XML 31 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Note 7 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jul. 31, 2020
Notes to Financial Statements |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] |
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. The significant majority of our litigation matters are related to construction defect claims. Our estimated losses from construction defect litigation matters, if any, are included in our construction defect reserves. 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 a site may vary greatly according to the community site, for example, due to the community, the environmental conditions at or near the site, 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. We anticipate that increasingly stringent requirements will continue to be imposed on developers and homebuilders in the future. For example, for a number of years, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been engaged in rulemakings to clarify the scope of federally regulated wetlands, which included a June 2015 rule many affected businesses contend impermissibly expanded the scope of such wetlands that was challenged in court, stayed, and remains in litigation. A proposal was made in June 2017 to formally rescind the June 2015 rule and reinstate the rule scheme previously in place while the agencies initiate a new substantive rulemaking on the issue. A February 2018 rule purported to delay the effective date of the June 2015 rule until February 2020, but was enjoined nationwide in August 2018 by a federal district court in South Carolina and later by a federal district court in the State of Washington in response to lawsuits (the net result of which, according to the EPA, was that the June 2015 rule applied in 22 states, the District of Columbia, and the United States territories, and that the pre- June 2015 regime applied in the rest). The EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have since promulgated a new rule, which became effective in December 2019, repealing the June 2015 rule and reinstating for the time being the previous rule scheme nationwide; it is now the subject of several lawsuits contending it is invalid, including one by a coalition of 14 states and several local governments. And in April 2020, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers formally published the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which they characterize as more appropriate for determining the scope of waters subject to federal permitting; it formally took effect in June in all states except Colorado, where a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against application of the rule in that state. This rule is intended to replace the pre- June 2015 regime; it is being challenged by 17 states in one lawsuit and by a number of environmental advocacy groups in at least three other lawsuits, as well as by at least one group contending that the new rule still exercises permitting authority over too many waters. It is unclear how these and related developments, including at the state or local level, ultimately may affect the scope of regulated wetlands where we operate. Although we cannot reliably predict the extent of any effect these developments regarding wetlands, or any other requirements that may take effect 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. In 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 tests on soil samples from properties within the development conducted by the EPA showed 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 responded to the information requests. On May 2, 2018 the EPA sent a letter to the Company entity demanding reimbursement for 100% of the EPA’s costs to clean-up the site in the amount of $2.7 million. The Company responded to the EPA’s demand letter on June 15, 2018 setting forth the Company’s defenses and expressing its willingness to enter into settlement negotiations. The parties subsequently executed a tolling agreement to toll the statute of limitations on collection until December 20, 2019 and later amended it to extend it to June 20, 2020 to allow the parties time to discuss settlement. The Company received a letter from the EPA on November 4, 2019 asking if the Company remained interested in settlement negotiations. The Company responded affirmatively and such negotiations are ongoing. Two other PRPs identified by the EPA are now also in negotiations with the EPA and in preliminary negotiations with the Company regarding the site. In the course of negotiations, the EPA informed the Company that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has also incurred costs remediating part of the site. The EPA has since requested that the three PRPs present a joint settlement offer to the EPA. The parties entered into a second amendment to the Tolling Agreement, extending the date until January 15, 2021. We believe that we have adequate reserves for this matter. In 2015, the condominium association of the Four Seasons at Great Notch condominium community (the “Great Notch Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County (the “Court”) alleging various construction defects, design defects, and geotechnical issues relating to the community. The operative complaint (“Complaint”) asserts claims against Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and several of its affiliates, including K. Hovnanian at Great Notch, LLC, K. Hovnanian Construction Management, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC. The Complaint also asserts claims against various other design professionals and contractors. The Great Notch Plaintiff has also filed a motion, which remains pending, to permit it to pursue a claim to pierce the corporate veil of K. Hovnanian at Great Notch, LLC to hold its alleged parent entities liable for any damages awarded against it. To date, the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants have reached a partial settlement with the Great Notch Plaintiff as to a portion of the Great Notch Plaintiff’s claims against them for an amount immaterial to the Company. On its remaining claims against the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants, the Great Notch Plaintiff has asserted damages of approximately $119.5 million, which amount is potentially subject to treble damages pursuant to the Great Notch Plaintiff’s claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. On August 17, 2018, the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all of the Great Notch Plaintiff’s remaining claims against them, which was withdrawn without prejudice to re-file with supplemental evidence. The trial is currently scheduled for January 12, 2021. An initial court-ordered mediation session took place on November 19, 2019. Additional mediation sessions have been scheduled for September and October of 2020. The Hovnanian-affiliated defendants intend to defend these claims vigorously.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_DisclosureTextBlockAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration