Boatnerd Discussion Forum

wouldn't surprise me if scott bravener isn't interested providing some one bank rolls him

However, the diesel plants are Canadian, so they may not meet the 75% U.S.-built requirement.

Well, the Ojibway (which would attract no American buyer) has a GE Diesel, built at Erie, Pennsylvania. The Saginaw has MaK propulsion, built in Kiel, Germany (albeit MaK is a division of Caterpillar). Then consider the Hon. James L. Oberstar, under American registry and built in the United States, that has a Rolls Royce Diesel, built in Norway, and none of its other propulsion components appear to be American-built. The Jones Act is much more concerned with hulls.

If Rand has to sell its ships, I think the only ones that would generate U.S. interest are the Saginaw (a diesel-powered Munson, but with telescoping hatches and 120 feet shorter); and maybe the Ojibway (a diesel, but not a true self-unloader). However, the diesel plants are Canadian, so they may not meet the 75% U.S.-built requirement. Maybe they could only be sold Canadian.
Do you think Scott Bravener wants a second try?

William Lafferty wrote:

Several of RL vessels are US made, but have been flagged Canadian, which if I remember right means they are no longer able to sail US according to Jones Act.

If built in the United States and its purchaser meets Jones Act requirements for ownership (75% American ownership) and crewed by 75% Americans, and entered into American documentation, a vessel can trade in the American coastwise trade.

So that really only eliminates the Manitoba, Manitoulin, and Kaminisitqua as viable boats for an American Fleet if that is indeed the case. Didn't they officially retire the Manitoba? What about the Manistee, was that one officially retired as well considering her hull issues?

Guest wrote:Current management in New Jersey pretty much single handed destroyed what was once a thriving and very productive shipping company. Maybe the Blue chip people in New York should stick to what they know and leave the shipping business to others that know what they are doing.

The similarities to Oglebay Norton are stunning and numerous. During Oglebay’s final years, the long-time office people, who knew the shipping business, either left or were shown the door. Those remaining had no clue what they were doing.

When Rand announced that Capt Bravener wouldn't be returning because he was going to "pursue other interests" you knew the final nail was in the coffin. Someone who built that company from the Cuyahoga up. Truly a shame of Wall Street type cronies buying in and displacing the people who created and knew the ins and outs of the business with people who don't know anything about it but like to think they do because they have the financial backing. The last 50 years of many a good business failure in a nutshell.

Truly a sad story but all too familiar

Several of RL vessels are US made, but have been flagged Canadian, which if I remember right means they are no longer able to sail US according to Jones Act.

If built in the United States and its purchaser meets Jones Act requirements for ownership (75% American ownership) and crewed by 75% Americans, and entered into American documentation, a vessel can trade in the American coastwise trade.

Will be interesting to see how the company's financial situation and the condition report on CALUMET after her grounding come together for the future of the ship.

Should RL declare bankruptcy and eventually go under, what vessels would be viable for purchase by other companies?

Several of RL vessels are US made, but have been flagged Canadian, which if I remember right means they are no longer able to sail US according to Jones Act. If that is true, what Canadian company would want those vessels given the renewal of their fleets with foreign made vessels?

As for the Jones Act compliant vessels on the US side of the RL equation, what fleet would want them? I can't see ASC picking any of them up given how many boats they have on the wall. Keystone/GLF? Even they have the Arthur Anderson on the wall this year. Interlake? What boats would they be interested in? Maybe one or two to help with the Cleveland shuttle?

Current management in New Jersey pretty much single handed destroyed what was once a thriving and very productive shipping company. Maybe the Blue chip people in New York should stick to what they know and leave the shipping business to others that know what they are doing.

Essar has been key to the survival of Rand. Although they have been slow to pay bills Essar Algoma has paid out a lot to Rand over the last 15 years and likely resulted in Rand thriving longer that the was originally planned. Essar Algoma is no longer Essar its back to Algoma Steel! I think those behind Rand have had a good run- much longer than they expected, and struggling is too much work so its time to close up shop.

Very possible with Rand restructuring its debt load. Literally thousands of companies are in this same position. Most file Chapter 11. It's a very useful tool to "force" bondholders to accept the new terms presented by the company. I literally just had VIP's from our corporate office tell us in a conference call that "Chapter 11 is not a bad thing...it's going to help us". This is absolutely true in that it is a corporate financial tool, courtesy of US Bankruptcy Code. Unfortunately, it usually benefits only the company. The employees are screwed, the vendors are not paid, and it does take a bit of time to recover. I remember the Oglebay Norton pay cuts...and the AMO contract that affected other companies too.

I don't see what Rand has to offer bondholders. Junk assets? Slim profit margin in a highly competitive industry? At least my (shipping industry) company has new ships to put on the table. New or old may not matter to some, but it does matter to banks and what asset values are presented as. Would you take your friend's 1993 Chevrolet Celica as collateral on a $50,000 loan?

I wouldn't over think the Rand situation. In the company's most recent fianancial report, it was mentioned that Rand is negotiating with its lenders for a new more flexible loan agreement and they sounded optimistic that new terms could be reached. I'm sure the company will make a public announcement soon on the outcome of the negotiations.

Rand Logistics' market capitalization has fallen below $5 million ($4.82 million, to be exact), so I guess the firm is now on, I guess, double secret probation. RL will have a conference call on 15 August 2017 discussing its quarterly finances that can be accessed live, at 8:30 AM EDT, at

http://www.randlogisticsinc.com/presentations.html

It should be interesting. Afterwards it can be accessed at the same website's archive.

What are Interlake's "idled assets"? Wouldn't the cost to activate the Sherwin likely be more than purchasing one of Rand's vessels?

Interlake Steamship Company, if interested in picking up more business, would probably buy assets rather than fix up an older ship. But you never know...

Wonder what company (shipping co) will take over the Essar contract? There is an old but true saying: if it sounds too good to be true it probably is

Guest wrote:Rand Logistics auditor, Grant Thornton, raised substantial doubt that the company can remain a going concern.

What would happen to Rand's ships if it goes into Chapter 7 (as opposed to Chapter 11) bankruptcy? How likely is it that Interlake, ASC, GLF, or VanEnkevort T&B try to purchase some of their vessels?

Personally, I could only see VanEnkevort trying to pick up some of Rand's ATB vessels. Interlake, ASC, and GLF all have idled assets that could be brought online to absorb Rand's existing volume.

Stocks dropped from 2.95 to 0.19 its a no brainier

Geez, for a moment I thought I was reading an old clip about Oglebay Norton.