Good afternoon and welcome. This conference call contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. The company’s actual results may differ materially from these projected in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements is contained in the company’s annual report on Form 10-K and its other periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. And now, I would like to turn the call over to Joel Marcus. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Rhonda, and welcome everybody to the second quarter conference call. With me are Dean Shigenaga, Peter Moglia, Krupal Raval, and Amanda Cashin. Maybe starting with one quote that kind of firms up the current state of affairs in the macro world with Steve Wins recent statement about both the administration and politics, the greatest web blanket to business progress and job creation, and that is, it looks like the environment we’re working in. From the President’s address to the nation on Monday evening regarding the debt ceiling debate, I think there is one hopeful commentary on a micro basis for our sector. We all want a government that lies within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country, things like new roads and bridges, weather satellite, food inspection, services to veterans and medical research. So I think our collective view internally is that the NIH’s $31 billion annual budget run rate will likely be preserved, if we get a budget. Also note that the FDA, it’s also positive to note that the FDA drug approval rate for 2011 is on pace to well exceed that of 2010. 20 new drugs approved to date, just one shy of the 21 approved in all of 2010. I think another very interesting article is the July 2011 Journal of American Medical Association, which portends well for the biopharma industry. The study found, which confirms one of our overall key macro pieces that the Medicare Part D drug coverage actually leads to a substantial cut in other healthcare spending by about 10% of our patients. So the drugs were actually saving money in the other sectors of the healthcare pie, which we have stated for a long time. Moving on to the state of the business – our business today, probably the most significant item is the successful achievement in our initial investment grade credit rating committees in S&P. It is a significant and important milestone for the company. It’s gratifying to know that the agencies highlighted Alexandria’s high-quality tenant based stability of occupancy strength of cash flow, quality of location of our assets, experience and expertise in management, and our leadership in the life science real estate space. Moving on to leasing, we did have among the second highest quarter or about the second highest quarter leasing in the company’s history, which was about 728,000 square feet. GAAP rates increased about 3.1%, and we believe, for the balance of the year, we’ll be in the same range. We had solid activity this quarter, driving Maryland's leasing, but faced some rental rate pressures there. We didn’t see strong leasing activity in a positive fashion from Greater Boston. Also on the occupancy front, we had one new route in our Route 128 59,000 square foot building, which will increase our occupancy next quarter as that has been our release. That was just a timing item with the quarter. We also had a solid 148,000 square foot development, redevelopment leasing quarter this – during the second quarter. I think we’re making solid progress on the lease up of redevelopment assets. You can look at page 45 of the supplement and expect more lease-ups in the third and fourth quarters, particularly strong from San Diego and Massachusetts. We’re also likely to see some more development asset pickup, page 46 of the supplement, in the third and fourth quarter. We have a strong corporate focus on Mission Bay and East Jamie Court assets. East Jamie Court is nearing completion on suites for four new tenants occupying through the six floors as the project activity is really moderate and we’re tracking a number of emerging stage companies with upcoming needs for tours and meetings as we continue to press our case to provide high-quality facilities as a key differentiator from secondary or generation sub-leases. Mission Bay continues overall; it’s star PL as we have recently completed a transaction with Pfizer’s CTI entity at 1700 Owens. It’s important to note that the former innovation engines are highly selective in their locations, much like their new Pfizer coming back in Mission Bay. The CTI group is a key tenant in our New York property. We have initiated a formal marketing campaign for 499 and we are receiving positive reception in the market as we expected from a variety of user groups, including life science, clinical, medical and technology toward the beginning of the project. We expect to be highly selective in working with these types of entities over the coming quarters. We also see an opportunity to push rental rates greater than our performance. For the third and fourth quarter, we see solid leasing prospects in virtually all our markets. Remaining 2011 rolls, we’ve got 984,000 square feet rolling over the next two quarters, about 22% are leased or likely to be completed. About 42% are in redevelopment, primarily two big buildings, as you know, almost 200,000 feet or 400 Tech Square conversion. We are expecting Forrester Research Tech building over the coming quarter. Our initial preleasing discussions are going very well. We are looking at a good lease up and a strong ROI much like our 200 Tech Square conversion project. The second big redevelopment is the Gates Foundation building coming back to us again next quarter. We were already 55% pre-leased before they moved out, with very good upside for 116,000 square feet. Regarding the balance of 2011 rolls, 36% is marketing up 346,000 square feet. We also signed our last lease for the remaining lab space with the Alexandria Center for Life Science, New York of about 5,000 feet, and all we have left are a few office spaces on one of the floors. We just opened a state-of-the-art urban farm there, which is getting a lot of attention in New York City. On our 2012 lease rolls, 1.4 million square feet are about 25% leased or likely to be leased. Two small buildings, about 5% are going into redevelopment for conversion and the balance about 69%, 70% are being marketed with balanced exposure in San Diego, San Francisco, Greater Boston, Suburban, D.C. and Seattle. For occupancy over the third and fourth quarter, we’re expecting pickups in San Diego and Greater Boston. On new developments, we signed a 307,000 square foot, 15-year lease at our 225 Binney Street project, part of the Alexandria Center for Life Science, Kendall Square with Biogen Idec, a truly outstanding company. The building will be office but will also handle lab. We have solid ramps, and George Scangos, whom we’ve known for many years, the CEO, commented on his move back from Western to Cambridge, noting that they need to be where the heart of innovation and research is. They didn’t want a split function of office in the suburbs and research in the city. So I think that’s a good win for Cambridge. On the international front, we think that medium to long-term international exposure is positively impacted, as there is a different growth trajectory overseas, which will benefit Alexandria over many years to come. Moving first to the Mars announcement, they announced the kick-off of the second phase of 764,000 square feet, substantially financing at 100% on outstanding terms from the provincial government. Our structure and investment return will be similar to that of a sub-ground leaser and it’s in one of the absolute best locations in Toronto’s medical discovery district. Regarding India, there have been press reports about Alexandria's investments, some of which are unfortunately unsubstantiated, while others may be directionally correct but possibly wrong in detail. Consistent with our communication with our investors and analysts, we intend to allocate capital and invest our resources in key markets prudently. Recent press reports have highlighted our entry into the developer role for the Bangalore Helix project, which is accurate, but the project has been in focus for several years. Those following the company since 2007 will recall that this was the project we shortlisted then but was held back due to internal governmental issues. What is not accurate in the press reports are many of the details. As the master developer of Bangalore Helix, our full scope of the project is larger than our current capital investment. Over the next five years, we anticipate building out approximately 600,000 square feet of technical space, with a total investment of about $100 million. Our investment so far has been less than $15 million, given site work and normal billing cycles. Our first facility is expected to be ready in early 2014. Finally, regarding our underwriting standards for international investments, we take pride in our conservative underwriting for any investments. In order to earn a risk-adjusted return for our investors, we focus on earning a premium of several basis points after tax about what we can earn domestically. It’s arguably premature to discuss specific economic details, but we aim to help investors digest the opportunity more fully. I will now turn it over to Dean.

Thanks, Joe. Good afternoon, everyone. Jumping right in here, we reported FFO per share diluted of $1.15. This excludes the $1.2 million write-off of unamortized loan fees related to the early repayment of our term loan. We reported earnings per share diluted of $0.44. Turning to the balance sheet, let me provide a brief overview of our recent amendment to our term loan. This transaction represents a key milestone in pushing out our last significant 2012 debt maturity. We’ve raised about $500 million of incremental bank debt capital, extending our maturity ultimately to 2016. The pricing on the term loan is at 1.75% over one month LIBOR. This leaves us with about $250 million outstanding on our 2012 term loan. As you look at our debt maturity schedule on page 29, you’ll see the highlighted debt maturities have been pushed out to 2015 and beyond. Subsequent to quarter-end, we’ve repurchased $82 million of our 3.7% convertible notes, leaving us with approximately $125 million outstanding today. Next, turning to the balance sheet, capital structure and equity objectives over the coming quarters and years, we’re clearly committed to maintaining a broad and diverse set of sources of capital. As you know, in July, Moody’s Investors Service affirmed an AA2 stable issuer rating to Alexandria and Standard & Poor’s assigned a BBB- corporate credit rating to the company. As a result, we expect to tap the unsecured bond market in 2011, subject to market conditions. We’re committed to maintaining low leverage and solid credit metrics. We fully expect to reduce and eliminate convertible debt from our capital structure, looking toward further laddering of debt maturities, transitioning from variable rate bank debt to fixed rate unsecured bonds. It’s crucial for us to maintain adequate liquidity from net cash provided by our operating activities, cash on hand, and availability under our line of credit. We expect to fund and grow dividends from increasing operating cash flows while retaining positive cash flows for investments into acquisitions and redevelopment projects. Looking out over the next six quarters through the end of 2012, we anticipate future capital needs to be sourced with approximately 50% equity, with that equity including proceeds from selective recycling of capital through asset sales. Moving next to credit metrics, our net debt-to-EBITDA was about 6.5 times for the second quarter annualized, and we expect this ratio to improve over time, with some variance quarterly. Financial covenants under our credit facility are as follows: Leverage was 34%, the covenants are 60%; unsecured leverage is at 35%, the covenants are 60%; fixed charge coverage ratio was 2.4 times; the current quarter annualized was 2.5 times, and the covenant is 1.5 times; our unsecured debt yield is in the 15% to 16% range, and the covenant is 12%. Turning to the uses and sources of capital for the remainder of 2011, uses aggregate about $768 million consisting of approximately $50 million on acquisitions, about $244 million in construction spending including redevelopment, development, and pre-construction costs. We anticipate common dividends of at least $56 million, repayment secured debt of about $93 million, repayment of our 2012 term loan of $250 million, and retiring of about $75 million of our 3.7% notes. Sources for our cash for the remainder of 2011 will include our available line of credit, net cash flows projected at about $100 million annually, assets on land sales projected to be about $75 million, and as previously mentioned we plan to complete an unsecured debt financing. Briefly mentioning same property performance, we reported year-to-date same property NOI growth of 0.5% and 6.5% on a GAAP and cash basis respectively. These results exclude termination fees and reflect contractual increases in cash rents, which were executed in late 2008 and 2009 with some free rent. Additionally, operating expenses in the same property pool were up about 8%. As a reminder, 95% of our leases are triple net and fluctuations in operating expenses are cast through and recovered from our tenants. Briefly on G&A, G&A was up about $1.2 million from last quarter reflecting acquisition costs related to the purchase of a property in Mission Bay, and a measured increase in payroll and other costs related to the growth in the breadth of our business. Lastly, turning to guidance for 2011, we updated our guidance primarily for capital-related matters. We anticipate FFO per share diluted in a range of $4.37 to $4.42, and EPS diluted in a range of $1.82 to $1.87. Our guidance is based on various underlying assumptions and reflects our outlook for 2011, including some impacts relating to the early extinguishment of debt and the timing of additional term loan. I think that provides an overview of our position, and with that, I will turn it back to Joel.

So operator, we are ready for Q&A, please.

(Operator Instructions) And we’ll take our first question from Anthony Paolone with JP Morgan.

Hi, thanks. Good afternoon. You mentioned some build-to-suit activity that you’re still having discussions on – and then Cambridge and also in New York. I was wondering if you can give us an update on progress in New York in the potential West Tower there.

We don’t have any specific news to report, Tony. But I would say that given our fairly intensive marketing program that we put together and have been organizing over the past month or two, coupled with the legacy demand that we had on the East Tower of about 200,000 feet. We look positively at the prospects in New York. We delivered the first phase impact, I think, back in August to Lilly. And as I’ve said, we just signed our last lease for the last small piece of lab space just this past quarter. Now we’re full other than, I think we’ve got four small office spaces on the 15th floor. So I don’t have anything specifically to report today. But I think we’re optimistic that New York City is a strong market with increasing rents, and there is certainly a strong demand from a variety of sectors where there are no alternatives. A number of groups are looking to stay in Manhattan and not relocate to New Jersey, Connecticut, or Long Island. On the Cambridge front, I think we’ve just digested our negotiation and kick off of the project with Biogen Idec. So, we’ll keep you posted, but we do have at least two very interested parties for one or more of the other four buildings and we’ll keep the market updated over the coming quarters. But we think there is good momentum in Cambridge after initial worries that with Vertex moving out, the narrative would suggest that the market was losing tenants. However, we all know that was a unique situation based on that yield and their desire to be on the waterfront.

Okay. Is the idea still to focus on about 50% pre-leasing, before you start in either of those markets?

Yeah. I think that would be the minimum. We expect that would likely be higher. In Cambridge, it would be substantially north of that, because we’re likely looking at full or heavy substantial building users. In New York, it’s hard to say because we could certainly go forward if we had 200,000 square feet out of 400, since we think the market has good demand. But we’re trying to be prudent in managing our spending while keeping in mind our new investment grade status and all the metrics we need to pay attention to.

Got it. On the Toronto deals, can you give us a little bit more detail on things like the structure, how much capital do you have in the deal right now, and sort of the leasing commitment that exists? There has been some press on that project, and I want to understand exactly–

Yeah. I want to be careful because we’re not in the driver's seat on the project. MaRS itself is providing a 100% of the financing at extremely favorable rates from the provincial government. They’ve announced, I think, two significant institutional releases. I think it’s fair to say that the building is substantially committed. We have about $75 million in the project, and as I said, our structure is essentially similar to that of a sub-ground lessor with rates that are more or less in line with what that role would generally hold. We will work with MaRS strategically on leasing and the marketing side, but we don’t have any responsibility anymore for construction, nor are we responsible for the loan. The situation is actually beneficial for everybody involved.

At the end of construction, is this like a construction line, or will it stay with the property for the duration? Are you guys kind of done on the capital side in terms of having to extend?

Hi, Tony. It is Peter Moglia. This is a construction loan, it’s going to fully fund the remainder of the building. It will be in place for approximately three years until the building is completely stabilized. There is also a commitment to permanently finance it out. So financing looks really good, and there is no need for Alexandria’s capital to do anything further.

Okay, got it. And just a couple of questions. Just on the leasing side. Is your 2012 lease expirations moved up sequentially? What happened there?

Yeah. I believe – you said 2012?

Yeah.

Yeah. We had one space in Seattle, I believe about 64,000 square feet, where the life science entities exercised a right to terminate a portion of their space, which they did. The good news is, we were aware of it. Seattle is a very positive market for Alexandria and our asset base there. We are engaged in early discussions with several quality entities to take that space.

Yeah. That was, Tony, to be specific, that space is now all office. It’s occupied by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and they are relocating that office elsewhere. However, the demand is extremely strong; we’re around 1% vacancy in Seattle, and we’re over 55% pre-leased for the future conversion of the Gates Foundation building. So we view this as a good opportunity to lease it immediately for office, but we have a desire to potentially convert it to lab, because the rents are very strong in Seattle. In fact, on the office side, as you may know, Amazon just increased their South Lake Union presence from 1 million to almost 2 million square feet. So that market has been on fire.

Okay, good. In Cambridge, with Forrester leaving the couple of hundred thousand square feet there, do you think the downtime goes into 2012 before you have a replacement tenant and start receiving rent on that, or what’s the process there?

For sure, before we start seeing rent, I think the conversion time is probably 12 to 18 months because it’s a big building, and it’s complicated redevelopment. However, we already have at least advanced discussions for probably half the building or more, potentially even more of that we might be able to announce over the coming quarters. We are seeing demand to be extremely strong, and we know there are several office users that could come in potentially, which could accelerate it, but we’re primarily focused on engaging with two big lab users.

Got it. Thank you.

And next, we’ll move to Michael Bilerman with Citi.

Hi, it’s Quentin here with Michael. Just firstly in terms of your land held for future development, the international land held went up by that 1.8 million square feet. Can you just walk us through what some of the increases were, I’m not sure whether it was from the Bangalore Helix project you mentioned, or if there are other projects that have come in there?

Yeah. It’s primarily from two projects, one in Hyderabad and another in the north of the country. These are generally opportunities where we could either purchase land or enter bids for land with the government that come up from time to time, which we have to respond to otherwise we lose that opportunity. Timing is less within our control than it is, just seizing opportunities when they arise.

Right. I think you mentioned that your share of Bangalore Helix would be $100 million, how are you arriving at that?

Right, over the five-year period.

Right. So these additional projects, over a five-year period, what could we be looking at in total out of CapEx in India?

Well, I think in the project we mentioned, that’s about $100 million over five years, about $20 million a year. We will try to provide better visibility over the next quarter or so as we begin to highlight some of the specific locations we’re in. But I would say, Dean, as you look into 2012, what number would you assign to that?

Well, in the prepared section of our call, we highlighted that our stand prediction over the next six months averages about $34 million. I would expect that number to increase modestly in 2012, and we’ll provide a better outlook over the next 12 months.

Okay. And then, just one more from me, and I think Michael has got one. Just in terms of the credit ratings and if you read the language, it’s very particular about the volume of development you do. How much sort of on an annual run rate, what volume in dollars millions are you comfortable doing?

Yeah, I think our goal is to manage leasing risk while balancing the development dollars. But I think the ultimate governance will really be about maintaining balance and not having too much under construction at any given point in time. On the development side in the U.S., we’re being prudent about having significant ventures initiated vertically by us, not just purchasing developments to complete. The most recent one in Cambridge has been fully pre-leased with the Cambridge Biogen deal, clearly being 100% occupied.

Thanks, Dean. I just had a couple of questions. I was thinking about the Canada project and just recalling back in ‘07, there was a lot of fanfare regarding the globalization of your business, the internationalization of your business creating a life science cluster in Canada. Do you think, with Edinburgh, Scotland, that project in China, and now you have India; just how all those have panned out relative to your expectations. Can you talk a little bit about what’s been beneficial and what has disappointed you, and how you think about it?

Sure. That’s a great question. I would say, the environment we’re in today is substantially different than in 2005, 2006, and 2007, when we looked at moving internationally. It’s clear that pharma companies are looking at 20% to 30% growth rates in many emerging markets, and we have to pay attention to that change. However, when it comes to more micro-level analyses, we’ve always looked at the Canadian market, for example, as a target, where we see high-quality real estate, low cap rates, but also a market that doesn’t often offer many projects because of tax reasons, which led us to build our presence in the greater Vancouver and Montreal areas, and more recently in Toronto. I think in retrospect, this turnaround after the crash and achieving investment-grade status was a good direction for us. Knowing what we do now, we might have avoided some of the international projects we pursued, like in Canada or Europe. However, our decision to invest in Asia has proven to be important. We have made strategic decisions, and although we have limited direct exposure in Scotland, we have long-term options if anything develops there. In contrast, we have more orders than we can currently take in India, so we see that as a huge opportunity. Ultimately, I think our choices have worked out well.

I appreciate that framework. Just to clarify regarding your comments about the $0.05 impact from terming out your floating rate debt. Can we think about what that would be on an annualized basis? I know it’s a little circular because you’re phasing out your debt, however, all of these rates are likely going to increase, and your capitalizing rate will also factor into that.

Yeah. I think you articulated the question and the methodology regarding our potential business impacts very thoroughly, Michael. If you apply the numbers that you provided, I don’t have the exact calculations, but as you stated, if we had $500 million at a 5% interest rate, and you were targeting $250 million to repay nearly 1% on the LIBOR, the difference between those rates would apply to outstanding borrowings on our line of credit, which currently is at 2.4% over one month LIBOR. There is a differential between those two interest rates. You’re correct that roughly half of that costs will be capitalized for future growth, so the overall impact of the higher cost of capital due to refinancing will be less severe. The final impact will depend heavily on our mix of fixed-rate and floating-rate debt overall throughout the interest capitalization calculation.

Right. But if, for some rough math, if we did $500 million at a 350 basis point spread, that could lead to almost a $0.30 per share cash dilution, which would suggest that our 2012 estimates would have to come down by about $0.15.

But keep in mind, in this scenario, while $250 million will go to repay the term loan, the remaining will go towards paying down or line of credit. We’re also focused on retiring 3.7% notes, which adds a GAAP impact of 6% for those notes. So, while the math is complex, if you keep it simple, half goes to the term loan and the other half goes to our line of credit. I agree with your calculations, but there’s also the complexities of other debts being managed as well, and we expect to move toward variable rates as you might expect LIBOR rates to trend upwards rather than downwards.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

(Operator Instructions) And next we’ll move on to Sheila McGrath with Bruyette & Woods.

Yes. Joel, I was wondering if you could give us some color on any interest at the new Mission Bay acquisition on the vacant space there.

At this moment, I don’t have any specifics about the types of tenants, but we have had good showings and discussions with life science clinical, medical offers and technology. I think over the coming quarter, we’ll be able to provide a more granular overview of that tenant interest, but I would say the existing vacancies are concerning given the overall vacancy trends in the market.

I just want to remind you that we underwrote this assuming we’d get our first tenant in that space by month 13, and then that we would lease it up over 24 months total. We are taking our time to ensure we stretch ranks, since we have high rental rates versus what we anticipated, and we want to be patient and accomplish our goals before reducing our asks.

Okay. I wanted to ask a quick question on the editorial we all saw, I believe coming from the CEO of Merck, discussing how the government shouldn’t block innovation through legislation. I'm wondering if you could highlight any legislative items in Washington that your tenants are keeping a close watch on.

I may have Amanda comment generally, but I’d say there are three significant issues presently. The big one is the overall budget and any negative impacts on NIH, so that’s clearly an issue. There’s also legislation that looks likely to move regarding patent systems, which could be good or bad, as it’s transitioning from first-to-invent to first-to-file. That impacts either side of the industry, and so there will need to be careful interpretations by Congress. Finally, another issue is data exclusivity. There’s discussion about reducing the time that biologics are protected from data, currently at 12 years down to possibly 7 years, which would potentially hinder innovation.

From the tenant perspective, we’re hearing concerns about the potential for reduced exclusivity periods, and how that might impact significant R&D results in the longer term.

So I guess may be just one more thing to mention on the legislative issues is you have to note that decreased protection timelines for biologics would inevitably impact the incentives to invest in the biologics sector, although we believe that it is unlikely that Congress would move to the 7-year mark.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks.

And we’ll move on to Jonathan Habermann with Goldman Sachs.

Hi, good afternoon. Joel, can you talk about asset sales as a source of capital? I know you mentioned, I think $75 million on the back half of the year, but curious how you view the source of that capital beyond the current year and how you think about asset sales in that context?

Yeah. I think as I stated in my opening remarks, we have moved towards a position where we’d like to liquidate a number of non-core land parcels in various sub-markets, for a variety of reasons. The overall value of finding opportunities to sell these non-income producing parcels increased after the last economic downturn. We're actively engaging with these opportunities and you may see some successes unfold in the coming quarters, and years ahead.

Jerry, we’ve been referencing one particular land site for some time now; it’s been under contract and we can likely expect to close in the third quarter.

That’s helpful. If you could speak briefly about market rent growth; what you’re seeing across some of your core markets, whether it’s Seattle, San Francisco, or Cambridge?

I would say, certainly in Seattle, we see a stable positive rent trajectory. We’re beginning to see positive transitions in the rental rates of properties reaching maturity in the existing phases of development, which is what we want to see moving forward. As Peter mentioned, we’re having good positive results with new developments. South San Francisco has struggled a bit, but we’ve been able to keep relative stability in rental pricing even with the existences of subleased spaces. In Santiago, we’re actually seeing better rental rates, along with high levels of demand compared to earlier downturns. We’ve witnessed improved rates and activity in Cambridge, while Maryland has been weaker. Overall, New York is performing well with stable demand.

Essentially, San Diego has gained strength lately, while South San Francisco shows softer pocket areas. We've been maintaining between $2.00 and $2.75 in Mid-Peninsula and South San Francisco, but we’re excited to see that Santiago has been rapidly increasing rental rates leading up our returns. Even in the case of sweat-equity increases, Seattle remains steady with highs and lows of vacancy ultimately balancing out. In Massachusetts, we’re seeing consistency, although Maryland is lagging a bit in terms of rental activities, we are not seeing any critical declines in tenant demand.

Okay. And just last question, if I may have misunderstood or missed this, but have you identified the assets that you’ve targeted for the $50 million of acquisitions later this year? Have you identified those specific assets so far?

We have a few negotiations ongoing for land sites, the most advanced being the one I've referenced earlier that will likely close in the third quarter.

Thank you, Dean, on the land under contract expecting to close in the third quarter. What is the order of magnitude on those parcels?

High teens; it’s just south of 20.

Okay. Joel, I know you said that you don’t have any balance sheet exposure in Scotland. I think a year ago, I had the impression that one of the land parcels was in Scotland – was that an option exercise of some kind, or has that already been resolved, and what’s the story there?

Yeah, I can’t recall the exact timeline. It seems like it’s been at least two years since we sold a portion of the land that was tied under an option, at a minor level we recovered our transaction costs and got it back out of our options. What we do have to tie in our balance sheet related to Scotland is primarily diligence and development costs associated with planning for the project. Based on what we understand about long-term demand in that area and our favorable option agreements, we strongly believe we’ll be able to transfer the option to others in time.

Okay. And being just sticking with the same line here, it looks like the international land held for development increased by 1.8 million square feet during the quarter. Can you explain what drove that increase?

Yeah. I think in the question that Quentin at Citi Group asked, I mentioned that the increase primarily stemmed from land acquisitions in Hyderabad and in the north. These land opportunities sometimes come up through governmental bids or auctions, and if we’re looking at sub-markets where we feel strongly positioned, we have to respond or lose those opportunities.

Understood. Going back to Joe’s comments, can you describe the ownership interest you have in the Bangalore projects? I know you said the $100 million is your share, but are you the master developer? What’s the financing structure like?

No. It’s a 60-year ground lease where we are responsible for helping master plan the site adjacent to the prime technology center in Bangalore, where many of the major technology companies are located. The location could not be better, and we’ve been focused on this for a long time. In addition to our master planning responsibilities, the government is involved in the incentives arrangement, and we have a financial commitment to build out 600,000 square feet of technical space over the next few years.

Just to clarify one point, you did state that this was a joint venture earlier, but it’s not a joint venture at all, right?

Correct. It’s not a joint venture; it’s purely a grand lease arrangement.

Got it. Okay. And then lastly, I thought you mentioned a 600,000 square foot buildout for $100 million. That would average to about $165 per square foot, which seems higher than I would have expected.

To that point, it does vary depending on what’s being built. We’re likely building for significant U.S. or European firms. We plan to announce our first major pharma signing there in the coming quarters. The technical infrastructure has to meet international standards, and we plan to produce a proper balance of local cost efficiencies with high technical quality.

(Operator Instructions) And we will conclude the question and answer session. I will turn the call back over to Mr. Marcus for any additional or closing remarks.

Okay. Thank you, everybody. We’re a little over an hour, but thank you very much, and we’ll talk to you on the third quarter call.

And that will conclude today’s call. We thank you for your participation.