COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

A total of 5,488 acres of the Company’s land is subject to water contracts with the WRMWSD, requiring minimum future annual payments through the life of the contract which is 2035. The estimated future minimum annual payments are $2,500,000 before any potential credits are received, whether or not water is available or is used. These payments are expensed each quarter through our farming operations.

The Tejon Ranch Public Facilities Financing Authority, or TRPFFA, is a joint powers authority formed by Kern County and the TCWD, to finance public infrastructure within the Company’s Kern County developments. TRPFFA has created two Community Facilities Districts, or CFDs, the West CFD and the East CFD. The West CFD has placed liens on 420 acres of the Company’s land to secure payment of special taxes related to $30,000,000 of bond debt sold by TRPFFA for Tejon Ranch Commerce Center, or TRCC-West. The East CFD has placed liens on 1,931 acres of the Company’s land to secure payments of special taxes related to $39,750,000 of bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-East. At TRCC-West, the West CFD has no additional bond debt approved for issuance. At TRCC-East, the East CFD has approximately $80,250,000 of additional bond debt authorized by TRPFFA that can be sold in the future.

In connection with the sale of bonds there is a standby letter of credit for $5,426,000 related to the issuance of East CFD bonds. The standby letter of credit is in place to provide additional credit enhancement and cover approximately two years worth of interest on the outstanding bonds. This letter of credit will not be drawn upon unless the Company, as the largest land owner in the CFD, fails to make its property tax payments. The Company believes that the letter of credit will never be drawn upon. The letter of credit is for two years beginning in January 2013 and will be renewed in two-year intervals as necessary. The annual cost related to the letter of credit is approximately $83,000.

The Company is obligated, as a landowner in each CFD, to pay its share of the special taxes assessed each year. The secured lands include both the TRCC-West and TRCC-East developments. Proceeds from the sale of West CFD bonds went to reimburse the Company for public infrastructure related to the TRCC West development. At this time there are no additional reimbursement funds remaining from the West CFD bonds and there is approximately $8,900,000 of funds available for reimbursement of cost within the East CFD bonds. During the second quarter of 2013, $14,139,000 of funds were reimbursed to the Company. During 2012, the Company paid approximately $606,000 in special taxes. We anticipate we will pay approximately $886,000 in special taxes during 2013. As development continues to occur at TRCC, new owners of land and new lease tenants, through triple net leases, will bear an increasing portion of the assessed special tax. As this happens, the Company’s obligation is correspondingly reduced. The amount of special taxes paid by the Company could change in the future based on the amount of bonds outstanding and the amount of taxes paid by others.

Tejon Mountain Village

On November 10, 2009, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno division) by David Laughing Horse Robinson ("plaintiff") an alleged representative of the federally-unrecognized "Kawaiisu Tribe" alleging, inter alia, that the Company does not hold legal title to the land within the TMV development that it seeks to develop. The grounds for the federal lawsuit were the subject of a United States Supreme Court decision in 1924 where the United States Supreme Court found against the Indian tribes. The suit named as defendants the Company, two affiliates (Tejon Mountain Village, LLC and Tejon Ranchcorp), the County of Kern, or County, and Ken Salazar, in his capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Interior.

The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. On January 24, 2011, the Company received a ruling by Judge Wanger dismissing all claims against the Company, TMV, the County and the federal defendants. However, the judge did grant a limited right by the plaintiff to amend certain causes of action in the complaint.

During April 2011, the plaintiff filed his second amended complaint against the Company, alleging similar items as in the original suit. The plaintiff filed new materials during July, 2011 related to his second amended complaint. Thereafter, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge McAuliffe. On January 18, 2012, Judge McAuliffe issued an order dismissing all claims in plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action and/or for lack of jurisdiction, but allowing the plaintiff one more opportunity to state certain land claims provided plaintiff file an amended complaint on or before February 17, 2012. The court also indicated that it was considering dismissing the case due to the lack of federal recognition of the "Kawaiisu Tribe". The court then granted plaintiff an extension until March 19, 2012 to file his third amended complaint.

Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on March 19, 2012. Defendants filed motions to dismiss all claims in the third amended complaint without further leave to amend on April 30, 2012. Plaintiff thereafter substituted in new counsel and with leave of court filed his opposition papers on June 8, 2012. Defendants filed their reply papers on June 22, 2012. Oral argument of the motions to dismiss the third amended complaint was conducted on July 20, 2012. On August 7, 2012, the court issued its order dismissing all of Robinson's claims without leave to amend and with prejudice, on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

On September 24, 2012, Robinson (through another new counsel) filed a timely notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 26, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued its time schedule order calling for briefing to be completed by February, 2013. Robinson's brief was due to be filed on January 2, 2013. On February 26, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued an order dismissing the appeal for failure to prosecute including failure to file an opening brief. Forty-five days later, Robinson's counsel filed a motion to reinstate the appeal. As an excuse Robinson's new counsel offered that he overlooked the court of appeal's briefing schedule order and assumed that state court procedure would be followed. The motion to reinstate the appeal was accompanied by a proposed opening brief. In response, the Company and the County filed oppositions to the motion to reinstate the appeal. Despite objections by the Company and the County (in which the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") did not join), the Ninth Circuit granted Robinson's motion to reinstate, rejected the appeal of that reinstatement decision by the County and the Company, and set a due date of July 7, 2013 for the opposition briefs of the Company and the County to be filed. Thereafter, the DOJ and the County exercised their right to obtain an automatic 30-day extension to August 6, 2013, and the Company filed an unopposed motion (which the Ninth Circuit granted) extending the Company's date for its opposition brief to August 6, 2013 as well. In the meantime, the Company continues to believe that a negative outcome of this case is remote at this time and the monetary impact of an adverse result, if any, also cannot be estimated at this time.

National Cement

The Company leases land to National Cement Company of California Inc., or National, for the purpose of manufacturing Portland cement from limestone deposits on the leased acreage. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, or RWQCB, for the Lahontan Region issued several orders in the late 1990s with respect to environmental conditions on the property currently leased to National:

(1)

Groundwater plume of chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds. This order directs the Company’s former tenant Lafarge Corporation, or Lafarge, the current tenant National, and the Company to, among other things, clean up groundwater contamination on the leased property. In 2003, Lafarge and National installed a groundwater pump-and-treat system to clean up the groundwater. The Company is advised that Lafarge and National continue to operate the cleanup system and will continue to do so over the near-term.


(2)	Cement kiln dust. National and Lafarge have consolidated, closed and capped cement kiln dust piles located on land leased from the Company. An order of the RWQCB directs National, Lafarge and the Company to maintain and monitor the effectiveness of the cap. Maintenance of the cap and groundwater monitoring remain as on-going activities.


(3)	Former industrial waste landfills. This order requires Lafarge, National and the Company to complete the cleanup of groundwater associated with the former industrial waste landfills. The Company is advised that the cleanup is complete. Lafarge continues to monitor the groundwater.


(4)	Diesel fuel. An order of the RWQCB directs Lafarge, National and the Company to clean up contamination from a diesel fuel tank and pipeline. The Company is advised that Lafarge and National have substantially completed the groundwater cleanup and that groundwater monitoring remains an on-going activity.

To date, the Company is not aware of any failure by Lafarge or National to comply with the orders or informal requests of the RWQCB. Under current and prior leases, National and Lafarge are obligated to indemnify the Company for costs and liabilities arising directly or indirectly out of their use of the leased premises. The Company believes that all of the matters described above are included within the scope of the National or Lafarge indemnity obligations and that Lafarge and National have sufficient resources to perform any reasonably likely obligations relating to these matters. If they do not and the Company is required to perform the work at its own cost, it is unlikely that the amount of any such expenditure by the Company would be material.

Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases

On November 29, 2004, a conglomerate of public water suppliers filed a cross-complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court seeking a judicial determination of the rights to groundwater within the Antelope Valley basin, including the groundwater underlying the Company's land. Four phases of a multi-phase trial have been completed. Upon completion of the third phase, the court ruled that the groundwater basin is currently in overdraft and established a current total sustainable yield. The fourth phase of trial resulted in confirmation of each party's groundwater pumping for 2011 and 2012. The next phase of trial is anticipated to occur later this year and may address a number of issues, including whether prescription of rights to groundwater has occurred. At this time, it is difficult to ascertain whether a settlement agreement will be reached and what effect, if any, this case may have on the Centennial project or the Company's remaining lands in the Antelope Valley. Because the water supply plan for the Centennial project includes several sources of water in addition to groundwater underlying the Company's lands, and because the creation of an efficient market for local water rights is frequently an outcome of adjudication proceedings, the Company remains hopeful that sufficient water to supply the Company's needs will continue to be available for its use regardless of the outcome of this case.

State Water Resources Control Board Lawsuit

On May 12, 2010, the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State Water Resources Control Board, filed a complaint in the Alameda County Superior Court for civil penalties and a permanent injunction against a number of TravelCenters of America LLC, or TA, facilities in the Central Valley of California. The travel centers in the Petro Travel Plaza Holdings LLC, or TA/Petro, were also included in the complaint. The lawsuit alleges violations of various reporting, operating and monitoring regulations related to operation and maintenance of underground storage tanks. In addition to the TA/Petro entity and its respective member entities, the lawsuit also names the Company and Tejon Industrial Corporation as defendants. The Company has tendered defense of the lawsuit to TA, under the “defend and indemnify” clause in the TA/Petro LLC's operating agreement, and has also secured the services of an outside law firm to work with TA's outside counsel under a joint defense agreement. On September 16, 2011, the Company and Tejon Industrial Corp. were dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice. The parties remaining are currently engaged in discussions regarding a negotiated resolution, and the Company understands that a settlement of the claims asserted in the litigation is likely. If such a settlement is reached, the Company does not anticipate a material adverse impact on the Company.

Water Bank Lawsuits

On June 3, 2010, the Central Delta and South Delta Water Agencies and several environmental groups, including CBD, filed a complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court against the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Kern County Water Agency and a number of “real parties in interest,” including the Company and TCWD. The lawsuit challenges certain amendments to the State Water Project contracts that were originally approved in 1995, known as the “Monterey Amendments.” The original Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, for the Monterey Amendments was determined to be insufficient in an earlier lawsuit, and the current lawsuit (i) challenges the remedial EIR that DWR prepared as a result of the original lawsuit. Among other allegations, the current lawsuit also challenges the transfer of the Kern Water Bank, or KWB, from DWR to Kern County Water Agency and in turn to the Kern Water Bank Authority (KWBA), whose members are various Kern and Kings County interests, including TCWD, which TCWD has a 2% interest in the KWBA, and (ii) asserts the remedial EIR is inadequate. A parallel lawsuit was also filed by the same plaintiffs in Sacramento Superior Court against Kern County Water Agency, also naming the Company and TCWD as real parties in interest, which has been stayed pending the outcome of the other action against DWR. The Company is named on the ground that it “controls” TCWD. TCWD has a contract right for water stored in the KWB and rights to recharge and withdraw water. Counsel for the Company is pursuing a dismissal of the Company from these lawsuits. In a preliminary favorable ruling on December 19, 2012, Judge Frawley tentatively determined that the challenges to the transfer of the KWB were not timely and barred by the statutes of litigation and doctrine of latches. There has not yet been any substantive hearing on the challenges to the EIR. Given the preliminary nature of these lawsuits, the Company has an insufficient basis to address the merits or potential outcomes of the lawsuit. The monetary value of a potential adverse outcome on the claim likewise cannot be estimated at this time.