Note 17 — Contingencies:

The Company’s policy for recording legal costs related to contingencies is to expense such legal costs as incurred.

Class Action Lawsuits and Derivative Actions

The Company has fully and finally resolved all potential direct claims by members of the putative class of securities claimants through a settlement effectuated through the Equity Plan, which became effective on August 5, 2014. Under the terms of that settlement, the Equity Plan provides for full satisfaction of the claims of the putative class through (i) $7,000 in cash, which was paid on August 5, 2014, (ii) 15% of the net litigation recovery in the action against Proskauer, described below, (iii) $5,000 in cash, payable following the entry of a final order resolving the Proskauer action, (iv) $3,000 in cash, payable by the reorganized Company on August 5, 2015, (v) proceeds of any residual interest the Company has in certain director and officer insurance policies, and (vi) any remaining cash in the class E1 disputed claims reserve established by the Equity Plan following resolution of all other class E1 claims. The settlement proceeds will be held in escrow pending allocations and distributions to members of the putative class to be determined by the district court overseeing the Exchange Act claims.

The settled claims stem from the Company’s filing of a Form 8-K on October 22, 2012 disclosing that on October 19, 2012 the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, on the recommendation of management, concluded that the Company’s previously issued financial statements for at least the three years ended December 31, 2011 and associated interim periods, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012, should no longer be relied upon. Shortly thereafter several putative class action suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Southern District”) against the Company, its then President and Chief Executive Officer, its then Chief Financial Officer, its then current and certain former members of its Board of the Directors, its current independent registered public accounting firm, and underwriters of the Company’s public offering of notes in March 2010 (the “Offering”). The Company’s former independent registered public accounting firm was later added as a defendant. Subsequent to the Company’s filing for relief under Chapter 11, these suits were consolidated and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that does not name the Company as a defendant. The consolidated suit is purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Company securities between March 1, 2010 and October 19, 2012 and purchasers of notes in the Offering. The plaintiffs allege that documents that the Company filed with the SEC were defective, inaccurate and misleading, that the plaintiffs relied on such documents in purchasing the Company’s securities, and that, as a result, the plaintiffs suffered losses. The plaintiffs assert claims under the Securities Act against all defendants and claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) against the then former President and former Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Following additional amendments on plaintiffs’ Exchange Act claims and motion to dismiss briefing, on April 28, 2014, the Southern District denied the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims filed by the then former President and former Chief Financial Officer on the third amended complaint. On July 2, 2014, the Southern District issued a scheduling order provided that discovery would be completed by July 22, 2015. On October 20, 2014, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file another amended complaint alleging claims under the Exchange Act against the Company’s current and former independent registered public accounting firms, and on November 28, 2014, the Southern District denied the plaintiffs’ motion. On February 17, 2015, the Company’s former independent registered public accounting firm requested that the Southern District strike the class allegations in the active complaint as they relate to that firm. On March 2, 2015, the Southern District stayed all depositions to allow the Company’s former independent registered public accounting firm to move for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings. On March 18, 2015, our former independent registered public accounting firm moved for summary judgment. On April 14, 2015, the Southern District stayed all discovery related to merits experts pending the resolution of that motion. Briefing of that motion is now complete.

The plaintiffs in the Southern District action filed a proof of claim against the Company in the Bankruptcy Court. Pursuant to a settlement with such plaintiffs and the putative class on whose behalf their claim is filed, their direct claims against the Company are fully and finally resolved based on the Equity Plan treatment described above. Separately, certain of the defendants in the Southern District have filed claims in the Bankruptcy Court against the Company for indemnification or reimbursement based on potential losses incurred in connection with such action. Certain of those indemnification claims, asserted by former directors of the Company, have been released pursuant to the Equity Plan. In addition, the indemnification claims asserted by the Company’s former underwriters have been capped at no more than $1,500, pursuant to orders of the Bankruptcy Court. All claims of the defendants in the Southern District against the Company are subordinated pursuant to Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and are classified in Class E1. Under the Equity Plan, subordinated claims against the Company are limited to recoveries from a segregated reserve of $2,000 to be funded by the Company pursuant to the Equity Plan. The Equity Plan and related confirmation order do not permit any recoveries by the defendants beyond this $2,000 cap. Any amounts remaining following full and complete satisfaction of all Class E1 claims, including claims of defendants in the Southern District, will be distributed to members of the putative class pursuant to the terms of the settlement described above. The Equity Plan and confirmation order foreclose the defendants in the Southern District from pursuing any other or further remedies against the Company.

As such, management estimates the amount of its exposure with respect to the actions pending before the Southern District described above at between zero and $2,000.

Proskauer Action

On February 23, 2014, Proskauer and four of its partners filed an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the “Supreme Court”) against the then Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary and the former Chief Financial Officer alleging that the defendants engaged in tortious and fraudulent conduct that caused significant harm to the plaintiffs and the Company. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false representations and thereby deceived and misled Proskauer into providing legal advice to the Company, which was the subject of the Company’s malpractice suit against Proskauer and four of its partners filed on November 18, 2013 in the Bankruptcy Court. On May 1, 2014, the defendants in the action filed by Proskauer and four of its partners filed motions to dismiss the action. On June 9, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that included certain additional factual allegations and an additional claim against the former Chief Financial Officer of the Company. On July 18, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On January 15, 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint against the defendants. On March 2, 2015, the plaintiffs appealed the Supreme Court’s decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department. On February 21, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court declined to hear the Company’s malpractice claims against Proskauer and four of its partners that were filed on November 18, 2013 under the doctrine of permissive abstention, and on March 11, 2014, the Company re-filed its malpractice claims against such defendants in the Supreme Court. On April 11, 2014, Proskauer and four of its partners filed a motion to dismiss the malpractice action, and on September 10, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss the legal malpractice for breach of duty of care claim but granted the motion to dismiss the legal malpractice for breach of duty of loyalty claim as subsumed within the duty of care claim. Proskauer and four of its partners appealed this decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department and on February 11, 2015 the appellate court heard oral argument on the appeal. A ruling on the appeal is pending. In addition, on December 3, 2014, the Company filed a motion with the Supreme Court or partial summary judgment on whether the “joint and several” liability provisions of certain of the Company’s prior loan agreements, which are the focus of the malpractice action, are unambiguous as a matter of law. That motion is fully briefed, and a court hearing on this motion is scheduled for June 11, 2015.

On May 15, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a scheduling order for discovery in the Company’s malpractice action against Proskauer. Discovery has now commenced. Under the terms of the scheduling order, all discovery will be completed by September 30, 2015.

SEC Investigation

On November 13, 2012, the Company received from the staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement (the “Staff”) a request for documents relating to the statements in the Company’s October 22, 2012 Form 8-K. On January 29, 2013, the SEC issued a formal order of private investigation of the Company. The Company has provided documents to the SEC and intends to continue to cooperate fully with the SEC’s investigation.

The Equity Plan provides for funding for potential liabilities that the SEC may assert in connection with its proof of claim (the “SEC Claim”) to the extent that the SEC Claim is allowed. The SEC filed the SEC Claim in respect of contingent and unliquidated amounts that the SEC may assert against the Company as a result of the outcome of its investigation of the Company and certain of its advisors. Pursuant to the Equity Plan, the Debtors will fund a cash reserve of up to $5,000 to satisfy any liabilities on account of the SEC Claim, solely to the extent and upon the entry of a final order of the Bankruptcy Court providing that the SEC Claim or any portion thereof is allowed. The SEC and the Debtors have agreed that there is no inference, assertion, concession, admission, determination or conclusion that should be drawn from the establishment of the reserve, as the SEC’s investigation of the Company, its advisors and individuals inside and outside of the Company is ongoing, and the SEC will make a determination of whether there were securities laws violations only at the conclusion of its investigation. The SEC has reached no such conclusion, and the Staff sought a reserve solely in recognition of the fact that the SEC had not completed its investigation prior to the Equity Plan’s confirmation.

Environmental Incident

On July 16, 2013 the Company received notification through its compliance reporting system that possible pollution violations from one of its Marshall Islands-flagged vessels had occurred. The report alleged that there had been improper discharges of bilge holding tank contents directly overboard and not, as required by Company policies and law, through the installed Oily Water Separator or to shore side reception facilities.

On July 26, 2013, after conducting a preliminary investigation, the Company informed the Marshall Islands Maritime Administration (the “Flag State”) of potential violations of law and the Flag State commenced an investigation. The Company has cooperated with the Flag State preliminary investigation. On July 31, 2013, the Company voluntarily disclosed to the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Department of Justice the results of the Company’s and the Flag State’s preliminary investigations, including possible improper discharges from the vessel’s bilge holding tank and apparent false entries in, or apparent omission of required entries from, the vessel’s Oil Record Book Part I while the vessel was in U.S. waters. On June 4, 2014 the U.S. Coast Guard accepted the Company’s self-reporting of this matter under the Coast Guard’s voluntary disclosure policy. Under such policy, the Coast Guard will not recommend to the U.S. Department of Justice or other prosecuting authority that criminal charges be brought against the Company arising from this matter. The Company is cooperating with the Department of Justice in its investigation resulting from the voluntary disclosures. Any liabilities for potential fines or penalties that may be imposed in connection with this matter cannot be estimated at this time.

Legal Proceedings Arising in the Ordinary Course of Business

The Company is a party, as plaintiff or defendant, to various suits in the ordinary course of business for monetary relief arising principally from personal injuries (including without limitation exposure to asbestos and other toxic materials), wrongful death, collision or other casualty and to claims arising under charter parties. A substantial majority of such personal injury, wrongful death, collision or other casualty claims against the Company are covered by insurance (subject to deductibles not material in amount). Each of the claims involves an amount which, in the opinion of management, should not be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows.