Starwood Increases Offer Purchase Price

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (NYSE: HOT) today announced that it has increased its offer price to purchase all of the limited partnership units of Westin Hotels Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”), the owner of the Michigan Avenue Hotel, to $700 per unit, less the amount of any cash distributions made or declared with respect to the units on or after December 22, 2003. This is an increase of $75 per unit from Starwood`s earlier offer.

With this increased offer, Starwood extended the period of time during which the offer and related consent solicitation will remain open until 5:00 p.m., Eastern time, Friday, January 23, 2004, unless further extended.

As of 5:00 p.m., Eastern time, December 19, 2003, a total of approximately 25,521 units (representing approximately 18.82% of the 135,600 outstanding units) had been validly tendered and not withdrawn.

In a letter mailed to the Partnership`s unitholders today announcing the increased $700 offer price and extended expiration date, Starwood announced that this may be the last opportunity for unitholders to receive such a substantial premium for their units. Starwood believes that its amended offer - the only offer for the units - is a compelling economic opportunity for all unitholders.

In the letter, Starwood urged unitholders to carefully consider the terms of its enhanced offer and keep in mind the following:


— Starwood`s offer represents at least a $150 premium over other
recent offers for the units and a substantial premium over the
prices at which units have changed hands in other recently
reported transactions. Starwood`s offer would provide all
unitholders with short-term liquidity at this substantial
— If unitholders do not tender their units in Starwood`s offer
and consent to the related proposals, they may not have
another opportunity to receive such a substantial premium for
their units. The offer is conditioned on more than 50% of the
unitholders tendering their units and delivering their
consents to Starwood. Accordingly, if this 50% threshold is
not exceeded, unitholders will not be able to sell their units
to Starwood under this offer. If another party makes a higher
offer for the units after unitholders have tendered them to
Starwood, unitholders can withdraw them before Starwood`s
offer is consummated and accept the higher offer.

In the letter, Starwood advised unitholders to seriously consider tendering their units and delivering their consents to Starwood after consulting with their financial and tax advisors and considering the information set forth in the Offer to Purchase and Solicitation Statement, which was mailed to them on November 4, 2003 and is available on the SEC`s website.

Starwood`s Offer Is an Attractive Option for Unitholders
In the letter to unitholders, Starwood expressed its belief that unitholders should find its offer very attractive for a number of reasons, including the following:

— The offer provides unitholders with a prompt way to receive cash for all of their units;— The market for the units is limited. Because the units are thinly traded, if unitholders do not tender their units in Starwood`s offer they may not otherwise be able to sell them at an attractive price;
— Starwood`s offer price of $700 per unit represents a 27.3% premium over the two recent offers by Kalmia Investors LLC and a 33.3% premium over the offer by Windy City Investments LLC in July 2003. In addition, the offer price represents a 71.6% premium over the weighted average price in transactions reported to the Partnership over the twelve months ended March
31, 2003, which Starwood believes may be a more accurate
reflection of the trading range for units absent competing offers;
  — Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin Financial Advisors, Inc., the Partnership`s financial advisor, found that the Windy City offer of $525 per unit, which did not include a change of control premium for the Partnership, was fair to unitholders. Starwood`s offer represents premiums of 54.2%, 39.0% and 26.6%
over the low, middle and high points, respectively, of the range of unit values that Houlihan Lokey determined in analyzing the Windy City offer. Starwood believes that the premiums of its initial and enhanced offers over those values as well as over the Windy City and other recent offers are substantial enough to include a control premium; and —  for the units will emerge in the near future:
— As the Partnership noted in a recent SEC filing, the fact that the Partnership is essentially up for sale is well known in the real estate investment community.  Sophisticated investors know they can submit a bid for either the units or the Michigan Avenue Hotel itself, yet no offer superior to Starwood`s offers has been made;  — Although the Partnership`s financial results have generally improved during the past year, those resultshave been uneven. The Partnership`s financial results for November 2003 showed a significant decline from November
2002 and the Partnership itself has stated in a recent SEC
filing that the recovery in the hotel real estate market may not be sustained;  — Despite statements by Windy City and other unitholders to the contrary, there can be no assurance that unitholders would receive more per unit than Starwood`s offer price upon a sale of the Michigan Avenue Hotel by the Partnership; and
  — While Starwood is offering to acquire the Partnership and the Michigan Avenue Hotel on an “as is” basis, other
bidders for the hotel itself may require representations
and warranties from the Partnership regarding the hotel`s
condition and financial performance, as well as a partial
purchase price holdback, all of which could purchase price and delay payment.
The Process Has Been Fair:
In the letter, Starwood expressed its strong belief that the process relating to its offer has been fair for the — The independence of the Partnership`s General Partner with
respect to Starwood`s offer is demonstrated by the
Partnership`s neutral position regarding Starwood`s initial
offer (the same position the Partnership took with respect to
the Kalmia and Windy City offers), the opinion of Houlihan
Lokey that Starwood`s initial offer was not fair to
unitholders and the General Partner`s refusal to meet with
Starwood to discuss its offer;
— The Partnership has retained Houlihan Lokey as its independent financial advisor to evaluate Starwood`s offer as well as
competing offers and a leading international law firm as its
legal counsel to provide independent legal advice regarding
these matters;
— Starwood and the Partnership instituted an information screen
between the people at Starwood who are involved in the offerand the directors of the Partnership`s General Partner to prevent the unintended exchange of information between
Starwood and the Partnership regarding the offer and competing
— Neither Starwood nor the General Partner has prevented any
other party from making a competing offer for the Partnership
and there are no legal or structural impediments to another
offer. Anyone is free to make a competing offer at a higher
price, yet no one has. While Kalmia and Windy City have
criticized Starwood`s earlier offer, the only offers by these
entities were at substantially lower prices;
— Various unitholders have pointed to a lawsuit filed by two
limited partners to suggest that Starwood`s offer is unfair and the process is flawed. While Starwood takes the lawsuit
seriously and will vigorously contest it, Starwood believes that it reflects the views of a couple of disgruntled
unitholders and Starwood is confident it will resolve the
lawsuit favorably.

Unitholders Should Not Be Confused by Misleading Opinions from Various Unitholders

Starwood further stated that it believes that Kalmia, Windy City and MacKenzie Patterson Fuller, Inc., three unitholders, have made various statements that Starwood believes are self-serving or misleading in an attempt to derail its offer. For example:
  — These unitholders have alleged that the General Partner has a
conflict of interest that tarnishes the fairness of Starwood`s
offer. However, these same unitholders fail to give any
reasonable facts to support this position and ignore the
evidence to the contrary, including the existence of the
information screen, the Partnership`s neutral position
regarding Starwood`s initial offer, Houlihan Lokey`s opinion
that the initial offer was unfair and the General Partner`s
refusal to meet with Starwood to discuss the offer;
— Some of these unitholders have stated that the initial offer
price was too low but they fail to point out that they
recently made offers for units at substantially lower prices
than Starwood`s initial offer ($625) and its new enhanced
offer ($700); and
— Some of these unitholders have stated that unitholders would
receive more upon a liquidation of the hotel than Starwood`s
offer price. Again, however, these unitholders provide little
or no support for this position and ignore the fact that no
other superior bids for the Partnership or the Michigan Avenue
Hotel have been made.

Unitholders who have any questions about Starwood`s offer, need help or would like additional copies of the Offer to Purchase and Solicitation Statement, Agreement of Assignment and Transfer, Consent Form or other documents disseminated with respect to the Offer to Purchase and Solicitation Statement should contact Starwood`s information agent, D.F. King & Co., Inc., Toll-Free at (888) 605-1957.