The accompanying notes are an integral
part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.
The accompanying notes are an integral
part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.
The accompanying notes are an integral
part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.
The accompanying notes are an integral
part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements
(Unaudited)
(Dollars in Thousands)
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, 2012. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this quarterly
report have the same meanings as in the Company's 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
(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 formerly grew
seed corn and soybeans under contract and remains engaged in farming and milling operations relating to the coffee orchards on
behalf of the applicable land owners. The corn and soybean contract expired June 30, 2012. 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.
Financial
Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) ASC Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, establishes a framework
for measuring fair value. That framework provides a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used
to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets
or liabilities (level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (level 3 measurements). The three levels of
the fair value hierarchy are described as follows:
|
Level 1
|
-
|
Inputs to the valuation methodology are unadjusted quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 2
|
-
|
Inputs to the valuation methodology include: quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in inactive markets; or other inputs that are observable for the asset or liability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3
|
-
|
Inputs to the valuation methodology are unobservable and significant to the fair value measurement.
|
The
asset or liability's fair value measurement level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of any input that
is significant to the fair value measurement. Valuation techniques used need to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize
unobservable inputs.
Property
The
Company's significant property holdings are on the island of Maui (including approximately 4,000 acres known as Kaanapali 2020,
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 $24,000 and $25,100, representing primarily Kaanapali Coffee Farms, was included in Property,
net in the consolidated balance sheets at March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, and is carried at the lower
of cost or net realizable value. No land is currently in use except for certain Kaanapali 2020 acreage of coffee trees which are
being maintained 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.
In
the opinion of management, all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the statement of financial position and results
of operations for the interim periods presented have been included in these financial statements and are of a normal and recurring
nature.
Operating
results for the three months ended March 31, 2013 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be achieved in future
periods.
Short-Term
Investments
It
is the Company's policy to classify all of its investments in U.S. Government obligations with original maturities greater than
three months as held-to maturity, as the Company has the ability and intent to hold these investments until their maturity, and
are recorded at amortized cost, which approximates fair value. Prior to maturity in May 2012, the Company held short-term investments
consisting of $5,000 of such securities purchased in June 2011.
(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 March 31,
2013, the Company has closed on the sale of twelve lots at Kaanapali Coffee Farms including two during first quarter 2013 and two
in the first quarter of 2012. In addition, the Company closed on a subsequent lot sale in April 2013 and another in May 2013.
(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 March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 of approximately $87,100 and $87,000, 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 months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012 are as follows:
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
Service cost
|
$
|
158
|
|
$
|
157
|
Interest cost
|
|
411
|
|
|
478
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
(1,050)
|
|
|
(1,031)
|
Recognized net actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
200
|
|
|
261
|
Net periodic pension credit
|
$
|
(281)
|
|
$
|
(135)
|
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 March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 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 $31
($19 net of tax), respectively, and unrecognized actuarial loss of $17,976 ($10,966 net of tax) and $18,146 ($11,069 net of tax),
respectively. The prior service cost and actuarial loss recognized in net periodic pension cost for the three months ending March 31,
2013 are $1 ($1 net of tax) and $200 ($122 net of tax), respectively.
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 approximately $928 represented in the Rabbi Trust and assets funding such deferred
compensation liability of approximately $242 are consolidated in the Company's balance sheet.
(5) Income
Taxes
The
Company uses a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax
position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. The Company's gross unrecognized tax benefits total $1,828 and $1,372 at
March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The Company's continuing practice is to recognize interest and penalties
related to income tax matters in income tax expense. Consolidated Balance Sheets at March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 include
$36 and $55, respectively, accrued for the potential payment of interest and penalties.
Federal
tax return examinations have been completed for all years through 2005. The statutes of limitations with respect to the Company's
taxes for 2009 and subsequent years 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.
The
Company has recorded a valuation allowance against any tax benefit or deferred tax asset generated during the three months ended
March 31, 2013.
(6) Transactions with Affiliates
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 2013 and 2012. The total costs
recorded in cost of sales and selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of operations for the
three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012 were $289 and $460, respectively, of which approximately $106 was unpaid as of
March 31, 2013.
(7) Commitments
and Contingencies
At
March 31, 2013, the Company has no principal contractual obligations related to the land improvements in conjunction with
Phase I of the Kaanapali Coffee Farms project.
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.
As
a result of an administrative order issued to Oahu Sugar by the HDOH, Order No. CH 98-001, dated January 27, 1998, Oahu Sugar 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, 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 purported 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.
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 connection 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 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 right 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 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.
Federal
tax return examinations have been completed for all years through 2005. The statutes of limitations with respect to the Company's
tax returns for 2009 and subsequent years remain open, subject to possible utilization of loss carryforwards from earlier years.
The Company believes adequate provisions for income taxes 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.
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 have been only a few such cases that name Kaanapali Land, there are a substantial number of
cases that are pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against Kaanapali Land 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 this regard.
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. The deadline for filing proofs
of claim against D/C with the bankruptcy court passed in October 2008. Prior to the deadline, Kaanapali Land filed claims 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 700 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 February 13, 2013, PM Land Company received demand to mediate a dispute arising in connection with the sale of lot in
the Kaanapali Coffee Farms subdivision. PM Land currently retains the sum of $450,000 as a result of the sale to the claimants
that did not proceed to closing. Claimants seek, among other things, cancellation of the contract, the return of the amounts of
money still on deposit, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. PM Land Company is contemplating a mediation of this matter
in an attempt to determine if this dispute can be resolved, amicably. In the event this matter cannot be resolved amicably, claimants
may proceed to file an arbitration demand. If claimants file a demand for arbitration or some other process, PM Land Company intends
to defend itself, vigorously. While it cannot be assured, it is not anticipated that the amounts obtained in any such an arbitration
or other venue, if successful, would have a material adverse effect on the Company.
The
Company has received notice from 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 January 2013. To date, the DNLR
has cited certain maintenance deficiencies concerning two of the Company’s reservoirs, relating to, among other things, overgrowth
that could impact the inspection process, degrade the integrity of the reservoir slopes and impact drainage; leak detection; and
erosion control. The DLNR has required vegetative clean-up and the Company’s plans for future maintenance, inspections, and
emergency response. The Company has taken certain corrective actions and submitted revisions to its emergency action plans for
both of its reservoirs in accordance with revised DLNR requirements. The January 2013 DLNR inspection reports relate to visual
dam safety inspections of the Company’s reservoirs and contain a list of certain deficiencies, recommendations, and actions.
The Company continues its analysis with respect to various items noted in the most recent inspection reports received from DLNR
in April 2011 and January 2013, including certain findings and corrective actions noted therein.
The
DLNR categorizes each of 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. The Company and DLNR
continue to engage in dialogue concerning these matters (which have included further site visits by DLNR personnel).
In 2012, the state issued
new Hawaii Administrative Rules for Dams and Reservoirs which require dam owners to obtain Certificates of Impoundment (“permits”)
to operate and maintain dams. Obtaining such permits may involve further analysis of dam safety requirements which could result
in significant and costly improvements which may be material to the Company.
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.
(8) Calculation
of Net Income (Loss) Per Share
The
following tables set forth the computation of net income (loss) per share - basic and diluted:
|
(Amounts
in thousands,
except
per share amounts)
|
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
$
|
81
|
|
$
|
(835)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of weighted average share outstanding - basic and diluted
|
|
1,845
|
|
|
1,845
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share - basic and diluted
|
$
|
0.04
|
|
$
|
(0.45)
|
(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 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.
|
2013
|
|
2012
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property
|
$
|
2,315
|
|
$
|
424
|
Agriculture
|
|
361
|
|
|
695
|
Corporate
|
|
0
|
|
|
2
|
|
$
|
2,676
|
|
$
|
1,121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property
|
$
|
704
|
|
$
|
(551)
|
Agriculture
|
|
(339)
|
|
|
(78)
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
365
|
|
|
(629)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate income (loss)
|
|
(303)
|
|
|
(202)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
income (loss) from continuing
operations
before income taxes
|
$
|
62
|
|
$
|
(831)
|
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. Seed corn operations formerly were under a contract
with Monsanto Seed Company which expired June 30, 2012.
The
Company is exploring alternative agricultural operations, but there can be no assurance that replacement operations at any level
will result.
Part
I. Financial Information