XML 28 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.25.3
Commitments and Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and other financial arrangements
Bonds related to the Company's real estate activities totaled $17.0 million as of September 30, 2025, and represent commercial bonds issued by third party sureties (permit, subdivision, license and notary bonds). If drawn upon, the Company would be obligated to reimburse the surety that issued the bond for the amount of the bond, reduced for the work completed to date.
Legal proceedings and other contingencies
Prior to the sale of approximately 41,000 acres of agricultural land on Maui to Mahi Pono Holdings, LLC ("Mahi Pono") in December 2018, the Company, through East Maui Irrigation Company, LLC ("EMI"), also owned approximately 16,000 acres of watershed lands in East Maui and held four water licenses to approximately 30,000 acres owned by the State of Hawai‘i in East Maui. The sale to Mahi Pono included the sale of a 50% interest in EMI (which closed February 1, 2019), and provided for the Company and Mahi Pono, through EMI, to jointly continue the existing process to secure a long-term lease from the State for delivery of irrigation water to Mahi Pono for use in Central Maui.
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 completion by the BLNR of a contested case hearing it ordered to be held on the request for the long-term lease, the BLNR has kept the existing permits on a holdover basis. Three parties (Healoha Carmichael; Lezley Jacintho; and Na Moku Aupuni O Ko‘olau Hui) filed a lawsuit on April 10, 2015, (the "Initial Lawsuit") alleging that the BLNR has been renewing the revocable permits annually rather than keeping them in holdover status. The lawsuit challenged the BLNR’s decision to continue the revocable permits for calendar year 2015 and asked the court to void the revocable permits and to declare that the renewals were illegally issued without preparation of an environmental assessment ("EA"). In December 2015, the BLNR decided to reaffirm its prior decisions to keep the permits in holdover status. This decision by the BLNR was challenged by the three parties. In January 2016, the court ruled in the Initial Lawsuit that the renewals were not subject to the EA requirement, but that the BLNR lacked legal authority to keep the revocable permits in holdover status beyond one year (the "Initial Ruling"). The Initial Ruling was appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA") of the State of Hawai‘i.
In May 2016, while the appeal of the Initial Ruling was pending, the Hawai‘i State Legislature passed House Bill 2501, which specified that the BLNR has the legal authority to issue holdover revocable permits for the disposition of water rights for a period not to exceed three years. The governor signed this bill into law as Act 126 in June 2016. Pursuant to Act 126, the annual authorization of the existing holdover permits was sought and granted by the BLNR in December 2016, November 2017 and November 2018 for calendar years 2017, 2018, and 2019. No extension of Act 126 was approved by the Hawai‘i State Legislature in 2019.
In June 2019, the ICA vacated the Initial Ruling, effectively reversing the determination that the BLNR lacked authority to keep the revocable permits in holdover status beyond one year (the "ICA Ruling"). The ICA remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether the holdover status of the permits was both (a) "temporary" and (b) in the best interest of the State, as required by statute. The plaintiffs filed a motion with the ICA for reconsideration of its decision, which was denied on July 5, 2019. On September 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a request with the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i to review and reverse the ICA Ruling. On November 25, 2019, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i granted the plaintiffs' request to review the ICA Ruling and, on May 5, 2020, oral argument was held.
On October 11, 2019, the BLNR took up the renewal of all the existing water revocable permits in the state, acting under the ICA Ruling, and approved the continuation of the four East Maui water revocable permits for another one-year period through December 31, 2020. On November 13, 2020, the BLNR approved another renewal of such permits through December 31, 2021.
On March 2, 2022, the Supreme Court of Hawai’i vacated the ICA’s ruling relating to the BLNR's decision to continue the revocable permits for the calendar year 2015, holding that Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 343 (the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act) did apply to the permits. The court remanded the matter back to the Circuit Court to determine if any exceptions would apply and, if not, how HRS Chapter 343 should be applied in light of the steps taken by A&B/EMI toward the long-term water lease. The Supreme Court of Hawai’i also determined that the BLNR had the statutory authority to continue the permits for more than one year, but required the BLNR to make findings of fact and conclusions of law determining that the action would serve the best interests of the State. On remand, the Carmichael Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment asking the Circuit Court to conclude that the BLNR and A&B/EMI violated HRS Chapter 343 when the BLNR continued the revocable permits for calendar year 2015. On December 21, 2023, the Circuit Court entered its order granting in part and denying in part the motion for partial summary judgment, determining that the BLNR and A&B/EMI had violated HRS Chapter 343 when the BLNR continued the revocable permits for calendar year 2015, but denying the plaintiffs’ request for a declaration that A&B/EMI had no authority to divert any water until a final environmental impact statement had been accepted.
Also on remand, the Carmichael Plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint asserting a claim for unjust enrichment against A&B/EMI. The plaintiffs assert that they had a superior right to the water diverted by EMI from at least 2015 until September 2021 when BLNR accepted the final environmental impact statement for the long-term water lease, and EMI lacked the authority to divert water during that time period. In December 2023, the Carmichael Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. On February 11, 2025, the Circuit Court entered its order granting A&B/EMI’s motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. Final judgment was entered on February 26, 2025. On March 5, 2025, the Carmichael Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the ICA challenging the grant of summary judgment as to the unjust enrichment claim. On March 28, 2025, A&B/EMI filed a notice of cross-appeal challenging the Circuit Court’s determination that the unjust enrichment claim related back to the date of the filing of the original complaint.

In June 2025, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries entered into a termination agreement with Mahi Pono ("the Termination Agreement") and certain of its related entities that transferred the Company’s remaining 50% interest in EMI to Mahi Pono. As a result, while A&B continues to defend against the remaining claims in the Initial Lawsuit, including the allegations in the amended complaint, the Company is no longer responsible for defending the remaining claims in the other cases identified in Note 10 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of the Company's 2024 Form 10-K.
In addition to the litigation described above, the Company is a party to, or may be contingently liable in connection with, other legal actions arising in the normal conduct of its businesses. While the outcomes of such litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, in the opinion of management after consultation with counsel, the reasonably possible losses would not have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements as a whole.
Further note that certain of the Company's properties and assets may become the subject of other types of claims and assessments at various times (e.g., environmental matters based on normal operations of such assets). Depending on the facts and circumstances surrounding such potential claims and assessments, the Company records an accrual if it is deemed probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated/valued as of the date of the financial statements.