(2)	Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies: Commitments and financial arrangements (excluding lease commitments disclosed in Note 8 of the Company's Annual Report filed on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010) at September 30, 2011, included the following (in millions):

Standby letters of credit (a) $ 19

Performance and customs bonds (b) $ 31

Benefit plan withdrawal obligations (c) $ 99

These amounts are not recorded on the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet and it is not expected that the Company or its subsidiaries will be called upon to advance funds under these commitments.

(a)

Represents letters of credit, of which, $8 million enables the Company to qualify as a self-insurer for state and federal workers' compensation liabilities. Additionally, the balance also includes two letters of credit totaling $11 million related to the Company's real estate projects.

(b)

Consists of $13 million in U.S. customs bonds, $17 million in bonds related to real estate construction projects in Hawaii, and $1 million related to transportation and other matters.

(c)

Represents the withdrawal liabilities as of the most recent valuation dates for multiemployer pension plans, in which Matson is a participant. Management has no present intention of withdrawing from, and does not anticipate the termination of, any of the aforementioned plans.

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. The recorded amounts of the indemnity liabilities were not material. 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.

Other Obligations: Certain of the businesses in which the Company holds a non-controlling interest have long-term debt obligations. In February 2010, one of the Company's joint ventures renegotiated a $10 million loan that extended the maturity date of the loan to August 2011, with a one-year extension option, which was subsequently executed. At the time of the extension, the principal balance of the note was $9 million. The new scheduled maturity date is August 2012, at which time the entire unpaid principal balance and all accrued and unpaid interest charges will be payable. As a condition to providing the loan, 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 shall 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 was not material, and as of September 30, 2011, the Company had not paid any amounts under the guaranty.

Other than obligations described above, investee obligations 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 HC&S. 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 Commission's denial to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals.

On June 25, 2004, two organizations filed with the Water Commission a petition 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.

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.

On April 21, 2008, Matson was served with a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida for documents and information relating to water carriage in connection with the Department of Justice's investigation into the pricing and other competitive practices of carriers operating in the domestic trades. Matson understands that while the investigation has been focused on the Puerto Rico trade, it also includes pricing and other competitive practices in connection with all domestic trades, including the Alaska, Hawaii and Guam trades. Matson does not operate vessels in the Puerto Rico and Alaska trades. It does operate vessels in the Hawaii and Guam trades. Matson has cooperated, and will continue to cooperate, fully with the Department of Justice. If the Department of Justice believes that any violations have occurred on the part of Matson or the Company, it could seek civil or criminal sanctions, including monetary fines. The Company is unable to predict, at this time, the outcome or financial impact, if any, of this investigation.

The Company and Matson were named as defendants in a consolidated civil lawsuit purporting to be a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle. The lawsuit alleged violations of the antitrust laws and also named as a defendant Horizon Lines, Inc., another domestic shipping carrier operating in the Hawaii and Guam trades. On August 18, 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend the complaint to allege claims consistent with the court's order. On May 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On November 30, 2010, the judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On December 22, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 29, 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.

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, which would apply to Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company's three boilers. The standards require that prescribed emissions be reduced to allowable levels as detailed in the final regulations by early 2014. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the new standards. However, the effective date of the rule has been stayed pending reconsideration of certain aspects of the rule by EPA or completion of proceedings for judicial review. In addition, legislation is pending in Congress that could impact both the content of the rule and the effective date. Accordingly, further changes to the rule and to the compliance schedule are likely. Given the potential for changes to the rule, the Company's continuing evaluation of alternative operating models for its sugar business, and the requirement to perform a thorough analysis of the new standards, the Company is unable to predict at this time, the financial impact of the regulations.

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 alleges 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, Inc. as a defendant. At a hearing on October 26, 2011, the judge dismissed the lawsuit, but gave the EEOC 45 days from the date the judge issues the order to file an amended complaint. McBryde Resources and Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. will vigorously defend themselves in this matter. The Company is unable to predict, at this time, the outcome or financial impact, if any, of the lawsuit. In a case not involving the Company, but relating to the use of Thai workers in Hawaii, the U.S. Department of Justice had charged the owners of Aloun Farm, Inc., an agricultural business located on the island of Oahu, also with illegal labor actions. In August 2011, the case was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. District Court in Hawaii after the third day of trial without the defendants having to put on their case.

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 their businesses, the outcomes of which, in the opinion of management after consultation with counsel, would not have a material adverse effect on A&B's results of operations or financial position.

The Company is subject to possible climate change legislation, regulation and international accords. At various times, bills related to climate change, such as limiting and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through a “cap and trade” system of allowances and credits, have been introduced in the U.S. Congress. In addition, the EPA is in the process of adopting and implementing regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions in lieu of Congressional action. If enacted, such regulations could impose significant additional costs on the Company, including increased energy costs, higher material prices, and costly mandatory vessel and equipment modifications. The Company is unable to predict, at this time, the outcome or financial impact, if any, of future climate change related legislation.