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.

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 any given community vary greatly according to the community site, the site’s environmental conditions 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.

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 recent tests on soil samples from properties within the development conducted by the EPA show 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 has responded to its information requests.

The Grandview at Riverwalk Port Imperial Condominium Association, Inc. filed a construction defect lawsuit against Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and several of its affiliates, including K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC, K. Hovnanian Const

ruction Management, Inc., K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC, K. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., K. Hovnanian North East, Inc. aka and/or dba K. Hovnanian Companies North East, Inc., K. Hovnanian Construction II, Inc., K. Hovnanian Cooperative, Inc., K. Hovnanian Development of New Jersey, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Holdings NJ, LLC, as well as the project architect, the geotechnical engineers and various construction contractors for the project alleging various construction defects, design defects and geotechnical issues totaling approximately

$41.3

million. The lawsuit included claims against the geotechnical engineers for differential soil settlement under the building, against the architects for failing to design the correct type of structure allowable under the New Jersey Building Code, and against the Hovnanian developer entity (K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC ) alleging that it: (

) had knowledge of and failed to disclose the improper building classification to unit purchasers and was therefore liable for treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and (

) breached an express warranty set forth in the Public Offering Statements that the common elements at the building were fit for their intended purpose. The Plaintiff further alleged that Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., K. Hovnanian Holdings NJ, LLC, K. Hovnanian Development of New Jersey, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Developments of New Jersey II, Inc. were jointly liable for any damages owed by the Hovnanian development entity under a veil piercing theory.

The parties reached a settlement on the construction defect issues prior to trial, but attempts to settle the subsidence, building classification issue and Consumer Fraud Act claims were unsuccessful. The trial commenced on

April 17, 2017

in Hudson County, New Jersey. In the

third

week of the trial, all of the Hovnanian defendants resolved the geotechnical claims for an amount immaterial to the Company, but the balance of the case continued to be tried before the jury. On

June 1, 2017,

the jury rendered a verdict against K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC on the breach of warranty and New Jersey Consumer Fraud claims in the total amount of

million, which resulted in a total verdict of

million against that entity due to statutory trebling, plus a to-be-determined portion of Plaintiff

’s counsel fees, per the statute. The jury also found in favor of Plaintiff on its veil piercing theory. The parties have fully briefed post-trial motions on

three

issues: (

) the Hovnanian defendants’ motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial; (

) the Hovnanian defendants’ motion addressing whether any of the Hovnanian entities could be jointly liable under a veil piercing theory for the damages awarded against K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC; and (

) the Hovnanian defendants’ motion for contractual indemnification against the project architect. The judge has set a return date of

September 29, 2017

for all

three

motions. Once these motions are decided, the relevant Hovnanian defendants plan on appealing any remaining adverse portions of the verdict and judgment. With respect to this case, depending on the rulings of the judge and the outcome of any appeals, the range of loss is between

and

million plus the to-be-determined attorneys’ fees. Management believes that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and that the Company has reserved for its estimated probable loss amount in its construction defect reserves. However, our assessment of the probable loss

may

differ from the ultimate resolution of this matter.

The Condominium Association of a

second

condominium project located nearby the Grandview at Riverwalk Port Imperial Condominium project also initiated a lawsuit against Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and several of its affiliates, including K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal III, LLC, K. Hovnanian Homes (

not

a legal entity but named as a defendant), K. Hovnanian Shore Acquisitions, LLC, K. Hovnanian Construction Management, Inc., K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC, K. Hovnanian Northeast, Inc., K. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., K. Hovnanian Construction III, Inc., K. Hovnanian Cooperative, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Investments, LLC, as well as other design professionals and contractors asserting similar claims for construction defects, design defects and geotechnical issues. Plaintiff in this case asserts damages of approximately

$70

million, which amount is potentially subject to treble damages. D

iscovery is ongoing in this matter, and the trial is scheduled for

January 2018.

The Hovnanian defendants intend to defend these claims vigorously. With respect to this case, it is

not

yet possible to determine if a loss is probable or reasonably estimable.

We anticipate that increasingly stringent requirements will be imposed on developers and homebuilders in the future. Although we cannot reliably predict the extent of any effect these requirements

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.