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 10 of the Company’s 2014 Form 10-K, included the following (in millions) as of September 30, 2015:



Standby letters of credit	$	11.8
Bonds related to real estate and construction*	$	419.0

Represents bonds related to construction and real estate activities in Hawaii, and include construction bonds issued by third party sureties (bid, performance, and payment bonds) and 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 have 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 2014 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 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. A third party filed a lawsuit on April 10, 2015 alleging that the BLNR has been renewing the revocable permits annually rather than keeping them in holdover status, and that the BLNR unlawfully failed to conduct an environmental assessment for the renewals. The lawsuit seeks a court order voiding the revocable permits and requiring preparation of an environmental assessment of the renewals. If the Company is not permitted to utilize sufficient quantities of stream waters from state lands in East Maui, it would 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 streams 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 Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. On November 29, 2011, the petitioner appealed the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ dismissal to the Hawaii Supreme Court. On January 11, 2012, the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the Hawaii 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 July 17, 2013, the Commission authorized the appointment of a hearings officer for the contested case hearing. On August 20, 2014, the Commission expanded the scope of the contested case hearing to encompass all 27 petitions for amendment of the IIFS for East Maui streams, including the eight petitions that the Commission previously acted upon in 2008. The evidentiary phase of the hearing before the Commission-appointed hearings officer was completed on April 2, 2015, and the final decision of the Commission is not expected until 2016.

Water loss that may result from the Water Commission’s future decisions would impose challenges to the Company’s sugar growing operations. Water loss would result in a combination of future suppression of sugar yields and negative financial impacts on the Company that will only be quantifiable over time. Accordingly, the Company is unable to predict, at this time, the total impact of the water proceedings.

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 is January 2016, with full compliance required by July 2016. The Company anticipates that the Puunene Mill boilers will be able to meet the new emissions limits without significant modifications and that compliance costs will be less than $1 million, based on currently available information. The Company is currently developing strategies for achieving compliance with the new regulations, including identifying required upgrades to boiler and air pollution control instrumentation and developing the complex compliance monitoring approaches necessary to accommodate the facility’s multi-fuel operations. There remains significant uncertainty as to the final requirements of the Boiler MACT rule, pending an EPA response to various petitions for reconsideration and ongoing litigation. Any resulting changes to the Boiler MACT rule could adversely impact the Company’s compliance schedule or cost of compliance.

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. The DOH reviewed a five-year period (2009-2013) and alleged violations relating primarily to periods of excess visible emissions and operation of the wet scrubbers installed to control particulate matter emissions from the boiler stacks. 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. The NFVO includes an administrative penalty of $1.3 million, which HC&S has contested. The Company is unable to predict, at this time, the outcome or financial impact of the NFVO, but does not believe that the financial impact of the NFVO will be material to its financial position, cash flows or results of operations.

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. If the Company is not permitted or is substantially limited in its ability to burn sugar cane, this would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s sugar operations. The Company will vigorously defend itself in this matter.

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.