1 

Table of Contents

2 

Table of Contents

3 

Table of Contents

4 

Table of Contents

5 

Table of Contents

6 

Table of Contents

7 

Table of Contents

8 

Table of Contents

9 

10 

Table of Contents

11 

Table of Contents

12 

Table of Contents

13 

Table of Contents

14 

(5)  Income Taxes

The statutes of limitations with respect to the Company's taxes for 2018 and more recent years remain open to examinations by tax authorities, subject to possible utilization of loss carryforwards from earlier years. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all net operating losses (“NOL”) generated and not yet utilized are subject to adjustment by the IRS.Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). The Company believes adequate provisions for income tax have been recorded for all years, although there can be no assurance that such provisions will be adequate. To the extent that there is a shortfall, any such shortfall for which the Company could be liable could be material.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Act”) repealed the corporate AMTalternative minimum tax (“AMT”) and provided that prior AMT credits would be refundable. Any remaining AMT credit amount became refundable incrementally from 2018 through 2021. The CARESCoronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES”) accelerated the refund schedule, enabling the Company to claim the refund in full. In February and July 2021, the Company received $1,483 and $1,486, respectively, including interest, of the refundable tax credit from the Internal Revenue Service.IRS.

The Act is a comprehensive tax reform bill containing a number of other provisions that either currently or in the future could impact the Company, particularly the effect of certain limitations effective for the tax year 2018 and forward (prior losses remain subject to the prior 20 year carryover period) on the use of federal NOL carryforwards, which will generally be limited to being used to offset 80% of future annual taxable income.

(6)  Transactions with Affiliates

An affiliated insurance agency, JMB Insurance Agency, Inc., which has some degree of common ownership with the Company, earns insurance brokerage commissions in connection with providing the placement of insurance coverage for certain of the properties and operations of the Company. Such commissions are believed by management to be comparable to those that would be paid to unaffiliated third parties. NaN such commissions wereCommissions paid for the three and nine months ended March 31,September 30, 2022 were $1and 2021.$15, respectively, and $0 and $20 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, respectively.

The Company reimburses its affiliates for general overhead expense and for direct expenses incurred on its behalf, including salaries and salary-related expenses incurred in connection with the management of the Company's operations. Generally, the entity that employs the person providing the services receives the reimbursement. Substantially all of such reimbursable amounts were incurred by JMB Realty Corporation or its affiliates, 900FMS, LLC, 900Work, LLC, and JMB Financial Advisors, LLC, all of which have some degree of common ownership with the Company. The total costs recorded in cost of sales and selling, general and administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three and nine months ended March 31,September 30, 2022 and 2021 were $370381 and $3681,121, respectively, and $365 and $1,099, respectively, of which $28348 was unpaid as of March 31,September 30, 2022.

The Company deriveshad derived revenue from farming and common area maintenance services and for providing non-potable water to the Kaanapali Coffee Farms Lot Owners Association (“LOA”).LOA. The LOA is the association of the lot owners of the Kaanapali Coffee Farms. Effective July 1, 2022, the LOA is no longer an affiliate of the Company due to the loss of control over the LOA. The revenues wereare $313616 for the nine months ended September 30, 2022, respectively, and $323and $969 for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2022 and 2021.September 30, 2021, respectively. Such revenue is recognized in the Agriculture Segment as disclosed in Note 9, Business Segment Information. TheThrough June 30, 2022, the revenue amounts have been eliminated in the condensed consolidated financial statements.

(7)  Commitments and Contingencies

At March 31, 2022, the Company has no principal contractual obligations related to the land improvements in conjunction with Phase I of the Kaanapali Coffee Farms project.

Material legal proceedings of the Company are described below. Unless otherwise noted, the parties adverse to the Company in the legal proceedings described below have not made a claim for damages in a liquidated amount and/or the Company believes that it would be speculative to attempt to determine the Company's exposure relative thereto, and as a consequence believes that an estimate of the range of potential loss cannot be made.

Two former subsidiaries, Oahu Sugar Company, LLC (“Oahu Sugar”) and D/C Distribution Corporation (“D/C”), filed petitions for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in April 2005 and July 2007, respectively, as described below. On December 17, 2019, the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy case was closed. As a consequence of theD/C Chapter 7 filing, D/C has not been under control of the Company since the bankruptcy filing.

As a result of an administrative order issued to Oahu Sugar by the Hawaii Department of Health (“HDOH”), Order No. CH 98-001, dated January 27, 1998, Oahu Sugar engaged in environmental site assessment of lands it leased from the U.S. Navy and located on the Waipio Peninsula. Oahu Sugar submitted a Remedial Investigation Report to the HDOH. The HDOH provided comments that indicated that additional testing may be required. Oahu Sugar responded to these comments with additional information. On January 9, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a request to Oahu Sugar seeking information related to the actual or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants at the Waipio Peninsula portion of the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex National Priorities List Superfund Site. The request sought, among other things, information relating to the ability of Oahu Sugar to pay for or perform a cleanup of the land formerly occupied by Oahu Sugar. Oahu Sugar responded to the information requests and notified both the U.S. Navy and EPA that while it had some modest remaining cash that it could contribute to further investigation and remediation efforts in connection with an overall settlement of the outstanding claims, Oahu Sugar was substantially without assets and would be unable to make a significant contribution to such an effort. Attempts at negotiating such a settlement were fruitless and Oahu Sugar received an order from EPA in March 2005 that purported to require certain testing and remediation of the site. As Oahu Sugar was substantially without assets, the pursuit of any action, informational, enforcement, or otherwise, would have had a material adverse effect on the financial condition of Oahu Sugar.

Therefore, as a result of the pursuit of further action by the HDOH and EPA as described above and the immediate material adverse effect that the actions had on the financial condition of Oahu Sugar, Oahu Sugar filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division in April 2005, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code. Such filing was not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company as Oahu Sugar was substantially without assets at the time of the filing. While it was not believed that any other affiliates had any responsibility for the debts of Oahu Sugar, EPA made a claim against Kaanapali Land as further described below.

Prior to the claims filing deadline, Kaanapali Land, on behalf of itself and certain subsidiaries, filed claims that aggregated approximately $224,000, primarily relating to unpaid guarantee obligations made by Oahu Sugar that were assigned to Kaanapali Land pursuant to the Plan on the Plan Effective Date. In addition, EPA and the U.S. Navy filed a joint proof of claim that sought to recover certain environmental response costs relative to the Waipio Peninsula site discussed above. The proof of claim contained a demand for previously spent costs in the amount of approximately $260, and additional anticipated response costs of between approximately $2,760 and $11,450. No specific justification of these costs, or what they are purported to represent, was included in the EPA/U.S. Navy proof of claim. There was an insignificant amount of assets remaining in the debtor's estate and it was unclear whether the United States Trustee who took control of Oahu Sugar was going to take any action to contest the EPA/U.S. Navy claim, or how it was going to reconcile such claim for the purpose of distributing any remaining assets of Oahu Sugar. Counsel for the trustee, EPA, the U.S. Navy, and for Fireman’s Fund, one of Kaanapali Land’s insurers, explored ways in which to conclude the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy. On December 16, 2019, the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy trustee filed its final accounting with no distribution to claimants. On December 17, 2019, the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy case was closed and the trustee was discharged.

With regard to the alleged Waipio Penisula allegedPeninsula environmental issues, EPA sent three requests for information to Kaanapali Land regarding, among other things, Kaanapali Land's organization and relationship, if any, to entities that may have, historically, operated on the site and with respect to operations conducted on the Waipio site. Kaanapali Land responded to these requests for information. By letter dated February 7, 2007, pursuant to an allegation that Kaanapali Land was a successor to Oahu Sugar Company, Limited, a company that operated at the site prior to 1961 ("Old Oahu"), EPA advised Kaanapali that it believed it was authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) to amend the existing Unilateral Administrative Order against Oahu Sugar Company, LLC, for the cleanup of the site to include Kaanapali Land as an additional respondent. The purported basis for EPA's position was that Kaanapali Land, by virtue of certain corporate actions, was jointly and severally responsible for the performance of the response actions, including, without limitation, clean-up at the site. No such amendment was made. Instead, after a series of discussions between Kaanapali and EPA, on or about September 30, 2009, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to Kaanapali Land for the performance of work in support of a removal action at the former Oahu Sugar pesticide mixing site located on Waipio peninsula.Peninsula. The work consisted of the performance of soil and groundwater sampling and analysis, a topographic survey, and the preparation of an engineering evaluation and cost analysis of potential removal actions to abate an alleged "imminent and substantial endangerment" to public health, welfare or the environment. The order appeared to be further predicated primarily on the alleged connection of Kaanapali Land to Old Oahu and its activities on the site. Kaanapali Land engaged in performing work, including the conduct of sampling at the site, required by the order while reserving its rights to contest liability regarding the site. With regard to liability for the site, Kaanapali Land believed that its liability, if any, should have related solely to a portion of the period of operation of Old Oahu at the site, although in some circumstances CERCLA apparently permits imposition of joint and several liability, which can exceed a responsible party's equitable share. Kaanapali Land believed that the U.S. Navy bore substantial liability for the site by virtue of its ownership of the site throughout the entire relevant period, both as landlord under its various leases with Oahu Sugar and Old Oahu and by operating and intensively utilizing the site directly during a period when no lease was in force. The Company believed that the cost of the work as set forth in the pending order would not have been material to the Company as a whole; however, in the event that EPA were to issue an order requiring remediation of the site, the Company gave no assurances that the cost of said remediation would not ultimately have a material adverse effect on the Company. In addition, the Company believed that if there were litigation regarding the site, there could be no assurances that the cost of such litigation would not be material or that such litigation would result in a judgment in favor of the Company. Kaanapali and the EPA exchanged comments

relative to further studies to be performed at the site, including a possible ecological risk assessment. After years of performing work at the site, the parties engaged in discussions to resolve the matter. The matter was ultimately resolved pursuant to the Consent Decree set forth below.

On February 11, 2015, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, bad faith and damages against Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (“Fireman’s Fund”) in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, Civil No. 15-1-0239-02, in connection with costs and expenses it might incur in connection with the Waipio site. In the five-count complaint, the Company sought, among other things, a declaratory judgment of its rights under various Fireman’s Fund policies and an order that Fireman’s Fund defend and indemnify Kaanapali Land from all past, present and future costs and expenses in connection with the site, including costs of investigation and defense incurred by Kaanapali and the professionals it has engaged. In addition, Kaanapali sought general, special, and punitive damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems just and proper. Fireman’s Fund has filed a responsive pleading. This litigation was settled and dismissed with prejudice pursuant to an agreement between Fireman’s Fund and the Company dated on or about November 24, 2021 (“Insurance Settlement”). The dismissal order was entered on March 31, 2022.

Under the Insurance Settlement, Fireman’s Fund paid $6,800 into an escrow that was used to fund the Consent Decree, described below, that was entered into with various federal agencies. The $6,800 was included as a reduction of Selling, general and administrative expenses on the Company’s Consolidated Statementconsolidated statement of Operationsoperations for the year ended December 31, 2021. The insurance recovery caused the total Selling, general and administrative expense for the year ended December 31, 2021 to be a negative expense. That Consent Decree, entered by United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (the “Court”), and as more fully described below, resolved certain environmental claims against the Company with respect to the former mixing site on Waipio Peninsula on Oahu in Hawaii (the “Mixing Site”). After the Consent Decree was entered and finally approved by the Court in the form initially submitted by the Company and the federal government, the escrowed funds plus interest were paid to the Environmental Protection Agency on March 3, 2022 to fund the settlement that is the subject of the Consent Decree. The Insurance Settlement provided, among other terms and conditions, mutual releases of Claimsclaims for coverage for Environmental Claimsenvironmental claims at the Mixing Site under known and unknown Fireman’s Fund insurance policies.

On April 16, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on behalf of various federal agencies of the United States of America, executed a Consent Decree with Kaanapali Land, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”) that, if entered by the U.S. District Court sitting in the District of Hawaii, United States of America v. Kaanapali Land, and Oahu Sugar Company, LLC Case No. 1:21-CV-00190, resolved the U.S. federal government’s current environmental claims against the Company with respect to contamination at the former mixing site on Waipio Peninsula on Oahu in Hawaii that had been leased by Oahu Sugar Company LLC, a former subsidiary of the Company. In return for payments by the Company totaling $7,500,$7,500, the Consent Decree resolved liability asserted by the U.S. government against the Company under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)CERCLA as well as under the Clean Water Act, both for response costs (those costs expended for investigation and cleanup) and for natural resource damages. The U.S. District Court in Hawaii entered an Order approving the Consent Decree on February 11, 2022 and payment of the settlement amount was received by the government on March 3, 2022.

Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to other entities, and D/C have been named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, “Kaanapali Land asbestos cases”) are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these cases. The defense of these cases had a material adverse effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to file a voluntary petition for liquidation as discussed below. Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there can be no assurance in that regard.

On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman’s Fund, the carrier that hashad been paying defense costs and settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it would no longer pay settlements or judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to then pending D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies. In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman’s fundFund expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C bankruptcy case barred Fireman’s Fund from making any payments to resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C Distribution was also alleging a right to coverage under those policies for asbestos claims against it. However, in the interim, Fireman’s Fund advised that it intended to continue to pay defense costs for those cases, subject to whatever reservations of rights that might be in effect and subject further to the policy terms. Fireman’s Fund also indicated that, to the extent that Kaanapali Land cooperated with Fireman’s Fund in addressing settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through coordination with its adjusters, it was Fireman’s Fund’s intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land, subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order, the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and prior approval of the settlements. Kaanapali Land and Fireman’s Fund entered into a settlement agreement on or about November 24, 2021 whereby Fireman’s Fund paid $2,441$2,441 for certain listed Kaanapali Land asbestos cases upon a Final Order of the D/C bankruptcy court lifting the automatic stay to allow the payments. The D/C court issued the lift-stay order on March 1, 2022. On April 12, 2022, the Company received $2,441$2,441 as reimbursement for the various settlements Kaanapali made that were subject to the lift-stay order of March 1, 2022. The $2,441 was included as a reduction of Selling, general and administrative expenses on the Company’s Consolidated Statementconsolidated statement of Operationsoperations for the three and nine months ended March 31,September 30, 2022. The insurance recovery caused the total Selling, general and administrative expense for the three months ended March 31, 2022 to be a negative expense.

On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central Justice Center. No other purported party was served. In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it iswas an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties havehad been able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed. Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C havehad been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of

the amounts it has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. D/C believed that it had meritorious defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend.defend against plaintiff’s claims. In addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered. In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali Land provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of $1,618.$1,618. Such settlement amount was paid to Kaanapali Land in partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness noted above.

Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities, D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July 2007, Case No. 07-12776. Such filing is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially without assets at the time of the filing. Kaanapali Land filed claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately $26,800, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land. In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-related claims filed proofs of claim on behalf of approximately two thousand claimants. While it is not likely that a significant number of these claimants have a claim against D/C that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the trustee will deal with these claims. It is not expected, however, that the Company will receive any material additional amounts in the liquidation of D/C.

On January 21, 2020, certain asbestos claimants filed a Stay Relief Motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 07-12776 (“motion to lift stay”) in connection with the D/C proceeding. The motion sought the entry of an order, among other things, modifying the automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy to permit those claimants to prosecute various lawsuits in state courts against D/C Distribution, LLC, and to recover on any judgment or settlement solely from any available insurance coverage. Various oppositions to the motion to lift stay were filed, and the matter was heard and taken under advisement in April 2020. On July 21, 2020, the bankruptcy court issued an order granting the motion to lift stay to permit the movants to pursue their claims and to recover any judgment or settlement from and to the extent of any available insurance coverage of D/C Distribution, LLC, only.

The bankruptcy trustee for D/C is now in the process of closing the bankruptcy case. All of theCertain asbestos-related proofs claims filed by the San Francisco personal injury firm in the bankruptcy case have been withdrawn in connection with closing. There is a small amount of money on-hand for possible distribution on closing. Although D/C will no longer have any assets after the trustee’s final distribution and closing of the case, there is no guaranty that personal injury claimants will not assert asbestos-related claims against D/C in the future.

The Company has received notice from Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources (“DNLR”) that DNLR on a periodic basis would inspect all significant dams and reservoirs in Hawaii, including those maintained by the Company on Maui in connection with its agricultural operations. A series of such inspections have taken place over the period from 2006 through the most recent inspections that occurred in July 2021.April 2022. To date, the DLNR has cited certain deficiencies concerning two of the Company’s reservoirs relating to dam and reservoir safety standards established by the State of Hawaii. These deficiencies include, among other things, vegetative overgrowth, erosion of slopes, uncertainty of inflow control, spillway capacity, and freeboard, and uncertainty of structural stability under certain loading and seismic conditions. The Company has taken certain corrective actions, including lowering the reservoir operating level;level, as well as updating important plans to address emergency events and basic operations and maintenance. In 2018, the Company contracted with an engineering firm to develop plans to address certain DLNR cited deficiencies on one of the Company’s reservoirs. In 2012, the State of Hawaii issued new Hawaii Administrative Rules for Dams and Reservoirs which require dam owners to obtain from DLNR Certificates of Impoundment (“permits”) to operate and maintain dams or reservoirs. Obtaining such permits requires owners to completely resolve all cited deficiencies. Therefore, the process may involve further analysis of dam and reservoir safety requirements, which will involve continuing engagement with specialized engineering consultants, and ultimately could result in significant and costly improvements which may be material to the Company.

The DLNR categorizes the reservoirs as "high hazard" under State of Hawaii Administrative Rules and State Statutes concerning dam and reservoir safety. This classification, which bears upon government oversight and reporting requirements, may increase the cost of managing and maintaining these reservoirs in a material manner. The Company does not believe that this classification is warranted for either of these reservoirs and has initiated a dialogue with DLNR in that regard. In April 2008, the Company received further correspondence from DLNR that included the assessment by their consultants of the potential losses that result from the failure of these reservoirs. In April 2009, the Company filed a written response to DLNR to correct certain factual errors in its report and to request further analysis on whether such "high hazard" classifications are warranted. It is unlikely that the “high hazard” designation will be changed.

Other than as described above, the Company is not involved in any material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to its business. The Company and/or certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants in several pending lawsuits. While it is impossible to predict the outcome of such routine litigation that is now pending (or threatened) and for which the potential liability is not covered by insurance, the Company is of the opinion that the ultimate liability from any of this litigation will not materially adversely affect the Company's consolidated results of operations or its financial condition.

The Company often seeks insurance recoveries under its policies for costs incurred or expected to be incurred for losses or claims under which the policies might apply. During second quarter 2022, the Company received $155 in insurance proceeds related to an insured event that occurred during the 2021 crop year. This amount has been reflected in sales and rental revenues in the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Kaanapali Land Management Corp. (KLMC) is a party to an agreement with the State of Hawaii for the development of the Lahaina Bypass Highway. An approximateapproximately 2.4 mile portion of this two lane state highway has been completed. Construction to extend the southern terminus was completed mid-2018. The northern portion of the Bypass Highway, which extends to KLMC’s lands, is in the early stage of planning. Under certain circumstances, which have not yet occurred, KLMC remains committed for approximately $1,100 of various future costs relating to the planning and design of the uncompleted portion of the Bypass Highway. Under certain conditions, which have not yet been met, KLMC has agreed to contribute an amount not exceeding $6,700 toward construction costs. Any such amount contributed would be reduced by the value of KLMC’s land actually contributed to the State for the Bypass Highway.