15. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company has obligations under various noncancelable long-term operating leases for office space and equipment. Some of these leases contain escalation clauses for operating costs, property taxes and insurance. In addition, the Company has various obligations under other office space and equipment leases of less than one year.

Total rent expense was $0.2 million and $0.3 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, respectively, and $0.6 million and $1.3 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, respectively.

The future minimum rental commitments under noncancelable long-term operating leases due over the next five years, including buildings leased through a sale-leaseback transaction are as follows:


2012	$	231
2013		406
2014		294
2015		294
2016		153
Thereafter	$	3,521

In accordance with GAAP, the Company establishes an accrued liability for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. As a litigation or regulatory matter develops, the Company, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, evaluates on an ongoing basis whether such matter presents a loss contingency that is probable and estimable. If, at the time of evaluation, the loss contingency related to a litigation or regulatory matter is not both probable and estimable, the matter will continue to be monitored for further developments that would make such loss contingency both probable and estimable. Once the loss contingency related to litigation or regulatory matter is deemed to be both probable and estimable, the Company will establish an accrued liability with respect to such loss contingency and record a corresponding amount of litigation-related expense. The Company continues to monitor the matter for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability that has been previously established.

Regardless of whether an accrued liability has been established for a loss contingency, the Company estimates and discloses a range of possible loss for matters in which a loss is probable or reasonably possible in future periods. In such cases, the Company reviews and evaluates its material litigation and regulatory matters on an ongoing basis, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, in light of potentially relevant factual and legal developments. In cases in which the Company possesses sufficient appropriate information to develop an estimate of loss or range of possible loss, that estimate is aggregated and disclosed below. There may be other disclosed matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible but such an estimate may not be possible. For those matters where an estimate is possible, management currently estimates the aggregate range of possible loss below in excess of the accrued liability (if any) related to those matters. This estimated range of possible loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Those matters for which an estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range. Therefore, this estimated range of possible loss represents what the Company believes to be an estimate of possible loss only for certain matters meeting these criteria. It does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure. Information is provided below regarding the nature of all of these contingencies and, where specified, the amount of the claim associated with these loss contingencies. Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending matters, including the matters described herein, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, some of which are beyond the Company’s control, and the very large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.

The Company is subject to costs arising out of environmental laws and regulations, which include obligations to remove or limit the effects on the environment of the disposal or release of certain wastes or substances at various sites, including sites which have been previously sold. It is the Company’s policy to accrue and charge against earnings environmental cleanup costs when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and an amount can be reasonably estimated. As assessments and cleanups proceed, these accruals are reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, as additional information becomes available.

The Company’s former paper mill site in Gulf County and certain adjacent properties are subject to various Consent Agreements and Brownfield Site Rehabilitation Agreements with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The paper mill site has been rehabilitated by Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation in accordance with these agreements. The Company is in the process of assessing and rehabilitating certain adjacent properties. Management is unable to quantify the rehabilitation costs at this time.

Other proceedings and litigation involving environmental matters are pending against the Company. Aggregate environmental-related accruals were $1.6 million and $1.5 million at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. Although the final resolution of the environmental litigation matters or governmental proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, it is possible that any final judgment could have a material impact on the results of operations or cash flows of the Company for the particular reporting period in which the adjustment is recorded.

On November 3, 2010 and December 7, 2010, two securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the Northern District of Florida. These cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and are captioned as Meyer v. The St. Joe Company et al. (No. 5:11-cv-00027). A consolidated class action complaint was filed in the case on February 24, 2011.

The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company’s securities between February 19, 2008 and October 12, 2010 and alleged that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among others, violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) by making false and/or misleading statements and/or by failing to disclose that, as the Florida real estate market was in decline, the Company failed to take adequate and required impairments and accounting write-downs on many of the Company’s Florida-based properties and as a result, the Company’s financial statements materially overvalued the Company’s property developments. The plaintiff also alleged that the Company’s financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls, and as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading. The complaint sought an unspecified amount in damages. On April 5, 2011, at the request of the plaintiff, the court dismissed the claims under the Securities Act and dismissed the current and former director defendants from the case. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on April 6, 2011. On January 12, 2012, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the individual defendants. On February 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the Court denied on February 14, 2012. On March 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and that appeal is currently pending.

On March 29, 2011 and July 21, 2011, two separate derivative lawsuits were filed by shareholders on behalf of St. Joe against certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Nakata v. Greene et. al., No. 5:11-cv-00090 and Packer v. Greene, et al., No. 3:11-cv-00344). The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar allegations as those described above in the Meyer case. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On June 6, 2011, the court granted the parties’ motion to stay the Nakata action pending the outcome of the Meyer action. On September 12, 2011, a third derivative lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Florida (Shurkin v. Berkowitz, et al., No. 5:11-cv-304) making similar claims as those in the Nakata and Packer actions, and seeking an unspecified amount in damages. St. Joe and the individual defendants have not been served with the Shurkin complaint. On September 16, 2011, plaintiffs in Nakata and Packer filed a joint motion to consolidate all derivative actions and appoint lead counsel. On October 3, 2011, plaintiff in Shurkin filed a cross motion seeking separate lead counsel for Shurkin and coordination of Shurkin with the other derivative cases. On October 6, 2011, the Company filed a response in which it stated that all derivative cases should be consolidated. On October 14, 2011, Nakata and Packer plaintiffs filed an amended joint motion seeking consolidation of those two cases only. On October 21, 2011, the court issued an order consolidating the Nakata and Packer lawsuits. On June 4, 2012, the court granted the parties motion to stay the Shurkin action pending the outcome of the Meyer action. Further action in the Nakata and Packer action, and the Shurkin action, are awaiting resolution of the Meyer action discussed above.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the above claims and intends to defend the actions vigorously. The Company believes that the probability of loss related to this litigation and an estimate of the amount of loss, if any, are not determinable at this time. The Company cannot evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome related to this litigation to be either “probable” or “remote”, nor can they predict the amount or range of possible loss from an unfavorable outcome to give an estimated range.

On January 4, 2011 the SEC notified the Company it was conducting an inquiry into the Company’s policies and practices concerning impairment of investment in real estate assets. On June 24, 2011, the Company received notice from the SEC that it has issued a related order of private investigation. The order of private investigation covers a variety of matters for the period beginning January 1, 2007 including (a) the antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws as applicable to the Company and its past and present officers, directors, employees, partners, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates, and/or other persons or entities, (b) compliance by past and present reporting persons or entities who were or are directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the Company’s common stock (which includes Fairholme Funds, Inc., Fairholme Capital Management L.L.C. and the Company’s current Chairman Bruce R. Berkowitz) with their reporting obligations under Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act, (c) internal controls, (d) books and records, (e) communications with auditors and (f) financial reports. The order designates officers of the SEC to take the testimony of the Company and third parties with respect to any or all of these matters. The Company is cooperating with the SEC on historical matters as well as communicating and providing relevant information regarding the Company’s recent change in investment strategy and impairments. The Company believes that the probability of loss related to this matter and an estimate of the amount of loss, if any, are not determinable at this time. The Company cannot evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome related to this matter to be either “probable” or “remote”, nor can they predict the amount or range of possible loss from an unfavorable outcome to give an estimated range.

On October 21, 2009, the Company entered into a strategic alliance agreement with Southwest Airlines to facilitate the commencement of low-fare air service in May 2010 to the Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport. The Company agreed to reimburse Southwest Airlines in the form of a guarantee if it incurred losses on its service at the airport during the first three years of service by making specified break-even payments. Effective July 1, 2012, the Company and Southwest Airlines mutually agreed to terminate this agreement. In conjunction with the termination of this agreement, the Company recorded $0.8 million of other income at June 30, 2012 as a result of eliminating a reserve liability recorded at the inception of the agreement. As of June 30, 2012, no payments were due to Southwest Airlines at the effective date of termination.

The Company has retained certain self-insurance risks with respect to losses for third party liability and property damage.

At June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company was party to surety bonds related to certain development projects of $14.2 million and $15.7 million, respectively, and standby letters of credit in the amount of $0.9 million and $0.8 million at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, which may potentially result in liability to the Company if certain obligations of the Company are not met.