LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	22 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Refer to Note 1 — General Information for information concerning the Chapter 11 Cases. On March 28, 2014, the Genco Auvergne was arrested due to a disputed claim with the charterer of one of the Company’s other vessels, namely the Genco Ardennes. In order for the Company to release the Genco Auvergne from its arrest, the Company entered into a cash collateralized $900 bank guarantee with Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (the “SEB Bank Guarantee”) on April 3, 2014. The vessel has since been released from its arrest and the bank guarantee was released from escrow to the Company on June 22, 2015 after the arbitration related to this case was completed. The SEB Bank Guarantee resulted in additional indebtedness by the Company. As the Company was in default under the covenants of its 2007 Credit Facility due to the default on a scheduled debt amortization payment due on March 31, 2014, on April 3, 2014 the Company received a consent from the lenders under the 2007 Credit Facility to incur this additional indebtedness. Also, under the $253 Million Term Loan Facility for which the Genco Auvergne is collateralized, the Company may not incur additional indebtedness related to its collateralized vessels under this facility. The Company also received a consent from the lenders under the $253 Million Term Loan Facility on April 3, 2014 in order to enter the SEB Bank Guarantee. In April 2015, six class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, styled Erol Sarikaya v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651244/2015, filed on April 15, 2015, voluntarily dismissed, and refiled as Joshua Bourne v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651429/2015, filed on April 28, 2015, Justin Wilson v. Baltic Trading Ltd., et al., Index No. 651241/2015, filed on April 15, 2015, Sangeetha Ganesan v. Baltic Trading Limited et al., Index No. 651279/2015, filed on April 17, 2015, Edward Braunstein v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651368/2015, filed on April 23, 2015, Larry Williams v. Baltic Trading Ltd., et al., Index No. 651371/2015, filed on April 23, 2015, and Larry Goldstein and Bernhard Stomporowski v. John C. Wobensmith et al., Index No. 651407/2015, filed on April 27, 2015. All six complaints purport to be brought by and on behalf of the Baltic Trading’s shareholders. The plaintiff in each action alleges the proposed merger does not fairly compensate Baltic Trading’s shareholders and undervalues Baltic Trading. Each lawsuit names as defendants some or all of the Company, Baltic Trading, the individual members of Baltic Trading’s board, the Company’s and Baltic Trading’s President, and the Company’s merger subsidiary. The claims generally allege (i) breaches of fiduciary duties of good faith, due care, disclosure to shareholders, and loyalty, including for failing to maximize shareholder value, and (ii) aiding and abetting those breaches. Among other relief, the complaints seek an injunction against the merger, declaratory judgments that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties, rescission of the merger agreement, and unspecified damages. On May 26, 2015, the six above described actions were consolidated under the caption In Re Baltic Trading Ltd. Stockholder Litigation, Index No. 651241/2015, and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on June 10, 2015 (the “Consolidated Complaint”). On June 30, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety; that motion is pending. On July 9, 2015, plaintiffs in that action moved to enjoin the merger vote, scheduled to take place on July 17, 2015. The motion was thereafter fully briefed and argued on July 15, 2015. The motion to enjoin the vote was denied. Plaintiffs sought an emergency injunction and temporary restraining order from the New York State Appellate Division, First Department the following day, on July 16, 2015. The Appellate Division denied the request, and the vote, and subsequent merger, proceeded as scheduled on July 17, 2015. Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew the appeal. Separately, on or around May 12, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled Todd J. Biederman v. Baltic Trading Limited et al., 15-cv-3711 (RJS), seeking relief pursuant to Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and also alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting those breaches. That complaint alleges facts and seeks relief similar to that in the actions in the New York State Supreme Court, in addition to claims regarding the adequacy of the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus and Form S-4 disclosures. Based on currently available information, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss, if any, in the event of an unfavorable outcome in any of these matters. However, the Company does not believe that it is probable that the resolution of these matters will have a material financial reporting consequence. From time to time, the Company may be subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of its business, principally personal injury and property casualty claims. Such claims, even if lacking merit, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. The Company is not aware of any legal proceedings or claims that it believes will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material effect on the Company, its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows besides those noted above.

22 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Refer to Note 1 — General Information for information concerning the Chapter 11 Cases.

On March 28, 2014, the Genco Auvergne was arrested due to a disputed claim with the charterer of one of the Company’s other vessels, namely the Genco Ardennes. In order for the Company to release the Genco Auvergne from its arrest, the Company entered into a cash collateralized $900 bank guarantee with Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (the “SEB Bank Guarantee”) on April 3, 2014. The vessel has since been released from its arrest and the bank guarantee was released from escrow to the Company on June 22, 2015 after the arbitration related to this case was completed. The SEB Bank Guarantee resulted in additional indebtedness by the Company. As the Company was in default under the covenants of its 2007 Credit Facility due to the default on a scheduled debt amortization payment due on March 31, 2014, on April 3, 2014 the Company received a consent from the lenders under the 2007 Credit Facility to incur this additional indebtedness. Also, under the $253 Million Term Loan Facility for which the Genco Auvergne is collateralized, the Company may not incur additional indebtedness related to its collateralized vessels under this facility. The Company also received a consent from the lenders under the $253 Million Term Loan Facility on April 3, 2014 in order to enter the SEB Bank Guarantee.

In April 2015, six class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, styled Erol Sarikaya v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651244/2015, filed on April 15, 2015, voluntarily dismissed, and refiled as Joshua Bourne v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651429/2015, filed on April 28, 2015, Justin Wilson v. Baltic Trading Ltd., et al., Index No. 651241/2015, filed on April 15, 2015, Sangeetha Ganesan v. Baltic Trading Limited et al., Index No. 651279/2015, filed on April 17, 2015, Edward Braunstein v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651368/2015, filed on April 23, 2015, Larry Williams v. Baltic Trading Ltd., et al., Index No. 651371/2015, filed on April 23, 2015, and Larry Goldstein and Bernhard Stomporowski v. John C. Wobensmith et al., Index No. 651407/2015, filed on April 27, 2015. All six complaints purport to be brought by and on behalf of the Baltic Trading’s shareholders. The plaintiff in each action alleges the proposed merger does not fairly compensate Baltic Trading’s shareholders and undervalues Baltic Trading. Each lawsuit names as defendants some or all of the Company, Baltic Trading, the individual members of Baltic Trading’s board, the Company’s and Baltic Trading’s President, and the Company’s merger subsidiary. The claims generally allege (i) breaches of fiduciary duties of good faith, due care, disclosure to shareholders, and loyalty, including for failing to maximize shareholder value, and (ii) aiding and abetting those breaches. Among other relief, the complaints seek an injunction against the merger, declaratory judgments that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties, rescission of the merger agreement, and unspecified damages. On May 26, 2015, the six above described actions were consolidated under the caption In Re Baltic Trading Ltd. Stockholder Litigation, Index No. 651241/2015, and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on June 10, 2015 (the “Consolidated Complaint”).

On June 30, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety; that motion is pending. On July 9, 2015, plaintiffs in that action moved to enjoin the merger vote, scheduled to take place on July 17, 2015. The motion was thereafter fully briefed and argued on July 15, 2015. The motion to enjoin the vote was denied. Plaintiffs sought an emergency injunction and temporary restraining order from the New York State Appellate Division, First Department the following day, on July 16, 2015. The Appellate Division denied the request, and the vote, and subsequent merger, proceeded as scheduled on July 17, 2015. Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew the appeal.

Separately, on or around May 12, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled Todd J. Biederman v. Baltic Trading Limited et al., 15-cv-3711 (RJS), seeking relief pursuant to Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and also alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting those breaches. That complaint alleges facts and seeks relief similar to that in the actions in the New York State Supreme Court, in addition to claims regarding the adequacy of the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus and Form S-4 disclosures.

Based on currently available information, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss, if any, in the event of an unfavorable outcome in any of these matters. However, the Company does not believe that it is probable that the resolution of these matters will have a material financial reporting consequence.

From time to time, the Company may be subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of its business, principally personal injury and property casualty claims. Such claims, even if lacking merit, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. The Company is not aware of any legal proceedings or claims that it believes will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material effect on the Company, its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows besides those noted above.