KANP Kaanapali Land LLC (PK)

United States

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-Q

 

[  X  ] Quarterly Report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016

 

or

 

[     ]       Transition Report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the transition period from _______ to __________

 

Commission file #0-50273

 

KAANAPALI LAND, LLC

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Delaware (State of organization)	01-0731997 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
900 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Illinois (Address of principal executive office)	60611 (Zip Code)

 

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 312-915-1987

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") during the preceding 12 months (or for such a shorter period that registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes [   ]    No [ X ]

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-5 ('232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Yes [ X ]    No [   ]

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

	Large accelerated filer	[    ]		Accelerated filer	[     ]
	Non-accelerated filer	[    ]		Smaller reporting company	[ X ]
	(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes [   ]    No [ X ]

 

As of November 4, 2016, the registrant had 1,792,613 shares of Common Shares and 52,000 Class C Shares outstanding.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

Part I   FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1.		Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements	3
Item 2.		Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	21
Item 4.		Controls and Procedures	24
Part II  OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1.		Legal Proceedings	25
Item 1A.		Risk Factors	25
Item 6.		Exhibits	25
SIGNATURES			26

 

 

Part I.  Financial Information

     Item 1.  Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

 

KAANAPALI LAND, LLC

 

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

 

June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015

(Dollars in Thousands, except share data)

(Unaudited)

 

 

	June 30, 2016			December 31, 2015
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$	22,384		$	22,112
Restricted cash		791			449
Property, net		72,407			75,214
Pension plan assets		20,040			19,340
Other assets		2,080			2,262
Total assets	$	117,702		$	119,377
Liabilities
Accounts payable and accrued expenses	$	387		$	566
Deposits and deferred gains		2,424			2,368
Deferred income taxes		19,593			19,402
Other liabilities		12,582			13,615
Total liabilities		34,986			35,951
Commitments and contingencies (Note 7)
Common stock, at 6/30/16 and 12/31/15 non par value   (Shares authorized – unlimited, Class C shares 52,000;     shares issued and outstanding - 1,792,613 common     shares and 52,000 Class C shares		--			--
Additional paid-in capital		5,471			5,471
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss),   net of tax		(10,153)			(10,450)
Accumulated earnings		86,623			87,817
Stockholders’ equity		81,941			82,838
Non controlling interests		775			588
Total equity		82,716			83,426
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	117,702		$	119,377

 

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

KAANAPALI LAND, LLC

 

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations

 

Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015

(Unaudited)

(Dollars in Thousands, except per share data)

 

 

	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2016			2015			2016			2015
Revenues:
Sales and rental revenues	$	1,879		$	1,455		$	5,141		$	4,272
Interest and other income		30			46			91			82
Total revenues		1,909			1,501			5,232			4,354
Cost and expenses:
Cost of sales		1,703			1,690			4,722			4,393
Selling, general and     administrative		635			593			1,547			1,241
Depreciation and     amortization		64			50			127			100
Total cost and expenses		2,402			2,333			6,396			5,734
Operating loss     from continuing     operations before     income taxes		(493)			(832)			(1,164)			(1,380)
Income tax benefit (expense)		0			0			1			(15)
Net loss		(493)			(832)			(1,163)			(1,395)
Less: Net income (loss)           attributable to non           controlling interests		(36)			(85)			0			(69)
Net loss attributable to           stockholders	$	(457)		$	(747)		$	(1,163)		$	(1,326)
Net loss per share   - basic and diluted	$	(0.25)		$	(0.40)		$	(0.63)		$	(0.72)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

KAANAPALI LAND, LLC

 

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss)

 

Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015

(Unaudited)

(Dollars in Thousands)

 

 

	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2016			2015			2016			2015
Net income (loss)	$	(493)		$	(832)		$	(1,163)		$	(1,395)
Other comprehensive   income (loss):
Net unrealized losses      on pension plan assets		(244)			(278)			(488)			(557)
Other comprehensive loss,   before tax		(244)			(278)			(488)			(557)
Income tax expense related to   items of other comprehensive   loss		95			108			190			217
Other comprehensive loss,   net of tax		(149)			(170)			(298)			(340)
Comprehensive income (loss)		(642)			(1,002)			(1,461)			(1,735)
Comprehensive income (loss)   attributable to non controlling   interests		(36)			(85)			0			(69)
Comprehensive income (loss)   attributable to stockholders	$	(606)		$	(917)		$	(1,461)		$	(1,666)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

KAANAPALI LAND, LLC

 

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

 

Six Months Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015

(Unaudited)

(Dollars in Thousands)

 

 

	2016			2015
Net cash provided by operating activities	$	221		$	443
Net cash used in investing activities:
Property additions		(105)			(235)
Property disposals		--			115
		(105)			(120)
Net cash provided by financing activities:
Contributions related to the LOA		156			133
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents		272			456
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		22,112			23,608
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	22,384		$	24,064

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

KAANAPALI LAND, LLC

 

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

 

(Unaudited)

(Dollars in Thousands)

 

 

(1)  Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

 

Organization and Basis of Accounting

 

Kaanapali Land, LLC ("Kaanapali Land"), a Delaware limited liability company, is the reorganized entity resulting from the Joint Plan of Reorganization of Amfac Hawaii, LLC (now known as KLC Land Company, LLC ("KLC Land")), certain of its subsidiaries (together with KLC Land, the "KLC Debtors") and FHT Corporation ("FHTC" and, together with the KLC Debtors, the "Debtors") under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, dated June 11, 2002 (as amended, the "Plan").

 

The Company's continuing operations are in two business segments - Agriculture and Property. The Agriculture segment remains engaged in farming, harvesting, milling and selling operations relating to coffee orchards on behalf of the applicable land owners. The Property segment primarily develops land for sale and negotiates bulk sales of undeveloped land. The Property and Agriculture segments operate exclusively in the State of Hawaii.

 

In 2013, the Kaanapali Coffee Farms Lot Owners’ Association was consolidated into the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The interests of third party owners are reflected as non controlling interests. All significant intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.

 

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for complete financial statements, and therefore, should be read in conjunction with the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K (File No. 0-50273) for the year ended December 31, 2015. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this quarterly report have the same meanings as in the Company's 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

Property

 

The Company's significant property holdings are on the island of Maui consisting of approximately 4,000 acres, of which approximately 1,500 acres is classified as conservation land which precludes development. The Company has determined, based on its current projections for the development and/or disposition of its property holdings, that the property holdings are not currently recorded in an amount in excess of proceeds that the Company expects that it will ultimately obtain from the operation and disposition thereof.

 

Inventory of land held for sale, of approximately $8,460 and $11,245, representing primarily Kaanapali Coffee Farms, was included in Property, net in the consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, and is carried at the lower of cost or net realizable value, which is based on current and foreseeable market conditions, discussions with real estate brokers and review of historical land sale activity (level 2 and 3). Generally no land is currently in use except for approximately 400 acres of coffee trees which are being farmed to support the Company's land development program and miscellaneous parcels of land that have been leased or licensed to third parties on a short term basis.

 

Use of Estimates

 

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

 

Operating results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be achieved in future periods.

 

Cash and Cash Equivalents

 

The Company considers as cash equivalents all investments with maturities of three months or less when purchased. The Company’s cash balances are maintained primarily in two financial institutions. Restricted cash represents cash held by the Kaanapali Coffee Farms Lot Owners’ Association. At times, such balances may exceed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limits. Management does not believe the Company is exposed to significant risk of loss on cash and cash equivalents.

 

Recognition of Profit From Real Property Sales

 

For real property sales, profit is recognized in full when the collectability of the sales price is reasonably assured and the earnings process is virtually complete. When the sale does not meet the requirements for full profit recognition, all or a portion of the profit is deferred until such requirements are met.

 

Other revenues are recognized when delivery has occurred or services have been rendered, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collectability is reasonably assured.

 

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

 

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued guidance under the Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 606, Revenue from Contract with Customers, which establishes a single comprehensive revenue recognition model for all contracts with customers and will supersede most existing revenue guidance. This guidance requires entities to recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled to receive in exchange. Transition options include either a full or modified retrospective approach and early adoption is permitted. The implementation date for this guidance was recently deferred and will now be effective at the beginning of our first quarter of fiscal year 2019. We are currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of this requirement on our Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

In February 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2015-02, Consolidation (Topic 810) that amends the existing consolidation guidance related to (i) limited partnerships and similar legal entities, (ii) the evaluation of variable interests for fees paid to decision makers or service providers, (iii) the effect of fee arrangements and related parties on the primary beneficiary determination and (iv) certain investment funds. These changes are expected to limit the number of consolidation models and place more emphasis on risk of loss when determining a controlling financial interest. This ASU is effective for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2015. There was no material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations from the adoption of this ASU.

 

In May 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2015-07, Fair Value Measurement Disclosures for Investments in Certain Entities That Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or its Equivalent), as a new Topic, Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 820. Under this new guidance, investments measured at net asset value (“NAV”), as a practical expedient for fair value, are excluded from the fair value hierarchy. Removing investments measured using the practical expedient from the fair value hierarchy is intended to eliminate the diversity in practice that currently exists with respect to the categorization of these investments. The only criterion for categorizing investments in the fair value hierarchy will be the observability of the inputs. This ASU is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015 and shall be applied retrospectively to all periods presented. There was no material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations from the adoption of this ASU.

 

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet and disclosing key information about leasing arrangements. For public business entities, the standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. For all other entities, the standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020. Early application of the amendments in this update is permitted for all entities. The Company is currently evaluating the effect that implementation of this update will have on its consolidated financial position and results of operations upon adoption.

 

 

(2)  Land Development

 

During the first quarter of 2006, the Company received final subdivision approval on an approximate 336 acre parcel in the region "mauka" (toward the mountains) from the main highway serving the area. This project, called Kaanapali Coffee Farms, consists of 51 agricultural lots, which are currently being offered to individual buyers. The land improvements were completed during 2008. As of June 30, 2016, the Company sold thirty-nine lots at Kaanapali Coffee Farms including one during the second quarter of 2016, three during the first quarter of 2016 and four in 2015. Additionally, in 2016, two lots were sold in the third quarter. In conjunction with the sale of four lots sold in prior years and one lot sold in 2016, in addition to cash proceeds, the Company received promissory notes. As of June 30, 2016, $1,518 remains outstanding.

 

On December 23, 2015 Pioneer Mill Company, LLC entered into a property sales agreement with an unrelated third party for the sale of the Pioneer Mill Site (“Mill Site Sales Agreement”) which called for a sales price of $20.5 million (before costs of sale, including commissions) and had a scheduled closing date of May 31, 2016, as extended. On April 19, 2016, the buyer gave notice they would not be proceeding with the purchase and thereby terminated the Mill Site Sales Agreement.

 

 

(3)  Mortgage Note Payable

 

Certain subsidiaries of Kaanapali Land are jointly indebted to Kaanapali Land pursuant to a certain Secured Promissory Note in the principal amount of $70,000 dated November 14, 2002, and due September 30, 2020, as extended. Such note had an outstanding balance of principal and accrued interest as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 of approximately $87,200 and $87,200, respectively. The interest rate currently is 1.19% per annum and compounds semi-annually. The note, which is prepayable, is secured by substantially all of the remaining real property owned by such subsidiaries, pursuant to a certain Mortgage, Security Agreement and Financing Statement, dated as of November 14, 2002 and placed on record in December 2002. The note has been eliminated in the consolidated financial statements because the obligors are consolidated subsidiaries of Kaanapali Land.

 

 

(4)  Employee Benefit Plans

 

The Company participates in a defined benefit pension plan that covers substantially all its eligible employees. The Pension Plan is sponsored and maintained by Kaanapali Land in conjunction with other plans providing benefits to employees of Kaanapali Land and its affiliates.

 

The components of the net periodic pension benefit (credit), included in selling, general and administrative in the consolidated statements of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 are as follows:

 

	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2016			2015			2016			2015
Service cost	$	143		$	145		$	285		$	289
Interest cost		383			394			767			788
Expected return on plan assets		(876)			(1,016)			(1,752)			(2,032)
Recognized net actuarial   (gain) loss		244			278			488			557
Net periodic pension credit	$	(106)		$	(199)		$	(212)		$	(398)

 

The Company recognizes the over funded or under funded status of its employee benefit plans as an asset or liability in its statement of financial position and recognizes changes in its funded status in the year in which the changes occur through comprehensive income. Included in accumulated other comprehensive income at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 are the following amounts that have not yet been recognized in net periodic pension cost: unrecognized prior service costs of $1 ($1 net of tax) and $18 ($11 net of tax), respectively, and unrecognized actuarial loss of $16,641 ($10,151 net of tax) and $17,129 ($10,449 net of tax), respectively. The prior service cost and actuarial loss recognized in net periodic pension cost for the six months ending June 30, 2016 are $2 ($1 net of tax) and $488 ($298 net of tax), respectively.

 

Reference is made to footnote 10 regarding the purchase of a single premium group annuity contract covering substantially all of the Pension Plan’s benefit obligations.

 

The Company maintains a nonqualified deferred compensation arrangement (the "Rabbi Trust") which provides certain former directors of Amfac and their spouses with pension benefits. The Rabbi Trust invests in marketable securities and cash equivalents (Level 1). The deferred compensation liability of $711 represented in the Rabbi Trust and assets funding such deferred compensation liability of $29 are consolidated in the Company's balance sheet.

 

 

(5)  Income Taxes

 

Federal tax return examinations have been completed for all years through 2005 and for the year 2013. The statutes of limitations have run for the tax years 2006 through 2011. The statutes of limitations with respect to the Company's taxes for 2012, as well as 2014 and 2015 remain open, subject to possible utilization of loss carryforwards from earlier years. The Company believes adequate provisions for income tax have been recorded for all years, although there can be no assurance that such provisions will be adequate. To the extent that there is a shortfall, any such shortfall for which the Company could be liable could be material.

 

 

(6)  Transactions with Affiliates

 

An affiliated insurance agency, JMB Insurance Agency, Inc., which has some degree of common ownership with the Company, earns insurance brokerage commissions in connection with providing the placement of insurance coverage for certain of the properties and operations of the Company. Such commissions are believed by management to be comparable to those that would be paid to such affiliate insurance agency in similar dealings with unaffiliated third parties. Commissions paid for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 were $12 and $11, respectively.

 

The Company reimburses their affiliates for general overhead expense and for direct expenses incurred on its behalf, including salaries and salary-related expenses incurred in connection with the management of the Company's operations. Generally, the entity that employs the person providing the services receives the reimbursement. Substantially all of such reimbursable amounts were incurred by JMB Realty Corporation or its affiliates, 900 Financial Management Services, LLC, and JMB Financial Advisors, LLC, during 2016 and 2015, all of which have some degree of common ownership with the Company. The total costs recorded in cost of sales and selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of operations for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 were $638 and $606, respectively, of which $116 was unpaid as of June 30, 2016.

 

The Company derives revenue from farming and common area maintenance services and for providing non-potable water to the Kaanapali Coffee Farms Lot Owners Association (“LOA”). The LOA is the association of the owners of the Kaanapali Coffee Farms. The revenues were $592 and $592 for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Such revenue is recognized in the Agriculture Segment as disclosed in footnote 9 Business Segment Information. The 2016 and 2015 amounts have been eliminated in consolidation.

 

 

(7)  Commitments and Contingencies

 

At June 30, 2016, the Company has no principal contractual obligations related to the land improvements in conjunction with Phase I of the Kaanapali Coffee Farms project.

 

On November 23, 2015, the SEC contacted Kaanapali Land regarding the Company’s compliance with the reporting requirements under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as the Company is delinquent on its annual and interim SEC filings. In light of this letter, Kaanapali Land is unable to determine whether the SEC might pursue some future action related to this matter.

 

 

Material legal proceedings of the Company are described below. Unless otherwise noted, the parties adverse to the Company in the legal proceedings described below have not made a claim for damages in a liquidated amount and/or the Company believes that it would be speculative to attempt to determine the Company's exposure relative thereto, and as a consequence believes that an estimate of the range of potential loss cannot be made. Any claims that were not filed on a timely basis under the Plan have been discharged by the Bankruptcy Court and thus the underlying legal proceedings should not result in any liability to the Debtors. All other claims have been satisfied. Proceedings against subsidiaries or affiliates of Kaanapali Land that are not Debtors were not stayed by the Plan and were permitted to proceed. However, two such subsidiaries, Oahu Sugar Company, LLC (“Oahu Sugar”) and D/C Distribution Corporation (“D/C”), filed subsequent petitions for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in April 2005 and July 2007, respectively, as described below. As a consequence of the Chapter 7 filings, both subsidiaries are not under control of the Company.

 

As a result of an administrative order issued to Oahu Sugar by the Hawaii Department of Health (“HDOH”), Order No. CH 98-001, dated January 27, 1998, Oahu Sugar was engaged in environmental site assessment of lands it leased from the U.S. Navy and located on the Waipio Peninsula. Oahu Sugar submitted a Remedial Investigation Report to the HDOH. The HDOH provided comments that indicated that additional testing may be required. Oahu Sugar responded to these comments with additional information. On January 9, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a request to Oahu Sugar seeking information related to the actual or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants at the Waipio Peninsula portion of the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex National Priorities List Superfund Site. The request sought, among other things, information relating to the ability of Oahu Sugar to pay for or perform a clean up of the land formerly occupied by Oahu Sugar. Oahu Sugar responded to the information requests and had notified both the Navy and the EPA that while it had some modest remaining cash that it could contribute to further investigation and remediation efforts in connection with an overall settlement of the outstanding claims, Oahu Sugar was substantially without assets and would be unable to make a significant contribution to such an effort. Attempts at negotiating such a settlement were fruitless and Oahu Sugar received an order from EPA in March 2005 that would purport to require certain testing and remediation of the site. As Oahu Sugar was substantially without assets, the pursuit of any action, informational, enforcement, or otherwise, would have had a material adverse effect on the financial condition of Oahu Sugar. Counsel for the trustee, EPA, the Navy, and for Fireman’s Fund, one of Kaanapali Land’s insurers, are exploring ways in which to conclude the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy. There are no assurances that such an agreement can be reached.

 

Therefore, as a result of the pursuit of further action by the HDOH and EPA as described above and the immediate material adverse effect that the actions had on the financial condition of Oahu Sugar, Oahu Sugar filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code. Such filing is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company as Oahu Sugar was substantially without assets at the time of the filing. While it is not believed that any other affiliates have any responsibility for the debts of Oahu Sugar, the EPA has indicated that it intends to make a claim against Kaanapali Land as further described below, and therefore, there can be no assurance that the Company will not incur significant costs in conjunction with such claim.

 

 

The deadline for filing proofs of claim with the bankruptcy court passed in April 2006. Prior to the deadline, Kaanapali Land, on behalf of itself and certain subsidiaries, filed claims that aggregated approximately $224,000, primarily relating to unpaid guarantee obligations made by Oahu Sugar that were assigned to Kaanapali Land pursuant to the Plan on the Plan Effective Date. In addition, the EPA and the U.S. Navy filed a joint proof of claim that seeks to recover certain environmental response costs relative to the Waipio Peninsula site discussed above. The proof of claim contained a demand for previously spent costs in the amount of approximately $260, and additional anticipated response costs of between approximately $2,760 and $11,450. No specific justification of these costs, or what they are purported to represent, was included in the EPA/Navy proof of claim. Due to the insignificant amount of assets remaining in the debtor's estate, it is unclear whether the United States Trustee who has taken control of Oahu Sugar will take any action to contest the EPA/Navy claim, or how it will reconcile such claim for the purpose of distributing any remaining assets of Oahu Sugar.

 

EPA has sent three requests for information to Kaanapali Land regarding, among other things, Kaanapali Land's organization and relationship, if any, to entities that may have, historically, operated on the site and with respect to operations conducted on the site. Kaanapali Land responded to these requests for information. By letter dated February 7, 2007, pursuant to an allegation that Kaanapali Land is a successor to Oahu Sugar Company, Limited, a company that operated at the site prior to 1961 ("Old Oahu"), EPA advised Kaanapali that it believes it is authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) to amend the existing Unilateral Administrative Order against Oahu Sugar Company, LLC, for the clean up of the site to include Kaanapali Land as an additional respondent. The purported basis for the EPA's position is that Kaanapali Land, by virtue of certain corporate actions, is jointly and severally responsible for the performance of the response actions, including, without limitation, clean-up at the site. No such amendment has taken place as of the date hereof. Instead, after a series of discussions between Kaanapali and the EPA, on or about September 30, 2009, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to Kaanapali Land for the performance of work in support of a removal action at the former Oahu Sugar pesticide mixing site located on Waipio peninsula. The work consists of the performance of soil and groundwater sampling and analysis, a topographic survey, and the preparation of an engineering evaluation and cost analysis of potential removal actions to abate an alleged "imminent and substantial endangerment" to public health, welfare or the environment. The order appears to be further predicated primarily on the alleged connection of Kaanapali Land to Old Oahu and its activities on the site. Kaanapali Land is currently performing work, including the conduct of sampling at the site, required by the order while reserving its rights to contest liability regarding the site. With regard to liability for the site, Kaanapali Land believes that its liability, if any, should relate solely to a portion of the period of operation of Old Oahu at the site, although in some circumstances CERCLA apparently permits imposition of joint and several liability, which can exceed a responsible party's equitable share. Kaanapali Land believes that the U.S. Navy bears substantial liability for the site by virtue of its ownership of the site throughout the entire relevant period, both as landlord under its various leases with Oahu Sugar and Old Oahu and by operating and intensively utilizing the site directly during a period when no lease was in force. The Company believes that the cost of the work as set forth in the current order will not be material to the Company as a whole; however, in the event that the EPA were to issue an order requiring remediation of the site, there can be no assurances that the cost of said remediation would not ultimately have a material adverse effect on the Company. In addition, if there is litigation regarding the site, there can be no assurance that the cost of such litigation will not be material or that such litigation will result in a judgment in favor of the Company. Currently, Kaanapali and the EPA are exchanging comments relative to further studies to be performed at the site, including a possible ecological risk assessment. Kaanapali expects that after a further review, the next phase is likely a consideration of the remedial alternatives for the Site.

 

On February 11, 2015, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, bad faith and damages against Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (“Fireman’s Fund”) in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, Civil No. 15-1-0239-02, in connection with costs and expenses it has incurred or may incur in connection with the Waipio site. In the five-count complaint, the Company seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment of its rights under various Fireman’s Fund policies and an order that Fireman’s Fund defend and indemnify Kaanapali Land from all past, present and future costs and expenses in connection with the site, including costs of investigation and defense incurred by Kaanapali and the professionals it has engaged. In addition, Kaanapali seeks general, special, and punitive damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems just and proper. Fireman’s Fund has not yet filed a responsive pleading. There are no assurances of the amounts of insurance proceeds that may or may not be ultimately recovered.

 

Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to other entities, and D/C have been named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, “Kaanapali Land asbestos cases”) are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these cases. The defense of these cases has had a material adverse effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to file a voluntary petition for liquidation as discussed below. Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there can be no assurance in that regard.

 

On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman’s Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies. In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman’s fund expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C bankruptcy case bars Fireman’s Fund from making any payments to resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C Distribution is also alleging a right to coverage under those policies for asbestos claims against it. However, in the interim, Fireman’s Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to pay defense costs for those cases, subject to whatever reservations of rights may be in effect and subject further to the policy terms. Fireman’s Fund has also indicated that to the extent that Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman’s Fund in addressing settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman’s Fund’s present intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land, subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order, the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and prior approval of the settlements. Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman’s Fund in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land is unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by insurance.

 

 

On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central Justice Center. No other purported party was served. In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed. Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. D/C believed that it had meritorious defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend. In addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered. In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali Land provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of $1,618. Such settlement amount was paid to Kaanapali Land in partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness noted above.

 

Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities, D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July 2007, Case No. 07-12776. Such filing is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially without assets at the time of the filing. Kaanapali Land filed claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately $26,800, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land. In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of approximately two thousand claimants. While it is not likely that a significant number of these claimants have a claim against D/C that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the trustee will deal with these claims. It is not expected, however, that the Company will receive any material additional amounts in the liquidation of D/C.

 

 

On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants who filed asbestos claims in California state court (hereinafter, “Petitioners”) filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy (hereinafter “life stay motion”). Under relevant provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of the D/C bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against D/C were stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action. In their motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift the stay in the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate entities as defendants in their respective California state court asbestos actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance policies that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate entities. The Petitioner’s motion to lift stay thus in part has as an objective ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other things, insurance policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of both the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estates. As noted above, Kaanapali, the EPA, and the Navy are claimants in the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy and the Fireman’s Fund policies are allegedly among the assets of the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estate as well. For this and other reasons, Kaanapali, the EPA and the Navy opposed the motion to lift stay. After briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No. 07-12776, issued an order lifting the stay. In the order, the court permitted the Petitioners to “proceed in the applicable nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law. Claimants are entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting upon any available insurance Debtor’s liability to them in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law. No recovery may be made directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the bankruptcy estate.” Kaanapali, Firemen’s Fund and the United States appealed the bankruptcy court order lifting the stay. In March 2016, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court order finding that the bankruptcy court did not apply relevant law to the facts in the case to arrive at a reasoned decision. On appeal the district court noted that the law requires consideration of a number of factors when lifting a stay to permit certain claims to proceed, including consideration of the adequacy of remaining insurance to meet claims still subject to the stay. Among other things, the court noted that the bankruptcy court failed to explain why it was appropriate for the petitioners to liquidate their claims before the other claimants whose claims remained subject to the stay. The district court remanded the case for further proceedings. It is uncertain whether such further proceedings on the lift stay will take place.

 

The parties in the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies have reached out to each other to determine if there is any interest in pursuing a global settlement of the claims in the Oahu Sugar and D/C bankruptcies insofar as the Fireman’s Fund insurance policies are concerned. If such discussions take place, they may take the form of a mediation or other format and involve some form of resolution of Kaanapali’s interest in various of the Fireman’s Fund insurance policies for Kaanapali’s various and future insurance claims. Kaanapali may consider entering into such discussions, but there is no assurance that such discussions will take place or prove successful in resolving any of the claims in whole or in part.

 

The Company has received notice from Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources (“DNLR”) that DNLR on a periodic basis would inspect all significant dams and reservoirs in Hawaii, including those maintained by the Company on Maui in connection with its agricultural operations. A series of such inspections have taken place over the period from 2006 through the most recent inspections that occurred in October 2014. To date, the DLNR has cited certain deficiencies concerning two of the Company’s reservoirs relating to dam and reservoir safety standards established by the State of Hawaii. These deficiencies include, among other things, vegetative overgrowth, erosion of slopes, uncertainty of inflow control, spillway capacity, and freeboard. The Company has taken certain corrective actions as well as updating important plans to address emergency events and basic operations and maintenance. In 2012, the State of Hawaii issued new Hawaii Administrative Rules for Dams and Reservoirs which require dam owners to obtain from DLNR Certificates of Impoundment (“permits”) to operate and maintain dams or reservoirs. Obtaining such permits requires owners to completely resolve all cited deficiencies. Therefore, the process may involve further analysis of dam and reservoir safety requirements, which would likely involve hiring specialized engineering consultants, and ultimately could result in significant and costly improvements which may be material to the Company.

 

The DLNR categorizes the reservoirs as "high hazard" under State of Hawaii Administrative Rules and State Statutes concerning dam and reservoir safety. This classification, which bears upon government oversight and reporting requirements, may increase the cost of managing and maintaining these reservoirs in a material manner. The Company does not believe that this classification is warranted for either of these reservoirs and has initiated a dialogue with DLNR in that regard. In April 2008, the Company received further correspondence from DLNR that included the assessment by their consultants of the potential losses that result from the failure of these reservoirs. In April 2009, the Company filed a written response to DLNR to correct certain factual errors in its report and to request further analysis on whether such "high hazard" classifications are warranted. It is unlikely that the “high hazard” designation will be changed.

 

Other than as described above, the Company is not involved in any material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to its business. The Company and/or certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants in several pending lawsuits. While it is impossible to predict the outcome of such routine litigation that is now pending (or threatened) and for which the potential liability is not covered by insurance, the Company is of the opinion that the ultimate liability from any of this litigation will not materially adversely affect the Company's consolidated results of operations or its financial condition.

 

The Company often seeks insurance recoveries under its policies for costs incurred or expected to be incurred for losses or claims under which the policies might apply. While payouts from various coverages are being sought and may be recovered in the future, no anticipatory amounts have been reflected in the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

 

Kaanapali Land Management Corp. (KLMC) is a party to an agreement with the State of Hawaii for the development of the Lahaina Bypass Highway. An approximate 2.4 mile portion of this two lane state highway has been completed. The more significant portion remains uncompleted. Under certain circumstances, which have not yet occurred, KLMC remains committed for approximately $1,100 of various future costs relating to the planning and design of the uncompleted portion of the Bypass Highway. Under certain conditions, which have not yet been met, KLMC has agreed to contribute an amount not exceeding $6,700 toward construction costs. Any such amount contributed would be reduced by the value of KLMC’s land actually contributed to the State for the Bypass Highway.

 

These potential commitments have not been reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. While the completion of the Bypass Highway would add value to KLMC’s lands north of the town of Lahaina, there can be no assurance that it will be completed or when any future phases will be undertaken.

 

 

(8)  Calculation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share

 

The following tables set forth the computation of net income (loss) per share - basic and diluted:

 

	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	(Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)
	2016			2015			2016			2015
Numerator:
Net income (loss)	$	(493)		$	(832)		$	(1,163)		$	(1,395)
Less: Net income attribu-   table to non controlling   interests		(36)			(85)			0			(69)
Net income (loss) attributable   to stockholders	$	(457)		$	(747)		$	(1,163)		$	(1,326)
Denominator:
Number of weighted   average share outstanding
-  basic and diluted		1,845			1,845			1,845			1,845
Net income (loss) per share,
attributable to   Kaanapali Land   -  basic and diluted	$	(0.25)		$	(0.40)		$	(0.63)		$	(0.72)

 

 

 

(9)  Business Segment Information

 

As described in Note 1, the Company operates in two business segments. Total revenues and operating profit by business segment are presented in the tables below.

 

Total revenues by business segment includes primarily (i) sales, all of which are to unaffiliated customers and (ii) interest income that is earned from outside sources on assets which are included in the individual industry segment's identifiable assets.

 

Operating income (loss) is comprised of total revenue less cost of sales and operating expenses. In computing operating income (loss), none of the following items have been added or deducted: general corporate revenues and expenses, interest expense and income taxes.

 

 

	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2016			2015			2016			2015
Revenues:
Property	$	927		$	785		$	3,554		$	2,742
Agriculture		983			716			1,651			1,612
Corporate		(1)			0			27			0
	$	1,909		$	1,501		$	5,232		$	4,354
Operating income (loss):
Property	$	(178)		$	(389)		$	(162)		$	(765)
Agriculture		177			(45)			117			127
Operating income (loss)		(1)			(434)			(45)			(638)
Corporate		(492)			(398)			(1,119)			(742)
Operating income (loss)   before income taxes	$	(493)		$	(832)		$	(1,164)		$	(1,380)

 

 

The Company’s property segment consists primarily of revenue received from land sales and lease and licensing agreements.

 

The Company’s agricultural segment consists primarily of coffee operations.

 

The Company is exploring alternative agricultural operations, but there can be no assurance that replacement operations at any level will result.

 

 

(10)       Subsequent Events

 

As of June 30, 2016, the Company sold 39 of the 51 lots at Kaanapali Coffee Farms. Additionally, in 2016, two lots were sold in the third quarter. In conjunction with the sale of four lots sold in prior years and one lot sold in 2016, in addition to cash proceeds, the Company received promissory notes. As of October 1, 2016, $2,027 remains outstanding.

 

On January 7, 2016 KLC Holding Corp. (“KLC”) and various of its subsidiaries (“KLC Subsidiaries”) entered into a sales agreement (“KLC Sales Agreement”) with an unrelated third party for the sale of substantially all of the remaining real property and related assets of the Registrant on the island of Maui, along with the stock and membership interests of certain KLC Subsidiaries (the “KLC Sales Property”). The KLC Sales Agreement called for a scheduled sales price for the KLC Sales Property of approximately $95 million, before costs of sale, as adjusted for certain revenues and expenditures of the KLC Subsidiaries.

 

By virtue of the buyer’s failure to deliver its “Acceptance Notice” prior to the expiration of the “Due Diligence Period” in accordance with the terms of the KLC Sales Agreement, the KLC Sales Agreement terminated. On July 8, 2016, the buyer asked the escrow agent to return buyer’s deposit.

 

On October 6, 2016 the Pension Plan entered into an agreement with Pacific Life Insurance Company (“Pacific Life”), a third party insurance company, to transfer the obligation to pay benefits to approximately 1,330 retired members and beneficiaries currently receiving monthly benefits from the Pension Plan, and to approximately 168 members with deferred annuities under the Pension Plan, through the purchase of a single premium group annuity contract. The action will settle approximately 96% of the Pension Plan’s benefit obligations. In order to fund the purchase, funds aggregating approximately $39.7 million were transferred to Pacific Life Insurance Company on October 11, 2016. Upon consummation of this purchase, the Pension Plan will no longer have an obligation to pay benefits to those members and beneficiaries.

 

In the fourth quarter of 2016 the Company expects to recognize a non-cash accumulated other comprehensive loss, after tax, of approximately $2.7 million. Substantially all of the resultant total after tax accumulated other comprehensive loss of approximately $13 million will be recognized in accumulated earnings in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet.

 

The Company does not consider the excess assets of the Pension Plan (which are expected to approximate $15 million after the above noted transaction) to be a source of liquidity due to the substantial cost, including Federal income tax consequences, associated with liquidating the Pension Plan.

 

 

 

Part I.  Financial Information

 

     Item 2.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation

 

Liquidity and Capital Resources

 

General

 

In addition to historical information, this Report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based on management's current expectations about its businesses and the markets in which the Company operates. Such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties or other factors which may cause actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Actual operating results may be affected by various factors including, without limitation, changes in international, national and Hawaiian economic conditions, competitive market conditions, uncertainties and costs related to the imposition of conditions on receipt of governmental approvals and costs of material and labor, and actual versus projected timing of events all of which may cause such actual results to differ materially from what is expressed or forecast in this report.

 

Certain subsidiaries of Kaanapali Land are jointly indebted to Kaanapali Land pursuant to a certain Secured Promissory Note in the principal amount of $70 million, dated November 14, 2002, and due September 30, 2020, as extended. Such note had an outstanding balance of principal and accrued interest as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 of approximately $87 million and $87 million, respectively. The interest rate currently is 1.19% per annum and compounds semi-annually. The note, which is prepayable, is secured by substantially all of the remaining real property owned by such subsidiaries, pursuant to a certain Mortgage, Security Agreement and Financing Statement, dated as of November 14, 2002 and placed on record in December 2002. The note has been eliminated in the consolidated financial statements because the obligors are consolidated subsidiaries of Kaanapali Land.

 

In addition to such Secured Promissory Note, certain other subsidiaries of Kaanapali Land continue to be liable to Kaanapali Land under certain guarantees (the "Guarantees") that they had previously provided to support certain Senior Indebtedness (as defined in the Plan) and the Certificate of Land Appreciation Notes ("COLA Notes") formerly issued by Amfac/JMB Hawaii, Inc. (as predecessor to KLC Land). Although such Senior Indebtedness and COLA Notes were discharged under the Plan, the Guarantees of the Non-Debtor KLC Subsidiaries were not. Thus, to the extent that the holders of the Senior Indebtedness and COLA Notes did not receive payment on the outstanding balance thereof from distributions made under the Plan, the remaining amounts due thereunder remain obligations of the Non-Debtor KLC Subsidiaries under the Guarantees. Under the Plan, the obligations of the Non-Debtor KLC Subsidiaries under such Guarantees were assigned by the holders of the Senior Indebtedness and COLA Notes to Kaanapali Land on the Plan Effective Date. Kaanapali Land has notified each of the Non-Debtor KLC Subsidiaries that are liable under such Guarantees that their respective guarantee obligations are due and owing and that Kaanapali Land reserves all of its rights and remedies in such regard. Given the financial condition of such Non-Debtor KLC Subsidiaries, however, it is unlikely that Kaanapali Land will realize payments on such Guarantees that are more than a small percentage of the total amounts outstanding thereunder or

 

that in the aggregate will generate any material proceeds to the Company. Nevertheless, Kaanapali Land has submitted a claim in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding of Oahu Sugar in order that it may recover substantially all of the assets remaining in the bankruptcy estate, if any, that become available for creditors of Oahu Sugar. Any amounts so received would not be material to the Company. These Guarantee obligations have been eliminated in the consolidated financial statements because the obligors are consolidated subsidiaries of Kaanapali Land, which is now the sole obligee thereunder.

 

Those persons and entities that were not affiliated with the predecessor of Kaanapali Land and were holders of COLAs on the date that the Plan was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court, and their successors in interest, represent approximately 9% of the ownership of the Company.

 

The Company had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $22 million and $22 million, as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, which is available for, among other things, working capital requirements, including future operating expenses in each of the Agriculture and Property segments, and the Company's expenditures for engineering, planning, regulatory and development costs, drainage and utilities, water storage and distribution, utilities, environmental remediation costs on existing and former properties, potential liabilities resulting from tax audits, and existing and possible future litigation.

 

The primary business of Kaanapali Land is the investment in and development of the Company's assets on the Island of Maui. The various development plans will take many years at significant expense to fully implement. Proceeds from land sales are the Company's only source of significant cash proceeds and the Company's ability to meet its liquidity needs is dependent on the timing and amount of such proceeds.

 

The Company's operations have in recent periods been primarily reliant upon the net proceeds of sales of developed and undeveloped land parcels.

 

During the first quarter of 2006, the Company received final subdivision approval on an approximate 336 acre parcel in the region "mauka" (toward the mountains) from the main highway serving the area. This project, called Kaanapali Coffee Farms, consists of 51 agricultural lots, which are currently being offered to individual buyers. The land improvements were completed during 2008. As of June 30, 2016, the Company sold thirty-nine lots at Kaanapali Coffee Farms including one during the second quarter of 2016, three during the first quarter of 2016 and four in 2015. Additionally, in 2016, two lots were sold in the third quarter. In conjunction with the sale of four lots sold in prior years and one lot sold in 2016, in addition to cash proceeds, the Company received promissory notes. As of June 30, 2016, $1.5 million remains outstanding.

 

On January 7, 2016 KLC Holding Corp. (“KLC”) and various of its subsidiaries (“KLC Subsidiaries”) entered into a sales agreement (“KLC Sales Agreement”) with an unrelated third party for the sale of substantially all of the remaining real property and related assets of the Registrant on the island of Maui, along with the stock and membership interests of certain KLC Subsidiaries (the “KLC Sales Property”). The KLC Sales Agreement called for a scheduled sales price for the KLC Sales Property of approximately $95 million, before costs of sale, as adjusted.

 

By virtue of the buyer’s failure to deliver its “Acceptance Notice” prior to the expiration of the “Due Diligence Period” in accordance with the terms of the KLC Sales Agreement, the KLC Sales Agreement terminated. On July 8, 2016, the buyer asked the escrow agent to return buyer’s deposit.

 

On December 23, 2015 Pioneer Mill Company, LLC entered into a property sales agreement with an unrelated third party for the sale of the Pioneer Mill Site (“Mill Site Sales Agreement”) which called for a sales price of $20.5 million (before costs of sale, including commissions) and had a scheduled closing date of May 31, 2016, as extended. On April 19, 2016, the buyer gave notice they would not be proceeding with the purchase and thereby terminated the Mill Site Sales Agreement.

 

On October 6, 2016 the Pension Plan entered into an agreement with Pacific Life Insurance Company (“Pacific Life”), a third party insurance company, to transfer the obligation to pay benefits to approximately 1,330 retired members and beneficiaries currently receiving monthly benefits from the Pension Plan, and to approximately 168 members with deferred annuities under the Pension Plan, through the purchase of a single premium group annuity contract. The action will settle approximately 96% of the Pension Plan’s benefit obligations. In order to fund the purchase, funds aggregating approximately $39.7 million were transferred to Pacific Life Insurance Company on October 11, 2016. Upon consummation of this purchase, the Pension Plan will no longer have an obligation to pay benefits to those members and beneficiaries.

 

In the fourth quarter of 2016 the Company expects to recognize a non-cash accumulated other comprehensive loss, after tax, of approximately $2.7 million. Substantially all of the resultant total after tax accumulated other comprehensive loss of approximately $13 million will be recognized in accumulated earnings in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet.

 

The Company does not consider the excess assets of the Pension Plan (which are expected to approximate $15 million after the above noted transaction) to be a source of liquidity due to the substantial cost, including Federal income tax consequences, associated with liquidating the Pension Plan.

 

Although the Company does not currently believe that it has significant liquidity problems over the near term, should the Company be unable to satisfy its liquidity requirements from its existing resources and future property sales, it will likely pursue alternate financing arrangements. However it cannot be determined at this time what, if any, financing alternatives may be available and at what cost.

 

Results of Operations

 

Reference is made to the footnotes to the financial statements for additional discussion of items addressing comparability between years.

 

Property, net decreased as of June 30, 2016 due to the sale of four lots during 2016.

 

The increase in sales and cost of sales for the six months ended June 30, 2016 as compared to the six months ended June 30, 2015 is primarily due to the sale of four lots during the six months ended June 30, 2016, as compared to three lots during the six months ended June 30, 2015.

 

The increase in selling, general and administrative for the six months ended June 30, 2016 as compared to the six months ended June 30, 2015 is primarily due to legal fees related to the terminated sales agreements.

 

 

Inflation

 

Due to the lack of significant fluctuations in the level of inflation in recent years, inflation generally has not had a material effect on real estate development.

 

In the future, high rates of inflation may adversely affect real estate development generally because of their impact on interest rates. High interest rates not only increase the cost of borrowed funds to the Company, but can also have a significant effect on the affordability of permanent mortgage financing to prospective purchasers. However, high rates of inflation may permit the Company to increase the prices that it charges in connection with real property sales, subject to general economic conditions affecting the real estate industry and local market factors, and therefore may be advantageous where property investments are not highly leveraged with debt or where the cost of such debt has been previously fixed.

 

Item 4.  Controls and Procedures

 

Disclosure controls and procedures. The principal executive officer and the principal financial officer of the Company have evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Exchange Act") as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on such evaluation, the principal executive officer and the principal financial officer have concluded that the Company's disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed was recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the applicable rules and form of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

Internal control over financial reporting. There have not been any changes in the Company's internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that occurred during the second quarter of 2016 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Part II.  Other Information

 

Item 1.  Legal Proceedings

 

See Note 7 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part I of this report.

 

Item 1A.  Risk Factors

 

There has been no known material changes from risk factors as previously disclosed in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

 

Item 6.  Exhibit

 

		3.1	Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Kaanapali Land, LLC dated November 14, 2002 filed as an exhibit to the Company's report on Form 10 filed May 1, 2003 and hereby incorporated by reference.
		3.2	Amendment to the Amended and Restated Limited Company Agreement of Kaanapali Land, LLC dated November 14, 2002 filed as an exhibit to the Company's report on Form 8-K filed April 21, 2008 and hereby incorporated by reference.
		10.2	Restricted Share Agreement dated April 15, 2008 is filed as an exhibit to the Company's report on Form 10-Q filed August 14, 2008 and hereby incorporated by reference.
		31.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) is filed herewith.
		31.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) is filed herewith.
		32.	Certifications pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 are filed herewith.

 

SIGNATURES

 

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

 

	KAANAPALI LAND, LLC
	By:	Pacific Trail Holdings, LLC. (sole member)
		/s/ GAILEN J. HULL
	By:	Gailen J. Hull, Senior Vice President
	Date:	November 4, 2016

 

 

 

26

Exhibit 31.1

 

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Gary Nickele, certify that:

 

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2016, of Kaanapali Land, LLC;
2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
	a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
	b)	Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
	c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

 

 

	d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
	a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
	b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date:	November 4, 2016
			/s/ Gary Nickele
			Principal Executive Officer

 

Exhibit 31.2

 

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Gailen J. Hull, certify that:

 

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2016, of Kaanapali Land, LLC;
2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
	a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
	b)	Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
	c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

 

 

	d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
	a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
	b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date:	November 4, 2016
			/s/ Gailen J. Hull
			Principal Financial Officer

 

 

Exhibit 32

 

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The following statement is provided by the undersigned with respect to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law:

 

Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Kaanapali Land, LLC.

 

 

Date:   November 4, 2016

 

 

 

By:	/s/ Gary Nickele		By:	/s/ Gailen J. Hull
	Gary Nickele Chief Executive Officer			Gailen J. Hull Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

v3.5.0.2

Document and Entity Information - shares	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Nov. 04, 2016
Document And Entity Information
Entity Registrant Name	KAANAPALI LAND LLC
Entity Central Index Key	0001230058
Document Type	10-Q
Document Period End Date	Jun. 30, 2016
Amendment Flag	false
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--12-31
Entity Filer Category	Smaller Reporting Company
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding		1,792,613
Document Fiscal Period Focus	Q2
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2016

v3.5.0.2

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jun. 30, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$ 22,384	$ 22,112
Restricted cash	791	449
Property, net	72,407	75,214
Pension plan assets	20,040	19,340
Other assets	2,080	2,262
Total assets	117,702	119,377
Liabilities
Accounts payable and accrued expenses	387	566
Deposits and deferred gains	2,424	2,368
Deferred income taxes	19,593	19,402
Other liabilities	12,582	13,615
Total liabilities	34,986	35,951
Commitments and contingencies (Note 7)
Stockholders' Equity
Common stock, at 6/30/16 and 12/31/15 non par value (Shares authorized - unlimited, Class C shares 52,000; shares issued and outstanding - 1,792,613 common shares and 52,000 Class C shares
Additional paid-in capital	5,471	5,471
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax	(10,153)	(10,450)
Accumulated earnings	86,623	87,817
Stockholders' equity	81,941	82,838
Non controlling interests	775	588
Total equity	82,716	83,426
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity	$ 117,702	$ 119,377

v3.5.0.2

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Parenthetical) - $ / shares	6 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015
Common stock, no par value
Common stock shares authorized	Unlimited	Unlimited
Common stock, shares issued	1,792,613	1,792,613
Common stock, shares outstanding	1,792,613	1,792,613
Common Stock Class C [Member]
Common stock, shares authorized	52,000	52,000
Common stock, shares issued	52,000	52,000
Common stock, shares outstanding	52,000	52,000

v3.5.0.2

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations - USD ($) $ in Thousands	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015
Revenues:
Sales and rental revenues	$ 1,879	$ 1,455	$ 5,141	$ 4,272
Interest and other income	30	46	91	82
Total revenues	1,909	1,501	5,232	4,354
Cost and expenses:
Cost of sales	1,703	1,690	4,722	4,393
Selling, general and administrative	635	593	1,547	1,241
Depreciation and amortization	64	50	127	100
Total cost and expenses	2,402	2,333	6,396	5,734
Operating loss from continuing operations before income taxes	(493)	(832)	(1,164)	(1,380)
Income tax benefit (expense)			1	(15)
Net loss	(493)	(832)	(1,163)	(1,395)
Less: Net income (loss) attributable to non controlling interests	(36)	(85)		(69)
Net loss attributable to stockholders	$ (457)	$ (747)	$ (1,163)	$ (1,326)
Net loss per share - basic and diluted	$ (0.25)	$ (0.40)	$ (0.63)	$ (0.72)

v3.5.0.2

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015
Statement of Comprehensive Income [Abstract]
Net income (loss)	$ (493)	$ (832)	$ (1,163)	$ (1,395)
Other comprehensive income (loss):
Net unrealized losses on pension plan assets	(244)	(278)	(488)	(557)
Other comprehensive loss, before tax	(244)	(278)	(488)	(557)
Income tax expense related to items of other comprehensive loss	95	108	190	217
Other comprehensive loss, net of tax	(149)	(170)	(298)	(340)
Comprehensive income (loss)	(642)	(1,002)	(1,461)	(1,735)
Comprehensive income (loss) attributable to non controlling interests	(36)	(85)		(69)
Comprehensive income (loss) attributable to stockholders	$ (606)	$ (917)	$ (1,461)	$ (1,666)

v3.5.0.2

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows - USD ($) $ in Thousands	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015
Statement of Cash Flows [Abstract]
Net cash provided by operating activities	$ 221	$ 443
Net cash used in investing activities:
Property additions	(105)	(235)
Property disposals		115
Net cash used in investing activities	(105)	(120)
Net cash provided by financing activities:
Contributions related to the LOA	156	133
Net cash provided by financing activities	156	133
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents	272	456
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	22,112	23,608
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$ 22,384	$ 24,064

v3.5.0.2

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Accounting Policies [Abstract]
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies	(1)  Summary of Significant Accounting Policies   Organization and Basis of Accounting   Kaanapali Land, LLC ("Kaanapali Land"), a Delaware limited liability company, is the reorganized entity resulting from the Joint Plan of Reorganization of Amfac Hawaii, LLC (now known as KLC Land Company, LLC ("KLC Land")), certain of its subsidiaries (together with KLC Land, the "KLC Debtors") and FHT Corporation ("FHTC" and, together with the KLC Debtors, the "Debtors") under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, dated June 11, 2002 (as amended, the "Plan").   The Company's continuing operations are in two business segments - Agriculture and Property. The Agriculture segment remains engaged in farming, harvesting, milling and selling operations relating to coffee orchards on behalf of the applicable land owners. The Property segment primarily develops land for sale and negotiates bulk sales of undeveloped land. The Property and Agriculture segments operate exclusively in the State of Hawaii.   In 2013, the Kaanapali Coffee Farms Lot Owners’ Association was consolidated into the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The interests of third party owners are reflected as non controlling interests. All significant intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.   The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for complete financial statements, and therefore, should be read in conjunction with the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K (File No. 0-50273) for the year ended December 31, 2015. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this quarterly report have the same meanings as in the Company's 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K.   Property   The Company's significant property holdings are on the island of Maui consisting of approximately 4,000 acres, of which approximately 1,500 acres is classified as conservation land which precludes development. The Company has determined, based on its current projections for the development and/or disposition of its property holdings, that the property holdings are not currently recorded in an amount in excess of proceeds that the Company expects that it will ultimately obtain from the operation and disposition thereof.   Inventory of land held for sale, of approximately $8,460 and $11,245, representing primarily Kaanapali Coffee Farms, was included in Property, net in the consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, and is carried at the lower of cost or net realizable value, which is based on current and foreseeable market conditions, discussions with real estate brokers and review of historical land sale activity (level 2 and 3). Generally no land is currently in use except for approximately 400 acres of coffee trees which are being farmed to support the Company's land development program and miscellaneous parcels of land that have been leased or licensed to third parties on a short term basis.   Use of Estimates   The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.   Operating results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be achieved in future periods.   Cash and Cash Equivalents   The Company considers as cash equivalents all investments with maturities of three months or less when purchased. The Company’s cash balances are maintained primarily in two financial institutions. Restricted cash represents cash held by the Kaanapali Coffee Farms Lot Owners’ Association. At times, such balances may exceed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limits. Management does not believe the Company is exposed to significant risk of loss on cash and cash equivalents.   Recognition of Profit From Real Property Sales   For real property sales, profit is recognized in full when the collectability of the sales price is reasonably assured and the earnings process is virtually complete. When the sale does not meet the requirements for full profit recognition, all or a portion of the profit is deferred until such requirements are met.   Other revenues are recognized when delivery has occurred or services have been rendered, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collectability is reasonably assured.   Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements   In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued guidance under the Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 606, Revenue from Contract with Customers, which establishes a single comprehensive revenue recognition model for all contracts with customers and will supersede most existing revenue guidance. This guidance requires entities to recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled to receive in exchange. Transition options include either a full or modified retrospective approach and early adoption is permitted. The implementation date for this guidance was recently deferred and will now be effective at the beginning of our first quarter of fiscal year 2019. We are currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of this requirement on our Consolidated Financial Statements.   In February 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2015-02, Consolidation (Topic 810) that amends the existing consolidation guidance related to (i) limited partnerships and similar legal entities, (ii) the evaluation of variable interests for fees paid to decision makers or service providers, (iii) the effect of fee arrangements and related parties on the primary beneficiary determination and (iv) certain investment funds. These changes are expected to limit the number of consolidation models and place more emphasis on risk of loss when determining a controlling financial interest. This ASU is effective for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2015. There was no material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations from the adoption of this ASU.   In May 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2015-07, Fair Value Measurement Disclosures for Investments in Certain Entities That Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or its Equivalent), as a new Topic, Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 820. Under this new guidance, investments measured at net asset value (“NAV”), as a practical expedient for fair value, are excluded from the fair value hierarchy. Removing investments measured using the practical expedient from the fair value hierarchy is intended to eliminate the diversity in practice that currently exists with respect to the categorization of these investments. The only criterion for categorizing investments in the fair value hierarchy will be the observability of the inputs. This ASU is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015 and shall be applied retrospectively to all periods presented. There was no material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations from the adoption of this ASU.   In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet and disclosing key information about leasing arrangements. For public business entities, the standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. For all other entities, the standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020. Early application of the amendments in this update is permitted for all entities. The Company is currently evaluating the effect that implementation of this update will have on its consolidated financial position and results of operations upon adoption.

v3.5.0.2

Land Development	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Real Estate [Abstract]
Land Development	(2)  Land Development   During the first quarter of 2006, the Company received final subdivision approval on an approximate 336 acre parcel in the region "mauka" (toward the mountains) from the main highway serving the area. This project, called Kaanapali Coffee Farms, consists of 51 agricultural lots, which are currently being offered to individual buyers. The land improvements were completed during 2008. As of June 30, 2016, the Company sold thirty-nine lots at Kaanapali Coffee Farms including one during the second quarter of 2016, three during the first quarter of 2016 and four in 2015. Additionally, in 2016, two lots were sold in the third quarter. In conjunction with the sale of four lots sold in prior years and one lot sold in 2016, in addition to cash proceeds, the Company received promissory notes. As of June 30, 2016, $1,518 remains outstanding.   On December 23, 2015 Pioneer Mill Company, LLC entered into a property sales agreement with an unrelated third party for the sale of the Pioneer Mill Site (“Mill Site Sales Agreement”) which called for a sales price of $20.5 million (before costs of sale, including commissions) and had a scheduled closing date of May 31, 2016, as extended. On April 19, 2016, the buyer gave notice they would not be proceeding with the purchase and thereby terminated the Mill Site Sales Agreement.

v3.5.0.2

Mortgage Note Payable	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Debt Disclosure [Abstract]
Mortgage Note Payable	(3)  Mortgage Note Payable   Certain subsidiaries of Kaanapali Land are jointly indebted to Kaanapali Land pursuant to a certain Secured Promissory Note in the principal amount of $70,000 dated November 14, 2002, and due September 30, 2020, as extended. Such note had an outstanding balance of principal and accrued interest as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 of approximately $87,200 and $87,200, respectively. The interest rate currently is 1.19% per annum and compounds semi-annually. The note, which is prepayable, is secured by substantially all of the remaining real property owned by such subsidiaries, pursuant to a certain Mortgage, Security Agreement and Financing Statement, dated as of November 14, 2002 and placed on record in December 2002. The note has been eliminated in the consolidated financial statements because the obligors are consolidated subsidiaries of Kaanapali Land.

v3.5.0.2

Employee Benefit Plans	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Compensation and Retirement Disclosure [Abstract]
Employee Benefit Plans	(4)  Employee Benefit Plans   The Company participates in a defined benefit pension plan that covers substantially all its eligible employees. The Pension Plan is sponsored and maintained by Kaanapali Land in conjunction with other plans providing benefits to employees of Kaanapali Land and its affiliates.   The components of the net periodic pension benefit (credit), included in selling, general and administrative in the consolidated statements of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 are as follows:     Three Months Ended June 30,   Six Months Ended June 30,   2016   2015   2016   2015 Service cost $ 143    $ 145    $ 285    $ 289  Interest cost   383      394      767      788  Expected return on plan assets   (876)     (1,016)     (1,752)     (2,032) Recognized net actuarial   (gain) loss   244      278      488      557  Net periodic pension credit $ (106)   $ (199)   $ (212)   $ (398)   The Company recognizes the over funded or under funded status of its employee benefit plans as an asset or liability in its statement of financial position and recognizes changes in its funded status in the year in which the changes occur through comprehensive income. Included in accumulated other comprehensive income at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 are the following amounts that have not yet been recognized in net periodic pension cost: unrecognized prior service costs of $1 ($1 net of tax) and $18 ($11 net of tax), respectively, and unrecognized actuarial loss of $16,641 ($10,151 net of tax) and $17,129 ($10,449 net of tax), respectively. The prior service cost and actuarial loss recognized in net periodic pension cost for the six months ending June 30, 2016 are $2 ($1 net of tax) and $488 ($298 net of tax), respectively.   Reference is made to footnote 10 regarding the purchase of a single premium group annuity contract covering substantially all of the Pension Plan’s benefit obligations.   The Company maintains a nonqualified deferred compensation arrangement (the "Rabbi Trust") which provides certain former directors of Amfac and their spouses with pension benefits. The Rabbi Trust invests in marketable securities and cash equivalents (Level 1). The deferred compensation liability of $711 represented in the Rabbi Trust and assets funding such deferred compensation liability of $29 are consolidated in the Company's balance sheet.

v3.5.0.2

Income Taxes	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Income Tax Disclosure [Abstract]
Income Taxes	(5)  Income Taxes   Federal tax return examinations have been completed for all years through 2005 and for the year 2013. The statutes of limitations have run for the tax years 2006 through 2011. The statutes of limitations with respect to the Company's taxes for 2012, as well as 2014 and 2015 remain open, subject to possible utilization of loss carryforwards from earlier years. The Company believes adequate provisions for income tax have been recorded for all years, although there can be no assurance that such provisions will be adequate. To the extent that there is a shortfall, any such shortfall for which the Company could be liable could be material.

v3.5.0.2

Transactions with Affiliates	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Related Party Transactions [Abstract]
Transactions with Affiliates	(6)  Transactions with Affiliates   An affiliated insurance agency, JMB Insurance Agency, Inc., which has some degree of common ownership with the Company, earns insurance brokerage commissions in connection with providing the placement of insurance coverage for certain of the properties and operations of the Company. Such commissions are believed by management to be comparable to those that would be paid to such affiliate insurance agency in similar dealings with unaffiliated third parties. Commissions paid for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 were $12 and $11, respectively.   The Company reimburses their affiliates for general overhead expense and for direct expenses incurred on its behalf, including salaries and salary-related expenses incurred in connection with the management of the Company's operations. Generally, the entity that employs the person providing the services receives the reimbursement. Substantially all of such reimbursable amounts were incurred by JMB Realty Corporation or its affiliates, 900 Financial Management Services, LLC, and JMB Financial Advisors, LLC, during 2016 and 2015, all of which have some degree of common ownership with the Company. The total costs recorded in cost of sales and selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of operations for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 were $638 and $606, respectively, of which $116 was unpaid as of June 30, 2016.   The Company derives revenue from farming and common area maintenance services and for providing non-potable water to the Kaanapali Coffee Farms Lot Owners Association (“LOA”). The LOA is the association of the owners of the Kaanapali Coffee Farms. The revenues were $592 and $592 for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Such revenue is recognized in the Agriculture Segment as disclosed in footnote 9 Business Segment Information. The 2016 and 2015 amounts have been eliminated in consolidation.

v3.5.0.2

Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(7)  Commitments and Contingencies   At June 30, 2016, the Company has no principal contractual obligations related to the land improvements in conjunction with Phase I of the Kaanapali Coffee Farms project.   On November 23, 2015, the SEC contacted Kaanapali Land regarding the Company’s compliance with the reporting requirements under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as the Company is delinquent on its annual and interim SEC filings. In light of this letter, Kaanapali Land is unable to determine whether the SEC might pursue some future action related to this matter.   Material legal proceedings of the Company are described below. Unless otherwise noted, the parties adverse to the Company in the legal proceedings described below have not made a claim for damages in a liquidated amount and/or the Company believes that it would be speculative to attempt to determine the Company's exposure relative thereto, and as a consequence believes that an estimate of the range of potential loss cannot be made. Any claims that were not filed on a timely basis under the Plan have been discharged by the Bankruptcy Court and thus the underlying legal proceedings should not result in any liability to the Debtors. All other claims have been satisfied. Proceedings against subsidiaries or affiliates of Kaanapali Land that are not Debtors were not stayed by the Plan and were permitted to proceed. However, two such subsidiaries, Oahu Sugar Company, LLC (“Oahu Sugar”) and D/C Distribution Corporation (“D/C”), filed subsequent petitions for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in April 2005 and July 2007, respectively, as described below. As a consequence of the Chapter 7 filings, both subsidiaries are not under control of the Company.   As a result of an administrative order issued to Oahu Sugar by the Hawaii Department of Health (“HDOH”), Order No. CH 98-001, dated January 27, 1998, Oahu Sugar was engaged in environmental site assessment of lands it leased from the U.S. Navy and located on the Waipio Peninsula. Oahu Sugar submitted a Remedial Investigation Report to the HDOH. The HDOH provided comments that indicated that additional testing may be required. Oahu Sugar responded to these comments with additional information. On January 9, 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a request to Oahu Sugar seeking information related to the actual or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants at the Waipio Peninsula portion of the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex National Priorities List Superfund Site. The request sought, among other things, information relating to the ability of Oahu Sugar to pay for or perform a clean up of the land formerly occupied by Oahu Sugar. Oahu Sugar responded to the information requests and had notified both the Navy and the EPA that while it had some modest remaining cash that it could contribute to further investigation and remediation efforts in connection with an overall settlement of the outstanding claims, Oahu Sugar was substantially without assets and would be unable to make a significant contribution to such an effort. Attempts at negotiating such a settlement were fruitless and Oahu Sugar received an order from EPA in March 2005 that would purport to require certain testing and remediation of the site. As Oahu Sugar was substantially without assets, the pursuit of any action, informational, enforcement, or otherwise, would have had a material adverse effect on the financial condition of Oahu Sugar. Counsel for the trustee, EPA, the Navy, and for Fireman’s Fund, one of Kaanapali Land’s insurers, are exploring ways in which to conclude the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy. There are no assurances that such an agreement can be reached.   Therefore, as a result of the pursuit of further action by the HDOH and EPA as described above and the immediate material adverse effect that the actions had on the financial condition of Oahu Sugar, Oahu Sugar filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code. Such filing is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company as Oahu Sugar was substantially without assets at the time of the filing. While it is not believed that any other affiliates have any responsibility for the debts of Oahu Sugar, the EPA has indicated that it intends to make a claim against Kaanapali Land as further described below, and therefore, there can be no assurance that the Company will not incur significant costs in conjunction with such claim.   The deadline for filing proofs of claim with the bankruptcy court passed in April 2006. Prior to the deadline, Kaanapali Land, on behalf of itself and certain subsidiaries, filed claims that aggregated approximately $224,000, primarily relating to unpaid guarantee obligations made by Oahu Sugar that were assigned to Kaanapali Land pursuant to the Plan on the Plan Effective Date. In addition, the EPA and the U.S. Navy filed a joint proof of claim that seeks to recover certain environmental response costs relative to the Waipio Peninsula site discussed above. The proof of claim contained a demand for previously spent costs in the amount of approximately $260, and additional anticipated response costs of between approximately $2,760 and $11,450. No specific justification of these costs, or what they are purported to represent, was included in the EPA/Navy proof of claim. Due to the insignificant amount of assets remaining in the debtor's estate, it is unclear whether the United States Trustee who has taken control of Oahu Sugar will take any action to contest the EPA/Navy claim, or how it will reconcile such claim for the purpose of distributing any remaining assets of Oahu Sugar.   EPA has sent three requests for information to Kaanapali Land regarding, among other things, Kaanapali Land's organization and relationship, if any, to entities that may have, historically, operated on the site and with respect to operations conducted on the site. Kaanapali Land responded to these requests for information. By letter dated February 7, 2007, pursuant to an allegation that Kaanapali Land is a successor to Oahu Sugar Company, Limited, a company that operated at the site prior to 1961 ("Old Oahu"), EPA advised Kaanapali that it believes it is authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) to amend the existing Unilateral Administrative Order against Oahu Sugar Company, LLC, for the clean up of the site to include Kaanapali Land as an additional respondent. The purported basis for the EPA's position is that Kaanapali Land, by virtue of certain corporate actions, is jointly and severally responsible for the performance of the response actions, including, without limitation, clean-up at the site. No such amendment has taken place as of the date hereof. Instead, after a series of discussions between Kaanapali and the EPA, on or about September 30, 2009, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to Kaanapali Land for the performance of work in support of a removal action at the former Oahu Sugar pesticide mixing site located on Waipio peninsula. The work consists of the performance of soil and groundwater sampling and analysis, a topographic survey, and the preparation of an engineering evaluation and cost analysis of potential removal actions to abate an alleged "imminent and substantial endangerment" to public health, welfare or the environment. The order appears to be further predicated primarily on the alleged connection of Kaanapali Land to Old Oahu and its activities on the site. Kaanapali Land is currently performing work, including the conduct of sampling at the site, required by the order while reserving its rights to contest liability regarding the site. With regard to liability for the site, Kaanapali Land believes that its liability, if any, should relate solely to a portion of the period of operation of Old Oahu at the site, although in some circumstances CERCLA apparently permits imposition of joint and several liability, which can exceed a responsible party's equitable share. Kaanapali Land believes that the U.S. Navy bears substantial liability for the site by virtue of its ownership of the site throughout the entire relevant period, both as landlord under its various leases with Oahu Sugar and Old Oahu and by operating and intensively utilizing the site directly during a period when no lease was in force. The Company believes that the cost of the work as set forth in the current order will not be material to the Company as a whole; however, in the event that the EPA were to issue an order requiring remediation of the site, there can be no assurances that the cost of said remediation would not ultimately have a material adverse effect on the Company. In addition, if there is litigation regarding the site, there can be no assurance that the cost of such litigation will not be material or that such litigation will result in a judgment in favor of the Company. Currently, Kaanapali and the EPA are exchanging comments relative to further studies to be performed at the site, including a possible ecological risk assessment. Kaanapali expects that after a further review, the next phase is likely a consideration of the remedial alternatives for the Site.   On February 11, 2015, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, bad faith and damages against Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (“Fireman’s Fund”) in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, Civil No. 15-1-0239-02, in connection with costs and expenses it has incurred or may incur in connection with the Waipio site. In the five-count complaint, the Company seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment of its rights under various Fireman’s Fund policies and an order that Fireman’s Fund defend and indemnify Kaanapali Land from all past, present and future costs and expenses in connection with the site, including costs of investigation and defense incurred by Kaanapali and the professionals it has engaged. In addition, Kaanapali seeks general, special, and punitive damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems just and proper. Fireman’s Fund has not yet filed a responsive pleading. There are no assurances of the amounts of insurance proceeds that may or may not be ultimately recovered.   Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to other entities, and D/C have been named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, “Kaanapali Land asbestos cases”) are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these cases. The defense of these cases has had a material adverse effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to file a voluntary petition for liquidation as discussed below. Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there can be no assurance in that regard.   On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman’s Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies. In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman’s fund expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C bankruptcy case bars Fireman’s Fund from making any payments to resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C Distribution is also alleging a right to coverage under those policies for asbestos claims against it. However, in the interim, Fireman’s Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to pay defense costs for those cases, subject to whatever reservations of rights may be in effect and subject further to the policy terms. Fireman’s Fund has also indicated that to the extent that Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman’s Fund in addressing settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman’s Fund’s present intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land, subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order, the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and prior approval of the settlements. Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman’s Fund in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land is unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by insurance.   On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central Justice Center. No other purported party was served. In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed. Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. D/C believed that it had meritorious defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend. In addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered. In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali Land provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of $1,618. Such settlement amount was paid to Kaanapali Land in partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness noted above.   Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities, D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July 2007, Case No. 07-12776. Such filing is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially without assets at the time of the filing. Kaanapali Land filed claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately $26,800, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land. In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of approximately two thousand claimants. While it is not likely that a significant number of these claimants have a claim against D/C that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the trustee will deal with these claims. It is not expected, however, that the Company will receive any material additional amounts in the liquidation of D/C.   On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants who filed asbestos claims in California state court (hereinafter, “Petitioners”) filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy (hereinafter “life stay motion”). Under relevant provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of the D/C bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against D/C were stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action. In their motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift the stay in the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate entities as defendants in their respective California state court asbestos actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance policies that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate entities. The Petitioner’s motion to lift stay thus in part has as an objective ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other things, insurance policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of both the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estates. As noted above, Kaanapali, the EPA, and the Navy are claimants in the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy and the Fireman’s Fund policies are allegedly among the assets of the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estate as well. For this and other reasons, Kaanapali, the EPA and the Navy opposed the motion to lift stay. After briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No. 07-12776, issued an order lifting the stay. In the order, the court permitted the Petitioners to “proceed in the applicable nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law. Claimants are entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting upon any available insurance Debtor’s liability to them in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law. No recovery may be made directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the bankruptcy estate.” Kaanapali, Firemen’s Fund and the United States appealed the bankruptcy court order lifting the stay. In March 2016, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court order finding that the bankruptcy court did not apply relevant law to the facts in the case to arrive at a reasoned decision. On appeal the district court noted that the law requires consideration of a number of factors when lifting a stay to permit certain claims to proceed, including consideration of the adequacy of remaining insurance to meet claims still subject to the stay. Among other things, the court noted that the bankruptcy court failed to explain why it was appropriate for the petitioners to liquidate their claims before the other claimants whose claims remained subject to the stay. The district court remanded the case for further proceedings. It is uncertain whether such further proceedings on the lift stay will take place.   The parties in the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies have reached out to each other to determine if there is any interest in pursuing a global settlement of the claims in the Oahu Sugar and D/C bankruptcies insofar as the Fireman’s Fund insurance policies are concerned. If such discussions take place, they may take the form of a mediation or other format and involve some form of resolution of Kaanapali’s interest in various of the Fireman’s Fund insurance policies for Kaanapali’s various and future insurance claims. Kaanapali may consider entering into such discussions, but there is no assurance that such discussions will take place or prove successful in resolving any of the claims in whole or in part.   The Company has received notice from Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources (“DNLR”) that DNLR on a periodic basis would inspect all significant dams and reservoirs in Hawaii, including those maintained by the Company on Maui in connection with its agricultural operations. A series of such inspections have taken place over the period from 2006 through the most recent inspections that occurred in October 2014. To date, the DLNR has cited certain deficiencies concerning two of the Company’s reservoirs relating to dam and reservoir safety standards established by the State of Hawaii. These deficiencies include, among other things, vegetative overgrowth, erosion of slopes, uncertainty of inflow control, spillway capacity, and freeboard. The Company has taken certain corrective actions as well as updating important plans to address emergency events and basic operations and maintenance. In 2012, the State of Hawaii issued new Hawaii Administrative Rules for Dams and Reservoirs which require dam owners to obtain from DLNR Certificates of Impoundment (“permits”) to operate and maintain dams or reservoirs. Obtaining such permits requires owners to completely resolve all cited deficiencies. Therefore, the process may involve further analysis of dam and reservoir safety requirements, which would likely involve hiring specialized engineering consultants, and ultimately could result in significant and costly improvements which may be material to the Company.   The DLNR categorizes the reservoirs as "high hazard" under State of Hawaii Administrative Rules and State Statutes concerning dam and reservoir safety. This classification, which bears upon government oversight and reporting requirements, may increase the cost of managing and maintaining these reservoirs in a material manner. The Company does not believe that this classification is warranted for either of these reservoirs and has initiated a dialogue with DLNR in that regard. In April 2008, the Company received further correspondence from DLNR that included the assessment by their consultants of the potential losses that result from the failure of these reservoirs. In April 2009, the Company filed a written response to DLNR to correct certain factual errors in its report and to request further analysis on whether such "high hazard" classifications are warranted. It is unlikely that the “high hazard” designation will be changed.   Other than as described above, the Company is not involved in any material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to its business. The Company and/or certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants in several pending lawsuits. While it is impossible to predict the outcome of such routine litigation that is now pending (or threatened) and for which the potential liability is not covered by insurance, the Company is of the opinion that the ultimate liability from any of this litigation will not materially adversely affect the Company's consolidated results of operations or its financial condition.   The Company often seeks insurance recoveries under its policies for costs incurred or expected to be incurred for losses or claims under which the policies might apply. While payouts from various coverages are being sought and may be recovered in the future, no anticipatory amounts have been reflected in the Company’s consolidated financial statements.   Kaanapali Land Management Corp. (KLMC) is a party to an agreement with the State of Hawaii for the development of the Lahaina Bypass Highway. An approximate 2.4 mile portion of this two lane state highway has been completed. The more significant portion remains uncompleted. Under certain circumstances, which have not yet occurred, KLMC remains committed for approximately $1,100 of various future costs relating to the planning and design of the uncompleted portion of the Bypass Highway. Under certain conditions, which have not yet been met, KLMC has agreed to contribute an amount not exceeding $6,700 toward construction costs. Any such amount contributed would be reduced by the value of KLMC’s land actually contributed to the State for the Bypass Highway.   These potential commitments have not been reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. While the completion of the Bypass Highway would add value to KLMC’s lands north of the town of Lahaina, there can be no assurance that it will be completed or when any future phases will be undertaken.

v3.5.0.2

Calculation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Earnings Per Share [Abstract]
Calculation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share	(8)  Calculation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share   The following tables set forth the computation of net income (loss) per share - basic and diluted:     Three Months Ended June 30,   Six Months Ended June 30,   (Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)   2016   2015   2016   2015 Numerator:                       Net income (loss) $ (493)   $ (832)   $ (1,163)   $ (1,395) Less: Net income attribu-   table to non controlling   interests   (36)     (85)     0      (69) Net income (loss) attributable   to stockholders $ (457)   $ (747)   $ (1,163)   $ (1,326)                         Denominator:                       Number of weighted   average share outstanding                         -  basic and diluted   1,845      1,845      1,845      1,845                          Net income (loss) per share,                         attributable to   Kaanapali Land   -  basic and diluted $ (0.25)   $ (0.40)   $ (0.63)   $ (0.72)

v3.5.0.2

Business Segment Information	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Segment Reporting [Abstract]
Business Segment Information	(9)  Business Segment Information   As described in Note 1, the Company operates in two business segments. Total revenues and operating profit by business segment are presented in the tables below.   Total revenues by business segment includes primarily (i) sales, all of which are to unaffiliated customers and (ii) interest income that is earned from outside sources on assets which are included in the individual industry segment's identifiable assets.   Operating income (loss) is comprised of total revenue less cost of sales and operating expenses. In computing operating income (loss), none of the following items have been added or deducted: general corporate revenues and expenses, interest expense and income taxes.     Three Months Ended June 30,   Six Months Ended June 30,   2016   2015   2016   2015 Revenues:                         Property $ 927    $ 785    $ 3,554    $ 2,742    Agriculture   983      716      1,651      1,612    Corporate   (1)     0      27      0    $ 1,909    $ 1,501    $ 5,232    $ 4,354                          Operating income (loss):                         Property $ (178)   $ (389)   $ (162)   $ (765)   Agriculture   177      (45)     117      127  Operating income (loss)   (1)     (434)     (45)     (638)                         Corporate   (492)     (398)     (1,119)     (742)                         Operating income (loss)   before income taxes $ (493)   $ (832)   $ (1,164)   $ (1,380)     The Company’s property segment consists primarily of revenue received from land sales and lease and licensing agreements.   The Company’s agricultural segment consists primarily of coffee operations.   The Company is exploring alternative agricultural operations, but there can be no assurance that replacement operations at any level will result.

v3.5.0.2

Subsequent Events	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Subsequent Events [Abstract]
Subsequent Events	(10)       Subsequent Events   As of June 30, 2016, the Company sold 39 of the 51 lots at Kaanapali Coffee Farms. Additionally, in 2016, two lots were sold in the third quarter. In conjunction with the sale of four lots sold in prior years and one lot sold in 2016, in addition to cash proceeds, the Company received promissory notes. As of October 1, 2016, $2,027 remains outstanding.   On January 7, 2016 KLC Holding Corp. (“KLC”) and various of its subsidiaries (“KLC Subsidiaries”) entered into a sales agreement (“KLC Sales Agreement”) with an unrelated third party for the sale of substantially all of the remaining real property and related assets of the Registrant on the island of Maui, along with the stock and membership interests of certain KLC Subsidiaries (the “KLC Sales Property”). The KLC Sales Agreement called for a scheduled sales price for the KLC Sales Property of approximately $95 million, before costs of sale, as adjusted for certain revenues and expenditures of the KLC Subsidiaries.   By virtue of the buyer’s failure to deliver its “Acceptance Notice” prior to the expiration of the “Due Diligence Period” in accordance with the terms of the KLC Sales Agreement, the KLC Sales Agreement terminated. On July 8, 2016, the buyer asked the escrow agent to return buyer’s deposit.   On October 6, 2016 the Pension Plan entered into an agreement with Pacific Life Insurance Company (“Pacific Life”), a third party insurance company, to transfer the obligation to pay benefits to approximately 1,330 retired members and beneficiaries currently receiving monthly benefits from the Pension Plan, and to approximately 168 members with deferred annuities under the Pension Plan, through the purchase of a single premium group annuity contract. The action will settle approximately 96% of the Pension Plan’s benefit obligations. In order to fund the purchase, funds aggregating approximately $39.7 million were transferred to Pacific Life Insurance Company on October 11, 2016. Upon consummation of this purchase, the Pension Plan will no longer have an obligation to pay benefits to those members and beneficiaries.   In the fourth quarter of 2016 the Company expects to recognize a non-cash accumulated other comprehensive loss, after tax, of approximately $2.7 million. Substantially all of the resultant total after tax accumulated other comprehensive loss of approximately $13 million will be recognized in accumulated earnings in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet.   The Company does not consider the excess assets of the Pension Plan (which are expected to approximate $15 million after the above noted transaction) to be a source of liquidity due to the substantial cost, including Federal income tax consequences, associated with liquidating the Pension Plan.

v3.5.0.2

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Accounting Policies [Abstract]
Organization and Basis of Accounting	Organization and Basis of Accounting   Kaanapali Land, LLC ("Kaanapali Land"), a Delaware limited liability company, is the reorganized entity resulting from the Joint Plan of Reorganization of Amfac Hawaii, LLC (now known as KLC Land Company, LLC ("KLC Land")), certain of its subsidiaries (together with KLC Land, the "KLC Debtors") and FHT Corporation ("FHTC" and, together with the KLC Debtors, the "Debtors") under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, dated June 11, 2002 (as amended, the "Plan").   The Company's continuing operations are in two business segments - Agriculture and Property. The Agriculture segment remains engaged in farming, harvesting, milling and selling operations relating to coffee orchards on behalf of the applicable land owners. The Property segment primarily develops land for sale and negotiates bulk sales of undeveloped land. The Property and Agriculture segments operate exclusively in the State of Hawaii.   In 2013, the Kaanapali Coffee Farms Lot Owners’ Association was consolidated into the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The interests of third party owners are reflected as non controlling interests. All significant intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.   The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for complete financial statements, and therefore, should be read in conjunction with the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K (File No. 0-50273) for the year ended December 31, 2015. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this quarterly report have the same meanings as in the Company's 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Property	Property   The Company's significant property holdings are on the island of Maui consisting of approximately 4,000 acres, of which approximately 1,500 acres is classified as conservation land which precludes development. The Company has determined, based on its current projections for the development and/or disposition of its property holdings, that the property holdings are not currently recorded in an amount in excess of proceeds that the Company expects that it will ultimately obtain from the operation and disposition thereof.   Inventory of land held for sale, of approximately $8,460 and $11,245, representing primarily Kaanapali Coffee Farms, was included in Property, net in the consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, and is carried at the lower of cost or net realizable value, which is based on current and foreseeable market conditions, discussions with real estate brokers and review of historical land sale activity (level 2 and 3). Generally no land is currently in use except for approximately 400 acres of coffee trees which are being farmed to support the Company's land development program and miscellaneous parcels of land that have been leased or licensed to third parties on a short term basis.
Use of Estimates	Use of Estimates   The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.   Operating results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be achieved in future periods.
Cash and Cash Equivalents	Cash and Cash Equivalents   The Company considers as cash equivalents all investments with maturities of three months or less when purchased. The Company’s cash balances are maintained primarily in two financial institutions. Restricted cash represents cash held by the Kaanapali Coffee Farms Lot Owners’ Association. At times, such balances may exceed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limits. Management does not believe the Company is exposed to significant risk of loss on cash and cash equivalents.
Recognition of Profit From Real Property Sales	Recognition of Profit From Real Property Sales   For real property sales, profit is recognized in full when the collectability of the sales price is reasonably assured and the earnings process is virtually complete. When the sale does not meet the requirements for full profit recognition, all or a portion of the profit is deferred until such requirements are met.   Other revenues are recognized when delivery has occurred or services have been rendered, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collectability is reasonably assured.
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements	Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements   In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued guidance under the Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 606, Revenue from Contract with Customers, which establishes a single comprehensive revenue recognition model for all contracts with customers and will supersede most existing revenue guidance. This guidance requires entities to recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled to receive in exchange. Transition options include either a full or modified retrospective approach and early adoption is permitted. The implementation date for this guidance was recently deferred and will now be effective at the beginning of our first quarter of fiscal year 2019. We are currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of this requirement on our Consolidated Financial Statements.   In February 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2015-02, Consolidation (Topic 810) that amends the existing consolidation guidance related to (i) limited partnerships and similar legal entities, (ii) the evaluation of variable interests for fees paid to decision makers or service providers, (iii) the effect of fee arrangements and related parties on the primary beneficiary determination and (iv) certain investment funds. These changes are expected to limit the number of consolidation models and place more emphasis on risk of loss when determining a controlling financial interest. This ASU is effective for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2015. There was no material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations from the adoption of this ASU.   In May 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2015-07, Fair Value Measurement Disclosures for Investments in Certain Entities That Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or its Equivalent), as a new Topic, Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 820. Under this new guidance, investments measured at net asset value (“NAV”), as a practical expedient for fair value, are excluded from the fair value hierarchy. Removing investments measured using the practical expedient from the fair value hierarchy is intended to eliminate the diversity in practice that currently exists with respect to the categorization of these investments. The only criterion for categorizing investments in the fair value hierarchy will be the observability of the inputs. This ASU is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015 and shall be applied retrospectively to all periods presented. There was no material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations from the adoption of this ASU.   In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet and disclosing key information about leasing arrangements. For public business entities, the standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. For all other entities, the standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020. Early application of the amendments in this update is permitted for all entities. The Company is currently evaluating the effect that implementation of this update will have on its consolidated financial position and results of operations upon adoption.

v3.5.0.2

Employee Benefit Plans (Tables)	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Compensation and Retirement Disclosure [Abstract]
Schedule of Components of Net Periodic Pension Benefit (Credit)	The components of the net periodic pension benefit (credit), included in selling, general and administrative in the consolidated statements of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 are as follows:     Three Months Ended June 30,   Six Months Ended June 30,   2016   2015   2016   2015 Service cost $ 143    $ 145    $ 285    $ 289  Interest cost   383      394      767      788  Expected return on plan assets   (876)     (1,016)     (1,752)     (2,032) Recognized net actuarial   (gain) loss   244      278      488      557  Net periodic pension credit $ (106)   $ (199)   $ (212)   $ (398)

v3.5.0.2

Calculation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share (Tables)	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Earnings Per Share [Abstract]
Schedule of Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share - Basic and Diluted	The following tables set forth the computation of net income (loss) per share - basic and diluted:     Three Months Ended June 30,   Six Months Ended June 30,   (Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)   2016   2015   2016   2015 Numerator:                       Net income (loss) $ (493)   $ (832)   $ (1,163)   $ (1,395) Less: Net income attribu-   table to non controlling   interests   (36)     (85)     0      (69) Net income (loss) attributable   to stockholders $ (457)   $ (747)   $ (1,163)   $ (1,326)                         Denominator:                       Number of weighted   average share outstanding                         -  basic and diluted   1,845      1,845      1,845      1,845                          Net income (loss) per share,                         attributable to   Kaanapali Land   -  basic and diluted $ (0.25)   $ (0.40)   $ (0.63)   $ (0.72)

v3.5.0.2

Business Segment Information (Tables)	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Segment Reporting [Abstract]
Schedule of Net Income by Segments	Three Months Ended June 30,   Six Months Ended June 30,   2016   2015   2016   2015 Revenues:                         Property $ 927    $ 785    $ 3,554    $ 2,742    Agriculture   983      716      1,651      1,612    Corporate   (1)     0      27      0    $ 1,909    $ 1,501    $ 5,232    $ 4,354                          Operating income (loss):                         Property $ (178)   $ (389)   $ (162)   $ (765)   Agriculture   177      (45)     117      127  Operating income (loss)   (1)     (434)     (45)     (638)                         Corporate   (492)     (398)     (1,119)     (742)                         Operating income (loss)   before income taxes $ (493)   $ (832)   $ (1,164)   $ (1,380)

v3.5.0.2

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Property) (Details) $ in Thousands	Jun. 30, 2016 USD ($) a	Dec. 31, 2015 USD ($)
Property
Area of significant property holdings on island of Maui	4,000
Area of property holdings in Maui classified as conservation land which precludes development	1,500
Inventory of land held for sale | $	$ 8,460	$ 11,245

v3.5.0.2

Land Development (Details) $ in Thousands	1 Months Ended	3 Months Ended			6 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2015 USD ($)	Sep. 30, 2016 Lots	Jun. 30, 2016 USD ($) Lots	Mar. 31, 2016 Lots	Jun. 30, 2016 USD ($) Lots	Dec. 31, 2015 Lots	Oct. 01, 2016 USD ($)
Subsequent Event [Line Items]
Number of agricultural lots held for sale					51
Total number of agricultural lots sold			39		39
Number of agricultural lots sold during period			1	3		4
Total value of promissory notes outstanding | $			$ 1,518		$ 1,518
Pioneer Mill Site [Member]
Subsequent Event [Line Items]
Purchase price of approximate 19 acre site in Lahaina known as the Pioneer Mill Site | $	$ 20,500
Scheduled closing date for property sale	May 31, 2016
Termination date for agreement to sell property	Apr. 19, 2016
Subsequent Event [Member]
Subsequent Event [Line Items]
Number of agricultural lots sold during period		2
Total value of promissory notes outstanding | $							$ 2,027

v3.5.0.2

Mortgage Note Payable (Details) - Secured Promissory Note [Member] - Affiliated Entities [Member] - USD ($) $ in Thousands	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015
Debt Instrument [Line Items]
Debt instrument, face amount	$ 70,000
Debt instrument, issuance date	Nov. 14, 2002
Debt instrument, maturity date	Sep. 30, 2020
Outstanding balance of principal and accrued interest	$ 87,200	$ 87,200
Debt instrument, interest rate	1.19%

v3.5.0.2

Employee Benefit Plans (Narrative) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015
Compensation and Retirement Disclosure [Abstract]
Unrecognized prior service costs that have not yet been recognized in net periodic pension cost, before tax	$ 1	$ 18
Unrecognized prior service costs that have not yet been recognized in net periodic pension cost, after tax	1	11
Unrecognized actuarial loss that have not yet been recognized in net periodic pension cost, before tax	16,641	17,129
Unrecognized actuarial loss that have not yet been recognized in net periodic pension cost, after tax	10,151	10,449
Prior service cost recognized in net periodic pension cost, pre tax	2
Prior service cost recognized in net periodic pension cost, after tax	1
Prior actuarial loss recognized in net periodic pension cost, pre tax	488
Prior actuarial loss recognized in net periodic pension cost, after tax	298
Deferred liability for nonqualified deferred compensation arrangement ("Rabbi Trust")	711	711
Assets held under deferred compensation arrangement ("Rabbi Trust")	$ 29	$ 29

v3.5.0.2

Employee Benefit Plans (Schedule of Components of Net Periodic Pension Benefit (Credit)) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015
Compensation and Retirement Disclosure [Abstract]
Service cost	$ 143	$ 145	$ 285	$ 289
Interest cost	383	394	767	788
Expected return on plan assets	(876)	(1,016)	(1,752)	(2,032)
Recognized net actuarial (gain) loss	244	278	488	557
Net periodic pension credit	$ (106)	$ (199)	$ (212)	$ (398)

v3.5.0.2

Income Taxes (Details)	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [Member] | Minimum [Member]
Income Tax Examination [Line Items]
Open tax years	2012

v3.5.0.2

Transactions with Affiliates (Details) - Affiliated Entities [Member] - USD ($) $ in Thousands	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015
Related Party Transaction [Line Items]
Insurance brokerage commissions incurred during period with related party	$ 12	$ 11
Selling, general and administrative expenses incurred during the period with related parties	638	606
Amounts due to affiliates not yet paid	116
Revenue from farming and common area maintenance services and for providing non-potable water to the Kaanapali Coffee Farms Lot Owners Association ('LOA')	$ 592	$ 592

v3.5.0.2

Commitments and Contingencies (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	1 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2007	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2014
Gain Contingencies [Line Items]
Approximate future costs and expenditures KLMC remains committed for on uncompleted portion of Bypass Highway		$ 1,100
Maximum amount KLMC has agreed to contribute towards construction costs on Bypass Highway project		$ 6,700
Oahu Sugar Bankruptcy Case [Member]
Gain Contingencies [Line Items]
Amount of claims filed			$ 224,000
Total costs spent included in bankruptcy proof of claim			260
Oahu Sugar Bankruptcy Case [Member] | Minimum [Member]
Gain Contingencies [Line Items]
Additional anticipated response costs submitted in bankruptcy proof of claim			2,760
Oahu Sugar Bankruptcy Case [Member] | Maximum [Member]
Gain Contingencies [Line Items]
Additional anticipated response costs submitted in bankruptcy proof of claim			11,450
D/C Distribution [Member]
Gain Contingencies [Line Items]
Litigation settlement	$ 1,618
D/C Distributions Bankruptcy Case [Member]
Gain Contingencies [Line Items]
Amount of claims filed			$ 26,800

v3.5.0.2

Calculation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share (Details) - USD ($) $ / shares in Units, shares in Thousands, $ in Thousands	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015
Numerator:
Net income (loss)	$ (493)	$ (832)	$ (1,163)	$ (1,395)
Less: Net income attributable to non controlling interests	(36)	(85)		(69)
Net income (loss) attributable to stockholders	$ (457)	$ (747)	$ (1,163)	$ (1,326)
Denominator:
Number of weighted average share outstanding - basic and diluted	1,845	1,845	1,845	1,845
Net income (loss) per share, attributable to Kaanapali Land - basic and diluted	$ (0.25)	$ (0.40)	$ (0.63)	$ (0.72)

v3.5.0.2

Business Segment Information (Schedule of Net Income by Segments) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015
Revenues:
Revenues	$ 1,909	$ 1,501	$ 5,232	$ 4,354
Operating income (loss):
Operating income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes	(493)	(832)	(1,164)	(1,380)
Property [Member]
Revenues:
Revenues	927	785	3,554	2,742
Operating income (loss):
Operating income (loss)	(178)	(389)	(162)	(765)
Agriculture [Member]
Revenues:
Revenues	983	716	1,651	1,612
Operating income (loss):
Operating income (loss)	177	(45)	117	127
Corporate [Member]
Revenues:
Revenues	(1)		27
Operating income (loss):
Operating income (loss)	(492)	(398)	(1,119)	(742)
Property and Agriculture [Member]
Operating income (loss):
Operating income (loss)	$ (1)	$ (434)	$ (45)	$ (638)

v3.5.0.2

Subsequent Events (Details) $ in Thousands	1 Months Ended		3 Months Ended				6 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
	Oct. 31, 2016 USD ($)	Jan. 31, 2016 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($)	Sep. 30, 2016 Lots	Jun. 30, 2016 USD ($) Lots	Mar. 31, 2016 Lots	Jun. 30, 2016 USD ($) Lots	Dec. 31, 2015 Lots	Oct. 01, 2016 USD ($)
Subsequent Event [Line Items]
Number of agricultural lots held for sale | Lots							51
Total number of agricultural lots sold | Lots					39		39
Number of agricultural lots sold during period | Lots					1	3		4
Total value of promissory notes outstanding					$ 1,518		$ 1,518
KLC Sales Agreement [Member]
Subsequent Event [Line Items]
Estimated sale proceeds from sale of registrant's remaining real property and related assets on the island of Maui		$ 95,000
Subsequent Event [Member]
Subsequent Event [Line Items]
Number of agricultural lots sold during period | Lots				2
Total value of promissory notes outstanding									$ 2,027
Percentage of pension plan benefit obligations that will be settled from purchase of a single premium group annuity contract	96.00%
Amount of pension plan funds transferred to third party to fund purchase	$ 39,700
Subsequent Event [Member] | Scenario, Forecast [Member]
Subsequent Event [Line Items]
Estimated non-cash accumulated other comprehensive loss after tax, attributable to pension plan obligation transfer to third party			$ 2,700
Estimated after tax accumulated comprehensive loss to be reclassified to accumulated earnings			13,000
Excess assets of the Pension Plan after transfer of obligation to third party			$ 15,000