Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

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. The operations of the Company are conducted through the Operating Company and its subsidiaries, and in some cases, the Holding Company will guarantee the performance of the Operating Company or its subsidiaries.

Valencia Project Approval Settlement

In September 2017, the Company reached a settlement with key national and state environmental and Native American organizations that were petitioners (the “Settling Petitioners”) in various legal challenges to Valencia’s regulatory approvals and permits. 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 June 30, 2020, the remaining estimated maximum potential amount of monetary payments subject to the guaranty was $23.8 million with the final payment due in 2026. The Company did not reach a settlement with two local environmental organizations that had pending challenges to certain Valencia project approvals. See “Legal Proceedings” below.

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 $243.7 million and $230.0 million as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively.

Candlestick and The San Francisco Shipyard Disposition and Development Agreement

The San Francisco Venture is a party to a disposition and development agreement with the Successor to the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco (the “San Francisco Agency”) in which the San Francisco Agency has agreed to convey portions of Candlestick and The San Francisco Shipyard to the San Francisco Venture for development. The San Francisco Venture has agreed to 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.

At June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the Company had outstanding guarantees benefiting the San Francisco Agency for infrastructure and construction of certain park and open space obligations with aggregate maximum obligations of $198.3 million and $197.8 million, respectively.

Letters of Credit

At June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the Company had outstanding letters of credit totaling $1.8 million and $2.4 million, respectively. These letters of credit were issued to secure various development and financial obligations. At each of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the Company had restricted cash and certificates of deposit of $1.4 million pledged as collateral under certain of the letters of credit agreements.

Legal Proceedings

Landmark Village/Mission Village

During the pendency of certain prior litigation involving the approval of the original environmental impact reports and related permits for the Landmark Village and Mission Village projects at Valencia, in July 2017, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors certified the final additional environmental analyses required as a result of a prior California Supreme Court decision regarding the original greenhouse gas analysis related to the projects and reapproved the Landmark Village and Mission Village projects and related permits. In August 2017, two petitioners, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment and Friends of the Santa Clara River (collectively, “Non-Settling Petitioners”), who did not participate in a settlement of prior litigation involving the Company and certain other petitioners, filed a new petition for writ of mandate in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The petition challenged Los Angeles County’s July 2017 approvals of the Mission Village and Landmark Village environmental analyses and the two projects based on claims arising under the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Water Code. The Superior Court held a hearing on the merits of the petition in September 2018. In December 2018, the Superior Court issued its written decision denying the Non-Settling Petitioners’ petition for writ of mandate. Thereafter, in January 2019, the Superior Court entered judgment on the petition for writ of mandate in favor of Los Angeles County and the Company. In March 2019, the Non-Settling Petitioners filed an appeal of the Superior Court’s ruling. In April 2020, the Court of Appeal issued a ruling affirming the Superior Court’s judgment in favor of the Company and Los Angeles County. In July 2020, the California Supreme Court issued an order denying the Non-Settling Petitioners’ petition to review the Court of Appeal’s decision. The judgment in favor of Los Angeles County and the Company is now final with no further right to appeal.

Hunters Point Litigation

In May 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in San Francisco filed a putative class action in San Francisco Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc. and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., an independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing and remediation of toxic radiological waste at The San Francisco Shipyard (“Tetra Tech”), Lennar and the Company as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation efforts. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and have requested an injunction to prevent the Company and Lennar from undertaking any development activities at The San Francisco Shipyard.

Since July 2018, a number of lawsuits have been filed in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of homeowners in The San Francisco Shipyard, which name Tetra Tech, Lennar, the Company and the Company’s CEO, among others, as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that environmental contamination issues at The San Francisco Shipyard were not properly disclosed to them before they purchased their homes. They also allege that Tetra Tech and other defendants (not including the Company) have created a nuisance at The San Francisco Shipyard under California law. They seek damages as well as certain declaratory relief.

All of these cases have been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the allegations in all of these cases and may have insurance and indemnification rights against third parties, including related parties, with respect to these claims. Given the preliminary nature of these claims, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

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.

As a significant land owner and developer of unimproved land it is possible that environmental contamination conditions could exist that would require the Company to take corrective action. In the opinion of the Company, such corrective actions, if any, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.