| Commitments And Contingencies Footnote | 9 Months Ended |
| Sep. 30, 2013 |
| Notes to Financial Statements | ' |
| Commitments And Contingencies Footnote | ' |
| (7) Commitments and Contingencies |
|
| At September 30, 2013, 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. |
|
| As a result of an administrative order issued to Oahu Sugar by the 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, 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 clean up of the land formerly occupied by Oahu Sugar. Oahu Sugar responded to the information requests and had notified both the Navy and the 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 its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code. Such filing is 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 is not believed that any other affiliates have any responsibility for the debts of Oahu Sugar, the EPA has indicated that it intends to make a claim against Kaanapali Land as further described below, and therefore, there can be no assurance that the Company will not incur significant costs in connection with such claim. |
|
| The deadline for filing proofs of claim with the bankruptcy court passed in April 2006. Prior to the 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, the EPA and the U.S. Navy filed a joint proof of claim that seeks 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/Navy proof of claim. Due to the insignificant amount of assets remaining in the debtor's estate, it is unclear whether the United States Trustee who has taken control of Oahu Sugar will take any action to contest the EPA/Navy claim, or how it will reconcile such claim for the purpose of distributing any remaining assets of Oahu Sugar. |
|
| EPA has 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 site. Kaanapali Land responded to these requests for information. By letter dated February 7, 2007, pursuant to an allegation that Kaanapali Land is a successor to Oahu Sugar Company, Limited, a company that operated at the site prior to 1961 ("Old Oahu"), EPA advised Kaanapali that it believes it is authorized by CERCLA to amend the existing Unilateral Administrative Order against Oahu Sugar Company, LLC, for the clean up of the site to include Kaanapali Land as an additional respondent. The purported basis for the EPA's position is that Kaanapali Land, by virtue of certain corporate actions, is jointly and severally responsible for the performance of the response actions, including, without limitation, clean-up at the site. No such amendment has taken place as of the date hereof. Instead, after a series of discussions between Kaanapali and the EPA, on or about September 30, 2009, the 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. The work consists 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 appears to be further predicated primarily on the alleged connection of Kaanapali Land to Old Oahu and its activities on the site. Kaanapali Land is currently performing work, including the conduct of sampling at the site, required by the order while reserving its right to contest liability regarding the site. With regard to liability for the site, Kaanapali Land believes that its liability, if any, should relate 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 believes that the U.S. Navy bears 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 believes that the cost of the work as set forth in the order will not be material to the Company as a whole; however, in the event that the EPA were to issue an order requiring remediation of the site, there can be no assurances that the cost of said remediation would not ultimately have a material adverse effect on the Company. In addition, if there is litigation regarding the site, there can be no assurance that the cost of such litigation will not be material or that such litigation will result in a judgment in favor of the Company. |
|
| Federal tax return examinations have been completed for all years through 2005. The statutes of limitations with respect to the Company's tax returns for 2010 and subsequent years remain open, subject to possible utilization of loss carryforwards from earlier years. The Company believes adequate provisions for income taxes 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. |
|
| 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 have been only a few such cases that name Kaanapali Land, there are a substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against Kaanapali Land 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 has 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 this regard. |
|
| 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 is 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 have 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 have 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. 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. 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. The deadline for filing proofs of claim against D/C with the bankruptcy court passed in October 2008. Prior to the deadline, Kaanapali Land filed claims 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 700 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 or about February 13, 2013, PM Land Company received demand to mediate a dispute arising in connection with the contract for sale of a lot in the Kaanapali Coffee Farms subdivision. PM Land held the sum of $450,000 as a result of the contract for sale to the claimants that did not proceed to closing. Claimants sought, among other things, cancellation of the contract, the return of the amounts of money still on deposit, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. PM Land Company mediated, settled this matter and retained $150,000 of the deposit. |
|
| The Company has received notice from 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 January 2013. To date, the DNLR has cited certain maintenance deficiencies concerning two of the Company’s reservoirs, relating to, among other things, overgrowth that could impact the inspection process, degrade the integrity of the reservoir slopes and impact drainage; leak detection; and erosion control. The DLNR has required vegetative clean-up and the Company’s plans for future maintenance, inspections, and emergency response. The Company has taken certain corrective actions and submitted revisions to its emergency action plans for both of its reservoirs in accordance with revised DLNR requirements. The January 2013 DLNR inspection reports relate to visual dam safety inspections of the Company’s reservoirs and contain a list of certain deficiencies, recommendations, and actions. The Company continues its analysis with respect to various items noted in the most recent inspection reports received from DLNR in April 2011 and January 2013, including certain findings and corrective actions noted therein. |
|
| The DLNR categorizes each of 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. |
|
| In 2012, the state issued new Hawaii Administrative Rules for Dams and Reservoirs which require dam owners to obtain Certificates of Impoundment (“permits”) to operate and maintain dams. Obtaining such permits may involve further analysis of dam safety requirements which could result in significant and costly improvements which may be material to the Company. |
|
| 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. |
|
