| Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company is subject to the usual obligations associated with entering into contracts for the purchase, development, and sale of real estate, which the Company does in the routine conduct of its business. Operating Leases The Company has entered into agreements to lease certain office facilities and equipment under operating leases. The Company also leases portions of its land to third parties for agricultural operations. In August 2017, the Company entered into a 130 -month full service gross lease with the Gateway Commercial Venture, a related party, and upon completion of tenant improvements, the lease will commence and the Company will relocate its Orange County, California offices to the newly leased office space at the Five Point Gateway Campus. As of September 30, 2017 , minimum lease payments to be made under operating leases with initial terms in excess of one year and minimum lease payments to be received under noncancelable leases are as follows (in thousands): Rental Rental Receipts Remainder of 2017 $ 765 $ 267 2018 2,926 1,094 2019 5,016 827 2020 5,267 701 2021 5,249 — Thereafter 19,706 — $ 38,929 $ 2,889 Rent expense for the three months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016 was $0.6 million and $0.7 million , respectively, and for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016 , rent expense was $1.9 million and $1.4 million , respectively. Newhall Ranch Project Approval Settlement In September 2017, the Company reached a settlement (the "Newhall Settlement") with key national and state environmental and Native American organizations that were petitioners (the "Settling Petitioners") in various legal challenges to Newhall Ranch's regulatory approvals and permits (see Legal Proceedings below). The Settling Petitioners have agreed to (a) dismiss all pending claims regarding regulatory approvals and permits, (b) not oppose pending and certain future regulatory approvals, and (c) not seek protections for certain species of plants and animals under federal and state endangered species acts for specified time periods. The Company has agreed to fund certain environmental and cultural investments and protections at the Newhall Ranch project and surrounding region, including construction of a Native American cultural facility and museum, establishment of conservation programs to protect the San Fernando Valley spineflower, and establishment of an endowment to conserve endangered, threatened, and sensitive species that occur within the Santa Clara River watershed. The Company further agreed to (a) refrain from developing certain areas within Newhall Ranch and portions of the Company's Ventura County landholdings and (b) provide construction monitoring programs and archaeological surveys designed to identify and preserve Native American cultural sites within Newhall Ranch. As of September 30, 2017 , the Company has recorded a liability of $53.6 million associated with certain obligations of the settlement. The Holding Company has provided a guaranty to the Settling Petitioners for monetary payments due from the Company as required under the settlement. As of September 30, 2017 , the remaining estimated maximum potential amount of monetary payments subject to the guaranty was $61.6 million with the final payment due in 2026. The Company did not reach a settlement with two local environmental organizations that have pending challenges to certain approvals for Newhall Ranch (the "Non-Settling Petitioners"). Water Purchase Agreement The Company is subject to a water purchase agreement requiring annual payments in exchange for the delivery of water for the Company’s exclusive use. The agreement has an initial 35 -year term, which expires in 2039 with an option for a second 35-year term. During the nine months ended September 30, 2017 , the Company made a payment of $1.2 million and does not expect to make any additional payments for the remainder of 2017. The annual minimum payments for years 2018 to 2021 are $1.2 million , $1.2 million , $1.3 million , and $1.3 million , respectively. At September 30, 2017 , the aggregate annual minimum payments remaining under the initial term total $37.5 million . Newhall Ranch Infrastructure Project In January 2012, the Company entered into an agreement with Los Angeles County, in which the Company will finance up to a maximum of $45.8 million for the construction costs of an interchange project that Los Angeles County is administering. The interchange project is a critical infrastructure project that will benefit Newhall Ranch. As of September 30, 2017 , the Company has made aggregate payments of $37.0 million , including a payment of $15.0 million made during the nine months ended September 30, 2017 . The interchange project is expected to be completed in 2017. There is also a provision for the Company to pay Los Angeles County interest on defined unreimbursed construction costs incurred prior to the reimbursement payment. Upon the final payment, Los Angeles County will credit the Company, in the form of bridge and thoroughfare construction fee district fee credits, an amount equal to the Company’s actual payments, exclusive of any interest payments. These credits are eligible for application against future bridge and thoroughfare fees the Company may incur. At September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , the Company had $5.1 million and $16.4 million , respectively, included in accounts payable and other liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets, representing unreimbursed construction costs payable to Los Angeles County. Agreement Regarding Mall Venture On May 2, 2016, the Company entered into an agreement with CPHP pursuant to which, upon completion of the Retail Project, CPHP will contribute all of its interests in the Mall Venture Member to the Operating Company in exchange for 2,917,827 Class A Common Units of the Operating Company. Additionally, CPHP will purchase an equal amount of Class B common shares from the Holding Company at a price of $0.00633 per share. The Retail Project is currently expected to be completed in 2021. Candlestick Point Development Agreement On May 2, 2016, the Company entered into a development agreement with CPHP whereby among other things, CPHP agreed to be responsible for all design and construction costs associated with the parking structure to be built on the CP Parking Parcel, up to $240 million , and the Company agreed to reimburse CPHP for design and construction costs in excess of $240 million . Additionally, the Company agreed to remit to CPHP up to $25 million it realizes from CFD proceeds at Candlestick Point following completion of the parking structure; however, such obligation is subject to a dollar-for-dollar reduction by any amounts the Company pays for costs in excess of $240 million on the parking structure. Performance and Completion Bonding Agreements In the ordinary course of business and as a part of the entitlement and development process, the Company is required to provide performance bonds to ensure completion of certain development obligations. The Company had outstanding performance bonds of $75.8 million and $62.8 million as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , respectively. San Francisco Shipyard and Candlestick Point Disposition and Development Agreement The San Francisco Venture is a party to a disposition and development agreement with the San Francisco Agency in which the San Francisco Agency will convey portions of The San Francisco Shipyard and Candlestick Point owned or acquired by the San Francisco Agency to the San Francisco Venture for development. The San Francisco Venture will reimburse the San Francisco Agency for reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred and paid by the San Francisco Agency in performing its obligations under the disposition and development agreement. The San Francisco Agency can also earn a return of certain profits generated from the development and sale of The San Francisco Shipyard and Candlestick Point if certain thresholds are met. As of September 30, 2017 the thresholds have not been met. In April 2014, the San Francisco Venture provided the San Francisco Agency with a guaranty of infrastructure obligations with a maximum obligation of $21.4 million and in March 2016 an additional guaranty of infrastructure obligations was made with a maximum obligation of $8.1 million . In June 2017, the Holding Company provided the San Francisco Agency with a guaranty related to construction of certain park and open space obligations with a maximum obligation of $83.7 million and in September 2017, provided an additional guaranty of infrastructure obligations with a maximum obligation of $79.1 million . Letters of Credit At September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , the Company had outstanding letters of credit totaling $2.2 million and $13.8 million , respectively. These letters of credit were issued to secure various development and financial obligations. At each of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , the Company had restricted cash and certificates of deposit of $2.2 million pledged as collateral under certain of the letters of credit agreements. Legal Proceedings California Department of Fish and Wildlife Permits In December 2010, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") issued a Master Streambed Alteration Agreement ("MSAA") and two Incidental Take Permits ("ITPs") for endangered species and certified the final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") portion of the Newhall Ranch Environmental Impact Statement/EIR ("EIS/EIR"). The EIS/EIR was a document jointly prepared by CDFW and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps"). The Corps prepared and approved the Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") portion of the joint document under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). CDFW prepared and certified the EIR portion of the EIS/EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). In January 2011, five petitioners filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court ("Superior Court") challenging the issuance of the MSAA and ITPs and the certification of CDFW’s final EIR under CEQA, the California Endangered Species Act, and the Fish and Game Code. After a trial court ruling and an appeal, the Second District Court of Appeal ("Court of Appeal") ultimately upheld CDFW’s certification of the EIR and issuance of the MSAA and ITPs. Thereafter, the California Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") granted review on three issues and after issuing an opinion, remanded the case to the Court of Appeal. In its decision filed in November 2015, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the three issues. Procedurally, the Supreme Court’s decision became final in February 2016, after that court denied the petitioners’ and the Company’s respective petitions for rehearing. The three issues addressed by the Supreme Court were: (i) the EIR’s greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions significance findings, (ii) the EIR’s mitigation measures for a protected fish species ("Stickleback"), and (iii) the timeliness of comments on impacts to cultural resources and steelhead smolt (another fish species). With respect to the GHG issue, the Supreme Court approved the EIR’s methodology analyzing the significance of the project’s GHG emissions in terms of reductions from projected "business as usual" emissions consistent with the statewide reduction mandate in California’s Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 (also known as AB 32) and the baseline methodology used in the EIR’s GHG analysis. However, the Supreme Court held that the GHG analysis lacked substantial evidence and explanation of the project’s no significant GHG findings. For that reason, the Supreme Court directed that the GHG emissions findings be corrected. On the second issue, the Supreme Court held the EIR mitigation measures for Stickleback violated the Fish and Game Code section 5515 prohibition on the "take" of fully-protected fish. On the third issue, the Supreme Court held that certain comments on cultural resources and steelhead smolt were timely submitted and remanded these issues to the Court of Appeal to reexamine the merits of the cultural resources and steelhead issues and issue a new decision on whether substantial evidence supported CDFW’s determinations on these issues. As to the third issue, in July 2016, after the remand, the Court of Appeal reexamined the merits of the petitioners’ cultural resources and steelhead issues and ruled in favor of CDFW and the Company by finding substantial evidence to support CDFW’s decisions as to these issues. Further, the Court of Appeal denied a petition for rehearing, and after a petition for review was filed, the Supreme Court denied review. In November 2016, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur, which means the case is complete and the trial court now has jurisdiction to issue post-decision orders, consistent with the Supreme Court’s and the Court of Appeal’s decisions. In December 2016, after briefing and a hearing, the trial court signed the judgment proposed by CDFW, and the trial court issued the writ of mandate as to the GHG and stickleback issues. In February 2017, petitioners filed a notice of appeal challenging the scope of the trial court’s judgment. Oral argument on the appeal took place in September 2017, and the Company is awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeal. As to the first two issues above, the Supreme Court's decision required CDFW to reevaluate its project approvals (as they relate to these specific issues) in accordance with the Supreme Court’s holding and to complete an additional environmental analysis, public review, and certification under CEQA. In November 2016, CDFW released for public review the draft additional environmental analysis and the corresponding development plan in response to the two remaining issues, and the public review period concluded in February 2017. In June 2017, CDFW certified the final additional environmental analysis, in combination with the 2010 EIR, and reapproved the Newhall Ranch project and left intact the related state permits (the MSAA and the two ITPs). At that time, CDFW also filed a Notice of Determination (“NOD”), which triggered the 30-day statute of limitations under CEQA in which to file a new or supplemental action against CDFW. By mid-July 2017, no party had filed a new or supplemental action challenging CDFW’s certification of the final additional environmental analysis and its reapproval of the Newhall Ranch project and related permits. Therefore, the statute of limitations for challenges under CEQA to CDFW’s June 2017 actions has expired. In September 2017, CDFW filed a return as required by the trial court’s previously issued writ of mandate. In the return, CDFW advised the trial court it had taken the actions required to fully comply with CEQA, the Fish and Game Code, and the trial court’s previously issued writ. In October 2017, the Non-Settling Petitioners objected to CDFW’s return to the writ on procedural and other grounds. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter until the Court of Appeal's opinion is issued and the objections are resolved. Landmark Village The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (the "BOS") certified the final EIR and adopted project approvals for Newhall Ranch’s Landmark Village development area in October 2011 and approved the vesting tentative map, general, specific and local plan amendments and various project permits and other authorizations in February 2012. In March 2012, five petitioners filed a petition in the Superior Court challenging the approvals and certification of the EIR on the alleged grounds that Los Angeles County violated CEQA, the Subdivision Map Act and state planning and zoning laws. In January 2014, the Superior Court issued a favorable Statement of Decision, which denied petitioners’ request and upheld the BOS approvals, and in April 2015, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the Superior Court’s decision in full. In August 2015, the Supreme Court granted the petitioners’ request to review the GHG issue but ordered that the action be deferred pending disposition of the related GHG issue in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife action noted above. In March 2016, the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeal, and in November 2016, the Court of Appeal issued a new decision reversing the trial court judgment to the sole extent that the EIR did not support its no significant GHG impact finding with substantial evidence. The Court of Appeal also held that the petitioners’ amended petition and complaint is to be denied in all other respects. In January 2017, the Court of Appeal issued its remittitur which means the case is complete and the trial court now has jurisdiction to issue post-decision orders, consistent with the Supreme Court’s GHG holding and the Court of Appeal’s decision. In March 2017, after briefing and hearing, the trial court signed the judgment proposed by Los Angeles County and the trial court issued the writ of mandate as to the GHG issue. In May 2017, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal and the matter is now pending in the Second District Court of Appeal (Los Angeles). The briefing is expected to be completed in December 2017. Oral argument will then be set pursuant to the Court of Appeal’s order (following the briefing). Los Angeles County released for public review the draft additional environmental analysis for the Landmark Village EIR in response to the Supreme Court’s GHG holding, and the public review period concluded in February 2017. In July 2017, the BOS held a public meeting and certified the final additional environmental analysis in combination with the 2011 EIR and reapproved the Landmark Village project and related project approvals and permits. At that time, Los Angeles County also filed an NOD, which triggered the 30-day statute of limitations under CEQA in which to file a new or supplemental action against Los Angeles County. As explained in further detail below, in August 2017, the two Non-Settling Petitioners filed a new action challenging Los Angeles County’s certification of the final additional environmental analysis and its reapproval of the Landmark Village and Mission Village projects and related permits. No other parties filed new or supplemental actions challenging Los Angeles County’s July 2017 actions before the statute of limitations for challenges under CEQA to such actions expired. In September 2017, Los Angeles County filed a return as required by the trial court’s previously issued writ of mandate. In the return, Los Angeles County advised the trial court it had taken the actions required to fully comply with CEQA, the Fish and Game Code, and the trial court’s previously issued writ. In October 2017, the two Non-Settling Petitioners objected to Los Angeles County’s return to the writ on procedural and other grounds. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter until the Court of Appeal's opinion is issued and the objections are resolved. Consistent with the terms of the Newhall Settlement, the Settling Petitioners filed a request for dismissal of the appeal, and on October 16, 2017, the Court of Appeal granted the request as to the Settling Petitioners only. The appeal is still pending as to the Non-Settling Petitioners, and Los Angeles County and the Company will be briefing the appeal, engaging in oral argument, and awaiting receipt of the Court of Appeal opinion. Mission Village In October 2011, the BOS certified the final EIR and provisionally approved Newhall Ranch’s Mission Village development area subject to review of the project’s approval documents, findings, overriding considerations, and mitigation monitoring. In May 2012, the BOS adopted the project approval documents, including the vesting tentative map, permits and other authorizations. In June 2012, five petitioners filed a petition in the Superior Court challenging the approvals and certification of the EIR on the alleged grounds that Los Angeles County violated CEQA, the Subdivision Map Act and state planning and zoning laws. In June 2014, the Superior Court issued a favorable Statement of Decision, which denied the petitioner's request and upheld the BOS approvals, and in September 2015, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court’s decision in full. In December 2015, the Supreme Court granted the petitioners’ request to review the GHG issue but ordered that the action be deferred pending disposition of the related GHG issue in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife action noted above. In March 2016, the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeal, and on December 1, 2016, the Court of Appeal issued a new decision reversing the trial court judgment to the sole extent that the EIR did not support its no significant impact greenhouse gas finding with substantial evidence and a reasoned discussion. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment in all other respects. In February 2017, the Court of Appeal issued its remittitur which means the case is complete and the trial court now has jurisdiction to issue post-decision orders, consistent with the Supreme Court’s GHG holding and the Court of Appeal’s decision. In March 2017, after briefing and a hearing, the trial court signed the judgment proposed by Los Angeles County and the trial court issued the writ of mandate as to the GHG issue. In May 2017, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal and the matter is now pending in the Second District Court of Appeal (Los Angeles). The briefing is expected to be completed in December 2017. Oral argument will then be set pursuant to the Court of Appeal’s order (following the briefing). Los Angeles County released for public review the draft additional environmental analysis for the Mission Village EIR in response to the Supreme Court’s GHG holding, and the public review period concluded in February 2017. In July 2017, the BOS held a public meeting and certified the final additional environmental analysis in combination with the 2011 EIR and reapproved the Mission Village project and related project approvals and permits. At that time, Los Angeles County also filed an NOD, which triggered the 30-day statute of limitations under CEQA in which to file a new or supplemental action against Los Angeles County. As explained in further detail below, in August 2017, the two Non-Settling Petitioners filed a new action challenging Los Angeles County’s certification of the final additional environmental analysis and its reapproval of the Landmark Village and Mission Village projects and related permits. No other parties filed new or supplemental actions challenging Los Angeles County’s July 2017 actions before the statute of limitations for challenges under CEQA to such actions expired. In September 2017, Los Angeles County filed a return as required by the trial court’s previously issued writ of mandate. In the return, Los Angeles County advised the trial court it had taken the actions required to fully comply with CEQA, the Fish and Game Code, and the trial court’s previously issued writ. In October 2017, the two Non-Settling Petitioners objected to the Los Angeles County’s return to the writ on procedural and other grounds. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter until the Court of Appeal's opinion is issued and the objections are resolved. Landmark Village/Mission Village In August 2017, the two Non-Settling Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The petition challenges Los Angeles County’s July 2017 certification of the Mission Village and Landmark Village final additional environmental analyses and reapproval of the two projects based on claims arising under CEQA and the California Water Code. Los Angeles County is compiling the administrative record, but no hearing will take place until after the record is certified by Los Angeles County and the parties complete the required briefing. Until a trial court decision has been rendered, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Other Permits In August 2011, the Corps approved the EIS portion of the joint EIS/EIR and issued its provisional Section 404 Clean Water Act authorization (the "Section 404 Permit") for Newhall Ranch. In September 2012, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (the "Regional Board") unanimously adopted final Section 401 conditions and certified the Section 404 Permit. In October 2012, opponents filed a petition for review and reconsideration of the Regional Board’s actions to the State Water Resources Control Board (the "State Board"). The Regional Board's actions remain valid while the petition is under review by the State Board. On October 19, 2012, after consulting with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "USEPA"), the Corps issued the final Section 404 Permit. In March 2014, five plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Corps and the USEPA in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles) (the "U.S. District Court"). The complaint alleges that these federal agencies violated various statutes, including the Clean Water Act, NEPA, the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and the National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA") in connection with the Section 404 Permit and requests, among other things, that the U.S. District Court vacate the Corps’ approvals related to the Section 404 Permit and prohibit construction activities resulting in the discharge of dredged or fill material into federal waters until the Corps issues a new permit. The Company was granted intervenor status by the U.S. District Court in light of its interests as the landowner and holder of the Section 404 Permit. In September 2014, the U.S. District Court issued an order granting motions to dismiss the USEPA from this action. The dispositive cross-motions for summary judgment were then filed. The U.S. District Court reviewed and resolved all claims in the case by summary judgment. In June 2015, the U.S. District Court issued a favorable order granting the Corps’ and the Company's motions for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' summary judgment motion. In September 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit"). The Ninth Circuit briefing is completed and oral argument occurred in February 2017. Consistent with the terms of the settlement, the Settling Petitioners moved to dismiss their claims on appeal and withdraw from the litigation. In October 2017, the Ninth Circuit granted the motion to dismiss the appeal and the claims with prejudice as to the Settling Petitioners (including the NHPA consultation claim). The Ninth Circuit then ordered supplemental briefs to explain the impact of the dismissal, if any, on the remaining Clean Water Act, NEPA, and ESA claims in this appeal. The Corps and the Company, on the one hand, and the Non-Settling Petitioners, on the other hand, filed supplemental briefs pursuant to the Court’s order. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued its decision. Until a decision has been made by the Ninth Circuit, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter. The monetary impact of an adverse Ninth Circuit ruling, if any, cannot be estimated at this time. Although this federal court proceeding does not include any monetary damage claims, it could result in the need to reassess certain elements of the project’s potential impacts and to modify certain aspects (such as specific mitigation measures or project design features) related to the development plan for Newhall Ranch. An adverse ruling could adversely affect the length of time or the cost required to obtain the necessary governmental approvals to develop Newhall Ranch or a development area within Newhall Ranch, as well as result in additional defense costs or settlement costs, which may not be covered by insurance. An adverse ruling might also require the Company to pay attorneys’ fees and court costs and modify the development plan for Newhall Ranch, which could reduce the number of homesites or amount of commercial square feet the Company desires to develop, increase the Company’s financial commitments to local or state agencies or organizations or otherwise reduce the profitability of the project. Valencia Water Company In December 2012, the Company sold all of the shares of Valencia Water Company through an eminent domain settlement agreement to Castaic Lake Water Agency ("CLWA"). Valencia Water Company was a privately-owned water retailer serving portions of the Santa Clarita Valley that was regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. In February 2013, a local environmental group called the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment ("SCOPE") filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court seeking to invalidate the eminent domain settlement agreement based on a range of claims, including that (1) CLWA is unlawfully providing retail water service in violation of CLWA’s enabling act and (2) CLWA unlawfully acquired and owns Valencia Water Company’s stock in violation of Article XVI, section 17 of the state Constitution. The Superior Court rejected those claims and entered judgment upholding the eminent domain settlement in April 2015, which was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal in an opinion issued in July 2016. SCOPE subsequently filed a petition for review by the California Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court denied in November 2016. As a result of such denial, the Superior Court’s April 2015 judgment upholding the eminent domain settlement agreement is now final. In April 2014, the Newhall County Water District ("NCWD"), a local water retailer in the Santa Clarita Valley, filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court against CLWA alleging the same claims as those brought by SCOPE in the action described above that is now final, namely that (1) CLWA is unlawfully providing retail water service in violation of CLWA’s enabling act; and (2) CLWA unlawfully acquired and owns Valencia Water Company’s stock in violation of Article XVI, section 17 of the state Constitution. NCWD’s writ petition/complaint sought a writ of mandate: (1) directing CLWA to stop providing retail water service through Valencia Water Company; and (2) directing CLWA to divest itself of Valencia Water Company’s stock. The petition/complaint also sought declaratory relief regarding unlawful retail water service and unlawful acquisition and holding of Valencia Water Company’s stock. The Company was not named as a party to the lawsuit but intervened to assist CLWA in defending these challenges to the eminent domain settlement agreement. In December 2016, NCWD and CLWA entered into a settlement agreement, wherein NCWD agreed to dismiss this lawsuit without prejudice and in that same month the request for dismissal was entered by the Superior Court thereby dismissing this lawsuit without prejudice. On October 5, 2017, NCWD filed a request for dismissal with prejudice, which the court entered on October 17, 2017. Other Other than the actions outlined above, the Company is also a party to various other claims, legal actions, and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business, the disposition of which, in the Company’s opinion, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. |
