LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	24 - 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 was collateralized at the time of the arrest, the Company was not to incur additional indebtedness related to its collateralized vessels under the facility. As such, the Company 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. On May 26, 2015, the six 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”). The Consolidated Complaint is purported to be brought by and on behalf of Baltic Trading’s shareholders and alleges that the then-proposed July 2015 merger did not fairly compensate Baltic Trading’s shareholders and undervalued Baltic Trading. The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company, Baltic Trading, the individual members of Baltic Trading’s board, 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 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 on July 15, 2015 (the “Preliminary Injunction Denial”). 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 that appeal. On June 30, 2015, Defendants had moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs subsequently served an Amended Consolidated Complaint, and Defendants directed their motion to dismiss to that amended complaint. The motion to dismiss was granted and the Amended Consolidated Complaint was dismissed with prejudice on August 29, 2016 (the “Dismissal Decision”). On September 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, which recites their appeal of the Dismissal Decision, “including ... and as referenced in” the Dismissal Decision, the Preliminary Injunction Denial. 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.

24 - 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 was collateralized at the time of the arrest, the Company was not to incur additional indebtedness related to its collateralized vessels under the facility. As such, the Company 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. On May 26, 2015, the six 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”). The Consolidated Complaint is purported to be brought by and on behalf of Baltic Trading’s shareholders and alleges that the then-proposed July 2015 merger did not fairly compensate Baltic Trading’s shareholders and undervalued Baltic Trading. The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company, Baltic Trading, the individual members of Baltic Trading’s board, 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 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 on July 15, 2015 (the “Preliminary Injunction Denial”). 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 that appeal.

On June 30, 2015, Defendants had moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs subsequently served an Amended Consolidated Complaint, and Defendants directed their motion to dismiss to that amended complaint. The motion to dismiss was granted and the Amended Consolidated Complaint was dismissed with prejudice on August 29, 2016 (the “Dismissal Decision”).

On September 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, which recites their appeal of the Dismissal Decision, “including ... and as referenced in” the Dismissal Decision, the Preliminary Injunction Denial.

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.