Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies: Commitments and financial arrangements not recorded on the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet, excluding lease commitments that are disclosed in Note 9 of the Company’s 2015 Form 10-K, included the following (in millions) as of June 30, 2016 : Standby letters of credit 1 $ 11.8 Bonds related to real estate and construction 2 $ 397.7 1 Consists of standby letters of credit, issued by the Company’s lenders under the Company’s revolving credit facilities, and relate primarily to the Company’s real estate activities. In the event the letters of credit are drawn upon, the Company would be obligated to reimburse the issuer of the letter of credit. None of the letters of credit has been drawn upon to date, and the Company believes it is unlikely that any of these letters of credit will be drawn upon. 2 Represents bonds related to construction and real estate activities in Hawaii. Approximately $375.1 million is related to construction bonds issued by third party sureties (bid, performance and payment bonds) and the remainder is related to commercial bonds issued by third party sureties (permit, subdivision, license and notary bonds). In the event the bonds are drawn upon, the Company would be obligated to reimburse the surety that issued the bond. None of the bonds has been drawn upon to date, and the Company believes it is unlikely that any of these bonds will be drawn upon. Indemnity Agreements: For certain real estate joint ventures, the Company may be obligated under bond indemnities to complete construction of the real estate development if the joint venture does not perform. These indemnities are designed to protect the surety in exchange for the issuance of surety bonds that cover joint venture construction activities, such as project amenities, roads, utilities, and other infrastructure, at its joint ventures. Under the indemnities, the Company and its joint venture partners agree to indemnify the surety bond issuer from all losses and expenses arising from the failure of the joint venture to complete the specified bonded construction. The maximum potential amount of aggregate future payments is a function of the amount covered by outstanding bonds at the time of default by the joint venture, reduced by the amount of work completed to date. The recorded amounts of the indemnity liabilities were not material individually or in the aggregate. Other than the above items and those described in the Company's 2015 Form 10-K, obligations of the Company’s non-consolidated joint ventures do not have recourse to the Company and the Company’s “at-risk” amounts are limited to its investment. Legal Proceedings and Other Contingencies: A&B owns 16,000 acres of watershed lands in East Maui that supply a significant portion of the irrigation water used by Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company (“HC&S”), a division of A&B that produces raw sugar. A&B also held four water licenses to another 30,000 acres owned by the State of Hawaii in East Maui which, over the last ten years , have supplied approximately 56 percent of the irrigation water used by HC&S. The last of these water license agreements expired in 1986, and all four agreements were then extended as revocable permits that were renewed annually. In 2001, a request was made by A&B to the State Board of Land and Natural Resources (the “BLNR”) to replace these revocable permits with a long-term water lease. Pending the conclusion by the BLNR of this contested case hearing on the request for the long-term lease, the BLNR has kept the existing permits on a holdover basis. Three parties filed a lawsuit on April 10, 2015 alleging that the BLNR has been unlawfully renewing the revocable permits on an annual basis. In January 2016, the court ruled that the BLNR lacked legal authority to keep the revocable permits in holdover status beyond one year. One June 27, 2016, legislation giving the BLNR authority to grant holdover status of the revocable permits previously issued for a period not to exceed three years was signed into law by Hawaii's governor. The Company will continue to pursue a long-term lease of the State lands. In addition to the above, on May 24, 2001, petitions were filed by a third party, requesting that the Commission on Water Resource Management of the State of Hawaii (“Water Commission”) establish interim instream flow standards (“IIFS”) in 27 East Maui streams that feed the Company’s irrigation system. The Water Commission initially took action on the petitions in 2008 and 2010, but the petitioners requested a contested case hearing to challenge the Water Commission's decisions on certain petitions. The Water Commission denied the contested case hearing request, but the petitioners successfully appealed the denial to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, which ordered the Water Commission to grant the request. The Water Commission then authorized the appointment of a hearings officer for the contested case hearing, and on January 15, 2016, the hearings officer issued his recommended decision on the petitions. However, based on the announced closure of HC&S, the Water Commission has ordered the re-opening of the evidentiary portion of the hearing to address changes in the water needs of HC&S. The Water Commission has also ordered HC&S to refrain from diverting streams it is not currently diverting, and to work to remove diversions from the streams it has voluntarily committed to stop diverting. The Commission is not expected to issue a final decision on the petitions until at least the first quarter of 2017. On March 9, 2016, two organizations filed a petition with the Water Commission to return more water to four streams in West Maui in light of the announced closure of HC&S’s sugar operations. Previously, the parties involved in the petition, including HC&S, had entered into a settlement of a petition filed in 2004 with the Commission to establish IIFS for the four streams on the amount of water to be returned to the streams, and the Water Commission approved the settlement in 2014. No hearing date has been set by the Commission on this latest petition. If the Company is not permitted to use sufficient quantities of stream waters, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's pursuit of a diversified agricultural model in subsequent years. In January 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) finalized nationwide standards for controlling hazardous air pollutant emissions from industrial, commercial, institutional boilers and process heaters (the “Boiler MACT” rule), which apply to HC&S's three boilers at the Puunene Sugar Mill. The initial deadline for compliance with the Boiler MACT rule was January 2016, with full compliance required by July 29, 2016. The Puunene Mill boilers have met the January compliance deadline, including applicable emissions limits and monitoring requirements. Due to the impending end to sugar operations, however, the Company is working with EPA to determine whether it will be necessary for the boilers to meet all remaining compliance requirements prior to the boilers being permanently shut down at the end of 2016. On June 24, 2014, the Hawaii State Department of Health (“DOH”) Clean Air Branch issued a Notice and Finding of Violation and Order (“NFVO”) to HC&S alleging various violations relating to the operation of HC&S’s three boilers at its sugar mill. All incidents included in the NFVO were self-reported by HC&S to the DOH prior to the DOH’s review, and there is no indication that these deviations resulted in any violation of health-based air quality standards. On July 19, 2016, the DOH and HC&S entered into a consent order settling the matter, pursuant to which HC&S shall pay a $300,000 monetary penalty and fund $300,000 for supplemental environmental projects benefiting the community. On July 1, 2015, a lawsuit was filed against the State of Hawaii and the Director of the Department of Health, alleging that the sugar cane burning permits issued by the State to HC&S were unlawfully issued, and seeking an injunction against the burning of cane. On July 6, 2015, the plaintiffs added the Company as a defendant. In May 2016, the Company and the plaintiffs reached a settlement under terms that do not substantially limit the Company's ability to burn sugar cane. A&B is a party to, or may be contingently liable in connection with, other legal actions arising in the normal conduct of its businesses, the outcomes of which, in the opinion of management after consultation with counsel, would not have a material effect on A&B’s condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole. |