Commercial Lease Abstracts

Produced 31 July 2026

Verifiable by you

Where this came from

REGENXBIO Inc., Exhibit 10.33 to the FY2015 Form 10-K, SEC accession 0001564590-16-013941

A complete, executed, wholly unredacted commercial lease. An earlier candidate was rejected because it carried 123 redaction markers and zero dollar figures, which makes a rent schedule impossible to recompute.

The rent schedule ties to the cent, and the escalation clause does not exist.

The schedule looks like 3 percent compounding and is not. Year-over-year change runs between 2.974 and 3.021 percent because the dollar-per-square-foot figures are rounded independently each year, and the annual amounts are derived from those rounded rates. The only "3%" anywhere in the 241,178-character document is a management fee cap on building expenses. Writing "3 percent annual escalation" into a lease-accounting system would be wrong, would not tie to the document, and would compound through the right-of-use asset and liability schedules. So the operative rent is reported as the stated table, and the absence of a formula is flagged rather than filled.

Figures from the run

Fields abstracted, each with a section cite
44
Total cash fixed rent, recomputed
$3,518,230.24
Paid months of the 91-month term
84
Rentable square feet
16,116
Rent per square foot, first to last lease year
$28.00 to $34.44
Amendment chain applied in order
4 documents

Checks

  • met Every field carries a page and section cite to the operative document 44 of 44 fields carry an exact section cite. The source is an HTML exhibit with no pagination, so page numbers do not exist to cite and were not invented; the page-cite mechanism was proven separately against a paginated PDF.
  • met The recomputed rent schedule ties to the escalation clause as written Annual ties to 16,116 square feet times the printed rate at every row, and monthly ties to annual divided by twelve, both to the cent. There is no escalation clause, and that is reported rather than papered over.
  • met Amendments are applied in order and the superseding language is cited Run against a real four-document chain with the superseding language quoted from each. Reading those amendments as a pile rather than a sequence would have understated the tenant’s share of one building by about 31 percentage points.
  • met ASC 842-10-25-2 classification facts captured with cites, conclusion left to the controller All five criteria addressed. Two cannot be completed from the lease alone - remaining economic life, and the discount rate and fair value - so they are flagged as not determinable rather than filled with an assumption that would look finished.
  • met Any term the documents leave ambiguous is flagged rather than resolved Six flags, including the missing escalation clause, a commencement date that is contingent rather than a date, and an abatement that becomes payable on default.

Limits

Bounds

Self-assessed by the party who would sell the work. It has not been independently reviewed.

It shows the artifact can be made to the published standard. It does not show throughput at volume.

It is not a client engagement. No client work is shown anywhere on this site, because none exists.

The unit · Order it