COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies: Commitments and financial arrangements not recorded on the Company's consolidated balance sheet, excluding lease commitments that are disclosed in Note 10, included the following as of December 31, 2013 (in millions):



Standby letters of credit	(a)	$	11.4
Bonds	(b)	$	404.1

(a)

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.

(b)

Represents bonds related to construction and real estate activities in Hawaii. Approximately $380.5 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 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.

Other Obligations: Certain of the real estate businesses in which the Company holds a non-controlling interest have long-term debt obligations. One of the Company’s joint ventures has a $10 million loan that matures in August 2015. As a condition to providing the loan to the joint venture, the lender required that the Company and its joint venture partner guarantee certain obligations of the joint venture under a maintenance agreement. The maintenance agreement specifies that the Company and its joint venture partner make payments to the lender to the extent that the loan-to-value measure or debt service ratio of the property held by the joint venture is below pre-determined thresholds. The Company has determined that the fair value of its obligation under this maintenance agreement is not material, and as of December 31, 2013, the Company had not paid or accrued any amounts under the guaranty.

Other than obligations described above, obligations of the Company’s 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 58 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 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 renewed the existing permits on a holdover basis. If the Company is not permitted to utilize sufficient quantities of stream waters from State lands in East Maui, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s sugar-growing operations.

In addition, 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. On September 25, 2008, the Water Commission took action on eight of the petitions, resulting in some quantity of water being returned to the streams rather than being utilized for irrigation purposes. In May 2010, the Water Commission took action on the remaining 19 petitions resulting in additional water being returned to the streams. A petition requesting a contested case hearing to challenge the Water Commission’s decisions was filed with the Commission by the opposing third party. On October 18, 2010, the Water Commission denied the petitioner’s request for a contested case hearing. On November 17, 2010, the petitioner filed an appeal of the Water Commission’s denial to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. On August 31, 2011, the Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. On November 29, 2011, the petitioner appealed the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ dismissal to the Hawaii Supreme Court. On January 11, 2012, the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal and remanded the appeal back to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. On November 30, 2012, the Intermediate Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Water Commission, ordering the Commission to grant the petitioner’s request for a contested case hearing.

On June 25, 2004, two organizations filed a petition with the Water Commission to establish IIFS for four streams in West Maui to increase the amount of water to be returned to these streams. The West Maui irrigation system provided approximately 15 percent of the irrigation water used by HC&S over the last ten years. The Water Commission issued a decision in June 2010, which required the return of water in two of the four streams. In July 2010, the two organizations appealed the Water Commission’s decision to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. On June 23, 2011, the case was transferred to the Hawaii Supreme Court. On August 15, 2012, the Hawaii Supreme Court overturned the Water Commission's decision and remanded the case to the Water Commission for further consideration in connection with the establishment of the IIFS. In September 2013, the Water Commission noticed its intent to initiate the remanded hearing process in January 2014.

The loss of East Maui and West Maui water as a result of the Water Commission’s decisions imposes challenges to the Company’s sugar growing operations. While the resulting water loss does not immediately threaten near-term sugar production, it will result in a future suppression of sugar yields and will have an impact on the Company that will only be quantifiable over time. Accordingly, the Company is unable to predict, at this time, the outcome or financial impact of the water proceedings.

In March 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published nationwide standards for controlling hazardous air pollutant emissions from industrial, commercial, institutional boilers and process heaters (the “Boiler MACT” rule), which would apply to Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company’s three boilers at the Puunene Sugar Mill. The EPA subsequently reconsidered the March 2011 rule, and on December 21, 2012, EPA announced that it had finalized a revised Boiler MACT rule; the final rule was published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2013. The effective date of the rule was April 1, 2013, with compliance required by January 31, 2016.

The Company is currently evaluating the final rule and assessing its compliance options. Based on our review, the EPA has made significant revisions from the March 2011 final rule addressing industry concerns. The Company, along with the Florida Sugar Industry, has submitted a petition for reconsideration of certain issues in the final Boiler MACT rule. The EPA has indicated that it will be granting petitions for reconsideration of certain issues, including correcting an error that led to a final limit on carbon monoxide emissions from sugar mill boilers that was lower than it should have been.

The Puunene Mill boilers are capable of meeting most of the emissions limits specified in the final rule and the Company does not expect to incur material costs associated with upgrades to the existing particulate matter controls. While initial testing indicates that the boilers are able to meet new limits on carbon monoxide emissions during bagasse firing, it is not yet clear whether this limit can be met on a consistent basis. This is largely due to the highly variable nature of bagasse fuel. As a result, at a minimum, improvements to combustion controls and monitoring will be required on all three boilers.

The Company has begun the process of assessing current carbon monoxide emissions during bagasse firing, and will need to complete an engineering evaluation in order to develop a plan for compliance with the new rule. The compliance deadline for this rule will be three years from the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register (i.e., January 31, 2016), with the option for states to grant a one-year extension. A preliminary estimate of anticipated compliance costs is less than $5 million based on currently available information. This estimate will be refined as the engineering evaluation proceeds.

In June 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) served McBryde Resources, Inc., formerly known as Kauai Coffee Company, Inc. (“McBryde Resources”) with a lawsuit, which alleged that McBryde Resources and five other farms were complicit in illegal acts by Global Horizons Inc., a company that had hired Thai workers for the farms. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. In July 2011, the EEOC amended the lawsuit to name Alexander & Baldwin, LLC (formerly known as Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as a defendant. After motions to dismiss the complaint, and amended complaints, certain claims against the defendants remain and McBryde Resources and Alexander & Baldwin, LLC are defending the lawsuit. Discovery is pending while the parties discuss possible settlement of this matter. The Company is unable to predict, at this time, the outcome or financial impact, if any, of the lawsuit.

A&B and its subsidiaries are parties 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 consolidated financial statements as a whole.