4 — GOODWILL IMPAIRMENT

ASC 350-20 bases the accounting for goodwill on the reporting units of the combined entity. Prior to the Merger with Baltic Trading on July 17, 2015, the Company had two reporting units as defined by criteria in ASC 350-20, GS&T and Baltic Trading.

The Company recorded Goodwill of $166,067 in adopting fresh-start reporting in accordance with provisions of ASC 852 as of the Effective Date, which was allocated to its two reporting units based on their relative fair values as of that date.

ASC 350-20 provides guidance for impairment testing of goodwill, which is not amortized. Goodwill is tested annually for impairment or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that its carrying amount may not be recoverable, using a two-step process that begins with an estimation of the fair value of the Company’s reporting units. The first step is a screen for potential impairment and the second step measures the amount of impairment, if any. The first step involves a comparison of the estimated fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount. If the estimated fair value of the reporting unit exceeds its carrying value, goodwill of the reporting unit is considered unimpaired. Conversely, if the carrying amount of the reporting unit exceeds its estimated fair value, the second step is performed to measure the amount of impairment, if any. The second step of the goodwill impairment test compares the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill. The implied fair value of goodwill is determined by allocating the estimated fair value of the reporting unit to the estimated fair value of its existing assets and liabilities in a manner similar to a purchase price allocation. The unallocated portion of the estimated fair value of the reporting unit is the implied fair value of goodwill. If the implied fair value of goodwill is less than the carrying amount, an impairment loss, equivalent to the difference, is recorded as a reduction of goodwill and a charge to operating expense.

In the Company’s annual test of goodwill for impairment on December 31, 2014, the Company estimated the fair value of the reporting units to which its goodwill had been allocated. For this purpose the Company used the trailing 10-year industry average rates for each vessel class, over the remaining useful life of each vessel, recognizing that the transportation drybulk products is cyclical in nature and is subject to wide fluctuation in rates, and management believes the use of a 10-year average is the best measure of future rates over the remaining useful life of the Company’s fleet. Also for this purpose, the Company uses a utilization rate based on the Company’s historic average. In addition, the Company expects to incur the following costs over the remaining useful lives of the vessels in the Company’s fleet:

Vessel operating costs based on historic and budgeted costs adjusted for inflation,

Drydocking costs based on historic costs adjusted for inflation, and

General and administrative costs adjusted for inflation.

The more significant factors which could impact management’s assumptions regarding voyage revenues, drydocking costs and general and administrative expenses include, without limitation: (a) loss or reduction in business from the Company’s significant customers; (b) changes in demand; (c) material declines in rates in the tanker market; (d) changes in production of or demand for drybulk products, generally or in particular regions; (e) greater than anticipated levels of new building orders or lower than anticipated rates of scrapping; (f) changes in rules and regulations applicable to the drybulk industry, including, without limitation, legislation adopted by international organizations such as the International Maritime Organization and the European Union or by individual countries; (g) actions taken by regulatory authorities; and (h) increases in costs including without limitation: crew wages, insurance, provisions, repairs and maintenance.

Step 1 of impairment testing as of December 31, 2014 consisted of determining and comparing the fair value of a reporting unit, calculated by weighting discounted expected future cash flows, the fair value of the vessels and other assets owned by the reporting unit and the fair value of the reporting units based on the public trading price of each reporting unit, to the carrying value of each reporting unit. Based on performance of this test, it was determined that the goodwill allocated to each reporting unit may be impaired.

The Company then undertook the second step of the goodwill impairment test which involves the procedures discussed above. For purposes of determining the fair value of each reporting unit, the Company ascribed a weight of 75% to a valuation method based on the fair value of the reporting unit’s net assets; and 25% to the valuation method that utilized the public trading price of each reporting unit. There was no weight ascribed to a third valuation methodology considered by management, which was the discounted cash flow (“DCF”) valuation method due to the significant volatility in the drybulk rate market and the values derived by applying the DCF valuation method were not consistent with the other values derived in applying the other two valuation methodologies considered.

As a result of this testing, management determined that all of the goodwill allocated to the two reporting units was impaired, which resulted in a write-off at December 31, 2014 of $166,067. This impairment is attributable to the progressive decline in vessel charter rates that occurred from the Effective Date to the Company’s annual goodwill impairment test date of December 31, 2014, which included significant declines during the fourth quarter of 2014, which affected both the reporting units’ vessel values and their publicly traded stock prices.

Other than goodwill, the Company does not have any other intangible assets that are not amortized.