KAANAPALI LAND LLC - Quarter Report: 2013 March (Form 10-Q)

United States

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

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

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013

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)

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 S    No £

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 £    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.

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

Yes £    No S

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court. Yes S   No £

As of March 31, 2013, 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

KAANAPALI LAND, LLC

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012

(Dollars in Thousands, except share data)

(Unaudited)

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

KAANAPALI LAND, LLC

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations

Three Months Ended March 31, 2013 and 2012

(Unaudited)

(Dollars in Thousands, except per share data)

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

KAANAPALI LAND, LLC

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Three Months Ended March 31, 2013 and 2012

(Unaudited)

(Dollars in Thousands)

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

KAANAPALI LAND, LLC

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

Three Months Ended March 31, 2013 and 2012

(Unaudited)

(Dollars in Thousands)

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)

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:

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:

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:

(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.

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

     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 March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 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, some of which have dissolved or are the subject of bankruptcy proceedings, 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 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. The Company has commenced discussions with the United States Department of Justice on behalf of the EPA and the Navy (the only other claimant in the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy) concerning the potential for dividing such remaining assets and closing such bankruptcy case. There can be no assurance that such discussions will lead to a settlement acceptable 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 and short-term investments of approximately $15 million and $14 million, as of March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, 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, 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 continuing 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 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.

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.

The decrease in accounts payable and accrued expenses at March 31, 2013 as compared to December 31, 2012 is due to the timing of submission for payment of recurring services.

The increase in sales and cost of sales for the three months ended March 31, 2013 as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2012 is due primarily to the sale of two lots during the first quarter of 2013.

The increase in interest and other income for the three months ended March 31, 2013 as compared to the three months ended March 31, 2012 is due to an insurance reimbursement related to damaged property.

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 first quarter of 2013 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 6 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, 2012.

Item 6.  Exhibit

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.

21