CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Following the Company’s November 10, 2014 earnings release and filing of the restated interim financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31 and June 30, 2014, (the “November 2014 Announcement”), on November 26, 2014, December 29, 2014, January 26, 2015, February 13, 2015, and May 12, 2015, the Company received separate letters from shareholders requesting that the Company investigate or pursue derivative claims against certain officers and directors related to the November 2014 Announcement (the “Derivative Claims”). Although these demands do not identify any claims against the Company, the Company has certain obligations to advance expenses and provide indemnification to certain current and former officers and directors of the Company. The Company has also incurred expenses as a result of costs arising from the investigation of the claims alleged in the various demands. Following the Company’s receipt of the Derivative Claims, it entered into a series of tolling agreements with the shareholders from whom it received demands (the “Demand Shareholders”). The last of these tolling agreements ended in March of 2017. On October 13, 2017, one of the Demand Shareholders filed an action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, currently styled Molloy v. Boynton, et al., Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-01157-TJC-MCR (the “Derivative Lawsuit”). The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment and names as defendants former officers, Paul G. Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort and N. Lynn Wilson, and former directors, C. David Brown, II, Mark E. Gaumond, James H. Miller, Thomas I. Morgan and Ronald Townsend (the former officers and directors named as defendants are collectively the “Individual Defendants”). In November 2017, the parties reached an agreement to resolve all claims brought in the Derivative Lawsuit and agreed to negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses to be paid to the Demand Shareholders’ counsel, subject to court approval. The parties executed a term sheet on November 27, 2017, and agreed to schedule a mediation regarding the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses. On November 30, 2017, Rayonier and certain of the Individual Defendants who had been served with the complaint filed an unopposed Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, to Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint in order to allow the parties time to attempt to resolve the Derivative Lawsuit without further litigation. On December 6, 2017, the Court entered an order staying the case, directing that the case be administratively closed, and ordering the parties to file a joint status report with the Court not later than March 15, 2018. At December 31, 2017, the case was stayed, some of the Individual Defendants had not yet been served, none of the defendants had filed any responsive pleading or dispositive motion, and the Company could not determine whether there was a likelihood a material loss had been incurred nor could the range of any such loss be estimated. On March 13, 2018, the Demand Shareholders, Rayonier, certain of Rayonier’s directors’ and officers’ insurance carriers, and certain of the Individual Defendants participated in a mediation, at the conclusion of which the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case and amended the term sheet to memorialize such agreement. On April 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed with the Court Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Derivative Settlement and Memorandum of Legal Authority in Support (“Motion for Preliminary Approval”). The terms of the proposed settlement (the “Settlement”) are contained in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”), which was attached to the Motion for Preliminary Approval and filed with the Court. The Stipulation, executed by all parties, included the material terms of the term sheet. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, which is subject to Court approval and objections by shareholders, the Company agreed to certain governance reforms and to cause certain of its directors’ and officers’ liability insurance carriers to fund a settlement payment for the Demand Shareholders’ attorneys’ fees and expenses as well as incentive awards to the Demand Shareholders in the aggregate amount of $1.995 million. The payments agreed to on March 13, 2018, including the realized amount to be funded by the insurance carriers, were reflected in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements as of March 31, 2018. The Company has also been named as a defendant in various other lawsuits and claims arising in the normal course of business. While the Company has procured reasonable and customary insurance covering risks normally occurring in connection with its businesses, it has in certain cases retained some risk through the operation of large deductible insurance plans, primarily in the areas of executive risk, property, automobile and general liability. These pending lawsuits and claims, either individually or in the aggregate, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flow.

CONTINGENCIES

Following the Company’s November 10, 2014 earnings release and filing of the restated interim financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31 and June 30, 2014, (the “November 2014 Announcement”), on November 26, 2014, December 29, 2014, January 26, 2015, February 13, 2015, and May 12, 2015, the Company received separate letters from shareholders requesting that the Company investigate or pursue derivative claims against certain officers and directors related to the November 2014 Announcement (the “Derivative Claims”). Although these demands do not identify any claims against the Company, the Company has certain obligations to advance expenses and provide indemnification to certain current and former officers and directors of the Company. The Company has also incurred expenses as a result of costs arising from the investigation of the claims alleged in the various demands.

Following the Company’s receipt of the Derivative Claims, it entered into a series of tolling agreements with the shareholders from whom it received demands (the “Demand Shareholders”). The last of these tolling agreements ended in March of 2017. On October 13, 2017, one of the Demand Shareholders filed an action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, currently styled Molloy v. Boynton, et al., Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-01157-TJC-MCR (the “Derivative Lawsuit”). The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment and names as defendants former officers, Paul G. Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort and N. Lynn Wilson, and former directors, C. David Brown, II, Mark E. Gaumond, James H. Miller, Thomas I. Morgan and Ronald Townsend (the former officers and directors named as defendants are collectively the “Individual Defendants”).

In November 2017, the parties reached an agreement to resolve all claims brought in the Derivative Lawsuit and agreed to negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses to be paid to the Demand Shareholders’ counsel, subject to court approval. The parties executed a term sheet on November 27, 2017, and agreed to schedule a mediation regarding the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses. On November 30, 2017, Rayonier and certain of the Individual Defendants who had been served with the complaint filed an unopposed Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, to Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint in order to allow the parties time to attempt to resolve the Derivative Lawsuit without further litigation. On December 6, 2017, the Court entered an order staying the case, directing that the case be administratively closed, and ordering the parties to file a joint status report with the Court not later than March 15, 2018. At December 31, 2017, the case was stayed, some of the Individual Defendants had not yet been served, none of the defendants had filed any responsive pleading or dispositive motion, and the Company could not determine whether there was a likelihood a material loss had been incurred nor could the range of any such loss be estimated.

On March 13, 2018, the Demand Shareholders, Rayonier, certain of Rayonier’s directors’ and officers’ insurance carriers, and certain of the Individual Defendants participated in a mediation, at the conclusion of which the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case and amended the term sheet to memorialize such agreement. On April 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed with the Court Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Derivative Settlement and Memorandum of Legal Authority in Support (“Motion for Preliminary Approval”). The terms of the proposed settlement (the “Settlement”) are contained in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”), which was attached to the Motion for Preliminary Approval and filed with the Court. The Stipulation, executed by all parties, included the material terms of the term sheet. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, which is subject to Court approval and objections by shareholders, the Company agreed to certain governance reforms and to cause certain of its directors’ and officers’ liability insurance carriers to fund a settlement payment for the Demand Shareholders’ attorneys’ fees and expenses as well as incentive awards to the Demand Shareholders in the aggregate amount of $1.995 million. The payments agreed to on March 13, 2018, including the realized amount to be funded by the insurance carriers, were reflected in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements as of March 31, 2018.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in various other lawsuits and claims arising in the normal course of business. While the Company has procured reasonable and customary insurance covering risks normally occurring in connection with its businesses, it has in certain cases retained some risk through the operation of large deductible insurance plans, primarily in the areas of executive risk, property, automobile and general liability. These pending lawsuits and claims, either individually or in the aggregate, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flow.