There is a new KITV report on a MARAD official's statements yesterday in Honolulu on the expected auction of the two Hawaii Superferries here and here. In those reports the MARAD official is quoted as saying the lien that MARAD has on the vessels is a total of $150 million. The report further quotes,
"'I can tell you we already have a $150 million lien on both ships. So, you can of course, provide a cash bid higher than that amount and take ownership of both the Alakai and the Huakai,' said Matsuda. Matsuda was in Honolulu Friday for the groundbreaking ceremony for the renovation of the Pier 29 container yard at Honolulu Harbor. The project is funded with federal stimulus money. Matsuda said Maritime Administration wants the Superferry vessels for military and humanitarian projects."
Hold that thought.
You can look a number of places to try to find what the two Superferries actually cost to build including all the nice extras in the interiors and things added later like the Whale detection systems to the Alakai and the ramp, wastewater treatment, and desalination plants added to the Huakai. A simple place to look is Wikipedia which says each vessel's total costs were $88 million each, here and here. Of course that's just Wikipedia and the Huakai's costs were at least $5 million more than the Alakai. But a quick thumbnail estimate is that the combined cost for the two was at least $181 million new before depreciation. Hold that thought.
Now, it took a little bit of hunting but we went back and looked at some of the early Bankruptcy Court filings, and it looks like the outstanding senior lien that MARAD has on the two vessels is actually closer to $140 million, not $150 million. Additionally Guggenheim Corporate Funding, LLC has a lesser priority outstanding lien of about $48 million and Austal had an even lower priority lien of about $22 million. The State of Hawaii was junior to them. Austal wrote off their loan as a loss. Guggenheim's lien was "secured" in equity. It is understood that all equity holders would lose their money on this. So the key takeaway on the liens is that MARAD's is $140 million, not $150 million and that Guggenheim also has a lien and would be out $48 million. The total of those two adds up to $188 million, only slightly more than what the two vessels originally cost to build. Hold that thought.
Now, let's got back to that MARAD official's quote about $150 million. First of all, does MARAD determine and run the auction? NO, they do NOT. It is the Bankruptcy Court that does that. The MARAD official's comment, "So, you can of course, provide a cash bid higher than that amount ('$150 million') and take ownership of both the Alakai and the Huakai,' said Matsuda," is not something that MARAD will determine and is misleading. First of all, MARAD's outstanding lien is $140 million, and NOT $150 million and more importantly because these ships are possibly worth closer to $180 million than $150 million, but also because it is not for MARAD to say what exact dollar figure will be enough to take ownership of the two vessels, that's the purvue of the Bankruptcy Court.
So, what are these ships worth? Well, it's somewhere between $150 and $180. They have a tax depreciable life of at least 20 years, even though the Huakai is almost like brand new and should not be depreciated as much as the Alakai. The Alakai, if you will remember, had significant damage to the rudder, was run aground going into drydock, and fell off it's blocks in drydock. But, if they were both actually being used continuously over the past 2 to 3 years, then the total depreciation on $180 million would be about $4.5 million for the Huakai and about $13.5 million for the Alakai for a total of about $18 million off of $180 million equaling about $162 million, which is about what these two vessels are really worth, leaving $140 million for MARAD, not $150 million, and the other $22 million for Guggenheim, recovering almost half of their potential loss. Keep in mind, to build these brand new for commercial use would be at least $90 million each and also the builder Austal is being paid about $180 million to build just one of these very similar ships for the U.S. military as JHSV's.
Our conclusion is then that these two vessels together are worth no less than $160 million total. Their actual worth is probably a little more than that. We would expect Guggenheim to be a bidder on this in addition to MARAD. We believe MARAD will actually be satisfied to recover their $140 million, but we also believe MARAD when they say the, "Maritime Administration wants the Superferry vessels for military and humanitarian projects."
Now, let's see if somebody gets 'em for less than that?
By the way, Mufi, your cheap friends aren't in the running.
Showing posts with label bankruptcy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bankruptcy. Show all posts
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
New Revelations about MARAD and Superferry
Two new articles yesterday with previously unreported information by a Ryan Sibley of the Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group:
From: http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/government-agency-history-taxpayer-losses-keeps-it/
"Government agency with a history of taxpayer losses keeps at it"
By Ryan Sibley Apr 12, 2010
Between 2004 and 2009, the U.S. Maritime Administration, or MARAD, a federal agency that supports the U.S. shipbuilding industry and merchant marine, made just one loan from its troubled Federal Ship Financing Program, also known as Title XI. The borrower was Hawaii Superferry Inc., a politically connected company that hired a former chief counsel and deputy administrator of MARAD, among others, to lobby the agency. In 2005, Hawaii Superferry got a taxpayer-guaranteed loan for $139 million to build and operate a pair of high-speed ferries in the fiftieth state. Just four years later, the company filed for bankruptcy, listing assets of a mere $1 million.
The failure was par for the course for a program that even the business-friendly administration of George W. Bush branded as an “unwarranted corporate subsidy.”...
Loan guarantees issued by Title XI slowed drastically in years following the default of American Classic Voyages. Hawaii Superferry received the only guarantee issued in 2005 and the last one until 2009. Disclosure records show the company lobbied Congress and MARAD in 2005 regarding ship financing and Title XI amid the program slow down.
The company hired Blank Rome LLP to push its interests in Washington; among the firm’s lobbyists that represented Hawaii Superferry was Joan Bondareff , who served as chief counsel and acting deputy administrator for MARAD during the Clinton administration . She’d also served as the majority counsel to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Blank Rome reported receiving $20,000 in fees from Hawaii Superferry in 2005; the company got a taxpayer-guaranteed loan for $139 million to pay for construction and operation of a pair of high-tech catamarans... >>>Rest of Article>>>
Also from: http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/hawaii-superferry-ulterior-motive/
"Hawaii Superferry: An ulterior motive?"
By Ryan Sibley Apr 12, 2010
Was the Hawaii Superferry project conceived of as a means of securing a military contract? Speculation in Hawaii among activists that the ferries might have eventually been used for interisland transport of the Army’s Stryker brigade and other military equipment fueled conflict between protestors and Superferry supporters.
In March 2005, John F. Lehman, a former Navy Secretary during the Reagan administration and the company's principal investor, told Pacific Business News that there was a possibility the ferries would be used to move military cargo. In 2008, the former CEO and President of HSF, Inc., Thomas Fargo, said that was still a possibility, and the company’s lobbyists at Blank Rome LLP reported being paid $210,000, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, to lobby for inclusion in a Defense Department program that would pay to have improvements made to the Hawaii Superferry’s two high speed catamarans that would make them more militarily useful... >>>Rest of Article>>>
From: http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/government-agency-history-taxpayer-losses-keeps-it/
"Government agency with a history of taxpayer losses keeps at it"
By Ryan Sibley Apr 12, 2010
Between 2004 and 2009, the U.S. Maritime Administration, or MARAD, a federal agency that supports the U.S. shipbuilding industry and merchant marine, made just one loan from its troubled Federal Ship Financing Program, also known as Title XI. The borrower was Hawaii Superferry Inc., a politically connected company that hired a former chief counsel and deputy administrator of MARAD, among others, to lobby the agency. In 2005, Hawaii Superferry got a taxpayer-guaranteed loan for $139 million to build and operate a pair of high-speed ferries in the fiftieth state. Just four years later, the company filed for bankruptcy, listing assets of a mere $1 million.
The failure was par for the course for a program that even the business-friendly administration of George W. Bush branded as an “unwarranted corporate subsidy.”...
Loan guarantees issued by Title XI slowed drastically in years following the default of American Classic Voyages. Hawaii Superferry received the only guarantee issued in 2005 and the last one until 2009. Disclosure records show the company lobbied Congress and MARAD in 2005 regarding ship financing and Title XI amid the program slow down.
The company hired Blank Rome LLP to push its interests in Washington; among the firm’s lobbyists that represented Hawaii Superferry was Joan Bondareff , who served as chief counsel and acting deputy administrator for MARAD during the Clinton administration . She’d also served as the majority counsel to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Blank Rome reported receiving $20,000 in fees from Hawaii Superferry in 2005; the company got a taxpayer-guaranteed loan for $139 million to pay for construction and operation of a pair of high-tech catamarans... >>>Rest of Article>>>
Also from: http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/hawaii-superferry-ulterior-motive/
"Hawaii Superferry: An ulterior motive?"
By Ryan Sibley Apr 12, 2010
Was the Hawaii Superferry project conceived of as a means of securing a military contract? Speculation in Hawaii among activists that the ferries might have eventually been used for interisland transport of the Army’s Stryker brigade and other military equipment fueled conflict between protestors and Superferry supporters.
In March 2005, John F. Lehman, a former Navy Secretary during the Reagan administration and the company's principal investor, told Pacific Business News that there was a possibility the ferries would be used to move military cargo. In 2008, the former CEO and President of HSF, Inc., Thomas Fargo, said that was still a possibility, and the company’s lobbyists at Blank Rome LLP reported being paid $210,000, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, to lobby for inclusion in a Defense Department program that would pay to have improvements made to the Hawaii Superferry’s two high speed catamarans that would make them more militarily useful... >>>Rest of Article>>>
Friday, July 31, 2009
TO ALL KNOWN CREDITORS...
On their Website:
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
| In re: HSF HOLDING, INC., et al.,1 Debtors. | Chapter 11 Case No. 09-11901 (PJW) Jointly Administered |
NOTICE OF BAR DATES FOR FILING OF PROOFS OF CLAIM
TO ALL KNOWN CREDITORS OF THE FOLLOWING DEBTOR ENTITIES:
| Debtor | Address | Case Number |
| HSF Holding, Inc. | Pier 19 Ferry Terminal, Honolulu, HI 96817 | 09-11901 |
| Hawaii Superferry, Inc. | Pier 19 Ferry Terminal, Honolulu, HI 96817 | 09-11902 |
On July 20, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
(the "Court") entered an order in the above-captioned chapter 11 cases (the "Bar
Date Order") establishing certain claims bar dates in the chapter 11 cases of the
above-captioned debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the "Debtors").
By the Bar Date Order, the Court fixed August 24, 2009 at 5:00 p.m., Prevailing
Eastern Time, as the general claims bar date (the "General Bar Date") in these
cases...>>Click here to read the rest>>
Friday, July 10, 2009
Guggenheim Corp. Funding Seeks Dismissal of HSF Holding Bankruptcy
From: http://www.netdocketsblog.com/2009/07/guggenheim-corp-funding-seeks-dismissal.html
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Guggenheim Corp. Funding Seeks Dismissal of HSF Holding Bankruptcy
On Wednesday, Guggenheim Corporate Funding, LLC filed a motion seeking the dismissal of the chapter 11 bankruptcy case of HSF Holding, Inc. HSF Holding, Inc. is the parent holding company of Hawaii Superferry, Inc., which operated a high-speed ferry business between the Hawaiian Islands before filing for bankruptcy and abandoning its ferries. Guggenheim does not seek dismissal of Hawaii Superferry, Inc.'s bankruptcy case.
Guggenheim holds a security interest in all of HSF Holding's assets, which consist solely of the stock of Hawaii Superferry, Inc., as a result of providing $47.75 million in senior secured funding in 2007. Guggenheim also holds $7.5 million in an escrow account, which is the subject of a joint stay relief motion of HSF and Guggenheim scheduled to be heard on July 20, 2009.
In support of its motion, Guggenheim argues that cause for dismissal exists because there is "a lack of good faith purpose" for HSF Holding's bankruptcy case. In furtherance of that argument, Guggenheim points to seven factors:
Guggenheim holds a security interest in all of HSF Holding's assets, which consist solely of the stock of Hawaii Superferry, Inc., as a result of providing $47.75 million in senior secured funding in 2007. Guggenheim also holds $7.5 million in an escrow account, which is the subject of a joint stay relief motion of HSF and Guggenheim scheduled to be heard on July 20, 2009.
In support of its motion, Guggenheim argues that cause for dismissal exists because there is "a lack of good faith purpose" for HSF Holding's bankruptcy case. In furtherance of that argument, Guggenheim points to seven factors:
- The only asset in HSF Holding's case is the Hawaii Superferry stock that is subject to Guggenheim's lien.
- Guggenheim "appears to be the only creditor" of HSF Holding.
- HSF Holding has no on-going business or employees.
- HSF Holding's chapter 11 petition was filed "on eve of Guggenheim terminating the escrow account and retaining such funds."
- The only parties-in-interest in HSF Holding's case are Guggenheim and HSF.
- HSF Holding has no cash or income.
- HSF Holding has no possibility of reorganization because it has no business to reorganize.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Winding down...Questions about the EIS
Not much to post here anymore. I still have the "webbots" going on this, but even they don't send back much info to me anymore. But, received an interesting letter to the editor cc'd to me recently. Here was my reply to that letter below:
Sally,
Good to hear from you again. About the EIS. As far as I know DOT put it on temporary hold after the Supreme Court decision, but that was before the bankruptcy. As far as I know DOT has not publicly said anything about the EIS since the bankruptcy proceedings began. The situation may have changed given those recent bankruptcy proceedings and as to the "need" for an interisland ferry and relative to the state budget problems.
As for your last question, "And what has happened to John Lehman, former chairman of the Superferry, and his investment firm? Did the Superferry bankruptcy cost him any money personally? Or were the only losers small investors, vendors, and the Superferry employees?":
JFL and Co is still in business. Their lawyer recently said in bankruptcy court after the abandoning of the vessels was allowed that JFL and Co lost all of their $85 million invested in HSF. All of the common stockholders and preferred stockholders are expected to lose any money they invested or expected value accrued in it. It still remains in question who buys or leases the two vessels and for how much. These vessels may be sold at loan value which would be a discount. A previous loser in this could actually end up making money if they acquire the vessels at discount and use them in the right situation. The right situation calls for either military use or one-way commercial routes of 70 miles or less between significant population/commercial centers.
Brad
-------- Original Message --------
What is the status of the Superferry EIS?
The DOT prepared a draft EIS for the Superferry that was released in January. Has that been completed? The title was for a "statewide large capacity ferry". This was meant to continue the fiction that Act 2 exempting the Superferry from environmental review was passed by the legislature as a general law, not a particular law to benefit the Superferry. So I presume that the state would complete the EIS, to continue the fiction. Has it been completed?
I would like to know if they dropped it when the Superferry went out of business. I would also like to know how much the state spent on the EIS, besides the $40 million on harbor improvements.
I am so glad they didn't go ahead with state plans to build a ferry terminal for the Superferry on the Kahului Harbor breakwater. That plan would really have been expensive. Probably the plans were expensive.
The company that built the Superferry got the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) contract for 10 military versions of the Superferry last November. Does the Maui News know? The company was Austal Ltd. And what has happened to John Lehman, former chairman of the Superferry, and his investment firm? Did the Superferry bankruptcy cost him any money personally? Or were the only losers small investors, vendors, and the Superferry employees?
Surely someone on Maui knows some of these interesting economic facts.
Sally Raisbeck
Wailuku HI
Sally,
Good to hear from you again. About the EIS. As far as I know DOT put it on temporary hold after the Supreme Court decision, but that was before the bankruptcy. As far as I know DOT has not publicly said anything about the EIS since the bankruptcy proceedings began. The situation may have changed given those recent bankruptcy proceedings and as to the "need" for an interisland ferry and relative to the state budget problems.
As for your last question, "And what has happened to John Lehman, former chairman of the Superferry, and his investment firm? Did the Superferry bankruptcy cost him any money personally? Or were the only losers small investors, vendors, and the Superferry employees?":
JFL and Co is still in business. Their lawyer recently said in bankruptcy court after the abandoning of the vessels was allowed that JFL and Co lost all of their $85 million invested in HSF. All of the common stockholders and preferred stockholders are expected to lose any money they invested or expected value accrued in it. It still remains in question who buys or leases the two vessels and for how much. These vessels may be sold at loan value which would be a discount. A previous loser in this could actually end up making money if they acquire the vessels at discount and use them in the right situation. The right situation calls for either military use or one-way commercial routes of 70 miles or less between significant population/commercial centers.
Brad
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | What is the status of the Superferry EIS? |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 06 Jul 2009 |
| From: | Sally Raisbeck |
| To: | Maui News (letters@mauinews.com) |
What is the status of the Superferry EIS?
The DOT prepared a draft EIS for the Superferry that was released in January. Has that been completed? The title was for a "statewide large capacity ferry". This was meant to continue the fiction that Act 2 exempting the Superferry from environmental review was passed by the legislature as a general law, not a particular law to benefit the Superferry. So I presume that the state would complete the EIS, to continue the fiction. Has it been completed?
I would like to know if they dropped it when the Superferry went out of business. I would also like to know how much the state spent on the EIS, besides the $40 million on harbor improvements.
I am so glad they didn't go ahead with state plans to build a ferry terminal for the Superferry on the Kahului Harbor breakwater. That plan would really have been expensive. Probably the plans were expensive.
The company that built the Superferry got the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) contract for 10 military versions of the Superferry last November. Does the Maui News know? The company was Austal Ltd. And what has happened to John Lehman, former chairman of the Superferry, and his investment firm? Did the Superferry bankruptcy cost him any money personally? Or were the only losers small investors, vendors, and the Superferry employees?
Surely someone on Maui knows some of these interesting economic facts.
Sally Raisbeck
Wailuku HI
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Latest on the bankruptcy: Couple of good articles and one great blog post
Kaija Wilkinson in Alabama and Derrick DePledge in Honolulu put out a couple of good articles today:
Government to repossess Hawaii Superferry boats built at Austal
al.com - Birmingham, AL, USA
By KAIJA WILKINSON The US Maritime Administration says that it plans to repossess and sell a pair of fast ferries built at Austal USA for Hawaii Superferry ...
Hawaii Superferry wants to abandon both its catamarans
Honolulu Advertiser - Honolulu, HI, USA
By Derrick DePledge Hawaii Superferry has asked to abandon its two high-speed catamarans to creditors because of the significant cost of maintaining the ...
But, even better was the blog post by Ian Lind:
Tuesday…City rail symposium disappoints, and documents from furlough lawsuit and Superferry bankruptcy
By Ian Lind
... Then a few tidbits from the Hawaii Superferry bankruptcy case: The State of Hawaii’s motion to move the case back to the islands, a copy of the Superferry’s security agreement with the Federal Maritime Administration, and an affidavit by the corporate secretary filed for the opening bankruptcy hearing spelling out the company’s financial structure. ...
Ian provides the above links to three interesting documents.
Of note, in "the company’s financial structure" linked document, the chronology of events presented for August 2007 are materially incomplete: "...Thereafter, in August, 2007, the Alakai began transporting passengers and vehicles between the Islands. The special interest plaintiffs appealed the matter to the Hawaii Supreme Court, which, in its August 31, 2007 decision, held that DOT erred in holding that the DOT improvements were exempt from the requirements of Chapter 343."
The Supreme Court's oral opinion came down actually on August 23rd, 2007. The above linked filing makes it seem like the company started operations and then the Supreme Court ruled, when in fact, the Supreme Court decision came down first and the company ignored it and initiated expedited operations anyway on August 26th and only stopped a couple days later when a restraining order was issued by Circuit Court.
In the "motion to move the case back" linked document regarding the fact that HSF voluntarily ceased operations and that the complete Harbors Operating Agreement was not formally voided by a Court nor the State, here's the key quote from the State's Motion to move the case to Hawaii:
"Moreover, the validity of the Harbors Operating Agreement depends solely upon interpretation of relevant Hawaii state law.[3] -- [3] By way of further explanation, there are several complex issues surrounding the Harbors Operating Agreement that are relevant to the Debtors' bankruptcy, including: (1) whether the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision renders the Harbors Operating Agreement void ab initio in light of Superferry's performance pursuant to the terms of the agreement between the passage of Act 2 and the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision; (2) that the Hawaii Supreme Court had yet to enter any judgement with respect to its March 16, 2009 decision and that the prior injunction issued by the lower court with respect to the declaration that the Harbors Operating Agreement was void as to the Island of Maui was set aside, and therefore, in light of the automatic stay there is no current order on record which addresses the Harbors Operating Agreement, thus making Superferry's cessation of business operations on March 16, 2009 essentially voluntary in nature; and (3) the treatment of the State's claims under the Harbors Operating Agreement during those periods in which Superferry operated pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and was not otherwise prohibited by any court order or judgement."
Lastly, of lesser importance, on a side note, in "the company’s financial structure" it is interesting to note the detailed description of the company's Cash Management Accounts including with (no doubt former) account numbers and a good description of the "sweep" process. It is interesting to note that those type of "sweep" accounts were an innovation brought to Hawaii by Bank of America and apparently later adopted by Bank of Hawaii, the institution mentioned in the above linked document.
Government to repossess Hawaii Superferry boats built at Austal
al.com - Birmingham, AL, USA
By KAIJA WILKINSON The US Maritime Administration says that it plans to repossess and sell a pair of fast ferries built at Austal USA for Hawaii Superferry ...
Hawaii Superferry wants to abandon both its catamarans
Honolulu Advertiser - Honolulu, HI, USA
By Derrick DePledge Hawaii Superferry has asked to abandon its two high-speed catamarans to creditors because of the significant cost of maintaining the ...
But, even better was the blog post by Ian Lind:
Tuesday…City rail symposium disappoints, and documents from furlough lawsuit and Superferry bankruptcy
By Ian Lind
... Then a few tidbits from the Hawaii Superferry bankruptcy case: The State of Hawaii’s motion to move the case back to the islands, a copy of the Superferry’s security agreement with the Federal Maritime Administration, and an affidavit by the corporate secretary filed for the opening bankruptcy hearing spelling out the company’s financial structure. ...
Ian provides the above links to three interesting documents.
Of note, in "the company’s financial structure" linked document, the chronology of events presented for August 2007 are materially incomplete: "...Thereafter, in August, 2007, the Alakai began transporting passengers and vehicles between the Islands. The special interest plaintiffs appealed the matter to the Hawaii Supreme Court, which, in its August 31, 2007 decision, held that DOT erred in holding that the DOT improvements were exempt from the requirements of Chapter 343."
The Supreme Court's oral opinion came down actually on August 23rd, 2007. The above linked filing makes it seem like the company started operations and then the Supreme Court ruled, when in fact, the Supreme Court decision came down first and the company ignored it and initiated expedited operations anyway on August 26th and only stopped a couple days later when a restraining order was issued by Circuit Court.
In the "motion to move the case back" linked document regarding the fact that HSF voluntarily ceased operations and that the complete Harbors Operating Agreement was not formally voided by a Court nor the State, here's the key quote from the State's Motion to move the case to Hawaii:
"Moreover, the validity of the Harbors Operating Agreement depends solely upon interpretation of relevant Hawaii state law.[3] -- [3] By way of further explanation, there are several complex issues surrounding the Harbors Operating Agreement that are relevant to the Debtors' bankruptcy, including: (1) whether the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision renders the Harbors Operating Agreement void ab initio in light of Superferry's performance pursuant to the terms of the agreement between the passage of Act 2 and the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision; (2) that the Hawaii Supreme Court had yet to enter any judgement with respect to its March 16, 2009 decision and that the prior injunction issued by the lower court with respect to the declaration that the Harbors Operating Agreement was void as to the Island of Maui was set aside, and therefore, in light of the automatic stay there is no current order on record which addresses the Harbors Operating Agreement, thus making Superferry's cessation of business operations on March 16, 2009 essentially voluntary in nature; and (3) the treatment of the State's claims under the Harbors Operating Agreement during those periods in which Superferry operated pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and was not otherwise prohibited by any court order or judgement."
Lastly, of lesser importance, on a side note, in "the company’s financial structure" it is interesting to note the detailed description of the company's Cash Management Accounts including with (no doubt former) account numbers and a good description of the "sweep" process. It is interesting to note that those type of "sweep" accounts were an innovation brought to Hawaii by Bank of America and apparently later adopted by Bank of Hawaii, the institution mentioned in the above linked document.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
State of Hawaii seeks change of venue in Superferry bankruptcy
From: State wants Superferry bankruptcy case moved to Hawaii
The liquidation of Hawaii Superferry Inc., a former operator of high-speed ferry service between the islands of Oahu and Maui, should be transferred to Hawaii from Delaware, where the company filed under Chapter 11 on May 30, according to a so-called change-of-venue motion filed Saturday by the state of Hawaii. (8:11 a.m.) More »
Monday, June 22, 2009
Two good blog posts on Hawaii Superferry and Austal
I added my comments to their timely, good blog posts:
Springbored's Springboard: First Shipbuilding Contract Of The Mabus/Work Era?
By Springbored
The U.S. Navy awarded Austal a $99.5 million contract add-on Friday to order long lead-time materials for its third and fourth Joint High Speed Vessels, military transport ships that are part of a potential $1.6 billion, ... Springbored's Springboard - http://springboarder.blogspot.com/
Disappeared News: US Maritime Administration reported moving to seize two Hawaii Superferries
By Larry Geller
[Austal] chief executive Bob Browning said yesterday talks with the US Maritime Administration, which ranks above Austal as a secured creditor of Superferry, had “come unstuck” in the past 24 hours. It is understood the USMA, ... Disappeared News - http://disappearednews.com/
My Comment to Larry's blog:
If Austal bought them for the outstanding load value, it would be at a discount. They could resell them and recoup their losses, but it would tie up $135 million for as much as a year.
If Lehman were allowed to buy them and lease them to the military, he could get both of them at a discount of $135 million and begin to recoup some of the losses he had with HSF.
If the DoD bought them at $135 million, starts using the Huakai in the short-term and the Alakai by the end of the year after retrofit, they would be getting them at a steal, for $75 to 80 million each, considering they are prepared to shell out $185 million for just one JHSV from Austal.
I think the most likely buyer is the DoD, or MARAD just pays off the bonds and leases them to the military.
If these vessels are attempted to be deployed commercially, it would need to be on routes of 30 to 75 miles to have a chance at viability. It is much more likely that they would be useful militarily rather than commercially... as was always the case. posted by MauiBrad : 4:43 PM HST
Springbored's Springboard: First Shipbuilding Contract Of The Mabus/Work Era?
By Springbored
The U.S. Navy awarded Austal a $99.5 million contract add-on Friday to order long lead-time materials for its third and fourth Joint High Speed Vessels, military transport ships that are part of a potential $1.6 billion, ... Springbored's Springboard - http://springboarder.blogspot.com/
Disappeared News: US Maritime Administration reported moving to seize two Hawaii Superferries
By Larry Geller
[Austal] chief executive Bob Browning said yesterday talks with the US Maritime Administration, which ranks above Austal as a secured creditor of Superferry, had “come unstuck” in the past 24 hours. It is understood the USMA, ... Disappeared News - http://disappearednews.com/
My Comment to Larry's blog:
If Austal bought them for the outstanding load value, it would be at a discount. They could resell them and recoup their losses, but it would tie up $135 million for as much as a year.
If Lehman were allowed to buy them and lease them to the military, he could get both of them at a discount of $135 million and begin to recoup some of the losses he had with HSF.
If the DoD bought them at $135 million, starts using the Huakai in the short-term and the Alakai by the end of the year after retrofit, they would be getting them at a steal, for $75 to 80 million each, considering they are prepared to shell out $185 million for just one JHSV from Austal.
I think the most likely buyer is the DoD, or MARAD just pays off the bonds and leases them to the military.
If these vessels are attempted to be deployed commercially, it would need to be on routes of 30 to 75 miles to have a chance at viability. It is much more likely that they would be useful militarily rather than commercially... as was always the case. posted by MauiBrad : 4:43 PM HST
Recent Headlines on HSF's Bankruptcy and Austal
Creditors criticize Superferry plan Hawaii Business Starbulletin.com June 19, 2009
Hawaii Superferry filed a motion in federal Bankruptcy Court last week seeking approval ... The Superferry cited a lack of liquidity and costs for insurance ...
Austal awarded $99.5 million for LLTM for second and third JHSV's June 19, 2009
Marine Log - New York, NY, USA
The LLTM procured or manufactured for construction or installation in JHSV 2 and 3 will be subsumed with their associated costs into their respective ship ...
Austal cops US $11m Hawaii hit June 20, 2009
The West Australian - Perth, Australia
Listed shipbuilder Austal will take a $US11 million ($13.85 million) hit to its 2008-09 bottom line after rescue talks with the major secured creditor of collapsed customer Hawaii Superferry broke down at the last minute...
Business briefs June 20, 2009
Honolulu Star-Bulletin - Honolulu, HI, USA
"Superferry builder writes off loans"
Australia-based Austal Ltd., whose US subsidiary built the two Hawaii Superferry ships in Mobile, Ala., said yesterday it now will write off the entire $23 ...
Austal set to take $23 million hit on Hawaii Superferries June 21, 2009
Marine Log - New York, NY, USA
Hawaii Superferry is seeking to literally abandon ship (or in this case ships). As a result shipbuilder Austal is set to take a $23 million hit. ...
Couple more blog entries to be referenced in my next post.
Hawaii Superferry filed a motion in federal Bankruptcy Court last week seeking approval ... The Superferry cited a lack of liquidity and costs for insurance ...
Austal awarded $99.5 million for LLTM for second and third JHSV's June 19, 2009
Marine Log - New York, NY, USA
The LLTM procured or manufactured for construction or installation in JHSV 2 and 3 will be subsumed with their associated costs into their respective ship ...
Austal cops US $11m Hawaii hit June 20, 2009
The West Australian - Perth, Australia
Listed shipbuilder Austal will take a $US11 million ($13.85 million) hit to its 2008-09 bottom line after rescue talks with the major secured creditor of collapsed customer Hawaii Superferry broke down at the last minute...
Business briefs June 20, 2009
Honolulu Star-Bulletin - Honolulu, HI, USA
"Superferry builder writes off loans"
Australia-based Austal Ltd., whose US subsidiary built the two Hawaii Superferry ships in Mobile, Ala., said yesterday it now will write off the entire $23 ...
Austal set to take $23 million hit on Hawaii Superferries June 21, 2009
Marine Log - New York, NY, USA
Hawaii Superferry is seeking to literally abandon ship (or in this case ships). As a result shipbuilder Austal is set to take a $23 million hit. ...
Couple more blog entries to be referenced in my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
