7.	Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

We are involved in litigation arising in the ordinary course of business,

none

of which is expected to

have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, and we are subject to extensive and complex laws and regulations that affect the development of land and home building, sales and customer financing processes, including zoning, density, building standards and mortgage financing. These laws and regulations often provide broad discretion to the administering governmental authorities. This can delay or increase the cost of development or homebuilding.

We also are

subject to a variety of local, state, federal and foreign laws and regulations concerning protection of health and the environment, including those regulating the emission or discharge of materials into the environment, the management of storm water runoff at construction sites, the handling, use, storage and disposal of hazardous substances, impacts to wetlands and other sensitive environments, and the remediation of contamination at properties that we have owned or developed or currently own or are developing (“environmental laws”). The particular environmental laws that apply to a site

may

vary greatly according to the community site, for example, due to the community, the environmental conditions at or near the site, and the present and former uses of the site. These environmental laws

may

result in delays,

may

cause us to incur substantial compliance, remediation and/or other costs, and can prohibit or severely restrict development and homebuilding activity. In addition, noncompliance with these laws and regulations could result in fines and penalties, obligations to remediate, permit revocations or other sanctions; and contamination or other environmental conditions at or in the vicinity of our developments

may

result in claims against us for personal injury, property damage or other losses.

We anticipate that increasingly stringent requirements will be imposed on developers and homebuilders in the future. For example, for a number of years, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been engaged in rulemakings to clarify the scope of federally regulated wetlands, which included a

June 2015

rule many affected businesses contend impermissibly expanded the scope of such wetlands that was challenged in court, stayed, and remains in litigation, a proposal in

June 2017

to formally rescind the

June 2015

rule and reinstate the rule scheme previously in place while the agencies initiate a new substantive rulemaking on the issue and a

February 2018

rule delaying the effective date of the

June 2015

rule until

February 2020 (

which is being challenged in federal court by a number of states). It is unclear how these and related developments, including at the state or local level, ultimately

may

affect the scope of regulated wetlands where we operate. Although we cannot reliably predict the extent of any effect these developments regarding wetlands, or any other requirements that

may

take effect

may

have on us, they could result in time-consuming and expensive compliance programs and in substantial expenditures, which could cause delays and increase our cost of operations. In addition, our ability to obtain or renew permits or approvals and the continued effectiveness of permits already granted or approvals already obtained is dependent upon many factors, some of which are beyond our control, such as changes in policies, rules and regulations and their interpretations and application.

March 2013,

we received a letter

from the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) requesting information about our involvement in a housing redevelopment project in Newark, New Jersey that a Company entity undertook during the

1990s.

We understand that the development is in the vicinity of a former lead smelter and that tests on soil samples from properties within the development conducted by the EPA showed elevated levels of lead. We also understand that the smelter ceased operations many years before the Company entity involved acquired the properties in the area and carried out the re-development project. We responded to the EPA’s request. In

August

2013,

we were notified that the EPA considers us a potentially responsible party (or “PRP”) with respect to the site, that the EPA will clean up the site, and that the EPA is proposing that we fund and/or contribute towards the cleanup of the contamination at the site. We began preliminary discussions with the EPA concerning a possible resolution but do

not

know the scope or extent of the Company’s obligations, if any, that

may

arise from the site and therefore cannot provide any assurance that this matter will

not

have a material impact on the Company. The EPA requested additional information in

April 2014

and again in

March 2017

and the Company has responded to its information requests.

The Grandview at Riverwalk Port Imperial Condominium Association, Inc. (the “

Grandview Plaintiff”) filed a construction defect lawsuit against Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and several of its affiliates, including K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC, K. Hovnanian Construction Management, Inc., K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC, K. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., K. Hovnanian North East, Inc. aka and/or dba K. Hovnanian Companies North East, Inc., K. Hovnanian Construction II, Inc., K. Hovnanian Cooperative, Inc., K. Hovnanian Developments of New Jersey, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Holdings NJ, LLC, as well as the project architect, the geotechnical engineers and various construction contractors for the project alleging various construction defects, design defects and geotechnical issues totaling approximately

$41.3

million. The lawsuit included claims against the geotechnical engineers for differential soil settlement under the building, against the architects for failing to design the correct type of structure allowable under the New Jersey Building Code, and against the Hovnanian-affiliated developer entity (K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC ) alleging that it: (

) had knowledge of and failed to disclose the improper building classification to unit purchasers and was therefore liable for treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and (

) breached an express warranty set forth in the Public Offering Statements that the common elements at the building were fit for their intended purpose. The Grandview Plaintiff further alleged that Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., K. Hovnanian Holdings NJ, LLC, K. Hovnanian Developments of New Jersey, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Developments of New Jersey II, Inc. were jointly liable for any damages owed by the Hovnanian development entity under a veil piercing theory.

The parties reached a settlement on the construction defect issues prior to trial, but attempts to settle the subsidence, building classi

fication issue and Consumer Fraud Act claims were unsuccessful. The trial commenced on

April 17, 2017

in Hudson County, New Jersey. In the

third

week of the trial, all of the Hovnanian defendants resolved the geotechnical claims for an amount immaterial to the Company, but the balance of the case continued to be tried before the jury. On

June 1, 2017,

the jury rendered a verdict against K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC on the breach of warranty and New Jersey Consumer Fraud claims in the total amount of

million, which resulted in a total verdict of

million against that entity due to statutory trebling, plus a to-be-determined portion of Grandview Plaintiff’s counsel fees, per the statute. The jury also found in favor of Grandview Plaintiff on its veil piercing theory. Certain Hovnanian-affiliated defendants filed post-trial motions on

three

issues: (

) a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial; (

) a motion addressing whether any of the Hovnanian-affiliated entities could be jointly liable under a veil piercing theory for the damages awarded against K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC; and (

) a motion for contractual indemnification against the project architect. On

October 27, 2017,

the Court addressed a number of post-trial motions. The Court denied the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, and held that Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and its affiliate, K. Hovnanian Developments of New Jersey, Inc., are jointly liable for the damages awarded against K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC. On

November 18, 2017,

the Court awarded approximately

$1.8

million in attorney fees and costs to Grandview Plaintiff out of the approximately

$4.8

million it had sought. Certain Hovnanian-affiliated defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision on attorney fees and costs. In an order dated December

15,

2017,

the Court granted the motion for reconsideration and reduced its award of attorney fees and costs to approximately

$1.4

million. Final judgement in the amount of approximately

$10.4

million was entered on January

12,

2018.

January 24, 2018,

the relevant Hovnanian-affiliated defendants filed a notice of appeal of all aspec

ts of the verdict against them and a motion seeking a stay of execution of the judgement pending appeal. On

February 16, 2018,

the Court entered an order staying execution of the judgement provided that the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants post a supersedeas bond in the amount of approximately

$11.1

million. On

February 23, 2018,

the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants timely submitted the bond for the Court's approval. With respect to this case, depending on the outcome of all appeals, the range of loss is between

and

$11.1

million, inclusive of attorney fees and costs. Management believes that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and that the Company has reserved for its estimated probable loss amount in its construction defect reserves. However, our assessment of the probable loss

may

differ from the ultimate resolution of this matter.

2014,

the condominium association of

the Grandview II at Riverwalk Port Imperial condominium building (the “Grandview II Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County (the “Court”) alleging various construction defects, design defects, and geotechnical issues relating to the building along with a claim for piercing the corporate veil as to certain defendants. The operative complaint (“Complaint”) brought claims against Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and several of its affiliates, including K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal III, LLC, PI Investments I, LLC, K. Hovnanian Investments, LLC, K. Hovnanian Homes (

not

a legal entity but named as a defendant), K. Hovnanian Shore Acquisitions, LLC, K. Hovnanian Construction Management, Inc., K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC, K. Hovnanian Northeast, Inc., K. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., K. Hovnanian Construction III, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Cooperative, Inc. The Complaint also brought claims against various other design professionals and contractors. Grandview II Plaintiff asserted damages of approximately

$69

million to

$79

million, which amount was potentially subject to treble damages. On

December 7, 2017,

the Court issued orders adjudicating various parties’ motions for summary judgment. The Court issued an order that granted Grandview II Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the claim seeking to pierce the corporate veil of K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal III, LLC and ordered that Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. shall be jointly and severally liable for any damages awarded against K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal III, LLC, including any treble damages and attorney fees and costs. The Court also issued an order dismissing Grandview II Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and breach of implied warranties against certain Hovnanian-affiliated defendants. As of

December 14, 2017,

the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants reached a settlement with Grandview II Plaintiff that resolved all claims in the case involving the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants. As of

October 31, 2017,

the Company had fully reserved for this settlement amount. On

December 15, 2017,

the Court issued an order dismissing the action.

December 21, 2016,

the members of the Company

’s Board were named as defendants in a derivative and class action lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Plaintiff Joseph Hong (“Plaintiff Hong”). Plaintiff Hong had previously made a demand for inspection of the books and records of the Company pursuant to Delaware law. The Company had provided certain company documents in response to Plaintiff Hong’s demand. The complaint relates to the Board of Directors’ decisions to grant Ara K. Hovnanian equity awards in the form of Class B Common Stock, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders; that the equity awards granted in Class B Common Stock amounted to corporate waste; and that Ara. K Hovnanian was unjustly enriched by equity awards granted to him in Class B Common Stock. The complaint seeks a declaration that the equity awards granted to Ara K. Hovnanian in Class B Common Stock between

June 13, 2014

and

June 10, 2016

were ultra vires, invalidation or rescission of those awards, injunctive relief, and unspecified damages.

Dec

ember

18,

2017,

the parties finalized a settlement agreement to resolve the litigation. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, which remains subject to approval by the Chancery Court, the Company will submit for stockholder approval at the next Annual Meeting of Stockholders a resolution to amend the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation to affirm that in the event of a merger, consolidation, acquisition, tender offer, recapitalization, reorganization or other business combination, the same consideration will be provided for shares of Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock unless different treatment of the shares of each such class is approved separately by a majority of each class. The Company has also agreed to implement certain operational and corporate governance measures regarding the granting of equity awards in Class B Common Stock and, further, that it will

not

oppose an application by Plaintiff Hong for attorney’s fees up to

$275,000,

the amount of which is subject to approval by the Court.

January 11, 2018,

Solus Alternative Asset Management LP (“

Solus”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against GSO Capital Partners L.P., Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. (“Hovnanian”), K. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. (“K. Hovnanian”), K. Hovnanian at Sunrise Trail III, LLC, Ara K. Hovnanian and J. Larry Sorsby. The complaint related to K. Hovnanian’s offer to exchange up to

$185.0

million aggregate principal amount of its

8.0%

Senior Notes due

2019

for a combination of (i) cash, (ii) K. Hovnanian’s newly issued

13.5%

Senior Notes due

2026

and (iii) K. Hovnanian’s newly issued

5.0%

Senior Notes due

2040

and related transactions that were previously disclosed in Hovnanian’s Current Report on Form

-K filed on

December 28, 2017.

The complaint alleged, among other things, inadequate disclosure in the exchange offer documents, improper and fraudulent structuring of the transactions to impact the credit default swap market, violations of Sections

(b),

(e) and

(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934,

and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Solus sought, among other things, additional disclosures regarding the transactions, compensatory and punitive damages, and a preliminary and permanent injunction to stop the transactions from going forward. The court held a hearing on Solus’ motion for a preliminary injunction on

January 25, 2018.

January 29, 2018,

the court denied the motion, finding that Solus failed to show that it would be irreparably harmed in the absence of an injunction.

Solus filed an amended complaint on

February 1, 2018,

against the same defendants. Like the initial complaint, the amended complaint alleges improper and fraudulent structuring of the transactions to impact the credit default swap market, violations of Sections

(b) and

(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934,

and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Solus

longer asserts inadequate disclosure claims under Sections

(b) and

(e). In place of injunctive relief, Solus seeks a declaratory judgment that Sunrise Trail III, LLC has waived its entitlement to interest payments under the indenture governing the

8.0%

Senior Notes due

2019

and that the exchange offer breached this indenture. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on

March 2, 2018.

Hovnanian believes that the claims and allegations set forth in the Solus complaint are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. Hovnanian is actively seeking insurance coverage for the litigation costs related to the Solus claims.