UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005

Commission File Number: 1-32261

BIOMED REALTY TRUST, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(858) 485-9840

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

      Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933.     Yes þ          No o

      Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.     Yes o          No þ

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.     Yes þ          No o

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

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See description of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (check one):

Large accelerated filer þ          Accelerated filer o          Non-accelerated filer o

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).     Yes o          No þ

      The aggregate market value of the 46,371,216 shares of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $1,105,953,502 based upon the last reported sale price of $23.85 per share on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2005, the last business day of its most recently completed second quarter.

      The number of outstanding shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share, as of March 14, 2006 was 46,746,632.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

      Portions of the registrant’s Proxy Statement with respect to its May 19, 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed not later than 120 days after the end of the registrant’s fiscal year are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof.

BIOMED REALTY TRUST, INC.

FORM 10-K — ANNUAL REPORT

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Forward-Looking Statements

      We make statements in this report that are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (set forth in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended). In particular, statements pertaining to our capital resources, portfolio performance and results of operations contain forward-looking statements. Likewise, our statements regarding anticipated growth in our funds from operations and anticipated market conditions, demographics and results of operations are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve numerous risks and uncertainties and you should not rely on them as predictions of future events. Forward-looking statements depend on assumptions, data or methods which may be incorrect or imprecise, and we may not be able to realize them. We do not guarantee that the transactions and events described will happen as described (or that they will happen at all). You can identify forward-looking statements by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “believes,” “expects,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “seeks,” “approximately,” “intends,” “plans,” “estimates” or “anticipates” or the negative of these words and phrases or similar words or phrases. You can also identify forward-looking statements by discussions of strategy, plans or intentions. The following factors, among others, could cause actual results and future events to differ materially from those set forth or contemplated in the forward-looking statements:

      While forward-looking statements reflect our good faith beliefs, they are not guarantees of future performance. We disclaim any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. For a further discussion of these and other factors that could impact our future results, performance or transactions, see the section below entitled “Item 1A. Risk Factors.”

General

      As used herein, the terms “we,” “us,” “our” or the “company” refer to BioMed Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation and any of our subsidiaries, including BioMed Realty, L.P., a Maryland limited partnership (our “Operating Partnership”), and 201 Industrial Road, L.P., our predecessor. We are a REIT focused on acquiring, developing, owning, leasing and managing laboratory and office space for the life science industry. Our tenants primarily include biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, scientific research

institutions, government agencies and other entities involved in the life science industry. Our properties and primary acquisition targets are generally located in markets with well established reputations as centers for scientific research, including Boston, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York/ New Jersey.

      We were formed on April 30, 2004 and commenced operations on August 11, 2004, after completing our initial public offering. Our initial public offering consisted of the sale of 27,000,000 shares of common stock at $15.00 per share, resulting in gross proceeds of $405.0 million. On August 16, 2004, in connection with the exercise of the underwriters’ over-allotment option, we issued an additional 4,050,000 shares of common stock and received gross proceeds of $60.8 million. The aggregate proceeds to us, net of underwriting discounts and commissions and offering costs, were approximately $429.3 million.

      Simultaneously with our initial public offering, we obtained a $100.0 million revolving unsecured credit facility, which we used to finance acquisitions and for other corporate purposes prior to being replaced on May 31, 2005 with a $250.0 million revolving unsecured credit facility with KeyBank National Association and other lenders.

      On June 27, 2005, we completed a follow-on common stock offering of 15,122,500 shares at $22.50 per share, resulting in gross proceeds of $340.3 million. The net proceeds of $324.0 million were used to repay the outstanding balance on our revolving credit facility, to repay our $100.0 million unsecured term loan, to acquire properties and for other corporate purposes.

      As of December 31, 2005, we owned or had interests in 39 properties, located principally in Boston, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York/ New Jersey, consisting of 62 buildings with approximately 4.8 million rentable square feet of laboratory and office space, which was approximately 91.1% leased to 87 tenants. Of the approximately 423,000 square feet of unleased space, 274,677 square feet, or 64.9% of our unleased square footage, was under redevelopment. We also owned undeveloped land that we estimate can support up to 706,000 rentable square feet of laboratory and office space.

      Our senior management team has significant experience in the real estate industry, principally focusing on properties designed for life science tenants. We operate as a fully integrated, self-administered and self-managed REIT, providing management, leasing, development and administrative services to our properties. As of February 28, 2006, we had 50 employees.

      Our principal offices are located at 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 222, San Diego, California 92128. Our telephone number at that location is (858) 485-9840. Our website is located at www.biomedrealty.com. We make available through our website our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to such reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. You can also access on our website our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, Corporate Governance Guidelines, Audit Committee Charter, Compensation Committee Charter, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Charter.

2005 Highlights

      On January 11, 2005, we leased 61,826 rentable square feet in phase two of our Industrial Road property, located south of San Francisco, to Nuvelo, Inc. under a seven-year, triple-net lease. Nektar Therapeutics, an existing tenant at the property, had leased approximately 46,000 square feet of this space until August 2007, which it had never occupied. We agreed to terminate Nektar’s lease of its phase two space in exchange for termination payments. Nektar continues to lease approximately 80,000 square feet of space in phase one of the property, which lease expires in October 2016.

      On April 19, 2005, we entered into a lease amendment with Centocor, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. Under the amendment, Centocor agreed to lease an additional 79,667 rentable square feet at our King of Prussia property located in Radnor, Pennsylvania through March 31, 2010. The new lease replaced the

existing portion of the master lease with an affiliate of The Rubenstein Company, the original seller of the property, with respect to this space. Annualized base rent of $1.3 million and certain tenant reimbursements received under the new lease have correspondingly reduced the rent received under the master lease.

      On May 31, 2005, we completed the acquisition of a portfolio of eight properties including one parking structure in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and an additional property in Lebanon, New Hampshire, from The Lyme Timber Company, an affiliate of Lyme Properties. We refer to these properties as the Cambridge portfolio. The Cambridge portfolio consists of ten buildings with an aggregate of approximately 1.1 million rentable square feet of laboratory and office space, which upon acquisition was 96.8% leased with an average remaining term of ten years, and includes the parking structure with 447 parking spaces. The purchase price was $523.6 million, excluding closing costs, and was funded through borrowings under three credit facilities with KeyBank National Association and other lenders, described below, and the assumption of approximately $131.2 million of mortgage indebtedness.

      In order to finance the Cambridge portfolio acquisition and provide additional working capital, on May 31, 2005, we entered into three credit facilities with KeyBank and other lenders under which we initially borrowed $485.0 million of a total of $600.0 million available under these facilities. The credit facilities include a senior unsecured revolving credit facility of $250.0 million, under which we initially borrowed $135.0 million, a senior unsecured term loan facility of $100.0 million and a senior secured term loan facility of $250.0 million. We borrowed the full amounts under the senior unsecured term loan and senior secured term loan facilities. We repaid the senior unsecured term loan with the proceeds of our follow-on offering in June 2005. As of December 31, 2005, we had $17.0 million outstanding under our unsecured revolving credit facility and $250.0 million of outstanding borrowings under our senior secured term loan facility.

      In addition to the acquisition of the Cambridge portfolio, during 2005, we acquired 13 properties containing approximately 978,149 rentable square feet of laboratory and office space that was 73.4% leased at acquisition.

      From our initial public offering through December 31, 2005, we have declared aggregate dividends on our common stock and distributions on our operating partnership units of $1.4997 per common share and unit, representing five full quarterly dividends of $0.27 and a partial third quarter 2004 dividend of $0.1497 per common share and unit.

Subsequent Events

      On January 12, 2006, we completed the acquisition of the land at 530 Fairview Avenue in Seattle, Washington through our joint venture with an affiliate of EDG Commercial Real Estate. The total purchase price was approximately $2.7 million, paid in cash. We entered into the joint venture to develop a five-story, 93,000 square-foot laboratory facility to be named the Fairview Research Center.

      On January 13, 2006, we completed the acquisition of a property located at 900 Uniqema Boulevard in New Castle, Delaware. The property consists of an 11,293 square-foot single-story laboratory facility. The total purchase price of approximately $4.7 million was funded with cash and the assumption of approximately $1.8 million of mortgage indebtedness.

Growth Strategy

      Our success and future growth potential is based upon the unique real estate opportunities within the life science industry. Our growth strategy is designed to meet the sizable demand and specialized requirements of life science tenants by leveraging the knowledge and expertise of a management team focused on serving this fast growing industry.

      Our external growth strategy includes:

      Our internal growth strategy includes:

Target Markets

      Our target markets — Boston, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York/ New Jersey and research parks near or adjacent to universities — have emerged as the primary hubs for research and development and production in the life science industry. Each of these markets benefits from the presence of mature life science companies, which provide scale and stability to the market, as well as academic and university environments and government entities to contribute innovation, research and personnel to the private sector. In addition, the clustered research environments within these target markets typically provide a high quality of life for the research professionals and a fertile ground for new life science ideas and ventures.

Positive Life Science Trends

      We expect continued growth in the life science industry due to several factors:

      We are uniquely positioned to benefit from these favorable dynamics, coupled with the corresponding positive impact on our life science industry tenants.

Experienced Management

      We have created and continue to develop a life science real estate-oriented management team, dedicated to maximizing current and long-term returns and growth for our stockholders. Our executive officers have acquired, developed, owned, leased and managed in excess of $1.7 billion in life science real estate. Through this experience, our management team has established extensive industry relationships among life science

tenants, property owners and real estate brokers. In addition, our experienced independent board members provide management with a broad range of knowledge in real estate, the sciences, life science company operations, and large public company finance and management.

Regulation

      Our properties are subject to various laws, ordinances and regulations, including regulations relating to common areas. We believe that we have the necessary permits and approvals to operate each of our properties.

      Our properties must comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, to the extent that such properties are “public accommodations” as defined by the ADA. The ADA may require removal of structural barriers to access by persons with disabilities in certain public areas of our properties where such removal is readily achievable. We believe that our properties are in substantial compliance with the ADA and that we will not be required to make substantial capital expenditures to address the requirements of the ADA. The tenants are generally responsible for any additional amounts required to conform their construction projects to the ADA. However, noncompliance with the ADA could result in imposition of fines or an award of damages to private litigants. The obligation to make readily achievable accommodations is an ongoing one, and we will continue to assess our properties and to make alterations as appropriate in this respect.

      Under various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations, a current or previous owner, operator or tenant of real estate may be required to investigate and remove hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum product releases or threats of releases at such property, and may be held liable for property damage and for investigation, clean-up and monitoring costs incurred in connection with the actual or threatened contamination. Such laws typically impose clean-up responsibility and liability without regard to fault, or whether the owner, operator or tenant knew of or caused the presence of the contamination. The liability under such laws may be joint and several for the full amount of the investigation, clean-up and monitoring costs incurred or to be incurred or actions to be undertaken, although a party held jointly and severally liable may obtain contributions from the other identified, solvent, responsible parties of their fair share toward these costs. These costs may be substantial, and can exceed the value of the property. The presence of contamination, or the failure to properly remediate contamination, on a property may adversely affect the ability of the owner, operator or tenant to sell or rent that property or to borrow using such property as collateral, and may adversely impact our investment on that property.

      Federal regulations require building owners and those exercising control over a building’s management to identify and warn, via signs and labels, of potential hazards posed by workplace exposure to installed asbestos-containing materials, or ACMs, and potential ACMs in their building. The regulations also set forth employee training, record-keeping and due diligence requirements pertaining to ACMs and potential ACMs. Significant fines can be assessed for violating these regulations. Building owners and those exercising control over a building’s management may be subject to an increased risk of personal injury lawsuits by workers and others exposed to ACMs and potential ACMs as a result of these regulations. The regulations may affect the value of a building containing ACMs and potential ACMs in which we have invested. Federal, state and local laws and regulations also govern the removal, encapsulation, disturbance, handling and/or disposal of ACMs and potential ACMs when such materials are in poor condition or in the event of construction, remodeling, renovation or demolition of a building. Such laws may impose liability for improper handling or a release to the environment of ACMs and potential ACMs and may provide for fines to, and for third parties to seek recovery from, owners or operators of real properties for personal injury or improper work exposure associated with ACMs and potential ACMs. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to the Real Estate Industry — We could incur significant costs related to governmental regulation and private litigation over environmental

matters involving asbestos-containing materials, which could adversely affect our operations, the value of our properties, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders” under Item 1A. below.

      Federal, state and local laws and regulations also require removing or upgrading certain underground storage tanks and regulate the discharge of storm water, wastewater and any water pollutants; the emission of air pollutants; the generation, management and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, substances or wastes; and workplace health and safety. Life science industry tenants, including certain of our tenants, engage in various research and development activities involving the controlled use of hazardous materials, chemicals, biological and radioactive compounds. Although we believe that the tenants’ activities involving such materials comply in all material respects with applicable laws and regulations, the risk of contamination or injury from these materials cannot be completely eliminated. In the event of such contamination or injury, we could be held liable for any damages that result, and any such liability could exceed our resources and our environmental remediation insurance coverage. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to the Real Estate Industry — We could incur significant costs related to government regulation and private litigation over environmental matters involving the presence, discharge or threat of discharge of hazardous or toxic substances, which could adversely affect our operations, the value of our properties, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders” under Item 1A. below.

      In addition, our leases generally provide that (1) the tenant is responsible for all environmental liabilities relating to the tenant’s operations, (2) we are indemnified for such liabilities and (3) the tenant must comply with all environmental laws and regulations. Such a contractual arrangement, however, does not eliminate our statutory liability or preclude claims against us by governmental authorities or persons who are not parties to such an arrangement. Noncompliance with environmental or health and safety requirements may also result in the need to cease or alter operations at a property, which could affect the financial health of a tenant and its ability to make lease payments. In addition, if there is a violation of such a requirement in connection with a tenant’s operations, it is possible that we, as the owner of the property, could be held accountable by governmental authorities for such violation and could be required to correct the violation and pay related fines.

      Prior to closing any property acquisition, we obtain environmental assessments in a manner we believe prudent in order to attempt to identify potential environment concerns at such properties. These assessments are carried out in accordance with an appropriate level of due diligence and generally include a physical site inspection, a review of relevant federal, state and local environmental and health agency database records, one or more interviews with appropriate site-related personnel, review of the property’s chain of title and review of historic aerial photographs and other information on past uses of the property. We may also conduct limited subsurface investigations and test for substances of concern where the results of the first phase of the environmental assessments or other information indicates possible contamination or where our consultants recommend such procedures.

      While we may purchase our properties on an “as is” basis, all of our purchase contracts contain an environmental contingency clause, which permits us to reject a property because of any environmental hazard at such property. We receive environmental reports on all prospective properties.

      We believe that our properties comply in all material respects with all federal and state regulations regarding hazardous or toxic substances and other environmental matters.

Insurance

      We carry comprehensive liability, fire, workers’ compensation, extended coverage, terrorism and rental loss insurance covering all of our properties under a blanket policy, except with respect to property and fire insurance on our McKellar Court and Science Center Drive properties, which is carried directly by the tenants. We believe the policy specifications and insured limits are appropriate given the relative risk of loss, the cost of the coverage and industry practice. We do not carry insurance for generally uninsurable losses such as loss from riots or acts of God. We also carry environmental remediation insurance for our properties. This insurance, subject to certain exclusions and deductibles, covers the cost to remediate environmental damage caused by future spills or the historic presence of previously undiscovered hazardous substances. We intend to carry similar insurance with respect to future acquisitions as appropriate. Our properties located in the

San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle areas are subject to earthquakes. We presently carry earthquake insurance on our Industrial Road property in San Francisco and on our east coast properties, but do not carry earthquake insurance on our other properties in San Francisco or on our properties in San Diego or Seattle. The amount of earthquake insurance coverage we do carry may not be sufficient to fully cover losses from earthquakes. In addition, we may discontinue earthquake, terrorism or other insurance, or may elect not to procure such insurance, on some or all of our properties in the future if the cost of premiums for any of these policies exceeds, in our judgment, the value of the coverage discounted for the risk of loss. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to the Real Estate Industry — Uninsured and underinsured losses could adversely affect our operating results and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders” under Item 1A. below. However, we believe that all of our properties are adequately insured, consistent with industry standards.

Competition

      We are one of only two publicly traded entities focusing primarily on the acquisition, management, expansion and selective development of properties designed for life science tenants (the other such entity being Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.). However, various entities, including other REITs, such as health care REITs and suburban office property REITs, pension funds, insurance companies, investment funds and companies, partnerships, and developers invest in properties occupied by life science tenants and therefore compete for investment opportunities with us. Because properties designed for life science tenants typically contain improvements that are specific to tenants operating in the life science industry, we believe that we will be able to maximize returns on investments as a result of:

      However, many of our competitors have greater financial resources than we do and may be able to accept more risks, including risks with respect to the creditworthiness of a tenant or the geographic proximity of its investments. In the future, competition from these entities may reduce the number of suitable investment opportunities offered to us or increase the bargaining power of property owners seeking to sell. Further, as a result of their greater resources, those entities may have more flexibility than we do in their ability to offer rental concessions to attract tenants. These concessions could put pressure on our ability to maintain or raise rents and could adversely affect our ability to attract or retain tenants. Additionally, our ability to compete depends upon, among other factors, trends of the national and local economies, investment alternatives, financial condition and operating results of current and prospective tenants, availability and cost of capital, construction and renovation costs, taxes, governmental regulations, legislation and population trends.

Foreign Operations

      We do not engage in any foreign operations or derive any revenue from foreign sources.

Segment Financial Information

      Financial information by segment is presented in Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this report.

      Because we lease our properties to a limited number of tenants, and to the extent we depend on a limited number of tenants in the future, the inability of any single tenant to make its lease payments could adversely affect our business and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

      As of December 31, 2005, we had 87 tenants in 39 properties. Two of our tenants, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Genzyme Corporation, represented 15.8% and 10.5%, respectively, of our consolidated rental revenues for the year ended December 31, 2005, and 12.3% and 7.2%, respectively, of our total leased rentable square footage. While we evaluate the creditworthiness of our tenants by reviewing available financial and other pertinent information, there can be no assurance that any tenant will be able to make timely rental payments or avoid defaulting under its lease. If a tenant defaults, we may experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment. Because we depend on rental payments from a limited number of tenants, the inability of any single tenant to make its lease payments could adversely affect us and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

      Tenants in the life science industry face high levels of regulation, expense and uncertainty that may adversely affect their ability to pay us rent and consequently adversely affect our business.

      Life science entities comprise the vast majority of our tenant base. Because of our dependence on a single industry, adverse conditions affecting that industry will more adversely affect our business, and thus our ability to make distributions to our stockholders, than if our business strategy included a more diverse tenant base. Life science industry tenants, particularly those involved in developing and marketing drugs and drug delivery technologies, fail from time to time as a result of various factors. Many of these factors are particular to the life science industry. For example:

      We cannot assure you that our tenants in the life science industry will be successful in their businesses. If our tenants’ businesses are adversely affected, they may have difficulty paying us rent.

      Because particular upgrades are required for life science tenants, improvements to our properties involve greater expenditures than traditional office space, which costs may not be covered by the rents our tenants pay.

      The improvements generally required for our properties’ infrastructure are more costly than for other property types. Typical infrastructural improvements include the following:

      Our tenants generally pay higher rent on our properties than tenants in traditional office space. However, we cannot assure you that our tenants will continue to do so in the future or that the rents paid will cover the additional costs of upgrading the properties.

      Because of the unique and specific improvements required for our life science tenants, we may be required to incur substantial renovation costs to make our properties suitable for other life science tenants or other office tenants, which could adversely affect our operating performance.

      We acquire or develop properties that include laboratory space and other features that we believe are generally desirable for life science industry tenants. However, different life science industry tenants may require different features in their properties, depending on each tenant’s particular focus within the life science industry. If a current tenant is unable to pay rent and vacates a property, we may incur substantial expenditures to modify the property before we are able to re-lease the space to another life science industry tenant. This could hurt our operating performance and the value of your investment. Also, if the property needs to be renovated to accommodate multiple tenants, we may incur substantial expenditures before we are able to re-lease the space.

      Additionally, our properties may not be suitable for lease to traditional office tenants without significant expenditures or renovations. Accordingly, any downturn in the life science industry may have a substantial negative impact on our properties’ values.

      The geographic concentration of our properties in Boston and California makes our business particularly vulnerable to adverse conditions affecting these markets.

      Ten of our 39 properties are located in the Boston area. As of December 31, 2005, these properties represented 39.6% of our annualized base rent and 26.3% of our total leased rentable square footage. In addition, 16 of our 39 properties are located in California, with nine in San Diego and seven in San Francisco. As of December 31, 2005, these properties represented 26.7% of our annualized base rent and 32.0% of our total leased rentable square footage. Because of this concentration in two geographic regions, we are particularly vulnerable to adverse conditions affecting Boston and California, including general economic conditions, increased competition, a downturn in the local life science industry, real estate conditions, terrorist attacks, earthquakes (with respect to California) and other natural disasters occurring in these regions. In addition, we cannot assure you that these markets will continue to grow or remain favorable to the life science industry. The performance of the life science industry and the economy in general in these geographic markets may affect occupancy, market rental rates and expenses, and thus may affect our performance and the value of our properties. We are also subject to greater risk of loss from earthquakes because of our properties’ concentration in California. The close proximity of our seven properties in San Francisco to a fault line makes them more vulnerable to earthquakes than properties in many other parts of the country.

      Our tax indemnification and debt maintenance obligations require us to make payments if we sell certain properties or repay certain debt, which could limit our operating flexibility.

      In our formation transactions, our executive officers, Alan D. Gold, Gary A. Kreitzer, John F. Wilson, II and Matthew G. McDevitt, and certain other individuals contributed six properties to our operating partnership. If we were to dispose of these contributed assets in a taxable transaction, Messrs. Gold, Kreitzer, Wilson and McDevitt and the other contributors of those assets would suffer adverse tax consequences. In connection with these contribution transactions, we agreed to indemnify those contributors against such adverse tax consequences for a period of ten years. This indemnification will help those contributors to preserve their tax positions after their contributions. The tax indemnification provisions were not negotiated in an arm’s length transaction but were determined by our management team. We have also agreed to use reasonable best efforts consistent with our fiduciary duties to maintain at least $8.0 million of debt, some of which must be property specific, that the contributors can guarantee in order to defer any taxable gain they may incur if our operating partnership repays existing debt. These tax indemnification and debt maintenance obligations may affect the way in which we conduct our business. During the indemnification period, these obligations may impact the timing and circumstances under which we sell the contributed properties or interests in entities holding the properties. For example, these tax indemnification payments could effectively reduce or eliminate any gain we might otherwise realize upon the sale or other disposition of the related properties. Accordingly, even if market conditions might otherwise dictate that it would be desirable to dispose of these properties, the existence of the tax indemnification obligations could result in a decision to retain the properties in our portfolio to avoid having to pay the tax indemnity payments. The existence of the debt maintenance obligations could require us to maintain debt at a higher level than we might otherwise choose. Higher debt levels could adversely affect our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

      While we may seek to enter into tax-efficient joint ventures with third-party investors, we currently have no intention of disposing of these properties or interests in entities holding the properties in transactions that would trigger our tax indemnification obligations. The involuntary condemnation of one or more of these properties during the indemnification period could, however, trigger the tax indemnification obligations described above. The tax indemnity would equal the amount of the federal and state income tax liability the contributor would incur with respect to the gain allocated to the contributor. The calculation of the indemnity payment would not be reduced due to the time value of money or the time remaining within the indemnification period. The terms of the contribution agreements also require us to gross up the tax indemnity payment for the amount of income taxes due as a result of the tax indemnity payment. Messrs. Gold, Kreitzer, Wilson and McDevitt are potential recipients of these indemnification payments. Because of these potential payments their personal interests may diverge from those of our stockholders.

      We have a limited operating history as a REIT and as a public company and may not be successful in operating as a public REIT, which may adversely affect our ability to make distributions to stockholders.

      We were formed in April 2004 and have a limited operating history as a REIT and as a public company. Our board of directors and executive officers have overall responsibility for our management, but only our Chief Executive Officer, Executive Vice President and one of our independent directors have prior experience in operating a business in accordance with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, for maintaining qualification as a REIT. We cannot assure you that our management team’s past experience will be sufficient to operate our company successfully as a REIT or as a public company. Failure to maintain REIT status would have an adverse effect on our cash available for distribution to stockholders and would adversely affect the price of our common stock.

      Our expansion strategy may not yield the returns expected, may result in disruptions to our business, may strain our management resources and may adversely affect our operations.

      We own properties principally in Boston, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York/ New Jersey, each of which is currently a leading market in the United States for the life science industry. We cannot assure you that these markets will remain favorable to the life science industry, that these markets will continue to grow or that we will be successful expanding in these markets.

      In addition to the 13 properties we acquired in connection with our initial public offering, we have acquired an additional 26 properties, and we expect to continue to expand. This anticipated growth will require substantial attention from our existing management team, which may divert management’s attention from our current properties. Implementing our growth plan will also require that we expand our management and staff with qualified and experienced personnel and that we implement administrative, accounting and operational systems sufficient to integrate new properties into our portfolio. We also must manage future property acquisitions without incurring unanticipated costs or disrupting the operations at our existing properties. Managing new properties requires a focus on leasing and retaining tenants. If we fail to successfully integrate future acquisitions into our portfolio, or if newly acquired properties fail to perform as we expect, our results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay distributions could suffer.

      We may be unable to acquire, develop or operate new properties successfully, which could harm our financial condition and ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

      We continue to evaluate the market for available properties and may acquire office, laboratory and other properties when opportunities exist. We also may develop or substantially renovate office and other properties. Acquisition, development and renovation activities are subject to significant risks, including:

      The realization of any of the above risks could significantly and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, per share trading price of our common stock, ability to satisfy our debt service obligations and ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

      Our success depends on key personnel with extensive experience dealing with the real estate needs of life science tenants, and the loss of these key personnel could threaten our ability to operate our business successfully.

      Our future success depends, to a significant extent, on the continued services of our management team. In particular, we depend on the efforts of Mr. Gold, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Kreitzer, our Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Mr. Wilson, our Chief Financial Officer, and Mr. McDevitt, our Regional Executive Vice President. Among the reasons that Messrs. Gold, Kreitzer, Wilson and McDevitt are important to our success is that each has a national or regional reputation in the life science industry based on their extensive real estate experience in dealing with life science tenants

and properties. Each member of our management team has developed informal relationships through past business dealings with numerous members of the scientific community, life science investors, current and prospective life science industry tenants, and real estate brokers. We expect that their reputations will continue to attract business and investment opportunities before the active marketing of properties and will assist us in negotiations with lenders, existing and potential tenants, and industry personnel. If we lost their services, our relationships with such lenders, existing and prospective tenants, and industry personnel could suffer. We have entered into employment agreements with each of Messrs. Gold, Kreitzer, Wilson and McDevitt, but we cannot guarantee that they will not terminate their employment prior to the end of the term.

      The bankruptcy of a tenant may adversely affect the income produced by and the value of our properties.

      The bankruptcy or insolvency of a tenant may adversely affect the income produced by our properties. If any tenant becomes a debtor in a case under the Bankruptcy Code, we cannot evict the tenant solely because of the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court also might authorize the tenant to reject and terminate its lease with us, which would generally result in any unpaid, pre-bankruptcy rent being treated as an unsecured claim. In addition, our claim against the tenant for unpaid, future rent would be subject to a statutory cap equal to the greater of (1) one year of rent or (2) 15% of the remaining rent on the lease (not to exceed three years of rent). This cap might be substantially less than the remaining rent actually owed under the lease. Additionally, a Bankruptcy Court may require us to turn over to the estate all or a portion of any deposits, amounts in escrow, or prepaid rents. Our claim for unpaid, pre-bankruptcy rent, our lease termination damages and claims relating to damages for which we hold deposits or other amounts that we were forced to repay would likely not be paid in full.

      Compliance with changing regulation of corporate governance and public disclosure may result in additional expenses and may have a negative impact on our business.

      Changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and new rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE, are creating uncertainty for companies such as ours. These new or changed laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies, which could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. Our efforts to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards have resulted in, and are likely to continue to result in, increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. In particular, our efforts to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the related regulations regarding our required assessment of our internal control over financial reporting and our external auditors’ audit of that assessment has required the commitment of significant financial and managerial resources. We expect these efforts to require the continued commitment of significant resources. Further, our board members, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer could face an increased risk of personal liability in connection with the performance of their duties. As a result, we may have difficulty attracting and retaining qualified board members and executive officers, which could harm our business. If our efforts to comply with new or changed laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to practice, our reputation may be harmed.

      Future acts of terrorism or war or the risk of war may have a negative impact on our business.

      The continued threat of terrorism and the potential for military action and heightened security measures in response to this threat may cause significant disruption to commerce. There can be no assurance that the armed hostilities will not escalate or that these terrorist attacks, or the United States’ responses to them, will not lead to further acts of terrorism and civil disturbances, which may further contribute to economic instability. Any armed conflict, civil unrest or additional terrorist activities, and the attendant political instability and societal disruption, may adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and future growth.

      Significant competition may decrease or prevent increases in our properties’ occupancy and rental rates and may reduce our investment opportunities.

      We are one of only two publicly traded entities focusing primarily on the acquisition, management, expansion and selective development of properties designed for life science tenants. However, various entities, including other REITs, such as health care REITs and suburban office property REITs, pension funds, insurance companies, investment funds and companies, partnerships, and developers invest in properties containing life science tenants and therefore compete for investment opportunities with us. Many of these entities have substantially greater financial resources than we do and may be able to accept more risk than we can prudently manage, including risks with respect to the creditworthiness of a tenant or the geographic location of its investments. In the future, competition from these entities may reduce the number of suitable investment opportunities offered to us or increase the bargaining power of property owners seeking to sell. Further, as a result of their greater resources, those entities may have more flexibility than we do in their ability to offer rental concessions to attract tenants. This could put pressure on our ability to maintain or raise rents and could adversely affect our ability to attract or retain tenants. As a result, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, per share trading price of our common stock, ability to satisfy our debt service obligations and ability to pay distributions to our stockholders may be adversely affected.

      Uninsured and underinsured losses could adversely affect our operating results and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

      We carry comprehensive liability, fire, workers’ compensation, extended coverage, terrorism and rental loss insurance covering all of our properties under a blanket policy, except with respect to property and fire insurance on our McKellar Court and Science Center Drive properties, which is carried directly by the tenants. We believe the policy specifications and insured limits are appropriate given the relative risk of loss, the cost of the coverage and industry practice. We also carry environmental remediation insurance for our properties. This insurance, subject to certain exclusions and deductibles, covers the cost to remediate environmental damage caused by unintentional future spills or the historic presence of previously undiscovered hazardous substances. We intend to carry similar insurance with respect to future acquisitions as appropriate. We do not carry insurance for generally uninsurable losses such as loss from riots or acts of God. A substantial portion of our properties are located in San Diego and San Francisco, California and Seattle, Washington, areas especially subject to earthquakes. We presently carry earthquake insurance on our Industrial Road property in San Francisco and on our east coast properties, but do not carry earthquake insurance on our other properties in San Francisco or on our properties in San Diego or Seattle. The amount of earthquake insurance coverage we do carry may not be sufficient to fully cover losses from earthquakes. In addition, we may discontinue earthquake, terrorism or other insurance, or may elect not to procure such insurance, on some or all of our properties in the future if the cost of premiums for any of these policies exceeds, in our judgment, the value of the coverage discounted for the risk of loss.

      If we experience a loss that is uninsured or that exceeds policy 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 are subject to recourse indebtedness, we would continue to be liable for the indebtedness, even if these properties were irreparably damaged.

      Our performance and value are subject to risks associated with the ownership and operation of real estate assets and with factors affecting the real estate industry.

      Our ability to make expected distributions to our stockholders depends on our ability to generate revenues in excess of expenses, our scheduled principal payments on debt and our capital expenditure requirements. Events and conditions that are beyond our control may decrease our cash available for distribution and the value of our properties. These events include:

      In addition, we could experience a general decline in rents or an increased incidence of defaults under existing leases if any of the following occur:

      Any of these events could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, per share trading price of our common stock, ability to satisfy our debt service obligations and ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

      Illiquidity of real estate investments may make it difficult for us to sell properties in response to market conditions and could harm our financial condition and ability to make distributions.

      Equity real estate investments are relatively illiquid and therefore will tend to limit our ability to vary our portfolio promptly in response to changing economic or other conditions. To the extent the properties are not subject to triple-net leases, some significant expenditures such as real estate taxes and maintenance costs are generally not reduced when circumstances cause a reduction in income from the investment. Should these events occur, our income and funds available for distribution could be adversely affected. Furthermore, our Landmark at Eastview property is subject to a ground lease until certain property subdivisions are completed, at which time the ground lease will terminate and we will obtain fee simple title to the property. If those subdivisions are not completed, the property will remain subject to the ground lease, which could make it more difficult to sell the property. In addition, our Colorow Drive property is subject to a ground lease, which could make it more difficult to sell the property. If any of the parking leases or licenses associated with our Cambridge portfolio were to expire, or if we were unable to assign these leases to a buyer, it would be more difficult for us to sell these properties and would adversely affect our ability to retain current tenants or attract new tenants at these properties. In addition, REIT requirements may subject us to a 100% tax on gain recognized from the sale of property if the property is considered to be held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of our business. To prevent these taxes, we may comply with safe harbor rules relating to the number of properties sold in a year, how long we owned the properties, their tax bases and the cost of improvements made to those properties. However, we can provide no assurance that we will be able to successfully comply with these safe harbors. If compliance is possible, the safe harbor rules may restrict our ability to sell assets in the future and achieve liquidity that may be necessary to fund distributions.

      We may be unable to renew leases, lease vacant space or re-lease space as leases expire, which could adversely affect our business and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

      If we cannot renew leases, we may be unable to re-lease our properties at rates equal to or above the current rate. Even if we can renew leases, tenants may be able to negotiate lower rates as a result of market conditions. Market conditions may also hinder our ability to lease vacant space in newly developed properties. In addition, we may enter into or acquire leases for properties that are specially suited to the needs of a particular tenant. Such properties may require renovations, tenant improvements or other concessions in order

to lease them to other tenants if the initial leases terminate. Any of these factors could adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, per share trading price of our common stock, our ability to satisfy our debt service obligations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

      We could incur significant costs related to government regulation and private litigation over environmental matters involving the presence, discharge or threat of discharge of hazardous or toxic substances, which could adversely affect our operations, the value of our properties, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

      Our properties may be subject to environmental liabilities. Under various federal, state and local laws, a current or previous owner, operator or tenant of real estate can face liability for environmental contamination created by the presence, discharge or threat of discharge of hazardous or toxic substances. Liabilities can include the cost to investigate, clean up and monitor the actual or threatened contamination and damages caused by the contamination (or threatened contamination). Environmental laws typically impose such liability regardless of:

      The liability under such laws may be strict, joint and several, meaning that we may be liable regardless of whether we knew of, or were responsible for, the presence of the contaminants, and the government entity or private party may seek recovery of the entire amount from us even if there are other responsible parties. Liabilities associated with environmental conditions may be significant and can sometimes exceed the value of the affected property. The presence of hazardous substances on a property may adversely affect our ability to sell or rent that property or to borrow using that property as collateral.

      Some of our properties have had contamination in the past that required cleanup. We believe the contamination has been effectively remediated, and that any remaining contamination either does not require remediation or that the costs associated with such remediation will not be material. However, we cannot guarantee that such contamination does not continue to pose a threat to the environment or that we will not have continued liability in connection with such prior contamination. Our Kendall Square A and Kendall Square D properties are located on the site of a former manufactured gas plant. Various remedial actions were performed on these properties, including soil stabilization to control the spread of oil and hazardous materials in the soil. Another of our properties, Elliott Avenue, has known soil contamination beneath a portion of the building located on the property. Based on environmental consultant reports, management does not believe any remediation would be required unless major structural changes were made to the building that resulted in the soil becoming exposed. We do not expect these matters to materially adversely affect such properties’ value or the cash flows related to such properties, but we can provide no assurances to that effect.

      Environmental laws also:

      Life science industry tenants, our primary tenant industry focus, frequently use hazardous materials, chemicals, heavy metals, and biological and radioactive compounds. Our tenants’ controlled use of these materials subjects us and our tenants to laws that govern using, manufacturing, storing, handling and disposing of such materials and certain byproducts of those materials. We are unaware of any of our existing tenants

violating applicable laws and regulations, but we and our tenants cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. If our properties become contaminated, or if a party is injured, we could be held liable for any damages that result. Such liability could exceed our resources and any environmental remediation insurance coverage we have, which could adversely affect our operations, the value of our properties, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

      We could incur significant costs related to governmental regulation and private litigation over environmental matters involving asbestos-containing materials, which could adversely affect our operations, the value of our properties, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

      Environmental laws also govern the presence, maintenance and removal of asbestos-containing materials, or ACMs, and may impose fines and penalties if we fail to comply with these requirements. Failure to comply with these laws, or even the presence of ACMs, may expose us to third-party liability. Some of our properties contain ACMs, and we could be liable for such fines or penalties, as described above in “Item 1. Business — Regulation — Environmental Matters.”

      Our properties may contain or develop harmful mold, which could lead to liability for adverse health effects and costs of remediating the problem, which could adversely affect the value of the affected property and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

      When excessive moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials, mold growth may occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or is not addressed over a period of time. Some molds may produce airborne toxins or irritants. Concern about indoor exposure to mold has been increasing because exposure to mold may cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic or other reactions. As a result, the presence of significant mold at any of our properties could require us to undertake a costly remediation program to contain or remove the mold from the affected property. In addition, the presence of significant mold could expose us to liability to our tenants, their or our employees, and others if property damage or health concerns arise.

      Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws may require us to make significant unanticipated expenditures.

      All of our properties are required to comply with the ADA. The ADA requires that all public accommodations must meet federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons. Although we believe that our properties substantially comply with present requirements of the ADA, we have not conducted an audit of all of such properties to determine compliance. If one or more properties is not in compliance with the ADA, then we would be required to bring the offending properties into compliance. Compliance with the ADA could require removing access barriers. Non-compliance could result in imposition of fines by the U.S. government or an award of damages to private litigants, or both. Additional federal, state and local laws also may require us to modify properties or could restrict our ability to renovate properties. Complying with the ADA or other legislation could be very expensive. If we incur substantial costs to comply with such laws, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, per share trading price of our common stock, our ability to satisfy our debt service obligations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected.

      We may incur significant unexpected costs to comply with fire, safety and other regulations, which could adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations, and ability to make distributions.

      Our properties are subject to various federal, state and local regulatory requirements, such as state and local fire and safety requirements, building codes and land use regulations. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject us to governmental fines or private litigant damage awards. We believe that our properties are currently in material compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. However, we do not know whether existing requirements will change or whether future requirements will require us to make significant unanticipated expenditures that will adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, the per share trading price of our common stock, our ability to satisfy our debt service obligations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

      Conflicts of interest could result in our management acting other than in our stockholders’ best interests.

      Our executive officers and directors beneficially own 6.2% of our common stock and exercise substantial influence over our business and, as a result, they may delay, defer or prevent us from taking actions that would be beneficial to our other stockholders. As of February 28, 2006, our executive officers, directors and entities affiliated with them beneficially owned an aggregate of 375,416 shares of our common stock and units which may be exchanged for 2,673,172 shares of our common stock, representing a total of approximately 6.2% of our outstanding common stock. Consequently, our executive officers and directors have substantial influence over us and could exercise their influence in a manner that may not be in the best interests of our stockholders.

      We may choose not to enforce, or to enforce less vigorously, our rights under contribution and other agreements because of conflicts of interest with certain of our officers. Messrs. Gold, Kreitzer, Wilson and McDevitt, some of their spouses and parents, and other individuals and entities not affiliated with us or our management, had ownership interests in the properties contributed to our operating partnership in our formation transactions. Under the agreements relating to the contribution of those interests, we are entitled to indemnification and damages in the event of breaches of representations or warranties made by Messrs. Gold, Kreitzer, Wilson and McDevitt and other contributors. In addition, Messrs. Gold, Kreitzer, Wilson and McDevitt have entered into employment agreements with us pursuant to which they have agreed to devote substantially full-time attention to our affairs. None of these contribution and employment agreements were negotiated on an arm’s-length basis. We may choose not to enforce, or to enforce less vigorously, our rights under these contribution and employment agreements because of our desire to maintain our ongoing relationships with the individuals involved.

      Our charter and Maryland law contain provisions that may delay, defer or prevent a change of control transaction and may prevent stockholders from receiving a premium for their shares.

      Our charter contains a 9.8% ownership limit that may delay, defer or prevent a change of control transaction. Our charter, with certain exceptions, authorizes our directors to take such actions as are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT. Unless exempted by our board of directors, no person may own more than 9.8% of the value of our outstanding shares of capital stock or more than 9.8% in value or number (whichever is more restrictive) of the outstanding shares of our common stock. The board may not grant such an exemption to any proposed transferee whose ownership of in excess of 9.8% of the value of our outstanding shares would result in the termination of our status as a REIT. These restrictions on transferability and ownership will not apply if our board of directors determines that it is no longer in our best interests to attempt to qualify as a REIT. The ownership limit may delay or impede a transaction or a change of control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

      We could authorize and issue stock without stockholder approval that may delay, defer or prevent a change of control transaction. Our charter authorizes us to issue additional authorized but unissued shares of our common stock or preferred stock. In addition, our board of directors may classify or reclassify any unissued shares of our common stock or preferred stock and may set the preferences, rights and other terms of the classified or reclassified shares. The board may also, without stockholder approval, amend our charter to increase the authorized number of shares of our common stock or our preferred stock that we may issue. The board of directors could establish a series of common stock or preferred stock that could, depending on the terms of such series, delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change of control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders.

      Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit changes in control that may delay, defer or prevent a change of control transaction. Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law, or the MGCL, may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or of impeding a change of control. In some cases, such an acquisition or change of control could provide our stockholders with the

opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of their shares. These MGCL provisions include:

      In the case of the business combination provisions of the MGCL, we opted out by resolution of our board of directors with respect to any business combination between us and any person provided such business combination is first approved by our board of directors (including a majority of directors who are not affiliates or associates of such person). In the case of the control share provisions of the MGCL, we opted out pursuant to a provision in our bylaws. However, our board of directors may by resolution elect to opt in to the business combination provisions of the MGCL. Further, we may opt in to the control share provisions of the MGCL in the future by amending our bylaws, which our board of directors can do without stockholder approval.

      The partnership agreement of our operating partnership, Maryland law, and our charter and bylaws also contain other provisions that may delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change of control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

      Our board of directors may amend our investing and financing policies without stockholder approval, and, accordingly, our stockholders would have limited control over changes in our policies that could increase the risk we default under our debt obligations or that could harm our business, results of operations and share price.

      Our board of directors has adopted a policy of limiting our indebtedness to approximately 60% of our total market capitalization. Total market capitalization is defined as the sum of the market value of our outstanding common stock (which may decrease, thereby increasing our debt-to-total capitalization ratio), plus the aggregate value of operating partnership units we do not own, plus the book value of our total consolidated indebtedness. However, our organizational documents do not limit the amount or percentage of debt that we may incur, nor do they limit the types of properties we may acquire or develop. Our board of directors may alter or eliminate our current policy on borrowing or investing at any time without stockholder approval. Changes in our strategy or in our investment or leverage policies could expose us to greater credit risk and interest rate risk and could also result in a more leveraged balance sheet. These factors could result in an increase in our debt service and could adversely affect our cash flow and our ability to make expected distributions to our stockholders. Higher leverage also increases the risk we would default on our debt.

      We may invest in properties with other entities, and our lack of sole decision-making authority or reliance on a co-venturer’s financial condition could make these joint venture investments risky.

      We have in the past and may continue in the future to co-invest with third parties through partnerships, joint ventures or other entities. We may acquire non-controlling interests or share responsibility for managing the affairs of a property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. In such events, we would not be in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the property or entity. Investments in entities may, under

certain circumstances, involve risks not present were a third party not involved. These risks include the possibility that partners or co-venturers:

      Such investments may also have the potential risk of impasses on decisions, such as a sale, because neither we nor the partner or co-venturer would have full control over the partnership or joint venture. Disputes between us and partners or co-venturers may result in litigation or arbitration that would increase our expenses and prevent our officers and/or directors from focusing their time and effort on our business. In addition, we may in certain circumstances be liable for the actions of our third-party partners or co-venturers if:

      Debt obligations expose us to increased risk of property losses and may have adverse consequences on our business operations and our ability to make distributions.

      We have used and will continue to use debt to finance property acquisitions. Our use of debt may have adverse consequences, including the following:

      As of February 28, 2006, we had outstanding mortgage indebtedness of $232.3 million and $250.0 million of borrowings under our secured term loan facility, secured by 13 of our properties, as well as $2.3 million

associated with our unconsolidated partnership. We had $30.7 million outstanding under our $250.0 million revolving unsecured credit facility. We expect to incur additional debt in connection with future acquisitions. Our organizational documents do not limit the amount or percentage of debt that we may incur.

      Our credit facilities include restrictive covenants relating to our operations, which could limit our ability to respond to changing market conditions and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

      Our credit facilities impose restrictions on us that affect our distribution and operating policies and our ability to incur additional debt. For example, we are subject to a maximum leverage ratio of 60% during the terms of the loans, which could reduce our ability to incur additional debt and consequently reduce our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Our credit facilities also contain limitations on our ability to make distributions to our stockholders in excess of those required to maintain our REIT status. Specifically, our credit facilities limit distributions to 95% of funds from operations or 100% of funds available for distribution plus cash payments received under master leases on our King of Prussia and Bayshore Boulevard properties, but not less than the minimum necessary to enable us to meet our REIT income distribution requirements. In addition, our credit facilities contain covenants that, among other things, limit our ability to further mortgage our properties or reduce insurance coverage, and that require us to maintain specified levels of net worth. These or other limitations may adversely affect our flexibility and our ability to achieve our operating plans.

      We have and may continue to engage in hedging transactions, which can limit our gains and increase exposure to losses.

      We have and may continue to enter into hedging transactions to protect us from the effects of interest rate fluctuations on floating rate debt. Our hedging transactions may include entering into interest rate swap agreements or interest rate cap or floor agreements, or other interest rate exchange contracts. Hedging activities may not have the desired beneficial impact on our results of operations or financial condition. No hedging activity can completely insulate us from the risks associated with changes in interest rates. Moreover, interest rate hedging could fail to protect us or adversely affect us because, among other things:

      Hedging involves risk and typically involves costs, including transaction costs, that may reduce our overall returns on our investments. These costs increase as the period covered by the hedging increases and during periods of rising and volatile interest rates. These costs will also limit the amount of cash available for distribution to stockholders. We generally intend to hedge as much of the interest rate risk as management determines is in our best interests given the cost of such hedging transactions. The REIT qualification rules may limit our ability to enter into hedging transactions by requiring us to limit our income from hedges. If we are unable to hedge effectively because of the REIT rules, we will face greater interest rate exposure than may be commercially prudent. In connection with our $250.0 million secured term loan, we entered into an interest rate swap agreement, which has the effect of fixing the interest rate on the secured term loan at 6.4%. Other than this interest rate swap, we have not entered into any hedging transactions.

      Increases in interest rates could increase the amount of our debt payments and adversely affect our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

      Interest we pay could reduce cash available for distributions. Additionally, if we incur variable rate debt, including borrowings under our senior secured term loan facility and our senior unsecured credit facilities, to

the extent not adequately hedged, increases in interest rates would increase our interest costs. These increased interest costs would reduce our cash flows and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. In addition, if we need to repay existing debt during a period of rising interest rates, we could be required to liquidate one or more of our investments in properties at times that may not permit realization of the maximum return on such investments.

      If we fail to obtain external sources of capital, which is outside of our control, we may be unable to make distributions to our stockholders, maintain our REIT qualification, or fund growth.

      In order to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we are required to distribute annually at least 90% of our net taxable income, excluding any net capital gain. In addition, we will be subject to income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that we distribute less than 100% of our net taxable income, including any net capital gains. Because of these distribution requirements, we may not be able to fund future capital needs, including any necessary acquisition financing, from operating cash flow. Consequently, we rely on third-party sources to fund our capital needs. We may not be able to obtain financings on favorable terms or at all. Our access to third-party sources of capital depends, in part, on:

      Additionally, if the ground lease underlying our Landmark at Eastview property remains in place, it could be more difficult to borrow using that property as collateral. Our inability to obtain capital from third-party sources will adversely affect our business and limit our growth. Without sufficient capital, we may not be able to acquire or develop properties when strategic opportunities exist, satisfy our debt service obligations or make the cash distributions to our stockholders necessary to maintain our qualification as a REIT.

      Our failure to qualify as a REIT under the Code would result in significant adverse tax consequences to us and would adversely affect our business and the value of our stock.

      We believe that we have operated and intend to continue operating in a manner that is intended to allow us to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes under the Code. Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions for which there are only limited judicial and administrative interpretations. The fact that we hold substantially all of our assets through a partnership further complicates the application of the REIT requirements. Even a seemingly minor technical or inadvertent mistake could jeopardize our REIT status. Our REIT status depends upon various factual matters and circumstances that may not be entirely within our control. For example, in order to qualify as a REIT, at least 95% of our gross income in any year must be derived from qualifying sources, and we must satisfy a number of requirements regarding the composition of our assets. Also, we must make distributions to stockholders aggregating annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding capital gains. In addition, new legislation, regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions, each of which could have retroactive effect, may make it more difficult or impossible for us to qualify as a REIT, or could reduce the desirability of an investment in a REIT relative to other investments. We have not requested and do not plan to request a ruling from the IRS that we qualify as a REIT, and the statements in this report are not binding on the IRS or any court. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that we have qualified or will continue to qualify as a REIT.

      If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any tax year, we will face serious adverse tax consequences that would substantially reduce the funds available for distribution to our stockholders for each of the years involved because:

      In addition, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, we will not be required to make distributions to stockholders, and all distributions to stockholders will be subject to tax as ordinary corporate distributions. As a result of all these factors, our failure to qualify as a REIT could impair our ability to expand our business and raise capital and would adversely affect the value of our common stock.

      Even if we qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we may be subject to other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow.

      Even if we remain qualified as a REIT for tax purposes, we may be subject to some federal, state and local taxes on our income or property. For example:

      To maintain our REIT status, we may be forced to borrow funds during unfavorable market conditions to make distributions to our stockholders.

      To qualify as a REIT, we must distribute to our stockholders certain amounts each year based on our income as described above. At times, we may not have sufficient funds to satisfy these distribution requirements and may need to borrow funds to maintain our REIT status and avoid the payment of income and excise taxes. These borrowing needs could result from:

      We may need to borrow funds at times when the then-prevailing market conditions are not favorable for these borrowings. These borrowings could increase our costs or reduce our equity and adversely affect the value of our common stock.

      To maintain our REIT status, we may be forced to forego otherwise attractive opportunities.

      To qualify as a REIT, we must satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our stock. We may be required to make distributions to stockholders at times when it would be more advantageous to reinvest cash in our business or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to operate solely on the basis of maximizing profits.

      The ownership limitations in our charter may restrict or prevent stockholders from engaging in certain transfers of our stock.

      Our charter contains restrictions on the ownership and transfer of our capital stock that are intended to assist us in complying with the requirements imposed on REITs by the Code. The ownership limits contained in our charter provide that, subject to certain specified exceptions, no person or entity may own more than 9.8% of the value of our outstanding shares of capital stock, and no person or entity may own more than 9.8% (by number or value, whichever is more restrictive) of the outstanding shares of our common stock. Our charter also (1) prohibits any person from actually or constructively owning shares of our capital stock that would cause us to be “closely held” under Section 856(h) of the Code or would otherwise cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT and (2) voids any transfer that would result in shares of our capital stock being owned by fewer than 100 persons. The constructive ownership rules of the Code are complex, and may cause shares of our capital stock owned actually or constructively by a group of related individuals and/or entities to be constructively owned by one individual or entity. As a result, acquisition of less than 9.8% of the shares of our capital stock (or the acquisition of an interest in equity of, or in certain affiliates or subsidiaries of, an entity that owns, actually or constructively, our capital stock) by an individual or entity, could cause that individual or entity, or another individual or entity, to own constructively shares in a manner that would violate the 9.8% ownership limits or such other limit as provided in our charter or permitted by our board of directors. Our board of directors may, but in no event will be required to, waive the 9.8% ownership limit with respect to a particular stockholder if it determines that the ownership will not jeopardize our status as a REIT. As a condition of granting such a waiver, our board of directors may require a ruling from the IRS or an opinion of counsel satisfactory to our board and will obtain undertakings or representations from the applicant with respect to preserving our status as a REIT. Pursuant to our charter, if any purported transfer of our capital stock or any other event would result in any person violating the ownership limits set forth in our charter or otherwise permitted by our board of directors, then that number of shares in excess of the applicable limit will be automatically transferred, pursuant to our charter, to a trust, the beneficiary of which will be a qualified charitable organization we select or, under certain circumstances, the transfer of our capital stock or other event will be void and of no force or effect.

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

      The market price of our common stock may be volatile. In addition, the trading volume in our common stock may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. We cannot assure you that the market price of our common stock will not fluctuate or decline significantly in the future.

      Some of the factors that could negatively affect our share price or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our common stock include:

      An increase in market interest rates may have an adverse effect on the market price of our securities.

      Changes in market interest rates have historically affected the trading prices of equity securities issued by REITs. One of the factors that will influence the price of our common stock will be the dividend yield on our common stock (as a percentage of the price of our common stock) relative to market interest rates. An increase in market interest rates, which are currently at low levels relative to historical rates, may lead prospective purchasers of our common stock to expect a higher dividend yield. Further, higher interest rates would likely increase our borrowing costs and potentially decrease funds available for distribution. Thus, higher market interest rates could harm our financial condition and results of operations and could cause the market price of our common stock to fall.

      Broad market fluctuations could negatively impact the market price of our common stock.

      The stock market has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected the market price of many companies in industries similar or related to ours and that have been unrelated to these companies’ operating performance. These broad market fluctuations could reduce the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, our operating results and prospects may be below the expectations of public market analysts and investors or may be lower than those of companies with comparable market capitalizations. Either of these factors could lead to a material decline in the market price of our common stock.

      Our distributions to stockholders may decline at any time.

      We may not continue our current level of distributions to stockholders. Our board of directors will determine future distributions based on a number of factors, including:

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

      We cannot predict whether future issuances of shares of our common stock or the availability of shares for resale in the open market will decrease the market price per share of our common stock. As of February 28, 2006, we had outstanding 46,746,632 shares of our common stock, as well as units in our operating partnership which may be exchanged for 2,863,564 shares of our common stock. In addition, as of February 28, 2006, we had reserved an additional 1,925,868 shares of common stock for future issuance under our incentive award plan and have a warrant outstanding to Raymond James & Associates, Inc., issued in connection with our initial public offering, to purchase 270,000 shares of our common stock at $15.00 per share, the initial public offering price. Furthermore, in October 2005, we filed a universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was declared effective in December 2005. The universal shelf registration statement may permit us, from time to time, to offer and sell

up to $500 million of debt securities, common stock, preferred stock, warrants and other securities. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock in the public market, or upon exchange of operating partnership units, or the perception that such sales might occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

      Any of the following could have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock:

      Additionally, the existence of units, options and shares of our common stock reserved for issuance upon exchange of units may adversely affect the terms upon which we may be able to obtain additional capital through the sale of equity securities. In addition, future sales of shares of our common stock may be dilutive to existing stockholders.

      From time to time we also may issue shares of our common stock or operating partnership units in connection with property, portfolio or business acquisitions. We may grant additional demand or piggyback registration rights in connection with these issuances. Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock, or the perception that these sales could occur, may adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock or may adversely affect the terms upon which we may be able to obtain additional capital through the sale of equity securities.

      None.

Existing Portfolio

      At December 31, 2005, our portfolio consisted of 39 properties, which included 62 buildings with an aggregate of approximately 4.8 million rentable square feet of laboratory and office space. We also own five undeveloped land parcels adjacent to four of our existing properties that we believe can support up to 706,000 rentable square feet of laboratory and office space.

      The following summarizes our existing portfolio at December 31, 2005:

      The following table sets forth information related to the properties we owned, or had an ownership interest in, at December 31, 2005:

Tenant Information

      As of December 31, 2005, our properties were leased to 87 tenants, and 93% of our annualized base rent was derived from tenants that were public companies or government agencies or their subsidiaries. The following table presents information regarding our 10 largest tenants based on percentage of our annualized base rent as of December 31, 2005:

Lease Distribution

      Our leases are typically structured for terms of five to fifteen years, with extension options, and include a fixed rental rate with scheduled annual escalations. The leases are generally triple-net. Triple-net leases are those in which tenants pay not only base rent, but also some or all real estate taxes and operating expenses of the leased property. Tenants typically reimburse us the full direct cost, without regard to a base year or expense stop, for use of lighting, heating and air conditioning, and certain capital improvements necessary to maintain the property in its original condition. We are generally responsible for structural repairs.

Lease Expirations

      The following table presents a summary schedule of available space at December 31, 2005 and lease expirations over the next ten calendar years for leases in place at December 31, 2005. Additionally, we have space that is currently under a master lease arrangement at our King of Prussia property, which expires in 2008. The master lease at our Bayshore Boulevard property expired in February 2006. This table assumes that none of the tenants exercise renewal options or early termination rights, if any, at or prior to the scheduled expirations:

      We are not currently a party to any legal proceedings nor, to our knowledge, is any legal proceeding threatened against us that would have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

      None.

PART II

      Our common stock has been listed on the NYSE under the symbol “BMR” since August 6, 2004. On February 28, 2006, the reported closing sale price per share for our common stock on the NYSE was $27.68 and there were approximately 51 holders of record. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high, low and last sale prices in dollars on the NYSE for our common stock and the distributions we declared per share.

      We intend to continue to declare quarterly distributions on our common stock. The actual amount and timing of distributions, however, will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon our financial condition in addition to the requirements of the Code, and no assurance can be given as to the amounts or timing of future distributions. In addition, our credit facility limits our ability to pay distributions to our common stockholders. The limitation is based on 95% of funds from operations or 100% of funds available for distribution plus cash payments received under master leases on our King of Prussia and Bayshore Boulevard properties, but not less than the minimum necessary to enable us to meet our REIT income distribution requirements. We do not anticipate that our ability to pay distributions will be impaired by the terms of our credit facility. However, there can be no assurances in that regard.

      Subject to the distribution requirements applicable to REITs under the Code, we intend, to the extent practicable, to invest substantially all of the proceeds from sales and refinancings of our assets in real estate-related assets and other assets. We may, however, under certain circumstances, make a distribution of capital or of assets. Such distributions, if any, will be made at the discretion of our board of directors. Distributions will be made in cash to extent that cash is available for distribution.

      The following sets forth selected consolidated financial and operating information for BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. and for 201 Industrial Road, L.P., our predecessor. We have not presented historical information for BioMed Realty Trust, Inc. prior to August 11, 2004, the date on which we consummated our initial public offering, because during the period from our formation until our initial public offering, we did not have material corporate activity. The following data should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and notes thereto and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included in Item 7 of this report.

BIOMED REALTY TRUST, INC. AND BIOMED REALTY TRUST PREDECESSOR

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

      The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this report. We make statements in this section that are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. For a complete discussion of forward-looking statements, see the section above entitled “Item 1. Business — Forward-Looking Statements.” Certain risk factors may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the following discussion. For a discussion of such risk factors, see the section above entitled “Item 1A. Risk Factors.”

Overview

      As used herein, the terms “we,” “us,” “our” or the “Company” refer to BioMed Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation, and any of our subsidiaries, including BioMed Realty, L.P., a Maryland limited partnership (our “Operating Partnership”), and 201 Industrial Road, L.P. (“Industrial Road” or our “Predecessor”). We operate as a fully integrated, self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust (“REIT”) focused on acquiring, developing, owning, leasing and managing laboratory and office space for the life science industry. Our tenants primarily include biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, scientific research institutions, government agencies and other entities involved in the life science industry. Our properties and primary acquisition targets are generally located in markets with well established reputations as centers for scientific research, including Boston, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York/ New Jersey.

      We were formed on April 30, 2004 and commenced operations on August 11, 2004, after completing our initial public offering. Our initial public offering consisted of the sale of 27,000,000 shares of common stock at $15.00 per share, resulting in gross proceeds of $405.0 million. On August 16, 2004, in connection with the exercise of the underwriters’ over-allotment option, we issued an additional 4,050,000 shares of common stock and received gross proceeds of $60.8 million. The aggregate proceeds to us, net of underwriting discounts and commissions and offering costs, were approximately $429.3 million. We issued a stock warrant in connection with our initial public offering to Raymond James & Associates, Inc., the lead underwriter, for the right to purchase 270,000 common shares at $15.00 per share, which equals the estimated fair value at the date of grant. The warrant became exercisable six months after our initial public offering and expires on August 11, 2009. From inception through August 11, 2004, neither the Company nor our Operating Partnership had any operations. Simultaneously with our initial public offering, we obtained a $100.0 million revolving unsecured credit facility, which we used to finance acquisitions and for other corporate purposes prior to being replaced on May 31, 2005 with a $250.0 million revolving unsecured credit facility with KeyBank National Association and other lenders.

      On January 11, 2005, we leased 61,826 rentable square feet in phase two of our Industrial Road property, located south of San Francisco, to Nuvelo, Inc. under a seven-year, triple-net lease. Nektar Therapeutics, an existing tenant at the property, had leased approximately 46,000 square feet of this space until August 2007, which it had never occupied. We agreed to terminate Nektar’s lease of its phase two space in exchange for termination payments. Nektar continues to lease approximately 80,000 square feet of space in phase one of the property, which lease expires in October 2016.

      On April 19, 2005, we entered into a lease amendment with Centocor, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. Under the amendment, Centocor agreed to lease an additional 79,667 rentable square feet at our King of Prussia property located in Radnor, Pennsylvania through March 31, 2010. The new lease replaced the existing portion of the master lease with an affiliate of The Rubenstein Company, the original seller of the property, with respect to this space. Annualized base rent of $1.3 million and certain tenant reimbursements received under the new lease have correspondingly reduced the rent received under the master lease.

      On May 31, 2005, we completed the acquisition of a portfolio of eight properties including one parking structure in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and an additional property in Lebanon, New Hampshire, from The Lyme Timber Company, an affiliate of Lyme Properties. We refer to these properties as the Cambridge portfolio. The Cambridge portfolio consists of ten buildings with an aggregate of approximately 1.1 million

rentable square feet of laboratory and office space, which upon acquisition was 96.8% leased with an average remaining term of ten years, and includes the parking structure with 447 parking spaces. The purchase price was $523.6 million, excluding closing costs, and was funded through borrowings under three credit facilities with KeyBank National Association and other lenders, described below, and the assumption of approximately $131.2 million of mortgage indebtedness.

      In addition to the acquisition of the Cambridge portfolio, during 2005, we acquired 13 properties containing approximately 978,149 rentable square feet of laboratory and office space that was 73.4% leased at acquisition.

      On June 27, 2005, we completed a follow-on common stock offering of 15,122,500 shares at $22.50 per share, resulting in gross proceeds of $340.3 million. The net proceeds of $324.0 million were used to repay the outstanding balance on our revolving credit facility, to repay our $100.0 million unsecured term loan, to acquire properties and for other corporate purposes.

      On October 14, 2005, we filed a universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was declared effective on December 7, 2005. The universal shelf registration statement may permit us, from time to time, to offer and sell up to $500 million of debt securities, common stock, preferred stock, warrants and other securities.

      From our initial public offering through December 31, 2005, we have declared aggregate dividends on our common stock and distributions on our operating partnership units of $1.4997 per common share and unit, representing five full quarterly dividends of $0.27 and a partial third quarter 2004 dividend of $0.1497 per common share and unit.

      As of December 31, 2005, we owned or had interests in 39 properties, located principally in Boston, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York/ New Jersey, consisting of 62 buildings with approximately 4.8 million rentable square feet of laboratory and office space, which was approximately 91.1% leased to 87 tenants. Of the approximately 423,000 square feet of unleased space, 274,677 square feet, or 64.9% of our unleased square footage, was under redevelopment. We also owned undeveloped land that we estimate can support up to 706,000 rentable square feet of laboratory and office space.

      Industrial Road was the largest of the properties contributed in our initial public offering and therefore has been identified as the accounting acquirer pursuant to paragraph 17 of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 141, Business Combinations (“SFAS 141”). As such, the historical financial statements presented herein for Industrial Road were prepared on a stand-alone basis up to and including the acquisition date, August 17, 2004. Upon completion of our initial public offering, the interest in the Predecessor acquired from affiliates was recorded at historic cost. The acquisitions of the unaffiliated interests in the Predecessor and the interests in all of the other properties have been accounted for as a purchase in accordance with SFAS 141.

Factors Which May Influence Future Operations

      Our corporate strategy is to continue to focus on acquiring, developing, owning, leasing and managing laboratory and office space for the life science industry. As of December 31, 2005, our property portfolio was 91.1% leased to 87 tenants. Approximately 5.8% of our leased square footage expires during 2006 and approximately 11.4% of our leased square footage expires during 2007. Our leasing strategy for 2006 focuses on leasing currently vacant space and negotiating renewals for leases scheduled to expire during the year, and identifying new tenants or existing tenants seeking additional space to occupy the spaces for which we are unable to negotiate such renewals. Additionally, we will seek to lease space that is currently under a master lease arrangement at our King of Prussia property, which expires in 2008. The master lease at our Bayshore Boulevard property expired in February 2006. We also intend to proceed with new developments, when prudent.

      The success of our leasing and development strategy will be dependent upon the general economic conditions in the United States and in our target markets of Boston, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle,

Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York/ New Jersey and research parks near or adjacent to universities. We are optimistic that market conditions will continue to improve during 2006 as evidenced by reduced vacancy rates for life science space in 2005. However, this is contingent upon continued strong job growth in our markets.

      We believe that, on a portfolio basis, rental rates on leases expiring in 2006 and 2007 are at or below market rental rates that are currently being achieved in our markets. However, we cannot give any assurance that leases will be renewed or that available space will be released at rental rates equal to or above the current contractual rental rates or at all.

Critical Accounting Policies

      The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to use judgment in the application of accounting policies, including making estimates and assumptions. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. These judgments affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. If our judgment or interpretation of the facts and circumstances relating to various transactions had been different, it is possible that different accounting policies would have been applied resulting in a different presentation of our financial statements. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and assumptions. In the event estimates or assumptions prove to be different from actual results, adjustments are made in subsequent periods to reflect more current information. Below is a discussion of accounting policies that we consider critical in that they address the most material parts of our financial statements, require complex judgment in their application or require estimates about matters that are inherently uncertain.

      We have elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Code. Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex provisions of the Code to our operations and financial results and the determination of various factual matters and circumstances not entirely within our control. We believe that our current organization and method of operation comply with the rules and regulations promulgated under the Code to enable us to qualify, and continue to qualify, as a REIT. However, it is possible that we have been organized or have operated in a manner that would not allow us to qualify as a REIT, or that our future operations could cause us to fail to qualify.

      If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, then we will be required to pay federal income tax (including any applicable alternative minimum tax) and, in most of the states, state income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate tax rates. Even as a REIT, we may be subject to certain state and local taxes. If we lose our REIT status, then our net earnings available for investment or distribution to stockholders would be significantly reduced for each of the years involved, and we would no longer be required to make distributions to our stockholders.

      Investments in real estate are carried at depreciated cost. Depreciation and amortization are recorded on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the assets as follows:

      Purchase accounting was applied, on a pro-rata basis where appropriate, to the assets and liabilities of real estate entities in which we acquired an interest or a partial interest. The fair value of tangible assets of an

acquired property (which includes land, buildings, and improvements) is determined by valuing the property as if it were vacant, and the “as-if-vacant” value is then allocated to land, buildings and improvements based on management’s determination of the relative fair value of these assets. We determine the as-if-vacant fair value using methods similar to those used by independent appraisers. Factors considered by us in performing these analyses include an estimate of the carrying costs during the expected lease-up periods, current market conditions and costs to execute similar leases. In estimating carrying costs, we include real estate taxes, insurance and other operating expenses and estimates of lost rental revenue during the expected lease-up periods based on current market demand.

      In allocating fair value to the identified intangible assets and liabilities of an acquired property, above-market and below-market in-place leases are recorded based on the present value (using a discount rate which reflects the risks associated with the leases acquired) of the difference between (a) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to the in-place leases and (b) our estimate of the fair market lease rates for the corresponding in-place leases at acquisition, measured over a period equal to the remaining non-cancelable term of the leases. The capitalized above-market lease values are amortized as a reduction of rental income over the remaining non-cancelable terms of the respective leases. The capitalized below-market lease values are amortized as an increase to rental income over the remaining non-cancelable terms of the respective leases. If a tenant vacates its space prior to the contractual termination of the lease and no rental payments are being made on the lease, any unamortized balance of the related intangible will be written off.

      The aggregate value of other acquired intangible assets, consisting of acquired in-place leases and acquired management agreements, are recorded based on a variety of components including, but not necessarily limited to: (a) the value associated with avoiding the cost of originating the acquired in-place leases (i.e. the market cost to execute a lease, including leasing commissions and legal fees, if any); (b) the value associated with lost revenue related to tenant reimbursable operating costs estimated to be incurred during the assumed lease-up period (i.e. real estate taxes, insurance and other operating expenses); (c) the value associated with lost rental revenue from existing leases during the assumed lease-up period; and (d) the value associated with avoided tenant improvement costs or other inducements to secure a tenant lease. The fair value assigned to the acquired management agreements are recorded at the present value (using a discount rate which reflects the risks associated with the management agreements acquired) of the acquired management agreements with certain tenants of the acquired properties. The values of in-place leases and management agreements are amortized to expense over the remaining non-cancelable period of the respective leases or agreements. If a lease were to be terminated prior to its stated expiration, all unamortized amounts related to that lease would be written off.

      A variety of costs are incurred in the acquisition, development, construction, improvements and leasing of properties. After determination is made to capitalize a cost, it is allocated to the specific component of a project that is benefited. Determination of when a development project is substantially complete and capitalization must cease involves a degree of judgment. Our capitalization policy on development properties is guided by SFAS No. 34, Capitalization of Interest Cost and SFAS No. 67, Accounting for Costs and the Initial Rental Operations of Real Estate Properties. The costs of land and buildings under development include specifically identifiable costs. The capitalized costs include pre-construction costs essential to the development of the property, development costs, construction costs, interest costs, real estate taxes, salaries and related costs, and other costs incurred during the period of development. We consider a construction project as substantially completed and held available for occupancy upon the completion of tenant improvements, but no later than one year from cessation of major construction activity. We cease capitalization on the portion substantially completed and occupied or held available for occupancy, and capitalize only those costs associated with the portion under construction. Capitalized costs associated with unsuccessful acquisitions are charged to expense when an acquisition is abandoned.

      Repair and maintenance costs are charged to expense as incurred and significant replacements and betterments are capitalized. Repairs and maintenance costs include all costs that do not extend the useful life of an asset or increase its operating efficiency. Significant replacement and betterments represent costs that extend an asset’s useful life or increase its operating efficiency.

      We compute depreciation and amortization on our properties using the straight-line method based on estimated useful asset lives.

      All leases are classified as operating leases and minimum rents are recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the related lease. The excess of rents recognized over amounts contractually due pursuant to the underlying leases is included in accrued straight-line rents on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and contractually due but unpaid rents are included in accounts receivable. Recoveries from tenants, consisting of amounts due from tenants for real estate taxes, insurance and common area maintenance costs are recognized as revenue in the period the expenses are incurred. The reimbursements are recognized and presented in accordance with EITF, 99-19, Reporting Revenue Gross as a Principal versus Net as an Agent (“EITF 99-19”). EITF 99-19 requires that these reimbursements be recorded gross, as we are generally the primary obligor with respect to purchasing goods and services from third-party suppliers, have discretion in selecting the supplier and bear the credit risk. Lease termination fees are recognized when the related leases are canceled, collectibility is assured, and we have no continuing obligation to provide space to the former tenants.

      We maintain an allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses resulting from the inability of tenants to make required rent and tenant recovery payments or defaults. We also maintain an allowance for accrued straight-line rents and amounts due from lease terminations.

      Payments received under master lease agreements entered into with the sellers of the Bayshore and King of Prussia properties to lease space that was not producing rent at the time of the acquisition are recorded as a reduction to buildings and improvements rather than as rental income in accordance with EITF 85-27, Recognition of Receipts from Made-Up Rental Shortfalls.

      We evaluate our investments in limited liability companies and partnerships under Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (“FIN 46”), an interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51 Consolidated Financial Statements (“ARB 51”). FIN 46 provides guidance on the identification of entities for which control is achieved through means other than voting rights (“variable interest entities” or “VIEs”) and the determination of which business enterprise should consolidate the VIE (the “primary beneficiary”). Generally, FIN 46 applies when either (1) the equity investors (if any) lack one or more of the essential characteristics of a controlling financial interest, (2) the equity investment at risk is insufficient to finance that entity’s activities without additional subordinated financial support or (3) the equity investors have voting rights that are not proportionate to their economic interests and the activities of the entity involve or are conducted on behalf of an investor with a disproportionately small voting interest.

      In June 2005, the FASB ratified the consensus in EITF Issue No. 04-5, Determining Whether a General Partner, or the General Partners as a Group, Controls a Limited Partnership or Similar Entity When the Limited Partners Have Certain Rights (“EITF 04-5”), which provides guidance in determining whether a general partner controls a limited partnership. EITF 04-5 states that the general partner in a limited partnership is presumed to control that limited partnership. The presumption may be overcome if the limited partners have either (1) the substantive ability to dissolve the limited partnership or otherwise remove the general partner without cause or (2) substantive participating rights, which provide the limited partners with the ability to effectively participate in significant decisions that would be expected to be made in the ordinary course of the limited partnership’s business and thereby preclude the general partner from exercising unilateral control over the partnership. If the criteria in EITF 04-5 are met, the consolidation of existing limited liability companies and partnerships accounted for under the equity method may be required. Our adoption of EITF 04-5 is expected to have no effect on net income or stockholders’ equity. EITF 04-5 is effective June 30, 2005 for new or modified limited partnership arrangements and effective January 1, 2006 for existing limited partnership arrangements.

Results of Operations

      The following is a comparison, for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 and for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, of the consolidated operating results of BioMed Realty Trust, Inc., the operating results of 201 Industrial Road, L.P., our predecessor, and the combined operating results of Bernardo Center Drive, Science Center Drive and Balboa Avenue. We refer to Bernardo Center Drive, Science Center Drive and Balboa Avenue as the Combined Contribution Properties. As part of our formation transactions, our predecessor was contributed to us in exchange for 1,461,451 units in our Operating Partnership, and the Combined Contribution Properties, which were under common management with our predecessor, were contributed to us in exchange for 1,153,708 units in our Operating Partnership.

      Our predecessor is considered for accounting purposes to be our acquirer. As such, the historical financial statements presented herein for our predecessor were prepared on a stand-alone basis. The financial statements of the Combined Contribution Properties are presented herein on an historical combined basis. Management does not consider the financial condition and operating results of our predecessor on a stand-alone basis to be indicative of the historical operating results of our company taken as a whole. Therefore, the following discussion relates to the combined historical financial condition and operating results of our predecessor and the Combined Contribution Properties, over which our management has provided continuous common management throughout the applicable reporting periods. Subsequent to the dates they were contributed to us, the financial information for each of our predecessor and the Combined Contribution Properties is included in the financial information for BioMed Realty Trust, which commenced operations on August 11, 2004. Management believes this presentation provides a more meaningful discussion of the financial condition and operating results of BioMed Realty Trust, our predecessor and the Combined Contribution Properties. In order to present these results on a meaningful combined basis, the historical combined financial information for all periods presented includes combining entries to reflect the partner’s capital of our predecessor which was not owned by management.

      The following tables set forth the basis for presenting the historical financial information (in thousands).

      Our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 include the accounts of our predecessor through the date of its contribution to us. Our predecessor is the largest of the properties contributed in our initial public offering and therefore has been identified as the accounting acquirer pursuant to paragraph 17 of SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations. As such, the historical financial statements presented herein for our predecessor were prepared on a stand-alone basis. The financial information for the Combined Contribution Properties also is included through the date of contribution for each property. Subsequent to the dates they were contributed to us, the financial information for each of our predecessor and the Combined Contribution Properties is included in the financial information for BioMed Realty Trust, which commenced operations on August 11, 2004.

      Rental Revenues. Rental revenues increased $67.1 million to $92.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to $25.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase was primarily due to the inclusion of rental revenues for the properties acquired in connection with our initial public offering as well as additional property acquisitions subsequent to our initial public offering. Rental revenues for the additional properties acquired during 2004 and 2005 is net of amortization recorded for acquired above market leases and acquired lease obligations related to below market leases, both related to purchase accounting entries recorded upon acquisition of the interests in these properties.

      Tenant Recoveries. Revenues from tenant reimbursements increased $32.1 million to $42.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to $10.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase was primarily due to the inclusion of tenant reimbursements for the properties acquired in connection with our initial public offering as well as additional property acquisitions subsequent to our initial public offering.

      Other Income. Other income for the year ended December 31, 2005 is comprised primarily of a gain on early termination of the Nektar Therapeutics lease at our Industrial Road property of $3.5 million.

      Rental Operations Expenses. Rental operations expenses increased $34.1 million to $46.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to $12.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase was primarily due to the inclusion of rental operations expenses for the properties acquired in connection with our initial public offering as well as additional property acquisitions subsequent to our initial

public offering. These expenses include insurance, property taxes and other operating expenses, most of which were recovered from the tenants.

      Depreciation and Amortization Expense. Depreciation and amortization expense increased $30.4 million to $39.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to $9.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase was primarily due to the inclusion of depreciation and amortization expense for the properties acquired in connection with our initial public offering as well as additional property acquisitions subsequent to our initial public offering.

      General and Administrative Expenses. General and administrative expenses increased $10.1 million to $13.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to $3.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase was primarily due to the hiring of personnel after our initial public offering, the addition of expenses relating to operating as a public company, the compensation expense related to restricted stock awards during the year ended December 31, 2005, and higher consulting and professional fees associated with corporate governance and Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 implementation. The year ended December 31, 2005 included a $619,000 increase to general and administrative expense resulting from a correction of the expensing of restricted stock grants awarded to our executive officers and other employees at the time of our initial public offering in August 2004 that occurred in the periods prior to the year ended December 31, 2005.

      Interest Income. Interest income increased $1.1 million to $1.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 from $200,000 for the year ended December 31, 2004. This is primarily due to interest earned on funds held by us following the consummation of our initial public offering and our follow-on offering in June 2005.

      Interest Expense. Interest expense increased $18.7 million to $23.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to $4.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase in interest is a result of more overall debt outstanding during 2005 and the write off of $2.0 million of loan fees related to the early repayment and termination of our unsecured credit facility and our $100.0 million unsecured term loan facility, partially offset by a reduction of interest expense in 2005 due to the accretion of debt premium of $1.8 million.

      Minority Interests. Minority interests decreased $100,000 to $1.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2005, compared to $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. The minority interest allocation for 2005 and 2004 are not comparable due to the initial public offering. The 2004 allocation includes the allocation to the limited partner unit holders of our operating partnership, offset by the allocation to the limited partner of our consolidated partnership, King of Prussia, for the period from August 11, 2004 through December 31, 2004, and the percentage allocation to non-controlling interests of the Combined Contribution Properties and for our predecessor for the period January 1, 2004 through date of contribution of the properties. The 2005 allocation includes the allocation to the limited partner unit holders of our operating partnership, offset by the allocation to the limited partners of our consolidated partnership, King of Prussia, for the year ended December 31, 2005.

      Our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 include the accounts of our predecessor through the date of its contribution to us. Our predecessor was the largest of the properties contributed in our initial public offering and therefore has been identified as the accounting acquirer pursuant to paragraph 17 of SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations. As such, the historical financial statements presented herein for our predecessor were prepared on a stand-alone basis. The financial information for the Combined Contribution Properties also is included through the date of contribution for each property. Subsequent to the dates they were contributed to us, the financial information for each of our predecessor and the Combined Contribution Properties is included in the financial information for BioMed Realty Trust, which commenced operations on August 11, 2004.

      Rental Revenues. Rental revenues increased $15.1 million to $25.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to $10.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2003. The increase was

primarily due to the inclusion of rental revenues for the properties acquired in connection with our initial public offering as well as additional property acquisitions subsequent to our initial public offering. Rental revenues for the additional properties acquired during 2004 is net of amortization of the value recorded for acquired above market leases and includes amortization of acquired lease obligations related to below market leases, both related to purchase accounting entries recorded upon acquisition of the interests in these properties.

      Tenant Recoveries. Revenues from tenant reimbursements increased $8.6 million to $10.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to $1.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2003. The increase was primarily due to the inclusion of tenant reimbursements for the properties acquired in connection with our initial public offering as well as additional property acquisitions subsequent to our initial public offering.

      Rental Operations Expenses. Rental operations expenses increased $10.8 million to $12.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to $1.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2003. The increase was primarily due to the inclusion of rental property operations expenses for the properties acquired in connection with our initial public offering as well as additional property acquisitions subsequent to our initial public offering. These expenses include insurance, property taxes and other operating expenses, most of which were recovered from the tenants.

      Depreciation and Amortization Expense. Depreciation and amortization expense increased $7.2 million to $9.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to $1.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2003. The increase was primarily due to the inclusion of depreciation and amortization expense for the properties acquired in connection with our initial public offering as well as additional property acquisitions subsequent to our initial public offering.

      General and Administrative Expenses. General and administrative expenses increased $3.0 million to $3.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to $155,000 for the year ended December 31, 2003. The increase was primarily due to our initial public offering, the hiring of new personnel after our initial public offering, the addition of expenses relating to operating as a public company, and the compensation expense related to restricted stock awards accrued during the period from August 11, 2004 to December 31, 2004.

      Interest Income. Interest income increased to $200,000 for the year ended December 31, 2004 from $34,000 for the year ended December 31, 2003. This is primarily due to interest earned on funds held by us following the consummation of our initial public offering.

      Interest Expense. Interest expense decreased to $4.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 from $5.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2003. The decrease in interest is a result of the payoff of notes related to the Bernardo Center Drive and Balboa Avenue properties in connection with our initial public offering. In addition, interest expense was reduced in 2004 due to the accretion of debt premium, which decreased interest expense by $307,000.

      Minority Interests. Minority interests decreased to $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 from $1.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2003. The minority interest allocation for 2004 and 2003 are not comparable due to the initial public offering. The 2003 allocation was a result of the percentage allocation to non-controlling interests of the Combined Contribution Properties and for our predecessor. The 2004 allocation includes the allocation to the limited partner unit holders of our operating partnership, offset by the allocation to the limited partner of our consolidated partnership, King of Prussia, for the period from August 11, 2004 through December 31, 2004, and the percentage allocation to non-controlling interests of the Combined Contribution Properties and for our predecessor for the period January 1, 2004 through date of contribution of the properties.

Cash Flows

      The following summary discussion of our cash flows is based on the consolidated statements of cash flows in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” and is not meant to be an all inclusive discussion of the changes in our cash flows for the periods presented below (in thousands):

      Our statements of cash flows and those of our predecessor have been combined for the year ended December 31, 2004. The statements of cash flows of our predecessor have been combined with those of the Combined Contribution Properties for the year ended December 31, 2003 because management does not consider the cash flows of our predecessor on a stand-alone basis to be indicative of the historical cash flows of our company taken as a whole.

      Net cash provided by operating activities increased $40.0 million to $54.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to $14.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase was primarily due to the increase in operating income before depreciation and amortization, non-cash compensation expense related to the vesting of restricted common stock, non-cash write off of intangible assets due to lease termination and loan repayment, and changes in other operating assets and liabilities.

      Net cash used in investing activities increased $144.8 million to $602.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to $457.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase was primarily due to amounts paid to acquire interests in real estate properties partially offset by a decrease in funds received from prior owners for security deposits and funds held in escrow for acquisitions.

      Net cash provided by financing activities increased $69.6 million to $540.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to $470.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase was primarily due to secured term loan proceeds offset by principal payments on mortgage loans, payments of dividends and distributions, and lower proceeds from common stock offerings.

      Cash and cash equivalents were $20.3 million and $27.9 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

      Net cash provided by operating activities increased $10.1 million to $14.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to $4.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2003. The increase was primarily due to the acquisition of properties acquired in connection with our initial public offering.

      Net cash used in investing activities increased $457.1 million to $457.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to $105,000 for the year ended December 31, 2003. The increase was primarily due to $458.2 million paid to acquire properties, funds held in escrow for acquisitions, and the repayment of related party payables, partially offset by funds received from prior owners for security deposits and receipts of master lease payments.

      Net cash provided by financing activities increased $475.0 million to $470.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to net cash used of $4.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2003. The increase was primarily due to the net proceeds received from the initial public offering of our common stock

on August 11, 2004 and the exercise of the underwriters’ over-allotment option on August 16, 2004, offset by the payment of offering costs, principal payments on mortgage notes payable, the payment of loan costs, distributions to owners of the predecessor, and dividends paid to stockholders.

      Cash and cash equivalents were $27.9 million and $355,000 at December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

      Our short-term liquidity requirements consist primarily of funds to pay for operating expenses and other expenditures directly associated with our properties, including:

      We expect to satisfy our short-term liquidity requirements through our existing working capital and cash provided by our operations. Our rental revenue, provided by our triple-net leases, and minimal unreimbursed operating expenses generally provide cash inflows to meet our debt service obligations, pay general and administrative expenses, and fund regular distributions.

      Our long-term liquidity requirements consist primarily of funds to pay for scheduled debt maturities, renovations, expansions and other non-recurring capital expenditures that need to be made periodically and the costs associated with acquisitions of properties that we pursue. We expect to satisfy our long-term liquidity requirements through our existing working capital, cash provided by operations, long-term secured and unsecured indebtedness, the issuance of additional equity or debt securities and the use of net proceeds from the disposition of non-strategic assets. We also expect to use funds available under our unsecured revolving credit facility to finance acquisition and development activities and capital expenditures on an interim basis.

      In October 2005, we filed a universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was declared effective in December 2005. The universal shelf registration statement may permit us, from time to time, to offer and sell up to $500 million of debt securities, common stock, preferred stock, warrants and other securities. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to complete any such offerings of securities.

      Our total market capitalization at December 31, 2005 was approximately $1.7 billion based on the market closing price of our common stock at December 31, 2005 of $24.40 per share (assuming the conversion of 2,863,564 operating partnership units into common stock) and our debt outstanding was approximately $513.2 million (exclusive of accounts payable and accrued expenses). As a result, our debt to total market capitalization ratio was approximately 29.8% at December 31, 2005. Our board of directors adopted a policy of limiting our indebtedness to approximately 60% of our total market capitalization. However, our board of directors may from time to time modify our debt policy in light of current economic or market conditions including, but not limited to, the relative costs of debt and equity capital, market conditions for debt and equity securities and fluctuations in the market price of our common stock. Accordingly, we may increase or decrease our debt to market capitalization ratio beyond the limit described above.

      On August 11, 2004, we entered into a $100.0 million revolving unsecured loan agreement, which bore interest at LIBOR plus 1.20%, or higher depending on our leverage ratio, or a reference rate, and was scheduled to expire on August 11, 2007. This credit facility was fully repaid and terminated on May 31, 2005 with funds drawn on our new credit facilities as discussed below.

      On May 31, 2005, we entered into three credit facilities with KeyBank National Association and other lenders under which we initially borrowed $485.0 million of a total of $600.0 million available under these facilities. The credit facilities include an unsecured revolving credit facility of $250.0 million, under which we initially borrowed $135.0 million, an unsecured term loan of $100.0 million and a secured term loan of $250.0 million. We borrowed the full amounts under the unsecured term loan and secured term loan. The

unsecured revolving credit facility has a maturity date of May 30, 2008 and bears interest at a floating rate equal to, at our option, either (1) reserve adjusted LIBOR plus a spread which ranges from 120 to 200 basis points, depending on our leverage, or (2) the higher of (a) the prime rate then in effect plus a spread which ranges from 0 to 50 basis points and (b) the federal funds rate then in effect plus a spread which ranges from 50 to 100 basis points, in each case, depending on our leverage. We may extend the maturity date of the unsecured credit facility to May 30, 2009 after satisfying certain conditions and paying an extension fee, and we may increase the amount of the revolving credit facility to $400.0 million upon satisfying certain conditions. The secured term loan, which has a maturity date of May 30, 2010, is secured by 13 of our properties and bears interest at a floating rate equal to, at our option, either (1) reserve adjusted LIBOR plus 225 basis points or (2) the higher of (a) the prime rate then in effect plus 50 basis points and (b) the federal funds rate then in effect plus 100 basis points. The secured term loan is also secured by our interest in any distributions from these properties and a pledge of the equity interests in a subsidiary owning one of these properties. We may not prepay the secured term loan prior to May 31, 2006. We entered into an interest rate swap agreement in connection with the closing of the credit facilities, which will have the effect of fixing the interest rate on the secured term loan at 6.4%. The $100.0 million unsecured term loan facility was fully repaid with the proceeds from our follow-on common stock offering and terminated on June 27, 2005. At December 31, 2005, we had $17.0 million in outstanding borrowings on our unsecured revolving credit facility and $250.0 million in outstanding borrowings on our secured term loan.

      The terms of the credit agreements include certain restrictions and covenants, which limit, among other things, the payment of dividends, and the incurrence of additional indebtedness and liens. The terms also require compliance with financial ratios relating to the minimum amounts of net worth, fixed charge coverage, unsecured debt service coverage, interest coverage, the maximum amount of secured, variable-rate and recourse indebtedness, leverage ratio, and certain investment limitations. The dividend restriction referred to above provides that, except to enable us to continue to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we will not for any fiscal quarter ended on or prior to September 30, 2005 or during any four consecutive quarters thereafter, make distributions with respect to common stock or other equity interests in an aggregate amount in excess of 95% of funds from operations, as defined, for such period, subject to other adjustments or make distributions in excess of 100% of funds available for distribution, as defined, for such period, subject to other adjustments. Management believes that it was in compliance with the covenants as of December 31, 2005.

      A summary of our outstanding consolidated mortgage notes payable as of December 31, 2005 is as follows (in thousands):