained in some of the products or materials used or sold in the automotive care center facilities (such as gasoline, motor oil, fluid in hydraulic lifts, antifreeze, solvents and lubricants), the recycling/disposal of batteries and tires, air emissions, wastewater discharges and waste management. In addition to these products, the equipment in use or previously used at such properties, such as service equipment, car lifts, oil/water separators, and storage tanks, has been subject to increasing environmental regulation relating to, among other things, the storage, handling, use, disposal and transportation of hazardous materials. There are also federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances that govern the use, removal and/or replacement of underground storage tanks in the event of a release on, or an upgrade or redevelopment of, certain properties. Such laws, as well as common-law standards, may impose liability for any releases of hazardous substances associated with the underground storage tanks and may provide for third parties to seek recovery from owners or operators of such properties for damages associated with such releases. If hazardous substances are released from any underground storage tanks on any of our properties, we may be materially and adversely affected. In a few states, transfers of some types of sites are conditioned upon clean-up of contamination prior to transfer. If any of our properties are subject to such contamination, we may be subject to substantial clean-up costs before we are able to sell or otherwise transfer the property.

The Original Master Lease contained requirements that Sears Holdings indemnify us from certain environmental liabilities; however, following Sears Holdings’ bankruptcy, there can be no assurance that we would be able to collect any amounts due under such indemnification obligations. Under the Holdco Master Lease, Holdco is required to indemnify us from certain environmental liabilities at certain properties, including removal and remediation of all affected facilities and equipment constituting the automotive care center facilities. Although existing and future other leases are expected to require tenants generally to indemnify us for such tenants’ non-compliance with environmental laws as a result of their occupancy, such tenants typically will not be required to indemnify us for environmental non-compliance arising prior to their occupancy. In such cases, we may incur costs and expenses under such leases or as a matter of law. The amount of any environmental liabilities could exceed the amounts for which Holdco or other third parties would be required to indemnify us (or the applicable JV) or their financial ability to do so. In addition, under the terms of the agreements governing our indebtedness, we have deposited funds in a reserve account that will be used to fund costs incurred in correcting certain environmental and other conditions. The amount of such funds may not be sufficient to correct the environmental and other conditions to which they are expected to be applied.

In addition, additional laws which may be passed in the future, or a finding of a violation of or liability under existing laws, could require us and/or one or more of the JVs to make significant expenditures and otherwise limit or restrict some of our or its or their operations, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Environmental compliance costs and liabilities associated with real estate properties owned by us may materially and adversely affect us.

Our properties may be subject to known and unknown environmental liabilities under various federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to human health and the environment. Certain of these laws and regulations may impose joint and several liability on certain statutory classes of persons, including owners or operators, for the costs of investigation or remediation of contaminated properties. These laws and regulations apply to past and present business operations on the properties, and the use, storage, handling and recycling or disposal of hazardous substances or wastes. We may face liability regardless of our knowledge of the contamination, the timing of the contamination, the cause of the contamination or the party responsible for the contamination of the property.

- 13 -

We may be held primarily or jointly and severally liable for costs relating to the investigation and clean-up of any of our properties from which there has been a release or threatened release of a regulated material as well as other affected properties, regardless of whether we knew of or caused the release.

As the owner or operator of real property, we may also incur liability based on various building conditions. For example, buildings and other structures on properties that we currently own or operate or those we acquire or operate in the future contain, may contain, or may have contained, asbestos-containing material (or “ACM”). Environmental, health and safety laws require that ACM be properly managed and maintained and may impose fines or penalties on owners, operators or employers for non-compliance with those requirements. These requirements include special precautions, such as removal, abatement or air monitoring, if ACM would be disturbed during maintenance, renovation or demolition of a building, potentially resulting in substantial costs. In addition, we may be subject to liability for personal injury or property damage sustained as a result of exposure to ACM or releases of ACM into the environment. In addition, the presence of significant mold or other airborne contaminants at any of our properties could require us to undertake a costly remediation program to contain or remove the mold or other airborne contaminants or increase ventilation and/or expose us to liability from our tenants, employees of our tenants, or others if property damage or personal injury occurs.

In addition to these costs, which are typically not limited by law or regulation and could exceed a property’s value, we could be liable for certain other costs, including governmental fines, and injuries to persons, property or natural resources. Further, some environmental laws create a lien on the contaminated site in favor of the government for damages and the costs the government incurs in connection with such contamination. Any such costs or liens could have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition.

Although we intend to require our tenants to undertake to indemnify us for certain environmental liabilities, including environmental liabilities they cause, the amount of such liabilities could exceed the financial ability of the tenant to indemnify us. The presence of contamination or the failure to remediate contamination may adversely affect our ability to sell or lease the real estate or to borrow using the real estate as collateral.

Each JV is subject to similar risks relating to environmental compliance costs and liabilities associated with its JV Properties, which may reduce the value of our investment in, or distributions to us by, one or more JVs, or require that we make additional capital contributions to one or more JVs.

Possible terrorist activity or other acts of violence could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Terrorist attacks or other acts of violence may result in declining economic activity, which could harm the demand for goods and services offered by our tenants and the value of our properties and might adversely affect the value of an investment in our securities. Such a resulting decrease in retail demand, could make it difficult for us to renew or re-lease our properties at lease rates equal to or above historical rates. Terrorist activities or violence also could directly affect the value of our properties through damage, destruction or loss, and the availability of insurance for such acts, or of insurance generally, might be lower or cost more, which could increase our operating expenses and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. To the extent that our tenants are affected by future attacks, their businesses similarly could be adversely affected, including their ability to continue to meet obligations under their existing leases. These acts might erode business and consumer confidence and spending and might result in increased volatility in national and international financial markets and economies. Any one of these events might decrease demand for real estate, decrease or delay the occupancy of our new or redeveloped properties, and limit our access to capital or increase our cost of raising capital.

Cybersecurity incidents could cause a disruption to our operations, a compromise of confidential information and damage to our business relationships, all of which could negatively impact our business, financial condition and operating results.

Seritage is susceptible to cybersecurity risks that include, among other things, theft, unauthorized monitoring, release, misuse, loss, destruction or corruption of confidential and highly restricted data; denial of service attacks; unauthorized access to relevant systems, compromises to networks or devices; or operational disruption or failures in the physical infrastructure or operating systems of Seritage’s information systems. Seritage’s information systems are essential to the operation of our business and our ability to perform day-to-day operations, including for the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and personal information. Seritage must continuously monitor and develop its systems to protect its technology infrastructure and data from misappropriation, corruption and disruption. Cybersecurity risks may also impact properties in which we invest on behalf of clients and tenants of those properties, which could result in a loss of value in our clients’ investment. In addition, due to Seritage’s interconnectivity with third-party service providers and other entities with which Seritage conducts business, Seritage could be adversely impacted if any of them is subject to a successful cyber incident. Although we and our service providers have implemented processes, procedures and controls to help mitigate these risks, there can be no assurance that these measures will be effective or that security breaches or disruptions will not occur. The result of these incidents may include disrupted operations, liability for loss or misappropriation of data, stolen assets or information, increased cybersecurity protection and insurance costs, increased compliance costs, litigation, regulatory enforcement actions and damage to our reputation or business relationships.

- 14 -

We may incur mortgage indebtedness and other borrowings, which may increase our business risks.

We may incur mortgage debt and pledge all or some of our real properties as security for that debt to finance newly acquired properties or capital contributions to joint ventures, or to fund retenanting and redevelopment projects. As of December 31, 2019, we were required to provide mortgages to the lender under our term loan facility on a majority of our portfolio. This restriction, together with the other provisions of the Term Loan Facility, will limit our ability to obtain additional secured financing using such properties as collateral. We may also borrow if we need funds or deem it necessary or advisable to ensure that we maintain our qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If there is a shortfall between the cash flow from a property and the cash flow needed to service mortgage debt on a property, then the amount available for distributions to shareholders may be reduced. In addition, incurring mortgage debt increases the risk of loss since defaults on indebtedness secured by a property may result in lenders initiating foreclosure actions. In that case, we could lose the property securing the loan that is in default. For U.S. federal income tax purposes, a foreclosure of any of our properties generally would be treated as a sale of the property for a purchase 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. In such event, the Company may be unable to pay the amount of distributions required in order to maintain its REIT status. If any mortgages contain cross-collateralization or cross-default provisions, a default on a single property could affect multiple properties. If any properties are foreclosed upon due to a default, our ability to pay cash distributions to our shareholders may be adversely affected.

Covenants in our term loan facility may limit our operational flexibility and a covenant breach or default could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Our term loan facility includes certain financial metrics to govern certain collateral and covenant exceptions set forth in the agreement, including: (i) a total fixed charge coverage ratio of not less than 1.00 to 1.00 for each fiscal quarter beginning with the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2018 through the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2021, and not less than 1.20 to 1.00 for each fiscal quarter thereafter; (ii) an unencumbered fixed charge coverage ratio of not less than 1.05 to 1.00 for each fiscal quarter beginning with the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2018 through the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2021, and not less than 1.30 to 1.00 for each fiscal quarter thereafter; (iii) a total leverage ratio of not more than 65%; (iv) an unencumbered ratio of not more than 60%; and (v) a minimum net worth of at least $1.2 billion. Any failure to satisfy any of these financial metrics will limit our ability to dispose of assets via sale or joint venture and trigger a requirement for us to provide mortgage collateral to our lender, but will not result in an event of default, mandatory amortization, cash flow sweep or similar provision. As of December 31, 2019, we were in breach of one or more of the financial metrics described above, as a result of which we were required to provide mortgages to the lender under the term loan facility with respect to a majority of our portfolio. Additionally, the lender under our term loan facility has the right to consent to dispositions of properties via asset sales and formation of new joint ventures. This consent right may have the effect of limiting our ability to dispose of properties, whether for strategic reasons or to raise liquidity to fund our operations. The term loan facility also includes certain limitations relating to, among other activities, our ability to: sell assets or merge, consolidate or transfer all or substantially all of our assets; incur additional debt; incur certain liens; enter into, terminate or modify certain material leases and/or the material agreements for our properties; make certain investments (including limitations on joint ventures) and other restricted payments; pay distributions on or repurchase our capital stock; and enter into certain transactions with affiliates.

The term loan facility also provides for a $400 million incremental facility. Our ability to access the incremental facility is subject to (i) our achieving rental income from non-Sears Holdings tenants, on an annualized basis (after giving effect to SNO Leases expected to commence rent payment within 12 months) for the fiscal quarter ending prior to the date of incurrence of the incremental facility, of not less than $200 million and (ii) our good faith projection that rental income from non-Sears Holdings tenants (after giving effect to SNO Leases expected to commence rent payment within 12 months) for the succeeding four consecutive fiscal quarters (beginning with the fiscal quarter during which the incremental facility is accessed) will be not less than $200 million. As of December 31, 2019, we have not achieved this level of rental income from non-Sears Holdings tenants.

We have limited operating history as a REIT and an independent public company, and our inexperience may impede our ability to successfully manage our business or implement effective internal controls.

We have limited operating history owning, leasing or developing properties or operating as a REIT. Similarly, we have limited operating history as an independent public company. We cannot assure you that our past experience will be sufficient to successfully operate our company as a REIT and an independent public company. We are required to implement substantial control systems and procedures in order to maintain our qualification as a REIT, satisfy our periodic and current reporting requirements under applicable SEC regulations and comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and the NYSE listing standards. As a result, our management and other personnel need to devote a substantial amount of time to comply with these rules and regulations and establish the corporate infrastructure and controls demanded of a publicly traded REIT. These costs and time commitments could be substantially more than we currently expect. If our finance and accounting organization is unable for any reason to respond adequately to the increased demands, the quality and timeliness of our financial reporting may suffer, and we could experience significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting.

- 15 -

An inability to establish effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting or remediate existing deficiencies could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations under the Exchange Act, or result in material weaknesses, material misstatements or omissions in our Exchange Act reports, any of which could cause investors to lose confidence in our company, which could have an adverse effect on our revenues and results of operations or the market price of Class A common shares, par value $0.01 per share, Class B non-economic common shares of beneficial interest, par value $0.01 per share (“Class B non-economic common shares”), and Class C non-voting common shares of beneficial interest, par value $0.01 per share (“Class C non-voting common shares”).

Our rights and the rights of our shareholders to take action against our trustees and officers are limited.

As permitted by the Maryland REIT Law, the Company’s Declaration of Trust limits the liability of its trustees and officers to Seritage and its shareholders for money damages, except for liability resulting from:

In addition, our Declaration of Trust authorizes us and our bylaws obligate us to indemnify our present and former trustees and officers for actions taken by them in those capacities and to pay or reimburse their reasonable expenses in advance of final disposition of a proceeding to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, and we have entered into indemnification agreements with our trustees and executive officers. As a result, the Company and our shareholders may have more limited rights against our trustees and officers than might otherwise exist absent the provisions in our Declaration of Trust and bylaws or that might exist with other companies. Accordingly, in the event that actions taken by any of our trustees or officers are immune or exculpated from, or indemnified against, liability but which impede our performance, the Company and our shareholders’ ability to recover damages from that trustee or officer will be limited.

Seritage’s Declaration of Trust and bylaws, Maryland law, and the partnership agreement of Operating Partnership contain provisions that may delay, defer or prevent an acquisition of Class A common shares or a change in control.

The Company’s Declaration of Trust and bylaws, Maryland law and the partnership agreement of Operating Partnership contain a number of provisions, the exercise or existence of which could delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for our shareholders or otherwise be in their best interests, including the following:

- 16 -

- 17 -

The Board of Trustees has, by resolution, exempted from the provisions of the Maryland Business Combination Act all business combinations (a) between us and (i) Sears Holdings or its affiliates or (ii) ESL or Fairholme Capital Management L.L.C. (“FCM”) and/or certain clients of FCM or their respective affiliates and (b) between us and any other person, provided that in the latter case the business combination is first approved by the Board of Trustees (including a majority of our trustees who are not affiliates or associates of such person). In addition, our bylaws contain a provision opting out of the Maryland control share acquisition act.

We may experience uninsured or underinsured losses, or insurance proceeds may not otherwise be available to us which could result in a significant loss of the capital we have invested in a property, decrease anticipated future revenues or cause us to incur unanticipated expense.

While the Holdco Master Lease and other existing other leases require, and new lease agreements are expected to require, that comprehensive general insurance and hazard insurance be maintained by the tenants with respect to their premises, and we have obtained casualty insurance with respect to our properties, there are certain types of losses, generally of a catastrophic nature, such as earthquakes, hurricanes and floods, that may be uninsurable or not economically insurable. Insurance coverage (net of deductibles) may not be effective or be sufficient to pay the full current market value or current replacement cost of a loss. Inflation, changes in building and zoning codes and ordinances, environmental considerations, and other factors also might make it infeasible to use insurance proceeds to restore or replace the property after such property has been damaged or destroyed. Under such circumstances, the insurance proceeds received might not be adequate to restore the economic position with respect to such property or to comply with the requirements of our mortgages and Property Restrictions. Moreover, the holders of any mortgage indebtedness may require some or all property insurance proceeds to be applied to reduce such indebtedness, rather than being made available for property restoration.

If we experience a loss that is uninsured or that exceeds our policy coverage limits, we could lose the capital invested in the damaged properties as well as the anticipated future cash flows from those properties. In addition, if the damaged properties were subject to recourse indebtedness, Property Restrictions or ground leases, we could continue to be liable for the indebtedness or subject to claims for damages even if these properties were irreparably damaged.

In addition, even if damage to our properties is covered by insurance, a disruption of our business or that of our tenants caused by a casualty event may result in the loss of business and/or tenants. The business interruption insurance we or our tenants carry may not fully compensate us for the loss of business or tenants due to an interruption caused by a casualty event. Further, if one of our tenants has insurance but is underinsured, that tenant may be unable to satisfy its payment obligations under its lease with us or its other payment or other obligations.

A disruption in the financial markets may make it more difficult to evaluate the stability, net assets and capitalization of insurance companies and any insurer’s ability to meet its claim payment obligations. A failure of an insurance company to make payments to us upon an event of loss covered by an insurance policy, losses in excess of our policy coverage limits or disruptions to our business or the business of our tenants caused by a casualty event could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Each JV may also experience uninsured or underinsured losses, and also faces other risks related to insurance that are similar to those we face, which could reduce the value of our investment in, or distributions to us by, one or more JVs, or require that we make additional capital contributions to one or more JVs.

- 18 -

Conflicts of interest may exist or could arise in the future between the interests of Seritage shareholders and the interests of holders of Operating Partnership units, and the partnership agreement of Operating Partnership grants holders of Operating Partnership units certain rights, which may harm the interests of Seritage shareholders.

Conflicts of interest may exist or could arise in the future as a result of the relationships between Seritage and its affiliates, on the one hand, and Operating Partnership or any of its partners, on the other. Seritage’s trustees and officers have duties to Seritage under Maryland law in connection with their oversight and management of the company. At the same time, Seritage, as general partner of Operating Partnership, will have duties and obligations to Operating Partnership and its limited partners under Delaware law, as modified by the partnership agreement of Operating Partnership in connection with the management of Operating Partnership.

For example, without the approval of the majority of the Operating Partnership units not held by Seritage and entities controlled by it, Seritage will be prohibited from taking certain extraordinary actions, including change of control transactions of Seritage or Operating Partnership.

ESL owns a substantial percentage of the Operating Partnership units, which may be exchanged for cash or, at the election of Seritage, Class A common shares, and which will result in certain transactions involving Seritage or Operating Partnership requiring the approval of ESL.

As of December 31, 2019, ESL owns approximately 33.9% of the Operating Partnership units, with the remainder of the units held by the Company. In addition, ESL will have the right to acquire additional Operating Partnership units in order to allow it to maintain its relative ownership interest in Operating Partnership if Operating Partnership issues additional units to the Company under certain circumstances, including if we issue additional equity and contribute the funds to Operating Partnership to fund acquisitions or redevelopment of properties, among other uses. In addition, ESL will have the right to require the Operating Partnership to redeem its Operating Partnership units in whole or in part in exchange for cash or, at the election of the Company, Class A common shares, except as described below. Due to the ownership limits set forth in our Declaration of Trust, ESL may dispose of some or all of the Class A common shares it beneficially owns prior to exercising its right to require Operating Partnership to redeem Operating Partnership units, and the partnership agreement of Operating Partnership will permit ESL (and only ESL) to transfer its Operating Partnership units to one or more underwriters to be exchanged for Class A common shares in connection with certain dispositions in order to achieve the same effect as would occur if ESL were to exchange a larger portion of its Operating Partnership units for Class A common shares and then dispose of those shares in an underwritten offering. Sales of a substantial number of Class A common shares in connection with or to raise cash proceeds to facilitate, such a redemption, or the perception that such sales may occur, could adversely affect the market price of the Class A common shares.

In addition, the partnership agreement of Operating Partnership requires the approval of a majority of the Operating Partnership units not held by the Company and entities controlled by it for certain transactions and other actions, including certain modifications to the partnership agreement, withdrawal or succession of the Company as general partner of Operating Partnership, limits on the right of holders of Operating Partnership units to redeem their units, tax elections and certain other matters. Because ESL currently owns a majority of the outstanding Operating Partnership units not held by the Company and entities controlled by it, ESL’s approval will be required in order for the general partner to undertake such actions unless ESL no longer owns a majority of such units. If ESL refuses to approve any such action, our business could be materially adversely affected. Furthermore, ESL owns approximately 2.4% of the outstanding Class A common shares, as well as Class B non-economic common shares having, in the aggregate, 5.6% of the voting power of the Company. In any of these matters, the interests of ESL may differ from or conflict with the interests of our other shareholders.

ESL exerts substantial influence over us and Holdco, and its interests may differ from or conflict with the interests of our other shareholders.

ESL beneficially owns approximately 33.9% of the Operating Partnership units, and approximately 2.4% and 100% of the outstanding Class A common shares and Class B non-economic common shares, respectively, having, in the aggregate, 5.6% of the voting power of Seritage. Sears Holdings was, and Holdco is, an affiliate of ESL. In addition, Mr. Lampert, who previously served as the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Sears Holdings, and is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ESL, serves as the Chairman of the Seritage Board of Trustees. As a result, ESL and its affiliates have substantial influence over us and Holdco. In any matter affecting us, including our relationship with Holdco, the interests of ESL may differ from or conflict with the interests of our other shareholders.

The businesses of each of the GGP JVs, the Simon JV, and the Macerich JV are similar to our business and the occurrence of risks that adversely affect us could also adversely affect our investment in the GGP JVs, the Simon JV and/or the Macerich JV.

The GGP JVs are joint ventures that own and operate certain JV Properties, which consist of nine properties formerly owned or leased by Sears Holdings, the Simon JV is a joint venture that owns and operates certain other JV Properties, which consist of five other

- 19 -

properties formerly owned by Sears Holdings and the Macerich JV is a joint venture that owns and operates the remaining JV Properties, which consist of nine other properties formerly owned by Sears Holdings. A substantial majority of the space at the JV Properties is leased by the applicable JV to Sears Holdings under the applicable JV Master Lease. Except with respect to the rent amounts and the properties covered, the general formats of the JV Master Leases are similar to one another and to the Holdco Master Lease, including with respect to the lessor’s right to recapture space leased to Sears Holdings (other than at one property owned by the Macerich JV) and Sears Holdings’ right to terminate a portion of the lease as to certain properties. As a result, each JV’s business is similar to our business, and each JV is subject to many of the same risks that we face. The occurrence of risks that adversely affect us could also adversely affect one or more JVs and reduce the value of our investment in, or distributions to us from, one or more JVs, or require that we make additional capital contributions to one or more JVs.

In addition, our influence over each JV may be limited by the fact that day-to-day operation of the GGP JVs, the Simon JV and the Macerich JV, and responsibility for leasing and redevelopment activities related to the JV Properties owned by the GGP JVs, the Simon JV and the Macerich JV, as applicable, are generally delegated to GGP, Simon and Macerich, respectively, subject to certain exceptions. The JV Properties owned by the GGP JVs are located at malls owned and operated by Brookfield Properties Retail (formerly GGP Inc.), the JV Properties owned by the Simon JV are located at malls owned and operated by the Simon JV and the JV Properties owned by the Macerich JV are located at malls owned and operated by the Macerich JV. As a result, conflicts of interest may exist or could arise in the future between the interests of GGP, Simon or Macerich and our interests as a holder of 50% interests in the GGP JVs, the Simon JV and the Macerich JV, respectively, including, for example, with respect to decisions as to whether to lease to third parties space at a JV Property or other space at the mall at which such JV Property is located.

We will continue to depend on Holdco to provide certain services at properties where Holdco is the sole or primary tenant and may have difficulty finding replacement services or be required to pay increased costs to replace these services after our agreements with Holdco expire or are terminated.

On February 28, 2019, we and certain affiliates of Holdco executed the Holdco Master Lease. The Holdco Master Lease became effective on March 12, 2019, when the Bankruptcy Court issued an order approving the rejection of the Original Master Lease. The Holdco Master Lease governs the terms of the use and operation of 17 properties leased by us to Holdco as of December 31, 2019 after giving effect to pending recapture or termination activity), including our redevelopment and recapture rights and Holdco’s lease termination rights, and the repair, maintenance and redevelopment-related services Holdco may provide to us. The agreements between us and certain affiliates of Holdco also govern our various interim and ongoing relationships.

If the Holdco Master Lease expires or is terminated, or if Holdco is unable to meet its obligations under the Holdco Master Lease as a result of bankruptcy or otherwise, we may be forced to seek replacement services from alternate providers. These replacement services may be more costly to us or of lower quality, and the transition process to a new service provider may result in interruptions to our business or operations, which could harm our financial condition or results of operations.

Holdco has agreed to indemnify us for certain liabilities. However, these indemnities may be insufficient to insure us against the full amount of such liabilities, and Holdco’s ability to satisfy its indemnification obligations may be impaired in the future.

Pursuant to the Holdco Master Lease, Holdco has agreed to indemnify us for certain liabilities. However, third parties could seek to hold us responsible for any of the liabilities that Holdco has agreed to retain, and Holdco may be unable to fully satisfy its indemnification obligations. Moreover, even if we ultimately succeed in recovering from Holdco any amounts for which we are held liable, we may be temporarily required to bear these losses while seeking recovery from Holdco. Any liabilities in excess of amounts for which we receive timely indemnification from Holdco could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Risks Related to Status as a REIT

If we do not qualify to be taxed as a REIT, or fail to remain qualified as a REIT, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax as a regular corporation and could face a substantial tax liability, which would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our shareholders.

We elected to be taxed as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with our initial taxable year ended December 31, 2015 and have operated, and expect to continue to operate, to qualify as a REIT. In connection with the Transaction, and the December 2017 offering of Series A Preferred Shares, we received opinions of counsel concluding that we have been organized in conformity with the requirements for qualification as a REIT and our current and/or proposed method of operation should enable us to satisfy the requirements for qualification as a REIT as of the respective dates. Investors should be aware, however, that opinions of counsel are not binding on the IRS or any court, and that each opinion was expressed as of the date it was issued and has not been updated. We believe we have continued to operate in conformity with the requirements to qualify as a REIT and that we continue to

- 20 -

satisfy all requirements to maintain our REIT status. However, qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex provisions of the Code, for which only a limited number of judicial and administrative interpretations exist.

If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, and no available relief provision applied, we would be subject to U.S. federal income tax, including, for any taxable year ending on or before December 31, 2017, any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates (which, in the case of U.S. federal income tax, is a maximum of 35% for periods ending on or before December 31, 2017 and 21% thereafter), as well as U.S. state and local income tax, and dividends paid to our shareholders would not be deductible by us in computing our taxable income. Any resulting corporate tax liability could be substantial and would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our shareholders, which in turn could have an adverse impact on the value of Class A common shares. Unless we were entitled to relief under certain Code provisions, we also would be disqualified from re-electing to be taxed as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year in which we failed to qualify as a REIT.

Qualifying as a REIT involves highly technical and complex provisions of the Code.

Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions for which only limited judicial and administrative authorities exist. Even a technical or inadvertent violation could jeopardize our REIT qualification. Our qualification as a REIT depends on the satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, shareholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. In addition, our ability to satisfy the requirements to qualify as a REIT may depend in part on the actions of third parties over which we have no control or only limited influence, including in cases where we own an equity interest in an entity that is classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

We could fail to qualify to be taxed as a REIT if income we receive is not treated as qualifying income.

Under applicable provisions of the Code, we will not be treated as a REIT unless we satisfy various requirements, including requirements relating to the sources of our gross income. Rents we receive or accrue from tenants may not be treated as qualifying rent for purposes of these requirements if the applicable lease is not respected as a true lease for U.S. federal income tax purposes and is instead treated as a service contract, joint venture, financing, or some other type of arrangement. We believe that the Holdco Master Lease should be respected as a true lease for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If, contrary to expectations, the Holdco Master Lease is not respected as a true lease for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we may fail to qualify to be taxed as a REIT. Furthermore, our qualification as a REIT depends on the satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, shareholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends upon our analysis of the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for some of which we will not obtain independent appraisals.

In addition, subject to certain exceptions, rents we receive or accrue from our tenants will not be treated as qualifying rent for purposes of these requirements if we or an actual or constructive owner of 10% or more of our outstanding shares (by value) actually or constructively owns 10% or more of the interests in the assets or net profits of a non-corporate tenant, or, if the tenant is a corporation, 10% or more of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock of such tenant entitled to vote or 10% or more of the total value of all classes of stock of such tenant. For purposes of determining whether rental payments received by a REIT are treated as qualifying rent, the stock, assets or net profits owned by a partner in an entity classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes are attributed to such partnership only if the partner owns (directly or indirectly) 25% or more of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership. As a result of these rules, it is possible that we could be treated as owning 10% or more of a tenant due to entering into a joint venture with a third party that is an actual or constructive owner of such tenant, and in such case rent payments received from such tenant may not be treated as qualifying rent for purposes of these requirements. Our Declaration of Trust provides for restrictions on ownership and transfer of Class A common shares and Series A Preferred Shares, including restrictions on such ownership or transfer that would cause the rents we receive or accrue from a tenant to be treated as non-qualifying rent for purposes of the REIT gross income requirements. Nevertheless, such restrictions may not be effective in ensuring that rents we receive or accrue from our tenants will be treated as qualifying rent for purposes of REIT qualification requirements.

Dividends payable by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates available for certain “qualified dividends,” but would generally qualify for a partial deduction with respect to certain taxpayers.

The maximum U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to income from “qualified dividends” payable by U.S. corporations to U.S. shareholders that are individuals, trusts and estates is currently 20%. Ordinary dividends payable by REITs, however, generally are not eligible for the reduced rates. Although these rules do not adversely affect the taxation of REITs, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate qualified dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the shares of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the shares of REITs, including the Class A common shares. However, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and ending before January 1, 2026, a U.S. shareholder that is an individual, trust or estate would

- 21 -

generally be entitled to deduct up to 20% of certain ordinary REIT dividends, effectively reducing the rate at which such ordinary REIT dividends are subject to tax. U.S. shareholders should consult their own tax advisors regarding all aspects of such rules and their potential application to dividends from us.

REIT distribution requirements could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan.

We generally must distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding any net capital gains, in order for us to qualify to be taxed as a REIT (assuming that certain other requirements are also satisfied) so that U.S. federal corporate income tax does not apply to earnings that we distribute. To the extent that we satisfy this distribution requirement and qualify for taxation as a REIT but distribute less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and including any net capital gains, we will be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax on our undistributed net taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that we distribute to our shareholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under U.S. federal tax laws. We declared a dividend on the Company’s Class A and Class C common shares for the first quarter of 2019 and have not declared dividends on the Company’s Class A and Class C common shares since that time, based on our Board of Trustees’ assessment of the Company’s investment opportunities and its expectations of taxable income for the remainder of 2020. We intend to, at a minimum, make distributions to our shareholders to comply with the REIT requirements of the Code, which may be satisfied by dividends on the Company’s Series A Preferred shares.

From time to time, we may generate taxable income greater than our cash flow as a result of differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash or the effect of nondeductible capital expenditures, the creation of reserves or required debt or amortization payments. If we do not have other funds available in these situations, we could be required to borrow funds on unfavorable terms, sell assets at disadvantageous prices or distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions to make distributions sufficient to enable us to pay out enough of our taxable income to satisfy the REIT distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the 4% excise tax in a particular year; alternatively, we may distribute taxable stock dividends to our shareholders in the form of additional shares of stock - See “We may from time to time make distributions to our shareholders in the form of taxable stock dividends, which could result in shareholders incurring tax liability without receiving sufficient cash to pay such tax”. These alternatives could increase our costs or reduce our equity. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to grow, which could adversely affect the value of Class A common shares.

Restrictions in our indebtedness, including restrictions on our ability to incur additional indebtedness or make certain distributions, could preclude us from meeting the 90% distribution requirement. Decreases in funds from operations due to unfinanced expenditures for acquisitions of properties or increases in the number of Class A common shares outstanding without commensurate increases in funds from operations each would adversely affect our ability to maintain distributions to our shareholders. Moreover, the failure of tenants to make rental payments under any applicable lease could materially impair our ability to make distributions. Consequently, we may be unable to make distributions at the anticipated distribution rate or any other rate.

We may from time to time make distributions to our shareholders in the form of taxable stock dividends, which could result in shareholders incurring tax liability without receiving sufficient cash to pay such tax.

Although we have no current intention to do so, we may in the future distribute taxable stock dividends to our shareholders in the form of additional shares of our stock. Taxable shareholders receiving such dividends will be required to include the full amount of the dividend as ordinary income to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result, shareholders may be required to pay income taxes with respect to such dividends in excess of the cash distributions received. If a U.S. shareholder sells our shares that it receives as a dividend in order to pay this tax, the sales proceeds may be less than the amount included in income with respect to the dividend, depending on the market price of our shares at the time of the sale.  Furthermore, with respect to certain non-U.S. shareholders, we may be required to withhold U.S. federal income tax with respect to such dividends, including in respect of all or a portion of such dividend that is payable in its common stock.

Even if we remain qualified as a REIT, we may face other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow.

Even if we remain qualified for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain U.S. federal, state, local and foreign taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income and state, local or foreign income, property and transfer taxes. For example, in order to meet the REIT qualification requirements, we may hold some of our assets or conduct certain of our activities through one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries (“TRSs”) or other subsidiary corporations that will be subject to federal, state and local corporate-level income taxes as regular C corporations. For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, taxpayers, including TRSs, are subject to a limitation on their ability to deduct net business interest (i.e., interest paid or accrued on indebtedness allocable to a trade or business), generally up to 30% of adjusted taxable income, subject to certain exceptions. This provision may limit the ability of our TRS to deduct interest, which could increase its taxable income and corporate income tax. Further, we may incur a

- 22 -

100% excise tax on transactions with a TRS if they are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distribution to our shareholders.

Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to liquidate or forgo otherwise attractive opportunities.

To qualify to be taxed as a REIT, we must ensure that, at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of our assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and “real estate assets” (as defined in the Code), including certain mortgage loans and securities. The remainder of our investments (other than government securities, qualified real estate assets and securities issued by a TRS) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our total assets (other than government securities, qualified real estate assets and securities issued by a TRS) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 20% of the value of our total assets can be represented by securities of one or more TRSs. If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing our REIT qualification and suffering adverse tax consequences. As a result, we may be required to liquidate or forgo otherwise attractive investments. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our shareholders.

In addition to the asset tests set forth above, to qualify to be taxed as a REIT, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the amounts we distribute to our shareholders and the ownership of our shares of beneficial interest. We may be unable to pursue investments that would be otherwise advantageous to us in order to satisfy the source-of-income or asset-diversification requirements for qualifying as a REIT. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to make and, in certain cases, maintain ownership of certain attractive investments.

Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively and may cause us to incur tax liabilities.

The REIT provisions of the Code substantially limit our ability to hedge our assets and liabilities. Any income from a hedging transaction that we enter into to manage the risk of interest rate changes with respect to borrowings made or to be made to acquire or carry real estate assets (or that we enter into to manage risk with respect to a prior hedge entered into in connection with property that has been disposed of or liabilities that have been extinguished) does not constitute “gross income” for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests that apply to REITs, provided that certain identification requirements are met. To the extent that we enter into other types of hedging transactions or fail to properly identify such transaction as a hedge, the income is likely to be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both of the gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may be required to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through a TRS. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities because our TRS may be subject to tax on gains or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear. In addition, losses in our TRS will generally not provide any tax benefit, except that such losses may only be carried forward and may only be deducted against 80% or future taxable income in the TRS if the losses are incurred generally after December 31, 2017.

Changes in federal tax law affected the taxation of us and may affect the desirability of investing in a REIT relative to a regular non-REIT corporation.

The TCJA reduced the relative competitive advantage of operating as a REIT as compared with operating as a regular non-REIT corporation by reducing the maximum tax rate applicable to regular corporations from 35% to 21% beginning on January 1, 2018. On the other hand, the TCJA also decreased the U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to non-corporate shareholders on ordinary REIT dividends by lowering the maximum applicable individual rate from 39.6% to 37% and permitting non-corporate shareholders of REITs to deduct 20% of ordinary REIT dividends from their taxable income for the taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and ending before January 1, 2026 (as discussed above). The TCJA also provided a new limitation on the deduction of net business interest (ad discussed above). A taxpayer engaged in certain businesses relating to real property may elect out of the business interest provision; however, the requirements of this election may be onerous to implement and would require the REIT to utilize potentially disadvantageous depreciation methods on some or all of its assets, including certain “qualified improvement property.” We will determine whether or not to make such an election in our sole discretion and based on all the facts and circumstances. In addition, proposed U.S. Treasury regulations could limit the deduction we may claim for our proportionate share of the compensation expense attributable to the remuneration paid by the Operating Partnership for services performed by certain of our highly ranked and highly compensated employees.

Legislative or other actions affecting REITs or other entities could have a negative effect on us.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the IRS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Changes to the tax laws or interpretations thereof, with or without retroactive application, could materially and adversely affect our investors or us. We cannot predict how changes in the tax laws might affect our

- 23 -

investors or us. New legislation, Treasury regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions could significantly and negatively affect our ability to qualify as a REIT or the U.S. federal income tax consequences to us and our investors of such qualification.

Risks Related to Ownership of our Securities

The market price and trading volume of our securities may be volatile.

The market price of our securities may be volatile, and the trading volume in our securities may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. Some of the factors that could negatively affect the market price of our securities or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our securities include:

We have issued Series A Preferred Shares, which, along with future offerings of debt or preferred equity securities, rank senior to our common shares for purposes of distributions or upon liquidation, may adversely affect the market price of our common shares.

We have issued 2,800,000 Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Shares, which are senior to our common shares for purposes of distributions or upon liquidation. The Series A Preferred Shares may limit our ability to make distributions to holders of our common shares.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by making additional offerings of debt or preferred equity securities, including medium-term notes, trust preferred securities, senior or subordinated notes and preferred shares. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities, Series A Preferred Shares and any additional preferred shares and lenders with respect to other borrowings may receive distributions of our available assets prior to the holders of our common shares. Any additional equity offerings may dilute the holdings of our existing shareholders or reduce the market price of our common shares, or both. Holders of our common shares are not entitled to preemptive rights or other protections against dilution, and will have no voting rights in connection with the issuance of these securities. Our Series A Preferred Shares have, and any additional preferred shares of beneficial interest issued could have, a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on distribution payments that could limit our ability to make a distribution to the holders of our common shares. Since our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend in part on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, our shareholders bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common shares and diluting their holdings in us.

The transactions with Sears Holdings and Holdco could give rise to disputes or other unfavorable effects, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Disputes with third parties could arise out of our historical transactions with Sears Holdings or future transactions with Holdco, and we could experience unfavorable reactions from employees, ratings agencies, regulators or other interested parties. These disputes and reactions of third parties could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, disputes between us and Sears Holdings or Holdco could arise in connection with any of our past or future agreements with those counterparties.

- 24 -

On April 18, 2019, at the direction of the Restructuring Sub-Committee of the Restructuring Committee of the Board of Directors of Sears Holdings, Sears Holdings, Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears Development Co., Kmart Corporation, and Kmart of Washington, LLC commenced the Litigation in the Bankruptcy Court against the Seritage Defendants. The Litigation is dual captioned as In re: Sears Holdings Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-23538 (RDD) and Sears Holdings Corporation et al., v. Lampert et al., Case No. 19-08250 (RDD). On November 25, 2019, acting pursuant to the Confirmation Order, the Creditors’ Committee filed the Amended Complaint alleging, among other things, that certain transactions undertaken by Sears Holdings since 2011 (including the July 2015 transactions giving rise to Seritage, the execution of the Original Master Lease with Sears Holdings, and the acquisition of real estate from Sears Holdings) constituted actual and/or constructive fraudulent transfers and/or illegal dividends by Sears Holdings and that the real estate acquired by Seritage from Sears Holdings in July 2015 was worth hundreds of millions of dollars more than the purchase price paid.  The Amended Complaint further alleges, among other things, that certain releases provided to Seritage and certain other defendants in connection with the Sears Holdings derivative litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2017 should be avoided and/or declared null and void as an actual and/or constructive fraudulent conveyance.  The Amended Complaint seeks as relief, among other things, declaratory relief, avoidance of the allegedly actual and/or constructive fraudulent transfers, disgorgement, recovery of the property fraudulently transferred or, in the alternative, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to be determined at trial, equitable subordination and disallowance of defendants’ claims as creditors, punitive and exemplary damages for any intentional wrongdoing, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.  On February 21, 2020, the Seritage defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss seeking dismissal of the claims in the Amended Complaint relating to the release received in the Sears Holdings derivative litigation, unjust enrichment, and equitable subordination.

The number of shares available for future sale could adversely affect the market price of Class A common shares.

We cannot predict whether future issuances of Class A common shares, the availability of Class A common shares for resale in the open market or the conversion of Class C non-voting common shares into Class A common shares will decrease the market price per share of Class A common shares. Sales of a substantial number of Class A common shares in the public market, or the perception that such sales might occur, could adversely affect the market price of the Class A common shares.

Our earnings and cash distributions will affect the market price of Class A common shares.

We believe that the market value of a REIT’s equity securities is based primarily upon market perception of the REIT’s growth potential and its current and potential future cash distributions, whether from operations, sales, acquisitions, development or refinancing, and is secondarily based upon the value of the underlying assets. For these reasons, Class A common shares may trade at prices that are higher or lower than the net asset value per share. To the extent we retain operating cash flow for investment purposes, working capital reserves or other purposes rather than distributing the cash flow to shareholders, these retained funds, while increasing the value of our underlying assets, may negatively impact the market price of Class A common shares. Our failure to meet market expectations with regard to future earnings and cash distributions would likely adversely affect the market price of Class A common shares.

The Series A Preferred Shares have not been rated.

The Series A Preferred Shares have not been rated, and may never be rated, by any nationally recognized statistical rating organization, which may negatively affect their market value and your ability to sell such shares. It is possible, however, that one or more rating agencies might independently determine to assign a rating to the Series A Preferred Shares or that we may elect to obtain a rating of the Series A Preferred Shares in the future. Furthermore, we may elect to issue other securities for which we may seek to obtain a rating. If any ratings are assigned to the Series A Preferred Shares in the future or if we issue other securities with a rating, such ratings, if they are lower than market expectations or are subsequently lowered or withdrawn, could adversely affect the market for or the market value of the Series A Preferred Shares. Ratings only reflect the views of the issuing rating agency or agencies, and such ratings could at any time be revised downward or withdrawn entirely at the discretion of the issuing rating agency. Any such downward revision or withdrawal of a rating could have an adverse effect on the market price of the Series A Preferred Shares. Further, a rating is not a recommendation to purchase, sell or hold any particular security, including the Series A Preferred Shares. In addition, ratings do not reflect market prices or suitability of a security for a particular investor and any future rating of the Series A Preferred Shares may not reflect all risks related to us and our business, or the structure or market value of the Series A Preferred Shares.

An active trading market may not develop for the Series A Preferred Shares or, even if it does develop, may not continue, which may negatively affect the market value of, and the ability of holders of our Series A Preferred Shares to transfer or sell, their shares.

Since the Series A Preferred Shares have no stated maturity date, investors seeking liquidity will be limited to selling their shares in the secondary market. The Series A Preferred Shares are listed on the NYSE under the symbol “SRG PrA,” but there can be no assurance that an active trading market on the NYSE for the Series A Preferred Shares will develop or continue, in which case the market price of the Series A Preferred Shares could be materially and adversely affected and the ability to transfer or sell Series A Preferred Shares would be limited. The market price of the shares will depend on many factors, including:

- 25 -

The Series A Preferred Shares are subordinate in right of payment to our existing and future debt, and the interests of the holders of Series A Preferred Shares could be diluted by the issuance of additional preferred shares, including additional Series A Preferred Shares, and by other transactions.

The Series A Preferred Shares rank junior to all of our existing and future debt and to other non-equity claims on us and our assets available to satisfy claims against us, including claims in bankruptcy, liquidation or similar proceedings. Our future debt may include restrictions on our ability to pay dividends to preferred shareholders. As of December 31, 2019, our total indebtedness was $1.6 billion. In addition, we may incur additional indebtedness in the future. Our Declaration of Trust currently authorizes the issuance of up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred shares in one or more classes or series. Our board of trustees has the power to reclassify unissued common shares and preferred shares and to amend our Declaration of Trust, without any action by our shareholders, to increase the aggregate number of shares of beneficial interest of any class or series, including preferred shares, that we are authorized to issue. The issuance of additional preferred shares on parity with or senior to the Series A Preferred Shares with respect to the payment of dividends and the distribution of assets in the event of any liquidation, dissolution or winding up would dilute the interests of the holders of the Series A Preferred Shares, and any issuance of preferred shares senior to the Series A Preferred Shares or of additional indebtedness could adversely affect our ability to pay dividends on, redeem or pay the liquidation preference on the Series A Preferred Shares. Other than the limited conversion right afforded to holders of Series A Preferred Shares that may occur in connection with a Change of Control, none of the provisions relating to the Series A Preferred Shares contain any provisions relating to or limiting our indebtedness or affording the holders of the Series A Preferred Shares protection in the event of a highly leveraged or other transaction, including a merger or the sale, lease or conveyance of all or substantially all our assets or business, that might adversely affect the holders of the Series A Preferred Shares, so long as the rights of holders of the Series A Preferred Shares are not materially and adversely affected.

Dividends on our preferred shares, including the Series A Preferred Shares, are discretionary. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to pay dividends in the future or what the actual dividends will be for any future period.

Future dividends on our preferred shares, including the Series A Preferred Shares, will be authorized by our Board of Trustees and declared by us at the discretion of our board of trustees and will depend on, among other things, our results of operations, cash flow from operations, financial condition and capital requirements, any debt service requirements and any other factors our Board of Trustees deems relevant. Accordingly, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to make cash dividends on our preferred shares or what the actual dividends will be for any future period. However, until we declare payment and pay or set apart the accrued dividends on the Series A Preferred Shares, our ability to pay dividends and make other distributions on our common shares and non-voting shares (including redemptions) will be limited by the terms of the Series A Preferred Shares.

Holders of Series A Preferred Shares will have limited voting rights.

Holders of the Series A Preferred Shares have limited voting rights. Our Class A common shares and our non-economic shares are currently the only shares of beneficial interest of our company with full voting rights. Voting rights for holders of Series A Preferred Shares exist primarily with respect to the right to elect two additional trustees to our Board of Trustees in the event that six quarterly dividends (whether or not consecutive) payable on the Series A Preferred Shares are in arrears, and with respect to voting on amendments to our Declaration of Trust or articles supplementary relating to the Series A Preferred Shares that would materially and adversely affect the rights of holders of the Series A Preferred Shares or create additional classes or series of our shares that are senior to the Series A Preferred Shares with respect to the payment of dividends and the distribution of assets in the event of any liquidation, dissolution or winding up of our affairs. Other than in limited circumstances, holders of Series A Preferred Shares will not have any voting rights.