Note 14 - Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	(14) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Partnership is involved in various commercial claims, litigation and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. The Partnership assesses these claims in an effort to determine the degree of probability and loss for potential accrual in its financial statements. In accordance with ASC 450, “Contingencies,” an accrual is recorded for a loss contingency when its occurrence is probable and damages are reasonably estimable based on the anticipated most likely outcome or the minimum amount within a range of possible outcomes. Because legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and unfavorable resolutions can occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about uncertain future events. When evaluating contingencies, the Partnership may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate of loss or recovery due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, the ongoing discovery and/or development of information important to the matter. The Partnership’s material litigation loss contingency is discussed below. The Partnership is unable to estimate reasonably possible losses (in excess of recorded accruals, if any) for this contingency for the reasons set forth below. Edmund C. Olson, as Trustee of The Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 vs. Royal Hawaiian Orchards, L.P. On January 22, 2015, Edmund C. Olson, as trustee of The Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 (the “Olson Trust”), filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the Partnership has breached the terms of the leases for the Green Shoe I Orchard and the Green Shoe II Orchard, on which 609 tree acres of macadamia nut orchards are situated. The Olson Trust claims that the Partnership failed to exercise “good husbandry” and permitted waste of the orchards through its horticultural practices, and, therefore, the Olson Trust is entitled to terminate the leases and reenter and expel the Partnership from the orchards. Pursuant to the lease agreements, the lease terms of the Green Shoe I Lease and Green Shoe II Lease expire in 2019 and 2034, respectively. In addition, the Olson Trust seeks termination damages in an amount to be proven at trial. On or about February 17, 2015, the Partnership filed an answer and a cross-complaint against the Olson Trust, denying the claims of the Olson Trust and asserting claims of the Partnership for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive competition, and injunctive relief, among others. The Partnership believes the claims of the Olson Trust are without merit. The Olson Trust has denied the claims asserted in the Partnership’s cross-claim. On September 17, 2015, the parties signed a Joint Stipulation to Engage in Binding Mediation of Proceedings and to Stay Court Litigation Pending Binding Mediation (the “Joint Stipulation”) to stay the court proceedings pending the issuance of a written report by a panel of three farming experts determining whether the Partnership has been practicing “good husbandry” or “strip or waste” at each orchard. The panel’s report is to include recommendations of any practices or operational changes that should be implemented to bring the leases into compliance with “good husbandry” and to prevent “strip or waste.” The parties have agreed to timely perform all recommendations in the panel’s report. The parties have further agreed that the report shall be enforceable in the state courts of Hawaii to the same extent as an arbitration award. In January 2016, the parties completed their selection of the panel of experts. The panel’s report was due in October 2016. However, on October 4, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Stay Binding Mediation Proceedings with the court mutually agreeing to stay the binding mediation proceedings for forty-five days, or such additional period as agreed upon by the parties in writing, in order to work on a settlement. Either party may terminate the stay upon ten days’ written notice after October 24, 2016, the date on which the parties completed their exchange of initial settlement offers. If the parties are unable to conclude a definitive settlement agreement, the panel of experts will resume preparing its report. No amounts have been accrued in the accompanying financial statements due to the uncertainty of (i) the ability of parties to reach a settlement and the terms of any such settlement, and (ii) the conclusions to be reached by the panel in the final report and the costs involved to implement the panel’s recommendations.

(14) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Partnership is involved in various commercial claims, litigation and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. The Partnership assesses these claims in an effort to determine the degree of probability and loss for potential accrual in its financial statements. In accordance with ASC 450, “Contingencies,” an accrual is recorded for a loss contingency when its occurrence is probable and damages are reasonably estimable based on the anticipated most likely outcome or the minimum amount within a range of possible outcomes. Because legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and unfavorable resolutions can occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about uncertain future events. When evaluating contingencies, the Partnership may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate of loss or recovery due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, the ongoing discovery and/or development of information important to the matter. The Partnership’s material litigation loss contingency is discussed below. The Partnership is unable to estimate reasonably possible losses (in excess of recorded accruals, if any) for this contingency for the reasons set forth below.

Edmund C. Olson, as Trustee of The Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 vs. Royal Hawaiian Orchards, L.P.

On January 22, 2015, Edmund C. Olson, as trustee of The Edmund C. Olson Trust No. 2 (the “Olson Trust”), filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the Partnership has breached the terms of the leases for the Green Shoe I Orchard and the Green Shoe II Orchard, on which 609 tree acres of macadamia nut orchards are situated. The Olson Trust claims that the Partnership failed to exercise “good husbandry” and permitted waste of the orchards through its horticultural practices, and, therefore, the Olson Trust is entitled to terminate the leases and reenter and expel the Partnership from the orchards. Pursuant to the lease agreements, the lease terms of the Green Shoe I Lease and Green Shoe II Lease expire in 2019 and 2034, respectively. In addition, the Olson Trust seeks termination damages in an amount to be proven at trial. On or about February 17, 2015, the Partnership filed an answer and a cross-complaint against the Olson Trust, denying the claims of the Olson Trust and asserting claims of the Partnership for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive competition, and injunctive relief, among others. The Partnership believes the claims of the Olson Trust are without merit. The Olson Trust has denied the claims asserted in the Partnership’s cross-claim. On September 17, 2015, the parties signed a Joint Stipulation to Engage in Binding Mediation of Proceedings and to Stay Court Litigation Pending Binding Mediation (the “Joint Stipulation”) to stay the court proceedings pending the issuance of a written report by a panel of three farming experts determining whether the Partnership has been practicing “good husbandry” or “strip or waste” at each orchard. The panel’s report is to include recommendations of any practices or operational changes that should be implemented to bring the leases into compliance with “good husbandry” and to prevent “strip or waste.” The parties have agreed to timely perform all recommendations in the panel’s report. The parties have further agreed that the report shall be enforceable in the state courts of Hawaii to the same extent as an arbitration award. In January 2016, the parties completed their selection of the panel of experts. The panel’s report was due in October 2016. However, on October 4, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Stay Binding Mediation Proceedings with the court mutually agreeing to stay the binding mediation proceedings for forty-five days, or such additional period as agreed upon by the parties in writing, in order to work on a settlement. Either party may terminate the stay upon ten days’ written notice after October 24, 2016, the date on which the parties completed their exchange of initial settlement offers. If the parties are unable to conclude a definitive settlement agreement, the panel of experts will resume preparing its report.

No amounts have been accrued in the accompanying financial statements due to the uncertainty of (i) the ability of parties to reach a settlement and the terms of any such settlement, and (ii) the conclusions to be reached by the panel in the final report and the costs involved to implement the panel’s recommendations.