COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

A total of 5,488 acres (unaudited) of the Company’s land is subject to water contracts with 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.

The Tejon Ranch Public Facilities Financing Authority, or TRPFFA, is a joint powers authority formed by Kern County and 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 $28,620,000 of bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-West. The reduction in land liens placed on lands in the West CFD when compared to year-end 2011 is due to a refinancing that occurred during February 2012 that allowed for the release of liens on 1,457 acres. 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 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 improvement funds remaining from the West CFD bonds and there are approximately $4,967,000 in improvement funds within the East CFD bonds for reimbursement of cost during 2014 and future years. During 2013, the Company paid approximately $886,000 in special taxes. 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. This amount 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, or the 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 the County, and Ken Salazar, in his capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Interior.

The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the 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 the 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 the 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 the plaintiff an extension until March 19, 2012 to file his third amended complaint.

The plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on March 19, 2012. The defendants filed motions to dismiss all claims in the third amended complaint without further leave to amend on April 30, 2012. The plaintiff thereafter substituted in new counsel and with leave of court filed his opposition papers on June 8, 2012. The 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, or the 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. Thereafter, the DOJ requested and obtained further extensions of time to file its answering brief, first to August 27, 2013, and finally to September 17, 2013. The Company filed its answering brief and supplemental excerpts of record on August 27, 2013. Kern County and DOJ both filed their answering briefs on September 17, 2013. Both the Company and Kern County (but not the DOJ) included in their answering briefs the argument that the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the plaintiff did not show the required extraordinary good cause for his failure to file his opening briefs. The plaintiff filed a short reply brief on November 4, 2013. The matter is now fully briefed but the Ninth Circuit has not yet indicated whether it will entertain oral argument before deciding the case. In the meantime, the Company continues to believe that a negative outcome of this case is remote and the monetary impact of an adverse result, if any, 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 near the Centennial project. 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 occurred in first half 2013 and resulted in confirmation of each party’s groundwater pumping for 2011 and 2012. The next phase of trial is scheduled to occur in the first quarter of 2014 and will address 1) whether federal government parties operating in the basin have established a priority right to basin groundwater, and 2) the rights to return flows from land-applied water. At this time, it is difficult to ascertain what the outcome of the court proceedings will be or whether an alternative 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 have reached agreement in principle on a negotiated resolution of the claims asserted in the litigation. If a final 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 the Center for Biological Diversity, 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 SWP 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.The current lawsuit principally (i) challenges the adequacy of the remedial EIR that DWR prepared as a result of the original lawsuit and (ii) challenges the validity of the Monterey Amendments on various grounds, including 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. 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 an initial favorable ruling on January 25, 2013, Judge Frawley determined that the challenges to the validity of the Monterey Amendments, including the transfer of the KWB, were not timely and barred by the statutes of litigation and doctrine of latches. The substantive hearing on the challenges to the EIR was held on January 31, 2014 and the EIR matter was taken under submission and the Court provided no indication of the direction it was leaning at this time. Given the preliminary nature of these lawsuits, the Company has an insufficient basis to address the merits or potential outcomes of the lawsuits. The monetary value of a potential adverse outcome on the claims likewise cannot be estimated at this time.