Note 7 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

3 Months Ended

Jan. 31, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

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. The significant majority of our litigation matters are related to construction defect claims. Our estimated losses from construction defect litigation matters, if any, are included in our construction defect reserves.

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 continue to be imposed on developers and homebuilders in the future. In addition, some of these laws and regulations that significantly affect how certain properties may be developed are contentious, attract intense political attention, and may be subject to significant changes over time.  For example, regulations governing wetlands permitting under the federal Clean Water Act have been the subject of extensive rulemakings for many years, resulting in several major joint rulemakings by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that have expanded and contracted the scope of wetlands subject to regulation; and such rulemakings have been the subject of many legal challenges, some of which remain pending. 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.

In 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 responded to the information requests. On May 2, 2018 the EPA sent a letter to the Company entity demanding reimbursement for 100% of the EPA’s costs to clean-up the site in the amount of $2.7 million. The Company responded to the EPA’s demand letter on June 15, 2018 setting forth the Company’s defenses and expressing its willingness to enter into settlement negotiations. Two other PRPs identified by the EPA are now also in negotiations with the EPA and in preliminary negotiations with the Company regarding the site. In the course of negotiations, the EPA informed the Company that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP") has also incurred costs remediating part of the site. The EPA has since requested that the three PRPs present a joint settlement offer to the EPA. The Company and the other two PRPs are parties to a series of agreements tolling the statute of limitations on the EPA's claims for reimbursement, most recently extending the date until April 20, 2022. We believe that we have adequate reserves for this matter.

In 2015, the condominium association of the Four Seasons at Great Notch condominium community (the “Great Notch Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County (the “Court”) alleging various construction defects, design defects, and geotechnical issues relating to the community. The operative complaint (“Complaint”) asserts claims against Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and several of its affiliates, including K. Hovnanian at Great Notch, LLC, K. Hovnanian Construction Management, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC. The Complaint also asserts claims against various other design professionals and contractors. The Great Notch Plaintiff has also filed a motion, which remains pending, to permit it to pursue a claim to pierce the corporate veil of K. Hovnanian at Great Notch, LLC to hold its alleged parent entities liable for any damages awarded against it. To date, the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants have reached a partial settlement with the Great Notch Plaintiff as to a portion of the Great Notch Plaintiff’s claims against them for an amount immaterial to the Company. On its remaining claims against the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants, the Great Notch Plaintiff has asserted damages of approximately $119.5 million, which amount is potentially subject to treble damages pursuant to the Great Notch Plaintiff’s claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The trial is currently scheduled for June 6, 2022. Mediation was held in September 2020, and a further mediation session is scheduled in March 2022. The Hovnanian-affiliated defendants intend to defend these claims vigorously.

In December 2020, the NJDEP and the Administrator of the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund (the “Spill Fund”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County against Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. in addition to other unrelated parties, in connection with contamination at Hickory Manor, a residential condominium development. Alleged predecessors of certain defendants had used the Hickory Manor property for decades for manufacturing purposes. In 1998, NJDEP confirmed that groundwater at this site was impacted from an off-site source. The site was later remediated, resulting in the NJDEP issuing an unconditional site-wide No Further Action determination letter and Covenant Not to Sue in 1999. Subsequently, one of our affiliates was involved in redeveloping the property as a residential community. The complaint asserts claims under the New Jersey Spill Act and other state law claims and alleges that the NJDEP and the Spill Fund have incurred over $5.3 million since 2009 to investigate vapor intrusion at the development and to install vapor mitigation systems. Among other things, the complaint seeks recovery of the costs incurred, an order that defendants perform additional required remediation and disgorgement of profits on our affiliate’s sales of the units in the development. Discovery has commenced. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. intends to defend these claims vigorously.